backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 53 comment(s) - last by Iroh.. on Apr 17 at 8:48 AM

Perhaps Nissan will make an Infiniti hybrid to compete with Lexus
Nissan plans to "add lightness" by using Li-ion instead of NiMH

Current hybrid vehicles on the road today run on nickel-metal hydride rechargeable batteries. Nissan and NEC plan to buck the trend and adapt lithium-ion battery technology into upcoming hybrid vehicles.

"Together Nissan and NEC's engineers have addressed the key challenges of cost, performance, safety and reliability. We believe that we have a breakthrough technology: the lithium-ion battery produce we will produce," Nissan executive vice-president Carlos Tavares said.

Lithium-ion batteries are generally regarded as superior to nickel-metal hydride for higher capacities in smaller form factors. This will enable automakers to implement hybrid technology power source into a smaller and lighter package. Furthermore, weight savings afforded by lithium-ion technology will positively affect nearly all aspects of the vehicle’s characteristics.

"Co-development with Nissan has enabled a superior-class battery that we expect to spread in the market at an unmatched speed," added NEC executive VP Konosuke Kashima.

The big concern over using lithium-ion batteries in automobiles is that the battery technology is more prone to safety concerns, such as fires or explosions. Lithium-ion batteries are also generally less durable than nickel-based designs.

Nissan and NEC plan to research and develop the technology to meet safety standards and to begin production in 2009. The evenly split joint venture between the two companies involved in the development is imaginatively called “Automotive Energy Supply Corporation,” which will supply batteries for Nissan's first internally developed hybrid car planned for launch in 2010.

“The evolution of battery technology will be a deciding factor in bringing tomorrow's electric vehicles closer to reality,” Nissan Senior Vice President Minoru Shinohara said at a news conference. Shinohara added that the venture’s battery technology has twice the power of conventional batteries at half the size.

Last September, Nissan broke ties with Toyota to move away from nickel-metal hydride technology. Toyota has since then led the automotive industry in hybrid vehicle sales and has recently launched the world`s most expensive (and luxurious) hybrid. Although hybrids are met with much fanfare, most analysts believe that such vehicles will make up only 6 percent of market by 2013.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By Doormat on 4/13/2007 4:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
PHEVs are optimal IMO. If you can get up to 45MPH just on electricity, you can drive around town on electric power only, and if your car gets 350Wh/mi you can go 100 miles for $3.50 (10c/kWh). The oil industry would have a hard time competing with those numbers. You'd fill your gas tank about as often as you change your oil, and then just plug in at night.




RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By 91TTZ on 4/13/07, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 4/13/2007 5:07:15 PM , Rating: 5
> "Electric cars aren't really competing against the oil industry. Where do you think that electricity comes from?"

Not from oil. It comes from coal primarily, plus nuclear, natural gas, and hydroelectric sources.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By Doormat on 4/13/2007 5:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
Solar. With net metering, installing a 2.5kW system on your roof could provide you with enough electricity to power your car and the rest of your house as long as you dont live in Alaska or something.

A 2.5kW system would throw off about 15kWh a day (on average, throughout the year), or from my example above, 42 miles. My commute is 30 miles so I'd still have electricity left over for my house. Yea the solar part would cost about $17,000 but you can use it as long as you live in your house.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By masher2 (blog) on 4/13/2007 5:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "A 2.5kW system would throw off about 15kWh a day "

About that, assuming you don't live in a very high latitude or a particularly cloudy area. But then you have to factor in line conversion losses, coulometric charging and discharging losses (if you want power at night, that is). That's going to bring you down another 30% or so. The remaining 11kWh/day works out to about $33 of free electricity a month, assuming 10c/kWh power costs.

> "would cost about $17,000 but you can use it as long as you live in your house...."

Solar cells degrade over time, I think 15-20 years is about the maximum effective lifetime right now. And that $17,000 cost doesn't factor in installation, maintenance, or the costs of an extremely large battery array to provide power at night. So you'll wind up spending more like $30K total...all to receive a $33/month payback.

This is why you don't see solar cells on the rooftops of anyone not trying to present a green image. They've come a long way...but they're still not economical.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 4/13/2007 6:55:57 PM , Rating: 3
Here in Israel every house has a solar panel on top. But to the best of my knowledge they are only used to heat the hot water container.

quote:
Perhaps the most common manifestation of putting the sun to work in Israel are the solar water heaters that cover roof-tops all over the country. Typical domestic units consist of a 150 liter insulated storage tank and a 2 sq.m. flat panel. The latter collects solar radiation, heats the water and passes it to storage in a pumpless, gravity-driven loop. These systems operate at an annual average efficiency of approximately 50%. It is therefore easy to calculate that such a unit saves its owner some 2,000 kWh per year in electricity costs, raising the temperature of a tankful of water by approximately 30oC above its starting point on an average day - i.e. heating water to a temperature of about 50oC. This means that most days of the year there is no need to employ the electrical backup heating coil (which all storage tanks contain) in order to ensure that the water is warm enough for washing. Larger systems, usually pump- driven, are to be found on high-rise housing projects, on several kibbutzim and at a number of industrial plants around the country.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Enviro...


-------
Chillin


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By Kuroyama on 4/15/2007 3:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's not really what most people mean by "solar panel". Your "solar panel" is just a piece of metal on the roof roasting in the sun and thereby heating up water, which as you point out is an excellent way to save energy, but is not a source of electricity such as what would be needed for a plug in car.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By leexgx on 4/15/2007 7:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
yep its solar therm (should look it up realy)

thay probly cost less then £500-1000 to fit but work Very well

in hot places thay work Very well (cheap ones in the day time thay tend not to be hot at night times)
in the UK thay work as well as it only needs light not just sun, but that system fitted around here is not your commen ones that you just slap on the roof and thow some water tho it, as the more ££$$ work on an commpesson sytem and an little system on the wall that turns the pump on and off when needed to keep the water hot or warm all day and night


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By Doormat on 4/13/2007 8:35:36 PM , Rating: 5
What part of "net metering" didnt you understand? Net metering means that I can put the power back on the grid during the day and then pull it off at night for the same price. If I put 15kWh on the grid during the day, I can take it back off the grid at night and not incur any energy costs (exclusive of connection fees to the power company). That means no batteries at the house required. If anything, I'm doing the power company a favor by doing this - I'm supplying peak power wher the wholesale rates are above 10c/kWh and the base power that I'm using at night from coal and nuclear plants are closer to 4.5c/kWh. So they're getting the better side of this deal.

The 15kW amt was at the meter, after the DC->AC conversion. A 2.5kW system should put off 1.8kW before the transform at peak (and about 1.2 at minimum). And the relationship between irradiance and output is not a straight line either, so dont tell me my numbers are off.

Solar cells will last much longer than 15-20 years. The 3MW PV system I work with is warrantied for 20 years, the warranty comes into effect if the amount produced drops by more than 10% over that time span. The folks that installed it said it should last somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 years - they're seeing degredation rates of .1 and .25%/yr.

Solar cells arent on rooftops in large amounts due to the upfront cost. Thats the problem. If you can reduce the cost by either building it at the same time you build the house or reduce the amount of electrical work needing to be done (since 50% of the cost is related to labor, not parts since each 200W panel costs about $1000).


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2007 9:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
> "that means no batteries at the house required..."

You still need to pay for the cells themselves, along with an inverter and other equipment, plus maintenance and repairs. An investment that isn't going to be paid back, even if the cells last 40 years.

> "If anything, I'm doing the power company a favor "

Sure...you're just not doing your wallet a favor.

> "Net metering means that I can put the power back on the grid during the day..."

Assuming you have anything left over. During the heat of the day, most homes are drawing considerably more than 1.2-1.8kW. I certainly don't see where you feel such a system would power the average home, and have "plenty left over" to charge electric cars.

> "they're seeing degredation rates of .1 and .25%/yr."

The figure I remembered was 1%/yr. According to the CA Annual Survey of PV manufacturers, the most current figure is 0.80%/year, as of Feb 2007. (http://www.green.ca.gov/LCCA/model.htm).


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By zaphikel on 4/15/2007 7:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
An investment that isn't going to be paid back, even if the cells last 40 years.


Depends where you live ... photovoltaics rise and fall with the hours of sunlight they get and in a lot of countries you can get some form of subsidy from your government for a PV (PhotoVoltaic) installation, so your investment might very well pay off after only a few years. Your statement is pretty well worthless, as there are too many factors to be considered in this calculation.

quote:
During the heat of the day, most homes are drawing considerably more than 1.2-1.8kW


Again a statement, that is heavily depending upon your way of living (and the size of your installed PV installation). If you don't have your AC running all day and not every electric device on standby or running while you're off to work you can get much lower numbers.

quote:
According to the CA Annual Survey of PV manufacturers, the most current figure is 0.80%/year, as of Feb 2007


the 0,8%/year number is actually a worst case scenario, calculated as most manufacturers give you a 25 year guarantee on 80% of the power output of the cells. The real world numbers on average are pretty well around the 0,5%/year mark. (est. 10% loss during 20 years) - and that doesn't mean that the cells will stop working after that point... the current estimates for solar cells to finally break down are after around some 40 years of operation.

Basically even today there are circumstances which can make PV quite interesting - you might not be happy with an installation in Alaska, Siberia or in your basement, but in Hawaii or New Mexico on your rooftop it's very well worth a consideration.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By masher2 (blog) on 4/15/2007 2:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "Depends where you live ... photovoltaics rise and fall with the hours of sunlight they get"

It does depend on where you live...but no because of any difference in "hours of sunlight". Every spot on the globe averages very close to 12 hours/day taken over an entire year. The important factors are latitude (the lower the better) and climate (the less clouds the better), both of which affect atmospheric absorption.

However, I factored both these into my statements above.

> "in a lot of countries you can get some form of subsidy from your government for a PV (PhotoVoltaic) installation"

In the US, even with subsidies, the installations don't pay for themselves. I'm not familiar with the tax code of every nation in the world, but I strongly suspect this is true pretty much everywhere...which explains why PV cells see so little usage in the residential sector.

> "Your statement is pretty well worthless, as there are too many factors to be considered"

I've identified all the major factors, and backed them up with facts. PV cells do not pay for themselves. Not yet, at least...perhaps when technology improves, they will, but for now, they're not a sound economic choice.

Buy them if you want to make a political statement, or some independence from the grid. But if you buy them thinking you're going to save some money, you've made a huge mistake.


By Kuroyama on 4/15/2007 3:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
I know of some people who live in low latitudes but far from the nearest power line (very rural areas), so it's cheaper to put in a PV system then to pay to connect yourself to the electric grid. Likewise for panels used for pumping irrigation water in Africa. But of course neither are at all the same as the residential sector to which you refer, so I don't know why I'm posting this.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By zaphikel on 4/15/2007 8:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
right, the correct term would be the "solar irradiance" - which can vary wildly (http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/ )but I guess you got the point, as your reply shows. Considering this fact how can your statement
quote:
However, I factored both these into my statements above
hold true?

As I'm not from the U.S. I can't say much about the actual subsidies you get - in Germany (that's where I'm actually from) a PV-installation usually does pay off. (http://www.wuerz.com/photovoltaik/wirtschaftlichke... - sorry its German, but it carries the point, as you get 0,492 €/kWh)
Just browsing quickly through a few U.S-sites and seeing all the free programs for calculating a PV-installation, it strongly suggests that the same holds true for the USA, again depending where you live. (http://www.sunpowercorp.com/homeowners/solar_calcu... - a wild pick, but as far as I can tell a PV-installation can very well pay off, then again I'm not a US resident, so decide for yourself)

So basically I'm not sure where you got the notion that PV-installations won't pay off. It depends on quite a few factors, yes, but your statement that a PV won't pay off is simply wrong. And no, you did neither identify all the major factors nor did you back them up with any facts.

I don't know why you are so strongly biased against solar power, as it's so heavily dependent on the individual situation that it's absolute impossible to tell without a proper calculation if it's an economically sound decision or not. For the moment I get the feeling that it's actually your statements that have a heavy political bias. (whyever - do you sell nuclear plants? ;-) )


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By masher2 (blog) on 4/15/2007 10:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'm not sure where you got the notion that PV-installations won't pay off"

Then you weren't paying attention. Look back at the figures above-- a $33/month payback, against an upfront cost of $17K, plus at least $3K in installation and connection fees. That's a 50 year payback on a system that is lucky to last 40. And the situation is actually much worse, as I didn't factor in one of the largest costs, the interest on the loan required to put in the system (or if you pay cash, the lost interest on your own capital). Also, I ignored maintenance and repairs, which will increase the payback even further.

If the costs of a PV installation are different in Germany, then post them, and I'll be happy to recalculate. But remember-- the $33/m figure is based on the OP's assumption of a 15kWh/day for a 2.5kW system. You might do a bit better than that...in the Arizona desert. For most US locations (and certainly all German ones) you're going to do worse.

> "I don't know why you are so strongly biased against solar power"

I'm biased towards the truth actually. Residential PV cells are not economical at present. Fuzzy-headed wishful thinking won't change that.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By zaphikel on 4/16/2007 6:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read my post? Do so again...you'll find a link to an exemplary calculation for an installation in Germany. The most important thing is the money you get for the kWh (in case you missed it): 0,492 € (so you'll end up with some 0,6$ / kWh) - actually it's a bit more complicated, but this is the main idea, why a PV-installation can very well pay off in Germany.

Regarding the numbers of the OP: with 15kWh/day and assumed 11ct/kWh for the metering you'll end up with 46,5$/month payback... With a 17000$ upfront cost the payback is actually some 28 years - not very impressive on a first glance (even worse if you factor in your lost interest).

But then again we have absolutely no facts about the subsidies you'll get from your state for the PV-installation and which can alter things pretty radically. For example: http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/

So the bottom line obviously is: under the right circumstances a PV-installation can pay off. Just do the calculations, and you'll find out if it's a sound decision or not. I didn't say it will always pay off - but just denouncing it outright gives me the impression that some political agenda is pressed on your side

It seems your so much adored truth comes in quite a few different flavors - and obviously you prefer a different one.