|
Ten years ago when I was driving an EV1, one of the best perks was free parking and charging at LAX. I would pull into one of the EV parking places by Terminal One, plug in, and go on my trip. The charger would turn on right away – typically this would be in the middle of the day – and the battery pack would be fully charged even before my plane had left the ground. When I would return a few days later, typically at night, the battery pack would have partially self-discharged and was cold soaked, having sat for days with the charger connected but off. I always thought that surely there would be a smarter way to charge.
My charging setup at home was a little better. A mechanical swimming pool pump timer was installed between the charger and the 240-Volt power in my garage. It was set to turn on when the time-of-use electricity price dropped to the off-peak rate late in the evening. This was a simple setup, but not very flexible. The mechanical timer had to be adjusted twice a year for daylight savings time. With experience, I found that the best time to start charging was not late at night – rather it was in the early morning hours so that the charge would just be finishing as I got in the car to go to work. The battery pack would be fully topped off and not be cold soaked as it would be if charging had completed at around midnight. This seemed like a smarter way to charge, but what would happen if millions of vehicles needed to charge? Should there be a way to coordinate all the vehicles to minimize the impact on the power grid – or maybe even provide a benefit?
The current interest in plug-in vehicles in the United States is driven by three principal considerations: local emissions, energy security, and global warming. In the United States, electricity is largely sourced and produced domestically and is not produced in any significant amount from imported oil. Electricity is produced in a variety of ways, each method with its own set of issues and and impacts. Coal is used for more than half of electricity production in the US. Even though coal-based electricity has relatively high greenhouse gas emissions, plug-in vehicles that are charged with electricity made from coal still have relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. A Toyota RAV4 EV operating on coal-derived electricity would have effective greenhouse gas emissions of about 240 grams/mile, about the same a as a gasoline powered car that gets 46 mpg. But a desirable goal is to get to transportation with zero greenhouse gas emissions. Plug-in vehicles are synergistic with this goal and can actually be an enabler of increased amounts of renewable energy on the electricity grid. Wind energy is especially promising as an energy source for vehicles. One of the negative attributes wind energy is that it is intermittent – wind energy is generated only when the wind is blowing and the amount and timing of wind generation varies from day to day (see the chart below for an example of the variation of wind generation in the PG&E service area for April 2007). Integrating wind energy into the power grid requires having sufficient conventional sources of generation available to be able to compensate for the day to day variations in the availability of wind energy. This adds cost and to some extent limits the maximum percentage of total energy generation that can come from wind energy.
The operation of an electric power grid involves continuously assuring in real time that the total amount of generation matches the total load. If there is a mismatch between generation and load, the frequency of the grid will start to deviate from the nominal value of 60 cycles per second (60 Hz). The power grid in the United States is composed of three main regions: Western, Eastern, and Texas. Within a region, the power grid is interconnected with alternating current (AC) transmission lines. The grid frequency is the same throughout an interconnected region. Regions are further subdivided into control areas. Each control area manages the generation of electricity in their area and interchanges of electricity with other areas through a grid operator (such as the Cal ISO in California). Each grid operator schedules generation in advance to match up with expected loads, and then in real time fine-tunes the level of generation to match to the actual load within its control area. It is a constant balancing act, performed 24/7.
Most uses of electricity are needed pretty much in real time – lights, air conditioning, computers, etc. The electricity has to be generated at the exact moment it is used. But plug-in vehicles are a fundamentally different kind of electrical load. Plug-in vehicles draw energy from the power grid and store it for later use while driving. Plug-in vehicles are typically plugged in for significant periods of time – usually all night – and it doesn’t really matter when the energy is transferred to the vehicle, as long as a certain amount of energy is transferred by a specific time, typically in the morning. This leaves a lot of flexibility as to the timing and exact nature of how plug-in vehicles are recharged. As plug-in vehicles grow to become a very significant fraction of the overall load on the electrical system, this flexibility can be utilized with beneficial results for the vehicle owner and for all electricity customers. What is needed to take advantage of that flexibility is control over the exact timing and rate of a vehicle’s recharging. With communication between grid operators or utilities and plugged-in vehicles, recharging could be controlled to match up to the amount of renewable power being generated at any given time. This turns the typical electricity delivery model upside down for the grid load represented by plug-in vehicles; instead of controlling generation to match the load, the load represented by the sum total of plug-in vehicle battery chargers could be remotely controlled to match the availability of renewable energy generation (such as wind power). (This same approach could also be used to make hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles, but overall this is far less efficient, requiring three to four times as much electricity per mile as compared to plug-in vehicles). This remote control could be implemented through a secure internet connection to vehicles when they are charging – which can be implemented with a variety of available technologies. So with this communication, grid connected vehicles could be controlled to have their total aggregate charging power matched to the availability of wind power each day.
In the longer term, there is the prospect that a large number of plug-in vehicles (in the millions) could enable a significantly higher penetration of intermittent renewable energy sources onto the electric power grid. The current thinking is that intermittent renewable energy sources need to be backed up with other forms of generation in order to provide reliable power to serve the loads on the grid. However, with a large number plug-in vehicles being remotely controlled to match their power draw from the grid to the availability of the intermittent resources, those intermittent resources will not have to be backed-up as much with conventional generation sources. When the wind doesn’t blow as much, vehicles won’t get as much energy. If EV battery packs are big enough, daily charging to full capacity won’t usually be essential, and plug-in hybrids can use their liquid fuel on days when intermittent resources can’t provide all the energy needed. In this way, plug in vehicles can use truly zero-carbon electricity for most miles driven.
One of the disadvantages of intermittent resources like wind and solar is that these sources cannot be controlled to support the frequency stability of the grid. Conventional generating plants have a governor that adjusts power output automatically in response to grid frequency variations from 60 Hz. If the grid frequency drops below the nominal 60 Hz power generation is automatically increased. A typical ‘droop characteristic’ set point for power plant governors is that a 5 percent change in grid frequency would cause a change in output of 100% of a powerplant’s rated output. Of course the grid frequency doesn’t usually vary by as much as 5%. A more typical frequency variation might be about 0.1%; a 0.1 percent droop in frequency to 59.94 Hz would cause the governor on a powerplant to increase power by 0.1/5 or 2 percent of rated output. However, wind and solar energy sources cannot produce more or less power in response to changes in grid frequency; power generated depends on how hard the wind is blowing or how bright the sunlight is. But the same effective governor function can just as well be achieved by modulating loads in response to changes in grid frequency. Plug-in vehicles whose charging power is remotely controlled to match the availability of intermittent resources can further be controlled to provide this governor function. The net result would be that the cumulative recharging power draw of all plug-in vehicles would be varied over a long time constant to match the availability of intermittent resources, and superimposed on top of that would be a shorter-period variation to provide the governor function for those intermittent resources. The figure below shows a notional example of a wind power generation profile and the net recharging power profile of remotely-controlled plug-in vehicles.
