I didn't put this in alt fuels because they don't seem to get much action. Please feel free to move it, if that's the policy.

I was wondering about how really efficient the Plug in Hybrids might be, so I noodled up the following

Reference
740 watts per HP
0.5 lbs/hr per hp (gasoline)
6 lbs/gallon of gas

Conditions
25 mpg
50 mph for one hour per day

Calculations
2 gallons used for 50 miles of driving
24 horsepower applied for one hour (2 gallons x 6 lbs *2 hp/lb)
17760 watthours/50miles
17.76 kwhrs/50mi
106.56 kwhrs for 300 mi /week (sleep on Sunday)
426.24 kwhrs/mo ( 4 week month)

Cost
$38.36 electricity @.09/kwhr
$168.00 48 gallons of gas @ 3.50

This is pretty simplistic, but interesting. I've seen the 0.5lb/hr per hp a few places, and I think it's a good approximation.

It does assume that the charging is 100% efficient -- which it is not, but I don't think that the difference would be major.

The other part of the story, however, is the power grid. I use somewhere between 500- 800kwh/mo depending on if I have the A/C on. I think those numbers are somewhat typical. Adding another 400+kwh would represent a 30-50% increase in demand, if there were a big increase in the plug in hybrids. That's fairly significant. It would be even more serious if some larger vehicles/or more driving were added.

Just my thoughts -- feel free to pick apart my data or calcs.

ford2go

 

In the paper today, utilities worried people will charge them during the day. OK at night, but daytime loads already too high.

There is no free lunch to be had here, methinks....

 

You need to take your calculations farther. A car the comparable size of the hybrid would get between 30-35 MPG (Civic, Corolla, etc) and would be $5,000 or more cheaper. The payback to get back to even would be several years. In addition, cold weather, air conditioning, heaters, power steering, high powered sterios, hills and other accessories makes the hybrid far less efficient and that would make the payback period far longer.

I don't think we're anywhere near the point that the people are willing to give up their bells and whistles with a much higher car payment to save a moderate amount of money. I also suspect the pollution emitted to make the electricity, batteries and other hybrid only equipment far exceeds the pollution emitted by the gasoline engines. Battery manufacturing is one of the most polluting industries out there as well as the coal burning power plants.

 

Most methods of calculating the return on investment (ROI) have electrics and hybrid electrics at a distinct disadvantage. The cost of making the electricity is one thing, the value of the energy after transmission is another. Most transmissions costs are 10-15% of the energy expended to make the energy. This means that the same power is already cut by that much, then you are storing it in a battery (as good and advanced as they are, they aren't there yet), which looses more energy. And then converting it into the vehicle motion usage... Sheesh! No wonder people stopped buying electric cars. And as for Hybrid electrics...they cost even more per mile to own/operate, save even less. So the purported ROI is far less, and takes even more time. Personal opinion, don't buy the Hybrid just yet as the ROI may not happen apples to apples. And for sure, don't buy an electric hybrid/electric car, once again apples to apples. And like osbornk just stated, the power grid is about overcome already. We can not build power plants, generating stations, wind power generation devices fast enough. Demand is going to start to drive up prices real quick.

 

Plug in electric cars is about as good of an idea as ethanol from corn. With ethanol, the theory we might save a little with ethanol use is far offset by the additional cost of food. With the plug in electrics, the amount we might save to get around in our electric cars will be far more than offset by the increase in electricity prices that we use for everything else. Ain't no free lunch.

 

I hear a lot of negativity, and no ideas. At least someone is trying.

It seems like every time something is tried, there are 100 people saying how much it costs and how it's not feasible. But things get cheaper after they have been in production for a while.

Most ulitities only run at like 60% at night and have plenty of power to spare. The efficiency of power plants is far better than internal combustion engines, so you make up a lot there.

We have had our free lunch and that's cheap oil. It's over and if you think there's going to be one magic bullet to solve the problem, then you're nuts. It's going to take a combination of solutions to actually solve the problem.

Mike

 

The thing about electric cars is that they allow for multiple energy sources, unlike internal-combustion cars. IC cars run on fossil fuel. Period. There is no soon-to-be-implemented viable alternative. Ethanol, hydrogen, CNG, LPG--all of those are small potatoes and can't come close to replacing the billions of gallons of fossil fuel we use each year. With electricity, it can be produced using coal, hydro, NUCLEAR (this is a HUGE, untapped source in this country due to irrational fears about the spent fuel) and, to a lesser extent, solar, wind, oceanic currents and other "piddle-power" sources. Let the power plants do large scale (and therefore, far more efficient) conversion of natural resources (nuclear, coal, etc) to a usable medium (electricity).

Jason

 

i wouldn't really call fears of nuclear irrational.

 

Electricity is the easiest fuel to make at home. Solar cells on the roof of your home would take a few years to pay off, but after that you are living at a much lower cost and without worrying about fluctuations in the "fair market value" of the fuel.

Would 200-400 miles be good enough range for an electric pickup?

Trucks


Also, don't forget the increased reliability that electric cars and trucks have over their internal combustion counterparts. They do not have a fixed lifespan and there is no regular parts that need replacing because there is no engine to maintain. Transmission and other drivetrain parts are still there usually.

If you want, you can easily dismiss the electric, or plug in hybrid as something that will not work on a grand scale but frankly, what we have right now isn't that great either.

 

First off, I will NEVER drive an electric car, not of my own choosing. (First off, I prefer ot drive trucks, safer, secondly, I view cars as having no purpose other than as a toy, need to carry people? use a van. Need to haul/tow? Use a truck. Want best gas mileage, use a motorcycle. So a car is a toy, and a toy is meant to be fun, hence I love my classic muscle cars, and the newer muscle cars comin out as well)

But, supposing that down the road there is a viable full/mostly eletric car or passenger van where I have a need for on a regular basis, and it provides my performance requirements, I would possibly drive one, SO LONG as my power source is either
A) Solar (I do plan on covering my roof with panels once I get a place)
B) Wind
C) Nuclear (Since I am planning on living west/northwest of Little Rock Arkansas, there is a good chance of this already)

I will not add something extra like an electric car on a coal electric grid....it does more enviromental harm than running a gasser. I do NOT like hydroelectric power, I LOVe my waterways, I grew up on water, my kids will grow up on water, dams screw stuff up. (now the wave generator things for open ocean are not a bad idea in moderation)

For me personally, I think the current most viable option is actually bio-diesel. That is something I will be looking more into once I get out of college. Another option is a diesel manufactoring process that a nanosystems tech engineer (first person in the WORLD with a nano tech degree this guy is) has a patent on and they are starting to scale up production. Hoping to have a full scale refinery in the area within 5 years, it is something I would use as well. (They have a current estimated production of about 1.50/gallon on diesel counting in construction and upkeep of a refinery, transportation and total infrastructure cost, oh, and this diesel more than meets the future projected sulfur requirements...because it has no sulfur in it, but it runs in any typical diesel/turbocharged diesel engine)

 

Care to expound on that?

Consider that even the U.S.'s worst nuclear accident was Three Mile Island--where the safety systems WORKED--no one was killed or significantly harmed. The current designs for nuclear reactors are far better than those, too.

How many workers die in coal mining accidents every year?

Jason

 

Jimmy Dean, if you don't mind my asking, what performance would an EV need before you would consider driving one? Just curious.

 

expound? sure, i said it is not irrational to put out the potential risks of nuclear power.

coal miners volunteer for the job, no one forces them to do it and when and accident happens, it is only the coal miners that are affected.

when a nuclear accident happens, it effects everyone in the surrounding area and the surrounding world. everyone got a dose of chernobyl, can you say bioaccumulation?

the potential effects of nuclear power is staggering, to say we now need to pump more and more of them out is dooming the quality control standard that comes from small scale operations. as mentioned in the toyota thread and which holds true, the larger you are, the more difficult it is to maintain quality.

plus its not like you see radiation and it is just easy to clean up. if there is an accident, people will receive lethal doses before anyone is ever able to activate any warning system. then the contaminated area is all but worthless but does make a nice wildlife refuge, as long as you don't eat anything that comes out of it and the animals don't mind suffering.

besides all those concerns, please tell me, where in the world do you think we get the fuel from? in america? if you think that then think again. once again, we are doing nothing other than shifting our dependency from one area to another.

 

There is no free lunch. The transmission of electricity costs is what kills the plug in for the most part. That, and the batter charger losses. And loss in storage...the battery itself.

I will admit there have been some advances in batteries, but nowhere near enough to make up the 10-15% loss up front in the transmission of energy from the power plant to the user. The magic bullet is to use energy wisely. If your not using it, turn it off! How many people do you know just sit in autoteller lines, fast food lines, any others you can think of. Letting the engine idle. Shut it off. Save a little. I do. It's negligible for me personally, but if the entire nation did that it would be something. Same for lights, electronic equipment, battery chargers and transformers. Heck, some people leave their computers on all the time. How dumb! Turn it off!

There is an old saying, "Waste not, want not."
It means, if you don't waste what you have, you will enough later.

 

No not irrational at all...but most people are wholly misinformed about the dangers and our ability to contain them. That doesn't help the process at all. (not saying this is you)

I was anti-nuke until I read "Power to Save the World" by Gwyneth Cravens. She was an anti-nuke activist who took a (nuclear engineer) friends suggestion to research the whole industry, from uranium mines to reactors to people working on waste disposal. He got her access to a lot of places...well, look, just read it and make up your own mind.

Former 'No Nukes' Protester: Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Power

I read it to hone my arguments against nuclear power, and now I'm a cautious convert.