The 'towing' capable EV....

[amschind]

So, are these built in generators going to have all of the same emissions controls for the EPA that ICE have, stripping them of efficiencies, or will they create more pollution than said ICE, but the drivers of these “E Vehicle” can virtue signal by “driving electric?”

Can you rephrase this question? I'm not clear on what you're trying to ask here.

Sponsored

 

[HammaMan]

...

The concept would see a ~60kWh generator unit coupled to the most efficient means of powering it. Perhaps the most sense makes the 'standard' range lightning battery the only option the hybrid power unit can be fitted to. The space above the battery where the cells would go could house a 20 gallon tank or so. Lightnings get about 1kWh / mile towing while the battery is a buffer allowing for uphill power and downhill regen, while also being a source of energy.

To generate 60kW of electricity requires 90hp. Not sure how efficient it could be made for a static RPM range. Most engines are made to operate in a range of RPMS and the higher gear ratios and even CVTs have allowed them to be optimized. Is there more that could be done if the goal was to shift to something like that? Probably. It's just not a problem that's been worked on. Large vehicles with hybrid drives don't really rely on a peak efficiency design. The throttle the diesel and corresponding generator to the load output they require.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles still use batteries as buffers. -- interesting to see this thread revived. As for the ram EV -- it'll be releasing right about the time the new lightning is gearing up for production, the end of next year.

 

[amschind]

The concept would see a ~60kWh generator unit coupled to the most efficient means of powering it. Perhaps the most sense makes the 'standard' range lightning battery the only option the hybrid power unit can be fitted to. The space above the battery where the cells would go could house a 20 gallon tank or so. Lightnings get about 1kWh / mile towing while the battery is a buffer allowing for uphill power and downhill regen, while also being a source of energy.

To generate 60kW of electricity requires 90hp. Not sure how efficient it could be made for a static RPM range. Most engines are made to operate in a range of RPMS and the higher gear ratios and even CVTs have allowed them to be optimized. Is there more that could be done if the goal was to shift to something like that? Probably. It's just not a problem that's been worked on. Large vehicles with hybrid drives don't really rely on a peak efficiency design. The throttle the diesel and corresponding generator to the load output they require.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles still use batteries as buffers. -- interesting to see this thread revived. As for the ram EV -- it'll be releasing right about the time the new lightning is gearing up for production, the end of next year.

Not only that, consider why we don't use combined cycle turbines or steam bottoming cycles in vehicles: they only work well with consistent load. A starting/stopping/revving engine is a no-go. An engine that is either off or WAO turning exactly one load condition works great. The standard large scale GE combined cycle nat gas generator is 59-62% efficient. Something as small as a truck engine won't get that, but putting a steam bottoming cycle onto a piston engine is doable. BMW ALMOST did it, but backed off due to cost and complexity. $5/gallon and reduced complexity elsewhere could change that cost calculation.

 

[HammaMan]

Not only that, consider why we don't use combined cycle turbines or steam bottoming cycles in vehicles: they only work well with consistent load. A starting/stopping/revving engine is a no-go. An engine that is either off or WAO turning exactly one load condition works great. The standard large scale GE combined cycle nat gas generator is 59-62% efficient. Something as small as a truck engine won't get that, but putting a steam bottoming cycle onto a piston engine is doable. BMW ALMOST did it, but backed off due to cost and complexity. $5/gallon and reduced complexity elsewhere could change that cost calculation.

I'm surprised we haven't seen more research put into it. If there's anything the big boys could team up on in 10spd fashion, it'd be making an extremely efficient APU. The numbers say we'll be using fossil fuels and their byproducts which includes gasoline for many more decades. Aircraft and ships will be using them for 2050 and beyond. Once fusion is cracked and reliable, some can be transitioned to it, particularly ships. All viable means should be explored.

 

[amschind]

Trains and really big mining trucks run a generator to power electric motors like you are talking. They do it only for the benefit of the instant and constant torque delivered by an electric motor.

The whole ICE (internal combustion engine) on a generator is a horribly inefficient way to make power and move something.
You have a maybe 35% efficient ICE and now you want to couple that with a 80-90% efficient electric motor, you are just taking the ICE and reducing it to 15-25% efficient.

I'm not sure how efficient a coal, hydro, nuclear, wind, solar power plant is, but it's efficiency over an ICE is the only net benefit of an electric powered vehicle. Beyond that its all just what lies you tell yourself, or buy into from marketers that make you feel like your doing something good by driving electric.

I wish all the marketing lies about electric were true, it would be fantastic to live in a clean society without fuel and oil, but reality just doesn't work that way. All power consumption comes at a cost, it's just what your willing to sacrifice, and where.

This statement appears accurate only if considering peak efficiency out of context of real world use. Further, the numbers are outdated.
1) There was a time when electric motors were 80% or less efficient. The instant torque was the major reason to use them. That is no longer the case. Borg Warner bought a small starter motor company that developed it, and is now selling integrated diff/motor packages. The HVH is 90-95% efficient over a broad power/load band
2) An ICE is more and less efficient than 35%. Many load/RPM combinations produce much less efficiency than that. A 2 stroke optimized for one load condition can hit over 50% with a bottoming cycle. Achieving peak ICE efficiency is the base case with a series hybrid; it is rare and difficult with a conventional ICE.
3) The 5% loss going to electrons and then 5% back to rotation is a loss. Italy tried series hybrid buses and was very sad that their total efficiency went DOWN. The thing that overcomes the up front loss is optimizing the individual systems. Hub motors remove portions of the drive train that account for nearly 10% losses, so if you fully implement the tech to its logical conclusion, the overhead losses disappear.

Sponsored