 |
|
EV WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE |
VW conversion with 180 HP electric motor and a $1400 lead acid
battery pack that gives the car a 60-70 mile range similar to current state-of-the art fuel cell vehicles costing 1000 times more.
|
Conclusion of testimony before California Air Resources Board, December 5, 2002.
Open Access Article Originally Published: December 15, 2002
There has been some disappointment expressed by members of the board that battery
technology for electric vehicles hasn’t progressed nearly as much as had been hoped.
The reality is that battery technology has progressed significantly in the last decade. But
vehicle manufacturers haven’t been applying that technology in new products. It is
interesting to look at what kinds of battery electric vehicles we could have had by now
and to compare them with fuel cell vehicles. The results may surprise you.
I will comment on three types of batteries: Lead Acid, Sodium Nickel Chloride, and Lithium Ion. There are of course other types of batteries such as nickel metal hydride
that work well in EVs and that bear a renewed look.
Our firm did a conversion of a 4 passenger lead-acid powered Volkswagen Golf. It is fun to drive with about
180 horsepower and it works very well for commuting. The total cost for the battery
modules in this car is only $1400. This is based on a quote from the battery
manufacturer. The range is adequate – about 60 to 70 miles.
As an aside, CARB should stay away from any ZEV regulatory structure that dictates or rewards range. That could be construed as regulating efficiency. The risk I see in the proposed regulatory structure is definition of vehicle types by range capability.
It might be reasonably argued that the most cost effective way to meet some range target is to improve vehicle efficiency rather than put in a larger or more expensive battery pack. That could be an opening for future attacks on the mandate from Automakers on the basis of preemption of the Federal fuel economy laws.
The sodium nickel chloride battery, also known as the ZEBRA battery, is an advanced technology that is now coming to market. With 120 Wh/kg, the specific energy is four times that of lead acid. The price in low volume is $500 per kwh. For high volume, the price will be $220 per kWh. Life is at least 1000 cycles and calendar life is long too.
We are looking into retrofitting a GM S10 EV with two ZEBRA packs and an AC Propulsion drivetrain. Empty weight will be reduced several hundred pounds and the range should be 200 miles.
ZEBRA Battery
- In production in Switzerland
- 120 Wh/kg for pack (4x lead acid)
- 1000 cylces at nameplate rating
- No calendar life issues
- Pricing
- Low vol. $500/kWh
- High vol. $200/kWh
(24kWh pack: $5280)
|
 |
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 10327 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
8 comments so far...
25-Oct-2006
35520
| |
I was reading about people's adventures and experience with their electric cars and this has made me want one myself. And what better way to learn than by converting one yourself? There are existing web links with already converted vehicles and I use their experience to build this web site and improve with my experience. ON MY WEB SITE THERE WILL BE FREE WORLD KNOWLEDGE AVAILABLE, THE EXPERIENCES OF MANY and INFORMATION about CONVERTED CARS FREE FOR ALL PEOPLE OF PLANET EARTH TO ASSIST IN THE EFFORTS TO STOP BURNING OXYGEN. Furthermore, oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe and makes up nearly 21% of the earth's atmosphere. Oxygen accounts for nearly half of the mass of the earth's crust, two thirds of the mass of the human body and nine tenths of the mass of water. Oxygen was discovered for the first time by a Swedish Chemist, Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in 1772. Joseph Priestly, an English chemist, independently, discovered oxygen in 1774 and published his findings the same year, three years before Scheele published. Antonie Lavoisier, a French chemist, also discovered oxygen in 1775, was the first to recognize it as an element, and coined its name "oxygen" - which comes from a Greek word that means “acid-former”. Everyone needs oxygen to survive – man and animals alike.All humans and all animals needs air to survive. More specifically LIVING BEINGS needs the OXYGEN in AIR to survive. OXYGEN is needed to carry on the process of RESPIRATION. Respiration is the means by which organisms exchange gases with the environment. In LIVING BEINGS AS HUMAN IS oxygen must be taken in and carried to the individual cells and carbon dioxide must be removed from the body. OXYGEN is used in the body when cells transfer energy from nutrients (food).
So we humans MUST STOP BURNING OXYGEN IN COMBUSTION ENGINE or we all will died soon. To prevent hat we we all died soon I start my objective of the HAPCEV Project Zero Emission car is to convert all existing gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles worldwide to a HAPCEV Zero Emission electric vehicle. THERE ARE TO MANY OF THEM THAT ARE USING OUR AIR-OXYGEN THAT IS NEEDED BY HUMANS. This idea came from my mind as a young boy. I hope to complete the project and drive this vehicles to prove that a series car can be effectively used on a daily basis. This is my long time dream project about an electric vehicle and NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT. SO I DECIDED, MY CAR WILL HAVE AN ELECTRIC ENGINE AND MY PLAV KUT TECHNOLOGY- FOREVER! THIS MEANS: without spending ANY MONEY FOR FUEL as used by GASOLINE-PETROL- DIESEL MOTORS, including WATER COOLANT, OIL, OIL FILTERS AND REGULAR COMPUTER CHECKS.
How will we HUMANS be capable of breathing SOON, if we do not STOP ICE - Internal Combustion Engine fuel CONSUMPTION? Support my human project HAPCEV for Zero Emission cars world wide. More about this project you can see and reead on web site address http://www.sartelcom.com/HAPCEVP/index.html
Best regards
Rudolf Bosnjak
Posted by: Rudolf Bosnjak
|
|
16-Dec-2002
788
| |
So the $64 question: Did the California Air Resources Board listen?
-- Brandy
Posted by: Dennis Brandenburg
|
|
16-Dec-2002
789
| |
In 1997, Mercedes presented an all-electric prototype of his A-class model with ZEBRA batteries: max. speed: 130 km/h (limited),
acceleration: 0-100 km/h in 16.5s,
range: 200 km,
motor power: 50 kWp.
Of course, it never went into production.
In fall 2002, they proudly presented their new A-class fuel-cell prototype:
speed: 140 km/h,
acceleration: 0-100 km/h in 16s,
range: 150 km,
motor power: 65 kWp.
Great progress, isn't it?
If they go on like this, a few years and a few billion euros later they probably present their newly invented h(a)y-fueled horse cart!
This fuel cell hype reminds me strongly at the iDiOT.COM hype, and it's probably the same dorks that get attracted by maybe-in-20-years-available fuel cell cars that lost all their money with webvan or similar stocks ;-)
Regards, Jens
('95 Renault Express electrique,
'01 Peugeot Scootelec scooter)
Posted by: Jens Schacherl
|
|
16-Dec-2002
792
| |
HI everyone, you may wonder what the UK is doing about Renewable Racing! Green Motorsport Limited run by Gordon Foat in the UK is putting a great new electric renewable racing series together. www.GreenMotorsport.com or FutureEnergies.com for more details!
Posted by: Gordon Foat
|
|
17-Dec-2002
796
| |
If we look at conventions there is no doubt, that EV are usable. A friend of me have desided that his next car is going to be an EV (Hopefully the new Th!ink). He's also willing to pay someone to do a convention.
The Car-industry pulls the EV from the market, because of 'lack of demand'. I was thinking, that people that want EV, have trouble getting a hold of one. So maybe the solution is not to demand a percent of cars sold, but availability:
- That a certain percentage (over 50%) of dealer SHAL have one EV model available for sale, and bee able to service it.
- The Car industry have to also allow EV to be sold new on a EV-dealer.
- Sell a certain numbers of models car without engine +++, but with electrical prower steering and electrical power brakes, so they get price competition on the EVs (so they don't overprice the cars).
I believe that one manger reason that the car-industry wants to go to hydrogen, is that it can be reformed from Natural Gas. Natural Gas is something their friends (The Oil Companies) have a lot of.
--------
Michael Eric Rafoshei-Klev
US-national living in Europe
Posted by: Mike Klev
|
|
18-Dec-2002
799
| |
Interesting but battery prices need to drastically reduce in price for sales to rocket. A Toyota Prius running cost is more than a diesel VW Golf if the Prius battery cost (5,250 Euro) is added in over its limited lifetime. People forget batteries are like fuel; they get used up.
For the Zebra Prius (no petrol jobbie) it is even worse as the 24KWh pack costs 11,669 Euro (12000 US$) and gets used over approx 10 year period. (in mitigation the diesel Golf and petrol PRIUS need some extra servicing). Also what does happen as the battery degrades (say year 8 to 10)? Does the range decrease to 40-50 miles and top speed halve. Battery run down is rarely discussed.
Posted by: A B McConachieb
|
|
22-Dec-2002
800
| |
It was an encouragement to read these remarks. Fast-forwarding to the post fossil fuel era, wind and solar energy appear to be the best bets for supplying a sizable component of our energy needs. Should this be the case, efficient, economical and resilient methods to store electricity will be our greatest need. Practically, it is the extensive recharge time that appears to be the major roadblock to battery-powered EV R&D. That issue remains. No one is intersted in waiting even a half hour to tank up, no matter how far the vehicle goes. But, in the long-term, fuel cells are awfully clumsy and inefficient, particularly when one factors in hydrogen distribution costs and safety issues. So, while automakers ignore battery-powered vehicles for the fuel cell holy grail, the consumer electronics industry continues to provide free battery R&D for cottage electric car converters. Hey, bring on those video phones and souped-up laptops. A car is merely a scaled-up application.
