Confused about PHEV, Hybrids, etc...

[tszaboo]

I don't really care what numbers you use.  They are wrong. 

Dont worry, I dont care about what you have to say either, since you shown yourself to be an opiniated irritating person, in write only mode, who doesn't consider anything even if someone sends them actual fata proving them wrong. Ignore list. Good day sir.

[gnuarm]

I don't really care what numbers you use.  They are wrong. 

Dont worry, I dont care about what you have to say either, since you shown yourself to be an opiniated irritating person, in write only mode, who doesn't consider anything even if someone sends them actual fata proving them wrong. Ignore list. Good day sir.

That's the trouble, you found some information somewhere and picked data from that which seemed reasonable.  Meanwhile it is not relevant at all because a huge percentage of the BEVs on the roads get 4-5 miles per kWh. 

You web site wasn't even working.  Here's one that does.

https://ecocostsavings.com/electric-car-kwh-per-mile-list/

I don't know how you can blame me for being unreasonable. 

[Miyuki]

Its more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.
I think right now it's probably cheaper to run your house from a diesel generator than to pay for these absolutely ridiculous electricity prices. I cannot wait for the gov. to drop the hammer on these companies because for sure they are price gauging the situation. If I wouldn't have my solar panels I would be absolutely upset.

I think your numbers are faulty.  22 kWh/100 km is around 350 Wh/mi.  That is a high average consumption, even for my model X which is the BEV equivalent of the US family station wagon (now it's a van or large SUV).   Most BEVs are more in the 4-5 mi/kWhr, 200-250 Wh/mi.  Try your calculations with those numbers.

I know "early" EVs from the 80s and 90s were around 20-25 kWh/100 km with lead acid batteries
And it was small cars like VW Golf

Like I said, faulty numbers.

https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-car
I picked a number in the middle.
If you are going to do a "but but but" then include charger efficiency and then you end up with this number.

I don't really care what numbers you use.  They are wrong.  Today's BEVs get around  4-5 miles per kWh.  Convert that to kWh/100km or whatever unit you prefer, but if you start with faulty numbers, you won't get a meaningful result.

I don't know anything about your database because it doesn't load.

The connection has timed out
An error occurred during a connection to ev-database.org.

The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M
And it pushes the average significantly higher

[gnuarm]

Its more of a situation with the current electricity prices. Right now I got a contract at 0.4 EUR/KWh. Considering an electric car uses 22KWh for 100 KM, this is 8.8EUR in electricity. A hybrid would have let's say 4.5L fuel usage, resulting about ~10 EUR for the same trip, since fuel costs somewhere around 2.2EUR/L.
I think right now it's probably cheaper to run your house from a diesel generator than to pay for these absolutely ridiculous electricity prices. I cannot wait for the gov. to drop the hammer on these companies because for sure they are price gauging the situation. If I wouldn't have my solar panels I would be absolutely upset.

I think your numbers are faulty.  22 kWh/100 km is around 350 Wh/mi.  That is a high average consumption, even for my model X which is the BEV equivalent of the US family station wagon (now it's a van or large SUV).   Most BEVs are more in the 4-5 mi/kWhr, 200-250 Wh/mi.  Try your calculations with those numbers.

I know "early" EVs from the 80s and 90s were around 20-25 kWh/100 km with lead acid batteries
And it was small cars like VW Golf

Like I said, faulty numbers.

https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-car
I picked a number in the middle.
If you are going to do a "but but but" then include charger efficiency and then you end up with this number.

I don't really care what numbers you use.  They are wrong.  Today's BEVs get around  4-5 miles per kWh.  Convert that to kWh/100km or whatever unit you prefer, but if you start with faulty numbers, you won't get a meaningful result.

I don't know anything about your database because it doesn't load.

The connection has timed out
An error occurred during a connection to ev-database.org.

The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M
And it pushes the average significantly higher

Ok, enough said. 

[Someone]

The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M
And it pushes the average significantly higher

Also, electric cars are most efficient in slow city traffic exactly where a fossil car is least efficient. On the highway the roles are reversed and fossil bombs are running closer to peak efficiency while electric battery tanks hit the laws of physics.

