Hybrid Vs. EV Batteries

[Mark Tomlinson]

Okay, so I'm looking at the new propulsion diagrams and I'm puzzled. I'm not an engineer and don't claim to be one, so maybe someone else can help me out.

The hybrid version has a smaller battery pack under the passenger compartment, fuel ahead of the motor, and a genset above the motor. The EV has a larger battery pack with no fuel or genset in the propulsion unit. Why didn't VV decide to use the same battery in the passenger compartment in both models and replace the genset with more batteries in the EV?

I understand that there may be technical considerations of routing power and, most likely, battery environmental controls (heating and cooling). But are the challenges that daunting? It seems to me that using one battery system in the EV creates more issues than it solves.

For instance, either the passenger compartment must be designed around the larger battery in both models, or they have to design two different passenger compartments. By splitting the battery in the EV, the passenger compartment can be designed around smaller battery and used in both models.

But probably a bigger design challenge will be the distribution of weight. Since batteries are heavy, the current design shifts the weight forward in the EV. Arguably that creates better handling in a conventional vehicle, but (a) this is no conventional vehicle, and (b) now you have to design two different suspensions and driving dynamics profiles. Regarding point (a), the V1 tilts and batteries are heavy. I suspect that it would be better to move weight to the propulsion unit rather than tilting it. And regarding point (b), I'm sure traction control and ABS will behave differently with the weight moved forward.

[rogwild]

Good points and questions, Mark. I believe that the most current diagrams are just 'general representations' of the relative positions of the components (they will probably 'overlap' or be in different positions in the actual vehicles.
There should be room in the Power Pod for additional batteries, (especially the 'pull-n-plug' type that were mentioned earlier), that could be taken into the office and 'recharged' while you are at work. Let's hope this is a 'surprise' V.V. has in store.

For engineering purposes, I would expect that the 'battery compartments' in the EV and hybrid passenger cabins would be the same (perhaps extra storage in the hybrid for 'unused' battery space).

Weight distribution for 'tilting' should not be a major problem since the cabin batteries will be 'low' and close to the axis of rotation, but I do agree that some extra weight (added battery packs in the Power Pod [for the EV] would seem desirable). I heartily agree that V.V. has a 'bunch' of testing ahead of them to get the traction control, ABS, steering, braking, etc. correct for different configurations (solo, + passenger, roof cargo, trailer, EV / Hybrid, etc.) So much to DO; so little TIME!

[Lumberjack]

Batteries are generally very heavy and more weight requires more power to move it. VV has to keep the weight down as much as possible or the whole battery thing will become self-defeating and totally wreck the proformance numbers.

[Miracleman89]

my question is does anyone remember the safety video ian released about the A123 systems battery compared to the other types of batteries? Now they have the battery compartment under the seats. I'll be honest it is a little unnerving!

[MVRacing]

A123 today released the L5 plug in battery pack for the Toyota Prius ... check their web site (http://www.a123systems.com/#/news/news127), it's quite a unit, and they must be very proud of it @ $9,995 :o :confused:

[Mike kZ]

A123 today released the L5 plug in battery pack for the Toyota Prius ... check their web site (http://www.a123systems.com/#/news/news127), it's quite a unit, and they must be very proud of it @ $9,995 :o :confused:

That $9,995.00 is for a complete conversion to a plug-in hybrid for the Prius. Pricy, but it's for labor too.

"Plug-in Conversion Modules will be available for owners of Toyota Priuses, model year 2004 to 2008. At an installed cost of $9995 plus shipping, buyers can choose a certified Hymotion dealer for conversion of their hybrid vehicles. Installations for consumers are expected to begin in July,2008."

[ydeardorff]

Im learning alot in this site, thanks to you all! But I do have a question, if the HEV's principal cost issue is batteries, wouldnt it be wise to just release a gas only, or diesel only version as well? So long as it gets the great mileage, I doubt most people would care much about the hybrid part of it. It seems the common denominator with all hybrids, they are cheap, until you install the batteries.

LOL

[MVRacing]

Im learning alot in this site, thanks to you all! But I do have a question, if the HEV's principal cost issue is batteries, wouldnt it be wise to just release a gas only, or diesel only version as well?

Hi ydeardorff,
The VV/Persue Mobility agreement with Carver was to produce ONLY EV or Hybrid vehicles in North America. There was some discussion in the past of a gas only "Sport" version to be used in the US for a marque race series.

[tcannon]

Maybe they meant Peruse!

[pharuan]

Someone was bored.

[samjennings7]

I would say that a hybrid is always better, just because you can keep driving after your battery is gone.

