There's still nothing on AC Propulsion's web site later than April, 2003!

I'll have to see it before I'll believe it. The power's gotta come from somewhere, and propelling a vehicle is a net loss situation.

So they drain up to 50% of your battery, whereupon you drive somewhere to plug in to the grid to recharge the battery, right?
I guess on the surface, if you could guarantee that all those cars pushing power during peak time, would not then cause a peak demand by recharging , it could 'help'. Sounds more like taking change out of one pocket, dropping some of it on the way to your other pocket, then claiming a profit.

The idea is that all those car batteries would help even the demand load on the electric grid, just like the battery/motor in the Prius evens the demand load that the car places on the ICE.

You charge up your car at night from the grid, when demand is low and the system has excess generating capability.

In the daytime, if you are not driving, your car is still connected to the grid, and at times of peak demand, when the generating capacity of the system is stressed, they draw back some of that energy from your battery (crediting you for the energy).

The idea does not generate any new net energy, and in fact involves some losses related to efficiency. But by leveling out the peaks, it allows the system to operate with less total generating capacity, and therefore saves on the capital cost of building more generators.

I have no idea if the math really works. I.e., whether equiping enough cars with this would provide enough storage capacity to make a real difference. But they are not violating any laws of physics.

OK I don't get it. What is generating this electricity that you are selling? Where is the power coming from? Did I miss something. Does this use gasoline to generate electricity while it is parked? Is this a good idea?

No. The cars do not generate any electricity. They are charged from the grid, and able to feed back to the grid. All they do for the national energy system is help shave the peaks, so the system can function with lower total generating capacity and therefore lower capital cost.

In some areas there may be a fairly low base generating capacity, such as hydro, supplemented by a higher-cost back-up for peaks, such as natural gas. In this case, shaving the peaks would save on natural gas.

But the cars are nothing but electric cars that can double as energy storage for the grid.

Shaving energy-demand peaks is a useful and important part of an overall energy policy. However, I don't know whether this scheme would really provide enough storage to make a significant difference. And of course, any car actually being driven during peak energy-demand times would be unavailable for peak-shaving.

So what if you suddenly have to make a fairly length trip? You're outta luck because you need to make it during the peak grid time, when the car's somewhat drained? It seems like a good idea in theory, but bad in execution.

"There's enough wind power in three Plains states to provide power to the entire country - but there's no way today to store that power," Dr. Ross says.

rather optimistic statement i think.

instead of using cars, why not use automated rail cars?? they can charge a boxcar load of batteries in Kansas, then roll into LA discharge and go back.

even better put them on maglev system. because of the reduced resistance of superconductors, distances that power can be transmitted without appreciable losses increases 75,000%. then we wouldnt have to worry about transporting a few kW in a slow moving car. we can use wire like we do now.

obviously, there are more than a few barriers to this fantasy.

I read in the WSJ on Friday that German engineers are discovering new problems to wind power: namely, that inconsistent wind leads to dangerous fluctuations on the power grid. Apparently, the equipment on the grid doesn't enjoy having power levels rise and fall with inconsistent wind speeds.

It may be true that 3 states has enough total wind to generate enough power for the whole country, but I doubt the wind is spread out over a convenient period of time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Tornado and thunderstorm-level winds aren't useful for wind power (and can damage wind turbines).

This is a very serious drawback to the whole idea. However, if you know that you are going to take a long trip you can unplug your car once it's charged up.

This makes no sense at all. It's not transporting the energy that's a problem (we have the grid for that) it's storing the energy so that energy generated off-peak can be used at peak-demand times. The cars would not be used to transport energy, but just to store it.

As for the inconsistency of wind, that's why wind by itself is not the answer. A rational energy policy needs to use a variety of renewable sources of energy. It's worth noting, however, that here in ND, where we have a lot of wind, the peak demand for energy occurs in cold windy winter weather. By contrast (but equally fortuitous) the peak demand for energy in the south occurs in hot sunny weather, making solar energy useful even though it's only available 12 hours a day.

I remember some of the excess energy stuff from my environmental science class...there is definatly some excess energy being produced, and if there was a way to store it, it could certainly alleviate the problems of peak capacity and energy demands.

well transporting it is a problem as the lines used to transport the energy on the grid use electricity and therefore losses do occur. that is why they use high tension lines at 750 KV. the higher voltage runs at a lower current and the losses due to heat is lessened but not eliminated by any means.

although technology has gotten better, we still cant efficiently transport electricity more than a few hundred miles.

You certainly don't think that shipping batteries in rail cars from the prairie to L.A. is going to be more efficient than sending it on the grid???

For one-millionth of the cost of a maglev train to ship batteries back and forth you could build a superconducting power line.

But I still say that the transportation of energy is not the crisis issue in our energy policy. The crisis issue is getting from fossil fuels to renewables. And we have the technology to do that today. We could be independent of fossil fuels in 10 or 20 years if we started now.

The problem is that the political power to make such decisions rests with people whose vested interest is in fossil fuels, and who do not expect to live long enough to be personally hit by the crisis of diminishing supplies (or the increasing cost of extraction, if you prefer to phrase it that way.)

Okay, imagine for a moment that we are completely independent of foreign oil. What happens to the Middle Eastern economy when the cash cow is dead or dying? Who will be blamed for the starving populace when their primary export is practically worthless? I imagine we ain't seen nothing yet in terms of terrorist activity if the transition to renewable energy occurs too rapidly. It's about much more than the profiteering of American Capitalists or saving the environment -- it's also about a balance of power and the global economy.

the middle east will be fine because of the capital being siphoned from the american economy.

after all, do you think they are spending their billions on frivolous trinkets that wont help them when the oil is useless???

the 5 trillion dollar investment in american real estate and investment properties are already providing a returm so as you can see, the middle eastern economy will be just as it is now. wonderful for a small handful and non existent for the rest.