So when anyone with a strong bias wants to argue "facts" they're likely picking some unrepresentative numbers.

Comparable cars (same model!) on the Australian (older/slower NEDC type) testing:
https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/Vehicle/Search

Hyundai 2021 Kona EV 150kw Electric 13.1 kWh/100km
Hyundai 2021 Kona EV 100kW Electric 14.3 kWh/100km
Hyundai 2021 Kona 2.0 4cyl 6.2 l/100km
Hyundai 2021 Kona 1.6 4cyl Turbo 4wd 6.9 l/100km

They're one of the lowest claimed electric consumption per 100km across the market (bizarrely the reported figures are reverse of what would be expected for the different electric models!) while mediocre on the fossils (and if you check the full database the combined is lower than either urban or extraurban for that last example). Its not unknown for manufacturers to have enhanced aero features/parts only added to some models within a lineup, making comparison even harder. But when the offical databases are this hard to follow/broken the numbers are close to guessing.

Don't know why EV's aren't reporting separately for urban/extraurban like "normal" vehicles.

[tom66]

The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M
And it pushes the average significantly higher

Yep.  If you split the list at the point where the Wh/100km goes over the average, the only vehicle there which isn't an SUV is the Mach-E -- and that's really a CUV by automotive standards so not much different.  The Peugeot e-Rifter and Opel Combo-e are both vans, and they're 10% higher than the average. 

Whereas on the bottom end you have the Model 3 at 151Wh/100km almost 50Wh less than the average, or the ID.3 at 166Wh (suggesting that VW need to up their efficiency game as the ID.3 is comparable in size to the 3.)

[nctnico]

The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M
And it pushes the average significantly higher

Also, electric cars are most efficient in slow city traffic exactly where a fossil car is least efficient. On the highway the roles are reversed and fossil bombs are running closer to peak efficiency while electric battery tanks hit the laws of physics.

So when anyone with a strong bias wants to argue "facts" they're likely picking some unrepresentative numbers.

Comparable cars (same model!) on the Australian (older/slower NEDC type) testing:

NEDC is pretty optimistic where it comes to BEVs. When looking at a year round average (cold / hot) which includes a decent amount of highway driving (IOW: not using a car where a bicycle would be a better choice anyway), a reasonable ball park number for a BEV is 200Wh/km.

[gnuarm]

The reason why you two are operating with different numbers is that you are talking about "cars" whereas in this average are not just cars but vans like Citroen e-SpaceTourer M
And it pushes the average significantly higher

Also, electric cars are most efficient in slow city traffic exactly where a fossil car is least efficient. On the highway the roles are reversed and fossil bombs are running closer to peak efficiency while electric battery tanks hit the laws of physics.

I would not term it "efficiency".  I don't think the efficiency changes (unless you are a certain road test magazine that accounts for regenerative braking in a way that pushes efficiency over 100%).  What changes is where the energy goes. 

In city traffic, the ICE requires dissipative braking resulting in the ICE being used repeatedly to restore the momentum of the vehicle.  The BEV simply restores the energy to the battery.  On the highway, BOTH types of vehicles simply need to expend more energy to overcome the greater losses of high speed driving. 

So when anyone with a strong bias wants to argue "facts" they're likely picking some unrepresentative numbers.

Comparable cars (same model!) on the Australian (older/slower NEDC type) testing:
https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/Vehicle/Search

Hyundai 2021 Kona EV 150kw Electric 13.1 kWh/100km
Hyundai 2021 Kona EV 100kW Electric 14.3 kWh/100km
Hyundai 2021 Kona 2.0 4cyl 6.2 l/100km
Hyundai 2021 Kona 1.6 4cyl Turbo 4wd 6.9 l/100km

They're one of the lowest claimed electric consumption per 100km across the market (bizarrely the reported figures are reverse of what would be expected for the different electric models!)

I don't follow what you mean, "reverse"? 

I'm very impressed with the range of the 150kW model, >340 miles.  I see that various sources report lower numbers.  Since the battery is the same in each case, I wonder if there is some difference in fuel efficiency being reported. 

while mediocre on the fossils (and if you check the full database the combined is lower than either urban or extraurban for that last example). Its not unknown for manufacturers to have enhanced aero features/parts only added to some models within a lineup, making comparison even harder. But when the offical databases are this hard to follow/broken the numbers are close to guessing.

Don't know why EV's aren't reporting separately for urban/extraurban like "normal" vehicles.

What is an "aero feature"? 

[bdunham7]

If you use less fuel with a hybrid, then you'll need less non-fossil fuel as a replacement. In turn this means that 1) synthetic / organic fuels may be significantly more expensive compared to fossil fuels while you can still get from A to B for the same price. 2) you'll need to produce less fuel in order to replace fossil fuel consumption.

It is unfortunate that nobody developed an E85-only hybrid, since an E85-only engine can be made even more efficient than the gasoline Prius engine by using even higher compression.  E85 is typically much cheaper (32% on average IIRC) but has 25% less thermal energy per gallon.  The increased efficiency would probably make up for about half that, meaning a slight reduction in range or increase in fuel tank size along with lower operating costs and an 85% non-fossil fuel.  Sadly E85 isn't common enough for this to be a viable product.  An E85 only Prius Prime would really slash fossil-fuel usage.

[tom66]

There are a couple of diesel hybrids, which theoretically could run on some forms of biodiesel if well refined.

Examples include the Mercedes "BlueEfficiency Diesel" PHEV and Citroen DS5 Hybrid.

I don't know of any North American examples -- maybe in trucks.  Ford has some hybrid F150 but it's petrol powered.

There are issues with diesel hybrids due to the short-cycling of the engine, so they didn't seem to gain much market share compared to petrol hybrids.  I think it's telling that VW didn't attempt to make any given they liked to pretend they were well ahead on diesel tech (or at least the cheating part)

[nctnico]

If you use less fuel with a hybrid, then you'll need less non-fossil fuel as a replacement. In turn this means that 1) synthetic / organic fuels may be significantly more expensive compared to fossil fuels while you can still get from A to B for the same price. 2) you'll need to produce less fuel in order to replace fossil fuel consumption.

It is unfortunate that nobody developed an E85-only hybrid, since an E85-only engine can be made even more efficient than the gasoline Prius engine by using even higher compression.  E85 is typically much cheaper (32% on average IIRC) but has 25% less thermal energy per gallon.  The increased efficiency would probably make up for about half that, meaning a slight reduction in range or increase in fuel tank size along with lower operating costs and an 85% non-fossil fuel.  Sadly E85 isn't common enough for this to be a viable product.  An E85 only Prius Prime would really slash fossil-fuel usage.

The problem is that ethanol production needs to make a lateral move towards more sustainable production first (2nd and 3rd generation bio fuels) before production can be increased significantly. There really is a lot going on where it comes to making ethanol from agricultural and other plant based waste instead of growing crops specifically for ethanol production (see https://ethanolproducer.com/). But making this move likely takes another decade as the whole chain from harvesting until production needs to be build up.

[Miyuki]

There are a couple of diesel hybrids, which theoretically could run on some forms of biodiesel if well refined.

Examples include the Mercedes "BlueEfficiency Diesel" PHEV and Citroen DS5 Hybrid.

I don't know of any North American examples -- maybe in trucks.  Ford has some hybrid F150 but it's petrol powered.

There are issues with diesel hybrids due to the short-cycling of the engine, so they didn't seem to gain much market share compared to petrol hybrids.  I think it's telling that VW didn't attempt to make any given they liked to pretend they were well ahead on diesel tech (or at least the cheating part)

Modern emission system in diesel engines needs at least 20 minutes of running time to work
This is why they fail in city traffic
And with highway traffic is no benefit to a "normal" hybrid
You need to have PHEV to use a diesel engine only for long ways
Those Mercedes PHEVs look with decent parameters, but the price is crazy.

