"The whole electrical grid: unless those charging stations have micro-fusion reactors attached, that energy has to be ported from somewhere else. The losses we sustain in the grid alone are staggering."

This is from "Grid-knowledgeable Chaz"? The US power grid averages 92.8% efficiency. Also, he's dead wrong about power supply for EVs; there's been study after peer-reviewed study on this subject, including by the DOE, and they're always very favorable, with little to no new infrastructure needed for even a large adoption rate.

I've noticed this problem with you before, Witz: you tend to label anyone who agrees with you an expert and anyone who disagrees with you as fringe, without letting facts get in the way.

Oh, and as for this quote:

"Still, you're not going cross-country in EVs any time soon."

I'll be going cross-country in an EV this winter (assuming my number for my vehicle comes up on time). And again next summer. Suboptimally, for sure (mostly RV park hopping), due to our current lack of charging stations, but it absolutely can be done.
And has been done.

"You would need to have 1600Wh at sufficiently high voltage that it can charge the dead pack.... a lot of relatively low-capacity cells strung in series. My guess is that in order to do that, the gravimetric energy density goes in the can because the active material in the cells will be a substantially smaller percentage of the mass required to contain them."

"My guess"? You respond to math with a guess? Really? Your typical A123 cell that gets that 100Wh/kg rating is about 6Wh. That's 266V strung in series. Not enough for your particular drivetrain? Then add a few more or use a step-up transformer.

"that 1600 Wh (his number for 8 miles of range) is about 6.4 liquid ounces of gasoline; less than a cup."

Wow, must we *always* decide to not factor in the efficiencies of various drivetrains when comparing EV energy density to gasoline? Really?

"Then you have to be able to transfer all the energy out of the can into the vehicle's pack -- difficult to do with chemical batteries. You'll probably need 2x energy in the can to get 1x energy into the vehicle battery."

Since when? Even in a rapid-charge/discharge situation, li-ion batteries are in the 90s in terms of efficiency, usually in the upper 90s. So where on Earth is this coming from? And, FYI, the math was done in that thread that showed that you don't need to equalize the cells; quality LiPs have the power density sufficient to run the vehicle on that small pack so long as you don't need exceptional performance.

"And don't forget the safety issues of toting around a 300+ volt 'jerry can' battery.""

As though breakers don't exist? Try turning off the "breaker" on your can of gasoline. In an extreme case, with the circuit broken between each, you're left with a bunch of 3V cells.

"On-demand mobile charging for stranded EV drivers? Maybe."

Not "maybe". Obviously.

"How much would it cost to purchase and equip such a truck? How much would you be willing to pay for a fairly quick emergency charge?"

Doesn't matter. That's the 0.01%-of-the-time case. It could be ten times the cost of a normal charge. A hundred times. It's still a trivial percentage of your TCO.

Reply

↓↑report

All of that said, I will come to your defense. First, by quoting Ovshinsky himself:

"Q: So it’s your opinion that Cobasys is preventing other people from making it for that reason?
A: Cobasys is not preventing anybody. Cobasys just needs an infusion of cash. It builds a great battery. If I had had my way—and if people in the industry had listened—I had two next generation batteries, one under test that was doing very well and one being developed—would have made them not taking the chances that they are now with lithium. But I invented the batteries and I have no ownership in any case, anymore . But I would’ve liked to and will probably will in the future…I would rather be a resource to General Motors . I’m not trying to be a critic."

And then by referencing Dave Goldstein, the president of the Electric Vehicle Association of Washington DC -- about as hardcore of an EV advocate as you'll find:

http://www.evnut.com/battery_patents.htm

I will, obviously, not come to your defense on how serious GM was about the EV-1 being a mass-market car. It patently was not -- it was a low-volume vehicle made of a bunch of low-volume parts with little shared with GM's other product lines and released on a limited-availability basis, and you've yet to make a cogent defense to the contrary. I have no problem with GM portraying it as a testbed, and I think it was an excellent testbed at that, but to use the defense that GM was trying to make it succeed in the marketplace is just plain silly. Present it as it is and we'll have no quibble.

Reply

↓↑report

This guy must be the Rush Limbaugh of the auto industry. What a blowhard. For a more honest and accurate history of the control of Ovshinsky's battery see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobasys

Witz would have you believe that the Texaco Ovonic Battery Systems only owns 20 percent of a company that has its name on it. Try 60 percent.

Reply

↓↑report

The conspiracy theorys surrounding the EV1 probably started because GM chose to round up all the cars and truck them to the middle of nowhere and crushed them rather than selling them to people.

From a bean counter, money is everything perspective this might have been the "right" thing to do, but from a PR perspective(earth friendly, high tech, independent from big oil) this was the exact wrong thing to do.

You somehow neglected to mention that all of the EV1s were crushed except a few models that were kept for "educational purposes" and forbidden to be driven on public roadways. Do not allow people to know they could be powering their cars with electricity!

Over the years, instead of innovating and competing against the honda insight & toyota prius and producing fuel efficient alternative vehicles gm has taken the bean counter approach and declined to compete while fighting all government regulation designed to encourage more fuel efficient vehicles. Lawsuits, lobbying, astroturf, cafe loopholes for light trucks and flex fuel, has been the focus of gm innovation.

Now you say that an affordable electric vehicle cannot be built.
I say it can be built, and it will be built(and people will buy it!), but it wont be built by gm.

Reply

↓↑report

Enlightening. I agree, as of now EVs are too small, are too expensive, or have too limited range. An EV makes a lot of sense for the guy or gal who has a home charging station, and can plug it in when he gets home from work, unplug it and go back to work in the morning, sort of like a golf cart is used. Using household current overnight is not a problem.
EVs are getting better and will continue to do so going forward. Their time will come, and it won't be too far off. Until then, a hybrid ice system makes much more sense.

Reply

↓↑report

re: "try 1500 in Manhattan ALONE"

Any data to back up this number?

Most people in Manhattan don't have cars. And most that do don't drive long-range on a regular basis. Even most commuters to Manhattan don't do that. And commuters' cars sit all day and again most of the night at home. In short, they don't need a lot of charging stations in Manhattan, esp. if there's a way to get their parking structures to provide low-amp charging.

Reply

↓↑report

Well, setting up charging stations will take some work, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you make it out to be. They already have quite a few in California and the state didn't fall into the ocean or anything.

'm sure if if you said back in 1910 that someday there would be millions of gasoline powered automobiles on the road and that there would need to be many thousands of fueling stations (1500 in Manhattan alone!). Each of those fueling stations is going to need underground tanks, that have to be specially constructed to not corrode and leak after being buried many years. The stations will also require pumps, and those have to be specially constructed to keep track of exactly how much fuel is dispensed to each customer. The pumps will also need cutoff valves for safety in case something goes wrong and the fuel leaks out, and even still sometimes the things will catch fire. You will also need a huge network of refineries and pipelines and storage tanks, and tanker trucks which will need their own fuel, but that fuel will be different than the fuel the cars run on, and even after all of that some people will end up running out of fuel before they get to a filling station and you have to have some way of dealing with that and...

Jeez, the whole thing sounds so dang complicated let's just stick with horses!

Reply

↓↑report

There is only one true answer (at least until people's "range-anxiety" paradym can be changed) and that is the E-REV.

GM and others are on the right track!

Reply

↓↑report

The technical aspects of both sides of this discussion are fascinating. That said, it seems we could benefit with a united "can do" approach as we move forward. The situation in New York City in 1898 was desperate. Why? The city was literally awash in horse manure. It was estimated if something wasn't done the city would be nine feet deep in the stuff. The health hazards were obvious, significant and real. What happened next was the solution of the day, the automobile. It wasn't long until New York, along with all other major metropolitan areas was again awash in another noxious pollutant called smog. Choking smog so bad that by the late 1930's up until the catalytic converter and other smog abatement systems peoples lungs would burn and their eyes would sting and water just from simply being outside or walking down the street.
Spring forward to 2009. Even with all our new technologies, we are still drowning in our transportation waste, only this time we've identified carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and a host of other green house gases and carcinogenic pollutants that literally threaten our health and our planet.
We need to consider that back in the day where cars came along, there were no paved street designed for cars to speak of. There was no national highway system, no parking lots, no garages for maintaining this new technology, no gas stations or oil change garages. Henry Ford built the cars and sold them as fast as he could. The infrastructure came along at an amazing pace to support at first the thousands of cars being produced and sold, which later became millions and millions automobiles.
From my perspective, we have a historical model that gives us the advantage of planning for the Plug-In, Range Extended, and Battery Electric vehicles that are coming, in a way that will allow us to accommodate this new disruptive technology and allow a smooth transition.
200 - 300 miles of EV range and rapid charging are current technological realities that only need to be implemented and released to the public. This is a public that is starving to be free from the grip of oil companies on world economies, pollution, foreign oil and the impact it has on our national security.
We should not discount Shai Aggasi's battery swap idea out of hand in the interest of seeking the perfect solution. We should embrace all non fossil fuel solutions with a special emphasis on what works now, batteries! Why is it not feasible to see stations that can sell bio-diesel and E85, along with providing battery swapping and rapid charging?
Let’s not forget, we are all basically interested in achieving the same goals. Let's get to it. We can plan and fill gaps as we go. We have seen "concept cars" for years that never come to be. Let's let the Tesla’s, Fisker’s, Mile’s and many others compete in a marketplace that has been closed to all options for 100 years. It's been ICE or nothing, to our extreme detriment since cars came into existence. If there was ever a time for bold action, this is it! It's time to unite and move into the future.

Reply

↓↑report

good comments.
one of your better posts gary. thank you again for coining the term "range anxiety" and using this public forum to make it a mainstay in the automotive industry.

its may 2009. i have only one question for you:

knowing what you know now (and hindsight is always 20/20) about the developments in alternative drivetrains, should GM have abandoned the EV1 project?

you've already acknowledged the existence and continued success of the RAV4-EV, please clarify your stance on GM's departure from the EV1 project, a project you passionately devoted nine years of your time and expertise to.

btw: your recollection of the past events surrounding the EV1 and NiMH large-format technology seems cloudy at best... do a bit more research before assuming what "REALLY" happened... you might also wanna take a look at cobasys' statement of earnings in the last couple years and draw your own conclusions.

Reply

↓↑report

Apperantly ECD makes up this BS, according to their own SEC filings. The following is takend from Wikipedia, which sources ECD SEC filings:
In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacture, including patents controlling the manufacture of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[1] Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron held a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics as of a public filing made January 15, 2003.[2] In a later filing on May 17, 2005[3], Energy Conversion Devices announced that they had exercised an option to purchase back 4,376,633 shares of stock from a Chevron Subsidiary, and would cancel and return them to authorized-unissued status. This is the exact number of shares that was listed as owned by ChevronTexaco in the January 15, 2003 filing.
Chevron also maintains veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology.[4] In addition, Chevron maintains the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations.[4] On September 10, 2007, Chevron filed a legal claim that ECD Ovonics had not fulfilled its obligations. ECD Ovonics disputes this claim.[5] The arbitration hearing was repeatedly suspended while the parties negotiated with General Motors over the sale of Cobasys back to GM. As of March 2008, no agreement had been reached with GM.[6]
1. ^ Roberson, J. (March 14, 2007) "Supplier Cobasys exploring more hybrid batteries" Detroit Free Press
2. ^ ECD Ovonics Definitive Proxy Statement, January 15, 2003
3. ^ ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC. Form 8K Current Report, May 17, 2005
4. ^ a b ECD Ovonics Amended General Statement of Beneficial Ownership, December 2, 2004
5. ^ ECD Ovonics 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ending September 30, 2007
6. ^ a b ECD Ovonics 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ending March 31, 2008
According to the current SEC filings, Chevron still holds 50% of Ovonics Battery, and the exclusive right to decide who to build automotive application NiMH batteries for, and how many. Currently they are being very selective about who and in what quantities they build, namely only for gas burning HEVs and only for GM. They are also currently still vying legally for complete control of the NiMH intellectual property.

BS indeed.

I’m voting for evil. Or at least acting in their own short term self interest.

Reply

↓↑report