The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
evnow said:
The idea is to get a 200 mile BEV for all local travel and a PHEV for longer trips. Most families have 2 cars, anyway.

Well it may be a 2010 concept but in 2015 only one car implements range extension that I am aware of as mostly EV, Rex secondary (Volt and PHEVs are the other way round). So it is valid until 200 mile non tesla cars are in the market (2017?).

Ultimately if BEVs are going to require a second ICE in each family are you thinking 50% or less max switchover? When adding a small Rex may pretty much enable a 100% potential market? I think that one "long trip" per year may really keep a large group of people from considering a pure EV. As such Rex is a psychological enabler, even if it just lets people get over their concern and jump to a BEV. I don't see anything wrong with that.
 
evnow said:
...The idea is to get a 200 mile BEV for all local travel and a PHEV for longer trips...
That may be what you want, but I'd rather drive a BEVx that cost less than either of those two cars, and had a higher percentage of its total miles driven on E than both of them put together.
 
I believe a shift from carbon based fuels to electricity produced from renewable sources is a worthwhile goal. For a number of reasons pure battery electric vehicles do not appeal to the average vehicle buyer. But things are improving, cost, capacity, recharge time, reliability and infrastructure are improving. Soon BEVs will be a practical and cost efficient means of transportation for the average buyer. In the interim the range extended EV seems to make a lot of sense because average citizens can use them much as they do with ordinary ICE vehicles, while displacing gas/diesel for a large proportion of their driving. Fossil fuel range extenders are far from the perfect solution but they are a whole lot better than doing nothing.
 
LKK said:
I believe a shift from carbon based fuels to electricity produced from renewable sources is a worthwhile goal. For a number of reasons pure battery electric vehicles do not appeal to the average vehicle buyer. But things are improving, cost, capacity, recharge time, reliability and infrastructure are improving. Soon BEVs will be a practical and cost efficient means of transportation for the average buyer. In the interim the range extended EV seems to make a lot of sense because average citizens can use them much as they do with ordinary ICE vehicles, while displacing gas/diesel for a large proportion of their driving. Fossil fuel range extenders are far from the perfect solution but they are a whole lot better than doing nothing.
IMO, correct (and I'm not criticizing you when I add) and also obvious.

So why is it we still can't buy a BEVx, other than the i3, whose generator's usefulness is severely reduced by the ICE choice, the fuel choice, limited energy storage, and limited operating cycle... by design?

I suspect that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, between BEV manufacturers which want sell the image of pure BEVs, no matter how expensive and impractical for very long trips, and the traditional (ICEV) auto manufactures, who also like the idea of selling a pure BEV as another vehicle, in addition to the ICE/hybrid/PHEV vehicles they really want to sell to consumers, to fill up their two, three, or four car garages.
 
edatoakrun said:
So why is it we still can't buy a BEVx, other than the i3, whose generator's usefulness is severely reduced by the ICE choice, the fuel choice, limited energy storage, and limited operating cycle... by design?

I suspect that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, between BEV manufacturers which want sell the image of pure BEVs, no matter how expensive and impractical for very long trips, and the traditional (ICEV) auto manufactures, who also like the idea of selling a pure BEV as another vehicle, in addition to the ICE/hybrid/PHEV vehicles they really want to sell to consumers, to fill up their two, three, or four car garages.

Its a very good point. I wonder how much of this is because the manufacturers are stuck between the "purist" EV drivers who hold purity over practical progress (the early adopters) and the fact that regulation and perception keeps them from marketing an effective BEV/Rex to everyone else, the ones who either don't care about purity or want to drive an electric vehicle but simply won't put up with the hassle under the guise of "its relaxing to sit around for 30 minutes if I find a charger." You can see this even here in discussion of Rex and or FC EVs.

Sad part is if the i3 was $10k less and had a real useful Rex (say even 6-8 gallons un-crippled) I know a lot of people who would buy it without hesitation as a primary vehicle.

I wonder besides basic marketing/regulations how much are EV purist/adopters damaging the adoption of EVs.
 
epirali said:
I wonder besides basic marketing/regulations how much are EV purist/adopters damaging the adoption of EVs.

Honestly, you should write for the Wall Street Journal. Or Heritage Foundation. That is just rich.

The folks promoting / installing / buying are DAMAGING the adoption of EVs. Why exactly are you on this forum?

You have a plug-in hybrid. There are a multitude of plug-in hybrids available for you to buy, in addition to the one you have. GM is just releasing their new and improved plug-in hybrid, the Volt, in addition to a 200 mile range EV called the Bolt late next year. They currently have the Spark EV with just under 100 miles of range. You can get them all from one company, plug-in hybrid or EV.

BMW offers that in one car, hybrid or EV.

