backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Oct 4 at 10:07 PM


Google is writing software to make plug-in hybrid vehicle recharging more efficient and less dangerous to the power grid. Partnered with Ford and Toyota, it's also looking at using plugged in hybrid vehicles as backup power storage during times of grid stress.  (Source: ETH)
Search engine giant is testing software that would manage charging of electric vehicles

It's a well known fact that the U.S. electrical grid isn't exactly up to snuff.  As it has become more strained, its age has shown and brownouts have started popping up around the country.  The sad state of the grid is holding back several expanding fields including alternative energy (our nation recently lost its largest planned wind farm due to lack of grid support) and plug-in electric vehicles.  Unfortunately, fixing the grid won't be cheap and there seems to be little enthusiasm about embarking on such an endeavor.

Until the power utilities and the federal government decide to fix this situation, we're stuck making due with the grid we have.  That's exactly where Google's new electric car initiative comes in to help.  Google, whose internet search software and other online applications made it the most dominant site on the web, is looking to write software to help plug-in EVs interface with the grid in a smarter fashion and avoid putting too much stress on it.  The technology is part of Google's diverse green grid initiative, which also includes PowerMeter technology to help homeowners monitor their personal consumption and cut their monthly power bills.

Dan Reicher, Google's director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives describes, "We are doing some preliminary work.  We have begun some work on smart charging of electric vehicles and how you would integrate large number of electric vehicles into the grid successfully.  We have done a little bit of work on the software side looking at how you would write a computer code to manage this sort of charging infrastructure"

Google first began working on the problem in 2007, using retrofitted Toyota Prius and Ford Escape gasoline-electric hybrid plug-ins.  Among the ideas Google looked at was plugging in the vehicles when they were parked, giving the grid a series of battery backups to reduce strain on it.  Electricity would be returned to vehicle before the driver hit the road again. 

Mr. Reichner says the testing has been proceeding "pretty intensely".  He describes, "One of the great things about plug-ins is this great opportunity for the first time to finally have a storage technology."

He says that great consideration must be taken to prepare for the strain on the grid before millions of electric vehicles hit the roads and plug-in for daily recharges.  He states, "We got to be careful how we manage these things.  On a hot day in July when 5 million Californians come home, you don't want them all plugging in at the same moment."

Google is looking at the possibility of turning off charging to EVs in times of peak grid demand.  Mr. Reichner describes this format, stating, "The grid operators may well be indifferent to either putting 500 megawatts of new generation on or taking 500 megawatts off.  The beauty of plug-in vehicles is that with the right software behind them, you could manage their charging."

Aside from cooking up EV solutions, Google's green initiative has invested heavily in alternative energy startups -- everything from high-altitude wind to geothermal power.  It is also cooking up a new mirror for solar farms that looks to affordably increase yields and lower the cost per kWh of solar generation.  It is also developing gas turbines that would run on solar power rather than natural gas.  The projects are all part of Google.org, the philanthropic arm of the wealthy corporation.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

decreased battery life?
By kattanna on 10/1/2009 1:29:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
giving the grid a series of battery backups to reduce strain on it. Electricity would be returned to vehicle before the driver hit the road again


im gathering from that statement that they would recharge the battery, then drain power from it back into the grid, the recharge the battery again before need?

sounds like it would dramatically shorten the life of the battery from excessive recharge cycles, and increase the power bill from the multiple recharges.

doesnt sounds like a very good idea to me.




RE: decreased battery life?
By AEvangel on 10/1/2009 1:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Unless when you send it back into the Grid you are compensated thus offsetting the costs of the charge in the first place, but you would still have the additional strain on the batteries.

IMHO if people were to spend half as much energy and time on improving public transit then you wouldn't to develop the plug in hybrid.


RE: decreased battery life?
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2009 1:43:40 PM , Rating: 3
How many times does it have to be said, public transit isn't worthwhile in many areas of the US because the population density isn't there to support it. There's a bus system in most US cities, but it supports a small portion of the population there. And I'm sure in many places, its a city run system operated at a loss, subsidized with taxpayer funds.


RE: decreased battery life?
By therealnickdanger on 10/1/2009 2:18:23 PM , Rating: 3
Metro Transit of Minnesota currently generates about 35% from rider fares (this number may be artificially higher than reality) and it is operating at roughly 19% capacity (buses and trains are only 19% full). Ridership increased during the $4 gas season, but tapered back down since then. At least around here, in the largest and most dense metropolitan area of Minnesota, public transit is money pit. They keep expanding the system, but there's not enough demand... but if you argue with the pro-transit pundits, then you're instantly labeled as being fooled by "Big Oil" or you're racist (even though ridership is predominantly white Scandinavians).

Create a cause and people will be drawn to it. Eliminate a cause and the people will create a new one.


By therealnickdanger on 10/1/2009 2:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
"35% of its budget" is what I meant to say. The rest is supported by other state and federal taxes.


RE: decreased battery life?
By andrinoaa on 10/1/2009 6:34:32 PM , Rating: 3
sounds like a road system to me.
"And I'm sure in many places, its a city run system operated at a loss, subsidized with taxpayer funds. "


RE: decreased battery life?
By Keeir on 10/1/2009 6:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
True. But a Road System provides significant public ROI. How? Through Capacity.

In reading proposal studies I can not find online, alot of public transit system cost -ALOT- to provide little benifit, and then only at prescribed times. A road system can cost alot to build and maintain, but a single mile of 4 lane road (2 in each way). The factors I have seen are often 10 times the initial cost per daily use for the public transit versus roads. Its usually best to aim for dual use systems. Some of the Rail systems (rather than light rail) get much better cost/use through using pre-existing structure.


RE: decreased battery life?
By mindless1 on 10/3/2009 3:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
What you're suggesting would be important if people were trees, if they had real roots so they couldn't move to where the infrastructure supports their needs.

People who choose to live away from modern conveniences have fewer conveniences? Really?

Granted it's chicken and egg, you won't have more bus routes till there are enough passengers to make it profitable, but it's not quite true that they are operated at a loss through subsidized tax funds, the bus allows many to have a taxable income by being employed, it is not as though this is actually a loss of some kind.


RE: decreased battery life?
By Samus on 10/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: decreased battery life?
By ChronoReverse on 10/1/2009 5:32:51 PM , Rating: 3
Erm, the main battery pack of the Prius uses NiMH batteries. Some other hybrids and electrics may be using Li-Ion as well.


RE: decreased battery life?
By Alexvrb on 10/2/2009 11:53:03 PM , Rating: 1
The voltage regulator does not shut the alternator on/off. Modern alternators are variable load, certainly, with "smarter" built-in VRs that might be connected to a sensor or onboard computer that helps it adjust output based on load/RPMs/battery condition. I'm not sure of any auto alternators that rapidly drop and resume DC voltage. Hook a digital voltmeter up... does it dance between approx ~12.5 and ~14 volts rapidly? Nope.

Regardless, typical "starting" lead-acid batteries found in most automobiles don't mind expending power briefly, and then recovering. So dipping from 100% capacity to 95% and then back would not be a big deal. But they prefer being kept as close to 100% as possible. Repeatedly deep-discharging (down to say, 20%) a typical starting battery will rapidly shorten its lifespan and capacity.

There are "deep cycle" lead acid batteries that can stand a lot more deep discharge cycles (though they provide less instant power). However, even true deep cycle batteries (Deka, Concorde) would probably only last a couple of years if they were getting heavily discharged twice a day (once from driving, and once from the grid) on a daily basis. Though you could probably go longer if you get quality deep cycle AGM batteries.

Too bad lead acid batteries are also heavy as crap.


RE: decreased battery life?
By mindless1 on 10/3/2009 4:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
The regulator doesn't "shut it off" in the sense it still spins, but it does open and close the windings in response to battery voltage.

Most are not truely variable, nothing as exotic as computer control and load/RPM/battery condition, it simply engages (complete the circuit) on the windings to maintain the target voltage in the system and opens them, reducing drag inherently, when voltage is high enough.

