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.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/2007 7:36:44 AM , Rating: 3
> "The most important thing is the money you get for the kWh (in case you missed it): 0,492 €"

Yes, that figure is 6 times the US average cost of electricity and, according to the link below, nearly 3 times the actual cost of electricity in Germany:
http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/portal/docs/PAG...

Your link also ignores interest charges, maintenance, repairs, and (given this is a site run by a PV manufacturer, not a disinterested party) most likely makes some rather optimistic assumptions about the rest of the figures as well. And finally, it ignores the hidden cost of the massive government subsidies involved...subsidies that you the taxpayer wind up paying even if you don't realize it.

> "Regarding the numbers of the OP...the payback is actually some 28 years..."

I've already shown that the OP's figures failed to include installation, connection charges, maintenance, repairs, and interest on principal. Adding even optimistic assumptions for these raises the payback to ~40 years. Looking through subsidies for CA (the most aggressive state in this regard) I don't see values large enough to offset all those other factors.

Worse, the 15kWh/d figre is also one that can only be met in a portion of the US...most areas will be somewhat below this. And your 11c/kWh figure is also 30% higher than the national average. So even that 40 year payback requires finding a site that is simultaneously a low latitude, sunny climate, and has higher-than-average electricity costs. But in the rest of the nation, the payback will be 50+ years. In an area like the Northwest Coast, which has cheap electricity and poor climate, the payback can approach 80 years...at which time the system will have needed to be replaced at least twice.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By Moishe on 4/16/2007 11:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
Using that link I would save $183/year after having put out around $13,000 to install the system (after subsidies, $20k before). Only 71 years later it could pay itself off assuming things stay the same.

I've considered solar power before and done the research. For my house it is not ideal at all. I do understand that my house is not in an ideal location, position, etc but even if you double my paltry 13% savings you're still not talking about a large enough return to make it worthwhile.

I am in North Carolina which gets a lot of sun, my house faces east/west which is not ideal (but it only improves by ~3% facing south).

I hate to say it but I've read a lot about this and so far solar has not approached affordability for most US homes. Only in certain circumstances would it make financial sense to add a solar system to a home here.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/2007 12:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "Using that link I would save $183/year...Only 71 years later it could pay itself..."

And of course that assumes the system never needs repair or maintenance. Even just paying someone to go up once a year and pressure wash the panels would cut half your savings, and double the payback period.


By Hoser McMoose on 4/16/2007 4:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again a statement, that is heavily depending upon your way of living (and the size of your installed PV installation).

A typical North American household uses between 750 and 1000kWh per month. This works out to around 25-32kWh per day. Most people would need a solar array twice as large as what was proposed just to meet their existing electrical demands without adding in the amount needed to charge an electrical (or plug-in hybrid) car.

Also, as you state, Solar is pretty location-specific, averaged throughout the course of a year the Nevada desert could easily get twice as much power from a PV array when compared to the Puget Sound region in Washington. I'm not sure what area was being assumed with the initial numbers.

The amount of power required for a car is rather variable of course, depending on how big and heavy the vehicle is, how powerful the electrical motors are, where you drive, etc. However a rough estimate of 10-15kWh for a 50 mile charge is probably quite reasonable.

So, generally speaking, for this plan to really work out and be reasonable I would guess that a 5kW system is the bare minimum you would want for a typical North American household. Certainly you would want more if it's for a two-vehicle household (which is pretty much the norm these days, especially since we're talking about people who own houses here and not people in condos or apartments).

Your payback time on the photo voltaic setup is going to be pretty bad any way you look at it. Once you factor in interest and maintenance costs you're going to have a heck of a time breaking even on cost within the useful lifetime of the panels. Even with government subsidies it's unlikely to change too much.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By Grast on 4/13/2007 5:42:53 PM , Rating: 3
So I guess that second car that almost every American owns is not going to have any electricity. Plus a 2.5KW system is useless, the average installation is about a 8KW system for around 30K after rebates from state and fed.

While I am all for solar at your home, I believe the current economics of solar makes it unreasonable and unrealistic to be install for most homes.

Good idea, but the economics of the idea do not make it in the real world. If you want electric cars, let your state allow the building more nuclear power plants.

Later...


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By Tsuwamono on 4/13/2007 6:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
Or wind farms, im from canada and we have alot of wind farms in Alberta. Not sure about how much they produce in electricity but aside from the occasional bat being killed at night because they are attracted to the sound of them they are far more environmently friendly then a Nuclear power plant.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By masher2 (blog) on 4/13/2007 8:22:44 PM , Rating: 4
One windmill is more "environmentally friendly" than a single nuclear power plant. But to equal the power output of that plant requires not a single windmill, but thousands of acres of them, comprising millions of tons of metals, concrete, and other resources.

There's no comparison...nuclear power is by far the cleanest.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By iNGEN on 4/14/2007 4:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
Digressing terribly from topic, but...

When it comes to wind farms, does no one consider the implications of the first law of thermodynamics on the environment?

Back on point, what is the difference in greenhouse gas output from the production of these cells compared to NiMH? I know the NiMH ones are brutal.


By Kuroyama on 4/15/2007 3:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wind farms only manage to collect a fraction of the energy present in the wind even on the acreage on which they lie. In fact, they are generally kept a fairly large distance from each other (think I heard 3 times the diameter of the fan) so that each windmill won't significantly cut down on the amount of wind blowing into other windmills. Hence it's unlikely they have much effect beyond their immediate vicinity.

To inject a bit of sarcasm, we can always make and dispose of the NiMH or LiIon batteries in some poor third world country, in which case if we all drove hybrids then we would in fact reduce the amount of pollution and environmental damage in our own countries. Not a good way to see it, but opinions on this forum for and against hybrids are already so resolute that there's no point in trying to carry on a serious discussion about them here.


By Doormat on 4/13/2007 8:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
The second car will have whatever electricity it needs when it pulls it off the grid.

I never said to live off the grid, I just said suppliment your consumption with solar.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By S3anister on 4/13/2007 9:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
I live in the northwest and about 67% of our energy comes from Hydroelectric dams. The Grand Coulee is a great example... Not only that but we have a projected wind power capacity of 3,800 megawatts for 2009. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic... )

The Northwest owns all your eastern and midwestern arses lololol. but siriously, it's great to live here.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By S3anister on 4/13/2007 9:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
*serious (typo lol)

But not only do we have hydroelectric and wind power, we have solar (my high school has a good deal of solar panels installed), and I don't remember if we use any Nuclear energy anymore...


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By masher2 (blog) on 4/14/2007 10:00:07 AM , Rating: 5
> "I don't remember if we use any Nuclear energy anymore... "

From the US DOE:

quote:
Washington’s lone nuclear power plant produced 9 percent of the total electricity in [the state]. In the process, it produced no CO2 emissions, no nitrous oxide emissions, no sulfuric emissions, and no headlines—all of which probably came as good news to Entergy Northwest...
Washington is still generating close to 20% of its power from coal and natural gas, a process that generates over 13 million tons of SO2, NOX, and CO2 per year. They could eliminate that by allowing another nuclear plant or two to be built...but the "environmentally minded" citizens prefer to keep pumping out the pollution.

Truth is stranger than fiction.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By Kuroyama on 4/15/2007 3:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
Washington State is still having billions of dollars spent cleaning up after DoD (or DoE?) nuclear production in their state. It's a bit hard to convince people to do more nuclear stuff when everyone knows the current mess already threatens to radiate their rivers.

> Truth is stranger than fiction.

Nevertheless, perhaps they would be better off with more nuclear power, but not likely to happen.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By masher2 (blog) on 4/15/2007 10:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
> " the current mess already threatens to radiate their rivers..."

Stuff and nonsense. You've been believing environmentalist fairy tales. The fact is, not one single person has ever been injured by commercial nuclear power in the US. Yet coal plants are directly impacting the health of millions each day.

The problem lies in the fact that a geiger counter-- or any other radiological meter-- can detect the decay of a single atom. But just because you can detect it doesn't make it dangerous. Have any idea how much radioactive thorium potassium, and even uranium is in your own backyard? The planet is covered in nuclear waste...waste left over from when Mother Nature made the planet.

There is no dangerous radiation threatening Washington's rivers...or anything else in the state.


RE: Hopefully they'll be plug-in too
By Kuroyama on 4/16/2007 12:01:57 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the GAO is considered to be relatively non-partisan:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d061018.pdf


By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/2007 7:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
From your link:
quote:
The DOE has found that [the contamination] is barely detectable because the high volume of water dilutes it...
Given we can detect radiation levels several million times lower than those dangerous to human health, I'd say that levels which are "barely detectable" are certainly no threat.


By Kuroyama on 4/16/2007 12:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
BTW, I certainly do not disagree with your assertion that nuclear is better than coal. I only suggested it improbable that Washington State of all places would approve a nuclear plant. Glad to see you understand the shortcomings of coal. I was never particularly pleased when I saw the regular coal trains passing by my place in Decatur, GA. Living in Decatur obviously indicates a liberal, but nevertheless I'd prefer nuclear power over coal (although importing LNG might be better yet).


...
By bplewis24 on 4/13/2007 4:16:33 PM , Rating: 5
Just don't let Sony manufacture the batteries ;)

Brandon




RE: ...
By Chadder007 on 4/13/2007 4:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
Oh snap...I was about to post the same exact thing. LOL


RE: ...
By glitchc on 4/13/2007 5:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
Tsk, tsk...

Some folks never give it a rest.


RE: ...
By Tsuwamono on 4/13/2007 6:17:39 PM , Rating: 3
cant help it when sony makes it as easy for us as they do lol


The Market Has Spoken
By Ringold on 4/13/2007 4:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
6% by 2013. It's spoken, and it sounds pretty clear; the masses think hybrids are a fashion statement as much as I do. :)

I thought it was more like 10% myself, but even 10% is still laughable. They'll just be flagship products, like a 8800GTX is, and the masses apparently will continue to buy the simpler, cheaper gas cars / 8800GTS.




RE: The Market Has Spoken
By VIAN on 4/13/2007 5:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Even with all the benefits the technology could offer, the acceleration it offers in non-luxury vehicles is a joke.

The reason is that they add all this extra weight to the vehicle and severely cripple it's power. In the following table, the higher the number, the slower it is.

Yaris has 22lbs/hp
Corolla has 20lbs/hp

Camry Hybrid has 20lbs/hp
Prius Hybrid has 27lbs/hp

I wonder how the Prius even makes it up a steep hill.


RE: The Market Has Spoken
By Potem on 4/13/2007 8:01:31 PM , Rating: 3
You may want to do a bit more research before commenting on acceleration.

Prius 0 to 60 MPH is 9.8 seconds according to Motortrend
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/112_04_coy...

Yaris 0 to 60 is 10.0 seconds
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0601...

Instead of looking at just lbs/hp you need to consider the torque provided by the electric engine of the Prius which is 295 lb-ft. Certainly not a speedy car but that torque should allow a Prius to climb steep hills quite well.


RE: The Market Has Spoken
By Zoomer on 4/14/2007 10:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
Any crap car can climb a hill, you don't need 10L V12s to climb any incline you'd be likely to be going over.


They need to make the push....
By daftrok on 4/15/2007 3:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
They really need to make the push to make cars as fuel efficient as possible and still make it look like a car:

1) Use Lithium Ion 2 technology. Its the same technology in notebooks; it packs twice the power but at 1/2 the size (aka a 12 cell battery the size of a 6 cell battery).

2) Make as many components out of carbon fiber and make the engine out of aluminum. Carbon fiber can shed hundreds of pounds from a vehicle and the aluminum can push it even further. Carbon fiber is expensive (nearly 5 times that of steel) but the benefits of it used in a vehicle is amazing. It weighs 1/2 as much and can take up to 12x the impact force of steel.

3) Diesel. Enough with the unleaded gasoline. I don't care if there are attributes of Diesel that not environmentally safe, but diesel is more efficient.

4) Solar panel rectangle on spoiler or top of car. This is a no-brainer. This saves up the energy used to power your vehicle for small yet important functions such as lighting, speakers and cd/radio; it would be also better to power your air conditioning with this solar panel, but that seems unlikely.




By masher2 (blog) on 4/15/2007 2:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "Solar panel rectangle on spoiler or top of car. This is a no-brainer.."

If you do the calculations, you'll find that a PV cell mounted on a vehicle generates an incredibly small amount of energy, usually not even enough to pay for the added weight and wind resistance generated by mounting it. You'd lose more than you save by doing this.


RE: They need to make the push....
By ziggo on 4/15/2007 2:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
All composites degrade over time. Its the epoxy's used. I replace my motorcycle helmet every 3 years because of this. How would you like to replace all of your body panels every 5? It is used in racing vechicles because they will be replaced/wadded within the lifespan of the material.

Carbon fiber is not the end all of materials; I get sick of continually hearing peope talk about it like its some magical material that will solve all your woes.


By theapparition on 4/16/2007 8:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'd suggest you don't go flying too soon, then, since almost all new aircraft are composite based. Just because your cheap consumer grade helmet went bad does not mean composites are bad. Epoxies are key, as you mentioned, and there are aircraft grades that last virtually forever.
Carbon fiber has tremendous benefits, and some drawbacks. Same can be said with steel or aluminum. The key is to use in the proper application. The single thing prohibiting carbon fiber from being used more is cost. If products could be mass produced, it would quickly replace steel in several applications.


2 years?
By techfuzz on 4/13/2007 4:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
I have my doubts that they'll be able to enter production within 2 years. Most of the comments I have read recently concerning Li-ion batteries in cars said that we're still a good 5-10 years away because the cost in producing and using Li-ion would double or triple the cost of the car. For example, a Honda Civic would cost $45K-$50K with Li-ion versus $15K for the gas-only model.




RE: 2 years?
By Devenish on 4/13/2007 4:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
Leaves one to wonder what the long term cost of ownership in battery replacement will be, especially those that live in hot climates.


RE: 2 years?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/13/2007 5:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well remember that, even if they start production in 2009, you're talking about a 2011-model year release. And even then, its going to be only a (very expensive) option on already-pricey high end luxury models.

We're a good 10 years away from mass-market adoptions surely.


Hobby Cars
By TimberJon on 4/13/2007 5:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
Knowing how a naturally-aspirated engine system works, or forced induction or whatever... leads you to have a hobby that you enjoy and can get results from hard work and upgrades or modifications.

In a hybrid-electric car... About the best you can do is upgrade your batteries to Hi-Cap versions, and make your motor or motors bigger and with more torque.. Plus your mods are expensive! Everything has to be precision made in a white-lab environment and electronically monitored or compatible. So you wouldnt be able to just bolt-on a CAI or supercharger.

Granted, manufacturers will follow suit and possibly provide add-ons, but at steep prices, and only when the market share hits a high percentage. Or if there is a steep and dramatic rise due to loss of, or increased prices of oil.

Palm Jumeirah sure looks nice.. but I sure wish my money wasnt going there to help build it, since I'll probably never afford to stay there a day. www.thepalm.ae
Sucker is awesome.




Cost
By Slaimus on 4/13/2007 6:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing preventing them from using Li-ion except cost. If you remember the Tesla ( http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3817 ), the vast majority of the cost was the Li-ion battery pack.




Potential Moving Bomb?
By cheetah2k on 4/16/2007 4:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
Have any of you seen what happens to a Lith Ion battery when its overcharged?

First it starts hissing.. then about 60 seconds later it bursts into flames.... KA BOOM!

While i love hybrid technology, i think we should be searching for more stable, reliable battery tech.




Batteries powered by sugar?
By Iroh on 4/17/2007 8:48:36 AM , Rating: 2
I know it's still in experimentation, but I read an article on this site recently about batteries in which an enzyme is used on sugar to produce electricity.

I don't remember the details except that in some tests it had a longer battery life than lithium batteries, and the byproduct of the enzyme on the sugar was only water.

I would like to see if this develops into a feasible power supply for vehicles.

I both enjoy and get tired of the power debates. It's sad we have not come up with solutions that are unarguably better for the environment while still providing us with similar performance results that we expect out of our power sources.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki