1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

EV Charging Station Surcharge Is Wrong Road

Discussion in 'Prius, Hybrid, EV and Alt-Fuel News' started by bwilson4web, Nov 3, 2014.

  1. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,067
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Source: http://www.achatespower.com/pdf/SDBJ-Op-Ed.pdf
    . . . but does it run on water?

    Ordinarily I would not post anything about them because the world is full of such claims. Just read the press releases collected (thankfull!!) at GreenCarCongress and one would believe we're on the verve of perpetual motion cars. But these folks were invited to Autoline After Hours:

    Understand, I am OK with an engineering company trying to advocate a new technology. Our NiMH batteries came from such a company as have a lot of good stuff (tm GM.) I wish them the best of luck but they mentioned the Toyota Prius by name including '1.5%' of the new car market as their target niche. They also don't like electrics. They list the total market of fuel efficient cars as an accurate '3%.'

    So here is the problem, they want to go after 'the mote' while ignoring the remaining 97% of new car sales. What is wrong with this picture?
    [​IMG]

    Bob Wilson
     
  2. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    107,571
    48,862
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    they already know something they are not telling us, that will dissuade the average buyer. i can't pay attention for an hour, :cool: but around 20 minutes, johnson says you need to penetrate 98% of the world vehicle market of 80 million vehicles to make a difference, and for cars, you need to be in the 25,000 dollar range. then he goes on about prius capturing 1.5% (50%)of the 3% that battery vehicles have of the total market.
     
    #2 bisco, Nov 3, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2014
  3. strongbad

    strongbad Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    170
    47
    0
    Location:
    Driggs, ID
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I'm not going to listen to an hour-long presentation, but I did read the .pdf. If I was a rate payer in San Diego County I'd be fighting the proposed rate hike for charging stations tooth and nail. Let the charge station costs be borne by those that use them and them alone. Why should anybody else be forced to pay for an electric car owner's "free" charge station?
     
  4. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I don't quite understand the issue. This is what I could find out about the proposal
    Utilities Companies Look to Electric Cars for New Revenue - The Minute | 3BL Media
    They are asking for a $0.40 /month rate hike. It sounds like an excuse for a rate hike, though not much of a servicee. The biggest rate kike san diago customers have gotten is for the botched nuclear power plant upgrade at san onofre, costing rate payers $2B or 20 times more and they don't get any clean air for it at all;) The charging stations should bring in more revenue, so the rate does not need to increase the full amount.
    SDG&E raising rates again, some calling it a San Onofre bailout - 10News.com KGTV ABC10 San Diego
    That added about $75 to a $150 bill.

    I'm not sure if this is the best way to pass along costs, and doubt it needs to be $100M for 5500 stations, but I can't say $0.40 rate increase for better charging infrastructure is a huge amount of money. Its probably unnecessary, but its the nuke stupid, and the dumb idea to under build ccgt that causes san diago rates to be so high, not car charging.
     
    #4 austingreen, Nov 3, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2014
  5. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    107,571
    48,862
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    okay, i'm confused. is this about charging stations or new ice tech?
     
  6. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    hey that is what confused me too.

    I think they are mad about building charging stations and want to build engines instead. I have no idea why san diago needs the utility to build 5500 charging stations, but they want to hike rates $0.40/month to do it, which is tiny compared to the bills, but I doubt they need that many charging stations, and why charge everyone.

    Here is the company with the different ices. Again, nothing to do with charging stations unless you think these new ices will take off and solve the oil/transporation problem.

    Fuel-Efficient, Clean Diesel Engines - Achates Power
     
  7. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,067
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Yes:
    • The company has implemented a pre-WW II, opposed piston engine technology that had a very high efficiency. Kudos for that work, resurrecting an 80 year old technology.
    • The same company is seeking new 'license' customers and have taken the approach of anti-rate hike and anti-hybrid advocacy. They are trying to find customers within a narrow slice of the population.
    I like the technology but abhor their 'salesmanship.' Diesels have a problem of high pressure, high temperature, and slow quenching as the piston descends. Opposed pistons double the quench rate and should significantly reduce NOx formation. Also, the shaped combustion region, a football/rugby shape minimizes the quench area so combustion can be fairly hot and hopefully minimize soot. Combined with pulsed fuel injection, a modern diesel technique, both noise and soot formation should be minimized. But how to 'sell it?'

    I would start with a list of the top-10, selling vehicles:
    Model Sept 2014 displacement Diesel?
    1 Ford F 59863 Yes
    2 Silverado 50176 Yes
    3 Ram 36612 Yes
    4 Accord 32956 2.4L No
    5 Camry 28507 2.5L No
    6 CR-V 23722 2.4L No
    7 RAV4 22724 2.5L No
    8 Civic 22263 No
    9 Escape 21718 No
    10 Fusion 21693 No

    Although pickups have higher volumes, those vendors already have diesels. Putting an advanced diesel in those vehicle would not really contrast and certainly would not engender love versus the 'not invented here.' But the four in the middle are interesting as there are no domestic cars sold in those quantities. "Not invented here" is even stronger in Japan BUT re-engine these four would be a powerful sales pitch to the domestic car makers. So take 'one each' from the sedan and cross-over vehicles, say Accord and RAV4, manual transmission, 2.4-2.5L engine.

    Fabricate a pair of equivalent engines with a transmission adapter. Replace the original engine in each and benchmark or EPA test the re-engined cars. Advertise the 'up engined' cars with an 'at cost' kit. The approach the other manufactures with 'we have got a deal for you.'

    In reality, every manufacturer has a vested interest in "not invented here." To make licensing sales, these folks need to find someone who is hungry for their 2.4-2.5L engine sized engine. Re-engine top selling vehicles and showing a significant performance advantage over the gas-equivalent engine version . . . that is a powerful sell. It might even go retail.

    Notice there are hybrids in the sedans. So if they want to lift the load, it would be a poor choice as they won't compete in City MPG. So I would go with the two, small SUVs to maximize the compare and contrast. But given their anti-hybrid bias, they'd probably choose badly.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #7 bwilson4web, Nov 3, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2014
  8. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    The really sweet part for the utility is being given a government monopoly on installing charging stations AND billing electric customers for them. They make money twice while eliminating any competition. Don't be surprised that they file anti-competitive injunctions against Tesla for their charging stations. It's no different than the utility getting to install street lamps, charging the rate payers (instead of the tax payers) for installing them and then turning around and charging the city for the electricity to run them. The california cost of living must be going through the roof with these kind of arrangements.

    As far as the editorial article, there is clearly a devoted blind ignorance of what Tesla has achieved already and is planning for the future. The problem is not EVs being vehicle for the rich. It is utilities potentially being granted the right of collecting money from rate payers for random business ventures where failure has the same result as success...money in the utilities pockets.
     
    Trollbait likes this.
  9. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,067
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Willful ignorance is easy to find in hybrid-skeptics.

    I can admire the engine technology but hate their foolish sales approach.

    Bob Wilson
     
  10. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    OK so can we all agree that the utility is just trying to make money on this rate increase, while not really bringing much of value to the customers. Its part of the messed up electrical market in California. Minor compared to the san onofre debacle, but the PUC needs to get reformed, then it needs to reform the market. Hey at least they are only asking for $0.40/month. Build more ccgt in southern california, and you probably can make money charging only $0.05/kwh at trough demand (midnight to 6 am) for plug-in users. In Texas a utility is giving away power for free at night by charghing more during the day. This stuff is cheap, but the PUC makes it expensive in california.

    On the other side, I didn't quite get what was better on the engine tech. Yes I know the claim is more efficient and less cost, but we have had this idea for awhile and it normally runs into problems with reliability or pollution. Not that people shouldn't keep trying, but I believe these things when their is a demonstration in a real car with emissions conforming and an epa efficiency label.

    In the meantime its hard to beat the phev when it comes to cutting gas use without hurting drivablitly. Its hard to argue plug-ins are boring when the tesls model S P85D is the fastest accelerating production car.
     
    #10 austingreen, Nov 4, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2014
  11. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    The opposed piston approach is actually very old. It was originally used for Jumo Opposed-piston aircraft engines (German Junkers built), then copied by Fairbanks, Morse, and Co. for getting into the railroad, marine, and submarine diesel engine market in about 1934. This type of engine was a widely used in WWII submarines.

    Additionally, there were Hooven, Owens, Rentschler diesel engines with one piston but two combustion chambers. One combustion chamber on each side of the piston. These HOR engines were used in a number of submarines but had far more problems, a lot of them unrelated to the strange configuration, but some problems with extensive leaking around the packing gland sealing the rod connecting the piston to the crankshaft. Note this connecting rod must be kept straight but still connects to a rotating shaft.

    At the end of the day, the performance differences of these strange arrangements and the more conventional GM diesel engines put in WWII submarines were all very similar. No one design had a clear cut advantage. More important was the quality of build and repair ease. Removing the cylinder cover is very difficult when there is no cover to remove, but a whole combustion chamber to access.

    I really don't see a dramatic advantage to the achatespower design in performance and efficiency. I do see a huge problem with emissions control using a two cycle engine instead of a four cycle engine.
     
    austingreen likes this.
  12. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    2 stroke emissions and efficiency can be much improved with electronic valve control and direct injection. Of course these things add to cost, and also make efficiency higher in conventional engines. I'd love to see a new design that is better, but it really is hard to beat a phev configuration for efficiency.
     
  13. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    The achatespower engine did not have any valves, it just had intake and exhaust ports uncovered at the end of the stroke. So the direct injection and valve control advantages are abandoned.