There is good reason why alternators are this basic, because there's no need for more, the engine computer handles RPM maintenance itself and there need not be dependence between these two systems, the added complexity would just increase cost and failure rate.


RE: decreased battery life?
By Alexvrb on 10/4/2009 2:02:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is good reason why alternators are this basic, because there's no need for more , the engine computer handles RPM maintenance itself and there need not be dependence between these two systems , the added complexity would just increase cost and failure rate.

Fuel efficiency.

Older designs are really simple. They try to maintain a good voltage, and yes as a result drag varies with load, but they're not very efficient. Modern designs with an EVR often have PCM involvement. Again they don't shut off and on (and don't have to re-energize as a result), but they can vary output to a greater degree by more intelligently controlling the strength of the field. Perhaps that's what he meant. They're much more efficient.

Even newer alternators are part of a more complicated system. They may even use in-line sensors to directly monitor battery current and condition.

http://delphi.com/manufacturers/auto/sensors/et/iv...

"Battery management reduces fuel consumption when the IVT/Battery management system is equipped with alternator voltage output control as part of the system."


RE: decreased battery life?
By Alexvrb on 10/4/2009 2:22:52 AM , Rating: 2
RE: decreased battery life?
By mindless1 on 10/4/2009 10:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
This is not how most automobile battery charging systems are designed, that it exists doesn't mean manufacturers are using them in typical automobiles for obvious reasons, that

A) The fuel economy difference isn't much relative to other changes

B) Implementing it is more expensive than not.

C) They don't care if your car battery has the longest life possible.

D) A lot of the reading on your links is marketing not science. Battery voltage is an indicator of charge state, opening windings as I mentioned also increases fuel economy and battery life.

E) What they have not done is guarantee any improvements, "buy our product and be great" is not the same as "buy our product and if your battery doesn't last 30% longer we'll pay for the new one".

Know what would make car batteries last longer? Solar trickle charging so they stay at peak charge during off/discharge periods, decreasing the plate degradation as much as possible during each cold engine start.


RE: decreased battery life?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/1/2009 8:26:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
IMHO if people were to spend half as much energy and time on improving public transit then you wouldn't to develop the plug in hybrid.


Up the road in Charlotte NC they were adamant that the city needed "light rail".

Years and 10 billion dollars later, there is a train that goes about 5 miles and that nobody rides.

Yeah let me tell ya, public transit is WAY more efficient...


RE: decreased battery life?
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2009 1:41:35 PM , Rating: 5
There's also no guarantee that the power would be returned. It's not impossible that you would choose to go for a drive just after the grid had just used some of your battery power.

And yes I sure as hell wouldn't want battery power being taken from my cars battery without my consent.

Props to Google for wanting to write code to make charging more efficient. But using hybrids or electric vehicles as a battery backup for the nation is retarded.


RE: decreased battery life?
By adiposity on 10/1/2009 1:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
He's got a point.


RE: decreased battery life?
By omnicronx on 10/1/2009 2:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree, and for some reason the thought of AC->DC, DC->AC and AC->DC again does not sit to well with me.. (unless I am missing something here)


RE: decreased battery life?
By troysavary on 10/1/2009 2:35:03 PM , Rating: 5
What, you expected the car that you paid for with your money, charged with the electricity you paid for with your money, to be available when you need it?

That's just crazy talk. What are you, some greedy capitalist?


RE: decreased battery life?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/1/2009 3:51:55 PM , Rating: 5
That's why we need a "Smart Grid".

What's a smart grid, you ask ? It's when the Government decides who/when/and how much power you get.


RE: decreased battery life?
By kattanna on 10/1/2009 4:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's a smart grid, you ask ? It's when the Government decides who/when/and how much power you get.


and the scary thing is, from some of the proposed setups i have read about, they would be able to do just that.. but it would be the local power utility that could do that controlling, which is even scarier.

i mean name me ONE network where you and i can remotely connect to and do things that can't be hacked?

i can completely imagine some hacker totally screwing with some people that have a smart home on a smart grid by turning on their lights in the middle of the night, or shutting off power while in the middle of a big game..

