Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

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.
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
The issue with QC is demand charges, and that won't be solved until cheap energy storage is available.
John McCarthy said:
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense

Here's an example of demand charges in his area provided by dgpcolorado a couple of months back:
The three phase demand rate is $47.25/month + 7.09¢/kWh + $17/kW demand charge (based on the maximum draw in any fifteen minute period in a month). This is likely the tariff that would be used for the DCFC station.

That's an example of demand charges.


GRA said:
I expect that 800V+ packs will become the norm, which means the typical QC will be averaging say 200kW over a 15 minute period, with say 3-4 hours of near-continuous use during peak-demand. Now put 5 or 10 of them at a single road-trip site used simultaneously, to reflect Friday night or Sunday/Monday afternoon demand, with limited use the rest of the week. How much battery storage will you need, assuming you charge the pack off-peak the rest of the week? Assume $100/kWh Capex for the pack, and a five-year replacement cycle. Add BoS, construction, O&M, interest, overhead, profit, recycling costs etc. to taste, and show that you can sell charging for equal or less than the price of gas, something which, AFAICT, no charging network is able to do yet, at least if they have to build these stations with their own/borrowed money instead of government subsidies.

That's an example of hand waving.


John McCarthy said:
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense


GRA said:
Feel free to waste your time doing the math; I'm not about to waste mine.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:

Here's an example of demand charges in his area provided by dgpcolorado a couple of months back:
The three phase demand rate is $47.25/month + 7.09¢/kWh + $17/kW demand charge (based on the maximum draw in any fifteen minute period in a month). This is likely the tariff that would be used for the DCFC station.

That's an example of demand charges.


Uh, yes. What clued you in, the statement "Here's an example of demand charges in his area"?


WetEV said:
GRA said:
I expect that 800V+ packs will become the norm, which means the typical QC will be averaging say 200kW over a 15 minute period, with say 3-4 hours of near-continuous use during peak-demand. Now put 5 or 10 of them at a single road-trip site used simultaneously, to reflect Friday night or Sunday/Monday afternoon demand, with limited use the rest of the week. How much battery storage will you need, assuming you charge the pack off-peak the rest of the week? Assume $100/kWh Capex for the pack, and a five-year replacement cycle. Add BoS, construction, O&M, interest, overhead, profit, recycling costs etc. to taste, and show that you can sell charging for equal or less than the price of gas, something which, AFAICT, no charging network is able to do yet, at least if they have to build these stations with their own/borrowed money instead of government subsidies.

That's an example of hand waving.


Make up any numbers you want for each and every unknown variable years in the future, and then put as much value on the results as they deserve. Which is just about zilch. Even the companies who get paid to do such forecasting spread over years as to when various things, like packs at $100/kWh, will appear (assuming they do), and that one's almost assured of happening, unlike many of the other advances that are far more uncertain but will radically alter the results if/when they succeed. So, knock yourself out devoting as much of your time over the next several years to that as you like, working from far less info than those companies have.


John McCarthy said:
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense


GRA said:
Feel free to waste your time doing the math; I'm not about to waste mine.
 
WetEV said:
[....] Getting back to the future of PHEVs, will the current market for PHEVs persist? Answer isn't knowable with current data, as far as I can see.
[...]

As I've attempted to put forth previously (and I"m not sure if anyone responded on this point), in the here and now, the availability of and market for PHEVs is not just dependent on demand and the different factors that influence that demand (including cost of fuel, subjective intangibles, onboard real estate and interior volume, costs of maintenance, etc.) It is also impacted somewhat significantly, in my opinion, by supply. Some of the automakers were trying to make PHEVs work, at least as a transitional tech, in part (I think) because it allows them to continue with some of their present model lines, and engine and transmission technologies. It may also add one or two generations (or more) of vehicles to the transition to low-carbon, and thus be a positive for them. There could be other factors such as if they can "spread" more kWh across more of the early generation vehicles rather than having to confine themselves to just making limited numbers of (relatively) long-range BEVs at first.

