backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on May 15 at 1:55 AM

First time eDrive and xDrive tech has been combined in one vehicle

BMW has unveiled the Concept X5 eDrive, which will be showcased at the New York International Auto Show. Although the vehicle is labeled as a concept, it’s a dead ringer for the production plug-in hybrid version of BMW’s popular crossover that it plans to bring to market sometime within the next year or two.
 
The hybrid drive system gets its primary motivation from a 245hp turbocharged 4-cylinder engine. That gas engine is combined with a 95hp/184 lb-ft electric motor developed by the BMW Group. Power for the electric motor comes from a lithium-ion battery pack (which is mounted under the cargo area) that can charge from any wall outlet.
 
The Concept X5 eDrive can drive on electricity alone for up to 20 miles at speeds up to 75 mph. BMW says that the car will have an average fuel consumption of over 74.3 mpg in the EU testing cycle (which means we’ll likely see less than half of that quoted figure under EPA guidelines). BMW says that the X5 concept can reach 62mph in under 7-seconds.

 
The Concept X5 eDrive is the first from BMW that uses its xDrive all-wheel-drive system paired with eDrive hybrid technology.
 
The concept also has a ConnectedDrive system that helps plan routes and lists the location of charging stations on the GPS map. This allows the driver to find a charging station when they are around town in electric mode.

Source: BMW



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Tesla!
By EricMartello on 4/22/2014 5:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
One thing worth adding to this discussion is the efficiency of electrical generation. In the US most electricity is generated by coal-fired plants, followed by nuclear.

Here's a brief rundown of electrical generation efficiency by power plant type:

Recirculated Natural Gas Turbine - up to 58%
Coal Steam Turbine - 39-47%
Standard Natural Gas Turbine - up to 39%
Fuel-Oil Steam Turbine - 38-44%
Wind Turbine - up to 35%
Nuclear (Fission) - 33-36%
Geothermal - 15%
Solar - up to 15%

Based on America's typical power plant type (coal), you're getting about 40% efficiency in generation, while 60% is waste heat.

For you to get 1 kW/h out of your outlet, 2.5 kW/h of electricity must be generated, PLUS there are transmission losses which are in the 6% range on average in the US, meaning that the power company must generate 2.7 kW/h from the power company when you use 1 kW/h.

So knowing this, charging your 85 kW/h battery pack assuming a 90% efficiency means 94 kW/h. Since each kW/h you use requires 2.7 kW/h to be generated, you are effectively using 254 kW/h to charge the battery pack.

This works out to a net efficiency of about 1 kW/h per mile.

It takes about 5 kW/h to refine a gallon of petroleum into gasoline. If you add this to the 33.6 kW/h figure, you have 38.6 kW/h of energy for a gallon of gasoline.

At 30 miles per gallon, you're using 1.29 kW/h per mile...but there are plenty of gasoline-driven cars that can do 40 MPG, which brings it down to 0.97 kW/h per mile.

The point I'm making here is that when the entire "chain" of energy is considered, you are really not doing any better with the electric car than you are with the gas car - and the gas car is far more practical.

Side Note:
------------
The US has an abundance of natural gas, yet obama and liberals constantly try to oppose efforts to access this gas, siding with environmental wackos that love making baseless, unscientific claims.

A recirculated NG plant is one of the most efficient ways to generate electricity. If fracking was "unleashed" in America, it would create thousands of jobs while simultaneously lowering energy costs across the board. It would also reduce the emissions that are often cited as being harmful (although there is no evidence to support this claim).

All that talk about "sustainability" and "energy independence" coming from anyone on the left is a load of horsesh1t - they're more fixated on fake problems like global warming and profiting from carbon emissions.


RE: Tesla!
By snhoj on 4/22/2014 9:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
America is well advanced in its natural gas production. In fact so much development went on that they had a gas surplus and gas prices fell to about a third of production costs. I don't need to tell you that is not sustainable. Market forces not greenies have intervened and prices are rising to more sustainable levels. Cheap gas is why virtually all new generation capacity is natural gas plants. Coal is on the decline. It now makes up just 43% of total generation in the US. It wasn't long ago it was 50%. It peaked in 2007. concern over the generation mix is why a lot of EV owners also have grid tied solar systems installed. Where I live we have around 70% hydro electric generation. Australia has around 80% coal generation. Its a good thing to consider.
I wouldn't underestimate the benefits of energy independence to the US. It will improve the balance of trade and reduce the need to borrow. The US spends a lot on energy security not just in dollars but also in lives.


RE: Tesla!
By snhoj on 4/23/2014 5:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
The whole balance of trade situation could be to blame for the global financial crisis (GFC). The USA buys more goods from China than it sells to China. China winds up with a surplus of Trillions US dollars. China wants to put that money to work so it lends it back to the US. The banks are awash with cheap money that they need to lend out so they get reckless with their lending practices and a huge property bubble grows bigger and bigger over a few years. When the bubble bursts as all bubbles must at some point some banks fail others need rescuing and the whole financial system looks like it might collapse. So no one will lend to anyone else and now we have a credit squeeze and the GFC goes into overdrive. An enormous amount of wealth is destroyed around the world. The question I ask is what is different now?


RE: Tesla!
By EricMartello on 5/3/2014 1:21:57 AM , Rating: 2
We're not talking about economics, skippy, the point was that electric power generation is inherently inefficient...and the fact that you totally veered off topic is basically you conceding that I PWNED your pathetic liberal arguments in favor of electric cars.

While an electric motor does a great job of converting electrical energy into mechanical work, when you consider the fact that the the fuel consumed to generate said electricity is far greater than the energy wasted by gasoline and diesel engines as heat, we can clearly see the SCAM that is being perpetuated by the whole "green energy" political agenda.

Coal is an abundant resource; it's on the 'decline' because of a concerted effort by the EPA to snuff it out, forcing expensive, impractical and unreliable "green energy" on Americans. It all fits into the broader left-wing agenda of deception, the notion that "climate change" is caused by human activity and supported by dim-witted buffoons like yourself, who fail to realize that being educated today is more of a liability than an asset.

You did better than most liberals do in your attempt to make a technical case for electric cars, but the facts are not on your side and your understanding of the mechanics of electric cars is quite obviously limited.

Your complete dodge to the fact that electricity generation is grossly LESS EFFICIENT than the energy consumed end-to-end by gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles only serves to prove my point.


RE: Tesla!
By snhoj on 5/8/2014 6:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're not talking about economics, skippy, the point was that electric power generation is inherently inefficient...and the fact that you totally veered off topic is basically you conceding that I PWNED your pathetic liberal arguments in favor of electric cars.

I just find efficiency of generation secondary to anything that has real world effects. Carbon intensity changes with fuel type as does economics or cost per unit. So efficiency should really only be considered within a single fuel type unless you apply some sort of compensating factor. Carbon intensity only matters if you buy into anthropogenic global warming. You've made your position on that very clear. That really just leaves economics and that changes with fuel type. So you can "PWN" it if you like I’m just not that interested.

By the way you did bring up energy independence in your side bar. Electric car = 100% US sourced energy, ICE age car = 30% US sourced energy, 70% imported energy. +1 for the EV

quote:
While an electric motor does a great job of converting electrical energy into mechanical work, when you consider the fact that the the fuel consumed to generate said electricity is far greater than the energy wasted by gasoline and diesel engines as heat, we can clearly see the SCAM that is being perpetuated by the whole "green energy" political agenda.

Like I said where I live 70% hydroelectric generation. No fuel consumed there just falling water. Most of this generating capacity was built prior to environmentalism becoming fashionable. No green agenda involved. No tax breaks for EV's here either.

quote:
It all fits into the broader left-wing agenda of deception, the notion that "climate change" is caused by human activity and supported by dim-witted buffoons like yourself, who fail to realize that being educated today is more of a liability than an asset.

Oh WOW, just WOW. So education and the educated are the enemy. I guess that means ignorance is an asset.

Abusive name calling and personal attacks add nothing to the debate and really only serves to depreciate your cause. People usually resort to this behavior because they have lost the rational argument and are basically trying to create an emotional fist fight where they try to wound with words rather than admitting defeat. When you start calling me a dim-witted buffoon for occupying a position I haven’t well that shot misses the mark by a mile. While I can admire a never say die atitude I do read these outbursts as victory.


RE: Tesla!
By EricMartello on 5/10/2014 12:04:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I just find efficiency of generation secondary to anything that has real world effects.


Good for you, but you are still wrong. The fact that electricity must be generated means that using it as the power source for commuter vehicles is just a bad idea...at least until we have something like cold fusion along with high energy density batteries.

quote:
So efficiency should really only be considered within a single fuel type unless you apply some sort of compensating factor.


You have to exclude the inconvenient fact that electricity generation is inherently inefficient and causes more pollution in order for your "green" political agenda about electric cars seem "plausible".

The bottom line is that it's still a lot better overall to stick with refined petroleum - aka gasoline.

BTW, the 5 kW/h figure to refine a gallon of gasoline from petroleum also includes a by-product known as diesel. When you consider that for every gallon of gasoline, a portion of that becomes diesel fuel without any additional effort, it further enhances the end-to-end efficiency of gasoline and diesel as a choice fuel for vehicles.

quote:
By the way you did bring up energy independence in your side bar. Electric car = 100% US sourced energy, ICE age car = 30% US sourced energy, 70% imported energy. +1 for the EV


Falsorama. Fuels are sold as commodities on a global market. The refiners who operate in the Gulf of Mexico do not sell directly to the US, they sell to the highest bidder.

The differences in fuel prices by country are largely due to the taxes that are levied on the fuel by the respective governments, as well as any tariffs that may be imposed. For example, low-grade "industrial" diesel is taxed at a substantially lower rate than vehicle-grade diesel in europe, and so it costs less per gallon. That's why the liberal dystopia that we call europe pays out the a55 for fuel while Americans enjoy relatively low and stable prices.

The idea that we're 'on the verge of running out' of fossil fuels is a baseless claim with no supporting evidence. That said, I do agree that we should find renewable fuel sources - but not at the behest of a government mandate and not according to what some eco-zealots believe.

quote:
Like I said where I live 70% hydroelectric generation. No fuel consumed there just falling water. Most of this generating capacity was built prior to environmentalism becoming fashionable. No green agenda involved. No tax breaks for EV's here either.


Guess what, that's irrelevant because your particular situation does not represent the average worldwide situation for electric energy generation. Hydroelectric power is great when you have the proper natural features to construct such a plant, but as a percentage of all electricity generated, hydro power is not that much.

Most electricity is generated by burning a fuel, and the average efficiency is in the low 40% range as previously stated.

quote:
Oh WOW, just WOW. So education and the educated are the enemy. I guess that means ignorance is an asset.


You need to stop referring to being blindly indoctrinated, relieved of independent thought, as being "educated". Your ignorance stems from your misguided belief that education somehow replaces the need to think and form your own ideas, even if said ideas run contrary to the consensus.

quote:
Abusive name calling and personal attacks add nothing to the debate and really only serves to depreciate your cause.


I'm not a liberal and therefore I have no "cause". My interest is ensuring that the information provided about a given topic is accurate and objective. As I said before, if electric cars were better than their gasoline counterparts I would gladly state that in support of them - but they are not, and I've clearly explained why.

quote:
People usually resort to this behavior because they have lost the rational argument and are basically trying to create an emotional fist fight where they try to wound with words rather than admitting defeat.


The readers can decide for themselves who defeated whom...by my count every one of your claims and points of contention has been thoroughly debunked.

quote:
When you start calling me a dim-witted buffoon for occupying a position I haven’t well that shot misses the mark by a mile. While I can admire a never say die atitude I do read these outbursts as victory.


You are dim-witted for attempting to shift the topic from the "real" energy efficiency of electric cars to some economic nonsense after I pointed out how inefficient electric cars are due to electrical power generation and its limitations...that was you raising the flag of defeat, followed by me gloating.


RE: Tesla!
By snhoj on 5/11/2014 8:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have to exclude the inconvenient fact that electricity generation is inherently inefficient

Efficiency is not an end in itself but a means to another end. Its good EV’s are efficient because their batteries can be smaller and because they use electricity that someone has to pay for but that is where it stops at the plug.

Thank you for playing.


RE: Tesla!
By EricMartello on 5/15/2014 1:00:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Efficiency is not an end in itself but a means to another end. Its good EV’s are efficient because their batteries can be smaller and because they use electricity that someone has to pay for but that is where it stops at the plug.


The entire push behind EVs - including tax subsidies and CAFE standards that place unrealistic fuel efficiency burdens on automakers - are billed as being "more efficient and better for the economy".

I showed you why EVs are actually LESS efficient, and made you look quite stupid in the process. Oh, and I appreciate the irony in the way that the CAFE standards put forth by the EPA, which were meant to be "unattainable", resulted in automakers producing super-efficient gasoline cars that solidify the terrible idea that EVs are with our current method of electricity generation.

quote:
Thank you for playing.


Oh, the game ended several posts ago when you got PWNED by facts and were left with nothing but a complete topic shift (which failed).

Your continued attempts to save face just aren't working out for you...because you are on the wrong side of this argument and politics.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














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