Topic: Feature: The Powertrain of Tomorrow

[dirtyjeffer]

Nothing will change unless one becomes cheaper to buy and operate than the current one.

hence my wondering why CNG pretty much disappeared...the cost to convert over wasn't much and the cost to fill up was significantly much less than gasoline...as i said, most vehicles (many were full size cars as a lot of taxis were CNG) only cost about $5-$8 to fill...gasoline fill ups in those same cars would have been in the $30-$40 range (Chevy Caprice, etc)...the smaller cars were only $3-$5 to fill.

i can understand why a business doesn't want to sell it (infrastructure, maintenance, staffing costs but only get $5/car instead of $30+ from gasoline), but i'm not sure why more effort wasn't put into play for a home based solution...car companies wouldn't need to spend billions on figuring out hybrid options, consumers wouldn't need to spend $60k on "fuel efficient option" and things like range anxiety would be non-existent (as most are duel fuel anyway).

[tpl]

Excellent article.  Hydrogen is indeed DOA for widespread use because of the reasons cited and also because creating hydrogen and then converting it to electricity is lossy at both ends.  In the coming era of increased energy scarcity, this is a fatal flaw. 

The shortcoming of few charging stations is a problem which could be solved in 2 years and a few billion dollars.  It is utterly simple to do with completely tried and tested technology.  This cannot be seen as a shortcoming, just a failure to act.

I think the majority of people could get along very well with EVs with 150km ranges as their main driver once the charging issues is cleared up.  Homes, condos, offices, shopping malls - we have block heaters all over the coldest parts of this country.  Charging is a non-issue.  For longer drives, you can rent a vehicle.  Maybe Grand-Tourers-to-Go??

I'd like to see the scarcity math of new battery critical materials but if there is no problem there, an 80% electric fleet looks completely viable.   I think all that needs to be done to make this a slam dunk is a doubling of battery density.  A 300km range would absolutely convert the buying public assuming a premium of maybe $5k per car.  this would also doubly put paid to hydrogen.

Cheers,
John M.

I can think of several things I'd rather see the 'few billion dollars' spent on especially as it will come out of my pocket one way or another.    I think a 'few' billion might be a bit low in this enormous country...considering that it seems to cost a billion dollars to do anything nowadays.   Fix the Gardiner, Maintain the schools and TO public housing, build a stubby little subway to Scarborough and that is just the TO examples.


 Maybe add another $5k per car to pay for the chargers?

[tpl]

When you pack a lot of energy in a small space  and then "discharge" it quickly that is close to the definition of a bomb.    BBQ tanks, gas tanks in cars in Hollywood, Crude oil in tank cars.      Soooooo what happens to one of these super powered car traction batteries with a zillion kWh  in a small box when you mistreat it seriously in a major accident or someone sets your car on fire ( happens in TO)

you be fair, a car full of gas is dangerous too...i would imagine there are technologies to reduce the danger with compressed gasses, or at least to help minimize risk as much as possible.

I was fair.  Apart from those Boeing 787s I haven't heard of one of the new breed of battery failing catastrophically but my point holds about densely packed energy sources

[JohnM]

A few billion is relatively cheap these days.  I don't know what a charging system would cost - $200,000??   How about the condo, office, parking and home chargers - $1500 each?

So say we installed 500 charging stations for $100 million and 1 million 220v chargers for $1.5 billion?  Cheap!  OK, let's do 2500 fast charging systems to bring the total to $2 billion. 

To underwrite a shift in our fundamental consumption patterns, that is dirt cheap.  I keep hearing the figure of $34 billion as the amount the oil and gas industry has received in subsidies and if that is so, the $2B enabling funding (the railroads of the 21st century??) really is cheap.  BTW, I have no source for the $34 billion, just common hearsay.

Cheers,
John M.

[dirtyjeffer]

When you pack a lot of energy in a small space  and then "discharge" it quickly that is close to the definition of a bomb.    BBQ tanks, gas tanks in cars in Hollywood, Crude oil in tank cars.      Soooooo what happens to one of these super powered car traction batteries with a zillion kWh  in a small box when you mistreat it seriously in a major accident or someone sets your car on fire ( happens in TO)

you be fair, a car full of gas is dangerous too...i would imagine there are technologies to reduce the danger with compressed gasses, or at least to help minimize risk as much as possible.