[nctnico]

You can never get good control over emissions on a diesel engine. A diesel engine works with excess air which also contains a lot of nitrogen. So you get a lot of NOx. Now you can try to control that by additives and reducing the amount of air by mixing exhaust gasses into the inlet but that causes the formation of sooth (fine particles consisting of half burned fuel) and reduces engine efficiency.

[Miyuki]

You can never get good control over emissions on a diesel engine. A diesel engine works with excess air which also contains a lot of nitrogen. So you get a lot of NOx. Now you can try to control that by additives and reducing the amount of air by mixing exhaust gasses into the inlet but that causes the formation of sooth (fine particles consisting of half burned fuel) and reduces engine efficiency.

You can deal with emissions relatively easy when you keep exhaust gasses hot enough, which means you are using at least 20-30% of engine power/keeping within an efficient region (typical engine example, dark blue line area and better)
But you cannot reach that in a common passenger car with engine side, they uses. As city traffic requires 1-5kW of power with short peaks to lower tens of kW.
It works kinda Ok in things like busses where the engine size is well suited for city speeds
And of course, highway traffic is the best for them
And with today's efficiency of over 40%, they can beat batteries with the current energy mix in CO2 easily, especially when we will talk about cargo transport for long distances
But for cities it is terrible and I understand why dense cities are trying to push them from centers
And the start-stop system won't help it either as it lets catalytic converter cool even more

[tom66]

And then we have bizarre vehicles like the Nissan e-Power Qashqai (I hate this car so much in any form, but maybe I have an irrational hatred towards SUVs.)

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/nissan/qashqai/357617/new-nissan-qashqai-e-power-2022-review

This car features a 1.5cyl petrol engine driving a generator which charges either a 2.1kWh battery or powers a regular 187 hp electric motor then driving the wheels.  So it's a series hybrid.  But it has no option to recharge the battery - all energy comes from combustion.   There are very few series hybrids in use, as I understand it the concern is double conversion losses from generator to motor are notable enough to avoid this design in most cases.

I can't imagine this offers any benefit on the highway but maybe in the city the ability to keep the petrol engine at high load all of the time is of some benefit.  Still, it does seem like a rather odd design. 

Edit - typo

[Miyuki]

And then we have bizarre vehicles like the Nissan e-Power Qashqai (I hate this car so much in any form, but maybe I have an irrational hatred towards SUVs.)

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/nissan/qashqai/357617/new-nissan-qashqai-e-power-2022-review

This car features a 1.5cyl petrol engine driving a generator which charges either a 2.1kWh battery, and a regular 187 hp electric motor then driving the wheels.  So it's a series hybrid.  But it has no option to recharge the battery - all energy comes from combustion.   There are very few series hybrids in use, as I understand it the concern is double conversion losses from generator to motor are notable enough to avoid this design in most cases.

I can't imagine this offers any benefit on the highway but maybe in the city the ability to keep the petrol engine at high load all of the time is of some benefit.  Still, it does seem like a rather odd design.

With at least 10kWh, a better 20kWh battery, and charging it will be a great thing but this 
It seems Toyota refused to give them their hybrid technology and it might be a little cheaper to build. But makes no sense in this configuration.

Keeping the engine at a high/constant load has significant benefits on pollutants (NOx, hydrocarbons) and can be easily tuned for higher efficiency as commonly required wide RPM range gives a significant hit to efficiency

[gnuarm]

And then we have bizarre vehicles like the Nissan e-Power Qashqai (I hate this car so much in any form, but maybe I have an irrational hatred towards SUVs.)

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/nissan/qashqai/357617/new-nissan-qashqai-e-power-2022-review

This car features a 1.5cyl petrol engine driving a generator which charges either a 2.1kWh battery, and a regular 187 hp electric motor then driving the wheels.  So it's a series hybrid.  But it has no option to recharge the battery - all energy comes from combustion.   There are very few series hybrids in use, as I understand it the concern is double conversion losses from generator to motor are notable enough to avoid this design in most cases.

