Detroit 2008: X Prize contender will add solar thermal collectors, PV panels, wind turbines to old Blazer
You can probably guess that the photo above was not taken anywhere near Cobo Hall during the Detroit Auto Show. Nope, that green Chevy Blazer is sitting in Lake Havasu, Arizona. The connection to Detroit is that Jim Stansbury, the founder and CEO of the Physics Lab of Lake Havasu, was in town to talk up his team's official contender status in the Automotive X Prize. Stansbury and Audrey Perry, the lab's VP of marketing, sat down with AutoblogGreen for about 20 minutes yesterday to describe why they think a modified Chevy Blazer (!) with a few off-the-shelf parts has a chance to win the Prize. Do you want to reread that? A Chevy Blazer as the green car for the new millennium? How is this possible? The best way to learn is to give Stansbury a listen here (19 min, 13MB).
Stansbury's idea is to convert the large Blazer into an electric vehicle and then outfit the beast with a few different technologies that will all "absorb the energy around us, namely the sun" and power the batteries. These technologies include small turbines in the front, photovoltaic panels on the sides and solar thermal collectors on the roof. What do the collectors do? They heat water to power a stirling engine that generates electricity. All this "free" energy will power electric motors in the front and the back of the Blazer. Oh, and one more thing: the Havasu team wants to place wings below the batteries and on the roof to exploit ground effect and provide lift.
All in all, this is a very interesting project. I'll update this post with some more info once I get to a scanner (UPDATE: you can read what the Lab thinks the technology will cost by reading this letter). For now, enjoy the interview with Stansbury and contemplate just what it would mean if a freakin' Chevy Blazer won the Auto X Prize.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Todd B 1:57PM (2/12/2008)
It's so easy to be crtical - and so hard to be correct. Glad he's got the balls to try something. Must be harder than crafting an 'expert' opinion on why something won't work.
Reply
Dave 1:45PM (1/16/2008)
Sounds interesting! I wonder how much all of the conversion parts will cost in the end.
I hope that they are not adding wings to "provide lift" but instead adding body panels to reduce drag. While panels and spoilers in key places can reduce drag, generally anything that produces lift is going to increase drag on the vehicle.
Reply
Larry Miller 1:14PM (1/16/2008)
I thought wind turbines on vehicles create so much drag that you end up with a net energy loss.
Reply
Throwback 1:12PM (1/16/2008)
Why use something so un-aerodynamic (is that a word?) as a Blazer? There many large sedans from the late sixties, early seventies that would have better aerodynamics and still give plenty of surface area for attching panels and cells.
Reply
Will Sterling 1:19PM (1/16/2008)
wings to create lift? What good will that do other then to reduce traction? The SUV still has the same mass and drag which is where most energy is spent.
Reply
Kardax 1:27PM (1/16/2008)
The terrible aerodynamics and high weight of the Blazer make it impossible for the vehicle to reach the 100 MPG requirement, regardless of the technology added.
Reply
kballs 1:53PM (1/16/2008)
Wind turbines? *cough* perpetual motion machine *cough*
Also using a heavy, aerodynamic brick for a base vehicle?
This sounds like a satirical joke... or a project done by someone without even a basic understanding of physics.
Reply
Tim 2:16PM (1/16/2008)
This should be entertaining.
Reply
GoodCheer 2:14PM (1/16/2008)
I can't help but think that this guy has no idea how much energy he will be able to collect. He says he's a professional anesthesiologist, and a hobby physicist... I just don't think his hobby included actually doing any math.
Reply
Peter 2:14PM (1/16/2008)
But if you park it in the sun for a week and then drive it 5 miles, you'll get the equivalent of 100mpg!
The wings idea is hilarious. You can't get lift without also getting drag.
Reply
Another Tim 4:42PM (1/16/2008)
I think the idea with wind turbines is that they are only uncovered and/or active when braking. It generates electricity while helping to slow the vehicle.
Probably much easier to implement than regenerative braking, if not nearly as efficient.
Reply
Mort 4:49PM (1/16/2008)
Why not use an M-1 tank?
Reply
sila332 4:54PM (1/16/2008)
Is the kind of creativity that the auto x-prize was supposed to stimulate? Ten million dollars for a one- off high mpg vehicle that will never be mass produced (and that no one would buy). Someone blew it when they wrote the rules for this thing. What a waste.
Reply
Karkus 5:27PM (1/16/2008)
Yep, what a waste of resources for something that will NEVER be produced.
The funniest part is that they want to show that they can make a "large, heavy, safe, practical SUV" get good MPGs. If you look at old Blazer crash test ratings, you'll find that this is a really UNsafe vehicle - lots of POOR ratings (and that doesn't even include the rollover risk).
Reply
Sebastian 9:38PM (1/16/2008)
in case you're reading the comments and skipping over the post that you read before, I just wanted to make sure you all see the file I added to the post as it gives more info on just what this lab is thinking about cost and funding.
Sebastian
Reply
Chris M 2:07AM (1/17/2008)
The automotive X prize contestants cover a wide gamut, from skilled engineers with brilliant designs to inept amateurs with more enthusiasm than knowhow.
Some of the contestants will fail early on, as they won't meet the minimum requirements. Some may fail to get even a workable prototype going, let alone meet the high milage requirement.
Of all the proposals I have seen, this seems the most inept of all. This "kitchen sink" approach of trying everything will just result in a horribly expensive monstrosity that will barely move, will get terrible milage and performance, and could never be mass produced.
Reply