Please, buy yourself a gasoline container, and a 10,000psi hydrogen tank full of natural gas derived hydrogen, and build a shrine with them. Call it the "Fossil Fuel God", and pray to it everyday. Convince yourself that this is the future... but, I don't recommend lighting any candles, if you know what I mean. :mrgreen:
 
TonyWilliams said:
epirali said:
I wonder besides basic marketing/regulations how much are EV purist/adopters damaging the adoption of EVs.

Honestly, you should write for the Wall Street Journal. Or Heritage Foundation. That is just rich.

The folks promoting / installing / buying are DAMAGING the adoption of EVs. Why exactly are you on this forum?

You have a plug-in hybrid. There are a multitude of plug-in hybrids available for you to buy, in addition to the one you have. GM is just releasing their new and improved plug-in hybrid, the Volt, in addition to a 200 mile range EV called the Bolt late next year. They currently have the Spark EV with just under 100 miles of range. You can get them all from one company, plug-in hybrid or EV.

BMW offers that in one car, hybrid or EV.

Please, buy yourself a gasoline container, and a 10,000psi hydrogen tank full of natural gas derived hydrogen, and build a shrine with them. Call it the "Fossil Fuel God", and pray to it everyday. Convince yourself that this is the future... but, I don't recommend lighting any candles, if you know what I mean. :mrgreen:

First, as I said elsewhere, I honestly have no interest in engaging in a discussion. It doesn't really go anywhere.

Second: if this forum is for your use and not anyone elses, then I'll happily bugger off. I have learned a lot here, have been an active participant, and have tried to help and contribute. But if this is not your personal forum please stop asking me or telling me what I should do or why I am here. I am here to do many things, including provide a balancing view to the ones like yours.

Third: I strongly believe that your position is damaging the adoption of BEVs. You obviously have a very different viewpoint and you share it. But there really is no point to try to engage me on every post I make, is there? We have differing world views and view points.
 
epirali said:
Third: I strongly believe that your position is damaging the adoption of BEVs. You obviously have a very different viewpoint and you share it. But there really is no point to try to engage me on every post I make, is there? We have differing world views and view points.

Nobody with any logic thinks that my views of:

ubiquitous, widespread, logically placed, reliable, uber fast DC charging available 24/7

and the adoption of EVs is therefore damaging EV adoption.

You're post, on face value, is nothing but a troll.

Further, my view point on the environment is that we distance ourselves from fossil fuels and other clearly dangerous to mankind and environment power sources, like nuclear.

We have enough sun, wind and waves to make all the electrical power that mankind needs today, and at any point in the foreseeable future.

Your stated position is that we continue fossil fuels and nuclear (even expand nuclear?) with:

1) hybrid electric cars
2) hydrogen cars with fueling derived from fossil fuels
3) nuke powerplants

We couldn't be more opposite. You are a danger to the environment and mankind.
 
TonyWilliams said:
epirali said:
Third: I strongly believe that your position is damaging the adoption of BEVs. You obviously have a very different viewpoint and you share it. But there really is no point to try to engage me on every post I make, is there? We have differing world views and view points.

Nobody with any logic thinks that my views of:

ubiquitous, widespread, logically placed, reliable, uber fast DC charging available 24/7

and the adoption of EVs is therefore damaging EV adoption.

You're post, on face value, is nothing but a troll.

No, you keep using the word troll, but I don't think it means what you think! Disagreement is not trolling.

What is damaging EV adoption is the purity test. That EV must meet some random standard like using Rex is just bad. When in fact offering Rex helps adoption of BEVs for a lot of the population who don't care about purity tests. Or it helps people like me avoid using ICE just because I have the safety net of a Rex. My personal usage of electric only trips has probably gone up by 1/3 or more because I have a Rex, although I have used maybe 3-4 gallons of gas in the entire time I have owned the i3 (and that was because I had an unexpected trip back to the airport to pick up a friend, which with a pure EV I would have had to drive home, get an ICE and go back).

My experience has been when someone was interested in the Leaf and would ask me the range they would almost always say "I really like the idea but it just won't work for me." When I show them the i3 and explain the Rex all of a sudden they are not hesitant. The basic logic becomes "hey if I was stuck I could just use the Rex."

So how is this not a simple and clear example of how it hurts adoption to arbitrary reject something? As someone else posted here this may not be needed when there are affordable 200 mile BEVs, but we are still a few years away.
 
epirali said:
TonyWilliams said:
You're post, on face value, is nothing but a troll.

No, you keep using the word troll, but I don't think it means what you think! Disagreement is not trolling.

Saying something intentionally wrong to elicit a response is indeed a "troll".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[4][5] In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing individuals online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments himself.[6][7]


What is damaging EV adoption is the purity test.


And yet, I'm not against hybrids. Buy all the hybrids you want. Heck, buy a Hummer or two. But, I am against folks that say that EV advocates are hindering EVs, like you. Once again, a troll looking for a response.


So how is this not a simple and clear example of how it hurts adoption to arbitrary reject something? As someone else posted here this may not be needed when there are affordable 200 mile BEVs, but we are still a few years away.

Holy smokes... you acknowledge what I've been saying? Something about longer range EVs and a ubiquitous DC charging infrastructure will spring board EV sales? Wow, it doesn't appear that EV advocates are that bad, after all.

Why, then, would we want hydrogen? Of hydrids? (I'm almost afraid to ask that one!)
 
TonyWilliams said:
epirali said:
TonyWilliams said:
You're post, on face value, is nothing but a troll.

No, you keep using the word troll, but I don't think it means what you think! Disagreement is not trolling.

Saying something intentionally wrong to elicit a response is indeed a "troll".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[4][5] In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing individuals online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments himself.[6][7]


What is damaging EV adoption is the purity test.


And yet, I'm not against hybrids. Buy all the hybrids you want. Heck, buy a Hummer or two. But, I am against folks that say that EV advocates are hindering EVs, like you. Once again, a troll looking for a response.


So how is this not a simple and clear example of how it hurts adoption to arbitrary reject something? As someone else posted here this may not be needed when there are affordable 200 mile BEVs, but we are still a few years away.

Holy smokes... you acknowledge what I've been saying? Something about longer range EVs and a ubiquitous DC charging infrastructure will spring board EV sales? Wow, it doesn't appear that EV advocates are that bad, after all.

Why, then, would we want hydrogen? Of hydrids? (I'm almost afraid to ask that one!)

I know the definition of a Troll, and honestly your posts and responses are a pretty good definition.

I said (and please read carefully) that people who advocate ONLY EVs, and are irrationally against Rex, or FCEVs are hindering adoption, because they are not understanding that most people will NOT adopt pure EVs anytime soon, even with spotty charging available.
 
epirali said:
I said (and please read carefully) that people who advocate ONLY EVs, and are irrationally against Rex, or FCEVs are hindering adoption, because they are not understanding that most people will NOT adopt pure EVs anytime soon, even with spotty charging available.
Irrationally against FCEV ? Are you kidding ? They do almost nothing to reduce carbon footprint.

The diversion of public funds and the fig leaf of FCEV that laggards like Toyota use are good enough reasons to fight FCEV at every step.
 
epirali said:
Ultimately if BEVs are going to require a second ICE in each family are you thinking 50% or less max switchover?
It is a question of timeline. I'll be happy with a 50% market share for BEV by 2025.

Once we get ubiquitous QC and long range EVs (3 hours on freeway) - you can say good bye to ICE.

Between BEVx and PHEV - the only question is what happens after the battery is low. It is clear to me PHEV would be more fuel efficient than BEV - and thus my support of PHEV. If someone can implement better mileage on BEVx, I'd support that.

Unfortunately both i3 & Volt are not family friendly (for people with small kids).
 
edatoakrun said:
evnow said:
...The idea is to get a 200 mile BEV for all local travel and a PHEV for longer trips...
That may be what you want, but I'd rather drive a BEVx that cost less than either of those two cars, and had a higher percentage of its total miles driven on E than both of them put together.
And that BEVx is ... ?

There is a reason, such a bast doesn't exist.
 
evnow said:
epirali said:
Between BEVx and PHEV - the only question is what happens after the battery is low. It is clear to me PHEV would be more fuel efficient than BEV - and thus my support of PHEV. If someone can implement better mileage on BEVx, I'd support that.
I guess here is where I am a little lost. If Rex can get 32 mpg it is less efficient than the best mixed mode PHEV vehicles (take 50 as best case). But the miles that would have to be driven on a typical trip to cross the point where PHEV uses less gas is very large. Even at 10 mile electric range for PHEV I can still go another 60 miles minimum before engaging Rex. So I'm up one gallon at 70 miles. The break even point is somewhere around 140 miles by my quick math.

So you are absolutely correct that if my trips between charge are greater than 140 PHEVs are better, but less and Rex is more efficient. And I used the best numbers for PHEV and typical for i3.

Am I missing something?
 
epirali said:
...if my trips between charge are greater than 140 PHEVs are better, but less and Rex is more efficient. And I used the best numbers for PHEV and typical for i3.

Am I missing something?
What I'd say you are missing, is that a BEVx can DC charge on a trip after covering its initial electric range.

Something no US market PHEV can do.

So, while even your first generation (and somewhat deficient, IMO) i3 BEVx could make all or nearly all of 140 miles (depending on speed and other conditions) burning no gas, if you stop to DC recharge once en-route, even the second generation Volt PHEV would have to make the same trip mostly on gas, unless its driver were willing to make several very long stops for L2, en route.
 
edatoakrun said:
epirali said:
...if my trips between charge are greater than 140 PHEVs are better, but less and Rex is more efficient. And I used the best numbers for PHEV and typical for i3.

Am I missing something?
What I'd say you are missing, is that a BEVx can DC charge on a trip after covering its initial electric range.

Something no US market PHEV can do.

So, while even your first generation (and somewhat deficient, IMO) i3 BEVx could make all or nearly all of 140 miles (depending on speed and other conditions) burning no gas, if you stop to DC recharge once en-route, even the second generation Volt PHEV would have to make the same trip mostly on gas, unless its driver were willing to make several very long stops for L2, en route.

Ok so I am clear, this actually is a POSITIVE for the Rex case right? I was mainly trying to compare apples to apples, without the DC recharge in the equation. But I would also say that I could do the exact same with a pure BEV without the need for Rex. So the comparison doesn't hold as much.
 
="epirali"
...Ok so I am clear, this actually is a POSITIVE for the Rex case right?
YES.

="epirali"...I was mainly trying to compare apples to apples, without the DC recharge in the equation. But I would also say that I could do the exact same with a pure BEV without the need for Rex. So the comparison doesn't hold as much.
A BEVx is just a BEV with a small range extending ICE.

IMO, the main benefits of A BEVx over a "pure" BEV are, that you to continue your trip If a DC charger is unavailable, that you can ski[ a charge if you are in a particular hurry or only need a few more miles to your destination, or if, in the future, grid demand management makes it preferable to use the ICE, rather than add BEV battery charging demand to the grid.

Here in California, I certainly expect an intrepid Fox newsbabe to shoot a remote at a Tesla "supercharger" site in California during our next Casio emergency, watching Teslas lined up, each sucking up enough "Free" kWh in minutes, for sweltering homeowners to keep their AC running for days.

We've been lucky the last few summers, to have had relatively few problems meeting peak demand, BTW.

http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
 
Some previous posts on this thread mention the possibility of using a micro-turbine as a BEVx range extending generator.

While using a turbine is not likely to be cost-effective on a BEVx, which only occasionally needs to use its generator, for heavy trucks designed to use the generator through their usual drive cycle, its another matter.

One point BMW engineers seemed to have disregard with the i3x (If I understand its ICE operation correctly) is that the generator, whether a conventional ICE or turbine, should be operated at its most efficient speed.

Range extender turbine adds up, says Tesla co-founder Ian Wright

...Wright may prove to be even smarter then Elon Musk when it comes to disrupting conventional wisdom, except he is doing it with garbage trucks rather than luxury automobiles. Why? It’s a simple matter of arithmetic, says Wright.

In an interview with the Orange County Register, he lays out his case like this. There are about 110,000 heavy duty garbage trucks currently working in the US. They only travel an average of 130 miles a day, but consumer 14,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year.

Wright says he has invented a range extender turbine engine that can slash fuel costs by 60% and is cleaner than a pure electric vehicle...

The secret to his turbine range extender is that it is not coupled to the drivetrain, so it is free to spin at its most efficient speed at all times. Wright says his design results in the most efficient combustion engine in the world. “Whether [the truck is] idling, accelerating, decelerating or running full speed, the turbine runs at the sweet spot. These engines are 10 times cleaner than the best piston engines.” Wright says.

He says his battery with range extender makes economic sense. “The problem is, you can’t carry enough battery. There isn’t room and there isn’t payload, and if you could find the room and payload, it’s a $500,000 battery, so it doesn’t pencil out.” FedEx is starting to use Wright’s trucks as are some trash haulers in northern California.

His business it gaining recognition and he likes where he thinks he will be in 5 years. He scoffs gently at those who buy Tesla’s luxury electric cars, comparing them to the people who bought Pet Rocks a generation ago. “The point is that some people will buy almost anything. For almost anything you want to try on the market, some fraction of the market will buy it just to try it out.”

Ian Wright is a most interesting fellow.
http://ecomento.com/2015/08/31/range-extender-turbine-adds-up-tesla-ian-wright/

Full interview here:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/turbine-679497-fuel-electric.html
 
Sounds like Wright's turbines are designed as primary power sources rather than "range extenders". When he makes the spurious claim that these are cleaner than pure electric vehicles I take that to mean his truck batteries are too small to plug in.

So basically what he's making are natural gas hybrid trucks, and whether they're any more efficient than a "conventional" hybrid is also quite dubious. While turbines are great in term of power to weight ratio, they're not known for being particularly efficient.
 
Back
Top