[Firedawg]

I agree with that. Hybrid is far superior for everyone. I would be interested to find out how much "filling" the tank on a EV costs in comparison to hybrids. Like if the 6 gal hybrid engine on the PM would extend the range by 325 miles, by liberal gas prices, that puts it at around $20 a fill up making it about $.06 a mile. That is quite affordable since my current 4 cyl Kia costs me a hair shy of $.26 a mile.

With the current energy crisis how can any environmentalist justify going to pure EV? It would require us to build many more power plants to produce the electricity we would need, there by causing more pollution for those plants to run, and also taxing an already over taxed power grid. Then one strong, direct solar flare would torch the electrical grid and we are all stuck walking to work anyways. There is currently no power solution that could fix our power crisis for the next 20 years.

My brother works at the Palo Verde Nuclear plant and he just laughs at so called "environmentalist" that are pushing for everyone to go to electric vehicles. That would be great from his work's stand point but the existing plants and infrastructure can not supply the peak power demands in the summer now let alone a mass public shift to EV's. It would cause massive nationwide problems and jack up the price for electricity. We already have rolling black outs in Cali, and the North East during hot summer days, how would EV's fix the problem. More plants to produce the power means more pollution. The pollution is going to come from somewhere. Either from the car's tailpipe or from the power plant's smokestacks/reactors.

Wind power is not economically viable yet on a mass scale. Many studies show that solar power plants are far worse for the environment than other alternatives. Underwater generators are really hard on marine life and are extremely pricey to maintain because of salt corrosion.

We do need to get off of fossil fuels but to leap to something else before it is reliable and feasible is folly.

[chaster]

!@#(*^&#%*&(!!~!!

I wrote a long, detailed response to Firedawg's post and then lost it because the forum logged me out... GAH.

Firedawg, respectfully, I must say that the assertions you make are mostly incorrect, or at the very least, misleading. In particular, the assertions regarding pollution, overtaxing the electrical grid, and general conclusions regarding the logic of switching to EV's versus current ICE & Hybrid solutions.

I don't want to spend another 30 minutes typing up the reasons, but I must strenuously (and respectfully) voice my disagreement.

Eric

[Derwin]

!@#(*^&#%*&(!!~!!

I wrote a long, detailed response to Firedawg's post and then lost it because the forum logged me out... GAH.

I feel your pain. When I was a "newbie" to forums this happened to me a couple times...... but then I learned my lesson! Whenever making an EXTENDED post, I ALWAYS highlight my entire post and then COPY it before hitting the "reply" or "post" button. If I get a message to sign in, then I just go back to that thread and PASTE whatever I just copied to my clipboard. It has saved me a great deal of stress and aggravation in the process!

[MikeB]

Let me step in for chaster then....
(btw, chaster, hit Preview as you write, to keep the session active and to see how your composition is progressing)


I agree with that. Hybrid is far superior for everyone. I would be interested to find out how much "filling" the tank on a EV costs in comparison to hybrids. Like if the 6 gal hybrid engine on the PM would extend the range by 325 miles, by liberal gas prices, that puts it at around $20 a fill up making it about $.06 a mile. That is quite affordable since my current 4 cyl Kia costs me a hair shy of $.26 a mile.
My electric scooter costs $0.01 per mile. Or, to flip that around, my daily driver is effectively getting almost 300 mpg, based on current gas prices. Since my scooter has a 50 mile range, and I work 5 miles from home, I have more than enough range to go to work twice, out for lunch, and out for dinner or an errand, all on a single 5 hour charge. Making my scooter a hybrid would be an utter waste, since the battery and performance I have is well beyond my daily needs.

Personally, I think the best setup is a pure electric vehicle for errands and commuting, and a range-extending generator mounted in a trailer for use on extended road trips. Why carry around the weight of an engine when the majority of your driving doesn't need it? Leaving the engine behind just makes it easier to carry more batteries, or to get better range with a lighter vehicle.


With the current energy crisis how can any environmentalist justify going to pure EV? It would require us to build many more power plants to produce the electricity we would need, there by causing more pollution for those plants to run, and also taxing an already over taxed power grid. Then one strong, direct solar flare would torch the electrical grid and we are all stuck walking to work anyways. There is currently no power solution that could fix our power crisis for the next 20 years.

My brother works at the Palo Verde Nuclear plant and he just laughs at so called "environmentalist" that are pushing for everyone to go to electric vehicles. That would be great from his work's stand point but the existing plants and infrastructure can not supply the peak power demands in the summer now let alone a mass public shift to EV's. It would cause massive nationwide problems and jack up the price for electricity. We already have rolling black outs in Cali, and the North East during hot summer days, how would EV's fix the problem. More plants to produce the power means more pollution. The pollution is going to come from somewhere. Either from the car's tailpipe or from the power plant's smokestacks/reactors.

Wind power is not economically viable yet on a mass scale. Many studies show that solar power plants are far worse for the environment than other alternatives. Underwater generators are really hard on marine life and are extremely pricey to maintain because of salt corrosion.
This is mostly wrong, and I think your brother can't see the forest for the trees.

If everyone in this country tried to charge their electric car in the middle of a summer afternoon, the grid would collapse and burn, and we'd need hundreds of new power plants. However, if everyone put their car on a timer and let it charge overnight, then we could accommodate about 100 million vehicles without building a single new power plant.

In terms of raw pollution, it's far better to have a small number of stationary pollution sources than millions of mobile ones. You don't care about the weight of smokestack scrubbers, but every ounce of a tailpipe system hurts the efficiency of the vehicle. And if you are going to regulate pollution, it's far easier to work with a small number of systems.

And back to efficiency, even if my electric scooter is powered entirely by coal-produced power, the fact that I'm getting an effective 300mpg means that there's significantly less pollution coming from the coal plant than there would be from a small gasoline scooter engine.

With reasonable efficiency measures, we might never need to build another new nuclear or coal plant in this country. There's so much wasted power in the system that efficiency alone could accommodate all the growth we expect to see for at least 30 years. And there's massive untapped potential for a combination of wind, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric, biowaste, etc.

Wind is radically profitable, and it's already having the effect of reducing average power costs in Europe. And I have no idea what studies you're talking about for solar power impacts. Certainly there's no comparison between solar and coal, since nobody ever has to destroy an entire mountain just to keep a solar plant functional.

[Firedawg]

Well lets start here:

Rockefeller University's Jesse Ausubel, a prominent environmental advocate, has stunned other environmental activists by reporting in the July International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy, and Ecology that the use of renewable energy is wrecking the environment.

Wind power, Ausubel's study shows, is much less land-intensive than biomass, but that's not saying much. A 770 square kilometer area would produce only as much electricity as a single 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant.
A wind farm the size of Texas would be required to extract, store, and transport annual U.S. energy needs. "Every square meter of Connecticut" would have to be turned into a wind farm just to provide all of New York City's electricity demands, Ausubel notes.


Solar power is also quite a land hog, according to Ausubel. As photovoltaic cells are only 10 percent efficient and have seen no real breakthroughs in 30 years, U.S. electric consumption would require a 150,000 square kilometer area of photovoltaics--an area the size of England--plus additional land for electricity storage and retrieval.


The photovoltaic industry would have to step up its production by 600,000 times its current output to produce the same amount of power as is generated by a single 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant.


In addition to land misuse, Ausubel identifies other undesirable consequences of renewables.
Wind power produces low-frequency noise and thumps, blights landscapes, interferes with TV reception, and chops birds and bats to death; dams kill rivers; and solar power would require large areas of land be essentially "painted black" with photovoltaic cells. The infrastructure of a wind farm uses five to 10 times the amount of steel and concrete used in a 1970 vintage nuclear power plant.


The first part of Ausubel's heresy closes with a sobering assessment:
"Cheerful self-delusion about new solar and renewables since 1970 has yet to produce a single quad of the more than 90 quadrillion BTU of total energy the U.S. now yearly consumes. ... Let's stop sanctifying false and minor gods and heretically chant 'Renewables are not Green.'"

[Firedawg]

Here is Wikipedia link with benefits and negatives to nearly all types of energy production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_concerns_with_electricity_generation

A direct contradiction from above.

Certainly there's no comparison between solar and coal, since nobody ever has to destroy an entire mountain just to keep a solar plant functional. "Its (solar's) negative impact on the environment lies in the creation of the solar cells (which are made of primarily silicon and the extraction of this silicon requires the use of fossil fuels) and the storage of the energy (which usually requires Lead-Acid batteries)."

So it takes mining for the silicon to make the solar cells first. Yes mountains do in fact get destroyed in the creation of Solar power. And since a solar power plant the size of England would be needed that is a whole lot of mountains.

I am not attacking you personally, I am only posting the facts. I stand by my original statements.

[bmwgc1946]

With Coal and Petroleum accounting for 45.9 % And Natural Gas (although much Cleaner) accounting for 23.4% ( * ), I can’t say at this point charging an electric vehicle on the grid is very green. Besides climate change there is the price of growing heath issues relating to lung diseases from carbon based fuels that needs to be added to the cost of Electricity. To me hybrids are a bridge to the next generation. If the fuels can be burned cleaner then a power plant chimney and are made from algae, a net zero gains Co2 fuel. Then Hybrids are the answer to me. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p>
( * ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation)