backtop


Print 28 comment(s) - last by FITCamaro.. on May 7 at 8:13 AM

New charger standard can charge batteries in only 20 minutes

The sales electric vehicles are stagnating and in some cases actually decreasing. At the same time, consumers are purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles that use traditional gasoline engines. The Ford EcoBoost line of engines has been particularly popular with drivers looking for power and fuel economy. In fact, Ford recently had to open a third shift at its EcoBoost manufacturing plant to meet demand.
 
While traditional fuel-efficient engines are doing well, automakers and the automotive industry are working to improve electric vehicles to make them more attractive to consumers. One of the ways that the automotive industry is working together to make electric vehicles more accessible is with cooperation on a new fast-charging standard.
 
General Motors has announced that it's working together with Audi, BMW, Chrysler, Daimler, Ford, Porsche, and Volkswagen on a common fast-charging standard. The new standard would be able to charge the batteries in EV or a plug-in hybrid using either AC or DC from a single inlet. Even better than being able to use any type of charger with a single port is that the new standard could eventually be able to charge a battery pack in as little as 15 to 20 minutes.
 

[Source: General Motors]

The ability to quickly recharge battery packs could significantly increase the number of consumers interested in electric vehicles. Electric vehicles with a driving range of only 100 miles are a more attractive proposition if you can pull into a charging station and recharge the battery in 20 minutes rather than having to wait overnight.
 
The new jointly developed charging solution will be used in both the U.S. and Europe, and is called DC Fast Charging with a Combined Charging System. The SAE has chosen this combined charging system as its fast charging standard that will extend the existing Type 1 based charging solution. The final draft of the new standard will be published this summer.
 
The European Association of vehicle manufacturers has also chosen this charger as the standard interface for new vehicles in Europe beginning in 2017. 
 
The rollout of production vehicles using the new interface will begin in model year 2013.

Sources: GM, SAE



Comments     Threshold


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

The future is internal combustion
By Dorkyman on 5/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: The future is internal combustion
By Flunk on 5/4/2012 11:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
You're sadly misinformed on one point, Oil production has failed to increase over the last year. This means we are running out, slowly, but running out.

Within a few decades electric cars will begin to make more and more sense. It's good that they're developing these standards now so that they'll be ready.


RE: The future is internal combustion
By StevoLincolnite on 5/4/2012 11:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Within a few decades electric cars will begin to make more and more sense. It's good that they're developing these standards now so that they'll be ready.


But most of that electricity used to charge electric vehicles comes from coal and gas, those are also finite resources.

Plus you would need to do major reworking of the power grid to support everyone's electric vehicle needs, not to mention the extra power demands which would more than likely increase power prices too.

I think a much better option would be Hydrogen, water is plentiful, we have oceans full of the stuff!


RE: The future is internal combustion
By djc208 on 5/4/2012 12:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
But the engergy density sucks, it requires every bit as exotic a storage system as batteries to get any real range, there is no infrastructure to produce, store, or transport it, and making hydrogen from water requires electricity; more than you get back in the hydrogen you make.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's just a different storage medium than batteries. You still use it most efficiently in a fuel cell which makes electricity for the same electric motor you are using in the electric car. Your just doing a different chemical conversion than a battery does.


RE: The future is internal combustion
By StevoLincolnite on 5/4/2012 12:19:29 PM , Rating: 1
No. You can create Hydrogen via chemical reaction.

Just one of a bazillion ways to make hydrogen, clean, safe, and non-toxic when finished!

Seriously, if Hydrogen had decent backing I'm sure they could find a way to mass produce it if the consumer desire was there.


RE: The future is internal combustion
By JediJeb on 5/4/2012 7:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can create Hydrogen via chemical reaction.


One of the simple ones is Sodium plus Water

6Na + 6H2O = 6NaOH + 3H2

The problem then become what do you do with the NaOH that is left over? Sure it has industrial uses, but the amount produced to make enough H2 for vehicle fuel would be tremendous. Same thing with any other chemical reaction to produce H2, what do you do with the other product from the reaction?

If a catalyst can be found to split H2O into H2 and O2 with little energy input, then you have something that will be a major breakthrough provided it has two needed properties. First the catalyst must not be poisoned by the process, giving it a long useful lifetime, and second it must be inexpensive. So far that combination hasn't been found.


By Solandri on 5/5/2012 2:00:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
You can create Hydrogen via chemical reaction.

One of the simple ones is Sodium plus Water
6Na + 6H2O = 6NaOH + 3H2

The issue isn't the hydrogen. It's energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. For a chemical reaction to proceed, the energy on the left hand side has to exceed the energy on the right hand side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_standard_Gibb...

So for the above reaction to occur, the gibbs free energy of the compounds on the left plus whatever energy you pump in has to be greater than the gibbs free energy of the compounds on the right. In this case they happen to be, but that's because you're only looking at part of the process.

Pure sodium is highly reactive and you never find it as pure Na. It has to be manufactured. The current method is electrolysis of a salt water (NaCl) solution. The energy you put into the electrolysis gets transferred to the pure Na, which gets transferred to the H2 in the above formula.

In other words, if you produce H2 using the above formula, the energy you get from burning that H2 doesn't come from the H2. It came from the electrolysis process used to create the pure Na.

quote:
If a catalyst can be found to split H2O into H2 and O2 with little energy input

By definition catalysts don't create energy (if they did, they'd be changed in the process, which would make them reactants, not catalysts). So there is no such thing as a catalyst which can split H2O into H2 and O2 "with little energy input". The energy put in has to be equal to or greater than the energy given off when you recombine the H2 and O2 to create H2O.

That's what GP meant when he said hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's an energy storage medium. He's absolutely right. H2's gibbs free energy is high enough that it almost never exists on its own here on Earth. To create it, you have to pump energy into a different hydrogen compound which liberates the H2. When you burn the H2 to create H2O, it's that energy which you're getting back. You're just using the H2 as a battery.

TANSTAAFL. Even petroleum and natural gas are just solar energy captured and stored by ancient plants.


By mosu on 5/5/2012 5:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, the future is in batteries with a larger capacity produced with common materials( Zebra melted sodium batteries is an example). there is at least one catalyst known to men and this is chlorophyll.


By StevoLincolnite on 5/4/2012 12:23:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's just a different storage medium than batteries.


Also... All energy is merely transferred or transformed into something else, never created or destroyed... Be it heat, electricity, motion... You name it.

So really, Coal, Uranium, Wind, Solar... They're all just storage mediums.

Aka, the law of thermodynamics.


By bah12 on 5/4/2012 12:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
Oh the hydrogen misconception.

Hydrogen is not (currently) a solution, it is a energy storage mechanism pure and simple (and a piss poor one at that). Think chemical battery not fuel, you have to "charge" the battery (aka get hydrogen) by using relativly high amounts of energy that would be better used to directly provide power.

The vast majority of hydrogen today is made from natural gas (or a very small % from electrolysis). Problem is both of these methods are very inefficient. What you and other pro-hydrogen folks just don't seem to grasp is that it just doesn't make sense to do this. Here is the current process.

1. Make hydrogen from CH4 at ~80% efficency.
2. Compress it (more energy lost)
3. Run it through a fuel cell. 85% efficent if you capture ALL waste heat (40-60% if you don't)

VS.

1. Liquefy CH4
2. Burn the damn natural gas in an engine.

Not 100% efficient by any means, but a heck of a lot better than the hydrogen method.

Sorry but the best use for hydrogen as energy today is to burn the CHx fuels (aka petrol, methane, natural gas, etc.) In other words by all accounts we have a 100+ year supply of hydrogen stored neatly in ready to use packages. If we can just get over this "green" idea that burning them is "evil".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell


RE: The future is internal combustion
By Keeir on 5/4/2012 4:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But most of that electricity used to charge electric vehicles comes from coal and gas, those are also finite resources.


Yes and no.

We have several centuries left of Fossil Fuels. Coal is so important that we let billions of tons burn in the ground every year

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

But the true benefit is that you don't -have- to use Fossil Fuels anymore. Even if you happen to live in West Virginia USA, your electric car isn't tied forever to fossil fuel combustion. Hydro, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Fusion, Tidal, BioMass, AlgaeDiesel, etc are all -possible- fuel sources now.

quote:
Plus you would need to do major reworking of the power grid to support everyone's electric vehicle needs, not to mention the extra power demands which would more than likely increase power prices too.


Wow. I mean, the electric car introduction spread out over decades would be no worse than things like the TV, electric dryer, electric stove.

The History of US electric power generation is full of -decades- of double digit growth AND falling per kWh prices. Since less -total- energy is used when people use electric cars, its possible this trend may continue.

quote:
I think a much better option would be Hydrogen, water is plentiful, we have oceans full of the stuff!


First. Water has to be purifed before it can be used to make Hydrogen, and purifed water is in much shorter supply the world over than oil. But the real question is the fuel cycle:

For Hydrogen current there are four fuel cycles

1. Water -->Electr.-->Hydrogen-->Fuel Cell
2. Water -->Electr.-->Hydrogen-->Combustion
3. Natural Gas-->Reformulation-->Hydrogen-->Fuel Cell
4. Natural Gas-->Reformulation-->Hydrogen-->Combustio n

Whelp, it seems to me that either we are using Natural Gas OR Electricity mainly sourced from Natural Gas or Coal.

If we examine the #1 fuel cycle, at best with the Honda Clarity we are looking at ~1 miles per kWh of electricity consumed, with a more likely current situation being ~.8 miles per kWh. The Nissan Leaf on the other hand EPA tested ~3 miles per kWh from the Wall, and using the EIA .92 factor for transmission losses, we are getting ~2.5 miles per kWh. That's today. So with BEV we'd be able to go -3- times further for the same amount of electricity invested. Now, its possible that HFCV technology will get much more efficient. By my estimation with public data it needs to cost less than 25% of today current prices and 300% more efficient to just compete with the current BEV. Thats an improvement of 12 times cost efficieny. This of course ignores the new infrastructure that would need to be created to support the "fast" refuel function that is really the only advantage to HFCV over BEV.

For the "Hydrogen" system to work we need:
1. An efficient way to make Hydrogen from a renewable resource
2. An efficient way to transport made hydrogen
3. An efficient way to store hydrogen
4. An efficient Fuel Cell Powertrain Design for multiple load level

And once we have done 1-4, the end result will be an efficieny that might be better than what we do today with BEV/PHEV.


RE: The future is internal combustion
By Solandri on 5/5/2012 2:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the true benefit is that you don't -have- to use Fossil Fuels anymore. Even if you happen to live in West Virginia USA, your electric car isn't tied forever to fossil fuel combustion. Hydro, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Fusion, Tidal, BioMass, AlgaeDiesel, etc are all -possible- fuel sources now.

The problem is that except for hydro and in some cases nuclear (fission), all of those are substantially more expensive per Joule than fossil fuels.

Our current standard of living is based on leveraging cheap energy to increase productivity. If you increase the cost of that energy, productivity drops, and our standard of living declines. That leaves us with two choices:

- Switch away from fossil fuels towards more expensive energy sources, and live with the decreased standard of living.
- Continue to use fossil fuels and maintain our standard of living, as we research those alternative energy sources attempting to drive their cost down to match fossil fuels.

Despite my seemingly anti-renewables posts here, I'm actually for renewables. I realize fossil fuels are going to run out. I know their many downsides. I support renewables research. I even support a slight drop in our standard of living to expedite our move away from fossil fuels. What I'm against is diving headlong into renewables with zero understanding or consideration for the consequences (drop in standard of living) that would cause.


RE: The future is internal combustion
By Qapa on 5/5/2012 6:55:53 AM , Rating: 3
Just like an efficient light bulb costs more, but is supposed to have a lower TCO, so are EVs...

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/631...

Missing things:
- people realizing this
- longer ranges
- faster charging
- more widespread public charging infrastructure (w/ fast charge)

Cost is just spread around differently.
Emissions are lower.
Countries don't need to import so much.


By Jeffk464 on 5/6/2012 11:23:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, eventually even solar panels on your roof pay for themselves barring hail storm or kids hitting wild baseball. I think I heard that current wind power recoups its construction cost at about 5 years, at least under california electric prices. I think the solar panel payoff is about 10 years.


By Dorkyman on 5/4/2012 1:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're sadly misinformed on one point, Oil production has failed to increase over the last year. This means we are running out, slowly, but running out.


Don't think so. Maybe we're just reading different journals.

Oil at a $3 extraction point is certainly finite; oil supply at a $50 extraction point is enormous, and oil supply at a $100 extraction point is near-infinite.


RE: The future is internal combustion
By FaaR on 5/4/12, Rating: 0
By Jeffk464 on 5/6/2012 11:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
We will probably be able to drive ICE cars for our lifetime but the age of cheap gas and large suv's is over. Eventually we are going to have to make the switch to other power sources. PS I think a lot of the reason for hitting peak oil so fast was the rapid development of China. The western countries could have enjoyed a lot longer period of cheap oil if not for this.


Doesn't matter until cost premium improves
By zlandar on 5/4/2012 11:58:20 AM , Rating: 3
It does not make financial sense to buy an EV.

Either the cost of gas has to go much higher and/or the cost premium for EVs drops significantly.




RE: Doesn't matter until cost premium improves
By djc208 on 5/4/2012 12:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
For the most part probably true, but I would say there are cases, espeically if the maintenance is lower, which it should be.

No engine oil, transmission fluid, or fuel or emissions systems to deal with, means outside of tires, brakes (which should last longer due to regenerative braking), and suspension there's little reason to darken the door of a mechanic.

Now if something goes wrong it's probably far more expensive and far less easy for your average home or corner mechanic to fix, but that's a gamble either way.

If you can figure that into costs of ownership then the payoff period could be significantly reduced.


RE: Doesn't matter until cost premium improves
By Spuke on 5/4/2012 12:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No engine oil, transmission fluid, or fuel or emissions systems to deal with, means outside of tires, brakes (which should last longer due to regenerative braking), and suspension there's little reason to darken the door of a mechanic.
I hear this quite a bit and this generally tells me that people like yourself either have crappy cars or much older cars. Newer cars have VERY low maintenance. It's just oil changes and tires (changed tires twice....again to higher performance one's...factory one's lasted 3 years easily). I changed the brake pads to higher performance one's but they didn't need changing at all (still have the old one's cause they're still good). I JUST had my 100k maintenance (that's the major one) done and it cost $500. If you look at the maintenance schedules of newer cars you'll see there's not much that needs to be done anymore.

I've had two repairs, one was a leaky rear differential seal (that got fixed with a recall) and a thermostat (covered by the 100k warranty).


RE: Doesn't matter until cost premium improves
By Spacy on 5/4/2012 1:14:37 PM , Rating: 3
I really want to add some facts to this arguments. At night most power generation sites reduce production or even shut off completely. Big Industry that build there own Co-Gen for thermal use and supply power to the grid as a side benefit end up giving away electricity to keep the thermal needs filled. If we charge our cars at night at home for day use there well be less shutting off of power plants and boilers at night. Steady power generation saves Huge $$$ in equipment wear and less wasted fuel with restarting burners. I work in the power industry and Coal, Natural gas, Nuclear and oil plants biggest enemy for efficiency is the change in demand between daytime and night time. I support Centralized power production because a power plant is always cleaner then small internal combustion engines and you take the tailpipe emissions out of the crowded cities were we breath and place them in an environment capable of using the CO2 for food (Cement dose not grow trees and grass dose). All the power to daytime commuters using Electric Vehicles. EV may not work well for traveling between cities right now, but short trips to work and such.


By Jeffk464 on 5/6/2012 11:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
" a power plant is always cleaner then small internal combustion engines"

My Tacoma is a California Ultra Low emissions vehicle ULEV, so it might not be much worse than producing the electricity at a power plant to power an electric car.


By FITCamaro on 5/7/2012 8:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
A power plant never "shuts off".


By Qapa on 5/4/2012 9:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well, besides disagreeing, there seems to be a study now:

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/631...


The Lack of Asian Automakers
By dakotabob on 5/4/2012 10:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm concerned by the omission of Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai and other large Asian manufacturers who have a great deal of experience with hybrids, and in the case of the Leaf, full-electrics. I suspect this could pose a major problem, given the general perception that the Japanese are leading the way in electric-drive technology (correct or not).




RE: The Lack of Asian Automakers
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/4/2012 10:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they'll hop onboard. The fact that GM and VW are onboard makes it harder for Toyota and the rest to say no.


RE: The Lack of Asian Automakers
By Qapa on 5/4/2012 9:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
Another Leaf related question is: how does this differ from the current fast charge system that the Leaf always had?

Although Leaf's is 30mins, I can admit that is a "small" difference... is this a really different tech? just a different connector with the same tech? if so, why not go with Leaf's connector? Well, just wondering...


RE: The Lack of Asian Automakers
By Jeffk464 on 5/6/2012 11:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
Its not such a small difference if you are driving a long highway trip and need to stop every 100 miles for a quick boost.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Related Articles













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