Alt Car Expo: Dr. Andy Frank on kicking the oil habit with "no sacrifice in lifestyle"
I was particularly excited to hear Dr. Andy Frank, professor of mechanical and aeronautical engineering at UC Davis, give his presentation at the Alt Car Expo. With a title like, "Petroleum Displacement with no Sacrifice in Lifestyle," how could I not? That sounds like a pipe dream. And I don't believe in pipe dreams.
In fact, I disagree with the sentiment of the title that what we should be shooting to keep our lifestyle. The three Rs of the environmental movement do start with "reduce" after all.
Anyway. I did like Dr. Frank's talk. I don't have a recording of it, but I took notes about what Dr. Frank, often called the father of the plug-in hybrid, had to say. His main point, about not having to sacrifice our lifestyles when we run out of petroleum (or chose to eliminate it from our culture), can be summed up in his argument about the high cost of fuel(s). If we can replace expensive gas station trips with cheap electricity from the grid, and can still get around, then that, "Improves your lifestyle, because you can buy more goodies rather than pay for fuel."
Make sense? Read more after the jump.
Frank has spent decades thinking about PHEVs, so it's tempting to think of his idea for a PHEV-laden future (similar to what I heard at the EDTA conference as well as during other sessions in Santa Monica and, well, around the Internet) as the original that has found its time to bloom. Frank's assessment is that the problem with most renewable energy generators is a lack of energy storage. While there is currently no energy storage of this type in our society, PHEVs could/will provide that place. Cars charged up at night, when the cost of electricity is lower for everyone, can be used during the day to power the 4 p.m. energy spike. Frank said the average driver drives for only three hours a day, so many vehicles are sitting still for 21 hours a day. Right now, some electricity generators need to be shut off during the night because there is so little demand and no way to store the energy. Because the public has paid some of the capital costs of these generators, we all benefit with a system that utilizes them to their full potential.
The numbers on the PHEVs in Frank's scenario look good, too. A range of 60 miles on pure electricity, with intelligent, computer controlled batteries designed to run for over 150,000 miles or 15 years of life. The batteries go from 100 percent to a 20 percent state of charge (SOC). At 20 percent, the gas engine kicks in and maintains the 20 percent SOC, never charging to 100 percent. What this means for about 80 percent of the people (those who drive less than 40 miles a day) will never need to use any gasoline, except for extended trips. Combine this with 10 kWh home solar energy systems that can charge a mid-size PHEV for about 30 miles worth of driving for each hour of sunlight they get, and you're talking serious dinojuice reduction. A family with solar cells on the roof and energy storage in a PHEV would allow them to become energy independent. Sound too good to be true? Maybe, but I'll let the production models tell the story. We can criticize them when they get here. I won't criticize the idea.
Frank is willing to criticize hydrogen, though. He said that hydrogen research should not be stopped completely, but the equation for funding should be shifted to a little less for H2 and a little more for PHEVs, because the PHEV payoff will be evident sooner. This money can be invested in new infrastructure that will need to be installed. Frank said one key component would be the installation of 120-volt GFI plugs (also known as ground fault circuit interrupters, or GFCI) in homes and on the street. The first step to getting PHEVs into society is a finding company that will just up and make 100 of them, send them our for testing and prove that these cars are feasible. GM, is this your time to shine?
OK, so Frank has some good ideas. But he can't solve all our problems, especially since he doesn't advocate for us to change our lifestyles. It's not a different future he sees, just a cleaner one.
"If you have to be stuck in traffic," he said, "you'd like to be stuck in traffic with no waste of fuel."
I guess that's something.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
George Krpan 10:56PM (12/13/2006)
I was there for Woolsey's speech. It was the first time I became aware of the energy storage advantage of EVs. It's just icing on the cake.
Reply
Sebastian 2:08AM (12/14/2006)
It is really a good idea and we already have the technology. Tho, what I don't get is how are those living in apartments - the majority of the population - be able to plug in an EV or PHEV... The best thing I could think of is a portable battery, but that raises several problems.
Reply
Kelly O\\\'Brien 2:38AM (12/14/2006)
You comment: "Combine this with 10 kWh home solar energy systems... (and) a family with solar cells on the roof and energy storage in a PHEV would.. become energy independent. I won't criticize the idea."
Well, I will.
A 10kWh Solar system would require about 50 200W panels and they're roughly 2.5'x 5.5' and they cost about $800 each.
So you'd need an investment of probably $65,000 installed and a roof 15' x 60' packed with panels. Combine this with the cast of the vehicle and you've got what 90 -100K for "energy independence"?
Let me get out that penny-saver jar and see what's in it!
Reply
CM 4:17AM (12/14/2006)
For those living in apartments, they are often assigned spaces, sometimes in parking garages, and charging ports could be installed there.
Most landlords could be persuaded to install charging ports or electrical outlets if there were some advantage to them. If they could get some revenue, perhaps a monthly rent for the "charging space" or a small percentage from the charger power sales, that would persuade a lot of landlords to cooperate.
Some apartments might even install charging port just to draw in new tenants, much like cable TV, broadband internet, pools, or other special amenities that are advertised.
And of course, charging outlets will be set up in other parking facilities at shopping centers, restaurants, offices, motels, industrial areas, etc.
Government could require charging outlets to be installed, but that would only be a "last resort" option. Much better to use the carrot of rewards than the stick of requirements.
Reply
FC3 8:18AM (12/14/2006)
That's no loss in lifestyle assuming that one never gets into a serious accident. Smaller and lighter vehicles, of which full electric cars would be, are less safe in moderate to severe collisions. I'll list just one source, look at the IIHS web site and find the PDF document that shows loss rates. Notice that the smaller cars have higher loss rates for injury and death than larger and heavier cars.
The less than ten grand I spend to drive my Navigator 60,000 miles each year is cheap compared to living the rest of my life as a cripple or dying to save a few dollars. My wife has no permanent injuries thanks to her Lincoln that protected her when an out-of-control truck rammed her. That her new V8 powered Jaguar Vanden Plas gets 28 mpg is nice, but it was not a deciding factor when we purchased the car. The massive, high-strength aluminum body was, on the other hand, a factor.
It's sad that people willingly trade off safely because it is cheaper.
Reply
Jimmy 11:05AM (12/14/2006)
"those living in apartments - the majority of the population"
Humm.. I think that a rather distorted view of the population. 69% of all U.S. households live in single family homes. If you include mobile homes that jumps to 75%. Home ownership rates are near record highs. Only 15% of U.S. households live in apartments in buildings with 5 or more units.
Data of housing characteristics from 2001 DOE survey
Reply
Tim 8:56AM (12/14/2006)
A PHEV-60 or EV-150 would be perfect. Just think Knight Rider's car "Kit" in Stealth Mode. Fast, sexy, stealthy, economical and very powerful. No Embarrassing Golf Carts (NEVs) Allowed! Few Americans will be caught dead in one! If we make them also affordable, the mainstream will buy them. Say... $30K/copy. We have a few candidates in the current field and mass production will bring the prices out of the "novelty" range.
Reply
Sal Rossi 9:09AM (12/14/2006)
Number 5 - It ain't about cheap. It's about the fact that the terrorist have the oil. Plus the oil companies have been soaking us for years.
Reply
M 3:22PM (12/14/2006)
I like my lifestyle just the way it is. thank you very much! Having it cleaner, environmentally friendly, and globally secure would just be a tremendous bonus!
Reply
kballs 3:41PM (12/14/2006)
FC3, the loss and death rates for smaller vehicles aren't that much higher for all small vehicles, but they are overall (some small vehicles do better than many large vehicles because they are better designed). The reason they are higher overall though is because so many selfish people insist on driving huge heavy vehicles just so they can be "safe" (at the cost of others' safety), so the chance that a smaller vehicle will be hit by a larger vehicle is pretty big.
Also when people use the physics argument (heavier wins) in their selfishness, they don't have a very good understanding of physics. 2 heavy vehicles colliding is a lot less safe than 2 lighter vehicles colliding (since there is exponentially more energy to absorb). Also more mass means the vehicle will fare even worse when colliding with an immobile object such as a concrete barrier (what's important though isn't just mass, it's having a high crumple length to mass ratio). So if most people drove well designed light vehicles, we would all be a little safer... unfortunately human nature ensures there will be no shortage of people shoving others under the water (buying heavy vehicles) so they can stay afloat ("win" in a collision).
Reply
FC3 9:54AM (12/18/2006)
#7
If the issue is imported oil, then the solution is increased domestic production. Much of the oil imported into the US can be replaced by domestic sources, but politics prevents drilling to bring these sources on-line.
#10
Don't know where you got your mech eng or physics degree, but your statements are only partially correct. Your conclusions are false. True that energy increases as either mass and/or the velocity delta increase. However larger vehicles are able and designed to absorb that energy.
It is not about selfishness. It's simple prudence. A commercial delivery truck hit my wife’s Lincoln. Every motorist selecting a micro car won't make trucks like that smaller. But had I left my wife driving the little Nissen she had before we were married, rather then the Lincoln I leased her right after we were married she would have permanent injuries and pain. All of her doctors agreed that her car made the difference. I inspected the car as the dealer repaired it and documented the process with photographs. Not one panel in the passenger compartment was bent or distorted. On the other hand, where's the rear crumple zone on one of those Mini cars? Looks like the rear crumple zone is 12" in front of the rear seat passenger.
My responsibility is to my wife and family. That means we drive a new Navigator, a Mark VIII, and a new Jaguar Vanden Plas. That others choose things are small because they are "fun", "cute", "zippy", cheap to run, or just cheap to buy does not have bearing on my decision making. No one forces those buyers into those cars. Freedom to choose means just that. How many MPG is a child's life worth? Or how many MPG is the ability to live without a wheelchair worth? That's the decision as I see it. I'll spend my money accordingly.
Finally, not even the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety agrees with you. They write:
"TOP SAFETY PICK is awarded by vehicle size because size and weight are closely related, and both influence how well occupants will be protected in serious crashes. Larger, heavier vehicles generally afford better protection in crashes than smaller, lighter ones."
That means even the safest little car is not as save as the safest large car. Also their fatality and injury rankings http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/pdf/ictl_0906.pdf show that cars large cars have much smaller losses than little cars. Some small cars have low losses, like the Ford Thunderbird and Porsche models, but that probably is more due to the low production and type of driver who operates them than any other factor.
Reply
Doug 1:59PM (1/07/2007)
Only a moron would drive around a Suburban or Tahoe
to buy groceries. First your destroying the environment, second your burning a huge amount of money that could be used for many worthy causes. Lastly parking and driving around in such a huge vehicle is a major pain in the ass. Try parking it
sometime before you throw down your dollars for a monument to greed and materialism.
Reply