August 14, 2005

The 250 MPG Hybrid

Via Outside the Beltway comes this article about hybrids getting up to 250 MPG. In carfully reading the article one will note that the the article's title is a bit misleading in that most of the cars described do not get the vaunted 250 MPG. But there are some intersting bits in there for those of us who have been watching the peak oil issue for awhile now. Namely this part,

Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said.

Yes it is expensive. If the typical hybrid costs $4,000 over the standard car and we throw in the $12,000 we are talking a pretty pricey car here. But this is only true at current gasoline prices. But if the price of gasoline keeps going up, and many seem to think it will, then it might actually make sense to switch to one of these more efficient cars. Further, lets not forget that while initially it might cost $16,000 innovattion could reduce that cost. Suppose that it in 5 years it costs $8,000 to make such a switch and the price of gasoline is $7.50/gallon? It would take not quite 7 years for the additional cost to be paid off. If gasoline costs $10/gallon and the cost of the conversion comes down to $6,000 then it would only take less 4.5 years for investment to pay for itself.

And this is one of the reasons why peak oil doesn't have to be the end of the world. The rising prices will provide increasing incentives to invest in research of this nature. How much did a computer cost 50 years ago and how big was it? Now, I bet most people have far more computing ability sitting in their home office.1

So, is the AP story misleading? Yeah, a bit in that this kind of technology is still in its infancy. Also, there is the issue of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. After all, these efficient hybrids are swtiching one GHG emitting process (the internal combustion engine in cars) for another (electricity generating stations). But to me it indicates that there is reason to expect that the doom-n-gloom of the peak oil people is over-blown. The rising oil prices (and by implication rising gasoline prices) present increasing incentives to look at these kinds of solutions. And we also see that Paul is lacking in the reading comprehension department,

One day we'll have 250mpg cars and it will be thanks to the tireless efforts of people like Professor Davis and Ron Gremban, but as for today, it is no less mythical than the 500mpg carburetors.

No Paul, you see those 500 MPG carburetors...they never existed. The 250 MPG experimental hybrids...they do exist. They are currently expensive and the technology is in its infancy, but they do exist. Big difference.

Update: Paul is so easy to bait and pointing out his errors is like shooting fish in a barrel (i.e. fun on occasion). His defense to his errorneous claim that the 250 MPG hybrid is like the 500 MPG carburetors is that I wrote "they" when in fact there is currently only "one" that gets that sort of milage. But none-the-less in true dogged fashion, Paul is convinced that the 250 MPG hybrid is a myth. Next I'm sure Paul will be checking my post for grammar errors.
_____
1According to this site a Tandy TRS-80 4K Level 1 would cost about $400 in 1978. Today that is about $1,200. Spending $1,200 on a computer today will get you a laptop with more computing power and better screen, and a host of other goodies. Basically, today's computers are cheaper due to quality improvements.

Posted by Steve at August 14, 2005 11:49 AM
Comments

I don't see the significance of 250mpg if you're using batteries. You can get any mpg you want, once you throw in batteries.

The energy you use is more or less set by the highway mpg regardless how you shuffle it, that being air drag (proportional to v^2) and the tire deformation (proportional to v).

If you don't get the energy from gasoline then your mpg goes way up, but nothing much has happened really.

Posted by: Ron Hardin on August 14, 2005 03:25 PM
Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb — all for about a quarter.

Or, what Ron said. These guys are simply incompletely shifting the energy burden from the refineries to the power grid.

Posted by: Slartibartfast on August 14, 2005 05:06 PM

I quite understand, but in the context of the peak oil issue I think it is a good thing...you know...substitution.

Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2005 05:17 PM

Not if you're substituting oil for oil, it isn't, unless there's been an actual gain in energy efficiency.

Posted by: Slartibartfast on August 14, 2005 06:13 PM

Most electricity generation is done via coal, nuclear, natural gas and hydro. Granted alot of that moves via gasoline and much of that wouldn't change. So the issue is, will the oil/gasoline necessary to move coal and natural gas increase by more than the decrease in the use of oil/gasoline with such technology?

Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2005 06:29 PM

Thanks Steve for clearing up on what makes this newsworthy. Electricity is a lot less dependent on oil than transportion currently is.

Posted by: Karl Hallowell on August 15, 2005 11:39 AM

On the other hand, though, this isn't a MPG improvement as such, it's simply an incomplete move toward a totally electric car. Which is a different thing altogether.

Posted by: Slartibartfast on August 16, 2005 07:09 AM

Slart, it's a compromise that mixes good parts of both gasoline and electrical power. You get the power and range of gasoline with the ability to derive most of your day-to-day power consumption from the grid.

Posted by: Karl Hallowell on August 17, 2005 01:29 PM

Cost of battery construction, replacement, disposal?

Posted by: JorgXMckie on August 17, 2005 05:33 PM

Not if you're substituting oil for oil, it isn't, unless there's been an actual gain in energy efficiency.

Currently 40% of our energy is oil. So that's a factor of two improvement right off the hat. Secondly there is a big advantage for an electric generator, since more of it's heat gets used in electric production, and much less by lost in friction and mechanisms.

Posted by: Carrick Talmadge on August 18, 2005 03:41 PM

Currently 40% of our energy is oil.

And that's primarily used in heating and transportation.

Secondly there is a big advantage for an electric generator, since more of it's heat gets used in electric production, and much less by lost in friction and mechanisms.

It's not bad *if* the electricity gets used at the time and place of generation. But electricity doesn't transport or store well. I don't know how much energy leakage there is from transmission infrastructure, but I understand there are substantial inefficiencies.

Posted by: Karl Hallowell on August 18, 2005 10:55 PM

Engineer-Poet has done quite a bit of analysis in this area (notable, here). I recommend going over to his blog and reading, well, everything you can get your hands on. I haven't checked his work, but he seems knowledgeable in this area, unlike most of the rest of us.

Posted by: Slartibartfast on August 19, 2005 06:13 AM

Nice link, Slart. I like what I see.

Posted by: Karl Hallowell on August 22, 2005 05:00 PM
Post a comment