JUNGREIS LAW BLOG

Proposal For Better Type Of Fuel Economy Standard

2011-09-30T14:46:00.000-07:00

Here is a proposal for a new type fuel economy standard: every vehicle of any type may use no more than 2 gallons (or energy equivalent) of fossil fuel to go its first 100 miles. This is to say, a vehicle is required to get 50MPG for its first 100 miles, but there is no economy standard applied thereafter.

This standard can be met by light, reasonably aerodynamic vehicles with well-designed engines, incorporating useful but already-proven technologies such as start-stop, cylinder deactivation, direct injection, CVT or 7+ gear dual-clutch transmissions, variable valve lift and timing, etc. I do not believe this standard will require electrical propulsion for these vehicles. Alternatively, a weak hybrid (ex: Civic) might well suffice.

This standard will be met by mid-size vehicles using well-designed engines and one or another form of electrical propulsion, which typically raises the efficiency of a drive system by about 50%. For instance, the Prius already meets this standard, and it can reasonably be anticipated that the Ford Fusion could meet this standard with a bit more engine efficiency and a bit more battery energy (the motor is already a strong 79KW, but the pack is only 1.2KWH and cannot sustain a full supply of electrical energy to the motor for more than a few seconds).

For all other vehicles, this standard would require a well-sized motor and a meaningful battery pack that would justify plug-in charging (even if only level 1, and perhaps best if accomplished through level 1 due to level 1's ubiquity -- plain ol' outlets are everywhere and are cheap and easy to add). If after 100 miles the battery was depleted such that it no longer meaningfully contributed to the propulsion, then the mileage would no longer be the manufacturer's concern.

The reason for this proposed standard is simple: reducing fuel usage on a daily basis is more important than trying to engineer for rare long trips. For most vehicles, 100 miles would cover virtually all their daily travel. Vehicles travel different distances in their daily travels, and no matter how far a vehicle travels it has to go that first 100 miles.

This standard would encourage the manufacture of pure EVs, because the platform would already be there (simply remove the engine and add more batteries). Alternatively, another evolution of this inherent design flexibility would be to just include some additional batteries and a smaller engine (really, an electric vehicle with a range extender). In other words, manufacturers would quickly develop a modular system readily tailored to the needs of any driver.

Lastly, I believe this standard can be economically met without the development of any new technology, without seeking to greatly reduce vehicle weight and consequently possibly reducing vehicle safety, without changes in behavior, and without the simultaneous need for an electrical infrastructure (although I do encourage widespread inexpensive support of level 1 charging and the roll-out of gas-station-supported level 3 charging) (for my part, I don't get public level 2 charging: level 2 is as labor-intensive and half as expensive as level 3, but required hours instead of minutes to charge and is probably not monetize-able).

EV+PV = FREE

2011-09-07T12:16:00.000-07:00

The premise of this article is that every American household with a place to plug in an electric vehicle (EV), and a place to put in solar photovoltaic system (PV), should plug in that EV and put up that PV, because then you drive for free and thereby save a minimum of over $60,000. This opportunity might apply to 100 million of America's 256 million vehicles. In addition to saving a great deal of money, you’ll be supporting the American economy, reducing global warming, and improving health, and even helping to bring peace to the world (dare to think big). And, it’s more fun.

According to the EPA, Americans drive an average of 12,000 miles a year, or 33 miles a day. The average vehicle in the US gets about 22.5 mpg: that means the average car uses about 533 gallons of gasoline every year. The average cost of a gallon of gas this year is $3.83, and so this year the average American will spend $2043 on fuel. (Yet, it’s been reliably estimated that the true cost of gas is about $15.00, not even including the blood and military and aid money we spend to try to ensure a supply of oil). We know the cost of gas is only going to go up, and with “peak oil” a certainly in the coming years it will likely go up astronomically due to declining production (in the last survey year 30 billion barrels were pumped out, but only 5 billion new barrels were identified). For the sake of argument we’ll be ridiculously conservative and simply use current figures as our basis for demonstrating savings -- but remember, as gas prices increase, the comparative savings increase.

First, a word about the stuff in gasoline-powered cars. Engines contain hundreds of pieces of various types of metal struggling to grind each other into dust as they deal with friction, toxic gases at thousands of degrees, and hot pressurized fluids, including myriad shafts, gears, pumps, bearings, bushings, and rings designed with thousandths-of-an-inch clearances: it is not surprising when something goes wrong. The Automobile Association of America estimates that maintenance costs (ex: tune ups, oil changes, brakes, etc.: not including tires) is $.045/miles, or about $540 per year. And this is not to mention catastrophic failures: have you ever had to replace a transmission? So, the average American spends a total of about $2500 a year for the care and feeding of a gas-powered car.

Let’s contrast this with an EV. The motor is the only moving part, and it turns on a couple of unstressed life-time bearings: aside from tires and windshield wipers, it may never need maintenance. It is quieter (no engine or exhaust), smoother (no transmission), sporty (immediate acceleration and makes its own energy when slowing), and handles better (low centralized mass). Because the brakes are only lightly used they may last forever. No, an EV can’t handle all the trips you will ever take in your life, but it will likely handle 99% of the trips you take every day. If you have two cars, think about how unlikely it is that you’ll need to go more than 100 miles in both cars at the same time. If you don’t have a second car for long-distance occasions, then you can get a plug-in hybrid like the Chevy Volt which will be 100% electric for the very great majority of all your trips.

How much electricity does an EV need? The first mass-produced EV is the Nissan Leaf (I say this with sincere apologies to Tesla, which has sold 1500 Roadsters since 2008, but Nissan is selling about 20,000 Leafs this year). The Leaf received a government mileage rating of 2.9 miles per kilowatt-hour. (Quick primer on electricity: A kilowatt-hour (KWh) is the electrical “energy” unit: 1 KWh is the amount of electricity energy needed to light ten conventional 100 watt light bulbs for one hour, and an EV battery pack is rated in KWh. A kilowatt (KW) is the electrical “power” unit: 1 KW is about 1.3 horsepower, and an EV motor is rated in KW.) From my experience, the government rating seems quite conservative, as I drive my Leaf hard and yet I’m averaging about 4 miles/KWh (but fast highway travel does bring it down, and there is a small amount of loss from the plug to the battery). However, to stay on script, we’ll use the government figure, which means that to go 12,000 miles you need about 4000KWH annually.

There are several ways of calculating the cost of 4000KWh. (And, in the first place, it’s even an assumption that you will be paying for all of that electricity: there are more and more businesses and commercial locations where you can charge the car for free.) But assuming you do pay for charging, you have three options, from the really great to the unbelievably great: you can charge the EV on your existing electricity rate plan; you can change your rate plan; or you can have PV installed (along with a change in your rate plan). Here a quick breakdown of each.

If you pay for the electricity without changing your rate plan then electricity to charge your EV is likely to cost between $.10/KWh and $.40/KWh: there are a number of variables, including where you live, how much electricity you already use, the time of year, etc. For instance, in California the likely cost might be about $.30/KWh (this figure is likely to be lower elsewhere). For 4000KWh, this means an annual cost of about $1200 to charge your EV -- a tidy savings of about 50% off the fuel and maintenance cost of a gas car. Wow.

But wait, it gets even better. If you pay for electricity and have the option to change to a “time of use” (TOU) rate plan, you save more. With TOU, you pay more for electricity when it is expensive, which is mostly during daytime when many people are not home, and less at night -- which is when you will be charging your EV. In a study, 75% of all Californians were found to have about a 10% savings with TOU: but, more importantly, TOU electrical rates during the “off peak” hours of midnight to 7am are only about $.06/KWh, and this is when the EV is timer-set to charge. Therefore, if you have a TOU option, charging your EV may only cost about $250. This is a huge savings of about 90% off the fuel and maintenance cost of a gas car. Wow wow: how can you top that?

You top that by paying absolutely nothing, when you have PV installed and put the TOU plan into effect. The lone issue with installing a PV system is whether you having sufficient sunny exposure on your home or property. And, PV obviously makes terrific sense for replacing the purchase of some or all of your utility electricity as well -- which is why millions of people around the world have already installed PV (more on that later).

To generate 4000KWh a year requires a PV system that can be expected to have a final cost (i.e., after rebates/tax credits) of about $12,000. This estimate is based on a typical final cost of about $5.00/watt for an installed residential PV system, and reasonably estimating that about a 2500 watt system is needed to generate about 4000KWh/year (also: installing PV substantially increases home value, yet property taxes cannot be raised for PV). As in all things, good shopping can yield better deals: my San Francisco PV system was installed for $3.84/watt. Moreover, PV system costs are getting ever-cheaper, and this trend is forecast to continue.

Now, PV necessarily generates its electricity during daytime, when under a TOU plan the value of the electricity is either peak (about $.30/KWh) or partial peak (about $.10/KWh). Using a peak and partial-peak average of $.20/KWh, the annual generated value of 4000KWh is about $800. With TOU, using that same amount of “banked” electricity at night to charge your EV only costs you about $250. The remaining $550-worth of electricity that you generated goes toward paying back the cost of your PV system (you actually take the savings by offsetting some of your home electrical bill). PV panels are guaranteed for 25 years (they will likely last even longer, albeit with some reduction in efficiency), and so the system completely pays for itself! The net result? You’ve been driving 25 years absolutely for free, not paying a penny for any fuel. The savings? $2500/year not spent on the care and feeding of a gas car, for at least 25 years: about $62,500.

Granted, gas cars will, of necessity, get more efficient, and therefore the comparative savings (at today’s gas prices) will seem to shrink. Yet, on the other hand, the cost of these fancy-pants gasoline cars, with their 9-speed dual-clutch, million-moving-parts transmissions and their turbocharged, high-pressure direct-injection systems and their weight-shaving exotic material parts, will only go up -- and remember: the cost of gas will be going up up up. By contrast, the value, range, performance, and abilities of all EVs will only improve (still, there’s an advantage in being an early-adopter: with incentives, the net cost of my very nice Nissan Leaf was only $22,000).

At the beginning of the article I mentioned not only saving money, but also supporting the American economy, reducing global warming, and improving health, and even helping to bring peace to the world. I’ll start with the last of these subjects (if controversial to some, let’s take it head-on). Here’s the thing: I hate terrorists. Big deal, you may think: you hate terrorists, too. Yes, but I’m doing something about it -- I’m cutting off the terrorists at their knees by cutting off their financial support. The majority of the terrorism in the world today is wrought by Islamic extremists who are ultimately funded by oil-selling Muslims (to quote the ironic bumper sticker: “What’s our oil doing under their sand?”). To be clear, not all oil-selling Muslims support Islamic extremists: but those who do are doing it with your patriotic, terrorist-hating dollars. But not with mine. Make the world more peaceful by defunding terrorists. EV+PV = no jihadi.

PV and EV help our economy in so many ways. You can install American-made PV panels, mounted on American-made racking systems, connected to American-made inverters, all of it installed by American workers. Renewable energy is the fastest-growing source of domestic employment. Also, American manufacturers are all developing EVs, and the main Nissan EV manufacturing facility is in Smyrna, Tennessee. I take pride in knowing that I have employed my fellow Americans. Further, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on oil each year, and the export of all that money weakens the value of the dollar. Lastly, and again let’s be real about this, we have spent a hell of a lot of blood and money fighting multiple wars halfway around the world because that’s where the oil is (here’s a breath-taking statistic: our cost for keeping an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf for the last 30 years is $7.3 trillion -- yes, trillion). EV+PV = better economy.

As to health and global warming, the benefits are obvious. Gasoline is a terrible toxin, poisoning our water, our air, and our bodies. The estimated health cost attributed to fossil fuel pollution is $120 billion annually. PV+EV = healthier me. Finally, global warming is of course caused in largest part by carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuels: in only a couple of hundred years, burning fossil fuels has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by nearly one half(!), and our carbon dioxide pollution is increasing faster than ever (and our planet’s population of 7 billion humans has added the last 5 billion within the past century and has ever-more acquisitive people). Observation: if we do not quickly evolve from a scavenger species to an intelligent species that can engineer for sustainability, we’ll use up the earth’s resources until we’ve gnawed the bark off the last tree. Finally, to bring this home as objectively as possible: the cost of global warming is estimated to be $2 trillion annually. Replacing just one gas vehicle with an EV running on PV will prevent over 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution a year. If 100 million vehicles took advantage of this, it would reduce America’s carbon dioxide production by a whopping 1 trillion pounds -- nearly 10% of our CO2 pollution. EV+PV = survivability.

And here’s a bonus: guilt-free performance. Go ahead, mash the accelerator: you’re only burning photons, and the sun will be making more for the next several billion years (if you are asked whether you like nuclear power, just nod and point up). I like to drive fast briskly, and even though after a lifetime of working on car and motorcycles I kinda miss the smell of hydrocarbons, driving with electricity is simply better performance. Even if you get your electricity from our dirtiest fuel, coal, it’s still much cleaner than driving with gas, and each year there is less and less coal powering the national electrical grid (this year it’s down to 45%). And here’s a strange but amazing fact: more electricity is needed to make the gas for a gas car to drive 100 miles than the electricity needed to drive an EV 100 miles -- because there is so much electricity used in the pumping, transportation, and refining of petroleum (not to mention unbelievable amounts of fresh water). So, go ahead, drive with a lead foot: you’ll only leave a lithium footprint! EV+PV= smiley!

Tidbits: Products coming to market will let the EV charge from an induction mat lying under the vehicle, so the driver will never need to ever again touch anything to fuel the car. Products coming to market will let your EV run your home electrical system for a few days: much cheaper and better than buying a generator. There are thousands of charging stations being installed and doubtless hundreds of thousands to come. We are starting to install fast chargers that allow EVs to get over a 50% charge in 15 minutes (and there is a new patent that says it can charge an EV in 5 minutes). With far more competitors in the field, much greater manufacturing volume, and considerable attention to research and development, batteries are seeing dramatic improvements in cost, performance, and lifespan, and all signs indicate that batteries will continue to dramatically improve. EVs can be as fast as the fastest gas vehicle, and motors are more efficient as they grow more powerful. If you think about it, for EVs this is like the era of the Ford Model T one hundred years ago: we are at the leading edge of huge technological advances.

An important concluding note about residential PV: logically, when installing PV to offset EV electrical use, one would also install additional PV to offset expensive home electricity use. Think of it as locking in your electricity cost at about $.12 per KWh for the next 25 years, and really much much less when you consider the positive implications of Time Of Use metering. It is absolutely certain that the cost of utility electricity, typically higher than $.12 per KWh now, will be significantly higher in the years to come: for example, in California the cost of electricity is projected to increase an average rate of about 7% annually (at an annual increase of 7%, in 25 years the rate will be over 500% higher!). Generally, residential PV pays for itself in electricity cost savings in about 10 years -- this really means about the same thing as this article proves regarding PV for fueling an EV, but without getting too involved in the calculation of the annualized increased cost of electricity and cost of capital. Also, residential PV can be obtained through a lease arrangement that does not require the homeowner to spend any money at all: in net effect, the installer pays for the system and simply charges you less for the (clean) electricity then the utility would charge you for (dirty) electricity. No matter how you look at it, this is a good deal -- obviously, this is why people install solar, regardless of whether they were considering EVs. And as we’ve learned, with an EV, you drive for free. In fact, I undersold the whole thing: it’s really, EV+PV = a win-win-win-win-win epiphany. But that’s a clumsy headline; “free” gets right to it, don’t you think?

[The original of this article is heavily-hyperlinked: feel free to email me and I will send along the article with links]

The Best EV-ER -- Electric Vehicle with Extended Range

2011-05-26T12:01:00.000-07:00

Let us suppose that, through a combination of forces including governmental mileage or emissions mandates, market fuel prices, and technology maturation, it becomes de rigour for vehicle manufacturers to focus a good chunk of their energies on Electric Vehicles with Extended Range capacity (EV-ER). After all, while such vehicles are more complex than Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV), they sooth practical and imagined range-anxiety concerns by carrying some energy-dense fuel instead of a huge number of heavy and expensive batteries. Virtually all manufacturers are getting to understand BEVs -- regardless of the ever-changing flavors of battery chemistry, the key components of the EV system (motor, controller, charger, management system, electric peripherals, etc.) are pretty well-decided. However, the optimal ER device has not been established: in fact, it’s not even clear whether the ER device should only provide electricity (series design) or also provide motive power (parallel design). What are the manufacturers' options, and which is best?

Clearly, there are a variety of ER device options: 1. gasoline Internal Combustion Engine (ICE); 2. diesel ICE; 3. rotary ICE; 4. Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) ICE; 5. two cycle ICE; 6. split intake and power stroke ICE; 7. micro-turbine; 8. sterling engine; 9. ethanol fuel cell; 10. hydrogen fuel cell.

And, there are just as many factors to consider in determining the pros and cons of each ER device: 1. does it define whether the vehicle must have a series design, as opposed to possibly allowing for parallel design; 2. manufacturing cost; 3. fuel economy; 4. fuel flexibility; 5. size; 6. weight; 7. noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH); 8. longevity/maintenance; 9. usability in the full spectrum of real world conditions; 10. implication for battery pack size.

The first factor, series versus parallel design, is critical, as it defines what kind of ER device you can use. For long highway driving, parallel architecture, which allows a spinning ER device to directly drive the wheels, would seem an advantage. Otherwise, you have to accept the series design’s somewhat Rube Goldberg-esque process of taking mechanical motion, converting it into electricity, shunting that electricity through a controller, storing it in the battery, pulling it back out of the battery, pushing it back through the controller, and running it through the motor to once again get mechanical motion -- and accept the loss of energy in each step. It has been estimated that these losses by themselves would add up to 10-15% energy loss. It might seem important to avoid losses like this, but is it?

First, engineers would point out that with a series design, in which the ER device is not directly tied to the wheels but instead simply makes electricity, it only needs to run at a single optimally-designed speed range and load. As a purpose-built generator, it may be efficient enough to make up for the 10-15% energy losses. Further, this design does away with the friction losses, complexity, expense, reliability, and weight issues of a mechanical transmission. It also vitiates the need to engineer for all those annoying on-throttle / off-throttle / part-throttle situations, and therefore remove complex fuel management, NVH, driveline lash, and a host of related “drivability” issues.

Is there a downside to series design? Of course. Series design requires a commitment to a large battery pack, with its attendant cost and weight issues, because while the parallel design can use the ER engine as well as the electric drive system to help move the vehicle when needed, the series design must have enough power in the battery pack and a large enough motor to move the vehicle by itself. And, as Toyota, GM, and others have implemented in variations of a blended parallel-hybrid design, the engine and traction motor are cleverly integrated into a planetary gearset so as to readily allow simultaneous motor and engine power transmission, smoothing out of NVH and other drivability issues (such as throttle response).

But wait, there's more to consider: interestingly, through-the-road parallel (i.e., one axle is driven by the motor, one axle is driven by the ER engine: Peugeot is the best (and only) example) does away with the need for a generator motor and offers 4-wheel drive capability to boot -- yet unfortunately, we’re back to requiring a transmission, and the coordination of the drives can be complex. Another alternative is employing the motor on the same drive shaft as the ER engine, which is a point in favor of parallel design as they can then both be reduced in size and used simultaneously when called upon for maximum acceleration: yet, the problem with this design is that if the ER only helps now and then, it can't heat up its catalytic converter and must then be run inefficiently to heat it up (electrically-heated catcons would still take a lot of energy).

Additional considerations: if you want more top speed, you need a more expensive motor in series designs due to the motor's (presumed) single-speed transmission -- a point in favor of parallel design. But, we anticipate improved batteries, which would slot nicely into a series design -- a point in its favor. A parallel design can provide a conventional sense of throttle-to-sensory response during highway driving -- a point in its favor. The modularity of a series enables the manufacturer to make both BEVs and EV-ERs on a single platform by simply removing the EF device and installing more batteries; or, switch ER devices as desired by the customer, or as best fits fuel availability, and as best fits other conditions found where that vehicle is to be sold -- all points for series design.

This last point may ultimately prove the convincer for manufacturers: one platform will enable architecture for a BEV, for improved batteries, for a choice of ER devises, and for modular development and selection of various equipment choices. For example, while GM has not officially announced that the Volt will be modified and sold as a BEV, it has taken steps in this direction.

Therefore, assuming a series design solution, we can look at all the remaining factors. (But given that the parallel v. series decision is still to be made by many manufacturers, it will be included in the analysis.)

GASOLINE
Parallel v. Series : either
Manufacturing Cost : medium (well known)
Fuel Efficiency : approx. 35%
Fuel Flexibility : gas or ethanol
Size : medium
Weight : medium
NVH : good
Longevity/Maintenance: complex but known
Real-World Usability : very good
Battery Size Needed : offers flexibility

DIESEL
Parallel v. Series : either
Manufacturing Cost : medium (well known)
Fuel Efficiency : approx. 40%
Fuel Flexibility : biodiesel
Size : medium
Weight : heavy
NVH : fair
Longevity/Maintenance: complex but known
Real-World Usability : very good
Battery Size Needed : offers flexibility

ROTARY
Parallel v. Series : better in series
Manufacturing Cost : medium
Fuel Efficiency : approx. 30%
Fuel Flexibility : gas or ethanol
Size : small
Weight : light
NVH : very good
Longevity/Maintenance: complex, less well-known
Real-World Usability : very good
Battery Size Needed : may offer flexibility

HCCI
Parallel v. Series : better in series
Manufacturing Cost : medium
Fuel Efficiency : approx. 40%
Fuel Flexibility : gas or ethanol
Size : medium
Weight : medium
NVH : good
Longevity/Maintenance: complex, less well-known
Real-World Usability : likely to be good
Battery Size Needed : may offer flexibility

TWO CYCLE
Parallel v. Series : better in series
Manufacturing Cost : medium
Fuel Efficiency : approx. 40%
Fuel Flexibility : gas or ethanol
Size : small
Weight : light
NVH : good
Longevity/Maintenance : complex, less well known
Real-World Usability : good
Battery Size Needed : may offer flexibility

SPLIT STROKE
Parallel v. Series : better in series
Manufacturing Cost : medium
Fuel Efficiency : approx. 40%
Fuel Flexibility : gas or ethanol
Size : medium
Weight : medium
NVH : good
Longevity/Maintenance: complex, less well-known
Real-World Usability : good
Battery Size Needed : may offer flexibility

MICRO-TURBINE
Parallel v. Series : series only
Manufacturing Cost : medium high
Fuel Efficiency : approx. 30%
Fuel Flexibility : excellent
Size : medium
Weight : light
NVH : low vibration, high noise
Longevity/Maintenance: very good
Real-World Usability : good
Battery Size Needed : large pack

STERLING
Parallel v. Series : series only
Manufacturing Cost : medium
Fuel Efficiency : approx. 40%
Fuel Flexibility : excellent
Size : large
Weight : medium
NVH : very good
Longevity/Maintenance: good
Real-World Usability : fair (slow to start)
Battery Size Needed : large pack

ETHANOL FUEL CELL
Parallel v. Series : series only
Manufacturing Cost : high
Fuel Efficiency : approx. 50%
Fuel Flexibility : ethanol only
Size : medium
Weight : light
NVH : excellent
Longevity/Maintenance: unknown, but should be excellent
Real-World Usability : unknown, but should be good
Battery Size Needed : large pack

HYDROGEN FUEL CELL
Parallel v. Series : series only
Manufacturing Cost : very high
Fuel Efficiency : approx. 50%
Fuel Flexibility : hydrogen only (query its source)
Size : medium
Weight : light
NVH : excellent
Longevity/Maintenance: unknown, but should be excellent
Real-World Usability : unknown, but should be good
Battery Size Needed : large pack

If a series design is chosen, and assuming there is reasonable exploration of ER devices, which device will become most common? The analysis demonstrates factors to consider: for instance, if the cost would come down, then direct ethanol fuel cells could be great -- but they obviously require pure ethanol, which is simply unavailable and won't be available without a serious policy commitment. Sterling engines could be great given their fuel flexibility, but they're large and difficult to manage due to their slow light-up: in many ways, it is a similar analysis with a micro-turbine. Rotary engines are small and light, but have never been broadly accepted and are not terrifically fuel efficient.

Yet another but: if these ER devices are used in series with large battery packs that will be primarily charged from the grid, does fuel efficiency matter that much? It may be that ownership will be a key issue: if the owner is able to charge daily, then the ER’s efficiency may not be a great concern as it may only seldom be used. (A study of early Volt adopters demonstrates that little gasoline is used.) On the other hand, if the owner winds up essentially running the vehicle on the ER device, then efficiency does matter. Finally, given the uncertainty of fuel sources in the future -- gas, diesel, bioethanol, biodiesel, butanol, natural gas, synthfuel, hydrogen -- are all combustible, and some of these ER devices can combust each of them. Clearly, trade-offs abound.

Taking into consideration a combination of factors, a purpose-designed series ER engine, such as the Lotus' "Omnivore" two-cycle, may seem a good way to go. It is relatively conventional in manufacture, highly efficient, not too weird for existing technicians (we stopped calling them "garage mechanics" when they started charging more than every other blue collar job), and small and light. But, it's not really omnivorous, as it does not profess to be able to burn diesel. Yet with the right manufacture, perhaps it could be designed to live up to its name, and then it could suffice for all possible fuels.

In the final analysis, the manufacturers are going to have make decisions that will affect the planet's travelers, and while everyone wants to look smarter than the other guy and drive in the fast lane, no one wants to drive down a dead-end road. Therefore, given the comfort level that existing engineers have with internal combustion, I think it is likely that the future will be BEVs and EV-ERs built on the same basic architecture to satisfy mass manufacturing, marketing, and modularity concerns, with the ER device comprised of one or another version of a small, light, efficient, fuel-flexible, and semi-conventional range extender. Vive la difference, as long as it's not too different.

EV Ownership Costs For Electricity

2010-04-16T11:54:00.000-07:00

Let's be honest. There are many good reasons to own an EV -- smooth, quiet, non-polluting, non-climate-changing, non-foreign-power supporting, non-foreign-trade-deficit producing -- but unless you generate your own electricity, cost savings is not the prime factor. Still, if you can generate your own electricity, it could at least become a factor.

For a fair comparison, an ideal equivalent ICE car would be a Prius for purposes of initial cost, size, and performance. A Prius gets 50mpg, and its ICE maintenance cost can be estimated at 1 cent per mile, so for $3.00/gallon gasoline the total cost is 7 cents per mile. A Prius-comparable EV would get 3 miles to the KWH, and its battery pack loses value at an estimated 2 cent per mile (making an assumption that there will be strides in lowering battery cost in the future), so for 15 cents a KWH of electricity the total cost is 7 cents per mile. Therefore, the actual cost to operate either vehicle is the same.

If you live in a sunny state and put up a 3KW solar system, and you drive around 50 miles a day, then you are covering your EV electricity needs. If you're careful and your state has a good rebate program, your net cost for the system may be around $10,000. Assuming the annual value of your $10,000 capital is 5% ($500), and assuming you drive the national average of 15,000 miles per year (50 miles per day for 300 days), then the cost of your electricity is around 3 cents per mile. This is better than 5 cents per mile when buying the electricity at 15 cents a KWH. And, perhaps very importantly, you've locked in the cost of your electricity at 3 cents per mile for many years to come: I think we will all agree that the cost of utility electricity will only be going up.

This scenario is only regarding getting your electricity at home: it is as yet unclear what the cost of public charging electricity will be. Right now, and perhaps well into the future, there are opportunities to plug in for free. On the other hand, there are a number of players in the charging space and each seems to be offering different ideas of how to get customers to pay for public charging: either by buying a set amount of electricity up front; subscribing to a service; paying as you go; or some combination. However, it is clear that all these plans will cost more than charging at home assuming that you do not have to pay an outrageous amount for your home electricity.

Coda -- The opening

2010-02-26T09:55:00.000-08:00

Coda recently brought a bunch of employees and a car to the San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association, and there we learned yet-more-still-further-even details about the nearly ready production model. Armed with the basics through the useful www.codaautomotive.com website and related blog, we were happy to find out that the bland look will be spruced up, that it will be J1772 compliant, and that it is anticipated to score at the top of the crash safety tests. But, we were disappointed that it will be a 4-seater, and that adjustable regen will not be available the first year. Best of all, though, we caught a ride and found that even the old streets of San Francisco were happily smoothed by the well-sorted suspension, and it gave confidence that the car will be a solid performer that may well beat out the Leaf in the inevitable head-to-head comparison (especially since they both seem likely to sell for about the same low-$30K post-credit price).

To reiterate the known data: Chinese-body car and 333 volt, 34KWH, 728-cell lithium ferris-phosphate battery pack made in China by Coda’s joint-venture partner Lichen, with American-made 100KW motor, transmission, controller, charger, BMS, and other electric bits. 3600 lbs., 11 second 0-60, 80mph top speed, 90-120 mile range, and an 8-year, 100,000 mile battery warrantee. And, kind of a bland expression on its face.

Phil Gow, Coda’s battery guru, led an excellent presentation, with help from marketing director Kara Saltness and “VP of Branded Experiences” Whitney Klint (aren’t cattle the ones who get branded experiences?). We were impressed that rather than just some car off the assembly line, the Coda has over 300 modifications to its chassis to best make the electric conversion; further, the battery cells are purpose-designed for Coda, and seem to be carefully managed. With the batteries primarily underneath the car, some of the electronic pieces in the back where the space tire used to be, and a well-thought-out circuit-breaker safety system and full diagnostics, all the electrics seem well-matched and give confidence in its engineering.

The look of the car is apparently being improved through a new grill piece, and this small change may well give the car the improved look that is could use. Inside, the nice-sized screen can play DVDs (including the owner instructions) – but presumably not while one is driving. Otherwise, the exterior and interior are perfectly good, with little to especially commend or especially slag on. For those of us who believe that the change from ICE to electric is plenty of change in and of itself, and that changing the look and feel of the car into something unusual may be too much (see, e.g., Aptera and Tango, and to a lesser extent the Leaf and iMiev), the Coda projects a comfortingly sensible and stabile image.

The test ride demonstrated that the suspension was well-suited to a heavy-ish car, with bumps smoothed but the handling still reasonably crisp. Interestingly, the batteries beneath the floor caused the floor-pan to be raised a little, resulting in the knees being a bit higher than they would be otherwise; but the difference is not really noticeable unless pointed out, and it does not seem to be an issue. The center rear seat area, which in this pre-production example still had a seatbelt, will instead have a fairly pointless cup-rest console: allegedly, the gross vehicle weight of adding a fifth passenger was too much for the tiring rating. This was a disappointingly poor excuse for a key car-buying factor that will put the Coda at a disadvantage to the five-seat Leaf.

However, in other regards it stands up well to the Leaf. First, at 34KWH versus 24KWH, the Coda’s presumed 90-120 mile range is a lot more credible than the Leaf’s claimed 100 mile range on the optimistic LA-4 urban driving cycle. Second, the Coda’s performance will likely be just as spry as the Leaf, which weighs less (probably around 3200 lbs.) but has less power (80KW). Third, while Nissan can be expected to ensure their car has quality fit-and-finish, the Coda is similarly competent is this department. Both have good car-driver interface and instrumentation, and the Coda certainly seems to have been designed with robust heating and cooling capacity. While the Leaf can accept 440 volt fast-charging which the Coda cannot, there will be few such chargers available in the next several years.

Nissan will sell its Leaf through select Nissan dealerships: meanwhile, Coda will be selling its car in California in late 2010 (a projected 2000 cars) and thereafter in markets across the country (a projected 20,000 cars), through an unconventional sales and marketing deployment system. We can assume that the early adopters are willing to go to Coda for the cars, but we wonder whether this system might be off-putting to the broader second wave of potential buyers. In any event, Coda is taking their solid product to market in real numbers before anyone else, and this might give them the free press – hey, that’s us! – that they’ll need to get critical momentum for penetration and acceptance. But to get more press, next time we want to be able to take the wheel: hear that, Coda?

2010 TTXGP: How will racing electric motorcycles fare?

2010-02-26T09:39:00.000-08:00

The San Francisco Bay Area is a hotbed for electric motorcycles: Mission Motorcycles, manufacturer of high performance sports bikes, is in San Francisco; Zero Motorcycles, manufacturer of off-road and on-road bikes, is near San Jose; and Electric Motorsport, manufacturer of street bikes, is in Oakland. Each has branded itself as race-competitive, and each has sought to take advantage of the considerable local market for electric motorcycles and the local interest in racing. Given this background, the upcoming inaugural TTXGP at Infineon on May 15 and 16 is going to be the focus of lots of local attention, and can be expected to bring out a new crowd of EV enthusiasts as well as race enthusiasts.

Speaking personally, while I’ve attended races at Sears Point – still can’t get myself to call it Infineon – for 25 years, and follow most every kind of motorsport, I am still most keenly interested in motorcycle racing. Given my passion for EVs, and the success of the recent Isle of Man TTXGP event, I am really eager to see what kind of show the electric bikes can put on for the crowd. I am also curious to see the crowd reaction: certainly the quiet of the bikes will be disarming to some, but their actual performance is what I expect to catch the most attention.

While EVs don’t yet have the power density to take on ICEs in unlimited competition, they are coming closer all the time. Perhaps this is best exemplified in drag racing, where the electric motorcycle record, 7.864, is only a second off the fastest-ever Pro Stock drag-racing motorcycle. Even better, the electric bikes are demonstrating a pretty steep improvement curve when Pro Stocks can only eke out incremental improvement. Advancements in available equipment is a regular occurrence in electric racing, and more purpose-built racing equipment is constantly being developed as the market for such equipment is becoming more apparent.

Similarly, road-racing electric bikes can be expected to catch up with the lower classes of ICE road-race bikes in short order. Although the Isle of Man TTXGP race saw a best electric bike lap pace (87.43 mph) that ranked only with the ultralight 50cc bikes, that is probably not representative of a fair comparison. The Isle of Man course rewards riders who maintain a consistent flowing speed, at which the light bikes can excel; by contrast, most race-courses – and real world situations – reward corner-exit acceleration, at which the electric bikes excel.

On a course like Infineon, which has a hill and 12 turns including 2 very slow corners and is not considered a flowing high-speed track, the electric bikes may prove reasonably competitive.
The 2.2 mile track’s motorcycle record stands at 83.34 mph / 1 minute 35.89 seconds. If Mission, possibly the most powerful bike likely to enter the TTXGP, can get their bike to work right (they had an electronic engineering problem at Isle of Man that slowed them down), with their experienced home-track rider Tom Montano they might be able to approach the 2009 Supersport (600cc) qualifying lap time of 141:37 (based on the notion that their bike puts out perhaps half the horsepower but twice the torque of a race 600cc). Other very promising bikes certainly must include Isle Of Man Pro Class winner Agni’s production partner Mavizen; Isle of Man Open Class winner Electric Motorsport; Zero; custom manufacturer Roehr (Illinois); Chip Yate’s Swigz Pro Racing (southern Cal.); Brammo (Oregon); and possibly Motoczysz (Oregon).

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the crowd to (relatively) silent racing. Will the crowd quiet itself to hear the whine of the motors, the squeal of the tires, and the scrape of the knee-pucks? Of course, the visceral sound, and feel, of the exhausts of high-performance engines is indeed a real part of the thrill of racing. Also, experienced fans listen for up-shifting and down-shifting to see who got their gearing right, who’s pushing the braking makers, and who’s in over their heads: and the riders rely upon that feedback more than the fans. It will certainly be more subtle to try to listen for the nuances of nicely dialed-in regen.

Is Bloom's Fuel Cell A Game-Changer?

2010-02-24T10:56:00.000-08:00

Bloom's newly-announced fuel cell converts natural gas (and hydrogen, if you can get it) into electricity at approximately 48% efficiency, is presently $700,000 for a 100KW box, and is looking to scale its cells down to smaller size at something like the equivalent cost. Does this make Bloom a game-changer?

In California, the majority of utility electricity is generated from natural gas. While the turbines that burn the natural gas are of varying efficiencies depending upon their age and location, new power plants with good planning and use of cogeneration are about the same efficiency as the Bloom fuel cell (which affords much more limited opportunity for cogeneration). Therefore the question is the possible purposes of using the Bloom fuel cell.

Assuming we're talking about individual businesses and homes buying and installing their own fuel cells, the essential result is to cut out the utility's role in electricity generation and distribution. The fundamental reason you'd want to do that, aside from fear of the grid failing and a consequent desire to be independent of the grid, is cost. While it is certainly true that presently natural gas is cheaper than utility electricity on a per-unit-energy-converted-to-electricity basis, this may not be true in the future given market fluctuations, the effect of increased demand, the policies to encourage development and distribution, the costs utilities will be allowed to charge for distribution, etc. Given the capital investment in these fuel cells, it is an interesting weighing of known and unknown risks. It is clear that at current and short-term future natural gas rates, they can indeed pay for themselves after perhaps a decade or so (factoring in the total costs involved, including permitting, engineering, space costs, installation, grid-tying, inter-grid implications, etc.) and then save money. (Actually, it would be an interesting question whether users can employ fuel cells for all net-metering and tariff-in purposes, and thereby save and possibly make money by feeding power into the grid that utilities may have to accept and pay for.)

Regarding emissions, while it is true that fuel cells do not produce combustion pollutants, carbon dioxide is still produced. Of course, fundamentally natural gas is still a fossil fuel and is therefore ultimately limited (although this country appears to have a store of natural gas to last for decades at its present rate of use).

My concern regarding fuel cells is that I would really hate for the public to latch onto them as somehow "clean" and therefore viable alternatives to renewable energy sources: solar, wind, and geothermal (and eventually wave and some biofuels). These are truly pollution-free generators of electricity, and there are quite good analyses to demonstrate that they are equally good if not better economic bets, as they are subject to only the cost and market fluctuations of the sun and tides -- which is to say, their sources are free. And, if this is just about generating cheaper local electricity, medium to large-sized businesses can already do that with micro-turbines which, when coupled with cogeneration (example: a hotel with a regular need for hot water), can raise their combined efficiencies to above 50% efficient and thus save money while burning natural gas very cleanly.

Finally, if they can be made inexpensively enough, they may pose a reasonable approach for series hybrid electricity generators on larger vehicles such as buses and trucks (their presumed size would be too bulky for cars and motorcycles, and a size that would fit cars and motorcycles would likely be too low-powered to truly act as electric vehicle range extenders). Compressed natural gas station infrastructure already exists, and buses and trucks that run regularly may benefit from the high efficiency even at the greater capital cost as compared to conventional internal combustion engines (even those designed for speed-specific series operation).

GM should drop the other shoe and produce an all-electric Volt

2009-07-10T13:49:00.000-07:00

GM has gone to a great deal of trouble to assure there will be absolutely no range anxiety by accomplishing the difficult feat of engineering a series hybrid containing a complete electric propulsion system and then a complete ICE-generator system with a bunch of clever electronics that can kick in if the batteries run down. (Indeed, as the 16KWH battery pack only uses 8KWH of energy (from 80% to 30% SOC), it probably has to have some compromises in power-to-energy chemistry, favoring producible power over total stored energy.)

The following thought comes to mind: for those of us who are not paralyzed by the false fear of range anxiety, why not just ditch the whole complex ICE-generator-electronics system and, with 500 pounds thereby jettisoned and the engine bay thereby made available, just throw a bunch more batteries in there (with, presumably, a better energy chemistry)? I would guess that the
engine-generator-electronics-whole-shebang can't cost much less than $6000 wholesale, and assuming the wholesale battery cost of their lithiums is something like $400 KWH, they could probably put another 16KWH of batteries in there for around the same cost and a bit less weight. With better chemistry batteries that don't mind a bit higher and lower SOC (and of course, with an all-electric system there'd be no 10 year/150,000 engine emissions warranty issues to worry about), they could have at least 32KWH of battery, likely good for around 125 miles, with even better performance, for the same price.

There is no downside. GM should drop the other shoe and get to it.

ELECTRIC VEHICLES PRIMER

2009-06-24T10:09:00.000-07:00

JASON JUNGREIS

Vice President of San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association
Volunteer for Plug In America

For questions regarding this post, cleantech issues, or other legal services, please visit my website: JungreisLaw.com

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

1. How they work
2. Why they're better
3. Getting one

EV BASIC PARTS

1. Motor
2. Battery
3. Battery Management System
4. Controller
5. Charger

No gas tank, engine, transmission.

For frame of reference, the total propulsion system weight of an electric car with a 100 mile range is the same as the total propulsion system weight of a gas car (approx. 750 pounds).

ELECTRICAL POWER

Power: amount of force needed to do something
example: lighting an incandescent lightbulb -- 100 Watts
EV power is stated in kilowatts -- KW (1 KW = 1000 watts)

1 KW = 1.3 horsepower
EV Example: in describing maximum power, a rating might say battery can put out 100 KW power, or a motor can put out 100 KW power.

Frames of reference:
An efficient vehicle (ex: Prius) might require 10KW to go 60 mph down a level highway.
An efficient vehicle might require 100KW to accelerate to highway speed.

The higher the voltage, the more efficient and the more power.
Typical systems are over 300 volts.

ELECTRICAL ENERGY

Energy: the amount of stored power

Energy is stated in kilowatt-hours -- KWH

EV Example: the size of a battery pack might be described as 16 KWH

An efficient EV can go 4 miles on 1 KWH

BUT: for battery health and longevity, most batteries should not be fully charged or drained -- many battery management systems charge to around 80% and drain down to around 20%.

Chevy Volt: only intended to use about 10 of 16KWH
(helps ensure its ability to go 10 years / 150,000 miles, which is required for emissions control)

HYBRIDS

Hybrid types:
Parallel -- combining engine power and motor power
Serial -- motor powers the car, engine powers the motor
Through-The-Road -- engine powers 1 axle, motor powers 1 axle

Mild Hybrid (Parallel):
Chevy Malibu -- 5KW Belt Alternator System +4 MPG (26 v. 30) 15% more efficient

Honda Civic -- 15KW Integrated Motor Assist +11 MPG (31 v. 42) 30% more efficient
But, the Civic Hybrid is really much slower than a regular Civic, so not a fair comparison

Strong Hybrid (Parallel):
Ford Fusion -- Battery: 1.3KWH Motor: 93KW +13 MPG (25 v. 38) 50% more efficient

Plug-In Hybrid (Serial):
Chevy Volt -- Battery: 16KWH Motor: 120KW Engine: 75KW
MPG? First 40 miles electric, then around 50 mpg
Once battery depleted, engine generates electricity for motor: engine does not charge battery.

EV EFFICIENCY

Electrical powertrain more efficient than ICE
ICE: 20-40% v. EV: 85-95%

EVs use energy more efficiently:
1. No idling
2. Regenerative braking
3. More efficient accessories

Also:
1. Fewer moving parts
2. Reduced maintenance
3. Quiet ride

Example:
Tesla Roadster -- 375 Volt, 185KW AC Induction motor, 53KWH battery

EV MOTORS

Electric Motors are very torquey from 0 rpm, have a broad powerband, don't need transmission

Brushed DC -- cheap, efficient, but peaky.
Ex: home conversions

Permanent Magnet Synchronous -- a bit less efficient and powerful, but smoother (but more complex controller).
Ex: Prius

AC Induction -- compact but powerful, a bit less efficient, may require cooling.
Ex: Tesla

Switched reluctance? Cheap, runs cool, but requires complex controller -- not yet used.

EV BATTERY

Lithium Ion / Lithium Polymer - in all their variations!

There are various chemistries for anodes and cathodes.

generally, around 100wh/kg (1KWH = approx. 25 pounds)
Volt = 10 pounds of batteries per mile (40 miles, 400lbs.)
Tesla = 5 pounds of batteries per mile (225 miles, 1000lbs.)
(Tesla uses 6831 small lithium-cobalt batteries, which tolerate more complete charging and draining)

Zinc batteries for fleets? Once use has begun, must continue to be used or will discharge; run hot.

For frame of reference, typical car requires 1/4 pound of gasoline to go a mile.

MPGe: "MILES PER GALLON EQUIVALENT" / "YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY"

No set definition of MPGe

"Well to Wheel efficiency" -- another tricky term

Efficient use of electricity depends upon many factors:
1. fuel type, location
2. power plant efficiency
3. transmission losses, EV charging, battery, controller, and motor efficiency

EPA MPG v. 'Real World' variables:
1. heat, AC
2. highway
3. motor-only acceleration
4. regenerative-braking
5. "hypermiling"

generalization: careful hybrid drivers get better mileage then EPA estimates

ENERGY NEEDS AND POLLUTION INCREASE WITH POPULATION

Human population: 1.5 billion a hundred years ago; 7 billion today; 10 billion by 2050

By 2050, world energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions will each increase over 50%

WHERE DOES ELECTRICITY COME FROM

Gasoline and diesel are dirty fossil fuels!

And electricity?
1. dirty fossil fuel -- coal
2. cleaner fossil fuel -- natural gas
3. potentially dangerous -- nuclear
4. clean or renewable -- wind, solar, wave, geothermal, biomass --
total about 2% of U.S. electrical generation

GREENHOUSE GASES

For hundreds of thousands of years, carbon dioxide concentration 280-300 parts per million

Today, carbon dioxide concentration above 390 parts per million

By 2040, carbon dioxide concentration set to go to 500 parts per million

To reduce carbon dioxide concentration to 2000 level, all new vehicles must reduce CO2 emissions by 70-90%

U.S. GRID CAN HANDLE EVs

Existing off-peak electrical capacity could provide enough electricity to power the daily commutes of 3/4 of all U.S. vehicles.

Powering vehicles through generated electricity offers better emission controls, because a few thousand power plants are easier to regulate than hundreds of millions of vehicle tailpipes.

Use of EVs would move emissions away from population centers.

As the electrical grid gets cleaner, EVs get cleaner.

The future: More power from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass.

EPA increasing required efficiency from 27 to 39 MPG for cars and from 23 to 30 MPG for light trucks by 2016: the cars presently meeting these standards are hybrids. Therefore, of necessity many vehicles will soon become hybrids.

CHARGING NETWORK CONCEPT

Install charging network in homes and along major roads, highway service areas, super markets, office parking garages, malls, restaurants, and parking lots.

VEHICLE TO GRID (V2G)

Average car driven 3 hours, parked 21 hours

1 million V2G EVs = 20 average power plants

Peak solar power fed into cars, later tapped for peak load

Allows a doubling of our harvesting of wind power

Managed by Smart Grid Demand Response

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (CARB)

Requiring a minimum of 5,357 zero-emission vehicles and 58,333 plug-in hybrids in 2012-2014

National Emissions Standards adopting California's stringent emissions requirements

STIMULUS FINANCING

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

Tax credits for first 200,000 plug-in vehicles per manufacturer:
$2,500 if at least 4 kWh of batteries
+ $417 each additional kWh, up to:
$7,500 if vehicle weighs up to 10,000 lbs.
$10,000 weights 10,000-14,000 lbs.
$12,500 weight 14,000-26,000 lbs.
$15,000 vehicles over 26,000 lbs.

Result: 16KWH battery yields maximum $7,500

(Coincidence: Chevy Volt has 16KWH battery)

HYBRID CARS

Audi: 2012 small car

Ford: Escape, et al ; Fusion, et al

GM: rear wheel drive SUVs
2010 small SUVs, large cars
2011? small cars

Honda: Insight (big-mild design)

Hyundai: 2010? small car

Lexus: bigger vehicles

Mercedes: bigger vehicles

Nissan: Altima

Peugeot: 2012 small car (diesel?)

Porsche: Cayenne (big-mild design)

Toyota: Camry, Highlander, Prius (all cars by 2015)

Volkswagon: 2012 small car

Volvo: 2012 medium car

PLUG-IN HYBRID CARS

BYD: 2011 small car

GM: 2011 Volt approx. $33,000 (post-credit)

Fisker: 2011 sport sedan

Ford: 2011 Escape (limited)

Toyota: 2011 Prius (fleet)

ELECTRIC CARS

Better Place: 2011 small car - 100 mile range (battery swap)

BYD: 2011 small car - 200 mile range (?)

Coda: 2010 compact car - 120 miles range, 0-60 in 10 seconds, approx. $33,000 (post-credit)

Ford: 2011 Transit van - 100 mile range

2011 Focus small car - 100 mile range

Mini: 2009 - 80 mile range (limited)

Mitsubishi: 2011 iMiEV small car - 75 mile range (fleet)

Nissan: 2011 compact car - 80 mile range, approx. $33,000 (post-credit)

Smart: 2010 - 100 mile range (limited)

Subaru: 2010 R1E minicar - 50 mile range

Tesla: Roadster - 225 mile range (sports car)
2011 Model S sport sedan - 160-300 mile range approx. $50,000 (post-credit)

Think: 2010 minicar - 100 mile range, 60mph

(and various other limited efforts from small manufacturers)

For regularly-updated information, go to http://www.pluginamerica.org/plug-in-vehicle-tracker.html

CONVERSION

Kits exist, and excellent books and website information

Garages and some companies will do it for you

Cost: DIY -- $10,000- $20,000
garage -- $25,000 - $40,000

OTHER VEHICLES

Three-wheel vehicles

Neighborhood electric vehicles

Electric motorcycles -- $7000, 40mile range, 60mph

COST OF EV OWNERSHIP

Basic 100-mile range EV: $33,000 (after fed tax credit)

Cost of electricity per mile: base rate $.12/KW, so around $.03/mile

But: If you drive 50 miles a day, install a 2KW photovoltaic system for $10,000 (after credits), and use net metering and PG&E rate plan -- then, YOU DRIVE FOR FREE after $43,000 investment.

DON'T LET THE PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD

I strongly encourage development and sales and widespread use of the whole range of hybrids, PHEVs, and EVs. Nonetheless, consider the following: if we all drove 50MPG Priuses (Prii?), which gets about twice the present national fleet average, then given that cars use about half of all our oil and that we import about half of our oil, therefore we could stop importing oil. Based on 2008, we'd save $700,000,000,000, save on our geo-political military budget and blood, greatly weaken oil-fed terrorism and totalitarian regimes, save our lungs from pollution, significantly reduce global warming.

If we moved as quickly as possible toward broad adoption of EVs, we'd save all this and also employ Americans, improve our goods trade imbalance, and help our fiscal strength by developing a new export economy.

Whether Priuses or pure EVs or something in between, the certain reality is that the status quo must be changed as quickly as possible.

INFORMATIVE WEBSITES

http://www.jungreislaw.com/

http://www.sfeva.org/

http://www.pluginamerica.org/

http://www.calcars.org/

http://www.electricdrive.org/

http://www.autobloggreen.com/

http://www.hybridcars.com/

http://www.greencarcongress.com/