Re: Cost per mile over 10 yr life?

On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:15:00 -0700, "Fritz Schlunder" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>"Tim Keating" <NotForJunkEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:b9v891dnv6tbntancu08itnfli4v7cervs@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>> >In my own calculations assuming a NiMH battery pack it would seem on a
>> >$/mile basis a comparable electric car won't have any chance until the
>price
>>
>> NiMH is not the best solution for a pure EV.. (Not an energy efficient
>> technology, see page 21 of "15_Batteries.pdf" link supplied below).
>
>
>>From a technological point of view, I would tend to agree NiMH batteries are
>in many ways inferior to Li-Ion for electric vehicle use. On the other
>hand, the overall operating cost (which factors in capital cost, interest,
>electricity/fuel cost, maintenance costs, etc.) is the single most important
>parameter determining a given electric vehicle's practicality. In this
>regard, it would seem that at the moment using today's technology NiMH cells
>deliver distinctly lower $/kWh figures than Li-Ion. As a consequence I
>consider NiMH batteries to be a better overall choice, although that isn't
>to say Li-Ion or other technology can't have a place in the electric vehicle
>market.
>
>
>> No.. Li-ion is way more efficient.. Charging is more efficient.
>> (Recent breakthrough extend the cycle lifetime >100x).
>>
>> http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/lectures/15_Batteries.pdf
>
>
>I don't disagree that Li-Ion may deliver higher charge/discharge electrical
>efficiency than NiMH. Neverthless electricity is a relatively minor cost of
>operating an electric vehicle. The most practical design therefore won't
>necessarily have the absolute lowest operating cycle efficiency.
>
>
>> Variable motor speed controls are in 93%+ category.
>
>Some motors do claim impressive efficiencies in the 90's% range. On the
>other hand these figures are usually the peak motor efficiency and only
>apply for a certain range of motor loading conditions. Given the variable
>loading nature of common driving, this doesn't guarantee an average
>efficiency of over 90%. Motor controllers can be made greater than 99%
>efficient depending upon topology selected, the battery pack voltage, and
>how much the engineer optimizes for efficiency (keep in mind increases in
>some categories often have trade offs in others, such as cost). Whatever
>the case, overall the motor + controller efficiency is still very good.
>
>The powerplant thermodynamic efficiency is the lowest in the overall cycle.
>As a consequence, it dominates the overall cycle efficiency. Unfortunately
>Mr. Carnot really messed things up for everybody. Maybe it isn't fair to
>blame him for all our problems...
>
>
>> Currently EV's use about 140wh to160wh per mile with room for
>> improvement. We dedicated designs we could probably get that number
>> down to 100wh per mile.
>>
>>
>http://media.mitsubishi-motors.com/pressrelease/e/corporate/detail1269.html
>
>
>That may be true, but these designs all represent the ultimate in econo-box
>technology.

Not exactly
The Mitsu colt.. is a four door.. 5 passenger + AWD??
An EV which is near totally quiet until it hits highway speeds..
Unfortunately, it still has many left overs from it's ICE's
history. (too much weight in certain areas).
All in all. I'll take one, when it hits the market.


