The -Electric- Motor City

[DETGES]

1) I think that innovations in electric vehicles will follow an upgraded local electrical grid. "The big three" will end up following suit, its something that they need to say relevant.
2) There is an option to have wind and solar panels placed out of state [[in a place where there is more wind and sun) and have high voltage DC lines [[yes, DC) that come into Detroit and that is how we will meet our green needs.
3) So yes, and upgraded grid would mean that we install higher voltage lines for car charging, that is correct.

It might be a good idea to get support for a study to be done? Would anyone support that?

[ndavies]

The higher Voltage is already in the Grid. The high voltage is at the top of the poles. Those large CANS attached to the poles are transformers that convert 10000+Volts AC to 240 Volts AC. You just need to increase substation capacity and create more smaller subnets. Something DTE does regularly when there is a new demand for there power. This is exactly the same thing they do when a new business or home is added to the grid. There is nothing that needs to be done here until the new demand is there. DTE doesn't put up new infrastructure until someone tells them they need more power.

So we're back to building cars people will buy and adding Power plants to the grid. All technical problems that need working on.

[DETGES]

Ok so then should we be pushing 'the big three' into producing more 'attractive/affordable/efficient' electric cars? I think that needs to happen in tandem with the grid being upgraded because a major concern [[among other things) for potential electric car buyers is that they won't have access to charging stations other than their homes.
So then to fix the other concern of affordability and efficiency research programs should be launched. Ford's new focus is fully electric, Chevy has its Volt, and Chrysler is using its off-shoot, Fiat, to make the Fiat500e. To me, that seems like not enough investment. It may be the first step in moving towards more electric cars, but more need to be produced.

Instead of building more coal burning power plants we try and see if the state government will provide tax breaks for solar and wind farms. By providing incentives for the switch to green energy, the government can induce a shift.

In summary: More electric car research/development from 'the big three', and tax incentives for green energy from the state government.


​I can start to move on that.

[Gpwrangler]

1) I think that innovations in electric vehicles will follow an upgraded local electrical grid. "The big three" will end up following suit, its something that they need to say relevant.
2) There is an option to have wind and solar panels placed out of state [[in a place where there is more wind and sun) and have high voltage DC lines [[yes, DC) that come into Detroit and that is how we will meet our green needs.
3) So yes, and upgraded grid would mean that we install higher voltage lines for car charging, that is correct.

It might be a good idea to get support for a study to be done? Would anyone support that?

why DC? AC is more efficient to transmit and can be rectified at the charging stations.

[Gpwrangler]

Ok so then should we be pushing 'the big three' into producing more 'attractive/affordable/efficient' electric cars? I think that needs to happen in tandem with the grid being upgraded because a major concern [[among other things) for potential electric car buyers is that they won't have access to charging stations other than their homes.
So then to fix the other concern of affordability and efficiency research programs should be launched. Ford's new focus is fully electric, Chevy has its Volt, and Chrysler is using its off-shoot, Fiat, to make the Fiat500e. To me, that seems like not enough investment. It may be the first step in moving towards more electric cars, but more need to be produced.

Instead of building more coal burning power plants we try and see if the state government will provide tax breaks for solar and wind farms. By providing incentives for the switch to green energy, the government can induce a shift.

In summary: More electric car research/development from 'the big three', and tax incentives for green energy from the state government.


​I can start to move on that.

There currently is more than enough infrastructure to charge the electric cars that are being sold now. Let the market drive infrastructure improvements when necessary. There are too many people that think we need a totally new grid because their power went out in an ice storm last year for 3 hours.

[ndavies]

The auto industry already has a huge incentive to bring electric cars online. The 50 MPG mandatory average Fuel standard. They'll be shelling out huge fines if they can't get there.

Unless fuel prices go way up, It will be like the late 80s early 90s all over again. The car companies will be paying out guzzler taxes because the consumer doesn't want an undersized, overpriced, POS that meets the government standards. [[POS = piece of shit, as American cars from the late 70s early 80s were affectionately known.)

The 50MPG standard is not achievable without a big push into electric or hydrogen based vehicles. Unfortunately the technology isn't at a point where It makes sense for most US consumers to buy one.

The low Gas prices further put off the consumers need to convert to electric. The problem is still energy storage. No technology has come close to the energy density of fossil fuels. Battery technology is not progressing as fast as anyone wants.

In fact Toyota has decided to ramp up effort into hydrogen fuel cell technology. A fuel cell and hydrogen storage tank is really a battery that can be very quickly refilled. If they are successful, there will be no need to upgrade the grid. You would just see the gas stations convert over to Hydrogen stations.

[DETGES]

DC looses less power over long distances. AC would be used for local, but DC would be used in transferring energy across states.

[DETGES]

The 50MPG standard is not achievable without a big push into electric or hydrogen based vehicles. Unfortunately the technology isn't at a point where It makes sense for most US consumers to buy one.

When was the 50mpg standard created?
But anyway, as you said this is not achievable without a big push into electric and hydrogen fueled cars. I could only find three cars from the big three automakers, I think that this is not enough. I don't know what you know about their production plans for the future, but you an I do know that electric cars will need to happen. Would it not be better for it to happen sooner?

[ndavies]

The 50 MPG standard is new. It was agreed upon in 2011. The new standard for cars started in 2012 with light trucks being included in 2017. It requires the auto companies to reach 54 MPG CAFE by 2025. It means a small car getting 35MPG now will need to get 60 MPG to meet a CAFE of 54. An F150 size pickup getting 20 MPG will need to get into the 40MPG range.

Just because they currently are only selling a few electric vehicles, doesn't mean the don't have preproduction cars already running around on the road. When I worked At Daimler/Chrysler, Before Chrysler split off from Daimler, they had a fleet of over 250 hydrogen cars running around California. The companies loan preproduction mule cars to delivery companies for high mileage testing. A mule car is an older style vehicle with preproduction components installed.

It takes over 10 years to bring a new Vehicle platform to market. It takes 3 years just to do a refresh on a current vehicle.

[Islandman]

DC looses less power over long distances. AC would be used for local, but DC would be used in transferring energy across states.

You know this is backwards right? AC helps with long distances. DC works for short [[local) distances. DC loses more power over distance than AC.

[ndavies]

You know this is backwards right? AC helps with long distances. DC works for short [[local) distances. DC loses more power over distance than AC.

Definitely not true. High Voltage DC has lower line losses than High Voltage AC. HVDC can be run much longer distances than AC. Especially if you need to run the cable through water. Unfortunately the Conversion of Voltages in DC are far less efficient. You only need a transformer for AC, You need active circuits to change voltages in DC. The problem with DC is the voltage conversions not the line carrying capacity.

http://theenergycollective.com/roger...-dc-powerlines

China is running HVDC from it's new monster 3 gorges DAM due to it's increased efficiency and the ability to run over much longer lines than AC.

[Islandman]

Definitely not true. High Voltage DC has lower line losses than High Voltage AC. HVDC can be run much longer distances than AC. Especially if you need to run the cable through water. Unfortunately the Conversion of Voltages in DC are far less efficient. You only need a transformer for AC, You need active circuits to change voltages in DC. The problem with DC is the voltage conversions not the line carrying capacity.

http://theenergycollective.com/roger...-dc-powerlines

China is running HVDC from it's new monster 3 gorges DAM due to it's increased efficiency and the ability to run over much longer lines than AC.

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

Edit: I always assumed the problem was transmission distance, but it's voltage conversion. Every day is a new day to learn something. Thanks!

[ndavies]

You need high voltages to do long distance distribution. There was no cost effective way to increase DC voltages for the first 100 years of Commercial electric supply. We ended up with an AC grid since that was all that was available when we built it.

In developing countries they are deploying DC grids now that DC to DC converters are readily available.

[DETGES]

So guys, we know that there is a ton of land in the city that needs to be leveled. Old houses, old factories, etc.

Could some things be done on some of this land to help increase demand so we are not just waiting for the car companies to make electric cars people will buy?

Just looking for some speculation on this. Capitalism moves slowly, I think a change of speed can be induced.

By the way, thank you to everyone who has participated in this thread so far!

[Wesley Mouch]

...3) So yes, and upgraded grid would mean that we install higher voltage lines for car charging, that is correct.

Not necessarily. AFAIK, car charging is a 240v or even 120v game. The Volt can charge on a standard outlet.

As to the need more for power infrastructure -- maybe. Most car charging occurs at night when power is almost free. It'll be mostly a policy question.

But for now, I don't think we need to do anything to handle electric cars -- but we'll need to keep an eye on system load as it grows over the years.

[DETGES]

Well what I am looking at now is finding away to induce the innovation required for electric cars to take off. I honesty think that they meet peoples needs really well right now, but electric cars don't get enough good PR for people to know that.

[48202]

Two words. Range anxiety.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_anxiety

[DETGES]

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. How do you think that we can 'cure' that?

[48202]

More battery cells per vehicle, rapid battery swapping, rapid battery charging, or greater charge capacity.

Or closer destinations.

[Wesley Mouch]

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. How do you think that we can 'cure' that?

The cure is easy. Made in Detroit [[and Hamtramck)....
Ladies and Gentlemen --- new Chevy Volt!

No range anxiety. And 75% of the way to all-electric. Sometimes a little compromise can get you great results today.

[JRB]

The cure is easy. Made in Detroit [[and Hamtramck)....
Ladies and Gentlemen --- new Chevy Volt!

No range anxiety. And 75% of the way to all-electric. Sometimes a little compromise can get you great results today.

Absolutely! The good news is that I do see more and more on the road, but of course a tiny fraction still.

Does anyone know how much electric range for the Volt or other electric vehicles is ACTUALLY compromised by Michigan winter conditions and, if this is a significant penalty, what options are there? Similarly, how about the need for AC in summer.

I suppose the answer is the same as for greater range: increase battery capacity. However, the quick battery swap approach [[ala Better Place) does seem very attractive.

[Gpwrangler]

Absolutely! The good news is that I do see more and more on the road, but of course a tiny fraction still.

Does anyone know how much electric range for the Volt or other electric vehicles is ACTUALLY compromised by Michigan winter conditions and, if this is a significant penalty, what options are there? Similarly, how about the need for AC in summer.

I suppose the answer is the same as for greater range: increase battery capacity. However, the quick battery swap approach [[ala Better Place) does seem very attractive.

A guy I work with gets 28 miles in winter and the engine starts up after that. He buys gas every month or so. In the summer he gets 40+ miles. Converts to about 100 mpg when you do the math. You can pay for the car charging by converting lights in the home to cfl.

The average commute is much less than that, but if you have a long commute the car will need to run on gas at least part of the way. My former workplace was set up with a few charging stations and they told me it would cost more to collect from the few employees that drove plug-ins than the power was worth.

[ndavies]

The problem with the Volt is the cost. You end up paying way too much for that little bit of fuel economy improvement. With a Volt you have to pay for the costs for two drive systems. You greatly complicate the vehicle and don't receive the lower maintenance costs involved with electric only. It's the same problem with all of the hybrids. Too much money for too little improvement in fuel economy.

For most consumers it's strictly about total cost of ownership. They're looking to save money over the life of the vehicle. If a car can't save a consumer enough money in fuel to offset extra cost within a reasonable time, they aren't buying it. The best payback numbers I've seen for a volt is 9 Years with fuel prices at $5.00 a gallon. Most consumers are unwilling to pay extra for a car that only gets better fuel mileage, but takes 9+ years before it saves them any money. You're just trading who you send your hard earned money too. Either The car companies for a more expensive car or the oil companies because you use more fuel.

Electric only vehicles have better payback trends. still not good enough for most consumers.

So we're basically back to the same problem, the technology isn't fully baked. The solution to this is to continue putting money into battery and vehicle R&D.

[DETGES]

We fully agree when it comes to R&D, more money needs to be put there so that consumers see more direct financial benefits. People really are not interested in what is good for them in the long term, only the short term [[hence electric cars not taking off), so we need to focus on making it so that they have clear financial benefits when buying a fully electric vehicle.
So yes, more money towards R&D.


But here lyes another problem, as individuals we don't have much control over where major automakers spend money. I don't know if the answer is a social movement, or a letter writing campaign, but companies work for us, not the other way around, so they will do what we want. So we need to establish a large number of car buyers, stock holders, and sociopolitical figures, to demand more money to go towards R&D. At that point, how can any company say no?

[ndavies]

Well now you're understanding the heart of the problem. Unfortunately, there is no solution. No amount of social media action is going to change the minds of the consumer. They are going to do what they think is best for them. Your opinion of what is right or wrong doesn't matter to them.