treehugger.com— A recent article in Technology Review argues that plug-in hybrid vehicles could help stabilize the electrical grid. The idea is called "vehicle-to-grid" (often abbreviated as V2G).
Dec 23, 2006View in Crawl 4
Why bother with all the internal combustion stuff?We shouldn't have to pay for an engine block, head(s), exhaust system, fuel system, cooling system, ignition system, O2 sensors, EVAP systems, catalytic converters, PCV system, timing belts/chains, emissions systems, oil changes, transmission fluid changes etc.All these hybrids on the road today should have been pure electric cars.It's almost 2007. We should have flying cars by now and food in pill form, not vehicles powered by fire.
My neighbor has the Rav-4 EV. It's so cool! It looks just like the regular RAV4, but it's much more efficient, to the tune of 105 MPG, I believe (If you pretend electricity is gas based on their prices). It's near silent. It's "snuck" up on me several times.If you're wondering how he got it, don't ask me. Probably used. It's in New Jersey next to my house pretty much every day, but it has Florida plates. I thought they were only sold in California, so who knows its story.
@ masamunecyrusOh, I felt I should also mention that if carbon nanotubes live up to the hype, they could distribute grid much farther than ever before, so problems with the grid are shared farther and wider, meaning that local problems won't matter as much when using the plug-in flywheel scheme discussed here. I'm figuring I should mention that so long as we are guessing about what would work in the future. But if carbon nanotubes don't pan out, what you said in your last line would be a big issue.
"What would seem to make the most sense to me in this area would be a hybrid with the combustion engine functioning as a generator - completely detached from the driveline."Further, it allows the possibility to include the generator in trailer format. As has been pointed out, most people do not travel over 50km / day, so the range of EVs is suitable 99% of the time. When you go on your yearly vacation, simply attach the small trailer which allows for the range and convenience of a petrol engine without carrying the weight around when not in use.
Oh you want to argue impact? you wrote"To consider any technology in isolation is useless." How many tonnes of pollution does a SUV or car make in its lifetime?You do have to include that in your calculations.
Mark101 said:"How many tonnes of pollution does a SUV or car make in its lifetime?You do have to include that in your calculations."I said: "For petrol, that includes drilling, shipping, refining, trucking, pumping and combustion."Please remind me what combustion is for it seems that I must have been mistaken? Silly me always thought that was the chemical reaction that converted the petrol into energy producing other chemicals that we refer to as pollution.In fact cars contribute much more to pollution than simply what comes out of the tail pipe. Oils that must be constantly changed are not particularly good for the environment either.But to claim EVs produce no pollution is wrong. You don't magically plug your car into the wall and it magically gets totally refilled with no environmental impact.Lets look at some figures. Apeweek above claims the Rav4 EV achieve 4 miles per 1KWH (which is 1KWH for about 6.5km) .I don't know whether that is an average figure or an exceptionally good one.The average car where I live travells 15,000km per year (9,300 miles).So a bit of math later:You need to generate 2.3 Megawatt Hrs per year per average car.Mark101 said:"the average car on the road today uses 11.8L/100km and therefore generates 5.57 tonnes of CO2 each year."So how many tonnes of CO2 per year does it take your power grid to generate 2.3MW of usable electricity (after you take out transmission losses)? Don't forget to include digging up the coal, sending it by train to the plant and burning it.A side note, outside the US, our cars are probably closer to 6 or 9 L/100 km depending on highway or city. 11.8 is probably V8 territory. Also, again this is in isolation, looking only at combustion. Don't forget to include pollution from drilling oil, shipping oil, refining oil and trucking fuel around to world. I think you will find that 5.57 tonnes is way under the true environmental impact of even a small car.Again, to consider either petrol or EVs at the road is silly. The EVs will of course be pollution free, but the grid will need to distribute over 2MW more per car per year.Back to the article, this idea is promising because it allows us for really the first time to consider using renewable energy for base load power (except hydro which is a bit more stable).
asimo8Dec 24, 2006
Why bother with all the internal combustion stuff?We shouldn't have to pay for an engine block, head(s), exhaust system, fuel system, cooling system, ignition system, O2 sensors, EVAP systems, catalytic converters, PCV system, timing belts/chains, emissions systems, oil changes, transmission fluid changes etc.All these hybrids on the road today should have been pure electric cars.It's almost 2007. We should have flying cars by now and food in pill form, not vehicles powered by fire.
apeweekDec 25, 2006
There are some pretty amazing electric cars coming down the road, as we speak. Not just the Tesla electric sportscar ( <a class="user" href="http://www.teslamotors.com">http://www.teslamotors.com</a> ), but also the Phoenix. The Phoenix (out next year) goes up to 250 miles per charge, does 95 mph, holds 5 passengers plus cargo, and can charge in TEN MINUTES.<a class="user" href="http://phoenixmotorcars.com">http://phoenixmotorcars.com</a>
lifewithoutDec 25, 2006
Freight trains are diesel/electric and use a lot of diesel.
tvarmyDec 25, 2006
My neighbor has the Rav-4 EV. It's so cool! It looks just like the regular RAV4, but it's much more efficient, to the tune of 105 MPG, I believe (If you pretend electricity is gas based on their prices). It's near silent. It's "snuck" up on me several times.If you're wondering how he got it, don't ask me. Probably used. It's in New Jersey next to my house pretty much every day, but it has Florida plates. I thought they were only sold in California, so who knows its story.
tvarmyDec 25, 2006
@ masamunecyrusOh, I felt I should also mention that if carbon nanotubes live up to the hype, they could distribute grid much farther than ever before, so problems with the grid are shared farther and wider, meaning that local problems won't matter as much when using the plug-in flywheel scheme discussed here. I'm figuring I should mention that so long as we are guessing about what would work in the future. But if carbon nanotubes don't pan out, what you said in your last line would be a big issue.
grumpyrainDec 26, 2006
"What would seem to make the most sense to me in this area would be a hybrid with the combustion engine functioning as a generator - completely detached from the driveline."Further, it allows the possibility to include the generator in trailer format. As has been pointed out, most people do not travel over 50km / day, so the range of EVs is suitable 99% of the time. When you go on your yearly vacation, simply attach the small trailer which allows for the range and convenience of a petrol engine without carrying the weight around when not in use.
mark101Dec 26, 2006
Oh you want to argue impact? you wrote"To consider any technology in isolation is useless." How many tonnes of pollution does a SUV or car make in its lifetime?You do have to include that in your calculations.
grumpyrainDec 26, 2006
Mark101 said:"How many tonnes of pollution does a SUV or car make in its lifetime?You do have to include that in your calculations."I said: "For petrol, that includes drilling, shipping, refining, trucking, pumping and combustion."Please remind me what combustion is for it seems that I must have been mistaken? Silly me always thought that was the chemical reaction that converted the petrol into energy producing other chemicals that we refer to as pollution.In fact cars contribute much more to pollution than simply what comes out of the tail pipe. Oils that must be constantly changed are not particularly good for the environment either.But to claim EVs produce no pollution is wrong. You don't magically plug your car into the wall and it magically gets totally refilled with no environmental impact.Lets look at some figures. Apeweek above claims the Rav4 EV achieve 4 miles per 1KWH (which is 1KWH for about 6.5km) .I don't know whether that is an average figure or an exceptionally good one.The average car where I live travells 15,000km per year (9,300 miles).So a bit of math later:You need to generate 2.3 Megawatt Hrs per year per average car.Mark101 said:"the average car on the road today uses 11.8L/100km and therefore generates 5.57 tonnes of CO2 each year."So how many tonnes of CO2 per year does it take your power grid to generate 2.3MW of usable electricity (after you take out transmission losses)? Don't forget to include digging up the coal, sending it by train to the plant and burning it.A side note, outside the US, our cars are probably closer to 6 or 9 L/100 km depending on highway or city. 11.8 is probably V8 territory. Also, again this is in isolation, looking only at combustion. Don't forget to include pollution from drilling oil, shipping oil, refining oil and trucking fuel around to world. I think you will find that 5.57 tonnes is way under the true environmental impact of even a small car.Again, to consider either petrol or EVs at the road is silly. The EVs will of course be pollution free, but the grid will need to distribute over 2MW more per car per year.Back to the article, this idea is promising because it allows us for really the first time to consider using renewable energy for base load power (except hydro which is a bit more stable).