I was fair.  Apart from those Boeing 787s I haven't heard of one of the new breed of battery failing catastrophically but my point holds about densely packed energy sources

sorry, i meant to type "to be fair", not "you be fair"...lol

[redman]

It's simple :

Hydrogen = Infrastructure implementation costs are high. So most likely not happening.

Diesel = Great for high mileages and or longer driving seat times in order to justify costs such as initial purchase, fuel and maintenance. 

Full Electric = Great for average city commuter. Needs more Km's on full battery charge to be ideal and faster charging times to full. Low maintenance costs. Future  consideration for me when range becomes extended and initial purchase prices drop.

Hybrid = Reduces range anxiety. Plug-in variety not currently worth it due to low electric only range. Issue  for me still dual engine still ICE. Higher initial cost but offset if doing frequent stop/go mileage like cabs.

[HeliDriver]

Nothing will change unless one becomes cheaper to buy and operate than the current one.

hence my wondering why CNG pretty much disappeared...the cost to convert over wasn't much and the cost to fill up was significantly much less than gasoline...as i said, most vehicles (many were full size cars as a lot of taxis were CNG) only cost about $5-$8 to fill...gasoline fill ups in those same cars would have been in the $30-$40 range (Chevy Caprice, etc)...the smaller cars were only $3-$5 to fill.

i can understand why a business doesn't want to sell it (infrastructure, maintenance, staffing costs but only get $5/car instead of $30+ from gasoline), but i'm not sure why more effort wasn't put into play for a home based solution...car companies wouldn't need to spend billions on figuring out hybrid options, consumers wouldn't need to spend $60k on "fuel efficient option" and things like range anxiety would be non-existent (as most are duel fuel anyway).

I drove a taxi for a couple of summers in the early 1990s. I thought the cabs were powered by propane, but I suppose it could have been CNG instead - was a long time ago.

Yes, it was cheaper than gas (and also cheaper maintenance on the cars due to cleaner burning, apparently), but there were some issues: mostly the giant tank in the trunk and limited range of about 200 kms, IIRC.

But I think what finally killed it was simple economics. I recall a big spike in the price of NG, and I also recall paying $0.45 for a litre of gasoline in the mid 90s. The payoff just wasn't worth the extra hassle.

[Guy]

It's simple :

Hydrogen = Infrastructure implementation costs are high. So most likely not happening.

Diesel = Great for high mileages and or longer driving seat times in order to justify costs. Purchase, fuel and maintenance. 

Full Electric = Great for average city commuter. Needs more Km's on full battery charge. Low maintenance costs. Future when range becomes extended and initial purchase prices drop. My future winner.

Hybrid = Reduces range anxiety. Plug-in variety not currently worth it due to low electric only range. Issue still have ICE. Higher cost but offset for higher stop/go mileage like cabs.

Agreed! If you have 2 cars, to have one of them full electric makes lots of sense for commuting; use the ICE car for long trips.

If you have only access to 1 car, then a Plug in Hybrid or Volt gives you the savings on your commute and the range on longer trips.

[blur911]

Nothing will change unless one becomes cheaper to buy and operate than the current one.

hence my wondering why CNG pretty much disappeared...the cost to convert over wasn't much and the cost to fill up was significantly much less than gasoline...as i said, most vehicles (many were full size cars as a lot of taxis were CNG) only cost about $5-$8 to fill...gasoline fill ups in those same cars would have been in the $30-$40 range (Chevy Caprice, etc)...the smaller cars were only $3-$5 to fill.

i can understand why a business doesn't want to sell it (infrastructure, maintenance, staffing costs but only get $5/car instead of $30+ from gasoline), but i'm not sure why more effort wasn't put into play for a home based solution...car companies wouldn't need to spend billions on figuring out hybrid options, consumers wouldn't need to spend $60k on "fuel efficient option" and things like range anxiety would be non-existent (as most are duel fuel anyway).

I drove a taxi for a couple of summers in the early 1990s. I thought the cabs were powered by propane, but I suppose it could have been CNG instead - was a long time ago.

Yes, it was cheaper than gas (and also cheaper maintenance on the cars due to cleaner burning, apparently), but there were some issues: mostly the giant tank in the trunk and limited range of about 200 kms, IIRC.

But I think what finally killed it was simple economics. I recall a big spike in the price of NG, and I also recall paying $0.45 for a litre of gasoline in the mid 90s. The payoff just wasn't worth the extra hassle.

CNG compressors for refilling vehicles from home still exist, but the refill times leave a bit to be desired (several days for my pickup).  Harder to find fill-ups on the road too.
http://www.compression-technology.ca/index.php/products/home-refuelling-appliance

[X-Traction]

In the Canadian context, the U of T study is more click-bait than relevant. Most of our power is hydroelectric and nuclear.



The only major issue for pure electric cars for most people is upfront cost. Most car trips are commutes, and well within typical electric car ranges. In home charging stations aren't cheap, but compared to frivolities like granite counter-tops, easily justifiable for rational people.

http://www.homedepot.ca/product/30-amp-indoor-electric-vehicle-charging-station-2nd-gen-enhanced-model/989931

I think diesel's days are likely numbered aside from commercial vehicles. Gas-electric hybrids will likely be with us for a while.

Since this article is about predictions, it's easy to predict that non-thermal power sources will steadily become an even larger part of the mix.

Europe has recently moved to discourage diesel and encourage hybrids.

[X-Traction]

I love the article, but think the concluding outlook is unlikely.

Diesel-Electric hybrids are unlikely due to cost of manufacture and low horsepower numbers.  The torque is really overlapped with the electric motor's (instant and) torque-rich properties.

I also disagree re: range extended or PHEV.  I think THOSE are the way of the future, especially as battery technology gets better (smaller/more dense).

I, personally, want to see battery longevity be of primal concern, and designed to last the life of the vehicle rather than half of it (warranties for 8 years should be at least 12 years, IMO).  That, or reconditioning should be a cheap service.

Though the warranties I know about are 8 years, the replacement rate of even the oldest batteries used in hybrids is near zero.  It's still not known how long the batteries will last, and even if the batteries lose capacity, the impact on mileage would be very gradual and not even noticeable at first.  Hybrids typically have aspects that enhance mileage even without the regeneration system.

[X-Traction]

in my late teens, i worked at a gas station that had CNG...it wasn't overly expensive to convert a regular gasoline vehicle to accept CNG, and CNG was dirt cheap...i am somewhat surprised there isn't a home version CNG station available, with more thought to provide CNG powered vehicles...the beauty of CNG is the engine can run on either (switch on dash to select which mode to run in)...many homes already have NG, so surely setting up a home fill up solution should be somewhat feasible...CNG is still relatively inexpensive (as it is quite abundant), and i would imagine setting up CNG infrastructure (stations) wouldn't be overly difficult (either tap into existing NG lines or use an above ground tank, like they do with propane)...as well, perhaps even offer CNG cars from the factory, instead of hybrids...you don't need a fancy hybrid powertrain, you'd simply be using pretty much the same powertrain, but it would be fitted with a CNG tank instead of a conventional gasoline tank.

i think the conversion cost back in the days was about $3k, which wasn't too bad considering we'd drive around town all night in a Sierra 4x4 for about $5 (gasoline would have cost us at least $25).

Your argument is based on a large variance in the cost of energy.  While the cost per unit of energy for different types of fuel may have varied a lot back then, I'd argue they are far more closely linked today.  I can't see anything particularly wrong with an NG-fuelled hybrid, though.

At the same time, there seems to be a mild movement in the trucking industry to switch to NG etc. (Westport Innovations), and BC Ferries is going to move to NG.

[X-Traction]

It's simple :

Hydrogen = Infrastructure implementation costs are high. So most likely not happening.

Diesel = Great for high mileages and or longer driving seat times in order to justify costs such as initial purchase, fuel and maintenance. 

Full Electric = Great for average city commuter. Needs more Km's on full battery charge. Low maintenance costs. Future  consideration for me when range becomes extended and initial purchase prices drop.

Hybrid = Reduces range anxiety. Plug-in variety not currently worth it due to low electric only range. Issue  for me still dual engine still ICE. Higher initial cost but offset if doing frequent stop/go mileage like cabs.

My guess is that hybrids, phev's and ev's will take over, with the balance between them depending on how battery technology develops.  Other factors are charging rates, availability of charging options, and battery swapping.

I'm uneasy about a setup like the Volt.  It's fine for city use, but the multiple energy conversions using the ICE for long distances really hurts mileage.  Seems to me it would be better and simpler to set it up like a regular hybrid but with a larger and chargeable battery.

Mileage comparisons with diesels don't take into account the higher energy density of the fuel, and they should.

As was said, diesels don't suit stop-start applications.

Diesel isn't necessarily better for highway driving than hybrids.  It depends on the road.  Diesel is more suited to long boring stretches of highway that allow constant speed.  (Just the sort of thing enthusiasts hate.)  Hybrids capture and re-use energy otherwise lost to slow for corners, retard speed down hills etc.  These "saving" increase as changes in speed or elevation increase, and vehicle load increases.  For instance, hybrids are well suited to the Vancouver-Whistler drive, with an abundance of corners and elevation changes.  You can see the charge/discharge meter is active for much of the drive.

[me_2]

It's simple :

Hydrogen = Infrastructure implementation costs are high. So most likely not happening.

Diesel = Great for high mileages and or longer driving seat times in order to justify costs such as initial purchase, fuel and maintenance. 

Full Electric = Great for average city commuter. Needs more Km's on full battery charge. Low maintenance costs. Future  consideration for me when range becomes extended and initial purchase prices drop.

Hybrid = Reduces range anxiety. Plug-in variety not currently worth it due to low electric only range. Issue  for me still dual engine still ICE. Higher initial cost but offset if doing frequent stop/go mileage like cabs.

My guess is that hybrids, phev's and ev's will take over, with the balance between them depending on how battery technology develops.  Other factors are charging rates, availability of charging options, and battery swapping.

I'm uneasy about a setup like the Volt.  It's fine for city use, but the multiple energy conversions using the ICE for long distances really hurts mileage.  Seems to me it would be better and simpler to set it up like a regular hybrid but with a larger and chargeable battery.

In a previsible futur, yes we would see more and more hybridized, phev and some ev too. My former Volt played for me the perfect stepping stone to the electrification of personal transport, I wanted more e-kms, wanted DCFC port & a lot a DCFC stations. Maybe, maybe not I would buy another Volt in the future if my long distance back-up car (Saturn SW2 2001) would be gone, I'll see.

[dirtyjeffer]

Your argument is based on a large variance in the cost of energy.  While the cost per unit of energy for different types of fuel may have varied a lot back then, I'd argue they are far more closely linked today.  I can't see anything particularly wrong with an NG-fuelled hybrid, though.

At the same time, there seems to be a mild movement in the trucking industry to switch to NG etc. (Westport Innovations), and BC Ferries is going to move to NG.

as i said, most large vehicles (Caprices, Crown Vics, etc) were usually about $5-$8 to fill up...filling them up with gas was usually in the $30-$35 range ($40 tops)...small cars were usually $3-$5 (gas would have been $20-$35 to fill)...it was a significant savings...as i said, my friend's dad's Chevy truck was duel fuel and we always went out for drives in it (it was lightly lifted, 4x4, pretty kick ass)...the rule was bring it back with a full tank (and he recommended we use CNG)...we likely would have spent all our fun money on fuel if we put gasoline in that thing.

[Noto]

Though the warranties I know about are 8 years, the replacement rate of even the oldest batteries used in hybrids is near zero.  It's still not known how long the batteries will last, and even if the batteries lose capacity, the impact on mileage would be very gradual and not even noticeable at first.  Hybrids typically have aspects that enhance mileage even without the regeneration system.

The battery in the RX400h really should be reconditioned or replaced at this point.  It has, as you say, gradually lost 'mileage', and I was still able to get 24.6 mpg today en route to work.

...but it used to be >30mpg.  The RX in the winter has become a non-hybrid with extra weight to carry around.  Not bad, but not great.

I would like to see more reconditioning shops open up.

[X-Traction]

Though the warranties I know about are 8 years, the replacement rate of even the oldest batteries used in hybrids is near zero.  It's still not known how long the batteries will last, and even if the batteries lose capacity, the impact on mileage would be very gradual and not even noticeable at first.  Hybrids typically have aspects that enhance mileage even without the regeneration system.

The battery in the RX400h really should be reconditioned or replaced at this point.  It has, as you say, gradually lost 'mileage', and I was still able to get 24.6 mpg today en route to work.

...but it used to be >30mpg.  The RX in the winter has become a non-hybrid with extra weight to carry around.  Not bad, but not great.

I would like to see more reconditioning shops open up.

The unusual cold this winter would show up as reduced mileage from hybrids (and non-hybrids too).  On a recent warm day, my FEH got noticeably better mileage, despite still having snow tires mounted and a bit lower tire pressure than I run in summer.

Even the oldest hybrids are not showing degraded mileage due to aging batteries, so I'd be cautious about blaming the battery.

I ran into a friend today, who told me he'd met someone who has a 2002 Rav4 EV.  Now, that's a rare car.  He said the Rav4 EV still has the original battery, and he was amazed by that.  Unaware that I have a hybrid, he commented that costly replacement of hybrid batteries and the pollution downsides of the large batteries are reasons for poor sales of hybrids.

I told him I have a hybrid, and outlined the fact the batteries are lasting so well no one knows how long they are good for.  He asked if there are recycling facilities for them.  I responded there are, since the components are valuable -- but there is little need for recycling facilities because failures are extremely rare.  And even then, the individual cells can be replaced.  Which amounts to recycling flashlight batteries.

The better mileage and lower upkeep on hybrids and ev's offsets the possible additional footprint of the batteries.

He proposed that the disinformation about hybrids may be deliberately spread by oil interests.  I responded that some of it is a natural association from household cordless power tools and their incessant battery failures, but there's no doubt some of it is propaganda by vested interests.  I'd venture the misinformation/money trail would lead back to the Koch brothers for instance.  And there are far too many dupes in the auto chattersphere, including here, who love to parrot disinformation about hybrids and ev's.

[bye]

From the article:

home recharging stations cost extra if you have a house

Not true.  All currently sold EV's ship with a L1 EVSE that can charge 50-80% of the range overnight on 120V.   
It is true that you may wish to spend $500 or less to purchase a L2 EVSE that charges the car fully in 5 hours.

manufacturers are struggling to get people to buy them in numbers that make producing them profitable

Tesla makes 28% margin (latest numbers from Q1 2015 earnings) on sales of the Model S.  The car itself is profitable.
Of course, Tesla is spending that per-car profit (and more) on R&D developing the next major steps to their plan.

It’s not even clear that electric cars are more emissions-friendly: according to a recent report by University of Toronto professor, Christopher Kennedy

Didn't read the article did you?  How about the chart showing that Canadian power production is a model for the world, our electricity is greener than most.  My Smart ED runs 100% on renewable electricity and is the absolute king of the efficiency hill, it is not possible to drive a more energy efficient car from production to end of life than the Smart ED in Canada.

new generation of batteries still won’t be able to compete with the longer driving range of conventional gasoline vehicles

Ridiculous!  The Tesla Model S is easily able to cover 100% of all trips I have ever taken in our family SUV.  The next generation of electric cars due out in 2017 will have the same range as the Tesla, and thus will be perfectly good enough to replace the primary gas vehicle in the majority of house holds when judged on this metric.

electric cars will have to be recharged more frequently than conventional vehicles

Correct, and thanks to having a refuelling stations in practically every garage (otherwise known as an electrical outlet!), owners will have no anxiety about needing to refuel out in the cold and wet. 

the recharging time is painfully slow compared to the 5-minute fill-up time of a gas tank

Laughable!  The convenience of plugging in every few days, just 5 seconds as I walk around the car when I get home is far less time than I would have spent at gas stations driving the same 10000km I have so far on electricity alone.  The EV is designed to be fully charged over night and ready with a "full tank" every morning.  Nothing is more convenient than this, nothing!

in ten years, the number of public charging stations won’t come anywhere near the number of public gas stations

There are more available EV charge points in my neighbourhood listed on plugshare than gas stations, and that's because gas stations are restricted in where they can be built, why is that again...something about them not being compatible with being on a residential street? 

Oh, and the Tesla superchargers cover the vast majority of the continental US and the major population areas in Canada.  Within a few years, fast DC charging (free, ie. included in the price of the car) will be ubiquitous.

at some point, organizations who’ve invested in recharging stations will have to start charging for power.

No.  They will put charge points up for customers, just like restaurants that buy big screen TV's (which cost WAY more to buy and provide power for than a charge point) use them to attract customers.

hope that oil companies will decide to get on board and promote electricity

Forget them.  I will be off gas when I trade our Mercedes up for a Tesla.  I vow to never buy gas again.

prediction is that in ten years, pure electric cars will still be the next big thing

Well, I hope you are happy with your land line telephone, OH, you use a cell phone? Why is that? 
Disruptive technology has a way of changing the world overnight.


So much fail in one article.

[rrocket]

Tesla makes 28% margin (latest numbers from Q1 2015 earnings) on sales of the Model S.  The car itself is profitable.
Of course, Tesla is spending that per-car profit (and more) on R&D developing the next major steps to their plan.

He didn't say they weren't profitable.  He said they aren't sold in great enough numbers.  Oh..and the electric landscape doesn't solely revolve around Tesla.  Every GM Volt sold loses money.  Every EV Smart sold loses money.  Every EV 500e loses money.  Canada sold a grand total of 847 cars.  Even in the US, 16,000 Teslas were sold...and that was with thousands upon thousands in government cash.  Oh..and their latest earning were announced the other day. They lost $45 million for this quarter.

Didn't read the article did you?  How about the chart showing that Canadian power production is a model for the world, our electricity is greener than most.  My Smart ED runs 100% on renewable electricity and is the absolute king of the efficiency hill, it is not possible to drive a more energy efficient car from production to end of life than the Smart ED in Canada.

It's Canada.  Not even a Top 10 world market.  So what happens here matters very little to the worldwide landscape.  In the US, which is one of the worlds top markets, in many places EV are far more dirty that ICE cars.

Ridiculous!  The Tesla Model S is easily able to cover 100% of all trips I have ever taken in our family SUV.  The next generation of electric cars due out in 2017 will have the same range as the Tesla, and thus will be perfectly good enough to replace the primary gas vehicle in the majority of house holds when judged on this metric.

Again..Tesla isn't the entire spectrum of EVs.  And it depends what you term "longer driving range".  I frequently drive over 500kms to visit family.  And EV sucks for that.

Laughable!  The convenience of plugging in every few days, just 5 seconds as I walk around the car when I get home is far less time than I would have spent at gas stations driving the same 10000km I have so far on electricity alone.  The EV is designed to be fully charged over night and ready with a "full tank" every morning.  Nothing is more convenient than this, nothing!

Not laughable. 100% true.  An ICE car is off the road for 5 minutes while filling.  An EV is off the road for a substantially longer time while it "fills".  Oh..and Tesla's newest battery(yes NEWEST) doesn't work with solar.  Even Tesla's own solar company.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-06/tesla-s-new-battery-doesn-t-work-that-well-with-solar

There are more available EV charge points in my neighbourhood listed on plugshare than gas stations, and that's because gas stations are restricted in where they can be built, why is that again...something about them not being compatible with being on a residential street? 


Oh, and the Tesla superchargers cover the vast majority of the continental US and the major population areas in Canada.  Within a few years, fast DC charging (free, ie. included in the price of the car) will be ubiquitous.

I'm disappointed you'd even argue against this.  There is no comparison.  There are more gas stations, by far, than charging stations.  The number isn't even close.  Period.  End of story.

Well, I hope you are happy with your land line telephone, OH, you use a cell phone? Why is that? 
Disruptive technology has a way of changing the world overnight.

A cell phone costs less than $100.  Which means people from EVERY demographic can afford one.  An EV?  Not so much.



Man....so much fail in one reply...