Posted by: Jeff Spear
|
|
25-Dec-2002
803
| |
Mr. Brooks' presentationed reminded me of the famous and oft quoted phrase "There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics" - or something close to that. It seems that Alec was either interested in clouding the issue, providing "straw dogs" he could later knock down or intentionally misrepresenting the value of fuel cells entirely.
His arguments about sources and costs of producing hydrogen seem to fit all of the above categories so it should be addressed first. Let's be clear, hydrogen is everywhere, albeit not in pure form. The very obvious reasons that it is such a great fuel source are as follows.
1. Ubiquitous
2. can be acquired without being environmentally disruptive.
3. Does not require complicated or new technology for manufacture
4. Does not require utilization of nonrenewable resources nor use of current electical/petrochemical grid to manufacture.
5. When used in fuel cells produces water and heat.
Mr. Brooks comments about sources of hydrogen suggests that we must use petrochemicals in some form to get hydrogen or we will have to use ever decreasinginly,available non preak power resources from our electrical grid to produce the hydrogen.
This is nonesense. Even the most trivial of electrical currents can produce hydrogen from water. To claim that we must use nonrenewable hydrocarbons(natural gas) or divert high quality electricity with a high energy density from solar, wind, or hydro misses or dismisses the fact that hydrogen can be produced from low energy systems that are low quality, low voltage and energy diffuse.
Examples abound. There are areas of the country that have steady winds that are not fast enough to generate electricity with an energy density sufficinet for our grid's need. The energy density is sufficinet to produce hydrogen for fuel cells so that other energy dense sources can be freed up for other uses. Same with hydro, same with solar, same with biomass.
What makes hydrogen so irresistable as an energy source is that it can be produced practically anywhere. Even the difference in temperature from a cold to a hot source can produce enough electricity to split water to make hydrogen. The ways to use low energy density systems as a source of hydrogen are truly limited only by imagination.
How long will it be before a self contained fuel cell that incorporates water, fuel cell, and hydrogen storage device,becomes ubiquitous in developing nations? I'll take bets.
Every self sustaining hydrogen/ electrical device removes one more little bit of strain from the grid, one more source of pollution from the world and one less source of global warming while at the same time improving the quality of life.
There are few other technoligies that can make that claim.
Yes, it is probably folly for cars to lead the way towards fuel cells because it is not likely that fuel cell cars will match the cost, energy density, bar achieved by internal combustion in the near future.
Yet, I can imagine a fleet of fuel cell powered emergency vehicles arriving by air, sea, or road to an earthquake, flood, tornado site delivering emergency teams and equipment and the built in power systems to instantly supply electricity.A parked ambulance, unless it has it's own generator,invertor, etc is essentially a moble warehouse.
If configured properly, the fuel cells in emergency vehicles could be modular so that they could be shifted to where they are needed most. a hydrogen generating source could be brought along minimizing the need for refueling or recharging- a claim that cannot be made by either IC or battery vehicles. Finally, the disaster victims can drink what comes out of the tailpipe.
It won't be long before people living in remote areas- the US included will have fuel cells as either primary or secondary sources of power. People who live 12 volt lives will pay the extra money it costs to use propane to power fuel cells so that they don't have to haul all of those lead batteries around that take forever to recharge and are an environmental nightmare. Emergency power generators can live in the basement, waiting to be used- don't need oil,start at the tlick of a switch, don't pollute when operating and do so quietly. Even if the initial power production of these units is low, the fact that they can be kept indoors and moved and used only when and where they are needed may in fact make them far more desireable and potentially more fuel efficient than generators using IC engines. They would certainly be far more reliable, versatile, and lightweigt than any battery backup system.
Initially no one believed that an IC engine could generate a sufficient horsepower/weight ratio to sustain flight.
Finally Alec's cost benefit analysis does little to compute how much money a nation could save by reducing the number of hospitalizations and deaths associated with breathing the exaust polluted air in urban areas.
Ignore the aesthitics if you wan't. You can still make a pretty sound argument that the economic value associated with the end of urban smog is immense.
No matter how you try you can't get out of any current battery technology what fuel cells promise.
The gamble might be huge, but the potential of redefining the life of the entire planet makes fuel cells a breathtaking proposition.
Posted by: Rick Jacobs
|
|
|
|
|
