Popular Mechanics Gets It Wrong on Buick Hybrid 41 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Although you would think that Popular Mechanics' writers would be familiar with the various types of hybrid power trains now in actual use or in the planning stage, it is obvious from the PM article on the proposed Buick "hybrid' that the magazine's writers, fact checkers, and editors do not understand very much about such things at all. Or is it me?
PM has decided that a new model Buick "hybrid" is an extension of the Chevrolet Volt Plug-in Hybrid. Those of you with a memory for BS will remember that the Chevrolet Volt power train went from originally being called a plug-in hybrid, PHEV, whose description is supposed to be of a battery only powered electric vehicle that can only be recharged by being plugged in to (supposedly) an ordinary household outlet (110VAC, single phase) to finally being called an extended range PHEV. This would carry a small internal combustion engine the purpose of which is NOT to directly power the car through a coupling to the driveshaft or to generate electricity to directly power an electric motor coupled to (or being) the driveshaft, but only to maintain the level of charge in the onboard battery at a sufficient level to allow it to be driven to a charging point. Got that?
PM's writer either didn't understand the GM hypesters or perhaps understood them only too well. He says that (All italics below are mine):
The plug-in hybrid version [of the Buick] has the potential to increase fuel economy significantly. A 3.6-liter gas engine with direct fuel injection and variable valve timing coupled to an electric motor powers the front wheels of the new vehicle. The lithium ion battery pack will use the same manganese-spine based chemistry as the Volt's battery pack. Like the Volt's battery, the Buick's will be built by LG Chem. The Buick's battery, however, will have only 8 kwh of capacity, about half of the Volt's. The battery resides under the rear cargo floor. Using a 110-volt household outlet, the Buick's battery can be charged in four to five hours. GM says that in early tests, the Buick plug-in travels more than 10 low-speed miles on electric-only propulsion. Critical details like fuel economy and how much all this will cost have not been released.
Let's look at this engineering-ignorant discussion in detail.
1.The PM article says that "A 3.6-liter gas engine with direct fuel injection and variable valve timing coupled to an electric motor powers the front wheels of the new vehicle." I suspect that the fair size, 3.6 liter is 3600 cc, gasoline engine is directly coupled to the drive shaft-which may well also be the rotor of an electric motor, in part, and is the car's principal source of propulsive power as it is in the Saturn Vue two-mode hybrid upon which it is supposedly based. I believe that the two-mode hybrid is NOT a PHEV (It can operate with a dead battery); the Chevrolet Volt IS an EV (It cannot operate with a dead battery). It, the Volt, is propelled only by an electric motor.
I further suspect that the Buick's gasoline engine will also power a generator to keep the battery's charge level high enough to avoid damage to the battery from attempting to use it when its charge is at too low a level. The small battery, 8kWh, will be of very limited use and used on its own may propel the car for 10 miles but I think this would be at less than 15 mph. This would be of use only when you 1.) ran out of gas, or 2.) the "gas" engine failed, and 3.) you happened to have a charged battery, and were within a few miles of a charging point or, better yet, a gas station. I understand of course that the electric motor is to reduce fuel usage and emissions during a cold start and when starting from a stop or an idle.
2. "manganese-spine" I don't know what a "manganese-spine" might be. It might be part of the equipment used to rebuild Steve Austin, the Six Million Dollar Man. I do know what a manganese-spinel is, and I do know that "LG, which is the third largest producer of lithium ion batteries, uses the lithium manganese spinel for its cathode."
Let me conclude by pointing out that not only Popular Mechanics but also General Motor's public relations department should be ashamed that PM managed to not only mis-understand a press release and a press conference but also managed to get their ridiculous error-ridden commentary into print and on the Internet without anyone at GM noticing it.
Buick might be better off putting the battery in the trunk, connected to nothing at all so that PM could claim the car was "equipped with a battery."
GM is unable now - it is too late in the game - to get a supply of nickel metal hydride batteries and produce a Prius, Insight, Fusion full hybrid "fighter," so it resorts to trying to confuse the buying public into thinking it has some "advanced" propulsion system in a Buick "hybrid" model which does not have the range or the power of the full hybrids of its competitors, and I'll bet it doesn't do too well on total emisisons either with such a small battery and such a large engine.
One thing that PM got right in the otherwise poorly written and researched article: The Buick hybrid proves that "Today's announcement reveals that GM is looking beyond the Volt."
This is because the Volt is not a very good idea in the first place.
The next advance at GM could be to a lead-carbon-acid battery utilizing full hybrid available with a gas or diesel engine. I can't imagine what PM would think of that, because it being a very good idea it would most likely be beyond their understanding.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
Top
StockTalkers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
Cliff Wachtel
-
3
Mike Havrilla
-
4
David White
-
5
Hedged In
Top StockTalkers » -
1
On Aug 10 08:42 AM Saul M. Detofsky wrote:
> Global Green Cars Inc.
> With a basic starting price of $18,000 our green cars aren’t very
> expensive.
To the.bighouse's point - I read an article a few years ago in the Detroit Free Press that considered this fact. When compared to a small to mid-sized gasoline sedan, the Prius acually has a larger cost impact on the enviornment due to the battery and components used in manufacturing.
I digress -
On Aug 10 09:56 AM the.bighouse wrote:
> HOW DID MY FATHER"S GENERATION EVER WIN WWII???
> Once again if the car has an American Badge an author or Consumer
> Reports will degrade the car because of bad American products in
> the 80s...with a Japanese badge it cant have a fault even in 2009.
> It's called a self fulfilling prophecy.
> I wonder how we are going to recycle all the large Prius batteries
> in the future?? Has anyone thought of the environmental consequences
> of that??
Regards.
On Aug 10 11:13 AM billd10 wrote:
> This writer obviously has a huge ego which is only satisfied by insulting
> the folks at Popular Mechanics. Yes, GM is woefully behind Ford
> and Toyota in the hybrid car biz and most car enthusiasts know that.
> GM has not been putting its money where its mouth is for years and
> they're now bankrupt. The Volt is an expensive PR play. People
> will try and buy them and complain when they are not on dealer lots
> and that the cost makes it a fashion statement for the guilty rich.
It isn't easy to determine the real costs of energy production. None of the companies break out all the numbers the same and allocations for investments are handled differently, for example. My rough cut is based on data from the Energy Information Administration website (www.eia.doe.gov) as best I can without losing my day job (using U.S. numbers from 2007 and 2008!)
It costs roughly $.198/gallon to get the crude to the surface and another $.64/gallon to get a refined gasoline product. (These are very, very gross numbers!) For a car that gets 30 mpg that's about $.0279/mi.
To produce 1 kW*h in the U.S.A. is roughly $.0548. For an EV that gets 4 mi/kW*h that's $.2192/mi.
It costs a lot in fossil fuels to produce electricity (51% of the U.S. electricity is from coal.) That's why I think the ICE will continue to be popular until we produce cheap electricity.
On Aug 10 10:43 AM Alex_G wrote:
> Google, Bing, Yahoo will provide you with the answers you seek, my
> friend...
1. A hybrid uses both electric and ICE in the drive train (in parallel).
2. An EV uses only electric power in the drive train. If it has an ICE generator on board, call it an EV with generator or assisted EV (vs. pure EV).
It seems to me the discussion is getting too complicated for the average consumer. Serial hybnrids vs parallel hybrids are logical, but not intuitive to the mechanically challenged.
<One thing that PM got right in the otherwise poorly written and researched article: The Buick hybrid proves that "Today's announcement reveals that GM is looking beyond the Volt."
This is because the Volt is not a very good idea in the first place.>
On the Kwh, you multiplied instead of divided...
On Aug 10 01:45 PM lostark98 wrote:
> OK, so I knew that it would be next to impossible to find any definitive
> data on how much electric vs gas fuels cost to produce. And I'm no
> one you want to trust with numbers so I was hoping someone could
> point me to it!
>
> It isn't easy to determine the real costs of energy production. None
> of the companies break out all the numbers the same and allocations
> for investments are handled differently, for example. My rough cut
> is based on data from the Energy Information Administration website
> (www.eia.doe.gov) as best I can without losing my day job
> (using U.S. numbers from 2007 and 2008!)
>
> It costs roughly $.198/gallon to get the crude to the surface and
> another $.64/gallon to get a refined gasoline product. (These are
> very, very gross numbers!) For a car that gets 30 mpg that's about
> $.0279/mi.
>
> To produce 1 kW*h in the U.S.A. is roughly $.0548. For an EV that
> gets 4 mi/kW*h that's $.2192/mi.
>
> It costs a lot in fossil fuels to produce electricity (51% of the
> U.S. electricity is from coal.) That's why I think the ICE will continue
> to be popular until we produce cheap electricity.
>
> On Aug 10 10:43 AM Alex_G wrote:
Very simply-
a hybrid has BOTH an ICE and electric motor. If it just has an electric motor, it's an EV or BEV (same difference).
If it's a hybrid and BOTH the ICE AND the motor are mechanically connected to the drive train / wheels, it's called a parallel hybrid. Examples are Prius and Insight and the Buick / Vue.
If it's a hybrid and only the electric motor is connected to the drive train / wheels, it's called a series hybrid. Examples are the Volt.
These are the commonly accepted engineering definitions.
Notice no mention of batteries.
A EV / BEV is by definition a plug-in. There's no other power source available unless the whole battery is swapped out.
Forgetting about the plug-ins momentarily-
For parallel hybrids, there's a range of implementations that depend on how predominant the electric motor is in powering the vehicle.
In what is usually called a weak / mild hybrid, the electric motor augments the ICE during acceleration, like start-up or passing.
Example is the Insight.
In what is usually called a strong hybrid, the electric motor is capable of starting-up the car from stop, and the ICE remains off more often. Example is the Prius. Typically, the stronger hybrids have larger battery packs.
For the series hybrid, the electric motor drives the car and the ICE drives a generator. It's possible to do this without batteries if the ICE and generator output can power the electric motor. In fact, GM does just this with their diesel electric train locomotives.
The battery in all hybrids improves mileage in two ways: regeneration during braking and allowing the ICE to be sized and run for optimal gas efficiency. Ideally, the ICE runs at one speed / load or it is off. The closer to this ideal, the better the economy. The battery / motor supplies the extra vehicle power needed when the ICE is beyond its range. When the ICE has surplus power, it charges the batteries or is shut down.
All practical hybrids must be able to maintain a battery charge during normal operation. Worst case scenario is perpetual drag strip runs with max output from batteries and ICE with no interval for recharge. On the other hand, highway cruising with no braking allows the batteries to fully charge and all power comes from the ICE. This turns the hybrid into a plain old car and highway mileage is a function of rolling resistance, aerodynamics and how close the ICE is to the ideal operating point. For the series hybrid Volt, there is also the extra energy loss of going through a generator and motor, which a parallel hybrid doesn't have.
Depending on proportion of highway versus city driving, a hybrid may not have any mileage advantage over a comparably sized plain old car.
Lastly, the plug-in confusion is simply adding extra battery capacity to a hybrid which it can run down without any ICE before going back into the normal hybrid mode. It's easiest to think of it as two batteries- one for the regular hybrid mode, the other for the plug-in mode which operates like a BEV. If the PHEV is recharged (plugged in) within the plug-in mode range, the ICE never runs and no gas is used.
With this background, the discrepancy / controversy seems to be the recharging aspect. For a PHEV or extended range PHEV (new and improved!!), it makes no sense for the car to charge the battery beyond what's needed to run in hybrid mode. Gasoline costs more than electricity (7:1 mileage ratio).
So if GM says the car makes it back to the plug, they mean it starts using the ICE (and gasoline) in normal hybrid mode to make it back to the plug.
The Buick in the Popular Mechanics article is a parallel plug-in hybrid. Perhaps the confusion is because in the range of implementations, this falls somewhere in the middle. It's obviously primarily driven by the big, high performance ICE, yet has an electric motor in the drivetrain, mainly for regenerative braking fuel economy. Normally, this would be a mild hybrid, except that GM feels compelled to claim it can run 10 miles on the batteries alone in the "two mode". The small size of the battery makes the claim of "plug-in" a lot of marketing silliness. It's like making sure a Prius gets back to the garage with batteries at minimum reserve every day so they can be recharged. Unfortunately, the marketers rule in Detroit.
Re "I believe that the two-mode hybrid is NOT a PHEV (It can operate with a dead battery); the Chevrolet Volt IS an EV (It cannot operate with a dead battery). It, the Volt, is propelled only by an electric motor."
Dead batteries are not a consideration in hybrid design. An efficient PHEV will have a big battery capacity. The GM two-mode PHEV sounds like more marketing than engineering. Most likely it would run fine with a dead battery, except the mileage would drop without the batteries for regen or power assist. If it has a plug and the batteries don't fully charge on the road, it's a PHEV.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Volt runs fine without batteries. Obviously, the ICE won't turn off and it may be in a "cripple" mode. A series hybrid without batteries is just like a locomotive.
It really is too bad all this talent and energy is being diverted to hybrid vehicles. They're just so much marketing hype as this entire thread illustrates. The complexity of a Prius is such that I wouldn't trust anyone but Toyota to make one that works and I'm still waiting to see how well they last. On the highway, they're directly comparable to plain old cars.
I'm very glad that Nissan has introduced the Leaf all electric BEV. I hope more manufacturers get a clue and start developing high tech batteries with improved energy density.
That's exactly why I said you don't want to trust me with numbers! Thanks!
On Aug 10 09:33 PM Alex_G wrote:
> Dude,
>
> On the Kwh, you multiplied instead of divided...
OK, so I knew that it would be next to impossible to find any definitive data on how much electric vs gas fuels cost to produce. And I'm no one you want to trust with numbers so I was hoping someone could point me to it!
It isn't easy to determine the real costs of energy production. None of the companies break out all the numbers the same and allocations for investments are handled differently, for example. My rough cut is based on data from the Energy Information Administration website (eia.doe.gov) as best I can without losing my day job (using U.S. numbers from 2007 and 2008!)
It costs roughly $.198/gallon to get the crude to the surface and another $.64/gallon to get a refined gasoline product. (These are very, very gross numbers!) For a car that gets 30 mpg that's about $.0279/mi.
To produce 1 kW*h in the U.S.A. is roughly $.0548. For an EV that gets 4 mi/kW*h that's $.0137/mi.
* Updated to correct a basic math error! *
100 miles at 25kWh at $.06/kWh(off peak) = $1.50
Yup, I got that! That's the consumer view. What I was hoping to get is a gross view of the larger potential benefit. I was curious to know how the cost of producing electricity compares to the cost of producing gasoline. This quick pencil exercise shows it's roughly twice as costly to produce gasoline vs electricity for automobiles on a very gross level.
It's a very flawed set of calculations though! For example, the cost for electricity is based on the cost for ALL electricity produced in the U.S. (from the EIA tables.) The cost to produce gasoline is based on data from the EIA, but it is very sketchy since no one really knows the true costs to produce a barrel of gasoline.
I think it would be useful to know what impact the transition to electric powered autos would have on the economics on the production side as well as the overall environmental impact. Can we make enough electricity to sustain the current level of price benefit to the consumer without building more fossil fuel power plants? Will we inevitably have to build far more nuclear production capability than anyone has envisioned so far? Lots of fun questions to be discussed as we go!
On Aug 11 05:48 PM TinyTim wrote:
> 100 miles at 30mpg at $3.00/gal = $10.00
>
> 100 miles at 25kWh at $.06/kWh(off peak) = $1.50
This is roughly what an electric hot water heater or range draws.
Provided the charging is done at night (off peak), utilities can handle this with existing facilities. And it would improve their return on capital greatly.
They would probably change their generation mix in the longer term to improve their margin (fuel cost) or for environmental reasons.
In pure competitive markets, price and cost are close. While oil and electricity don't fit, I expect the production cost is more like four to one or higher on an energy basis.