Let's get this party started!

http://www.transtexastrucks.com

John Penry - Seguin, Texas
Posted by: John Penry

However, CalCars has a fixation on the PHEV. I regard the PHEV as an interim vehicle of little significance, a toy for the wealthy. It is dubious that many who can afford a $40,000 vehicle, will bother plugging in for a cheaper 10 to 40 mile electric range, since the fuel economy will be excellent running as a series HEV anyways. The optimal future will consist primarily of BEV’s and Series HEV’s, with the option of an extended range BEV, which would use about a 30 kwh battery pack and a small 10 to 20 kw continuous rated generator. Detroit proved that it can produce HEV’s with 70-80 mpg, in the late 1990’s with the Supercar Initiative:

Supercar: The tanking of an American dream

Undoubtedly, those HEV drivetrains could be improved with the use of modern electronics and motor technology. And the use of Methanol / DME extreme efficiency engines can further improve those numbers. See:

EPA 43% Peak Efficiency Methanol Engine with Low Emissions and a Wide Island of High Efficiency

It would not be difficult for Automakers or Auto Parts Suppliers to produce standardized series hybrid conversion kits for common fuel guzzling vehicles on the road today. The necessity is government intervention to jumpstart and subsidize the program. In order to be economical, production in automotive volumes would be necessary. The optimal configuration would be the series hybrid, with a 50 to 100 hp electric motor, (Brushless Synchronous Permanent Magnet or an Induction Motor), a 3 to 5 kwh Li-Ion/LiFePO4 or NiMH battery pack, and a high efficiency 20 to 50 hp engine/generator. Best to use a standard European TDI diesel engine, which can also be modified to run more efficiently and cleaner on Methanol, with simpler, cheaper Spark Ignition and Port Fuel Injection. Remove the engine, transmission and fuel system from the convert vehicle. And remove the ludicrous NOx emission standard (1/6th of Europe’s) for North American Diesel Cars and Small Trucks, that was put there by greedy Oil Interests – successfully blocking the use of high efficiency TDI Diesel engines in North America. Using the European standard for NOx, in the type of high efficiency series HEV’s that I am proposing, would not significantly increase NOx levels. Most of the NOx comes from Coal Power Plants and poorly tuned, inefficient Truck Engines, that curiously the EPA does very little about. It would be easy to catch the extreme offenders, which produce the bulk of the emissions, with automated roadside monitoring stations.

There will be a severe shortage of batteries for a decade or more, so the PHEV will be an ineffective method to reduce dependence on Foreign Oil and cut Emissions. A PHEV will require several times more battery capacity than the series HEV. The conversion I am recommending, would easily be less than half the cost of the PHEV conversion, and much more feasible. The converted vehicle need not be high performance, just a cheap way for cash strapped, frugal consumers, suffering in a declining economy, who can’t afford even a new car, never mind an expensive PHEV, to get from point A to point B with.

And Automakers could easily make much higher efficiency engines if they weren’t so focused on helping out their Oil Buddies, by forcing us to waste fuel like it will last forever. The Prius Atkinson Engine is an example of what can be done. Other examples:

The 50% efficient, low emissions, Liquid Piston HEHC engine

The Velozzi 200 mpg Series HEV with Micro-Turbine Engine/Generator

The Velozzi 200 mpg Ultra-Light High Performance Series HEV

The 45% efficient, ultra-lightweight, FreePistonPower Engine/Generator – MegaBucks Detroit couldn’t come up with this?

The RadMax Rotary Diesel Engine

The StarRotor 40-65% Efficient Brayton Cycle Engine

John Westlund explains how the Government had to pay Detroit to build 60-80 mpg HEVs in the 90’s, which they easily did, and pocketed most of the cash, without offering the vehicles for sale.

Posted by: Warren Heath

I am bewildered by the statement that a PHEV will require too large a battery. Parallel PHEVs can often use smaller batteries than series because the engine can assist, and they use smaller batteries than EVs. Along with solving what GM calls the "range anxiety problem," this is why they're a valuable transitional solution on the way to EVs as batteries improve in energy density and cost.

CalCars is "fixated" on PHEVs whenever they are practical. The energy, cost and retrofit issues in converting a vehicle to a PHEV (or building a new vehicle) will point to the optimal solution in each case. In some cases it may make sense to remove or keep the existing internal combustion egnine. We wrote this article to address the total energy issues involved. -- Felix Kramer, Founder, CalCars.org
Posted by: Felix Kramer

‘…displacing the most fossil fuels with electricity is the goal …’

‘…bewildered by the statement that a PHEV will require too large a battery. Parallel PHEVs …use smaller batteries than EVs …’

‘…CalCars is "fixated" on PHEVs whenever they are practical. The energy, cost and retrofit issues in converting a vehicle to a PHEV …’

1) people won’t bother plugging them in, thus wasting precious resources needlessly.

2) the fuel consumption benefit is insignificant compared to the added cost and resources utilized.

