Plug-in Prius here now?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hytec\";p=\"84849)</div>

And it's made this progress with an investment that is tiny in comparison to what hydrogen has gotten from taxpayers in just the last 5 years.

And you know what's kind of ironic? Some of that battery innovation is coming from cell phone and laptop research.

 

gschoen, if you factor in all the costs to operating various types of plants, nuclear energy is the one where the costs are most complete. Mining, power generation, and waste disposal are all part of cost equation b/c we have to deal with it immediately. Coal/oil spew noxious (and in at least coal's case radioactive) waste products in the air which we really aren't properly paying for in our electric rates. Natural gas is a finite resource that we don't have enough of. Wind/tidal/hydro power have huge ecological consequences if we were to use them in the magnitude required supply all of our energy needs. Solar energy are 4x more expensive than these other power sources which are relatively the same cost per unit energy. Are you ready to pay 4x your electric bill (you say you pay 2x for wind power which is laudable, but I think that "low" rate is subsidized by the government). Is the $250 billion the government has subsidized in renewable energy research slowing down the development of the market?

The EU, Russia, and China all have significant civil nuclear plans. With the status quo, we are generating 25% of the world's hydrocarbon emissions with 5% of the world's population. Exactly how is that fairly paid by everyone on the planet? The US isn't part of the Kyoto treaty, which is sad, b/c we need to stop hydrocarbon emissions sooner, rather than later.

Ray, from what you say, solar energy will become viable when the solar panels drop in price. I agree, but I still don't see any news/developments that shows that makes it possible today or in the near (one or two years) future. This is depending on developments of the future, which is amusing to me, b/c I've been wrongly accused of doing so in this thread.

I know the Toshiba batteries will be release in 2006, but it isn't just a drop in replacement for existing batteries in a Prius (for example). The ability to charge/discharge 60x faster than a conventional NiMH/LiON battery gives it capacitor-like qualities which could significantly boost the contribution of the electric motor to drive power and mileage increase. The rate at which energy can be output/charged from/to the battery is is actually one of the limitations in the classic and HSD Prius. Unless Toyota (again, for example) has already been doing development with this in mind, I would expect a couple years of testing and tweaking to drop in such a significant change. They probably would want to exploit it and make sure it works perfectly before selling such a product. Being a naturally conservative engineer, I put some margin on this and said within 5 years (and even 2006 is within 5 years =P). After the battery has been proven in an application (Toshiba themselves said HEV are probably the first application that makes sense), and with some money from these initial battery sales to warrant a ramp-up in production and investment creating a large production line, I think we'll see the battery become mainstream in about 10 years.

gschoen (I'm doing post replies in chronological order, with the exception of my last post), unless I misunderstand how nuclear works, we aren't creating any larger amounts of radioactive material. It's all there already as U-238. We are concentrating it, using up its energy and converting it to different radioactive materials. Regardless of whether we are building new reactors or not, we need a waste disposal facility for existing nuclear power. Do you propose we shut down all existing nuclear power?

I'm not saying we make a bunch of nuclear waste, leave it around, and hope we figure out what to do with it later. I'm saying we create a nuclear waste disposal site (we need it anyways to more safely contain existing nuclear waste stockpiles), but build it so it is designed to safely store the waste for its entire half-life. We will almost certainly find a way make it inert in the next 250k years. I'm betting on sooner than later, but regardless of my bet, the waste needs to be stored safely.

You can design a way to transport nuclear material safely. Even to outer space. Nuclear material is dangerous in critical masses, but why don't we notice all the plentiful unmined uranium in the US? B/c it's in low concentrations and is therefore non-fissile. It's a matter of how much you want to spend on doing that, cost. And why do I keep mentioning cost? B/c it's a prohibitive factor in determining what we can do. I'm not a cold-calculating person who cares just about dollar signs. But how much money I can afford to spend on things determines what I am able to do. Such is true of every other person and of the US as a whole.

It's hard to guard knowledge. But should the US be at a technological standstill in certain fields while others shoot past us in development b/c they have no nuclear qualms? The best way to protect ourselves is to be at the technological forefront, so we can hopefully outtrump those who intend to do us harm.

Weapons-grade uranium is 90% U235 while uranium for power need only be 3%. The US has a ban against nuclear fuel reprocessing b/c it generates weapons-grade uranium, and we can afford to do it b/c we have plenty of uranium sources. France, for example, does not and reprocesses, extracting more energy out of the 95% of energy left over in first-use nuclear fuel waste. And why bother stealing well-guarded US nuclear waste when there are much easier targets? If we don't secure these easier targets, regardless if we have more or less nuclear reactors ourselves, we really aren't making ourselves safer from rogue nuclear weapons.

Chernobyl is an example of a generation I reactor which was flawed and had was essentially completely neglected. It had no containment to prevent radioactive particles from spewing into the air in the event of a meltdown like current reactors do. Pebble-bed reactors are generation 4 reactors which basically go to an idle temperature and do not meltdown in the event any of the controls are malfunctioning or removed. They've tested it! It's currently available technology to build a nuclear reactor that by the laws of physics does not meltdown when something goes wrong. Using Chernobyl as an example of why we shouldn't build pebble bed reactors is akin to saying the Prius is unsafe b/c the Pinto explodes if it gets hit.

And words are being put in my mouth again. I say nuclear power is the logical choice given the pros and cons (I've listed both for all power sources) in my opinion. I never said nuclear power has no drawbacks. It has a clear emissions benefits, and nuclear waste management problems, which I have clearly listed and addressed. I read an article about identifying phases of a civilization through their primary power sources which increase in power by orders of magnitude between each phase. First was simple combustion of wood, followed by fossil fuels, followed by nuclear energy, and finally anti-matter. We are currently in a transitional phase in power sources between fossil fuels and nuclear energy. It is a scary transition because of the awesome power of nuclear energy which is enough to cause massive damage to ourselves. But we need to learn to safely harness it to keep progressing at the exponential rate that we've been going.

Why nuclear? Two main reasons in the bigger picture. 1) No air pollution for our energy needs. 2) Coupled with electric, fuel-cell, hydrogen, or nuclear vehicles, we can end our dependence on foreign oil sources (and hopefully oil period!) so US money doesn't go to unstable countries which fund US enemies. We have plenty of uranium.

And finally, gschoen, you mock me. Your first one-liner was the equivalent smacking me on the back of the head and running away while I was engaged in discussion (I like to think enlightened discourse, but those are just nice big words in my head). I didn't want to make a flash judgement and I considered that maybe you didn't intend it that way when you typed your one-liner, so I replied in kind with a smiley to show no malignant intentions on my part. In case you didn't get my intentions, I said in plain words, that my reply was playful turnabout. Your original one-liner just felt wrong and the I finally put my finger on what it seemed like. Now, I'm not calling you one, but I'm just saying that the one-liner seemed like trolling. Now you know exactly what I'm thinking, and I'm hoping you'll tell me what you intended when you wrote the one-liner b/c I'm curious. The discussion I appreciate; the one-liners which are the equivalent of "Haha, look at that fool who believes in nuclear power; where's he gonna put the waste, in his backyard? Haha", not so much. But it's a free country, so I'll just have to ignore anymore offending one-liners if that's what you choose to do.

I appreciate the information and discussion that everyone has presented. I've learned a lot as I go along in this discussion (which seems only tangentially related to Plug-in Prius at this point, tho'...) in the numerous things I've been exposed to and the many sources I've had to read to support my stance.

Sorry for the incredibly long post, but I think that this discussion merits a lot of information and ideas. The point and counterpoint is a lot of fun as well.

 

This whole discussion of how many Watt-hours (Wh) per mile may be used by the Prius is missing a vital piece of data - EVs have been on the road for years and it is well known what sort of typical "mileage" pure EVs get!

The Toyota RAV4 EV typically managed about 3.8 miles per kWh, and Nissan's Altra 3.7 miles per kWh in everyday (ie mixed, highway & urban) driving. However, GMs EV1 managed 4.5, the Solectria Force 5.2 miles per kWh and Solectria's lightweight Sunrise got >12 miles per kWh on a long run.

I think 4-5 miles per kWh should be about right for the Prius - not just in EV mode at low speeds, but in mixed driving including highway. Think about it this way - to maintain 5 miles per kWh at 60mph requires a motor output of 12kW or 16hp which is more than is actually used to maintain 60mph in a car like the Prius.

