Plug-in hybrid vehicles are certainly the car of the very near future and a core climate solution. And electricity is the only alternative fuel that can lead to energy independence (see here). But I have a long been concerned that General Motors has overdesigned its showcase plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, the Chevy Volt (see here).
Now a major new study by a team of researchers from Carnegie Mellon University, “Impact of battery weight and charging patterns on the economic and environmental benefits of plug-in hybrid vehicles” (see here [PDF]) confirms my basic analysis that plug-ins make sense, but a 40-mile all electric range does not:
We find that when charged frequently, every 20 miles or less, using average U.S. electricity, small-capacity PHEVs are less expensive and release fewer GHGs than hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs) or conventional vehicles ...
Large-capacity PHEVs sized for 40 or more miles of electric-only travel are not cost effective in any scenario, although they could minimize GHG emissions for some drivers.
Bloomberg quotes Jeremy Michalek, an engineering professor who led the study: “Forty miles might be a sweet spot for making sure a lot of people get to work without using gasoline, but you’re doing it at a cost that will never be repaid in fuel savings.”
Note that CMU considered a “high gas price” of $6.0 a gallon, which is the equivalent about $200 a barrel, a reasonable high price case for the next decade.
Perhaps the most significant finding for car companies who want to enter the plug-in hybrid business, minimize costs, and frankly crush GM, is something I have thought for a long time—a very short AER can make sense for a large fraction of drivers:
Our results suggest that for urban driving conditions and frequent charges every 10 miles or less, a low-capacity PHEV sized with an AER of about 7 miles would be a robust choice for minimizing gasoline consumption, cost, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Toyota seems to share the view that an AER far below 40 is optimum, as the Bloomberg piece notes:
Toyota also plans tests this year on a plug-in Prius able to go more than 10 miles on a charge.
The final range is likely to be less than half that of the Volt, said Bill Reinert, U.S. national manager for advanced technology for Toyota City, Japan-based Toyota ...
“We believe that if you have a smaller battery charged more frequently, you can run on electricity more of the time, then your carbon emissions are going to be lower overall,” Reinert said.
I’m going to include this figure, even though it is a tad opaque, just to keep you off the streets for a few hours puzzling it out (click here for a bigger picture):
Best vehicle choice for minimum fuel consumption, cost, or greenhouse gas emissions as a function of distance driven between charges across sensitivity scenarios.
Michalek is quoted in Green Car Congress piece explaining why smaller is better, at least when it comes to PHEV batteries:
Larger battery packs allow drivers to go longer distances on electric power. But batteries are heavy and expensive. Over a range of scenarios-including fluctuating gas prices, new battery technologies or high taxes on carbon dioxide emissions-plug-ins with small battery packs are economically competitive with ordinary hybrid and conventional vehicles for drivers who charge frequently.
The study, which was accepted this week for publication in a forthcoming issue of the journal Energy Policy, has public policy implications:
The dominance of the small-capacity PHEV over larger-capacity PHEVs across the wide range of scenarios examined in this study suggests that government incentives designed to increase adoption of PHEVs may be best targeted toward adoption of small capacity PHEVs by urban drivers who are able to charge frequently. Because nearly 50% of U.S. passenger vehicle miles are traveled by vehicles driving less than 20 miles per day (Samaras and Meisterling, 2008; US DOT, 2003), there remains significant potential in targeting this subset of drivers.
Once again, I strongly urge General Motors to revisit this issue of range. The company is on its last legs and simply can’t afford to have a major miscue on what will certainly be among its most important new products in the decade of the 2010.
Finally, I think this study is best looked at as describing the optimal plug-in the 2010s. In the 2020s and beyond, as peak oil and desperation about global warming starts to dominate, longer ranges will make more sense. The Volt may, fatally, be 15 years ahead of its time.
UPDATE: Of course, if we build out a lot of charging stations in parking garages, malls, apartment buildings, residences, and so on over the next 15 years, than a considerably shorter range than 40 miles may still be optimal.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Climate change and God
Comments
View as Flat
theBike45 Posted 5:06 am
07 Mar 2009
CMU also mistakenly claims that battery weight will make a significant difference with respect to mileage. Well, electrically propelled cars, dear CMU people, are NOT the same as other cars and the weight of the Volt's battery pack (about 430 pounds) will make very little difference
when compared to a model with a battery pack supporting a 7 mile range. Wind resistence and tire rollingresistence are the big factors for EV car mileages, not weight, since the car can recapture most weight induced penalties thru regen braking. CMU has produced perhaps the most invalid and brainless study I've come across in quite some time. This really isn't rocket science, CMU. I'm embarrassed that this college in located in our country.
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 7:00 am
07 Mar 2009
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/05/gm-responds-to-ca ...
According to autobloggreen:
Tax credits starting at $4,168 (there's a nice round number for you) will go to people to buy a vehicle with a battery pack that has at least 4 kWh of capacity. From there the credits ramp up to $7,500 for vehicles with a 16 kWh pack. For those that haven't been paying attention, that just happens to be the size of the pack in the Chevy Volt
Basicly, GM is designing cars that can capitalize on government handouts, which is becoming alarmingly common (think Flex Fuel SUVs designed to burn corn ethanol).
Is it possible that Congress does not know its ass from a hole in the ground?:
Still, is electric storage really the best criterion for judging plug-in hybrids?
For instance, if you make heavier vehicles, then kWh's won't necessarily equate to extensive electric range. Conversely, ultralight vehicles might not need much battery capacity to achieve even more than 40 miles of EV range. Thus, wouldn't EV range, not battery capacity, be a better way to judge plug-ins?
Also, the Chevy Volt only charges it's lithium battery to 80 percent and depletes it to only 30 percent. This is largely to maintain cell integrity and durability of the battery. Thus, one might argue that 50 percent of the battery isn't needed. Hence, 50 percent of the capacity isn't needed. That would push the Volt down to just 8 kWh's and less of a tax credit
In reality, many Volt drivers will have to use gasoline, maybe a lot more gasoline than Congress believes. Some battery experts have already claimed that Volt EV range could easily drop well below 20, even 15, miles with heavy AC use and aggressive driving. If this proves true, is 15 miles of EV range really worth $7500 more than 100 mpg, or more, fuel economy just because of battery capacity?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:32 am
07 Mar 2009
So, now the whole plugin fantasy is exposed.
They can't make a 40 mile plugin.
The battery technology isn't there.
So they move the goal posts and say "oh you only need 20 miles".
Bottom line, if they actually manage to connive the public into buying these rust buckets, we'll have plenty of them sitting in parking lots at the mall because the charge ran out...
Hydrogen is here and now.
A conversion to all hydrogen will take 5 years and complete remove pollution from all the metropolises.
Permalink
Spence Posted 8:30 am
07 Mar 2009
Permalink
JMG Posted 8:32 am
07 Mar 2009
Although your collective selves seem to all post as jabailo, it's confusing since one of them was trumpeting the Volt so obnoxiously not so very long ago -- and now another one is slamming the Volt.
Get help, man. With therapy, it's possible to reintegrate multiple personalities and even to help the victim return to normal functioning.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 11:20 am
07 Mar 2009
These fancy hybrids/electric cars aren't about rescuing us from The Venus Syndrome©.
Good grief. It's elitist-superioristic pandering.
Electric-hybrids are a design-philosophy that is capable of being so simple and so low-cost, small businesses such as bicycle shops, lawnmower-repair shops and electric motor shops that you find in the average not-too-small town could easily be their own local automotive manufacturing center.
Hybrids are the car-design that Orville & Wilber Wright (bicycle shop mechanics) would have gone for, had someone already beaten them into the air.
This is why major auto-makers cater to dead-end, too-small markets that like being associated with something 'special' ... and that guarantee market & CO2 insignificance.
When hybrids are what you want them to be - common - the snob-appeal will be gone, the cost will be low, and the mega-corporation planned-obsolescence model will be truly & finally bankrupt ... because anybody with a decent set of wrenchs, a welder and a heated garage will be able to build ... the cars you really want to replace today's anachronisms.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:45 am
07 Mar 2009
"Snob" is not quite the right word, IMO. But there is a certain "look at me" factor in play with early adopters. Lots of products are introduced at inflated prices (both simply to make money and in an attempt to ensure recapture of R&D expenses) and sold to people who want to be seen with the latest and the greatest.
But even after electrics get affordable (and an electric is likely to become cheaper than a comparable ICE) there is going to remain the desire for something new and the pressure of latest fashion.
Just look at how the backs of many closets are stuffed with clothes still in excellent shape but "not this year's style".
The same operates with cars. Manufacturers will change appearance so that you can easily check to see how you are doing in your attempts to keep up with the Jones family down the street.
Permalink
Duggles Posted 12:51 pm
07 Mar 2009
biodiversivist: I believe that the tax credit is sized to match the Volt, not the other way around.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:27 pm
07 Mar 2009
We have mentioned this here ever since the Volt was first touted by GM.
Another obvious problem, it is made of steel intead of carbon fiber, making it's weight thrice what is should and could be.
A properly designed Volt, actually a Lovins Hypercar, could get a 40 mile range off of 3 or 4 Oasis truck batteries which way 70 pounds a piece. They are foamed lead/acid and last for 1500 charge cycles. And because they do not use exotic material, cost isn't even a signifigant factor in a $20k car.
And here's another fact CMU might want to check, BYD in china manufactures a Toyota Corrolla sized plugin hybrid with a 40 mile range that sells for 22k.
They might check out the Audi A1 plugin hybrid too, the only other mass produced plugin hybrid. Or the Toyota 1x plhin hybrid concept car, it's carbon giber and weighs 962 pounds and has the performance of a Prius. It goes 600 miles on a full battery charge and 4 gallons of gas.
Or maybe they could just read this blog? That might provide a better research direction than they are used to.
On the range debate: Some people will benefit from a 60 mile range, others will only need a 10 mile range. It depends on their commute, but the average is 23 miles. Some people don't even need a backup generator, they could use exchangeable zinc/air batteries for emergencies.
Plugin hybrids should be designed with this in mind and have easily plugged in anmd out extra battery packs of different sizes and backup generators. This is the optimum solution, an efficient, safe, affordable electric vehicle platform with easily adjustable backup power and storage.
For a vacation, a customer with a 40 mile battery pack, that normally never drives over 30 miles a day and doesn't need a backup generator, could swap it for a 10 mile battery pack and a backup generator.
If it did any good to complain about the sorry lack of renewable technology understanding in academia and main stream media, they would already be up to speed on plugin hybrids and a lot of other new energy economy devices and systems. It doesn't.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:59 pm
07 Mar 2009
Drop the range to 20 miles and you are going to be burning a lot more petroleum. Average commuting distance is not the proper target.
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 4:12 pm
07 Mar 2009
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:50 am
08 Mar 2009
A carbon fiber unibody that uses an electric motor coupled to front wheel drive. Around 1000 pounds suitable for 5 passengers. Similar to a small aerodynamic SUV body like the Hypercar or the Toyota 1x conscept car.
A "model T" plugin car underbody that any car company could design an exterior and interior for, that fastens on. Government should order a million units, with the big three each adding their own styling take on their share of the contracts.
Battery pacls or backup generators could be determined by the asutomakers too, within goveernment parameters for their specific range desired. Exchangeable emergency zinc air batteries with a 10 mile range could be used for ultimate backup for pure electric urban versions.
Would the fuel cell and fuel farm fans be ok with this? How about the boiogas guel cell fans? I think we could all get behind the basic platform. it would revolutionize car making and revive the US auto industry. And triple mileage instantly from weight savings.
Exotic batteries or guel cells and so forth can come along later. This is practical right now with inexpensive batteries and backup.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:01 am
08 Mar 2009
Government could provide specifications and verify production, private industry would still be in charge of operations, that's still capitalism. WW II style capitalism, directed by government.
Once this new design is mass produced for government orders, the assembley lines can turn them out for consumers. Toyota and Honda and Korean and Chinese automakers and others would soon be ordering from Fiber Forge or opening their own versions.
As US consumers choices change, manfacturing will follow. This isn't socialism, it is directed capitalism.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 3:27 am
08 Mar 2009
Because we have no intention of doing so, at this time.
One possibility is, we aim to transfer the bulk of practical automotive manufacturing overseas, where they are already well ahead of us.
American makers will then become specialty-makers, like Rolls-Royce or Porsche. If they don't disappear outright.
Obviously, we could have had the car-platform Amazing describes, long ago. In fact, we have worked hard to suppress & evade it.
There is no way to know for sure what the 'real plan' is, but it's clear that being responsible with energy & transportation isn't it.
Rule #1 is, It's not about technology. It's not a matter of science or research or development. It's "The Games People Play", at the national & international level.
(see also: Transactional Analysis for the real psych-students, but the book - GPP - is far more practical.)
The only option open to us now - but it's a very good one! - is to build your own. Hybrids are open to far simpler designs than the 'planned obsolescence' and 'consumer-proof' products we've come to accept as 'cars'.
If enough people did build & drive their own contraptions (it's deliberately perfectly legal), that could very well crack 'the game' wide open.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:53 am
08 Mar 2009
I wonder if mass produced kits could be applied to plugin conversion? Aluminum frame, fiberglass body kits that you can bolt all the rolling, running parts from your donor car onto.
Then the electric motor/battery and backup generator completes the vehicle. All the legally operable wheels, breaks, suspension, steering and so forth remains the same as on the donor car.
The donor interior, seats, dash, lights, windshield could all be used. How would an assembley line work to convet cars this way? All of the same model used cars could be scheduled for a production run, you could pick up your conversion at the factory in a week or so after bringing the donor car in.
I'm thinking layed off auto workers could form companies to do this with a little government help to get started, maybe a 500 car conversion contract?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:33 am
08 Mar 2009
Why can't we recognize that all the effort spent on trying to sustain the unsustainable is a dead loss that we will regret?
As Dmitry Orlov says, it would be better to simply outlaw new autos than to try and save the automakers, a gigantic boondoggle.
America has many millions more cars than are needed already. We have a NEED for exactly zero new cars. The only sane position is to stop making more of these destructive and wasteful machines.
Once we stop making them, we can put the former auto workers to work making something of value to a low-energy, low-carbon future -- rail cars, light rail cars, trolley cars, switches and controllers for all of the above, double-tracking for all intercity and interstate rail systems, super-insulated insulated forms for residential and commercial building retrofits, super-high energy appliances, wind turbines, concentrating solar collectors, evacuated tube solar hot water heaters, etc.
There are a LOT of needs in this country. Cars aren't among them. A sane country would recognize that it's bleeding to death through the open wound marked "automobility" and address that issue, not try band-aids to staunch arterial bleeding.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 7:58 am
08 Mar 2009
Donor-machines can be cheap, but they are highly variable/non-standardized. As a private modifier on a budget, we first shop for a light, used compact in good condition. What make/model, isn't that important. Then we shop for a suitable motor for it, after carefully determining what that motor might be...
But on a "production" basis, a conversion-business needs a standardized donor-component. The motor and other components they install will have been figured out for a fairly specific base-machine. They will have had to make custom, nitty-gritty solutions for a number of unglamorous problems that will always arise ... and the fixes & parts will vary with the make/model of the donor. The conversion business can't go with whatever good-condition vehicle we bring in, and then solve all those 'nuisance' factors, for all the various cars the public might find.
To a considerable degree, a successful conversion-hybrid will be operated by a person who is educated, trained & committed to the project. That's not normal - many folks won't even know what it means.
Really, 'having an electric' is like 'having a horse'. Many will not realize it, but there is no such thing as a 'turn-key' horse (except at the crudest level). There is considerable person investment & demand involved, in using any individual horse well. Same goes for simple, more-practical, lower-cost electric cars.
A business doing conversion-hybrids for today's population, faces the expectation of a turn-key product. That the new owner will be an active participant in the success of the hybrid car, is likely to be a tough & frustrating sell.
Notice that if we wanted to make our own methamphetamine, it wouldn't be like that. Most meth is made in little backyard & bathroom labs. It goes without saying that we will ourselves be fully responsible for the entire production-process. That kind of willingness & dedication is what we want in simple-hybrid owners.
Simple batteries & electric motors are low-cost, suitably efficient & adequately effective, but they must be taken care of & managed like a horse or meth-lab. Consumers today aren't used to that.
While the donor-conversion-hybrid is a practical project for the backyard mechanic/enthusiast, wholesale conversions for public sale would be more like doing NASCAR race car conversions ... or building & selling kit/experimental airplanes ... both of which are done, but not at 'socially-significant' numbers.
So ... how is the crowd led away from the consumer/turn-key product expectation? How do we make it like dealing pot - where you darn well need to know 'grades', clean stems & seeds, break it down properly, weight/measure accurately, keep records ... and otherwise behave as though you & me are actually in charge ... instead of Detroit & assorted jerks in expensive suits?
That's why it's not a matter of technology, or even business: It's a matter of tweaking us, rather than proprietary battery-packs & styling-packages.
This is a broad, pervasive truth: Our real problems are not with techological & industry, or even with corrupt business & politics. We are the basic difficulty & limitation.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:49 am
08 Mar 2009
And we would rather have cars that use renewable electricity instead of oil or biomass guzzling engines. Face it, you won't get the pure solution you want unless Kunstler is right. Hehey.
Ted I think you could pick a unbiquitos popular used car like the Accord, then do 500 Accord sedans in a production run. Then do Corrollas the next week. And so forth. These could be smaller limited assembley line shops too. Mass production of the retrofit kits could be real industrial sized.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:23 pm
08 Mar 2009
Take all the money being squandered to prop up zombie companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler) and all the money being worse-than-squandered on agrofuels and highway expansion and start putting that into investments that make sense in a post-carbon world.
There are MILLIONs of brand new cars sitting in rows around the world right now --- why would we give Detroit one dime to keep them making more? The best thing we can do for America is help automakers escape the flaming wreckage of the failed industry before it takes them (and us) down with it.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:04 pm
08 Mar 2009
Then take your bike outside the city and count the number of houses that aren't built in dense, public transportation friendly areas.
Now calculate the cost of abandoning those houses (and businesses) and building new housing in dense cites for all those people so that they won't need cars.
We aren't going to give up personal transportation . In fact, we'll build more and more of it.
I've been in Southeast Asia for the last couple of months. Here people are in the process of moving from bikes (now seldom used) to motorbikes (common in Vietnam) to cars (largely replaced bikes in Thailand). Then look at what is happening in India and China.
We need to accept the reality that there is enormous resistance to giving up cars. There is enormous desire for even more cars. We need to put our efforts into making cars sustainable.
Metal is recyclable. If we need metal for frames/strength we can use it, melt it down, and reuse it. We can melt it down using green power.
The rest of the car can be made of plastics. There are interesting developments in non-petroleum plastics.
Take a look at Arborform. Made from wood and can be recycled/reprocess many times.
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2608/64/
Build a car, use it for ten years, recycle it into a fresh, new model. At least ten times. Use the same pile of wood for 100 years of cars.
Put those together with wind-generated electricity. We will probably build lots of wind generation as it is the least expensive way to produce electricity. A lot of that generation will occur when grid demand is low (late night, very early morning) which is perfect for charging car batteries. And those batteries can provide grid smoothing reserve.
Lightweight cars made of recyclable materials powered by green electricity will give us sustainable personal transportation.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 1:17 pm
08 Mar 2009
Any proposed solution that is too expensive for large numbers of people to afford isn't really a solution at all. That's the problem with the Volt. Most Americans haven't been willing to consider a full or mild hybrid up 'til now despite the fact that the price difference between hybrids and comparable conventional cars is much less than the premium one will have to pay for a Volt if it ever actually comes to market with the advertised capability.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:19 pm
08 Mar 2009
In our cities we had more public transportation per capita than we have today. Look at the pre-WWII cities and compare them to the post-WWII cities that developed during the age of the car.
We quit building cars for a few years. A very few years.
People patched together the existing cars and rationed gas cut usage to absolute minimums.
At the end of the war there was an incredible build up of demand for cars. Detroit worked 24/7 cranking out cars that people wanted. It's not like demand disappeared.
I think it very, very important for those of us who would like to solve our environmental problems to keep foremost in our thoughts that worldwide we have mostly left the era of monarchy behind us.
Most of the world is more or less democratic. Even in those places controlled by "strongmen" there is an large amount of "people power". There are few places like Myanmar or North Korea where the government can issue demands and not worry much about an uprising.
There's only the most minuscule chance that significant change could be rammed down the public's throats. Change has to come in ways that are acceptable to the majority of the populace.
We need to look for solutions that are easily embraced by people. Cars that cost less to "fuel" and cost less to maintain is something that can be sold. A willing, even eager, buyer is going to make change much easier to accomplish.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:39 pm
08 Mar 2009
There's the short term danger of a deep, prolonged depression.
IMO, we need to keep car manufacturers in business. In the US Ford, GM, Chrysler, and all their suppliers employee a very large part of our work force. We might destroy our economy were we to put all those people out of jobs.
We can (I think) keep those plants viable and make more ICE vehicles while we develop greener machines.
I don't think we have an alternative.
Then there's that other great danger that's a few more years out. Global climate change could destroy our way of life and cause incredible suffering.
We don't have a "right now, this moment" solution for cars that solve our personal transportation needs. We can shift ICE vehicle manufacturing from larger, less efficient models to smaller, more efficient ones. And we are.
We are just starting to introduce PHEVs to the roads. We still don't have the batteries that we need to make really usable BEVs. (But I think we're close. I suspect that we are within three years of producing viable electric cars.)
Electric cars are going to bring a new type of manufacturing into reality. I suspect car manufacturing of the future will something like the manufacturing of desktop computers.
Look at Michaelin's 'motor in the hub' component system. They make a standalone wheel that contains an electric motor, regenerative braking, and suspension. They also sell the electronics to make the wheels work.
In the future one could buy their motors/wheels from one company, battery packs from another, buy a generic frame, seats, door systems, etc. from other specialized manufacturers and bolt it all together.
Of course the big players such as GM can do the same and be very competitive because of economy of scale. But they won't own the market as they now do. And that will be a good thing. Innovation is easier done by smaller companies. We will see new ideas tried and proved by smaller companies and then the best of those ideas will spread to the larger companies.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 3:41 pm
08 Mar 2009
He has a striking new high-mileage plugin hybrid project called the XR3.
===
My brother and his family fabricate wings and bodies and body-parts for amateur race cars. They use a lot of carbon fiber ... but they also use non-carbon compositions. Carbon is tops where maximum strength is needed ... but even in race cars, high strength is not required everywhere.
Very light weights at surprisingly good strength can be had with lower-cost, easier-fabbed fiber-resin combinations than carbon. Most body-panels are very lightly loaded, and do not call for 'rocket science' composites.
We've now all seen canoes & kayaks that are almost transparent and are easily one-handed overhead (even one-fingered): they're often not carbon. Fibers come in a range of weights, and fiber pre-impregnated with resin makes a lighter composite than you can create by free-handing resin onto cloth.
Homemade car-bodies are usually going to incorporate 3-D foam within the exterior shell, which is part of the integral construction, impact-absorption, vibration damping & sound insulation, and thermal insulation. The importance & weight of the foam 'balances off' the significance of the minimal-achievable exterior composite skin weight ... since that's only part of the 'total engineering cost' of the body-panels (which can also include structural metal, metal fasteners, and other hardware).
Factory bodies will use molds and pop out panel-skins, but even these will have some kind of 'body' to them - not just a sheer composition-sheet without backing & filler & gelcoat and so-on.
Bro uses mainly pre-preg for challenging parts, which could be a great help for any private projects using any of the niftier new fibers. For 'cooperative' parts they use a homemade vacuum bagging setup with manual fiber & resin lay-up .
R. Q. Riley has a page up, One-Off Construction Using GRP/Urethane Foam Composite tutorial, "An Overview of How to Work With fiberglass Over Urethane Foam". Traditional, very practical. Not 'cutting edge', but that's not where the home-builder should start anyway.
Commercial production has it's own pluses & minuses, but their key need is to keep things rolling right along. Some of the good stuff you can do better by hand, they can't tolerate, while some of the plant-systems that make things fast & easy for them, you'll only dream about.
There is a lot of good composites information & guidance on the web.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:59 pm
08 Mar 2009
Michelin is making the drive units.
Battery manufacturers are getting their acts together.
It's the direction in which the industry could go....
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:19 pm
08 Mar 2009
It was limited supply and hand labor to mold it into shape.
Lovins' company, Fiber Forge changed that, now carbon fiber thermoplastic parts can be stamped out like steel.
Check it out.
http://www.fiberforge.com/
It's how he envisions his Hypercar being mass produced, as a unibody from 8 (?) seperate stamped parts that glue together.
This is why I keep insisting that all the R&D has been done, now government needs to order a million of these cars. Auto companies will not take the leap on their own.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:27 pm
08 Mar 2009
Is breaking the addiction to automobility so terrifying that even the concept of weaning ourselves off is frightening to you?
There are hundreds of millions of cars in North America. I think we could stop pouring energy and resources into making new ones for a couple of decades ...
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:38 pm
08 Mar 2009
Or the hundreds of millions of current car owners and the billions of people who want to be car owners?
We can't stop making new cars. Our existing fleet's lives can be stretched only so far. Go somewhere that uses salt to de-ice their roads and look at the condition of 10-15 year old cars.
We are going to keep making cars. The majority of the populace is not willing to look far enough ahead to stop buying and driving cars.
We've just got to make cars in a wiser manner.
(And at the same time improve public transportation and build our communities so that there is less need for transportation other than a decent pair of shoes.)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:43 pm
08 Mar 2009
I like the idea of electrified rail taking the place of new car manufacturing, car conversion could provide jobs for auto workers too.
It isn't likely unless a major depression sets in, and in that case we probably won't be building new trains either. Just scrounging, living off the old stuff and making do.
That might happem, who knows? But I'm not rooting for it. As much as I despise the consumption=happiness addictive culture.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:45 pm
08 Mar 2009
Lots of people are willing to give up their gas hogs. (Or at least they will be once the economy has made significant recovery and fuel prices have moved back to higher levels.)
Give drivers a safe, comfortable alternative to their oversized SUV/sedan and those energy wasters will make their way to the crusher sooner rather than later.
We need to get some PHEVs into people's hands so that they can have the experience of driving without burning fuel. That will make people more comfortable with buying a car that has no internal combustion engine.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:56 pm
08 Mar 2009
We don't have to do anything to stop Detroit from making cars --- all we have to do is NOT prop up those companies. They are already dead, but we've strapped them to life support, courtesy of the US taxpayer who is told that there's really no money for mass transit, really no money for Amtrak, really no money for anything other than highways and slightly less awful gas guzzlers...
Look, the ICE model has outlasted its welcome. It's tied to a depleting fuel that is helping destabilize the climate.
If we simply let the Big 3 go under and get all those people to work on building things that have positive value, then we can keep the people working and build real wealth through the transition (in the form of ongoing energy harvest).
If someone manages to actually turn one of your wondercar wet dreams into a selling proposition, then great, they'll make a fortune and we can all be happy.
But in the meantime, why should we prop up an industry that only makes the kinds of vehicles we don't want? Don't we have lots more important things to invest in?
If you're so sure that the millions of people are demanding cars, then why does the government have to invest in providing them? If there's all that demand . . . ?
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:10 pm
08 Mar 2009
Or do you want to keep a couple of million people on the dole for the next few years while you come up with an idea?
BTW, you seem to have a unique definition of the word "we". "We" don't want the cars that Detroit, Japan, Korea, Europe make - you think?
Permalink
JMG Posted 8:12 pm
08 Mar 2009
Basically, you go to motortrend.com to find people who drool over the cars you can have today.
You come to Gristmill to find people drooling over the cars they hope might someday be available.
The thought of not organizing society around cars is apparently just too wild. Thus we wind up with the weird result that it's the people frequenting an environmental blog who are most adamant about how we have to keep cranking them out -- even though the wet dream fantasy cars aren't what's actually being cranked out.
It's remarkably similar to the agrofuels issue, which should probably be no surprise. Once cornered like rats and forced to look at the science, the agrofuels boosters just shift to "it's a bridge to a sustainable fuel" mantra. The carheads are the same way -- they insist that all the people in the sprawl complexes would starve if we didn't keep cars at the center of the universe, so we have to keep trying to make slow, incremental improvements while the earth goes to hell in a handbasket because, well, we can't make any sudden moves towards sustainability, it would shock the economy! It's utter bullshit. We are not intrinsically less capable of creative adaptation than were the Cubans or the people in the former Soviet republics -- the only thing that is going to hurt us is people violently trying to cling to the happy motoring fantasy.
And I already said above all the things we could ask the ex-autoworkers to build for us -- getting them retrained and retooled would provide productive employment for millions for a while--- but that's really beside the point, because even paying them NOT to make cars would be a better use of our money, because we'd stop wasting so much energy and materials if they WERE on the dole.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 8:29 pm
08 Mar 2009
What a childish post.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:02 am
09 Mar 2009
They will take it all with them, then you and Jim will have your agrarian horse drawn feudalism that you masturbate over.
The course Lovins has already set out, over the last couple decades, is a much better scenario than you guys can come up with. I'll admit endless repitition on my part of various rescue plans following his and other similar precriptions.
To get the points he makes across that seems to be the only method that works. You use it to get your POV out here.
Corps(e) use it to get their lobbying across in the form of ads and think tank propaganda. It's a fact of mass delusional, reality avoiding human existence.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 3:13 am
09 Mar 2009
But hey - is that true what Amazing says, that you're some sort of atavist, agrarianist, paleo-tribalist or something, at heart? A bit o' all the above, maybe?
Because, ya know, you would not be exactly the A-Lone A-Ranger, or anything.
'Course, it has been scientifically observed that there isn't really much of anything you can do to actually save Sodom & Gomorrah.
You can wander the streets with a lantern for as long as your conscious says you must, but in the end all that can really be done is to knock the dust off your tires, hit the road heading outa town, and don't look back.
Once we become convinced that the people of S & G are not going to wake up and see what they've become, recoil in horror and turn over a new leaf, all you can really do is leave them to their fate and make sure the consequences of their folly don't overtake you & yours.
Although urbanization has led to blight and social degeneration, it directly affects only limited land-areas. It's social tentacles, though unpleasant, are not all-encompassing.
Though I acknowledge that the car-heads (using them as a proxy for wider problems) might indeed bring the temple down on their heads, it's not for-sure, and certainly not at any particular time. It's even possible that urban culture could - as time & conditions shift & vary - pull it's head out of it's butt, though I'm certainly not holding my breath.
In the end though, we each have to follow our own vision (regardless of uncertainties), and if what we see is The City going up in a gigantic mushroom cloud (due to whatever cause), then clearly we should gather up our marbles and go find a game that we have more confidence in.
===
During the great Alaska Land Claims Settlement phase 30 years ago, I was greatly excited to see them create "Subsistence Provisions" - laws that would support & protect the practice of atavistic lifestyles. Not just for Natives, but for any who take up residence in outa-the-way places where the 'cash-economy' is iffy.
Tok, for example, the first meaningful burg you come to on the highway into Alaska, is officially classed as "Remote & Isolated", qualifying it for 'subsistence provisions'. Other podunk towns with roads, likewise. (And of course, all the fly-in only villages, and off-in-the-brush homesteads & residences.)
Well, though I was excited about the subsistence provisions, I was of little faith. Opponents of this tantalizing if novel set of laws were strong, and vehement. I figured it was only a matter of time, and it would be overthrown or degraded beyond recognition.
Sometimes, though, I turn out to be wrong, and this was one of those cases. Subsistence has met the challenges, and has persevered. It is alive & well and highly valued in Alaska today.
I am saving up my pennies and studying the map out of Sodom (actually, I live on the gorgeous Olympic Peninsula ... gradually being eaten by the greater Puget Sound megalopolis ... so I'm not running from horror, but from beauty being overwhelmed by horror).
Alaska & it's subsistence is by no means the only hills into which one can flee from Sodom. There are plausible contexts to be found all over the USA, and Europe has some interesting themes in the same vein.
The key thing is, you can't save everybody - even doing what's right & best for yourself is tough enough, as Lot will attest. And, you certainly can't save people from themselves.
Permalink
RossBleakney Posted 5:07 am
09 Mar 2009
As a showcase car, it may provide a boost for the company. In the early eighties, the reputation of American cars took a big hit (for good reason). It was obvious that Japanese cars were more reliable. It was also obvious that GM's attempts to deal with the higher mileage requirements produced ugly, underpowered big cars (Cadillacs, Buicks, etc.) while the Japanese were making zippy little hatchbacks. When GM launched the new Corvette, it sent a signal to the rest of the world, that, if nothing else, GM could make a great sports car. This allowed them to secure some part of their reputation and sell a lot of small cars (Chevettes and the like) as well as muscle cars (in a bad era for muscle cars). Look for GM to do the same with this car and produce a scaled down, people's version. Of course, the big question is whether GM can stay alive long enough to do this.
It will be interesting to see what Ford does during this period of transition (as car makers realize they can't depend on making all of their money from truck/SUV sales and credit). While most American cars from the late 70s to 80s were mediocre (at best) and lacked innovation, Ford created the Taurus, a remarkable car that showed great creativity while being quite practical.
Permalink