So, there is (or was) a significant incentive there. Note that I don't personally think that making PHEVs is, on balance, a great idea, even with the points mentioned above. I kind of admired GM on the isolated point that they paid some dues with the Volt, and in the end decided to leave it behind and go all-in on BEV. But I do think some case can be made, if what we're trying to do is develop opinions on a somewhat challenging topic with different pros and cons and, regardless of what we think is rational or economically wise, or even honors the substantial less-tangible elements that may be there in the final determining factors in the vehicle markets, in the end, the suppliers and the demanders (and the regulators) will do what they will do..... the final market numbers will (in my view) not always t always conform to the way we think it should work out, no matter how defensible-seeming is our logic.

The case that PHEVs will last longer, or even that ICV-PHEVs could stick around for decades, is in my view strengthened (to a limited extent) if we hypothesize the near-term introduction to the market of legitimate high-volume somewhat affordable zero-carbon fuels. There are some complications (such as the fact that an ICV then also competes with the ICV-PHEVs) but just noting this.

Too much volume in this thread for me to follow everything, but I do want to mention a couple of my major complaints against the Volt PHEV I had were:
a) cramped interior (real estate for two powertrain technologies can contribute to this issue)
b) retention of Rube Goldberg vibe from old ICV tech.

While some of this is addressed in more modern PHEVs (I'm sure there are excellent interior volume high power PHEVs coming to market), on balance they contribute to my skepticism. In the end, I don't know with confidence, but am leaning somewhat against PHEV long-lastingness.

I'm not sure what it is about paying increased attention to some of the comlexities of the supplier point of view that seems to elude some market analyses, but I do think that is the case. I think it's also been a factor as to why over the last 25+ year auto industry analysts have not more fully understood the factors at work, as to BEVs coming to market.



I'm not sure, why, but the point of view of the supplier seem to be downplayed or ignored sometimes in some EV market discussions.
 
a) cramped interior (real estate for two powertrain technologies can contribute to this issue)

In the case of the Volt, this wasn't the problem. They problem was that they reused the Camaro show car body for the Volt show car, and then decided to keep a similar look with the production model. This was stupid. Had GM instead gone with a body with more interior space, the Volt would have been a success. Had they gone with such a body PLUS a second, CUV or SUV version using the same drivetrain, it would have been a runaway hit. For whatever reason, GM always finds a way to sabotage their electrified vehicles. The latest example is the Bolt "EUV" with its cramped cargo area and lack of an AWD option. Now that GM has committed - supposedly - to making EV vehicles as their mainstay, they are going to have to stop this crap, and start producing EVs that have the forms and functions that people want. They could learn from Ford in this area, despite Ford's later start.
 
LeftieBiker said:
They problem was that they reused the Camaro show car body for the Volt show car, and then decided to keep a similar look with the production model. This was stupid.
I disagree.

GM had the problem of the other legacy USA manufacturers: they had fed their loyal customers a steady diet of fossil fuel propaganda for so long that they had little marketing room to move a large number of them to EV. They decided that a sports-car-ish model with lots of torque would find an early adopter narrow demographic within the base. They followed Lutz, and while I think Lutz is mostly a fool, I don't doubt he knows his customer base.

The early adopters of the Volt did not complain about the interior space; that only popped up years later when used car buyers found the car did not meet their ergo demands and the second wave of buyers failed to materialize.

A re-introduction of PHEV today in a CUV format has merit I think, because the tech is now kinda sorta mainstream in the public eye. The tricky part will be competing against the RAV4 Prime. And no matter what they do, they have an ICE mentality customer base.
 
The early adopters of the Volt did not complain about the interior space; that only popped up years later when used car buyers found the car did not meet their ergo demands and the second wave of buyers failed to materialize.

The early adopters who bought or leased a Volt are a (small) self-selected group that did not consider the cramped interior a deal breaker because they made the deal. The above is like saying that the 1st gen Leaf was not ugly because the people who bought or leased them did not think so. I followed the development of the Volt closely, and the wave of excitement that forced GM to build the car was quickly followed by a wave of disappointment at the body used for production. There was still excitement at the car's capabilities, but it was despite the cramped interior, and that held back sales.
 
LeftieBiker said:
The early adopters of the Volt did not complain about the interior space; that only popped up years later when used car buyers found the car did not meet their ergo demands and the second wave of buyers failed to materialize.

The early adopters who bought or leased a Volt are a (small) self-selected group that did not consider the cramped interior a deal breaker because they made the deal. The above is like saying that the 1st gen Leaf was not ugly because the people who bought or leased them did not think so. I followed the development of the Volt closely, and the wave of excitement that forced GM to build the car was quickly followed by a wave of disappointment at the body used for production. There was still excitement at the car's capabilities, but it was despite the cramped interior, and that held back sales.

Your reasoning is good in my opinion. It's been awhile since I thought about it, but in 2012 I went to a Chevy dealer to lease a Volt and sat inside the vehicle and decided against it, called my Nissan dealer and leased a Leaf. There were too many factors that went into my decision (I probably way over-thought it) but the dealbreaker for me was the cramped interior of the Volt. If I had it to do over again, I would definitely lease the Volt, but at the time, that's the decision I made.

Some time later, I was researching the Volt and thought I saw something about the Cruze being roughly the same, but a bit more interior volume, as the PHEV powertrain took up more space?

I'm also remembering now that some years later when I was browsing at a Ford lot, as to the Fusion PHEV, the useable trunk space was smaller because of the battery? Something like that.

Anyway, at this point, onboard real estate use is probably a bit more flexible, with both BEV and PHEV moving into mid- and large- sized vehicle territory without so much fanfare. So, I suppose this factor of it being a slight negative for PHEV versus BEV is not a super big deal, but I'm just throwing it on the table that it's still a factor among many. Automakers do think about the use of space under the hood and throughout the vehicle, and of course many drivers like to take into consideration interior volume specs and nuances.
 
LeftieBiker said:
a) cramped interior (real estate for two powertrain technologies can contribute to this issue)

In the case of the Volt, this wasn't the problem. They problem was that they reused the Camaro show car body for the Volt show car, and then decided to keep a similar look with the production model. This was stupid. Had GM instead gone with a body with more interior space, the Volt would have been a success. Had they gone with such a body PLUS a second, CUV or SUV version using the same drivetrain, it would have been a runaway hit.


Or the CUV alone, but offering AWD. I would have got one if the price were right and it met my other major requirements, accepting anything with at least 20 miles AER but preferably a bit more up to about 2016/17. In reality, the only CUVs in that category prior to the (bit too big) RAV4 Prime in that period were the inefficient Outlander and the space-compromised, low-AER, expensive Crosstrek.


LeftieBiker said:
For whatever reason, GM always finds a way to sabotage their electrified vehicles. The latest example is the Bolt "EUV" with its cramped cargo area and lack of an AWD option. Now that GM has committed - supposedly - to making EV vehicles as their mainstay, they are going to have to stop this crap, and start producing EVs that have the forms and functions that people want. They could learn from Ford in this area, despite Ford's later start.


Well, Ford did make their own version of a "Volt" 2WD CUV along with a roomier sedan, but the C-Max and Fusion Energis were half-assed conversions like the Prius Prime where they just shoved the pack under the cargo bay/trunk, losing a bunch of volume. Totally defeats the purpose if you want a CUV. Less of an issue with the sedan, but still important for many if not most.
 
GCC:
Toyota Chief Scientist Pratt makes the case for hybrids and plug-ins

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/07/20210722-pratt.html


Pretty much the same points I've made previously re battery cost/resources to remove x GHGs (i.e. more PHEVs/greater reduction vs. a single BEV/lesser reduction; he's apparently got both a RAV4 Prime and a Model X), so skip if not interested.
 
I'm surprised to see such a superficial analysis from a 'chief scientist,' employed by Toyota or otherwise.

A reasonable analysis takes two very important factors into account that Pratt ignores:

1. It takes time to convert the fleet, and the cars built stay on the roads for the better part of 15 years
2. The grid is a moving target, and accelerating
 
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/07/20210721-icct.html

The ICCT has conducted a comprehensive global and temporal life-cycle assessment of GHG emissions from a variety of alternative passenger car powertrains and fuels. The results show there is no realistic pathway to full decarbonization of internal combustion engine vehicles, and that only battery and hydrogen fuel-cell EVs have potential to be very low-GHG passenger vehicle pathways.

This study considers the fuel and electricity consumption in average real-world usage instead of solely relying on official test values. This is especially important for assessing the GHG emissions of PHEVs.

neither hybrid electric vehicles nor plug-in hybrid electric vehicles provide the magnitude of reduction in GHG emissions needed in the long term.

As a transitional technology, there was a point to PHEVs, fading fast. There might be a long term use case.
 
WetEV said:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/07/20210721-icct.html

The ICCT has conducted a comprehensive global and temporal life-cycle assessment of GHG emissions from a variety of alternative passenger car powertrains and fuels. The results show there is no realistic pathway to full decarbonization of internal combustion engine vehicles, and that only battery and hydrogen fuel-cell EVs have potential to be very low-GHG passenger vehicle pathways.

This study considers the fuel and electricity consumption in average real-world usage instead of solely relying on official test values. This is especially important for assessing the GHG emissions of PHEVs.

neither hybrid electric vehicles nor plug-in hybrid electric vehicles provide the magnitude of reduction in GHG emissions needed in the long term.

As a transitional technology, there was a point to PHEVs, fading fast. There might be a long term use case.
The ICCT went out on a limb by presuming 18 years on the road for EVs, but the study is an example of one that estimates grid change over time in their model.
 
IEVS:
ICE Cars Have Relative Range Equilibrium: Will This Be True Of EVs?

https://insideevs.com/features/527446/electric-cars-range-equilibrium/


Taking a look at how automakers are compelled to offer a product that can compete.
Commenting on my recent article on the future of EV road-tripping, one reader had this to say.

"Building huge batteries into our vehicles is a horrible idea. The weight alone is reason enough but when you factor in the resources depleted to have that battery it's really a losing argument. ... At that point, charging speed is WAY more important than range. ... Why do you need a lot of range when EVERYWHERE you stop has charging. And this is only talking about the 'road trip' scenario. Daily driving is a whole different thing when you leave each day fully charged."

DL

DL your comment got me thinking, so I'm providing this update. Keep in mind, I post my ideas and opinions here in hopes of sparking conversation and getting varied insight and perspectives, hopefully, to help shape understanding and narrative. This is precisely why I'm responding with this follow-up article.

Question: Why did so many of the top 25 selling IC cars of 2020 have average ranges of about 460 miles? Why didn’t several of them have average ranges above 600 miles and a few others have average ranges below 300 miles and the rest have a wide variety of ranges in between? Why did so many of the top-selling vehicles have average ranges that were so similar to each other (give or take 50 miles)? And why weren’t there any that had an average range of 250 miles? I'll tell you why in just two words: Market Equilibrium.

Based on the list of the top 25 IC cars (see below), it seems market forces have pushed automakers to settle in on about 460 miles of average range as the minimum amount they dare offer and still be competitive. The auto-buying public has found that amount of range to be, on average, adequate to meet most of their driving needs. This satisfies their driving thirst. This is what the automakers have become compelled to offer. The push and pull of the market have caused the double-pan scale of range to balance around that point.

It appears few automakers consider it wise to spend the extra costs (those go beyond just a larger tank) to offer a 600-mile average range IC car with the hope of selling only a very few extra vehicles.

Conversely, no company would be foolish enough to try and save even $5 per vehicle by offering a limited 250-mile range IC vehicle. That product would be shunned. It wouldn’t be competitive. It would not sell well, even though the fueling infrastructure is ubiquitous, and that it would take less than two minutes to fill it up (not counting transaction time).

Consider this. If you were CEO of Toyota, which sells about 9 million vehicles a year, and you could get away with saving the company even $5 per vehicle by using a smaller 30-liter gas tank, wouldn’t you do it? You’d save Toyota more than $200,000,000 over a five-year period. What a hero you would be! But market forces won’t allow that. Toyota has to offer a product that can compete. It has to follow the flow of the range river in its most natural course.

Now, when it comes to EVs I’ll admit they are a little different animal. I suspect that possibly their market equilibrium point might end up less than that for IC vehicles. Perhaps market forces will settle the EV average rated range equilibrium somewhere around 350 miles. We’ll have to wait and see. But I prognosticate that it will not be anywhere near 250 miles.

Keep in mind that the rated range is not the same as the real-world usable range. The actual usable range can be less (and on rarer occasions more) than the rated range. Regardless, it's never wise to bury the needle in the red E. I would think, for example, that road tripping in a 200-mile range vehicle would require quite a few charging stops.

Perhaps someone with experience can chime in on this, but I would imagine that a good bit of time would be burnt up in just pulling off the freeway and getting to the charging stations. A vehicle with a longer range reduces that required transaction time. That camel can go much farther between oasis stops.

As for the comment regarding a large battery pack being a waste, I agree that if the extra range is used only three or four times a month, or less, then the resources involved do seem a little misplaced. That is a conundrum. But what can be done about it. . . .?


The answer is . . .a PHEV, followed by a transition to a PHFCEV, assuming that battery specific energy doesn't increase by at least 3x. Longevity/degradation rate also have to at least double/halve.

The previous article referred to by the author is here:
Op-Ed: Pondering The EV Road Trip Of The Future

https://insideevs.com/features/526012/electric-road-trip-future-explored/
 
GRA said:
The answer is . . .a PHEV, followed by a transition to a PHFCEV, assuming that battery specific energy doesn't increase by at least 3x. Longevity/degradation rate also have to at least double/halve.

Once again, GRA tells us that fuel cells are the future.

Why?
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
The answer is . . .a PHEV, followed by a transition to a PHFCEV, assuming that battery specific energy doesn't increase by at least 3x. Longevity/degradation rate also have to at least double/halve.

Once again, GRA tells us that fuel cells are the future.

Why?
Because none of us know which technology will progress fastest.

Fuel cells are not implausible, and they certainly solve the range issue for EVs. The H2 distribution infrastructure is currently lacking, but that problem would be solved quickly if/when there is sufficient demand. Sorta like what we see now with buildout of the DCFC infrastructure.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
The answer is . . .a PHEV, followed by a transition to a PHFCEV, assuming that battery specific energy doesn't increase by at least 3x. Longevity/degradation rate also have to at least double/halve.

Once again, GRA tells us that fuel cells are the future.

Why?


Why? See the topic title, and the question posed in the article.

FCEVs/PHFCEVs are a possible passenger car ZEV future (it's already clear they're going to have a major role in heavy transport), as they're better matched to road trip requirements than BEVs, unless batteries improve far more than they're likely to anytime soon (if ever) and experience no resource constraints. I'm a believer in using whichever tech best meets the task requirements. BEVs are best for regular local use where range needs are modest and they return to the same location every day and can be charged there over long periods of time, given their efficiency advantage. But hauling around 1,000 lb. or more of battery which will rarely be used makes the car bigger, heavier and more expensive, and reduces its efficiency all the time, not to mention requiring more resources in construction.

PHEVs and PHFCEVs are far lighter when longer range is required. For example, when Tesla introduced the S85 with 265 miles EPA range they claimed its pack weighed about "600kg" or 1,320 lb. IIRR it was actually over 1,400 lb., but let's use the lower figure. The average American driver drives ~40 miles a day. If we provide a battery with 53 miles of range to allow for degradation, that will allow all local driving to be done on the battery. 53 is 20% of 265, and 20% of 1,320 is 264 lb., so the car is hauling around an extra 1,056lb. of battery that will only occasionally be used. That's before we consider the structural weight multiplier; every extra lb. of weight adds an average of 1 additional lb. (range from 0 to 2 lb. depending on other design requirements) to the car to carry/move it.

Looking up numbers for the Gen. 1 Mirai, its FC stack has a power density of 3.1 kW/l, a specific power of 2kW/kg. and power output of 114kW, so the stack weighs around 57 kg./125 lb. The two tanks combined weigh 193 lb., call it 194, and they hold 5kg/11 lb. of H2, so 330 lb. total.

I imagine we could add at least another 20 lb. for hoses/fuel pipes etc., but let's be super conservative and say the weight of the total FC system with fuel is 500 lb. That's a weight savings of 556 lb. over the S85's pack before any weight multiplier (lighter suspension/tires/frame/motor etc.).