I can't imagine this offers any benefit on the highway but maybe in the city the ability to keep the petrol engine at high load all of the time is of some benefit.  Still, it does seem like a rather odd design.

With at least 10kWh, a better 20kWh battery, and charging it will be a great thing but this 
It seems Toyota refused to give them their hybrid technology and it might be a little cheaper to build. But makes no sense in this configuration.

Keeping the engine at a high/constant load has significant benefits on pollutants (NOx, hydrocarbons) and can be easily tuned for higher efficiency as commonly required wide RPM range gives a significant hit to efficiency

But no matter how hard they try, they won't get the carbon emission down to zero.  This is why hybrids are pointless.  They are a solution to a problem we no longer have (non-CO2 pollutants) with the introduction of BEVs.

[nctnico]

I guess you are missing the fact that bio-fuels have existed for a long time already and are being used more and more! And BEVs don't make coal and gas fueled power plants go away!

[edy]

I remember a video about an old bus in Germany (Gyro bus) that used a flywheel to power itself. There is even someone who tried to make a bicycle with a flywheel to help recuperate some of the breaking energy lost to heat (with the added advantage that the flywheel acted to help balance the bicycle at low speeds).

Could there be any advantage to using such a purely mechanical system let's say within the wheels themselves or on the drive-train that can be coupled to a small CVT/clutch mechanism that will not be overcome by the added weight needed to carry such a flywheel around all the time? (NOT TO MENTION the SAFETY CONCERNS if there is ever an accident, these flywheels can wreak havoc on anything in the area if it escapes).

Here are the different videos, first on the German flywheel bus and second video on the attempt to make a flywheel bicycle:




Flywheel bike:

[Miyuki]

I remember a video about an old bus in Germany (Gyro bus) that used a flywheel to power itself. There is even someone who tried to make a bicycle with a flywheel to help recuperate some of the breaking energy lost to heat (with the added advantage that the flywheel acted to help balance the bicycle at low speeds).

Could there be any advantage to using such a purely mechanical system let's say within the wheels themselves or on the drive-train that can be coupled to a small CVT/clutch mechanism that will not be overcome by the added weight needed to carry such a flywheel around all the time? (NOT TO MENTION the SAFETY CONCERNS if there is ever an accident, these flywheels can wreak havoc on anything in the area if it escapes).

It is called KERS and is used in some race cars
Turns out it is way more expensive than a hybrid drive train with a small battery

With at least 10kWh, a better 20kWh battery, and charging it will be a great thing but this 
It seems Toyota refused to give them their hybrid technology and it might be a little cheaper to build. But makes no sense in this configuration.

Keeping the engine at a high/constant load has significant benefits on pollutants (NOx, hydrocarbons) and can be easily tuned for higher efficiency as commonly required wide RPM range gives a significant hit to efficiency

But no matter how hard they try, they won't get the carbon emission down to zero.  This is why hybrids are pointless.  They are a solution to a problem we no longer have (non-CO2 pollutants) with the introduction of BEVs.

Tell me when US and EU (not saying about China and India) will have zero carbon electricity 
It won't be in this or even next decade

They are to bridge the gap, and with some bio/syn fuels to be used even then for cases when BEV won't offer the required range, because there always will be some minor cases where you will need more flexibility

Plus another rare example, but sadly real. How would a massive amount of people run from disaster (like a natural one or a war), you will end up with plenty of people stuck at 100-200 km. Current cheap EVs have these ranges plus will be a big portion of people do not have them fully charged.

BEVs are great city cars and I will agree they shall be even mandatory in city centers (even as I'm libertarian) but with the current technology level, energy mix and state of society are not a silver bullet.

[tom66]

I guess you are missing the fact that bio-fuels have existed for a long time already and are being used more and more! And BEVs don't make coal and gas fueled power plants go away!

Are there any biofuels in commercial production that:
* don't have land-use issues (bioethanol from crop is at issue here, specifically - there's absolutely no point in chopping down trees to free land for emissions-neutral fuel)
* are produced from sustainable, volume-scalable waste products (i.e. we can't just take the McDonalds chip-fat example and expect to run the whole country off that stuff) OR;
* are produced in a carbon-neutral synthetic process?

I think the answer is 'no', but you seem keen promote this as a viable alternative to BEVs so perhaps you know better?

On BEVs still requiring fossil fuel.  Yes, they do.  But they are increasingly requiring less of this as the grid goes towards zero emissions technology.  Even today, a VW e-Golf at 250gCO2e/kWh (average for the UK) produces just 60g CO2 per km whereas the equivalent ICE Golf (1.5 TSI) is 129g CO2 per km - excluding emissions produced during refinement, extraction, transportation etc. of the fuel (which can contribute upwards of 40% more emissions depending on the company)

The BEV is the only technology CURRENTLY available where it is viable that they could be powered from emissions neutral energy.  There is no other technology.  Not hydrogen, not biofuels, not synfuels...  It just does not exist.

[nctnico]

I guess you are missing the fact that bio-fuels have existed for a long time already and are being used more and more! And BEVs don't make coal and gas fueled power plants go away!

Are there any biofuels in commercial production that:
* don't have land-use issues (bioethanol from crop is at issue here, specifically - there's absolutely no point in chopping down trees to free land for emissions-neutral fuel)
* are produced from sustainable, volume-scalable waste products (i.e. we can't just take the McDonalds chip-fat example and expect to run the whole country off that stuff) OR;
* are produced in a carbon-neutral synthetic process?

I think the answer is 'no', but you seem keen promote this as a viable alternative to BEVs so perhaps you know better?

The answer is yes and no and becomes more yes every day. For sure a lot of development needs to be done but there are already industrial scale factories running that convert agricultural waste into bio-fuels. See the link I posted earlier (ethanolproducer). It is absolutely wrong to keep clinging to the picture that bio fuels are not energy efficient (they wouldn't be affordable / competitive if they where) or take land away from food production.

For example: France is one of the largest ethanol producers of Europe but they don't use a significant amount of farm land. The majority of the production comes from using agricultural waste. AFAIK France was the first country in Europe to mix ethanol with fuel.

[NiHaoMike]

Are there any biofuels in commercial production that:
* don't have land-use issues (bioethanol from crop is at issue here, specifically - there's absolutely no point in chopping down trees to free land for emissions-neutral fuel)

The solution is biofuels from ocean algae. Specifically, if they could figure out how to make biofuel from the kind of algae that forms algae blooms, the act of making biofuel would help solve another problem!

[tom66]

I'm quite sceptical you can produce enough road fuel (let's just assume this is for passenger cars for now) from just agricultural waste.

In the UK, petrol cars consumed 12 million tonnes of petrol and diesel a similar amount.  Petrol is currently E10, 10% ethanol, with that ethanol being primarily imported from Brazil [1], a country that runs many of its vehicles on E85 or E100.  I won't make a density calculation but this is say roughly 1.2 million tonnes for petrol with bioethanol alone coming in on boats.  Brazil is producing this ethanol using sugar cane - they produced over 26 billion tonnes of the stuff, most of it for road fuel, with a huge domestic market for the stuff.

This doesn't mean that it's impossible to produce it from waste, but it does make me skeptical that it's practical given the shear tonnages required.  (Besides, France is not making most of its ethanol from waste, it's making it from sugar and maize too.)

Realistically, I can't see how there is going to be enough waste when waste is undesirable.  And if you make it desirable, for use in production, then you give a dilemma to the farmer.  Retain existing processes that give waste as a benefit for fuel, or improve the processes to improve yield and increase food production.  I'm sure there's unavoidable waste, but how much is there really in the end?

[1] https://www.greencarguide.co.uk/features/the-uk-gets-its-first-bioethanol-plant

[Someone]

I'm quite sceptical you can produce enough road fuel (let's just assume this is for passenger cars for now) from just agricultural waste.

One quality reference to suggest that bio-fuel is a non-starter for mass replacement of fossil fuels:
https://www.withouthotair.com/cD/page_283.shtml