On Chevrolet's website they claim that in one year their new Volt will only use 2500 kWh and that you will only have to pay about a dollar a day. This is based on that you will only go less than 40 miles per day, that you don't drive hard, or up a hill, and that the gas generator doesn't turn on. When I look at these numbers I simply see misdirection not a solution to the CO2 emissions that have been plaguing mankind in recent years. Chevrolet seems to act as if the gasoline or E85 generator simply isn't there.
Another issue that I have with this is that once that generator starts it is simply designed to keep the battery at 30% charge capacity which as Chevrolet claims is for "continued battery health". When the generator is running though, at around 3000 RPM's which is comparable to most gas engines at highway speeds you are using gasoline just as any other car does. If you ever go past the 40 mile range or take it on a trip the Volt becomes a very high tech midsized car with a huge battery being carted along.
There is also the problem with the "average" of 40 miles of driving daily. I live in Northern IN and is almost 20 miles to the next town from where I live. That doesn't include the driving that I do once I reach that town. I ask myself "Does the Volt make a sensible car for me?" and the answer is no. I simply drive too far and too much for it to make sense as a car for me. It feels more like a feel good car than something that is useful. It may make sense for city drivers but it isn't made for those of use who live far away from urban life.
The next problem is the idea that you are going to be able to plug it in everywhere you go. I live near Chicago and I enjoy driving there but once I get there I have to park in a Parking Garage and there aren't many wall outlets there. What does that mean for me? It means that I am going to have use gas the ENTIRE time that I am there and I have a feeling that with the weight of the batteries there won't be much of a gas tank to speak of. This means that all the advantages the car has are lost because you went outside the 40 mile range
If electric cars are going to work and replace there gasoline powered cousins the biggest thing that needs to change is charge time. Some special systems allow for 20 minute complete charges. If this could be halved (about as much time as it takes to fill an empty gas tank) then I would be completely on board with electric vehicles. If there is a infrastructure of high tech quick charging "power stations" across the continental US then I would have no issues owning an electric car, but until then I think car makers (GM in this case) need to clearly market this car as being designed to use less gas and calculate that into using the car. One day there will be emissions free reasonably priced electric cars, but for now they are simply science projects with intelligent design not a complete solution. I just want the marketing and the information to be the truth not a twisted and doctored version of it.
Feel free to comment and point out any mistakes. This is mostly meant to be an opinion on the misconceptions on new "no-gasoline" solutions.
ReplyDeleteHow about a review on the Honda Clarity? May make an interesting comparison with your US makes.
ReplyDeleteGood idea! Thanks for the input!
ReplyDeleteHey I did a small review, tell me what you think and if you would like more in depth, thanks!
ReplyDeleteI think your reviews could be sharper if you more clearly define the future limitations of design advancement of each energy source as well as touch on the associated cost factors. The three primary influences to the ultimate design are: Performance, price and features. In the case of fuel cell and battery hybrid systems, they have limitations. What about recyclablity of used fuel cells? used Li-ion batteries? energy density? power density? raw material costs? Environmental issues beyond CO2 emissions need to be discussed, too. Also, a single-source energy strategy is not favorable or a logical next step in the development of reliable and environmentally-friendly energy. Competition in any thing drives innovation and cost competitiveness. Without competition, we end up where we are today with internal combustion as the only fully developed system...and it obviously has its limitaions and bad effects.
ReplyDeleteFinally, research the issue with fuel cells. Hydrogen though abundant, is a very unstable element..the phase gradient between gas, liquid and solid is 6.2 degrees C. To achieve the necessary operating temperature of -250+ degrees C, requires a lot of pressure. This is why batteries are 4x more efficient than fuel cells...no leakage issues. Methanol is a Class 3 hazardous chemical....DMFC!
I could ramble on more, but I will close by saying that the answer to our future energy source problem is diversity of design evaluation, optimized cost control, and safety. We'll see who wins in the end.
Thanks for the great input and thanks for reading the entire entry. You have a lot of good points in your comment. The issue with recyclability of these methods I agree is a major issue. I can certainly tell you have done your research.
ReplyDeleteThe instability of Hydrogen I agree is a major factor in the question, "is hydrogen feasible?" If I remember correctly this vertical stack system actually is a low pressure system compared to say the Chevy Equinox fuel cell. I can't remember specifics at the moment.
And finally to me if we try to go in multiple directions without a singular systems we will have to make vehicles that have the ability to run on a multitude of fuels/power sources. With petroleum there is no worry about when you travel where you are going to be able to find fuel. I still want the automobile to have a sense of freedom and an alternative to public transportation, not be limited by the availability of your respective fuel source, or in the case of this home energy system how far you can go from home.
Thanks again for your response! I think this entry was a little rushed for me. Thanks for your time!