>
>The Geo Metro/Chevy Metro/Chevy Sprint was sold in the US for a number of
>years, but its sale has since been discontinued. They simply weren't
>profitable enough to continue selling them. They had such a low intitial
>purchase price they weren't worth much to sell, and few people were buying
>them. They realisitcally delivered 40-45 MPG and had a new purchase price
>of less than $10,000.
>
>So why didn't people buy them? It wasn't because they "were too expensive"
>or that they had "too low gas mileage." In fact, it was rather the
>opposite. Typical US citizens work hard and make lots of money. What do
>they do with all that excess money they make? They spend it on luxuries.
>In other words, they spend it on things that aren't required for basic human
>survival, but they are fun to own/buy anyway.
>
>Automobiles happen to be one of the particularly important luxuries that
>people buy. Owning and operating a large SUV obviously isn't the most
>practical transportation method. Compared to the Geo Metro, they really
>deliver something like 1/3 the gas mileage simultaneous with 3X the initial
>purchase price. I can't really blame SUV owners for buying them though. If
>you spend all your life driving a small car, the very first time you sit
>behind the wheel of a large SUV or pickup truck is an interesting
>experience.
>
>The first thing you notice is how incredibly high off the ground you are.
>This gives you tremendous visibility of the road. You can see right over
>the top of all the cars out there, and so you can really see what is going
>on. The first time you press hard on the gas it is hard not to develop a
>little smile. The engine roars loudly and you can feel the huge amount of
>power at your disposal. All in all, you can't help but develop a
>subconcious feeling that you are a like God. You are high off the ground,
>you have tremendous power at your disposal, you are relatively "all seeing",
>and you simply feel like you have status, importance, and invincibility.
>
>This contrasts very sharply with sitting behind the wheel of a Geo Metro or
>other econo-box type of car. Getting into a little pipsqueak box with a
>little pipsqueak engine does not make you feel Godlike. Further, (at least
>in the US) people who own Geo Metros are publicly ostracized by their
>friends and family. It just isn't socially "cool" to drive an econo-box,
>even if it is much more economical and much friendlier on the environment.
>
>So this is the reason why the Geo Metro had no place in the US auto market.

Cars gain favor and drop out again for many non-obvious reasons.

I still have an old two passenger Fiero built in 85. It was only
produced for 5 years.. then it was gone..

A major problem was that GM, issued some service bulletins which
destroyed the Fiero's reliability and lifespan. (It has an all
plastic/fibreglass exterior shell, so the exterior isn't going to rust
out.) But leave it too GM to figure out how a way to sabotage an
otherwise reliable design.

Ostensibly to reduce fire hazard on cool running V6 version, GM
decided to remove the water deflector on the rear engine hatch.. Their
change allowed a little bit more engine compartment air flow, but
without the deflector, rain water from roof, ran over the top and
hidden side of the engine.

Once, I figured out what GM had done. I immediately purchased and
reinstalled a new rear hatch water deflector . As a result of GM's
poor design choices. I lost an O2 sensor, an EGR valve,distributer,
the ignition coil, and half a set of spark plugs to rust and
corrosion.

If I had designed GM's retro fit..
I would have installed a 5$ thermostat controlled DC fan.
Net outcome would have been better solution for everyone.

It's now been over ten years since that car has last seen a GM
mechanic. (I won't let them touch it.) ..


>Similarly this is part of the reason why electric vehicle designs like the
>GM EV1 haven't historically had much place in the US auto market. Some
>people criticize GM management for not putting any real effort into making
>the EV1 a sucess. I personally think this criticism is unjust. The GM EV1
>had all of the market disadvantages of a econo-box car, while having none of
>the "economy" advantages. The car was overall significantly more expensive
>to own and operate than even a "luxury" type (not very economical) gasoline
>car. Additionally, it had serious disadvantages compared to any gas car,
>namely an inability to go more than 70 miles. The managers of GM understood
>these problems, and they knew right from the very beginning (even before
>making the car) that there was no way the vehicle could ever make it on its
>own in the US marketplace. The car was always nothing more than a big
>public relations stunt and research project. If it was ever intended to be
>more than this, they would have made more of them (only made a few hundred
>total IIRC), and they would have allowed people to actually buy them instead
>of leasing them.

Like the Fiero, the EV1 was only a two seater with limited cargo
capabilities.

>
>The managers of GM knew the car wouldn't be practical, but they wanted to
>research how exactly impractical it would be. After building the car they
>have gained internal experience and expertise with electric vehicle
>technology. In this sense they get benefit in that they will be a step
>ahead of other auto manufacturers if and when electric vehicles ever become
>competitive and practical in the US auto market. Similarly they obtained
>obvious positive press for making that car. The project did therefore have
>some tangible benefits which made the managers believe it was an effort
>worth wasting money on.
>
>
>So back to the topic at hand. While it is great if you can super optimize a
>car design for extremely low power usage, ex: 100 Wh/mile, that doesn't
>necessarily mean all that much since it entails making the car an ultimate
>econo-box. If on the other hand the US and world become sigificantly poorer
>as a consequence of depleting fossil fuel supplies, then maybe people won't
>have so much money buring holes in their pockets. In that case, extreme
>high efficiency econo-box cars may become much more popular.

The sooner the better..
We're looking at a another nasty hurricane season here in Florida.

>On that note, it is very important when making comparisions between gasoline
>and electric vehicles to try to do things as apples to apples as possible.
>For example, the economic competitiveness (in terms of $/mile all costs
>considered) of a tiny econo-box electric car should not be compared against
>a large gasoline SUV. So, an econo-box electric car is much more fairly
>compared against the Geo Metro. Given the very high performance and very
>low cost of the Geo Metro, electric cars have a high bar of performance to
>meet or exceed.

No way..

Quite simply EV's don't need to be as big because the no longer have
as ICE. But you wish to defined size in terms of ICE equivalents!
Forget it... That is obsolete thinking.

>
>> Other Items..
>> Oil derived fuels will soon not be available to many consumers.
>>
>> Thus one must factor in the losses and cost equivalents of making a
>> suitable fuel for those vehicles from coal. Then there are the
>> environmental aspects of using all that carbon.
>>
>> Ultimately, we will need to create transportation technology which
>> is not totally dependant on using carbon based fuels.
>
>
>All likely quite true.
>
>
>
>> >With today's technology it might even be possible to make EVs overall
>> >cheaper to operate over a person's lifetime than internal combustion
>engine
>> >vehicles. Maybe... It would have to be done right.
>> >
>>
>> You have yet to apply an scale of economies to any of your calcs..
>> Batteries become cheaper.. (especially when they start recycling
>> materials).
>> Electronics become cheaper..
>
>
>In my mind a "practical" electric vehicle based on NiMH technology currently
>available already obtains great advanage from economy of scale. I contend
>that NiMH batteries will not likely be able to drop sigificantly below
>$200/kWh storage without any advancements in technology. Obviously mass

High cap NiMH bat are just on the cusp of Mass production.
Thanks to Honda and Toyota ..(so far most NiMH production has
been AAA and AA bat sizes.)

Li-ion is just getting out of the laptops..
Wide scale production of large cap bats would push the costs down
in no time..

>production/economy of scale cannot reduce the battery pack to less than the
>cost of the materials that go into it. Given the energy density of typical
>NiMH batteries, a "pracical" battery pack may weigh somewhere around 500kg.
>If we assume it is a big chunk of pure nickel, and if we assume nickel costs
>some $10,000 per metric ton (the price varies quite a bit over time though),
>then the battery pack has a materials cost of $5000. Given that I already

Steel case.. two electrodes are nickel based,
Electrolyte is potassium hydroxide, some copper content as well.

http://www.grs-batterien.de/english/technol/download/esslin02.pdf

Page 4.. while NiMH is not listed..
NiCd is.. On average 45% of the NiCd bat weight is Fe.
5% KOH and 10% H20...

>claimed in my previous post that a reasonably size battery pack would cost
>around $7000, it would appear NiMH batteries are already not that much more
>expensive than their component materials. As a consequence economy of scale
>would not really be able to help much. Instead, economic theory would have
>you believe that increased demand for nickel (if we were to make NiMH EV
>batteries on a massive scale) would cause the equillibrium price of nickel
>to rise. As a consequence, it would even be possible making EVs on a very
>large scale could cause them to become even more expensive.

Lightweight battery packs are in their infancy.
Scale of economy has yet to bear fruit..
There are many alternative technologies that have far greater power
density.


>Of course, this is a bit simplified. NiMH batteries aren't pure nickel
>metal. One of the electrodes is made of nickel hydroxide, and the other one

Again using NiMH technology for pure EV's is a poor choice..
They dissipate 35% of the energy input during charge cycle as heat.

>of typically some "AB5" (5 is subscript) type metal hydride. "AB5"
>basically is a symbol representing a structure of one atom of element "A"
>alloyed with five atoms of element "B". Typically lanthanum or similar rare
>earth metal is used for element "A" and nickel is used for element "B". So
>the metal hydride is typically LaNi5. This structure can store up to six
>hydrogen atoms each. Some nickel metal hydride batteries use some other
>type of metal hydride for hydrogen storage. The cell also contains an
>electrolyte of potassium hydroxide mixed with some other stuff.
>
>So... By mass nickel is the primary ingredient of NiMH cells, however,
>lanthanum or other rare earth metals are fairly expensive, so they do
>contribute noticeably to the cost. All things considered, I wouldn't hope
>for mass production to greatly reduce the price of NiMH cells to less than
>$200/kWh without any technological improvements. Research is taking place
>however, and research into hydrides for the "hydrogen economy" could produce
>a cheaper and superior hydride material. If these research efforts pay off,
>we may see NiMH cells with distinctly superior capacity (maybe triple todays
>best???) along with lower cost and possibly better cycle life.
>

You've described a "Fallacy of Composition".

One example "is to conclude that a property of a number of
individual items is shared by a collection of those items. "


>> Additional EV advantages over ICE vehicles.
>> Overall design is much simpler..
>
>Well... The powertrain itself is certainly simpler (and can, if properly
>designed, last practically forever). The infrastructure and chicken/egg
>problems are not.
>
>
>> Weight is significantly reduced..
>
>Well... If you stick a small Li-Ion battery pack in it, weight could be
>reduced. But then, so too will performance be reduced. The lead acid GM
>EV1 had a curb weight of 2922 lbs. This obviously doesn't compare favorably
>with the Geo Metro at around 1830 lbs., or your more typical compact size
>cars at 2400 lbs.

Another "Fallacy of Composition".

Their are other types of Li-ion chemistries which have in excess of
20x the energy storage capabilities of current laptop Li-ion tech.
(Lookup Li-Si, they just haven't figure out how to make the battery
structure handle recharge cycles, yet.)

>
>> No power train, emiision(catalyitc conv), noise
>> reduction(muffler),

Lighter weight eliminates the need for power steering..
note: Power steering was introduced because cars got too heavy.
R&P steering (no power steering) on my Fiero does nicely.

>
>Valid.
>
>> low voltage electrical generation/storage, or
>
>
>Ideally for ultra rapid charge EVs, the battery pack voltage should be as
>high as possible. Otherwise the current required rapidly becomes
>unmanageable since the hook up cables would not really be easily managed by
>non-muscular people. Since 1200V Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors (IGBTs)
>are readily available and offer excellent bang for the buck, I suggest a
>maximum in use battery pack voltage of about 1000V or somewhat less. Even

Not a good idea to run near maximum voltage limits.. Inductive
kickback. Plus you must exceed nominal bat pack voltage by a
significant margin to recharge bats at any usable rate.. (braking?)

>with a ~1000V battery pack I estimate it would take something of around 4/0
>gauge or bigger braided copper straps (thin and flat) to remain reasonably
>flexible while still being able to cope with the current required to charge
>from 0-80% in around 3 minutes. At the charger to car interconnect you
>would need several over temperature cutouts in case poor electrical contact
>is made. The power demand would be massive, but nevertheless things could
>be accomodated with today's technology in some form or another. The charger
>would likely need to provide a source of circulating cooling water too keep
>the batteries reasonably cool while under super charge.


Long strings of batteries decreases reliability..
1000v dictates 300 to 800 cell strings..
(350v to 420v == 100 cell Li-ion string. )

Wiring energy losses in the 300 to 500v range aren't all that great.
Plus one can use off the shelf wiring.. (Insulation on most
commercially available wire is rated @600V).

>
>Unfortunately the electrical demand for ultra rapid charging an electrically
>powered semi-truck battery pack in 3 minutes would be rather impractical.
>This is especially so if you wanted to charge more than one simultaneously
>at a given "gas station."
>
>At home overnight chargers wouldn't need to be anywhere near so fancy for
>ordinary sized cars.

The key thing... is that it can be used for many vehicles over it's
lifetime. (sold with house.)

>> thermal energy waste management systems which results in smaller
>> tires, suspension, frame, brakes, steering, etc..
>> Standby braking system lasts lifetime of car.
>> A/C lasts lifetime of car.
>> ( Hermetically sealed compressor replaces non-sealed versions)
>
>There is no engineering reason why current A/C systems can't reliably be
>made to last the lifetime of gasoline cars. There are plenty of

They get their power from ICE fan belt.. It will always leak at one
or more seals or compressor fittings. No way to Hermetically seal it,
(like a refrigerator).

>refrigerators and house air conditioners that have been in use for decades
>without any problems. Of the automotive A/C systems I have seen fail, it
>seems leaking refrigerant is the most common problem. Of those systems
>which I have been able to identify where the leak is from, it seems the
>service ports are a common culprit.

Auto A/C's are not like the above mentioned(refirg/house) systems
which have Hermetically sealed compressors and all metal piping..

Toyota prius uses an electrically powered A/C compressor.
Thus it can be hermetically sealed just like a refrigerator
compressor.

>
>
>> Primary charger/(inverter?) located in parking facilities.
>> (re-used for many vehicles over it's lifetime.)
>
>
>Chargers aren't free. Personally I like the idea of having an automatic
>charger at home which doesn't require plugging in. Perhaps the charger
>might come in the form of a platform you stick in your driveway and park on
>top of. After you are done parking a telescoping object rises up and out of
>the platform and makes physical contact with the bottom of the car.

>No electrical contact is made but they are magnetically coupled when together.

Not practical.. too much loss..

>Energy can be supplied inductively much like with the GM EV1 charger paddle.
>Some control system is needed to insure you park properly to insure good
>alignment between charger and car. Alternatively the telescoping part
>should be able to robotically move around to some extent.

I prefer a securable low impedance mechanical connection with fibre
optic comms.. Encrypted comms would be necessary before either side
was energized. (This can also be used for billing and/or credit
(load leveling) purposes.)

Another nice feature would be a EV with a PV roof.
An EV that self charges would be great.
Nt much extra range 25 miles a day worth of energy.. But it's
transportation that's free of infrastructure. (A very handy feature
after a widescale disaster).

I suspect that in the future t the hundreds of millions of EV's
will be used to provide load leveling off peak power for our grid.
Large scale PV installations located in desert SW delivers excess
power during daytime which in turn charges EV's at home & work. Some
of the stored energy is then returned in evening, nighttime, and
early morning as needed.

(A highly desirable feature, especially if bats can now withstand
25,000 to 100,000 CD cycles. Which is way more than a typical EV
needs..)

A second purpose would be provide emergency household power after a
disaster.. Like a cat 4 hurricane coming through and leveling power
poles for a hundred of miles..

>
>Ultra rapid chargers (~ 3 min.) should be located particularly along
>interstate highways, with only a few in urban settings. Presumably urban
>drivers live in or near the city, so they would do most of their charging at
>home. Ultra rapid charging would only be necessary when driving your car on
>long trips. The efficiency penalty and extra infrastructure required for
>ultra fast charging would dramatically increase the price of that
>electricity. However, since long trips are rather the driving exception
>rather than the rule, that may not be much of a problem.

Currently, people have no problem filling their cars with gas..
Hooking up a high performance charging connector should be no problem.
The EV would be programmed not to move unless the charging connector
was properly disengaged. (verbal warning).

>> Social issues can be solved
>> Apartments can be required to install common use charging stalls.
>> etc.. (Power usage/billing handled by utility via standardized
>> power/optical data link between car and charger.)
>
>Indeed these aren't insurmountable problems, but unfortunately they do
>complicate the issue.

Hell, running out of cheap oil is going to complicate things a lot
worse.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: H2 burner
    ... The only thing that matters is the cost of capital and the cost ... electricity in your home as long as you pay less for it. ... losses,$230 per metric ton easy. ... You are confusing thermodynamic and economic efficiency. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Nationalized Health Care Preview?
    ... Long-distance transmission of electricity is ... Then work out the cost of the diesel fuel to move it 300 miles. ... To be fair you have to define what you mean by "efficiency". ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Nationalized Health Care Preview?
    ... Long-distance transmission of electricity is ... Then work out the cost of the diesel fuel to move it 300 miles. ... To be fair you have to define what you mean by "efficiency". ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Question for William Mook
    ... than sell electrical energy to the grid. ... below any other type of power plant, ... your cost doubled to convert to grid AC it seem you would still be way ... production of electricity from solar. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: attn: William Mook - How is your company doing?
    ... >> I see three major channels developing as electricity prices fall. ... >> solar energy is today. ... As the cost falls we move ... >> contained in fuel costs alone from conventionally generated energy ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)