cameron@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Williamson) (09/21/90)
>The solar angle of this seems pretty bogus since the cost of making >electricity via solar cells on my vehicle is so much higher than just >getting it from PG&E. Absolutely correct. PG&E power comes at about 10 cents/kilowatt hour, and they generate it at a cost of roughly 5 cents/kilowatt hour (rough estimates - there's a great issue of Scientific American that came out last month entirely devoted to world energy and future possibilities). The cost of solar power is usually measured by taking the cost of the overall power generation system (cells, storage, regulation, etc.) and dividing it by the total amount of power you expect to get out of it over its entire lifetime. Right now I read most sources as putting the cost of solar power generation at around 20-30 cents/kWh - not competetive with PG&E. However, electric vehicles are still looking better and better. As for solar, the single most expensive component is the cells. If we can find ways to bring their cost down, solar generation becomes competetive. And note that in order for it to become competetive, you only need be able to generate it at PG&E's 10 c. charge, not their 5 cent cost. In other words, if it costs between 5 and 10 cents (all ridiculously rough, of course) for you to make it yourself, it's cheap enough for you, but not cheap enough for PG&E. And you can sell your excess power to PG&E, as required by law. >note that PG&E could make electricity via solar energy probably much >easier and more efficiently than I could. I sincerely wish they would, but right now we're just waiting around for them to get on with it. In the mean time, solar cars, though not practical or competetive, are educational and fun, and increase public awareness. You won't see people driving solar cars everywhere anytime soon. Electric vehicles are another story, though. By the way, a number of major car manufacturers already have electric cars built which cost about the same as their gasoline counterparts (ABC News, PrimeTime Live), but the reason they aren't mass-producing them is because they say they aren't marketable enough yet. It's a mild sort of catch-22. >have you ever investigated the efficiency of storage cells? Why yes, I have! Although I don't have figures on efficiencies for you, I can tell you that this is the second hurdle for solar cars, and one of the first for electric cars. However, just as with so many things in modern technology, improvements and cost reductions are continuously being made, and higher efficiency batteries may well be within reach sooner than was once thought. >PG&E is probably no better than 50% if you consider their power plant >and transmission losses. I don't know, perhaps you're right, but I had heard a figure more like 25% (surprisingly low). Regardless of electric power efficiency, I've considered that the energy efficiency of gas autos is generally worse. >What about pollution? What about it? My 1986 Honda Civic has had >two smog tests and both times was well below the legal limits and >for several measurements was recorded as producing 0 pollution. >Of course we know it wasn't really 0 but it was better than the >measuring equipment. Maybe we should have Angelinos trade in their cars for 86 Honda Civics :) >Certainly there are I.C. vehicles out there producing lots of >pollution but you need to compare your proposals with the new >cars on the market today since that is what you might be replacing. What we've seen in the last 10 years is that, as a result of lower fuel prices, fuel efficiency has been neglected so that cars sold today have an average efficiency lower than they did earlier in the 80's. Greater fuel consumption and higher pollution levels may have resulted from this lowering of the average standard. I'd like to refer you to the newsgroup sci.energy where they have very animated and informed (more informed than I) discussions on these very matters. >And I have yet to see a good argument for electric. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the Bay Area is charged with reducing pollutants in the region by 35% by 1997 - no small task. Cars are the number one source of the pollutants in question. Higher fuel efficiencies and cleaner cars like your Honda are definitely beneficial. But a more serious argument for electric is happenning right now in the Middle East. As a friend of mine once put it, "No one ever died for solar power." Pollution, economics, regional conflict, exhaustable energy supplies, noise, wildlife, human life. Common sense.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (09/21/90)
In article <38776@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> cameron@janus.Berkeley.EDU |solar, the single most expensive component is the cells. If we can find |ways to bring their cost down, solar generation becomes competetive. And IF we can. Right now, they are not economical. |By the way, a number of major car manufacturers already have electric |cars built which cost about the same as their gasoline counterparts |(ABC News, PrimeTime Live), but the reason they aren't mass-producing |them is because they say they aren't marketable enough yet. It's a |mild sort of catch-22. I find it hard to believe the electrics cost about the same as IC. |>have you ever investigated the efficiency of storage cells? | |Why yes, I have! Although I don't have figures on efficiencies for you, But I do. It's around 40%. Horrible. |I can tell you that this is the second hurdle for solar cars, and one of |the first for electric cars. However, just as with so many things in |modern technology, improvements and cost reductions are continuously being |made, and higher efficiency batteries may well be within reach sooner |than was once thought. Maybe, but battery technology is not exactly a new field. |>PG&E is probably no better than 50% if you consider their power plant |>and transmission losses. | |I don't know, perhaps you're right, but I had heard a figure more like |25% (surprisingly low). Regardless of electric power efficiency, I've |considered that the energy efficiency of gas autos is generally worse. Does anyone have any numbers for IC efficiency? |But a more serious argument for electric is happenning right |now in the Middle East. As a friend of mine once put it, "No one ever |died for solar power." That's a valid point. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Freedom is dead, long live privacy!