9kWh could therefore provide 40-45 miles of EV range in the Prius. 4 metres squared of solar panels on the Prius should give 4.5kWh of energy a day to the batteries (that's a US-wide average - it would be more in some places and on sunny days and much less in the winter). 4.5 kWh x 4 miles per kWh = 18 miles free range.

 

ryogajyc- My home could be supplied with all it's energy needs by covering just 1/6 of it's roof area with current technology solar panels. Just thought that you would like to know. By the way, you sure can type. I'm impressed.

The amount of roof area is irrelevant. South facing roof area is what matters.

The roof is not a very good place to put your panels anyway. Removing panels to do roof repair or replacement or working around them is just silly but most urban dwellers have no choice. Solar energy will always be just a piece of the energy pie. It will be best suited to large lot construction that is abhorred by many environmentalists. There will also be urban applications but population density really hurts it's viability.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hytec\";p=\"84849)</div>

Huh??? How does that work? You have a one vehicle that weighs 5x the other with only 1.67x the battery capacity going twice as far on a full charge? I don't think physics works that way. It takes more power to get 2890 pounds up to speed and keep it there than 549 pounds. If that were not true, we'd all be pedaling our Prii and not need this discussion of gas vs plug in
Of course, though I'm no speed demon, I think I would be pretty unhappy with a max speed of 15 MPH.

 

Bruce, you make a valid point, especially when you consider that drag increases at the square of speed increase. However, I assume that Toyota has invested far more sophisticated research and development into the Prius than Yamaha has into golf carts, and I'm sure there are many control, electrical, and mechanical factors involved in this equation than we in this Forum are aware. So I'm giving Valence Technology the benefit of the doubt, although with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

Ray, I am interested in specifics of your solar powered house. How much solar panel area is needed? How much power does the house use? Is the house designed heavily for power efficiency? How much did the solar panels costs? Etc. Thanks.

 

I do not have a solar system installed yet as I am waiting for costs to come down. I am outside of any jurisdiction that offers rebates for installs so the entire cost will fall on me and the cost analysis is far from working at this time. What I do have is a proven home construction that for the past two years has consumed an average of 1137 KWh per month. This will fall by at least 120 KWh per month when I replace my refrigerator and I currently use incandescent lighting exclusively and will switch to compact flourescent when I switch to solar.

So here's the math. I figure on 1150 KWh of usage to play it safe and allow for panel degradation over time. In my climate I will need 7 KW of panel. The cost of 7 KW of panel with the BOS (balance of system), installed, comes to $63,000.00. If I finance this at 6% for 20 years, the monthly payment comes to $451.35. This comes to a cost per KWh of 39 cents. This assumes absolutely no maintainance costs so I sure hope the interest rate would be lower. Also, keep in mind that this is for a grid tied system and the batteries for a stand alone system would raise the price and maintainance considerably. I currently pay right at 10 cents per KWh including the fuel surcharge.

This size system would require 1050 sq ft. of area. I will put them on the ground to keep roof maintainance from being an issue. I have 6250 sq ft. of total roof are so if I wanted to put it there it would take about 1/6 of the area but would actually fit quite nicely on the south facing roof of the main house. Since I live on 33 acres, it will be no problem to put them on the ground behind the shop and that is nearer the electric meter anyway. If you are interested in solar energy here is a good site. The link will take you to the current module price page and you can hop to the home page from there. Here's the link.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/moduleprices.htm

 

Explaining how I achieve 1/4 KWh per square foot per month is a lengthy discussion. Very lengthy. When I do presentations on my building system it generally runs about two hours plus questions. The system does not require an architect to make drastic changes to their design but if they get on board early, the costs can be similar to standard custom residential construction. A green home is not 4200 square feet, period.
I enjoy my home but it is way beyond our needs. I'm not moving but I am starting to design smaller homes for the future of our country. Mega homes are similar in concept to large gas guzzling SUVs. Think of my house as the Hylander Hybrid version.

 

DanMan, I'm not sure if you were thinking it would be great if solar roofing material existed or actually knew it existed. Either way, I found a picture of it, so apparently it exists.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html

 

Unfortunately, they are less efficient than standard PV panels, as well as more costly, but architects love them.