Ancillary Services and V2G
Grid operators use a variety of tools to keep the grid operating smoothly. These tools are commonly referred to as “ancillary services”. Some examples of ancillary services are spinning reserves, non-spinning reserves, and regulation. Ancillary services are essentially contracts to provide the ability of the grid operator to vary the amount of power being generated. The various types of ancillary services have different requirements for how quickly the change in power generation must be made. Many grid operators, including the Cal ISO, maintain markets for ancillary services. In California, powerplant operators submit bids for ancillary services on day-ahead and hour-ahead markets. Bids typically include the hour the service will be offered, the amount of the service offered, and the offered price for the service. The Cal ISO evaluates all the bids and determines a market-clearing price for each ancillary service for each hour of the day. The market clearing price is the price point at which the requisite capacity of that particular ancillary service has bid at or below. Each winning bidder is paid the market clearing price for providing the service.
Grid ancillary services are now provided by powerplants, but loads – such as plug-in vehicles – could provide ancillary services just as effectively as powerplants. To the grid operator the effect on the grid looks the same. It is likely that vehicles can provide these services much better than powerplants. Powerplants have limitations on how fast they can change power levels. Vehicles can change power levels virtually instantly. In April 1997, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) formally recognized in FERC order 890 that loads should have equal standing as powerplants in providing ancillary services.
So the potential is there for plug-in vehicles to provide grid ancillary services while they are charging. These services have real monetary value – value that can go toward offsetting some or possibly all of the cost of the electricity itself. The exact value varies with many factors including supply and demand, time of day, season and other factors. The size of the ancillary service market is however limited – for example, all of the regulation ancillary service in California could be performed with about 30,000 vehicles, but the potential for the number of plug-in vehicles in the state is in the millions. But if the amount of intermittent renewable resources grows together with the plug-in vehicles, the overall matching of vehicle charging power to the availability of intermittent resources and providing the governor function as described above will have real value and result in lower costs for electricity used to power these vehicles.
There has been a lot of interest in a related concept called Vehicle-to-Grid, or V2G. The notion with V2G is that vehicles can act as energy storage resources for the grid and feed power from the vehicle back to the grid on demand. The bidirectional power flow offers the potential to provide an expanded level of ancillary services to the grid as compared with a vehicle that only draws power from the grid. The potential is there to provide services whose monetary value substantially exceeds the cost of the electricity used by the vehicle. FERC commissioner Jon Wellinghof is a big support of V2G, and has coined the term “Cash Back Hybrid” to describe a V2G-enabled plug-in hybrid. I was involved in an early V2G demonstration project in 2001 when I was at AC Propulsion (final report here).
Tesla’s V2G Strategy
Test setup with VP10
Tesla’s initial approach to exploring V2G is to focus on ancillary services that can be performed with the vehicle operating as a grid-controlled load, rather than as a system capable of feeding power back to the grid. This approach has many advantages for the initial rollout of V2G. First, it eliminates the interconnect issues around feeding power back to the grid. It is of course technically feasible to make a safe and certified bi-directional charger with the same kind of anti-islanding and other safety features employed in small distributed generation systems. However, state laws and individual utility policies may currently preclude feeding power back to the grid from anything but solar and wind energy systems. Second, battery wear and tear due to bi-directional power cycling is not fully understood and could potentially have a cost impact greater than the benefit produced. More research is needed to quantify this aspect. Third, storing energy in a battery and then discharging it back into the grid results in energy losses due to the conversion of AC to DC in the charger, throughput losses in the battery, and then from DC from the battery back to AC. The cost of the energy needed to make up for the energy losses offsets some of the value created.
Tesla has taken initial steps to explore charging-only V2G in partnership with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E news release here). In a project completed in December, 2007, Tesla and PG&E developed a battery charging power profile derived from actual Cal ISO ancillary service dispatch data and set up a wireless connection to Tesla Roadster VP10 to enable remote control of the power drawn by the Roadster’s onboard charger. The tests consisted of sending charging power dispatch commands to the vehicle at 4 second intervals and monitoring the response of the vehicle charger. The system performed as expected with response much faster than any powerplant could achieve. The figures below show the test setup, the profile of charging current vs time and a detail of the vehicle response. Note that the shaded area shown in the charging profile is proportional to the energy drawn from the grid. Possible next steps could include outfitting a few of our customers’ Roadsters with this capability for a field trial. Another area of exploration is to enable a grid frequency-responsive charging rate to perform the governor function mentioned above. An advantage of this approach is that little or no communication is needed to the vehicle; the vehicle charger can directly sense the grid frequency.
Power profiles tested, note zero AC charging current is at the top of the scale.
The shaded area is proportional to the energy transferred.
Vehicle Command and Response
Summary
Vehicles that plug in to the power grid for some or all of their energy needs can make valuable contributions to the production, transmission, and distribution of electric power. Plug-in vehicles, both battery electric and plug-in hybrids, will principally be charged at night when there is ample generation capacity. By increasing overall electricity consumption without having to increase the electricity infrastructure, fixed costs will be spread over a wider base, reducing electricity costs to all electricity customers. Plug-in vehicles will also become a new resource to help with operations of the grid. The energy storage capacity in the batteries of a plug in vehicle can be a storage resource to the grid, and vehicle charging rates can be controlled remotely by utilities or a grid operator to perform ancillary services for the grid. Since the load represented by plug-in vehicles could be dispatchable remotely, the penetration of intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar energy can grow beyond the level that would have been practical without plug-in vehicles. In the future, the current grid power delivery model of dispatching generation to match load can be inverted for a growing fraction of the total load: dispatching load to match available renewable energy generation. Plug-in vehicles will be a key enabling new load that supports a cleaner, more renewable, and lower-carbon grid.
Links
University of Delaware V2G research group
California Independent System Operator
Posted in the categories: Environment, Energy Efficiency, Motor, Battery
What is the sef-discharged time from the Tesla Roadster Battery Pack in roomtemperatur condition?
Is there some Info.
Derdlim
Very interesting post!
It has been a long time since Alec Brooks posted on here. (Has he ever even posted on here before?)
Congratulations on the V2G project. But why no mention of the one-hour charge suggested in the customer town hall meeting?
This is a valuable area of research that will become increasingly important in the next 10-20 years as plug-in vehicles hit the streets in growing numbers. The efficiency gains alone could pay for the efforts.
Several quite disparate points come to mind here: One is look long-term and solutions represented by all Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) paired with either home solar (PV) or wind power make exceptional sense. Since solar & wind are both patchy in peak production, a large battery BEV serves to smooth delivery times to when its needed (by driving, and quickly so)! Similarly a plug-in hybrid EV approach with a small ICE motor works in scenarios near-term too, since it’s a way to get new EVs into mass production quickly and very importantly at a price-point under say ~$60K - this is one key reason i support a small-ICE-mated-to-still-large battery option too in the 4-seater WhiteStar: i see no other way to obtain say a 200-mile+ plus range in a Tesla at more affordable prices (on current Li-Ion battery technology). Tesla seems to be branding itself and rightly imo as a new top-tier enthusiasts car meaning likely no alternative-car paths like building 3-wheeled vehicles (or glassfibre etc to move to
Excellent post - you summed it up very clearly and concisely.
I’ve read that solar thermal plants are going to start incorporating a “thermal capacitor” - a big liquid salt reservoir (with or without high specific heat particulates) that will absorb heat from the system, then discharge it when demand requires it. Like all capacitors, it will have the effect of smoothing out the thermal energy going into the steam turbines, but a secondary loop and/or main loop by-pass will allow operators to store / use the solar thermal energy as it is collected. This should smooth out and distribute the load provided by the solar thermal energy plant, taking electricity production well into the evening.
I would hope that vehicle owners have a bypass switch that would prevent their vehicle from being discharged when they need a full charge for an upcoming trip. I would hate to have planned a trip requiring the full range of my vehicle, only to find that it has only half the charge I require.
To me it sounds like the Tesla proposed solution is not exactly “V2G”. I always took V2G to mean that power flows from the vehicle to the grid sometimes.
Here we are talking about a situation where the vehicle regulates its draw from the grid (based on dynamic grid health), but it seems to preclude sending power back to the grid. I can understand all the safety regulations surrounding using a BEV as a “power plant” to feed the grid, but shouldn’t we save the V2G term for those systems that do feed power back the grid? I think of what was written here as “intelligent charging”, or “grid friendly charging”.
Is it just creative marketing that calls a hybrid car a “BEV with range extender”? And an intelligent grid friendly charing system a V2G system?
This blog article includes: “”Tesla’s initial approach to exploring V2G is to focus on ancillary services that can be performed with the vehicle operating as a grid-controlled load, rather than as a system capable of feeding power back to the grid.”"
Isn’t that mincing words?
How about this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V2G
“”Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which power can be sold to the electrical power grid by an electric-drive motor vehicle that is connected to the grid when it is not in use for transportation.”"
—
I think the idea of having more renewable power sources (e.g.: hydro, wind, solar, geotherm, wave power, etc.) is great, and if we have enough variety the fluctuations should be evened out. (For instance if we were 100% solar we would be in trouble on a cloudy day, but if we have a mix of other sources we might only have a bad day with one or two of them at a time). True V2G could be a good way to cover those “bad days” when the usual sources are not up to snuff without having to resort to burning something polluting. What worries me some is the cost structure, and the bureaucracy behind it. The current major power producers aren’t likely to want to let everyone install cheap solar and stop paying them. If your BEV can suck cheap power at night and sell it back to the grid for a profit during the day they may not want that either. So, unfortunately, I don’t think it is just about technology. Someone has to navigate all the politics in this area. Do what you can folks, and good luck to you!
Alec
This is a excellent summation of power generation. I agree with you variable charging could have a major effect on IR (instant reserve) as well as SR (spinning reserve). While wind farms ( my area) can offset with power electronics minor frequency wobbles in the event of a frequency drop lasting over 4-5 seconds we tend to drop out to protect the asset. This off course makes the entire grid more unstable as the remaining plants have to work harder to make up the drop. SP contracted for must come on line within 5 seconds, BUT the more windfarms in an area the more SP needed. Off course over a wide area windfarms have been shown to be quite reliable as the wind is always blowing somewhere. IR and SR is always thermal, so a reduction in these would have a very real cost advantage for the SO (system operator). Also the more stable the grid the better it is for all equipment connected to it. Computers for one! I can see the day when it will be mandatory for owners to have such systems installed in the point of charge. I like your method of having the controller measure the frequency response as it’s simple (K.I.S.S.). Owners of such a system should be entitled to slightly cheaper power for the recharge. If they wish to hook up for active time management of the charge then users should get even greater rebates. In NZ we have 1/2 hours billing cycles, as a windfarm cannot assure delivery we are always price takers and can never be used for SR. We would find it increadibly useful to purchase X megawatts of power by reducing EV demand as needed so we could assure delivery for the next time period.
Such a system would be quite easily controlled from a users point of view, as they could program their controller not to take part after x time at night or if the battery is below x percent. Or have the controller do all the management work and the user dials the time of the maximum charge required . Eventually with enough cars on charge we could swap out standby generators as well.
All in all, big money and CO2 emmissions to be saved. Also wind turbines would not need such expensive power electronics as the grid would be more stable. Roll on the EV.
A simple isolator switch would be needed to separate a house load from the grid (permit probably needed) so the car could be used as a backup generator. Can the Tesla be used for this purpose? The number of power cuts (per load demand point) are fairly small so should have minimal effect on battery life. Think of the marketing potential when the neighbours notice your lights are still on !!!
Congratulations on a great vehicle, almost wish I lived in CA. Regards.
I second the notion that an EV user will sometimes need to be able to indicate to the grid that he wants to make sure his battery is fully charged by a certain time in anticipation of a long trip, for example. Other times he may want to indicate the opposite, when he’s not planning to use the car for several days. I would also imagine that the grid operator wouldn’t want all the plug-in vehicles to start or stop charging at exactly the same time so there needs to be some way to slightly randomize the response to the operator’s requests.
“battery wear and tear due to bi-directional power cycling is not fully understood and could potentially have a cost impact greater than the benefit produced” — My understanding was that the ESS had a very limited number of charge/discharge cycles (on the order of 500) and that this made V2G totally out of the question with that kind of battery. Is that not so? Or is the potential cost benefit of V2G high enough to warrant shortening the life of this (very expensive) battery?
More generally, isn’t all this concern about how much renewable generation we can reasonably install a little premature? Until it gets to be a significant fraction of the total capacity we’ll just run it at 100% of it’s capacity all the time anyway. And the reserves needed will be small compared to the reserve needs in total. And when it does become a large enough fraction to matter, can’t we just use the old fossil fuel plants as reserves instead of retiring them? If they have to be actually operated occasionally that’s OK and doesn’t cost much. And of course, nuclear is even better for this purpose.
Very thought provoking posting! Thanks Alec.
Bill Arnett
Nuclear stations are designed as base load stations (full power 24/7) and make poor reserve stations. Gas or Hydro are best.
“I would also imagine that the grid operator wouldn’t want all the plug-in vehicles to start or stop charging at exactly the same time so there needs to be some way to slightly randomize the response to the operator’s requests.”
The asset owners don’t care if we lose lots of customers each morning, as long as we get notice, we would go back to having more SR (spinning reserve). The asset owners would stagger the charging start times. A SOC for each battery would be really useful, as having a bunch of EV’s dropping out at the same time is not good either.
“More generally, isn’t all this concern about how much renewable generation we can reasonably install a little premature?” In Europe, Denmark for instance Wind Generation tops over 60% of the grid at times (night), without Germany and Sweden to load balance they would be in trouble. Germany’s wind share is on the increase so for Denmark this topic is here and now. The standard industry figure is 20% wind before grid stability becomes an issue. Obviously, the better condition the grid in in the more share of wind generation it can handle.
I agree with TEG that the terminology is important here. This shouldn’t be called V2G if it isn’t ‘Vehicle to Grid’. It’s as simple as that. It can’t be hard to come up with another term that covers this ‘intelligent charging’. How about GCC for Grid Controlled Charging. Otherwise in future we’ll be constantly having to explain that this that or the other vehicle isn’t really ‘fully V2G’ it just has its charge monitored and controlled by the energy supplier but it can’t send power back. What a mouthful and totally unnecessary.
Besides that, a very interesting and informative blog.
Bill Arnett wrote: I would also imagine that the grid operator wouldn’t want all the plug-in vehicles to start or stop charging at exactly the same time so there needs to be some way to slightly randomize the response to the operator’s requests.
When using the net frequency to determine charge rate, a vehicle could drop its charge rate just a little when the frequency falls. If the net frequency turn back to normal things are OK. If the frequency keeps falling (the next few minutes or so) it can drop its charge rate another notch. This slow feedback loop should prevent oscillations.
Question to Alec: What is the main problem in using the net frequency to determine the charge rate? It seems a whole lot easier than sending commands to individual cars.
>> understanding was that the ESS had a very limited number of charge/discharge cycles (on the order of 500)
Those are FULL charge/discharge cycles. If you do not completely dischage it, It lasts many more.
V2G operation would never completely discharge the pack, I’d say max 5% (from 100% full down to 95% full and back to 100%).
Using EV batteries to supply power back to the grid is just plain STUPID. Batteries are not good enough (yet) to provide sufficient speed, range, and charge/discharge cycle life to be reliable enough for sustained and practical use in EV’s. EV owners will have enough trouble making sure that their cars have a sufficient charge to go all the places they need to, either expected or unexpected, for the day. They will certainly not like it if they have to make an unexpected trip during the day and go out to their EV only to find the battery is too low to go the distance. If anything, they will want a convenient plug to “top off” the batteries for maximum range - not drain them further. They will also not like it if their EV is charged/discharged multiple times during the day, and they have to buy new batteries two or three times more often than normal. If the electric company needs this kind of extra power availability during peak hours, it would be a lot more practical and cost effective if they just buy some old empty warehouses and fill them up with racks of batteries. They would then KNOW how much reserve power they had to tap into and wouldn’t have to worry about accounting nightmare of paying EV owners for the power. They would also not have to worry about setting up the widespread infrastructure needed to tap into the EV batteries. Battery warehouses would be far more efficient, reliable, economical, and scalable.
This issue becomes even more significant for single households with more than one BEV. Will it be possible to “daisy chain” a Roadster through a BEV Whitestar (or a Bluestar) so that both can share a connection to the same Home Charging Unit? Both cars will need to negotiate with the Home Charger and each other according to their charging needs.
Also can any single Tesla be used as an emergency mobile charger for another Tesla? Is V2V allowed?
Great post. However, I have couple of issues that I disagree with. Current thinking in newspapers might be that renewables with variable production need backup power, but this is not true in any meaningful sense. Power system operator tries to maintain enough capacity to take care of peak load situations. Wind power has certain probability of producing some amount of power during the peak load hours. It is very unlikely to be zero, depending on particular system. Conventional power plants have some probability of being broken during the peak load hours (it’s usually during extreme weather events, which makes breakdowns bit more likely). This means that there needs to be extra capacity in the system, which is used only when the situation is extreme. Wind or solar power will decrease the need for this capacity as they provide power with some probability during peak load just like conventional power plants. Usually for wind power this contribution is less than it’s average energy contribution to the system, but it still is able to replace some conventional capacity. Therefore one does not need to build so called backup capacity at the same time as building variable renewables - it’s the opposite: some old capacity can be taken away from the system.
Second objection is that you shouldn’t control the loading of the vehicles based on the production from renewables. It should be based on the cost of electricity, which is certainly affected downwards by good wind or solar power production, but is also affected by consumption and other available power production. There is no direct connection between certain power production and certain load in the grid. It’s more like a big pool of water where there is multiple points of water coming in and water being sucked out.
I did like your post a lot, it was well written and gave a good overview. I also agree with your way of thinking. There’s no need to hurry for V2G, the biggest fruit is probably in ensuring that G2V is done in a smart way. Some capacity related ancillary services might make sense, but peak shaving would require very efficient round-trip and low battery wear and tear. Amount of money available for one car owner for providing peak shaving is also probably quite small on annual basis and might not be enough to overcome the trouble for getting it setup.
may I ask why you did go for a single engine and 2 speed transmission instead of 1 engine driving each wheel without gears and differential?
Apart from less problems to find a suitable transmission, the advantages in terms of traction/steering control of two independent engines would be enormous!
# Malcolm Wilson wrote on February 6th, 2008 at 8:34 am
## Also can any single Tesla be used as an emergency mobile charger for another Tesla? Is V2V allowed?
Good point! I was always thinking of someone towing a generator out to the stranded vehicle, but if you could share your power that would be even better.
The Tesla emergency roadside service vehicle could be another Tesla!
On the surface, it would seem like this would be technically feasible.
ICE vehicles give each other “jump starts” all the time with you offering “jumper cables” to hook your battery to someone in need.
Why not do that with the traction pack as well?
Fascinating information that sheds light on the charging process, the impact on electric grids, as well as the benefits. The point that overnight charging could lower the cost of electric power is interesting.
The ability to quickly research & implement things like this is what gives Tesla an advantage over the established automakers. Where a large automaker would take years and millions of dollars to research, test & implement, Tesla can do the same in (probably) a few months and a for a few thousand dollars. Then again, the big automakers are probably getting huge federal grants for quite a bit of their research and Tesla is paying out of (Elon’s) pocket…
A few points on Juha’s post:
1) “Current thinking in newspapers might be that renewables with variable production need backup power, but this is not true in any meaningful sense.”
The point addressed by this post isn’t providing back-up power for renewables, it is earning a little extra money by having the Roadster act as a kind of shock-absorber for the electrical grid. As the Roadster charges it changes its electrical load to help keep the electrical grid at the ideal 60 Hz.
A random example of various electrical loads of a single home: turning the lights on/off in a single room could be around a 300W difference, an electric stove could be around 2KW, a pool pump could be 1.5KW, garage door 1KW, computer 500W, etc etc etc. As things get turned on/off the load to the grid changes. Now imagine that over 10,000 homes. If the grid didn’t account for the fluctuation thru ‘ancillary services’ then as the load changed so would voltage and frequency. A large enough change would cause problems with electronics which were designed specifically for the standard 110V/220V 60Hz US power.
2) “Second objection is that you shouldn’t control the loading of the vehicles based on the production from renewables. It should be based on the cost of electricity”
Again, having the Roadster provide ancillary functions has nothing to do with renewables specifically, it’s for smoothing load fluctuations for the entire grid. It’s also not about sending power to the grid, it’s about controlling the load it causes by charging.
Imagine if there were 30,000 Roadsters/Whitestars charging at once (a few years down the road). Say that, on average, they’re pulling 10kW each. That would mean their combined load is 300MW. If there were a sudden increase of 100MW somewhere else on the electrical grid, instead of using the power generators or other ancillary services, they could send a command and 1 second later the 30,000 Tesla’s could reduce their average draw to around 6.6kW, thus cancelling out the 100MW increase.
The only downside I see is that I doubt PG&E will be very fair in regards to repaying owners for their services. My understanding is that, right now, if you have a large solar setup and consistently send power back to the grid you only get a credit on your bill. The credits are only good for a year and if you never use them they expire. The fair method would be to pay you the wholesale rate for the power you provided when the credit expires but, instead, PG&E gets that power for free. They might offer some small credit to provide these ancillary services but unless you bargain as a large group it will probably be peanuts compared to what it’s actually worth.
;) Interesting point of view and very informative
) Congrats on the V2G!
Any comments on this EEstor patent, here: www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2006026136&IA=WO2006026136&DISPLAY=DESC
The claim is 52+ kWh stored in a package that weighs only around 280 lbs. Also, if I read the patent correctly, no degradation of the unit was found after test runs of 100,000 charge/discharge cycles.
Translated into Roadster terms: An ESS weighing 560 lbs (around 2/3 of current ESS weight), that delivers double the current ESS range (say 400 miles or so). Also, a minimum ESS longevity of 100,000 charges/lifetime x 400 miles/charge = 40 million miles/lifetime. (Especially if the unit were pricey, it would then make sense to buy one and transplant it from car to car over the years!)
I know we have heard all the hype over EEstor for many years now; what else is new? But if Tesla could deliver P1, maybe the EEstor guys will deliver on their long-promised baby, also. I only bring up the topic because the patent description appeared at the World Intellectual Property Organization website, not some fanboy blog. What does everyone think?
Best post in a long while.
Is there a meaningful wear and tear or cost issue with the Li ESS by varying the charge load? I seem to recall batteries have optimal charge characteristics.
Just as a side note, another way to adjust power frequency to a certain degree is… believe it or not… hydro.
Well mantained hydro spins up in a few seconds (well, tens of seconds). Some countries here in EU are taking advantage of this. It’s probably not enough for US but I still think it’s an interesting thing to know since I didn’t know this up to a few weeks ago.
James, it certainly sounds incredible and would be a game changer if it all came to pass. Martin is always very sceptical, however, as it seems nobody has really demonstrated that it really does do what it says on the tin. Although the patent is important I’m not sure that it’s really anything more than just formalising the same claims they’ve been making for a long time. I have no qualifications in this area but like everybody else I’d like to see a working demonstration before I’d be inclined to believe in it. Great news, if it’s true though
I am sure you guys have heard about the new Tochiba SCiB.
It recharges in five minutes.
Are you guys excited about it?
Is it not a major break through?
Thx
Tim
Sorry, that should have been
Toshiba SCiB… “Super Charge ion Batterie”
It will be available this March
T
I waited a couple of years for the Toshiba SCiB to become real. The good news is that it does seem to be real (and that Toshiba could get to market only two years after initial announcement). The bad news, as far as the specs I have seen, anyway, is that some of the improvements appear to have come at the cost of energy density. That is to say, the SCiBs do not hold as much energy as do standard LiIon batteries (such as are in the Roadster ESS). An SCiB-based ESS of equivalent range would be much heavier, perhaps bigger, and probably costlier than the one that Tesla has now. On the other hand, it would also probably last longer, and so be less costly in the sense of not needing to replace the ESS during the useful life of the vehicle. The long life might provide for a shorter range-vehicle (say, 150mi/charge) that could run for somewhere between 100-200K miles before the ESS would need to be replaced. And the fast-charge capability would at least guarantee that the car could charge up as fast as the charging infrastructure permitted. Also, Toshiba was upfront in saying that they didn’t want to go after the EV market until they had worked out some issues with SCiB: no doubt that one such issue is the need to increase the energy density.
On the other hand, if the batteries can be produced cheaply enough, that may be the tipping factor in their favor for EV use, even before Toshiba can come up with a higher-density SCiB: the energy density is still higher than NiCad and NiMH, and much higher than lead-acid (which many “punishment car” EVs still use, even today!), What I haven’t seen is an indication of the price or quantities that will be available in March. Has anyone here happened upon such information recently?
James Anderson Merrit,
Thanks for the link to the EEStor patent, I had data from the older 2003 patent which was 340 lbs and 2005 cu.in. This newer 2006 patent says 287 lbs, and 4541 cu.in. and specifically states includes covers and connectors. BTW that is 1,000,000 cycles! EEStors stated target price was $3300, but it will require an expensive voltage converter to reduce the 3500 volts to 380 volts for the Tesla. I believe this is not vaporware, we should know before the year is out. I’ve been trying to guage Tesla’s ESU size, I guess at about 48″x16″x12″ = 9216 cu.in. so I think you are right. The Roadster’s range could be doubled. Also ZENN’s licence agreement specifically excludes sports cars.
Carlo Santeroni wrote on February 6th, 2008 at 9:23 am
may I ask why you did go for a single engine and 2 speed transmission instead of 1 engine driving each wheel without gears and differential?
Answer: Cost. Two motors and two controllers would significantly add to the price, and they would still require gear reduction. To eliminate the gear reduction the motors would have to be much larger, heavier and more costly. But I agree ideally it would be desirable to have individual traction control without using brakes, but it just isn’t worth it. I would like to see 2 motors and 4 wheel drive on the Whitestar, for better traction in snow and improved regen on braking. Most of the braking effort is by the front wheels.
# Carlo Santeroni wrote on February 6th, 2008 at 9:23 am
## may I ask why you did go for a single (motor) instead of 1 (motor) driving each wheel without gears and differential?
# Roy responded:
## Answer: Cost.
Perhaps regulatory and safety as well.
All other production EVs (like EV1, RAV4EV, RangerEV, etc.) had a single eMotor.
The early GM prototypes had dual motors but they switched to one before going into production.
What I heard is that there is danger in having one motor fail and causing the car to lose control.
With one motor if it loses power you don’t run the risk of suddenly sliding sideways.
From here: www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=31
“Two smaller motors are of necessity heavier than one larger motor of equivalent total power.
Replication of motor inverter electronics. Each motor will require its own expensive, complex inverter.
In the end, a differential plus a pair of shafts is more reliable and more efficient than a second inverter and a second motor - especially when the two inverters must act in coordination.”
Is Tesla testing/evaluating a123 power packs?
# Roy wrote on February 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
# Thanks for the link to the EEStor patent, I had data from the older 2003 patent which was
# 340 lbs and 2005 cu.in. This newer 2006 patent says 287 lbs, and 4541 cu.in. and
# specifically states includes covers and connectors. BTW that is 1,000,000 cycles!
Yes, I now see that they talk about 1M test cycles in the “Claims” tab of the patent webpage. I had originally skipped that and looked only at the Description tab, which seemed to talk only about test results “after every 100,000 cycles,” so I figured that 100K charges marked at least a lower bound on the energy storage unit lifetime. How astounding that it is actually claimed to be 1M!
This suggests, however, that it behooves a manufacturer to find the “range sweet spot” for a particular vehicle, then use an eestor-based energy storage unit that is only large enough to propel a fully loaded vehicle to the end of that range (plus perhaps a little more as “emergency capacity”). This would minimize cost, weight, and size of the storage unit. The idea would be that the “tank” should store enough energy to allow you to drive until you felt like stopping for an hour or so. Then, you could charge up at 1 or 1.5 miles/minute while parked, to get an additional 60-135 miles, depending on how long you paused and the actual recharge rate. I’m thinking that a good “sweet spot” for the Roadster might be 300 miles, implying an energy unit of 78 kWh capacity, weighing some 450 lbs. A range like that would take you from San Francisco to Santa Barbara (or San Luis Obispo, which I prefer), where you could stop to eat and recharge, and then on for the final push to Los Angeles. That would be pretty sweet. Plus, you’d have more room in the trunk for luggage, etc.! And the energy storage unit would likely outlast several vehicles, with an estimated lifetime of 300M miles! (”Well there, young feller, we’ve had that energy unit in our family for three generations, transplanting it from car to car. She’s a bit of an antique now, but she gets the job done…”
)
The other thing I forgot to mention in the comment above is that EEstor, or any similar technology with very long-lifetime, high energy density and fast-charge capability, would makes fast-charging practically UNNECESSARY, even moreso if the units were physically rugged and/or cheap. Here is my reasoning:
If a unit can be charged and recharged indefinitely, then it becomes feasible to create an energy-storage unit by combining several smaller, identical units. These units can be designed to be easily and quickly swapped. (Perhaps they would weigh 20-30 lbs. each, so a roadster-class ESS might contain ten or fifteen of them.) Now it is feasible to think that several of the modules in the ESS, or even all of them, might be replaced with fully-charged modules during a range-extending “pit-stop.” A fairly straightforward “tester” rig (or circuitry within the ESS structure itself) could determine a module’s present state of charge and whether it were in good repair before either the driver or “pit stop” operator would accept the module in swap. Because a “used” module would be as good as a “new” one (assuming both were in good repair), the modules could be treated as commodities themselves. Maybe the “brand-new” modules might command a small premium, but any “used” one would exchange 1-to-1 with any other used one, regardless of age. While awaiting the arrival of a motorist in need of a pit-stop, the operator would charge individual modules at a more leisurely speed from the power mains or using other means (solar panels, for instance).
Replacing half of a Roaster-class ESS’s charge might take 10 minutes or so in this way; replacing it all maybe 15-20 minutes — not an unreasonable break after driving 200 or 300 miles non-stop. This would be much faster and probably less dangerous and less expensive in terms of capital equipment needed than to provide real-time “quick-charge” service via a huge battery, flywheel generator, or substation-class hookup to the main power-lines. As others have pointed out, if the range of an EV at full charge were sufficient for most trips to begin with, the dominant mode of charging would be the more leisurely wall-connection method during times when the car is parked. “Quick-charging” en route would be needed in a relatively small number of cases, so “quick charge” service stations might invest in a modest initial stock of modules, augmenting or scaling back as actual demand for this particular service indicated. (If an operator didn’t want to expand his service along a well-traveled route, that would create an opportunity for another operator to fill the need.) Because the interchangeable modules would each last for such a long time, it is not unthinkable that well-used ones (or those that were no longer needed because an operator scaled back his business due to soft demand), might be sold in a secondary market, to those who wanted to use them for other energy storage purposes (home backup, buffers for energy from renewable sources such as solar or wind, etc.).
Anyway, it’s not as if these ideas haven’t been floated before (even by me!). But I hadn’t before stopped to consider that long-life and relatively inexpensive construction (or good durability, which equals lower replacement expense over time) could combine to obviate the need for “quick-charging” at all, even if the energy storage technology itself could accommodate very rapid charge indeed. It’s rather ironic to me that certain qualities of the eestor technology would render other, formerly highly-touted qualities more or less irrelevant. Let’s hope we see whether this technology is real very soon, and if real, whether it lives up to all the tantalizing hype.
Man, this is another Wild Goose Chase for Tesla. It was difficult to find, but one review said a replacement battery pack was going to cost $20,000. So, the absolute cheapest this battery is going to cost me is $12.00 per day, (assuming the best case scenario, 5 year calandar life, @ 100,000 miles). So each partial charge - discharge cycle of 54 miles per day is only going to use $1.75 of electricity, but use up $12 of battery life. I hope everyone sees how silly this is…..
So you’re telling me, a tesla customer would be willing to donate $1.75 of electricity to the grid, (lets assume PG&E generously pays him DOUBLE for it, say $3.50), meanwhile causing $12.00 of battery deterioration that the Tesla customer will have to absorb? There aren’t any sane people, save those in a drunken stupor, that would do that.
Another silly thing: power line frequency can’t be a reliable indicator of system loading. Electric clocks still depend on long term frequency accuracy (they must get 60 cycles of power for every second of every day, long term). So it is likely, that after a random load has ’slowed down the grid’, the generators all have be oversped slightly to keep all the clocks on time, even though the load is greater.
The best thing Tesla could do for the utilities is to avoid charging during peak hours of use, and especially during brownout emergencies. But such events never happen during the overnight, so its safe to charge at that time..
Battery exchange? Of a battery I just paid $20,000 for? Only the spoiled child of a billionaire would stoop to that sucker’s bet.
Instead of all this vague, feel-good talk, is there any way we can get a spec sheet on battery life, and charging rates, along with charge/discharge efficiency?
If the ESS is 99.5% efficient, could someone please tell me why it needs to be freon cooled. If I’m using 20kw from the motor (30 hp), and the inverter is 90% efficient, then that would be 2kw loss from the inverter (6826 British Thermal Units per hour of heat), and 100 watt loss from the battery (342 BTU’s/Hour). Heating at that rate could easily be dissispated by convection cooling….
I’d really like to get some hard numbers in the form of a spec-sheet from Tesla Personnel, since the things I hear people say don’t make any sense.
Dale: Hi, I just got some more information than I had since the last post. Apparently, the ‘99.5%’ efficiency statement that all Li-ion batteries seem to be associated with is just plain bogus. That explains the need for refrigeration / glycol solution to cool the batteries during charging.. According to Engineer Andrew Simpson, it takes 75 kwh (over 4 hours) to fully recharge the ESS from a dead start. (70% efficiency for a 53kwh final storage). This means that Tesla’s official statement of 3 1/2 hour charge at 70 amps is also bogus. It would obviously take at least 90 amps, and then only if the 70% efficiency point can be maintained, but its reasonable to believe that would drop to the 65% range at least, assuming the homeowner’s outlet is arranged to provide 90 amps @ 240 volts (not likely in most cases).
Parts of this blog are based on erroneous information: The vast majority of large generating plants use synchronous machines. Increasing a load on them does not cause them to slow down, merely, use more steam. The generators keep turning at exactly 3600 (or in very large machines), 1800 rpm (for 60 hz generation). You might ask, if the speed doesn’t change at all, how does the generator ‘know’ to draw more torque from the steam turbine? Its in the degree rotation off the in-sync rotating field. Imagine a flexible coupling where springs are used to provide ‘rotational give’. An increase in load on the generator would cause it to slip back a few degrees out of 360, but it would still be rotating exactly at 3600 rpm.
In any event, using powerline frequency to indicate utility total load is pointless, seeing as the power line is still used to provide precise timekeeping of electric clocks. Any grid ’slow-down’ due to a huge unexpected load, would have to be followed eventually by a grid ’speed-up’. So a ‘grid-speed-up’ could be at a time of huge load. Presumably, the tesla would think the load has been ’shed’, and then would turn on its charger at precisely the wrong time.
The poster who said use a big station just for batteries is on the right track.. The downtown areas of big cities in the years 1900-1938 had large battery ‘warehouses’ (called substations) to run all of the downtown area in the event of power failure. These became obsolete after the invention of the AC network protector, where several sources of power could be ‘combined’.
So if anyone tells you a ‘battery warehouse’ couldn’t possibly be built, rest assured there were thousands of them 80 years ago.
- Bill.
Huh. I just had a thought about how to deal with the “charge away from home” problem.
Supply an (optional) *electric meter* on the portable recharging cable.
That way, if you have to charge at a friend’s house — or a stranger’s house — or a hotel or business — you can tell them “Look, this is how much electricity I used — I’ll pay you per kilowatt at the rate of your choice.”
This might be more attractive to many places than just giving you the electricity for free!
I haven’t read through all of the comments but I was wondering if any thought has been put into a “wind” generator mounted behind the grill of the car. My idea would be to have a “squirrel cage” style propeller, the width of the grill, that would spin a generator (or two) to produce additional electricity during driving, similar to regenerative braking but it would occur during acceleration, coasting and braking. The idea would be to extend the range by some amount and not to fully charge the batteries. After the air passes through the propeller it could go on to cool controllers, batteries or occupants.
- John
Well… March is almost over,
and I have not heard a word about the new Toshiba SCiB.
Kind of bums me out
You could possibly integrate removable solar panels when the car is stationary to reduce the time of plug-in charging or multiple wind turbines on the under carriage to increase it’s range when under power.
Since the car motor is driving the car forward and the forward movement is generating the wind to then try and generate energy back from the wind would only serve to slow the car down.
Sorry to sound stupid…I’ve never ‘blogged’ before.
Can anyone tell me if the energy produced by wheel rotation on a long, downhill coast is captured by the battery? I’ve read the info on the reclaimation of energy during braking, but didn’t see any info on just coasting.
Thanks.
:-)
I am sure one of the pros will answer you soon,
but from what I understand you will only be generating
when you are pressing on the breaks.
I have been thinking about the aspect of using solar power for charging the car and so far the only draw back I have seen is the feedback issue. If the batteries are full and the solar panels are still generating energy it creates feedback and that the can either damage the electrical system or the batteries. One solution would be for the solar panels to have small shutters over them and they will shut when the system is at full capacity.
Here is my big idea for the day….
I know for the Sportsteer this is will not really work but on the sedan why don’t you create a solar panel sun screen that is located in the roof of the vehicle and is deployable on both front and rear windshields when you leave the vehicle? This would help keep the car cooler during the summer and expand the distance of the car and lessen the reliance on “Big Power.”
I think that we need to look forward on next-generation power plants, like, Fusion Power plants. Electricity should be the universal energy source, not only for electric equipment and transportation (TM is working on it), but also for industrial applications and household heating. Everything should be powered by electricity. Don’t you agree? If we would create very large and efficient power supply worldwide, charging an EV would be the same as charging a cell phone today. And no more smart and hassled charging. Simply plug in whenever you like and want.
I was reading in the local papers in london that they need to work on the distance per charge as these cars are great for towns and cities but powering them on longer trips is currently not viable. Has Tesla considered using the aerodynamics to focus wind to an electric generator (wind turbine) combined with solar panels built into the car to charge the batteries (much like powerboat engines but in reverse), would they provide enough power at current technologies?. If the turbines are small and powerful enough you could do away/ reduce the need for home charges and greatly increase the desirability of these cars as the public would not need to wait until the gov’s provide a power delivery system!!!!…
Remove the powers that control use…. Gov’s and oil companies all together.
The other benefits (if properly designed) to this is to provide added down force for when your cars break their current specs on speed and acceleration.
Has Tesla submitted their application to the DOE for the loan guarantee yet??
www.beaconpower.com/
During the past few months I have been looking at the alternative of all electric cars and I have noticed that the price of a production car is much higher than kits offered by many manufacturers to convert a donor car to an EV. Is the cost mainly in the style of the Tesla, since it is a sportscar, and how does the projection of the target consumer affect the pricing of your product?
Also I have read and watched videos on magnetic re-generating technologies as an alternative to the use of recharging through the grid, would this be a technology that Tesla Motors has considered?
This may be the big break through we have been waiting for !!!
The Toshiba SCiB—Super Charge ion Battery for EVs !!!
Please check it out:
www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/toshiba-develop.html
but no production date
Perhaps Tesla Motors can come up with a commuter car…
for us working people
As a ham radio operator, I build a station several years ago that was powered from a single deep-cycle marine battery from Wal-Mart. Most ham equipment is designed to operate from 12VDC, so this was no big deal. To keep the battery charged, I installed a solar panel and an early charge controller to attempt to keep my station independent of commercial power (a “Holy Grail” of ham operators!). I soon discovered that my one little solar panel could not produce enough charge current to do the job if I used my equipment more than once a week or so. So I bought a “smart” AC charger designed for car dealers and garages, which I left connected all the time and which did a great job of supplementing the meager capacity of the solar panel.
A few years later, we added a room to our house which was to be my office and “ham shack”. I had the electrician install a separate circuit in the room which was supplied not from commercial power, but from a deep-cycle battery in a shed outside the room, via a 2000 watt inverter. The shed had a commercial power outlet, so I could connect the AC charger and thus have a 20-amp (or so) version of the standard computer UPS delivered through special outlets throughout the room. So far so good.
I say all this to get to the following point: if it can be done for one circuit in a house, why couldn’t it be done for the whole house? A bank of Wal-Mart batteries in a utility shed feeding an inverter capable of supplying 100 or 200 amps (or whatever the house requires), or maybe a separate 20-amp inverter for each circuit. This battery bank could then utilize Alec’s techniques described in this article for grid-controlled charging. Not only would this enable much greater efficiency and stability in the power grid, but anyone who wanted to do a little extra could install windmills, solar panels, or water wheels to help keep their home charged and provide further independence from the power grid. This setup could even sell power back to the grid if a home’s generating capacity exceeds its usage (like when residential nuclear reactors become affordable!).
Good point John Hunley, I can see the direct relation to the principles you are stating and there is many resources that back-up your theory.
I think that if the World would have spent as much money on solar/ battery research, as they have on finding oil sources , then we would all be driving and using alternative energy.
I would like to add an interesting link that offer many answers to energy questions.
www.greencarcongress.com/
Toshiba SCiBs (Super Charge Ion Battery)
And away we go
Toshiba charges ahead with EV-friendly battery building plan
www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/10/23/toshiba_ev_battery_plan/
This is great news for us all.
Not sure if this has been mentioned. Can an onboard electrolysis generator use the hydrogen gas it produces from water to charge the battery? It’s being used to improve MPG’s in gas powered cars.
I have not seen anything posted regarding the serious limitation of a 200 mile range before a several hour recharge. If battery design could be standardized across all EV cars, then would it be possible to unplug the battery and plug in a fresh one? I realize the battery weighs around 1,000 pounds but at a battery “filling station” this should be possible. Each vehicle would also need to have a standardized mechanism to release the battery, systems to safeguard against shock and auxilliary power to manage on-board computers etc.
However, there are several major advantages to such a system in addition to unlimited range.
(1) Because there is a gasoline fuel “grid” already in existence, availability of refueling points would not be a problem. Granted, each refueling point would have to purchase handling and charging equipment, arrange for electrical power and train employees but the local gas station would be the perfect site for such a operation. A few years ago, auto diesel was not widely available but now it’s at most stations.
(2) The Energy Companies, much as I don’t like them personally, have huge profits to fund the infrastructure and a vested interest in being players in any new form of energy for vehicles.
(3) Again considering the Energy Companies as a capital funding source, batteries would not have to be purchased with the vehicle, thus dramatically lowering initial vehicle cost. Instead, the consumer only has to purchase kilowatts, When you refuel, the equipment would determine how many KW your battery still has and sell you additional KW in the form of a fully charged battery.
(4) Having standardized batteries being purchased by a few big energy companies would drive the battery industry toward high speed, economical production and lower prices. BP can successfully negotiate with Sony or Toshiba.
(5) Management of charging cycles including all the issues of timing to maximize use of wind and solar power, the use of idle batteries to feed back into the electrical grid and all of that, become a struggle for profit between peers. Currently improvements of this kind are a struggle between individuals against huge power companies. I have no influence with American Electric Power, but Exxon Mobil does.
(6) In addition to individual “filling stations”, the energy companies also have sophisticated systems of delivery infrastructure. This gives them a huge advantage in managing the absolute number of batteries in the system and where they are recharged by moving them around. For example, batteries could be charged at local terminals, possibly even co-located with electrical power distribution points. Energy Companies also must have sophisticated models of where fuel is needed to assure that the right number of batteries are at the right place.
(7) Current on-board technologies like GPS and On-Star could easily be linked to the data systems of the Energy Companies to provide real-time information on battery availability. When travelling long distances, a driver, or even a remote service, could place a battery reservation 200 miles down the road.
I see there’s a lot of debate about quickcharge, battery swapping, and the like. Quick charge requires very specialized charging stations and battery swapping is a huge logistics issue on its own. What I haven’t seen mentioned is extended battery pack or generator trailers. Any vehicle should be capable of towing a few hundred pounds. With standardized connectors and already standardized trailer hitches, it seems the easiest way to extend range for any vehicle is a rentable battery or generator trailer. Surely a battery pack could be fit within a lightweight aerodynamic case with low rolling resistance tires. This could be added on your vehicle when you need it and deliver an extra 200 miles or so. Since the infrastructure for these trailers would follow the same model as companies like U-haul operate on, it’s surely feasible. Thoughts?
Can I get an Amen? Does anybody read this anymore?
Please check it out: www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE53C4MR20090413
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Toshiba Corp is ready to mass-produce a quick-charging lithium ion battery
for hybrid vehicles with the highest electrical output for a battery of this kind, the financial daily Nikkei
said in its Tuesday edition…….
I sure would like to hear a response from Tesla.
That battery might be able to solve the recharge time complaint many have about EV cars; 30 min recharge time sounds more than reasonable for third gen EV’s. Since Tesla is now teaming with Daimler they should be able to get some of those batteries to test.
Hi,
I wonder whether you ever stumbled upon the Perendev rotor (www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFGiWiXMHn0) ?
Well, you do now !
1. If you manage to build one hooked together with a dynamo, it looks to me as an interesting solution to power your batteries off the grid, and extend the driving range endlessly.
2. perhaps you can integrate it into the braking energy capturing techniques you already use, as part of the torque.
Gr. Richard
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
I was curious if you can charge the car while driving it.