electric cars get cold

[billc]

Here is a story from the washington post that discusses the problems electric cars will have in cold weather climates. Give me gas fueled cars please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706170.html

 

[granfire]

Here is a story from the washington post that discusses the problems electric cars will have in cold weather climates. Give me gas fueled cars please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706170.html

Gas fueled cars ar not without their own set of problems in the cold.

I think you are thinking horse and buggy - or sleigh...

 

[Steve]

Here is a story from the washington post that discusses the problems electric cars will have in cold weather climates. Give me gas fueled cars please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706170.html

Lots of discussion going on about them right now. As the article acknowledges, a lot of this is speculation, but there's never been any question that extreme cold temperatures will affect range, primarily at sub-freezing.

One of the things I considered was the moderate climate here in the Seattle area. While it gets yucky during the winter, we seldom experience temperatures below freezing or above 100F.

Or simply put, an electric car is going to be awesome for people who can take advantage of it, but it's not for everyone.

I will say, however, that the false dichotomy you're implying is a common fallacy put out. In response to this, your first comment is, "Give me gas fueled cars please." It's not just EV or internal combustion. We can do better. I just flat out refuse to believe that we can't functionally eliminate our energy dependence while at the same time finding viable solutions. With all of the advances in technology, I just can't accept that an internal combustion engine, functionally the same as the first ones invented well over 100 years ago is the best we can do. Most exciting thing about the EVs coming out is that they seem to be opening up a market for alternative fuels, whatever that might be.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Here is a story from the washington post that discusses the problems electric cars will have in cold weather climates. Give me gas fueled cars please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706170.html

Anytime you take away a nice Internal Combustion Engine as your heat source you have to use electric heating. Now, in the case of the Volt mentioned in the article the Engine is not run enough to generate enough heat to bring it up to the 73 Deg F that the average customer wants in the car vefore the get to their destination.

Gas fueled cars ar not without their own set of problems in the cold.

I think you are thinking horse and buggy - or sleigh...

Yes Gasoline cars can have problems but most of the major manufacturers run tests down to -40 F/C. At that temp they are the same. Diesels have problems as the fuel gels up, but most deisel drivers know this and have a block heater and other devices to assist.



In general there are federal requirements to clear a fogged up windshield that all vehicles have to meet. If they meet this at the minimum the interior of the car will still be chilled. But I never understood getting dressed for the cold then getting into your car and taking off your jacket and gloves and then driving to your destination and the getting out and redressed in the cold.

Lots of discussion going on about them right now. As the article acknowledges, a lot of this is speculation, but there's never been any question that extreme cold temperatures will affect range, primarily at sub-freezing.

Steve the Chemistry is that the real cold temps and real hot temps teh batteries are not as efficient. I do not have the math and formulas memorized but I have been in enough discussions with the vehicle and battery teams to know that it is a serious concern for the extreme cold. Yes speculation that it will be a cold car, when it most likely will be a colder than the 73 F vehicle, then they wanted in particular compared to what they have today. The Volt has different settings for energy usage and if you set it on energy conservation it does not use as much electric heat to keep your range up as much as possible.

One of the things I considered was the moderate climate here in the Seattle area. While it gets yucky during the winter, we seldom experience temperatures below freezing or above 100F.

The extremes as you mentioned would be the main issues.

Or simply put, an electric car is going to be awesome for people who can take advantage of it, but it's not for everyone.

I agree it is not for everyone.
1) You have to live within the range of the vehicle's battery
1a) The Volt is an Extended Range Electric Vehicle (EREV) so not just limited the battery but also the IC engine being able to charge the battery up as you move.
2) The infrastructure for the fast charging needs to be in place to allow for people to use their vehicle and then charge in 30 minutes or so and then be back on the road.
3) The size of the vehicles are not useful for Hockey parents (gear) or kids soccor team transportation.

But, for those that it is useful they will use them. Also people may move to having three vehicles, where the EV (electric vehicle) is their commuter, and the other spouse/mate/partner has the transport for the family and the third vehicle maybe a backup transport and or a camping or trip or tow vehicle. i.e. truck large or SUV.

I will say, however, that the false dichotomy you're implying is a common fallacy put out. In response to this, your first comment is, "Give me gas fueled cars please." It's not just EV or internal combustion. We can do better. I just flat out refuse to believe that we can't functionally eliminate our energy dependence while at the same time finding viable solutions. With all of the advances in technology, I just can't accept that an internal combustion engine, functionally the same as the first ones invented well over 100 years ago is the best we can do. Most exciting thing about the EVs coming out is that they seem to be opening up a market for alternative fuels, whatever that might be.

Steve, I agree and disagree with you here.

I agree we can do better and get off of the Oil dependancy.

I disagree as the rare metals used in batteries and such are most found in other countries so our dependancy is not to the mid-east but the South America / China / Afghanistan.

Now as to the IC Engine being the same as 100 years ago, I also disagree. Those engines had top speeds of 5 to 12 miles per hour. They dumped gallons of fuel down the carb's. Today there is direction injection and cat and post cat processing for Diesels to help with emissions and to improve fuel economy. I agree it is close, but close as surgery of 100 years ago to today is. The improvements might be small but are vey important.

 

[Steve]

Rich, the technology of the ice is pretty much the same. More efficient and powerful, but if you look at everything else we've invented over the last century, we should have our dammed flying cars by now!

 

[Big Don]

One of the things I considered was the moderate climate here in the Seattle area. While it gets yucky during the winter, we seldom experience temperatures below freezing or above 100F.

Yucky in the winter? I spent a couple of years at Fort Lewis. When I arrived I was ambivalent about rain. Three weeks later, I loathed it...

The problem with electric vehicles, IMNSHO, is that politics and ideology pushed them out somewhat ahead of technological advancement, and, btw, demand.

 

[SensibleManiac]

This is just nonsense.
I live in Canada, freezing cold winters, -25 to -30 is not uncommon.

There are many hybrid cars available here that work fine.
Prius works fully electrical under 60km and this car has no porblem is this weather.
This is just propaganda put out by the oil companies.

Gas cars are also negatively affected by the cold, just as much so if not even more than an electrical car can be. That is unless you plug then into an electrical heater overnight..

I spoke to an electrical engineer friend of mine once and mentioned if we could ever have a viable electric vehicle than can get past the hurdles it faces today, he laughed and said a fully self charging electrical vehicle is possible today and the only reason we don't see them is the fact that there is next to no profit to be made from the fact that they charge themselves of electricity created while they are in motion.

Simply put; two sets of batteries, alternators, while one set of batteries is working the other is charging.

I asked him if this would be functional, could the charging batteries be fully charged by the time the running batteries have depleted.

Absolutely.

We're all just getting screwed by the oil companies, and billcihak is first in line.

 

[Steve]

Yucky in the winter? I spent a couple of years at Fort Lewis. When I arrived I was ambivalent about rain. Three weeks later, I loathed it...

The problem with electric vehicles, IMNSHO, is that politics and ideology pushed them out somewhat ahead of technological advancement, and, btw, demand.

It's a little gray in Winter here in the Seattle area. That's for sure. And the days are short, too, so it's not uncommon to go to work in the dark and leave in the dark, too. Takes a little getting used to. Reminds me of Germany.

If you look at the initial response to the Leaf, the Volt and the Focus EV, the response has been overwhelming and the demand certainly high. Once again, there is a real demand for energy independence and for fuel efficiency. It's not necessarily for EVs, but really for something that is innovative that cuts the chain to the gas pump.

Personally, I don't care what finally emerges, I'm looking for alternatives to gasoline. Whether it's fuel cell technology, bio-diesel, EV, plug in hybrids or an 8.5 jiggawatt core that runs on rotten food like they had Back to the Future.

 

[Steve]

Rich, I posted from a phone before, so I didn't get to address all of your points, but I wanted to add a few more comments:

I agree it is not for everyone.
1) You have to live within the range of the vehicle's battery

Absolutely. I see building the charging infrastructure as being critical, as well as pushing battery technology so that cars have longer ranges on a single charge. But even with a robust charging infrastructure, people are not likely to travel much further than an 80% charge out and an 80% charge home. In other words, it becomes a pain in the butt to daisy chain charges to travel a long way. Not so big a deal to drive, say, 60 miles, charge at the destination and then drive home.

So, range will have an impact, and while I think it will be less of an impact over time, it will always be an issue.

1a) The Volt is an Extended Range Electric Vehicle (EREV) so not just limited the battery but also the IC engine being able to charge the battery up as you move.

This is just semantics, but calling the Volt an electric vehicle is misleading is like selling "reduced fat" ice cream. It's really a plug in hybrid trying to bank on range anxiety and the EV label. The more you use the gas engine, the worse your net mileage gets. I actually posted the formula in another thread around here somewhere. And for anyone who buys it for the extended range, you could buy a cheaper car that actually nets you better fuel economy.

2) The infrastructure for the fast charging needs to be in place to allow for people to use their vehicle and then charge in 30 minutes or so and then be back on the road.

Now that there is an SAE standard plug, this is possible. I think that we need to have an industry standard for the battery packs, as well. Personally, having standard batteries opens up the possibility for battery swap stations. Five minute swaps as opposed to a 30 minute charge will bring EVs in line with a stop at the pump.

3) The size of the vehicles are not useful for Hockey parents (gear) or kids soccor team transportation.

Another reason I couldn't seriously look at the Volt. It seats four. I have 3 kids and a wife. The Leaf, however, has as much room as the Versa. Interesting trivia is that the Volt is much larger outside than the Leaf, but is classified as a compact because interior room is cramped. The Leaf is a mid-size hatchback. It's got plenty of room for a family that doesn't want or need a minivan.

But, for those that it is useful they will use them. Also people may move to having three vehicles, where the EV (electric vehicle) is their commuter, and the other spouse/mate/partner has the transport for the family and the third vehicle maybe a backup transport and or a camping or trip or tow vehicle. i.e. truck large or SUV.

Very true. The Leaf will be my primary car. I intend to use it for most, if not all, of my regular driving. But my wife's Ford Fusion will be the one we take on longer trips.

Steve, I agree and disagree with you here.

I agree we can do better and get off of the Oil dependancy.

I believe very strongly that, as a matter of national security, we should pursue energy independence.

I disagree as the rare metals used in batteries and such are most found in other countries so our dependancy is not to the mid-east but the South America / China / Afghanistan.

True. But as I've said before, battery technology or even a completely different alternative fuel source is very possible. To suggest that if EV doesn't work, we have no alternative but to use gas engines is a false dichotomy.

 

[Big Don]

1) You have to live within the range of the vehicle's battery

Sorry, Rich, but, this struck me as kind of funny. If you live somewhere, and most of us do, your home would be in range of the vehicle's battery, even if you never drove...

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich, I posted from a phone before, so I didn't get to address all of your points, but I wanted to add a few more comments:Absolutely. I see building the charging infrastructure as being critical, as well as pushing battery technology so that cars have longer ranges on a single charge. But even with a robust charging infrastructure, people are not likely to travel much further than an 80% charge out and an 80% charge home. In other words, it becomes a pain in the butt to daisy chain charges to travel a long way. Not so big a deal to drive, say, 60 miles, charge at the destination and then drive home.

So, range will have an impact, and while I think it will be less of an impact over time, it will always be an issue.This is just semantics, but calling the Volt an electric vehicle is misleading is like selling "reduced fat" ice cream. It's really a plug in hybrid trying to bank on range anxiety and the EV label. The more you use the gas engine, the worse your net mileage gets. I actually posted the formula in another thread around here somewhere. And for anyone who buys it for the extended range, you could buy a cheaper car that actually nets you better fuel economy. Now that there is an SAE standard plug, this is possible. I think that we need to have an industry standard for the battery packs, as well. Personally, having standard batteries opens up the possibility for battery swap stations. Five minute swaps as opposed to a 30 minute charge will bring EVs in line with a stop at the pump.Another reason I couldn't seriously look at the Volt. It seats four. I have 3 kids and a wife. The Leaf, however, has as much room as the Versa. Interesting trivia is that the Volt is much larger outside than the Leaf, but is classified as a compact because interior room is cramped. The Leaf is a mid-size hatchback. It's got plenty of room for a family that doesn't want or need a minivan. Very true. The Leaf will be my primary car. I intend to use it for most, if not all, of my regular driving. But my wife's Ford Fusion will be the one we take on longer trips. I believe very strongly that, as a matter of national security, we should pursue energy independence. True. But as I've said before, battery technology or even a completely different alternative fuel source is very possible. To suggest that if EV doesn't work, we have no alternative but to use gas engines is a false dichotomy.

Steve,

Symantics is how you legally sell things and market them.

A car or truck that meets CARB requirements has an IC Engine.

Now you get more restrictions on how the propulsion is created or where the source comes from. Not the ultimate source but the immediate source.

A hybrid has both a form of IC Engine and Electric. And both produce torque that gets to the wheels.

A Plug in is a Hybrid that has the capability of re-charging the battery by pluging it into the wall.

An EV or Electric vehicle is where the all the power comes from the electric motors. An EREV has the immediate source of the battery for electric power and then the IC engine that charges the battery, and does not drive the powertrain to generate torque directly to wheels. (* This is how GM is marketing the vehicle. I am not in marketing and not in legal so I can only provide those definitions for you, and not argue with you over what you think or what you think it should be, as that would assume I could respond with my opinion as I have a requirements on how I am to respond, which is is above. *)

So, EV's have Batteries only, and EREV's have a secondary source usually an IC engine. I say this as FCEV are the Fuel Cell EV's.

I agree alternative ideas are good, but I never said it was any absolute. I was trying to broading your comments and then you reply back in the area that just because we are having a discourse in writing with point for point and different ideas. I never said you were wrong. I never said you were simple. I stated I disagreed with you and then presented a point. You replied that I was presenting a false dichotomy. If I upset you I did not mean to do so. I did not mean to challenge your beliefs or opinions. I only tried to present some data and a perspective from within the development community.

 

[Steve]

Rich, I'm writing up a more complete reply, but I want to post quickly that I'm not mad, I'm not offended, and I think I must have made the absolute wrong impression with my post. I wasn't accusing you of presenting a false dichotomy. I was clarifying that this was the false dichotomy that billcihak presented in the OP.

Seriously. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

 

[Steve]

Steve,

Symantics is how you legally sell things and market them.

No argument from me here. But that doesn't make me wrong to point out misleading semantics when I see them.

A car or truck that meets CARB requirements has an IC Engine.

Now you get more restrictions on how the propulsion is created or where the source comes from. Not the ultimate source but the immediate source.

A hybrid has both a form of IC Engine and Electric. And both produce torque that gets to the wheels.

A Plug in is a Hybrid that has the capability of re-charging the battery by pluging it into the wall.

An EV or Electric vehicle is where the all the power comes from the electric motors. An EREV has the immediate source of the battery for electric power and then the IC engine that charges the battery, and does not drive the powertrain to generate torque directly to wheels. (* This is how GM is marketing the vehicle. I am not in marketing and not in legal so I can only provide those definitions for you, and not argue with you over what you think or what you think it should be, as that would assume I could respond with my opinion as I have a requirements on how I am to respond, which is is above. *)

So, EV's have Batteries only, and EREV's have a secondary source usually an IC engine. I say this as FCEV are the Fuel Cell EV's.

The Volt is marketed as an EV with, essentially, an onboard, gasoline powered generator. If this were the case, I would buy the EREV label. It's not, though. The motor is indeed connected directly to the drivetrain. This isn't a big deal, in my opinion, but calling it an electric vehicle implies things. That's all. It's a bit of a sales job. It would be far more accurate to call the Volt a plug-in hybrid.

I agree alternative ideas are good, but I never said it was any absolute. I was trying to broading your comments and then you reply back in the area that just because we are having a discourse in writing with point for point and different ideas. I never said you were wrong. I never said you were simple. I stated I disagreed with you and then presented a point. You replied that I was presenting a false dichotomy. If I upset you I did not mean to do so. I did not mean to challenge your beliefs or opinions. I only tried to present some data and a perspective from within the development community.

Once again, I'm very sorry I came across so poorly. That wasn't my intention! I consider myself pretty up on this topic, as I'm planning on buying an EV this year. It's a big risk, and this may blow up in my face, so I'm a bit of a fanatic on the subject right now, but I really enjoy bouncing things off of you.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with someone showing me that I'm wrong and I appreciate your perspective from, as you said, within the development community. Hell, I'm very opinionated, like to think that I'm somewhat well informed AND am a likely early adopter. If you have an opportunity for a panel, I'd be happy to tell you what I think, including why I wanted to buy American, but ultimately chose the Leaf over the Volt!

 

[Rich Parsons]

No argument from me here. But that doesn't make me wrong to point out misleading semantics when I see them. The Volt is marketed as an EV with, essentially, an onboard, gasoline powered generator. If this were the case, I would buy the EREV label. It's not, though. The motor is indeed connected directly to the drivetrain. This isn't a big deal, in my opinion, but calling it an electric vehicle implies things. That's all. It's a bit of a sales job. It would be far more accurate to call the Volt a plug-in hybrid. Once again, I'm very sorry I came across so poorly. That wasn't my intention! I consider myself pretty up on this topic, as I'm planning on buying an EV this year. It's a big risk, and this may blow up in my face, so I'm a bit of a fanatic on the subject right now, but I really enjoy bouncing things off of you.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with someone showing me that I'm wrong and I appreciate your perspective from, as you said, within the development community. Hell, I'm very opinionated, like to think that I'm somewhat well informed AND am a likely early adopter. If you have an opportunity for a panel, I'd be happy to tell you what I think, including why I wanted to buy American, but ultimately chose the Leaf over the Volt!

From the link you provided:

So what is this, if it isn't a proper EV with just an onboard internal combustion generator to recharge the batteries? The Motor Trend story we've linked to provides the cleanest explanation differentiating Chevy's technology from that used by Toyota on the Prius. Basically, the Volt's ICE is coupled to the ring gear within the transmission, which at times spins up to provide direct mechanical power when the batteries are near depleted. This is important because this is exactly when electric motors are least efficient. Again, this is also contrary to what we were told before, that the ICE would only spin up on-demand to provide extra juice to the electric motor.

Now, because the ICE is not spinning the ring gear at lower speeds this layout should mean for less drivetrain loss around town than the Prius. However, at highway speeds, once that initial charge you got from plugging it in overnight is depleted this more or less drives like any other hybrid. Is this important? If you commute on the highway it certainly could be, but really what is needed is more real-world mpg figures, and we'll need a lot more Volts to hit the road before we can call any of those conclusive.

So according to this article and official info provided to the press, yes the IC Engine can spin up and provide power when the electric motor cannot provide the driver desired torque.

It also notes it is not connected at slow speeds, I wish they would have given the numbers, so I could comment more. Hmmm see below


Another link form your Linked article: http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/12/chevrolet-volt-electric-drive-propulsion-system-unveiled/ this explains the Volt.


From a second link in the link you provided has an interview with the Vehicle Chief Engineer: http://www.plugincars.com/exclusive...rivetrain-says-volt-electric-vehicle-90758.ht


From that link a couple of quotes:

The fact of the matter is that the Volt drivetrain is complicated enough and different enough that even us so-called car professionals are having trouble understanding how it works.

and

Some highlights of the conversation:

• Farah says that in his mind the Volt is unequivocally an electric car. "The Volt is an electric vehicle...because for the first 40 miles you can get full performance running on nothing but an electric motor until the battery is depleted," he said.
• The Volt has three distinct motive forces in it: a large electric motor, a small electric motor/generator, and a 1.4 liter engine. Up to two of those three forces can be combined in select ways through the Volt's secret sauce drive unit—given the road demands and state of charge of the battery—to drive the vehicle.
• Only the large electric motor is capable of moving the car forward on its own. The small electric motor/generator and the gas engine can only ever be combined with one of the other motive forces to drive the wheels.
• Even when the gas engine is on and partially driving the wheels, it cannot operate without electricity flowing to one of the other motors.
• The gas engine, under most conditions, will be used to drive the generator and produce electricity, and will not be used to drive the wheels.
• There is no "direct" mechanical linkage between the Volt's gas engine and the wheels, rather there is an indirect linkage that is accomplished by meshing the power output of the engine with the power output of one of the other two electric motors.
• Motor Trend's reporting that the magic cutoff speed of 70 mph is what the car uses to determine whether or not to make the engine to partially drive the wheels is incorrect. The engine is used to partially drive the wheels when the car calculates that it will be a more efficient use of the engine's power. There is no hard cutoff point.

And I understand this is written communication, but I have to be real careful here, as I am not part of the team that releases info to the media. I hope you understand that, and I was not upset with you, but did not want to engage any further to possible increase this to an angry arguement versus a debate arguement.

 

[Tez3]

Does anyone run their cars on LPG in the States?

http://www.uknetguide.co.uk/Motoring/Article/What_is_LPG-100160.html

 

[Sukerkin]

The regenerative electric drive that Steve mentioned earlier is fascinating to me. For years I've wondered why it's a concept that hasn't been exploited yet.

You use power from stored energy to move a vehicle, consuming that energy. But power generation is as simple as rotating a coil in a magnetic field and essentially on a car you have four available dynamo's from which to harvest energy from the mechanical motion of the wheels.

There is technology available now for the almost instantaneous recharging of batteries (seconds rather than hours) - it has not made it to market yet but it soon will I hope. If it can be scaled up for 'industrial applications' rather than mobile-device-type quantities then that is a big step forward for independantly mobile electrically powered vehicles. A step that needs to accompany it is an increase in the efficiency of power-generation and transformation systems - until now there has been little incentive to improve them but it's a necessary thing for the future.

 

[Big Don]

Some farm owners use LPG, not many, just because of lack of filling stations with LPG. Some of government owned and/or large corporations use CNG, but, also, only those with their own CNG filling facilities.

 

[Carol]

The regenerative electric drive that Steve mentioned earlier is fascinating to me. For years I've wondered why it's a concept that hasn't been exploited yet.

Don't have an answer for you as to why it doesn't incorporate the wheels in motion...but hybrid cars utilize regenerative braking. Step on the brakes and you are engaging a generator that charges the battery -- which is why hybrids often get better mileage in the city than on the open highway. More braking, more power to the batteries.

 

[Steve]

Tez, LPG and Natural Gas (CNG) are used but as Don said, they're typically commercial vehicles. In the Seattle area, most public vehicles (busses and such) are CNG. Also, unless things have changed, one of the requirements for taxis running from the airport are that they run on natural gas.

Carol/Sukerkin, I don't know why they haven't done it before now, either, other than that it might be too economical!

 

[Sukerkin]

Don't have an answer for you as to why it doesn't incorporate the wheels in motion...but hybrid cars utilize regenerative braking. Step on the brakes and you are engaging a generator that charges the battery -- which is why hybrids often get better mileage in the city than on the open highway. More braking, more power to the batteries.

Aye, I know. There's even an F1 version of it :lol:. I don't think it's made it into mass commercial use because the components are still too heavy to lug around to be worth the harvested energy. In an electric car, it's part of the package trying to reach viability - bolted onto an ICE car it's fuel wasting weight.

That will change quickly enough of course if people want it to.