terry@uts.amdahl.com (Lewis T. Flynn) (09/22/90)
In article <38776@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> cameron@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Williamson) writes: >In article <1990Sep20.231021.5512@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: [ lots of interesting stuff about electric cars and relative efficiencies ] Has anyone investigated a hybrid gasoline/electric car? It strikes me that this may combine the best of both methods by using an electric propulsion system with a small, low horsepower generator as a means of extending range. This is hardly a new idea as nearly all modern railroad locomotives work this way as do many large ships, but I've never seen any study done as applied to automobiles or trucks. I seem to remember that it only takes 2 or 3 horsepower to maintain freeway speeds (it's getting to those speeds that takes more, but the battery system could provide that energy and then be recharged), so this looks feasible. Terry
ghhart@eos.ncsu.edu (GREGORY HUGHES HART) (09/22/90)
In article <cald02QCcaDa01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, terry@uts.amdahl.com (Lewis T. Flynn) writes: > In article <38776@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> cameron@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Williamson) writes: > >In article <1990Sep20.231021.5512@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > > [ lots of interesting stuff about electric cars and relative efficiencies ] > > Has anyone investigated a hybrid gasoline/electric car? It strikes me > that this may combine the best of both methods by using an electric > propulsion system with a small, low horsepower generator as a means of > extending range. This is hardly a new idea as nearly all modern > railroad locomotives work this way as do many large ships, but I've > never seen any study done as applied to automobiles or trucks. I seem > to remember that it only takes 2 or 3 horsepower to maintain freeway > speeds (it's getting to those speeds that takes more, but the battery > system could provide that energy and then be recharged), so this looks > feasible. > > Terry News and Observer had an article a few months ago on a hybrid, using both gasoline and electric for different loads on the vehicle...I BELIEVE it was Chrysler, but I'm not sure...the problem with this, and any other alternative vehicle, is that the car companies have no reason to change to another design when the old gasoline engine is making money for them now...Ford even came out with a WORKING 200+ horspower Stirling engine, but never got it past the research stage because it would cost money to switch over to the new design...
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (09/22/90)
In article <1990Sep21.191817.9215@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> ghhart@eos.ncsu.edu (GREGORY HUGHES HART) writes: |BELIEVE it was Chrysler, but I'm not sure...the problem with this, and |any other alternative vehicle, is that the car companies have no reason |to change to another design when the old gasoline engine is making money |for them now...Ford even came out with a WORKING 200+ horspower Stirling |engine, but never got it past the research stage because it would cost |money to switch over to the new design... And of course, we know those lazy Japanese would never bother coming out with something better as long as the Americans aren't offering it. (sarcasm, for the understanding impaired) -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Freedom is dead, long live privacy!
ee5391aa@hydra.unm.edu (Duke McMullan n5gax) (09/22/90)
In article <cald02QCcaDa01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> terry@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Lewis T. Flynn) writes: >Has anyone investigated a hybrid gasoline/electric car? It strikes me >that this may combine the best of both methods.... Sometime back about 1980 the Mother Earth News folks ran an article on just such a hydbrid vehicle using a surplus starter motor for a jet engine. Hmmm... if that last sentence scans a little peculiarly, well, yeah. The electric motor started the jet engine, OK? I seem to recall that in-city efficiencies for the little car were pretty im- pressive; I can't recall a thing about highway speeds or efficiencies. Part of the in-city efficiency was that the motor was used a generator during braking, charging the battery, and hence...well, you see. If I think of it in the next few days, I'll try to find the article and post the reference. Yeah, the folks at MOTHER write a little peculiarly...from the left...but they're an all right bunch. Really. Some of my best friends are liberals. d -- "...he tore into them like a berserk Cuisinart, dicing and shredding and pureeing, scattering the ground with chunks of bodies, sending gouts of V-8 juice splashing through the air." -- Mark E. Rogers Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429r phon505-255-4642 ee5391aa@hydra.unm.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (09/23/90)
In article <38776@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> cameron@janus.Berkeley.EDUIn article <1990Sep20.231021.5512@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: writes: >Absolutely correct. PG&E power comes at about 10 cents/kilowatt hour, >and they generate it at a cost of roughly 5 cents/kilowatt hour... >note that in order for it to become competetive, you only need be able to >generate it at PG&E's 10 c. charge, not their 5 cent cost... Note, however, that if lots of people start doing this, PG&E's rates will rise. Most people will rely on solar-derived power only when it's sunny, because storage systems are clumsy and costly. That means PG&E still has to be able to carry the full load in bad weather, but will see less revenue in good weather to help pay for the equipment. -- TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
kring@washoe.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kring) (09/25/90)
In article <1990Sep22.233344.14509@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |> |> Note, however, that if lots of people start doing this, PG&E's rates will |> rise. Most people will rely on solar-derived power only when it's sunny, |> because storage systems are clumsy and costly. That means PG&E still has |> to be able to carry the full load in bad weather, but will see less |> revenue in good weather to help pay for the equipment. Actually, PG&E's demand peaks occur on hot summer days due to air-conditioning demands. ( An easy mistake for somebody from Toronto to make :-)). This is precisely when solar energy and the windmills at Altamont pass are the most productive. So it is not clear what effect solar energy would have on PG&E's costs, and random speculation on the net is probably going to be incorrect. Does anybody have any *real* information about what it would cost PG&E or So. Ca. Edison to adopt solar and wind energy to offset peak summer demands? Chuck Kring kring@ic.Berkeley.EDU
bryan@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Bryan L. Allen) (09/26/90)
In article <cald02QCcaDa01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> terry@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Lewis T. Flynn) writes: > >Has anyone investigated a hybrid gasoline/electric car? It strikes me >that this may combine the best of both methods by using an electric >propulsion system with a small, low horsepower generator as a means of >extending range. This is hardly a new idea as nearly all modern >railroad locomotives work this way as do many large ships, but I've >never seen any study done as applied to automobiles or trucks. I seem >to remember that it only takes 2 or 3 horsepower to maintain freeway >speeds (it's getting to those speeds that takes more, but the battery >system could provide that energy and then be recharged), so this looks >feasible. > There was just such a device displayed recently here at JPL. Some excerpts from their handout follow [my comments are in brackets]: *** XA-100 -- UNLIMITED RANGE ELECTRIC VEHICLE The XA-100 is a conventional 5-passenger Chevrolet Corsica converted to hybrid electric propulsion drive. An electric motor and controller have replaced the stock gasoline engine and an engine [single-rotor Norton Wankel]/alternator option provides power for long trips. The XA-100 uses electric power from its [8 deep-discharge marine] batteries for short around-town & commute trips, emitting zero exhaust emissions. On long trips the engine/alternator [they claimed an alternator efficiency of 96%!; the main drive motor was much lower-tech (~65-70% efficient, no regenerative braking capability)] provides a continuous supply of power that permits unlimited range with only periodic stops for refueling like a conventional car. The emissions from the engine are minimized by operating in a constant-speed constant-load operating mode [plus they had left the original exhaust and catalytic converter in place and pipe the Wankel's output through it]... This research project is funded by the California Energy Commission's Energy Technologies Advancement Program with matching volunteer labor from members of the Electric Auto Association and students and staff from Stanford University. [Various other companies and groups have also given support to this project]. *** The emphasis of this car was, according to representatives, to use off-the-shelf parts to build a minimally-polluting vehicle. They were soliciting comments on the design and the project. You could try contacting them for more information at: Hybrid Electric Vehicle Project, P.O. Box 8683, Stanford, CA 94309, (415) 857-9340 (voice), (415) 723-4659 (fax). Another relevant address is: Electric Auto Association, 1249 Lane St., Belmont, CA 94002. For info only; I have no connection with either of these groups. -- Bryan L. Allen bryan@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov Telos Corp./JPL (818) 354-1487