3) the Plug-In infrastructure hasn’t been developed yet, which once again limits the usefulness of the PHEV – notably for apartment dwellers.

4) the people who we want to use the converted fuel guzzlers, won’t be able to afford the more expensive PHEV conversion – especially since battery prices will remain excessive likely for another decade, due to high demand.

5) trying to add Plug-in to a vehicle with that humungous engine, would be a very difficult and dubious effort. An engine – engine/generator swap would be necessary.

My conclusion, yes we probably both agree that converting old vehicles to electric drive is the fastest way to accomplish the goal of cutting emissions and oil imports as fast-as-possible and as-cheaply-as-possible. My position is the best convert is either a pure BEV, a BEV with a smaller battery pack and a small, standardized, mass-produced, high-efficiency removable generator for those with ‘’range anxiety’’ or best of all the Series HEV conversion using the smallest battery pack and a mass produced Motor Package designed to fit specific Vehicles, and standardized, interchangeable high efficiency Engine/Generator Modules, Driver Interface Modules, Battery Packs and Power Electronics Modules.

Posted by: Warren Heath

People WILL plug in PHEVs, because electricity is not only more convenient (fewer visits to gas stations) and better for the environment and national security (more and more people actually care!), but also because it costs less than the equivalent of $1/gallon.

PHEVs are currently more effective than HEVs because they not only use gasoline more efficiently but also displace gasoline with electricity. My rule of thumb is that a well-designed PHEV charged and fully discharged every day can offset 50 gallons of gasoline (with 350 kWh of grid electricity) per year per kilowatt-hour of battery capacity vs. a similar standard ICE, and 35 gallons vs. a more efficient HEV. 500 gallons saved over 10 years at $4/gallon less $350 for electricity amounts to $1650 saved per kWh of battery capacity, already above current retail prices of around $1200/kWh. And the infrastructure for many people is merely an ordinary wall outlet in one's personal or apartment garage or carport.

PHEVs are currently more effective than EVs because, due to driving variability and range anxiety, EVs must have significantly more range than is consistently used every day. For EVs or PHEVs, that EV range currently costs around $300(car) - 600(SUV) per mile -- $60-120k for 200 miles vs. $6k-12k for 20 miles! And yet a 20-mile PHEV can displace half as much gasoline per year as a 200-mile EV! As battery prices decrease, longer EV ranges will make more sense, until the ICE eventually becomes an obsolete boat anchor.

The average lifespan of a vehicle in California is 17 years (not 10 years, as per #7), then it is often sold internationally (e.g. to Mexico) rather than crushed. As Patrick Leonard says, it is critical that we stop building non-plug-in vehicles (except for certain specialties such as long-distance tractor-trailers) ASAP, as each vehicle is a commitment to a huge amount of total oil consumption. His idea of beginning by refusing to approve new non-plug-in designs is brilliant and should be promoted diligently to the California Air Resources Board and the appropriate federal agencies once we have a amenable administration (however, it could also backfire by encouraging extended production of existing designs). But no matter how fast auto manufacturers switch, conversions are the only way a significant proportion of our vehicles can be plug-in by 2020, when oil will be far dearer and the IPCC says we must have well over 30% GHG reductions despite expected growth in miles traveled.

Although 'we' (CalCars) do favor CAFE-like manufacturer requirements, we are not advocating mandates to personal behavior. However, we do believe that incentives and disincentives are in order to help the market to reflect social costs not otherwise built into the cost of consuming fossil fuels, which instead are still being subsidized. However, those will merely help speed the inevitable, as supplies of gasoline get increasingly dear and unreliable. Already, the cost of ICE vehicle conversion into PHEVs, in volume and without incentives except for financing, could be less than the fuel savings over 10 years of continued vehicle life.

Re. comment #3, my rough calculation is that breakeven for overall GHG emissions roughly follows that for total energy. Gasoline displacement breakeven (#6's goal), however, occurs approximately five times as fast (1600 miles for conversions vs. 8600 miles for replacement vehicles)! Check out my referenced spreadsheet for more details.
Posted by: Ron Gremban, CalCars' Tech Lead

I have a plug-in electric drive vehicle that I use as my daily driver regular commuter (26 miles), am a renter, and do not have any problems at all plugging it in whenever I want. What electric drive vehicle do you own, as a renter, that you are having problems plugging in? Depending on your answer, I can give you the most appropriate, helpful suggestions for you to work easiest with your electric drive vehicle.
Posted by: Zero X Owner

When someone chooses to buy and drive a TEREX TITAN, that person DEFINITELY IS NOT paying for ALL of it. The price of gas does not include the environmental and medical costs of exposing the public to its myriad contaminants and pollutants. These costs are difficult to quantify. Also, people are clueless and have no appreciation for how potent gasoline is, priced cheaply as it is. At 132 MJ/gal, not much comes close. For these reasons, gasoline should be priced MUCH higher.
Posted by: Wesley L