Brief news by Ryan Maue
The recent oil price shock likely hasn’t figured into the February sales numbers at GM or Nissan, which announced their electric vehicle sales numbers for the month. Actually, there wasn’t an announcement, but you can find the information buried in a PDF file:
GM “delivered” 281 Volts in February, which is a function of the extremely slow nationwide roll-out of the newfangled buggy. This is clearly the window of opportunity with the much higher gas prices to take advantage (of) consumers who may spring the cash for an electric car. Then, they can watch their new PG&E Smart Meter spin wildly in delight. Either way, it’s very early in the game.
Indeed, with gasoline prices soaring past $4 a gallon in California and elsewhere, the demand for the Volt and Nissan Leaf should continue to soar. Coupled with generous government subsidies provided by Uncle Sam, a new Volt may provide quite a charge to the US economy, or not. With the announcement of Ipad 2.0 yesterday by Steve Jobs, early adopters will be lining up again to buy a thinner, better version of favorite toy. It’s early in the game for the Volt, Leaf, and other electric buggies, but when supply ramps up to meet the burgeoning demand, we can expect the marketplace to expand with many more options. However, until then, outfits like Consumer Reports aren’t exactly enthused with the efficiency of the Volt of the Leaf, considering the sticker.
It gets worse. CR figures the cost of recharging the Volt would work out to about 5.7 cents a mile for electric mode and 10 cents a mile for gas. Yet a Toyota Prius, which gets about 50 miles a gallon, would cost 6.8 cents a mile to operate. A Prius costs half as much as a Volt.CR seems to feel a little better about the all-electric Leaf. It borrowed one from Nissan while it awaits delivery of its own. The $35,270 electric car had its range severely restricted by the cold weather that has gripped the East, much like the Volt. The range has been averaging 65 miles, not the 100 miles that Nissan bills. Plus the mileage gauge isn’t that accurate in the cold when electric heaters gobble up kilowatts. Instead of the 36 miles of range that the car said it had, one tester got 19.
Yet CR said other than range, it liked a lot of things about the Leaf. It accelerated rapidly and climbed hills well. It said it would be a good second car in urban area if it is in “a temperate climate.” Guess that rules out the Northeast, Midwest, deserts and a bunch of other places.
If electric drive is so good why did the US Navy only have one (1) nuclear submarine that was electric? USN Tullibee (SSN597)
Roger Sowell says:
March 3, 2011 at 10:32 pm
…..shutting off un-needed cylinders at cruising speed (the 8-6-4 strategy),…
==============
This never made any sense to me.
The pistons still need to pushed through their cycles, unless the valves are held open the pistons are still compressing air.
I would think it takes the same amount of fuel to keep the car at cruising speed, regardless of how many cylinders are “hot”
I.E. would not 4 cylinders need twice as much fuel to produce the same power as 8 cylinders at normal fuel rates???
@u.k.(us): re shutting off two or more cylinders at cruising speed.
This does actually use less fuel, as the valves remain closed which creates an “air spring.” The rising piston compresses the air with the valves closed, then the compressed air pushes the piston back down again. From the Wikipedia article (wiki authors did a fairly good job on this article):
“For 1981 Cadillac introduced a new engine that would become notorious for its reliability problems (with the electronics, not the robust mechanical design), the V8-6-4 (L62). The L61 had not provided a significant improvement in the company’s CAFE numbers, so Cadillac and Eaton Corporation devised a cylinder deactivation system called Modulated Displacement that would shut off two or four cylinders in low-load conditions such as highway cruising, then reactivate them when more power was needed. When deactivated, solenoids mounted to those cylinders’ rocker-arm studs would disengage the fulcrums, allowing the rockers to “float” and leave the valves closed despite the continued action of the pushrods. These engines are easily identified by their rocker covers, which each have elevated sections over 2 cylinders with electrical connectors on top. With the valves closed the cylinders acted as air-springs, which both eliminated the feel of “missing” and kept the cylinders warm for instant combustion upon reactivation. Simultaneously, the engine control module would reduce the amount of fuel metered through the TBI unit. On the dashboard, an “MPG Sentinel” digital display could show the number of cylinders in operation, average or current fuel consumption (in miles per gallon), or estimated range based on the amount of fuel remaining in the tank and the average mileage since the last reset.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_V8_engine#368_and_V8-6-4
u.k.(us) says:
March 4, 2011 at 3:17 pm
…..shutting off un-needed cylinders at cruising speed (the 8-6-4 strategy),…
==============
This never made any sense to me.
There is an optimal RPM and pressure that all IC engines are designed to run at.
So the 8-6-4 strategy is the do better at maintaining optimal RPM and pressure.
harrywr2 says:
March 4, 2011 at 3:49 pm
u.k.(us) says:
March 4, 2011 at 3:17 pm
…..shutting off un-needed cylinders at cruising speed (the 8-6-4 strategy),…
==============
This never made any sense to me.
There is an optimal RPM and pressure that all IC engines are designed to run at.
So the 8-6-4 strategy is the do better at maintaining optimal RPM and pressure.
==========
Your everyday driver usually runs about 2000 rpm, formula 1 cars run at 10,000 rpm. It’s all a trade off, usually about engine lifetimes.
Roger Sowell says:
March 4, 2011 at 3:49 pm
@u.k.(us): re shutting off two or more cylinders at cruising speed.
This does actually use less fuel, as the valves remain closed which creates an “air spring.” The rising piston compresses the air with the valves closed, then the compressed air pushes the piston back down again. From the Wikipedia article (wiki authors did a fairly good job on this article):
================
Thanks for the info.
But, where does the energy that forces the piston “up” come from?
Nothing is free.
If it really worked, and was cost efficient, all engines would incorporate the design wouldn’t they?
Just saying.
@ur momisugly u.k (us) re 8-6-4 engine.
It works. It is not used widely because it costs more to build the thing. It is merely one of the dozen or so technologies that can be employed to increase gas mileage. Each has a cost, and may or may not be cost-effective (and sufficiently reliable) to be mass-produced. In the same way, one could use a very small engine running at great speed for quick acceleration – but would need a dozen or more gears in the transmission to make this work. Such a transmission would be very expensive and might be too heavy and thus defeat the purpose. Then along came a workable Continuously Variable Transmission – CVT. Small engines can now rev at higher speed and still get the job done. There is a cost, though. Engine life is also a consideration. Low speed (rpms) equates to longer engine life.
The energy to push the cylinder up and compress the air comes from two sources: 1) from the combustion in the cylinders that are firing, and 2) from the compressed air that pushes down the cylinders that are not firing.
The idea behind the 8-6-4 is that 8 cylinders are needed to achieve a quick acceleration for a heavy car. However, at cruising speed, only 4 cylinders are required. Throttling back the engine with 8 cylinders firing uses lots of extra gasoline to move all the cylinders. But, we cannot (of course!) switch engines in the middle of a trip so they figured out a way to deactivate 2 or 4 cylinders safely.
To make EV’s more practical, they need to standardize the batteries and develop a network of battery stations where in a few minutes they could remove and replace your battery with a fully charged one and send you on your way. The batteries would somehow have to be owned by the charging network and you would basically be renting them. Otherwise the limited range would be a killer out here in the west once you leave the big cities.
For example, it is about 200 miles from Portland to Pendleton. Intermediate stops are Hood River at 63 miles, The Dalles at 84 miles, Arlington at 137 miles and Boardman at 165 miles. From Troutdale, 20 miles out of Portland, those are the only useful signs of civilization other than the highway. And it gets cold here in Oregon, although not Alberta cold. In the winter you would have to recharge/replace the battery at Hood River, then again at Arlington and your battery would be running down again by the time you got to Pendleton.
And if you are serious about traveling, going east from Portland, the next significant city is Boise, about 400 miles east. East of Boise, there is a 129 mile stretch of nothing but desert on your way to Salt Lake City.
Moore’s law on batteries? Someone is dreaming. They have been working on improving batteries since the oil embargo in 1973. The battery in my’58 Chevy lasted about 8 years. The battery in my ’97 Ranger lasted 10. Where is the doubling every 18 months?
@ur momisugly Richard Scott, re battery exchanges. These guys are doing it.
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/better-places-battery-exchange-charges-ahead.html
Roger Sowell says:
March 4, 2011 at 7:46 pm
@ur momisugly u.k (us) re 8-6-4 engine.
“It works. It is not used widely because it costs more to build the thing.”
==============
Reminds me of the wind farms 🙂
I could go on and on, about the engines, but I’ll stop.
Peace.
I don’t know much about EV’s, but I do know something about cold weather. It is hell on batteries’ efficiency. I had a guy cutting down 2 trees in my yard last December. He used a battery-powered scissor lift to get at the high parts. It was about 8 degrees F. out, and the poor guy could only get a couple hours in before having to take the machine home and recharge it. The job took a whole weekend longer than planned. I shudder to think of what an electric vehicle would be like in our cold climate.
Yawn. For longer trips, owners plan their hookups; the “connect points” map is filling in fast. Early days, like when the first gas pumps were being put in place. “Range anxiety” fades very fast in the real world of real owners.
As for the “bailout”, it’s a LOAN to speed up development and production of the ‘S’ and the advanced battery packs. It is planned and on course to be repaid with interest on an accelerated schedule. That’s REAL repayment from revenues, not using one bailout to pay off another, like GM’s little (big!) shell game.
That all you’ve got?
I am reliably informed that an electric car with a 100 mile range is down to 50miles
with heating or a/c in operation.
That’s a 5-yr old posting, before the first car had ever been produced. The current estimate is 30% after 100,000 miles or 10 yrs. And owners are finding declines are actually about half that — Tesla issues very conservative figures, a unique characteristic in a car company!
_______
Yes, private homes are the market for the forseeable future for that reason; possibly new or refitted apartment buildings could accommodate chargers, but open parking could only work in conjunction with special super-fast charging station availability.
The costs you detail are a small fraction of the up-front purchase cost, and no one I’ve heard or read about finds them onerous.
Interesting that in Europe with its 240-volt 3-phase service any outlet will do; they’re very condescending about our wimpy electric supply! 😉
Tesla has incorporated temperature management as a fundamental part of its “ESS” power system, warming the batteries to about room temp, or cooling them (water-cooled etc.) as needed. It is key to both reliability and lifespan. Comparisons with laptops and powertools etc. are just not on; these are complete self-contained systems.
You’re behind the times. Dealerships have been set up in Australia and numerous rt-hand drive Roadsters are out and about.
But the “Model S” will tell the tale. It’s the real revenue engine for the company, and TM will stand or fall on its success. So far, its prospects look very good. It will far outclass any EV of comparable capacity anywhere. The ‘majors’ are cutting corners on range and power etc. like crazy in their offerings to date. The ‘S’ will blow their doors off.
Richard Scott;
Follow my suggestion and Google MIT, Stanford and “LiIon Nanotech”. You might be surprised. The advances don’t even require major retooling; they’re quite compatible with present fab technology. Planarenergy.com is also interesting.
That was a complete sham and outrage, using a minimal city runabout for a long hard roadtrip. Here’s the response of a local Tesla owner:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/taking-high-road-scotland
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/taking-high-road-home-scotland
Quite frankly, I think an electric car in most regions of the US and Canada makes about as much sense as having an ELECTRIC CHAINSAW to clear fallen trees after a hurricane or ice storm when the wires are down.
But then again, for several hundred dollars or more, a gasoline powered generator can be used to make electricity to power the saw. Okay!
On the internet somewhere, there is an article about the 1902 Studebaker Electric and it could travel 40 miles on a charge. 13 miles an hour was pretty fast in those days.
What is the Volt’s range again?If electrics were the way to go, I figure Studebaker would not have abandoned and see that the future was in gasoline automobile in 1911 or 12.
Electric motors are wonderful machines. My father used to tell me, “The biggest guns in the US Navy are turned by electric motors”. True, but that electricity had to come from somewhere and I don’t think they measured hourly fuel consumption of a battleship’s boilers in pints!
I, myself, am a fan of diesel engines, all kinds, 2 cycle, 4 cycle, stationary, marine, automotive, and even those that powered the zeppelins.Besides, to some of us out here, the sound of a “screamin jimmy” in an old Euclid is better than anything you would hear at the opera. Along with the German Shepherd Dog, the best thing that came out of Germany.
The scissorlift I was referring to uses car batteries. I still contend that an EV, when out in frigid weather, will perform at a much lower level. Warming any part of the car on the road will obviously shorten the range. Heck, my gas Mazda3 barely warms up inside on the cold days up here in Montana.
Electric cars will be very popular with thieves, expensive batteries and copper windings are safer to steal than cables with mains voltage running through them.
Here’s a thought.
Russia has a nuclear-powered icebreaker and of course there are nuclear powered submarines – why aren’t there nuclear-powered merchant ships..?
If security is an issue – in the same way that security van drivers have ‘no access’ to the cash – surely they could have a secure shut-down procedure controlled by head office..?
With the price of oil going the way it is – isn’t this option becoming viable..?
BrianH –
Did you read the Tesla guy’s piece before linking to it? It only took him 3.5 hours to ‘fill up’ en route, using the high-voltage/high-current facilities that he blagged from a fellow enthusiast. Wonderfully convenient. I’d much rather spend half a day talking to some beardy nutjob about amperage than get to my destination, have a shower and be out enjoying a chilled glass of Bolly at the Waverly Oyster Bar.
Yep, read both, watched the videos, know the background.
Long road trips currently are quicker with gassers, if you can’t match charge times with breaks you’d have taken anyway. Stipulated. But the comparison was with the deliberately lame BBC demo.
John F. Hultquist, “Be honest. Call it what it is. Brilliant marketing.”
Agreed