DrInnovation
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:47 pm
Location: Colorado Springs. Volt Owner

Re: The “range–extended” EV considered

Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:54 pm

N952JL wrote:
DrInnovation wrote:I see lots of people tossing out long trips as an issue, some dismissing it as infrequent. Individual's of course vary but long trips are a real issue for the average American.



What about the economics of an add on RE?
With a 25mpg ICE the 12 trips > 194 miles need about ~100 gallons of gas, which is < $400/year and it will be hard to justify an expensive range-extender. (Total long distance travel 7500 is about 300 gallons or < $1200 a year).
60% of families have second car, so the car is not and added cost, just gas. A rental ICE would obviously add more.
With respect to the total cost of covering one can argue if renting an ICE or a Range Extender makes more sense.
Renting a range extender might make sense if its efficient enough and the price < price of gas for the ICE. With a limited market for while that may be difficult to make cost effective.




If you are focused on minimizing cost this is totally moot as no new BEV or Range Extended EV (REEV) is the right choice. The right choice is used Prius or other high MPG car (because of the vehicle cost and rapid depreciation no new vehicle is a good financial investment), at least until used BEV or REEV are on the market and a decent price.
I feel you have made some very good points. In the end, I do not want us to import any oil as that is a complete drain on our economy. I only have one small point. You made an assumption that all families have two cars so the only added expense is the expense of the gas necessary to run the car vs the range extender. That may not be true. I am looking forward to the time I only need one vehicle. Without a Range Extender or longer range BEVs I will be forced to buy a Prius or simular vehicle which is more than just the cost of gas.

My lease for the Leaf will be 39 months. I am hoping that within 39 months we have improvements that will allow me to keep using a BEV. Till then, I fall within the 12 per year longer 200+ round trip trips. But the leaf does meet my everyday needs.
Actually, the 2-car case in general worse case as the cost of the ICE is already there. If you have to rent an ICE for trips, the cost equation tilts to the EREV even more. As you say you take average number of longer trips, if you only have 1 car, unless your daily commute is > 52miles you'll be more efficient with a Volt-like EREV, than a PiP, and either is better than BEV + average rental ICE for trips. If you can always rent a Prius (or some >40MPG ICE) for those longer trips, then you are doing better in total gas usage with your Leaf for everyday and high MPG rental.

Hopefully in 39months there will be a lot more choices on both the BEV and EREV side.
Loving the Volt. I've saved 29 gallons compared to a BEV+CUV. From 10/29/11 to 12/29/12, went 11097 on 27.7 gallons of gas + 2742kWh Total fuel costs=$259.27, yielding: 0.25 gal./100mi, 400.5 MPG, 101.73MPGe, 166.5 MPG$ or $.0234/mi.

DrInnovation
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:47 pm
Location: Colorado Springs. Volt Owner

Re: The “range–extended” EV considered

Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:53 pm

edatoakrun wrote:
DrInnovation wrote:
edatoakrun wrote: I agree that it's not a bad hybrid, but the Volt's EV performance is just not comparable to any of the BEVs you mention, with about half the electric range, higher initial cost, worse energy efficiency, and almost certainly, far higher long term operating costs.

Why buy a car that operates so poorly, in the mode in which it is intended to be used the most?
"DrInnovation"...As I posted earlier, the "average case" for long trips really does make a good case for a range-extended EV, for me its both financially and ecologically way better than a BEV + ICE...
I thought, in my OP, I made a pretty good case for the same point?
I guess I miss-read it. But either way, I was adding more detail with data on the longer-trips.
edatoakrun wrote: But nothing you have said supports the case that the Volt is an effective means to meet these REEV objectives.
Well its more effective than a Karma.. And they are the only commercially REEVs out there now.
Furthermore, I don't know if we'd even be seeing a Leaf or PiP, if there had not been a Volt. Companies have been doing concepts for years. It's not until someone stepped up to do production that other comaoies decided it was time to move beyond basic hybrids. The Volt may not be the best choice for you, but its enough for many and that drives competition and innovation.
Also as I said, the Mode-3 (parallel+serial hybrid) in the volt design is unique and the added 10-15% efficiencies help ameliorate some of the other issues.
edatoakrun wrote: To restate my main points, IMO, the Volt's principle inadequacies are as a result of GM’s decision to use an existing ICEV traction engine, that is fundamentally unsuited for the role of an ICE generator, as an EV range extender, since:

It is far too large to be used efficiently for the task required.

It runs on an unstable and highly polluting fuel, gasoline.

Which also prevents (edit-replace prevents with reduces the practicality of) the hydrocarbon fuel from being used for the one purpose for which these fuels are ideally suited, to heat the passenger cabin (and battery pack, if so required) using a combustion heater.
Agreed that there could be more efficient designs, but there are financial and timing constraints. I'd have preferred E100/E85 or disel (like the ford reflex concept they let die) or even CNG, but those might have added time/cost making just a concept. (Personally I really wish the E85, which is pretty much the same engine and can run at the volt's compression rations, was an option. I've have paid more than the cost of its parts). I'm really annoyed that they did not give us an "Eco mode", where the optimize ICE usage in CS mode for maximum efficiency. I've done trips using Mountain Mode games in the Volt to get 47mpg in the cold with mostly at 70+ highway speeds (and without hyper-mileing tricks). Its noisier but more efficient to run the ICE at high speeds and generate electricity, then shut it off. (I think we don't have ECO-mode for the same reasons we don't have Hold mode-- it violates some silly CARB/EPA guidelines).
edatoakrun wrote: This results in the Volt’s inferior efficiency to other hybrids, when operating in ICEV mode, and also notably inferior in efficiency to any BEV, when operating in EV mode.

The only thing recommending the Volt, that I can see, is the fact that it currently is the only vehicle on the market that can operate in both modes.
[\quote]
And while inferior in either dimension, its overall efficiency, for the average household, is superior. Actually, the Volt is not the only one, Karma is an EREV as well.
iMev, Volt, Prius, each has their own Pareto-optimal position in the current market.

And of course the Volt has only won a dozen or so "major awards" (Green and regular), so its not really a good car. Its a Great car.
edatoakrun wrote: When the PIP and other “small battery” plug-in hybrids are introduced, I think their superior hybrid performance will attract a lot of buyers.

And as I wrote in my OP, I hope that many manufactures will also soon introduce REEV designs, that have far superior efficiency and range, in BEV mode.
I'm still hoping for a software update for the 2011 Volt to give it better efficiency (which I know it can achieve, albeit with a little more noise). Not really expecting it but maybe we'll be able to reverse engineer it. But for the 20 or so long-trips a year I take, I'm still doing over 40mpg, which is better than many hybrids on the market.

I agree the PiP will attract many, and for those with a small daily commute (or just random errands), it may well be the most efficient choice overall.
Loving the Volt. I've saved 29 gallons compared to a BEV+CUV. From 10/29/11 to 12/29/12, went 11097 on 27.7 gallons of gas + 2742kWh Total fuel costs=$259.27, yielding: 0.25 gal./100mi, 400.5 MPG, 101.73MPGe, 166.5 MPG$ or $.0234/mi.

edatoakrun
Posts: 5222
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: The “range–extended” EV considered

Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:51 am

Progress, but still stuck on the idea that the "range extender" must be scaled to replace, rather than supplement, battery output.

You suppose Lotus could build a 400 CC version, weighing only about 40 pounds, and producing 8-12 kW?
...how would you design an engine for the express purpose of making electricity?

If you are Lotus Engineering, you keep it simple. Both the range extender’s intake and exhaust manifolds are integrated into the cylinder head, which reduces the number of parts. There is no variable valve timing, which adds weight, cost, and complexity. The generator housing is mounted directly to the block, which increases stiffness and reduces vibration. And the engine is optimized to run at low speeds, with a long, 95.5-mm stroke.

The 1.3-liter inline-three’s final output figures (they’ve varied slightly throughout its development) are 51 or 74 hp, the latter with the addition of a supercharger. Both power peaks occur at 3500 rpm. Peak torque is 79 or 111 lb-ft, both at 2500 rpm. The generator in Lotus’s example (automakers could alternatively use their own unit) puts out 35 kilowatts with the naturally aspirated engine and 50 kilowatts with the supercharged unit.

The numbers might not seem too impressive, but consider the size of the engine: just 20.1 inches long, 16.9 inches wide, and 24.0 inches tall with the generator attached. That’s about the size of two pieces of carry-on luggage, and it weighs between 112 and 128 pounds...
http://blog.caranddriver.com/in-depth-w ... -extender/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
no condition is permanent

bowthom
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:22 pm
Delivery Date: 23 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 307
Location: Portland Oregon

Re: The “range–extended” EV considered

Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:58 am

Hello,
Part of the paradigm shift that must happen in the limited fossil fuel future is the need to live closer to where we work and grow food closer to where we live. The exact opposite has been the norm during the fossil fuel era. It will happen by necessity or design depending on how much time/money is spent now planning ahead (or not). That being said, everything now is interim planning. How can I limit my usage and keep my rural lifestyle?
Yeah, but the only job I could find is 150 miles away and I don't know how long it will last so why uproot my family?
I can't sell, I'm under water in my home and the only job that pays enough is 100 miles away.

All economic & logistical forces driving the paradigm shift in society. My situation dictates travel is a luxury not often undertaken. Because of that and a 10 mile commute, the Leaf is the perfect car for us. I live close in suburbia but also have a Gen 1 Prius for those occasional longer trips once or twice a year and I also have a full sized van I keep to pull the sailboat and a 66 Mustang I have owned since high school. There are days I feel like selling everything off because I'm tired and owning things means time/cost that I find more and more difficult to maintain. Slowly my "things" accumulated during the acquisition period of my life are becoming irrelevant. Too bad I didn't figure that out sooner or I would have more to retire on (& would have lost more of in 2008).

Everyone's situation depends on where they are in their life and how much the forces have shifted their lifestyle. No one vehicle can do it all. For you guys traveling 100 miles to work the flying car seemed a possibility in the 50s / 60s (commuting like Bob Cummings).


Has anyone considered the Bloom Box? 3 times more efficient than ICE or turbine. It's capable of producing 34 kWh from 1 gallon of gas.
Reserv Apr 20 - Ord Aug 31
Red - ETEC trim
BLINK inst 3/14/11 (rev 2.1.2B)
P1213 4/29/11 - Charger repl 6/8/11
P1273 2/15/12 - P32270 10/2/13
TCU upgrd 2/15/17
-1bar 11/14 -2bars 6/16 -3bars 7/18 -4bars 9/19

Deliver 2/23/11 - 75k+ mi

User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11477
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: The “range–extended” EV considered

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:13 am

DrInnovation wrote:Actually, the 2-car case in general worse case as the cost of the ICE is already there. If you have to rent an ICE for trips, the cost equation tilts to the EREV even more.
Have you run the numbers ? Let us see them.

Here are mine.

A. 2 Cars in the family. As you can see BEV+ICE is better than PHEV+ICE, even though BEV+PHEV is the best.

Image

B. Single car family. BEV+ICE rental still better than PHEV.

Image
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to 5/25/2018
Model 3 : 5/10/2018 to ?

smkettner
Posts: 7378
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: The “range–extended” EV considered

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:15 am

bowthom wrote:Has anyone considered the Bloom Box? 3 times more efficient than ICE or turbine. It's capable of producing 34 kWh from 1 gallon of gas.
Do they make one small enough to go in the vehicle. The model I see is ten tons.
http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/data-sheet/
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV
RAV4 traded in for I-Pace Dec 2018

edatoakrun
Posts: 5222
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: The “range–extended” EV considered

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:19 am

bowthom wrote:...Has anyone considered the Bloom Box? 3 times more efficient than ICE or turbine. It's capable of producing 34 kWh from 1 gallon of gas.
Not suitable for vehicles, and not fueled by gasoline, IMO.

I believe the best location for fuel cells will always be where their efficiency can be maximized by utilizing the "waste" heat.

Install your fuel cell at home, fueled by much cheaper and less polluting natural gas, use the electricity to charge your BEV batteries, and the "waste heat" to heat your home, or domestic water.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, fuel cells are generally between 40–60% energy efficient.[35] This is higher than some other systems for energy generation. For example, the typical internal combustion engine of a car is about 25% energy efficient.[36] In combined heat and power (CHP) systems, the heat produced by the fuel cell is captured and put to use, increasing the efficiency of the system to up to 85–90%.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell# ... efficiency
no condition is permanent

DrInnovation
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:47 pm
Location: Colorado Springs. Volt Owner

Re: The “range–extended” EV considered

Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:04 pm

evnow wrote:
DrInnovation wrote:Actually, the 2-car case in general worse case as the cost of the ICE is already there. If you have to rent an ICE for trips, the cost equation tilts to the EREV even more.
Have you run the numbers ? Let us see them.

Here are mine.

A. 2 Cars in the family. As you can see BEV+ICE is better than PHEV+ICE, even though BEV+PHEV is the best.

Image
I've posted my numbers before (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... n&start=83_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and
and discussed why yours are biased/wrong (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... on#p150146" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;))
as well as an analysis using national average data.(http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... an#p152121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Your long-distance travel is well below average so not it may not be surprising that your data works out better for the leaf. However, you also stacked the numbers in the analysis, and if you fix them, the PHEV40 is the winner.

As I had already posted in my comparison, we use the Volt (PHEV in your table) for the long trips, which would convert Option I to 439 miles, making it the lowest of any of the options with the CUV. With more miles in the long-trips the bigger the advantage for it). The 35mpg is being disingenuous as the ICE in the PHEV40 for >50miles means its being used for long trips. Thus the EPA highway 40MPG make more sense to use as its highway driving. The result is under 63 gallons for the long trips in the PHEV for an overall 429gallons in option 1. This is a saving of 45 gallons over the BEV + CUV. As I've said, small changes in assumptions and the answers can flip between BEV and EREV and PHEV and people should run their own numbers to reach a valid conclusion.
I recommended the calculator at squiddo (its not mine, and not cooked for a particular outcome). http://www.squidoo.com/a-free-calculato ... ctric-cars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

evnow wrote: B. Single car family. BEV+ICE rental still better than PHEV.

Image

This has some of same issues as above, the 40mile PHEV should have used 35mpg city, 40mpg HW so gas used is 14 (using 35 for short trips), 26.25, 20 and 63.75 for a total of 124 rather than 140, reducing the cost by $56/year to $4487/yr.

Your BEV+Rental ICE presumes the long trips are a single day. (Estimated using your stated 50 a day, which I also note is very low for rental price of a Prius, when I rented one last year it was $95/day + tax, and I've tried other times and the price was well over $100/day.)
You seem to have 6 days of rental over the 5 trips of 200s, and 7.76 days(?wierd?) of rental for the 550mile trips. The majority of my 200mile trips are to the airport and often means 2-3 days of waiting, and my 600+ are usually 5-6 days. Nevertheless, even if you just presume 2 days for 200mile trips and 3 for 550-mile trips, then the total for RentalICE increases by 612.5 bringing the yearly cost to $4662.50/yr (even at $50/day for a Prius). And this is with below the average number of long trips, and lots of 75mile but no 100mile trips. ( 75m is doable with a leaf on one charge. 100miles would be pushing it).

You are underestimating the costs of maintenance, which other sources put the leaf at $425/year. (I agree in years 8-15 it will be lower than a EREV, when the ICE miles start racking up, but in this time frame its nearly a wash, tire rotations and replacement dominate this number!)

Plugging in the corrected numbers the PHEV40 is cheaper with your mileage at $4487 compare to BEV+RentalICE at $4987.5, or a saving of just over $500 a year.

If you want to stick in my number uses 55days <10miles (or including parked), 235 days at 35miles, 28days at 50 miles, 20 days at 125miles, 12 days at 250 miles and 5 days at 600 miles. I've many >50m days but assuming only 40miles per charge, 35mpg on short ICE days and 40 on long trips. My expected fuel usage in the volt is 0, 0, 8, 63.3 and 75 gallons for 145 gallons overall. With a Leaf+rental I would need 20+24+20 days of rental, which would more than eat-up the saving of 28 gallons of fuel.

I will note that in my case, the total family cost could be cheaper as we've already paid for an ICE car, and the increased fuel costs are only 200 or so per annum. Even if we used a BEV + my wife's 28mpg outback) for the long trips, it would take an added 52 gallons of fuel over the Volt. (However, the BEV+ICE would also mean my wife could not take long trips when I'm on one, which currently happens 5-8 times a year -- She travels when I'm away on business.) As I said, a BEV + existing above-average ICE is the worst case of comparison for a EREV, as the ICE is paid-for and it takes a lot of miles for the fuel cost to make up the price difference.) Then again, I did not make the decision on finances alone. In fuel use/oil avoidance, the EREV is better for me, and for cost its comparable. I prefer the EREV technology and the flexibility it gives our family.


As I said, the numbers for this type of decision, here are very personal, and anyone considering this should be doing their own math on their data.
Loving the Volt. I've saved 29 gallons compared to a BEV+CUV. From 10/29/11 to 12/29/12, went 11097 on 27.7 gallons of gas + 2742kWh Total fuel costs=$259.27, yielding: 0.25 gal./100mi, 400.5 MPG, 101.73MPGe, 166.5 MPG$ or $.0234/mi.

User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4702
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Central FL

Re: The “range–extended” EV considered

Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:40 pm

A couple questions:

For occasional longer trips, why wouldn't you just take the other car? If you don't have another car, rent one.

If you did have this turbine thing, would the exhaust point to the rear like the batmobile? Or to the side, so it can double as a track dryer?

All these solutions seem inferior to HSR autotrains, so you can go 250mph, arrive with your car fully charged, and relax during the trip not having to worry about falling asleep at the wheel... all with zero emissions.
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue
2016 SV-adjacent May 2016 lost 4th bar March 2018

Herm
Posts: 3765
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 3:08 pm
Delivery Date: 29 Aug 2012
Location: Timbuktu, Mali

Re: The “range–extended” EV considered

Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:44 pm

http://ev.sae.org/article/10227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image

"The ICE is designed to have two main operating points: If the battery needs to be re-charged, the engine is run to deliver 15 kW (20 hp) at the crankshaft. If the battery charge is to remain high despite a fast cruising speed, the RE is taken to full load at 4000 rpm to deliver its nominal 30 kW.

“The prototype has confirmed these performance targets on the engine test bed,” Mahr told AEI. Specific consumption is said to be 250 g/kW·h at 4000 rpm (0.41 lb/hp·h) and 240 g/kW·h (0.30 lb/hp·h) at 2000 rpm.

Fully dressed, the engine/generator unit weighs 65 kg (143 lb), with a 2.15 kg/kW power-to-weight ratio. When a full 40-L (10.6-gal) fuel tank plus controller are added, the RE's total weight (as installed in a vehicle) is 130 kg (287 lb)."

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”