LOL man.. that last one would cause some people to flip out



RE: decreased battery life?
By trisct on 10/1/2009 3:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely Google is talking about people defining windows when they aren't likely to drive around much, and only allowing charge to be drawn from the car at those times. That is probably the best they can offer.


RE: decreased battery life?
By Bruneauinfo on 10/1/2009 7:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
the software probably compensates for your driving habits. if you're a home for the evening type of driver after work then you get the 'battery-backup' treatment. if you're more of a spontaneous driver then the batteries are filled quickly and kept full.

several hundred-thousand cars with 1% of battery capacity available to handle short power surges would probably help the situation an appreciable amount and at the same time not be too noticeable to the drivers should they require their cars the moment a power surge ends. during the surge in that time frame perhaps the power plants would be given more time to knock their power production up a few notches to compensate versus having no buffer at all. google's software would help facilitate this.


Grid, solar, and storage
By ssubra2000 on 10/1/2009 2:18:30 PM , Rating: 1
Some thoughts:

1) Near-Term: Provide incentives to employers to build charging stations at the workplace (this should take care of most vehicles which are parked the entire day; those that need to drive around during the workday could go in for hybrids). Utilities can meet the extra demand by using solar/other renewables for peak power during the day.

2) Medium-term: Individuals add solar panels to their homes and have some form of fuel cell or other power storage capabilities. I know things are not there yet...but this seems to be a matter of "when" not "if". Of course, this would automatically reduce the pressure on the grid.




RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By GruntboyX on 10/1/2009 2:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) Medium-term: Individuals add solar panels to their homes and have some form of fuel cell or other power storage capabilities. I know things are not there yet...but this seems to be a matter of "when" not "if". Of course, this would automatically reduce the pressure on the grid.


Problem is that solar power is only a viable solution in certain geographic locations of the country. (mainly south west). Other parts of the country have too many obstructions or just don't get enough daylight to get peak operating power. Same problem with Wind.

The poor south east is just hosed because they are heavily wooded and don't have direct access to the jet-stream. There only option is nuclear.


RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By ssubra2000 on 10/1/2009 2:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Problem is that solar power is only a viable solution in certain geographic locations of the country.


Doesn't seem to be true...I am going by the installations in Germany...and the recent Feed-in-Tariffs instituted by Ontario, Canada. There is real money being spent on these installations and I am sure they would have done some level of due diligence to make sure there is sufficient ROI.

And, there are clear roadmaps to further increase solar PV efficiencies as well. So I am optimistic.


RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By Keeir on 10/1/2009 3:23:14 PM , Rating: 5
He ment economically viable as a reasonable change from current siutation.

In the end, electricity is electricity. There is nothing inheriently superior about solar electricity (for the -uses- of electricity). Coal electricity can be produced at whole sale costs below .04 USD per kWh AND make a profit. This leads to retail prices below .08 USD per kWH. Solar in even ideal locations is hard to make for less than 0.15 USD per kWH Wholesale. End price for consumers would be around 0.20 USD kWH in ideal conditions. In areas such as the American South East, its hard to find ideal conditions without destroying forest.

Germany is another non-ideal location
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_German...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariffs_in_Ge...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Ener...

Right now, Solar is Germany gets a WholeSale price of "33-43 c/kWh" In USD thats .5 to .6 USD per kWH! Which doesn't include the cost of buffering the grid (peak solar not the same times as peak electrical demand, ALA Snowstorm) or even having created a transmission grid. Or really anything else. German law makes it so -anyone- can feed into the grid and the utility -must- pay the appopriate price. The Utilities is Germany are even more expensive than US run Utilities, and the bills reflect this...

Germany has alot of Solar because they are willing to pay rates well above 5 times the rate coal power can be produced at...

In fact, the US market has Wholesale electrical prices of
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energ...
less than 0.04 USD per kWh. Around 0.10% the cost of the German Solar Power. In areas of constant electrical supply, Retail prices are below 0.10 USD per kWh, certainly Nuclear Power in the US could displace coal and create less than .20 USD per kWH prices... less than half of Solar. Therefore, Solar is not really economically viable.


RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2009 5:07:59 PM , Rating: 3
Good post.

And the sad thing is that we have people in office who don't like how cheap our power is because it gives us the freedom to use it as we please. Their solution for things is "use less" not "make more". While yes there is a point of absurdity, I see no problem with someone wanting to use large amounts of energy to run a server farm in their closet, keep their home at 60 degrees, or leave every light bulb on 24/7. You're paying for it and it's your money to spend (unless you talk to idiots like Cass Sunstein who view your money as belonging to the government).


RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By foolsgambit11 on 10/1/2009 6:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but to a point. I see no problem with people using as much electricity as they care to, as long as they really do pay to full price for it. As it is, they're only paying the market rate, which is artificially lowered due to the government handing out free 'pollution passes' to coal power plants. Take away the government subsidy of free pollution, and the cost of 'dirty' fuels would go up - though probably not even as high as solar.

Everybody loves getting free stuff. The problem is, some people tend to forget that just because something is free now doesn't mean it's an entitlement for eternity.

And the second issue is, while you should be able to buy as much as you want, this is only if the power company wants to sell the power to you. They should have the right to refuse service to anyone, right? This is capitalism, after all. And just like Amazon.com limited the number of PS3 Slims one person could buy when they came out, if the power company wants to limit the amout of electricity you can buy, they can. And when demand outstrips supply, they'll want to limit high-users' supply first, because that's best for business. So high-users should probably plan on augmenting their power supplies with home-generated power.


RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By omnicronx on 10/1/2009 9:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
Thats a pretty stupid comment, as though using as much power as you would like is a right. Unless current infrastructure is changed, don't be surprised when you have to find that out the hard way.. Just ask Californians.. Power is shared, its not given out to those willing to pay more..


RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By ssubra2000 on 10/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By Keeir on 10/1/2009 6:28:51 PM , Rating: 5
Sigh

So wrong so very wrong

#1.) Links. Simply stating something like $300 billion world wide for fossil fuels is not really great. But even if this was true,

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

Works out to be roughly 0.03 cents per kWH consumed, around roughly 0.10 cents per kWh produced. Still a rate 5 times less than that German Solar Subsidy.

I bet those reports include things -not- included in the Solar Subsidy. A true subsidy report for Solar including many of those same factors would put its rate far higher than ~0.55 USD per kWH.

#2.) Wind and Solar are highly variable. In fact, German plants only average ~11% produced power versus nameplate capacity. Unforuntely, peak power in the United States occures in the late afternoon (4-6). Peak power from Solar typically occurs in the early afternoon (1-3). Storing energy for 1-2 hours in expensive and does result in additional charges in comparison to natural gas, a system that can respond to demand.

#3.) Every single month we hear about how this or that will reduce the cost of Solar to "low low levels" since 1970 (and even earlier). The truth? Solar still needs to be reduced 50%-75% in IDEAL locations and 90%+ in non-ideal locations to be truely compeditive with fossil fuels.

#4.) Your certainly right. Coal should be replaced. With Nuclear. Why? Nuclear represents a 2 fold increase in cost with yesterday's technology. Not a 5 fold with tomarrows!

However, Coal is mainly governed by the cost of extraction. Coal is such a cheap good that millions of pounts disappear every year in underground fires, or because its just not worth it to extract more.

#5.) If you won't live near a Nuclear Plant, please don't use Granite in your house, eat Bananas or live near a Mountain Range. Also note, never have an X-Ray or use a Smoke Detector either

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact...

Many of these objects emit so much radiation, they set off sensors for lightly concealed nuclear material (Ie, smuggled Dirty Bomb).

I will gladly live -in- a Nuclear Plant provided it follows US regulations. Safety is always a concern, but a well-maintained Nuclear Plant is a less significant threat than poorly maintained Windmills or Solar Plants.

In Conclusion, I think its a good idea to move away from Fossil Fuels to more advances power sources. But it must be done smartly to avoid investing in poor technology at high prices "just to do it". There is a real-life cost in suffering to increase electrical prices. Germany's current method of 0.50 cents per kWh for Solar is -crazy- and the primary reason for the large growth of the sector. They get much much much better returns on Wind power. Solar is just "fancy and popular". Like spending 100,000 on a Telsa Model S rather than buying 5 Insights.


RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By Keeir on 10/1/2009 6:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Works out to be roughly 0.03 cents per kWH consumed, around roughly 0.10 cents per kWh produced. Still a rate 5 times less than that German Solar Subsidy.


Oops. Math Error. 300 billion = 3 x 10^13 US cents not 3 x 10^12. In this case, Fossil Fuel Subsidies are in the range of 0.003 USD (0.3 cents) per kWh consumed and 0.01 USD per kWH. A rate ~ 50 times less than the Feed-in-Rate for German Solar Power.


RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By kattanna on 10/2/2009 10:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there is no free lunch anymore and these industries have to take into account the costs for their carbon emissions


i'd like to direct you to this little article

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scan...


RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By omnicronx on 10/1/2009 2:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
The jet stream is thousands of feet in the air.. it has absolutely no effect on ground level wind. (at least not in the way you speak of it)

Personally I think solar energy is a big waste of time unless other sources of power like nuclear are not feasible (like in the desert where there is no water). Enviro's always praise alternative power sources like solar, but I've seen small solar installations that only produce a small amount of power, yet take up 10-15 football fields worth of space. I can just imagine what large scale ones would look like, and how that would effect the environment. Nuclear is quite clean, I would rather live near a plant than a solar/wind farm.


RE: Grid, solar, and storage
By Keeir on 10/1/2009 3:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Even Solar can use large quanities of water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/business/energy-...


Band Aids anyone?
By rcc on 10/1/2009 1:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
So once again someone is looking at applying a whole stack of band-aids to a problem, rather than getting it fixed. Just a couple of problems that come to mind.

1) You get home from work, plugin in your car so you have power to go do something that evening, and oops, my Google software won't let my car charge yet. Small but annoying problem in a plugin hybrid. A major PITA in an EV.

2) You are home for the day, vacation, sick, etc. And get called in to work unexpectedly. You run out to your trusty EV, just in time to find out that they've used 3/4 off your battery to supplement grid power that day.

Seems to me that fixing problems is always better than trying to fix symptoms.




RE: Band Aids anyone?
By AEvangel on 10/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Band Aids anyone?
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2009 1:46:41 PM , Rating: 3
/facepalm


RE: Band Aids anyone?
By GruntboyX on 10/1/2009 2:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
or they will start a whole new unnecessary one with all their lies in Iran.


Hey i know you have been stoned since last November, but Bush left office in January.



Grid
By Goty on 10/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Grid
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2009 1:44:27 PM , Rating: 4
Probably.


By GruntboyX on 10/1/2009 1:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
giving the grid a series of battery backups to reduce strain on it. Electricity would be returned to vehicle before the driver hit the road again


Am i the only one seeing the problem with this? The car stores the power in a battery. Battery is DC. How is this going to translate to the grid? Seems like unnecessary cost added to the vehicle.

Ok... so you could easily work around it by charging the car with DC power and the charging station would also function as a power inverter. This opens it up to tamper by simply inserting a Diode into the charging harness to prevent current from flowing the other way.

I just see this as being a really complex and expensive solution. Seems easier to just build more power plants to me.

Also all this "software" will just interfere with the usability of the electric car. First time someone goes to drive their car and the battery is dead because it was used as peaking generator, will definitely cause some backlash. May even kill the adoption of the electric car.




Cart before the horse
By Ammohunt on 10/1/2009 2:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
Since the primary goal of electric cars is to reduce carbon dioxide then perhaps first we should build more nuclear plants and reduce coal,oil and natrual gas power plants otherwise we are just robbing peter to pay paul.




Waste of energy
By kfonda on 10/1/2009 4:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
What about the fact that charging a battery is not 100% efficient. The AC->DC then DC->AC then AC->DC conversions will waste a ridiculous amount of energy.




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki