This is mahonj's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following mahonj's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
They'll need to find a better name than Hongqi if they want to sell cars in Europe or the USA. FAW would be fine (no worse than VW). It sounds like "FAR" which would be OK for a car brand, IMO.
They are talking abut clean air, and yet using a CO2 measure to asses it. IMO, they would be better allowing "older hybrids" and maybe Euro 6 petrol cars. If they want to clear the air, they need to get all the diesels out. People have to drive something and if they can buy older hybrids, they can replace their diesels at reasonable expense.
sorry, comment posted to wrong post.
They are talking abut clean air, and yet using a CO2 measure to asses it. IMO, they would be better allowing "older hybrids" and maybe Euro 6 petrol cars. If they want to clear the air, they need to get all the diesels out. People have to drive something and if they can buy older hybrids, they can replace their diesels at reasonable expense.
It looks like you need a way to stagger the charging if there is high demand. This can either come from frequency signals, or some direct approach, such as a controller run by the power supply company. Frequency signals are IMO not a good idea as the same signal is given to all participants at the same time, which isn't what you want + the operator may try to keep the frequency as stable as possible irrespective of what is happening on the grid. Ideally, you want a schedule which is automatically worked out such that everyone who wants to charge can do so. You could charge in small time slices (say 5-20 minutes at a time) so that no-one gets left out at the end, in case of shortage. However, this requires that someone is responsible for running the charging timing algorithm and that everyone agrees to use it. So: frequency signals, or direct algorithmic signalling or PHEVs.
@Bernard, it is different because if you want to cook a meal, you need to do it NOW- same with A/C. However, you usually do not need to charge a battery right now, you just have to have ti charged before you need it the next morning. Thus, you could schedule it to charge from 4-6 AM (or whatever). What you want is some system where all the local cars agree on when to charge so as to spread it across the night. Some people might want it right away - they would pay more. Some might want it by 6am, some by 8am. You might pay less if you give more flexibility in terms of time. You might pay even less if you allow them to take power from you as well as charging. It sounds simple to me - the sooner you want it charged, the more you pay per KwH.
He has found a potential problem: That if a load of rich guys buy fancy EVs and all try to rapid charge them at the same time, you will have a problem. IMO, it is a bit of a corner case, but is worth considering. The solution is to stagger the charging times across the whole night. You could even imagine a dual charge scenario: a few kwH when you get home in case you need the car soon, and top it off later on during the night. If the average person drives 34 miles / day, this is about 11 kwH / day, which should be easy as long as you can stagger it. You need to implement a pricing structure that encourages this. You might need some kind of connected charging system which negotiates with other local cars as to when they charge (or just charges at a lower rate). If you have a "big battery" car with more than one day's driving in it, this should not be a problem. A 60 KwH Tesla 3 should be able to store 5 average day's driving, and so should have considerable flexibility as to when it charges.
The question is where do you put batteries on the grid - at grid or local level, or in individual houses. My instinct is that grid level is a better bet as the batteries are a: expensive, b: need to be managed properly and c: Should be used by more than 1 person. Most people do not have the cash to spend 5-10K on a battery for a little load shifting (it is different for rich greens) so IMO, it is better to put the capacity into the grid at a higher level.
@Dave, I am with you on the 20Kw range extender. IMO, it is all you need for a private car. In my view, the power source doesn't matter that much as it won't be used that much. It could be a petrol or diesel generator - the problem here is petrol going "stale" and the emissions problems with diesel. Fuel cells are very nice in terms of emissions, but expensive and the H2 usually comes from natural gas (at present). If the design is modular (in the medium term), then any 20 Kw generator should do. (But I still like the BEV car swapping idea which is an administrative solution, rather than an engineering one. )
Note they are talking about single car households. A much simpler and more immediate solution is to have a short range BEV and access to a second ICE or shared FCEV. Many households have 2 or more cars and there are car sharing schemes, or you could just rent one or borrow / swap one from a friend etc. Governments could make this happen faster if they made it easier to share cars, especially in terms of insurance. At the simplest level, all you need is one ICE driver who is prepared to swap cars every so often. This could be an acquaintance or someone found by an app.
You do not need anything like that level of resolution to do autonomous driving. The lidar resolution we have now is enough. We need lower cost lidar and lidar that can see through rain and fog (or just use radar). Also, how are you going to get enough laser power to see out 500m? I'll believe they can see through fg at optical wavelengths when I see it. Meanwhile, I feel they have solved the wrong problem (cost of lidar).
The high power capacity will be very good for Hybrids where you want to absorb braking energy at high power. Also busbarr type applications where you want to charge up a bus at a stop - you can do it quicker. What it will come down to is - is this real, and at what cost? Assuming it is more expensive than conventional LiIon, it will start in specialised applications where ultra rapid charging is a benefit. Phones - watches, hybrids, BusBarrs perhaps first, who knows what if it becomes cheap enough. Also, the 10K charging cycles is excellent. You could get 30 years at one discharge per day, 10x many battery types. But can they make them, and at what cost ?
It looks like an enlarged 3 engined Starfighter.
@harvey, maybe, the development time depends on how serious they are about it. It would be better if it was autonomous (1 extra passenger), but it might be good to have a driver to keep order in case things got out of hand. Also, if the thing was not too awful, people could use them as personal vehicles and also take passengers for ride sharing, assuming local laws allowed it. (So the driver is also a passenger). If it was very comfortable, people might go for it.
@Harvey, It doesn't need to be autonomous - if it can take 5 passengers+driver it is way better than 5 people in their separate cars. I would add seat trays so people can put out laptops (although they might feel nauseous if the motion is unsteady and usb chargers.
This all makes sense - larger batteries make the system heavier and take up more space. Once you have a PHEV system set up, you can size the battery as you wish, but you can size it to a normal day's driving, rather than a hypothetical long run, and let the ICE engine handle the long runs. So 60 Km (12 KwH?) seems about optimal. The only problem I can see is that of gasoline going stale, which means that you have to keep using it, or they need to find a better tank sealing mechanism so all the volatiles don't evaporate off. You could use an even smaller battery if you could recharge at work. You might have to redesign the car so there is still space in the boot (trunk), perhaps putting the battery under the floor. The other problem is the cost of a PHEV which requires two full size engines, but I am sure mass production will solve that.
I suppose people already do that with headphones - noise cancelling headphones ? However, cyclists need to be able to hear what is going on around them, so they need "clear ears". I am sure there is loads you could do once you brought in a few laws (as we have in Europe). I was once in a factory in Germany where they had sound deadening material on the underneath of the tables and chairs in the canteen to keep the noise level down. I suppose that was because the managers used the canteen as well as the workers.
EVs would make sense in urban areas for air quality reasons. They might be a bit expensive for more rural areas.
Well done Buderus Guss. Well done Gerhard. Keep our city air clean. Now you have to find a way to get people to pay the 3x to use them - or better still get Bosch to get their friends in the EU to mandate it. Next we need an electromagnetic brake - or maybe that is an in-wheel motor!
They have filed patents. That is the key thing. So they will try to extract money from these by either trolling other companies, or pumping the IP value of the company for a trade sale or another round of share sales. @Lad has said the same thing. Predicting anything about batteries 6 years out is a fools game (or believing anyone else's predictions is). (As DaveD says). Meanwhile, they are planning to use "21700 NCM cells from LG Chem" which is perfectly sensible.
It is a good idea, IMO. You could stick a solar cell on the roof to make it extra green, though when you think about it, it is not a good idea (adds weight, adds complexity and only works in Summer, certainly not in winter). None the less, it is good to use the smallest vehicle possible for any task, especially if you can replace a diesel one with an electric one. (Cheaper, much less pollution, easier in traffic + the driver gets exercise). Well done UPS!
A normal hybrid and mild hybrid would be nice. A PHEV might be very expensive for the smaller cars.
@Peter, The EPA testing methods are regularly updated and seem to give the lowest mpg ratings - many people can beat them, which you cannot say for NEDC. also for example the EPA seem pretty good to me.
@harvey, it would only need one, but I do not think they can be built for $250.
@peter_xx This states "It is estimated that fuel consumption figures using WLTP will be 10 to 20% higher than those under NEDC." OK + states that NEDC is out by 42%. Subtracting 20 from 42 we get 22% out for WTC. I saw another paper (in the last month or so) which said as much and that the US EPA figures are about right. (Can't find the paper at present).