The Mirai's 114kW/153 hp FC stack is more powerful than it needs to be for a PHFCEV, which only needs to be able to provide enough power to maintain freeway cruising speed, say 80 mph, while running hotel loads; the battery handles accel and extra power needs.

My dad's 65 hp (48 kW) Peugeot 504 diesel, which probably had a CD well above any current passenger vehicle other than a full-size pickup sans cargo cover, and similar frontal area to a current compact or mid-size car, would eventually work its ca. 3,000 lb. curb weight up to an indicated 84 mph if you floored it for two minutes or more on flat ground. As the speedo almost certainly read high I figure it actually topped out at 78-80 mph, although a spec sheet I found says its top speed actually was 84 mph. So I'm confident that you'd only need the stack to provide 60-80kW (80-107 hp), possibly less, to meet my stated requirements, reducing its weight, volume and cost.

Of course, both batteries and fuel cells have improved since the above cars were introduced (100kWh for the Model S; 4kW/l for the Gen. 2 Mirai, and I haven't yet found its specific power) but the relative gap hasn't changed significantly.

The fuel cell remains less energy efficient than the battery, but it's far more time efficient and flexible on trips especially in cold weather, and has longevity advantages. Plus, we have an existing fueling infrastructure with an identical business model, ideal for conversion to support them.
 
GRA said:
FCEVs/PHFCEVs are a possible passenger car ZEV future (it's already clear they're going to have a major role in heavy transport), as they're better matched to road trip requirements than BEVs, unless batteries improve far more than they're likely to anytime soon (if ever) and experience no resource constraints. I'm a believer in using whichever tech best meets the task requirements. BEVs are best for regular local use where range needs are modest and they return to the same location every day and can be charged there over long periods of time, given their efficiency advantage. But hauling around 1,000 lb. or more of battery which will rarely be used makes the car bigger, heavier and more expensive, and reduces its efficiency all the time, not to mention requiring more resources in construction.

"A major role in heavy transport" if green hydrogen was free, perhaps. Or even 3x electric power in cost.

Heavy transport is mostly small demonstration projects fueled by natural gas generated hydrogen. Production of "green hydrogen" is in very tiny demonstration projects.

Impact would be lower if they used the natural gas directly.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/08/touted-clean-blue-hydrogen-may-be-worse-gas-or-coal

Horseless carriages were heavier than horse drawn carriages. Horses didn't prevail.

Long term? Transport of goods changed when steam locomotives and horses changed to mostly trucks. I suspect that there will be changes when the source energy changes to a sustainable mix (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, ...) from a fossil fueled mix. Some that we can't hope predict in advance. More transport on rail? Or self driving and automatic recharging BEV trucks for long haul? And/or something else? I don't know and you don't either.


GRA said:
The fuel cell remains less energy efficient than the battery, but it's far more time efficient and flexible on trips especially in cold weather, and has longevity advantages. Plus, we have an existing fueling infrastructure with an identical business model, ideal for conversion to support them.

Fuel cells degrade with time. Lifetime of 2,500 hours is often quoted in the real world. You don't lose range, you lose kW of output, and to a lesser extent efficiency. Storage tanks have lifetimes as well. Better than batteries? Hard to say, especially a decade or more in the future. Better in the future? Maybe. Maybe not.

BEVs are more time efficient on daily trips, as no time needs to be taken to drive to a fuel station, wait your turn, wait for the pressure to get back up, and wait for the car to fuel. As there are far more daily trips than long trips, BEVs are in net better, for most people. Yes, you are not "most people", we have covered that enough.

Your selling of hydrogen based on "same business model" is missing a whole lot of points. Consider that most or all urban stations go away with PHEV, fuel celled or not. Business model of local gas stations does not apply to hydrogen stations.

As for BEVs being time efficient, I drove 5 hours and 40 minutes yesterday, and the human net charging time was near zero. To Artist Point on Mt Baker. A beautiful place, and a beautiful drive. Yes, did stop for a charge, but mostly because the wife wanted to stop. Car was done long before she was, I wanted (but really didn't need) to pick up 10% (~5 minutes), as else would have been below 20% when I got home. Most of the energy for the trip came from home charging.
 
Back
Top