Or a bet on hybrids. Hybrids enable new types of engines that for instance operate at constant rate or that are under-powered for acceleration from a stop or going uphill.
I bet on plugin hybrids, specifically ones with large batteries. This seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I think the Voltec drivetrain shows what's possible here. Pure EV purists dislike PHEVs because they have the complexity of an ICE car + an EV car, but I think there's some serious advantages. Like you say, Atkinson cycle for electricity generation for when the battery drains beyond smaller commute ranges. Something like this new Mazda engine in that context would make quite a bit of sense for overall fuel efficiency.
> because they have the complexity of an ICE car + an EV car,
The irony being that most don't. For example, hybrid synergy drive is basically an alternate transmission design that replaces the complex clutch packs used to control Ravigneaux planetary gears with electric motors. The result is a more simple overall design.
Other systems are literally just beefed up starters.
I agree. The Volt to me is a beautiful piece of engineering, and the ICE system is actually simpler than a regular ICE car _because_ of the presence of the EV side of the car, which compliments it.
I think it's more of a political thing -- if you've made the argument that "ICE = pollution = bad" then it's hard to turn around and say "but a little bit of ICE to extend range is good."
The battery + electric motor adds so much good -- regenerative braking, electric torque, good city driving experience, it really feels like every car that is now an ICE should be a hybrid, even if just a "soft" hybrid with no plug, like a Prius.
> Pure EV purists dislike PHEVs because they have the complexity of an ICE car + an EV car, but I think there's some serious advantages.
I would imagine most the complaints are for when the ICE actually powers a drivetrain. If it's essentially a generator to keep the batteries from depleting too far, that's not much extra complexity it all. Have a problem with the generator? Just swap it out with a new or rebuilt one from some vendor (if designed well such that you can do so). I'm seeing that a Tesla uses about 300 Watts a mile @ 55 Mph.[1] Honda seems to have generators much more than capable of supplying that need for under $1000.[2] I'm not familiar enough with electric systems to know how accurate that assessment is (whether the voltage requirements complicate it, for example), but that seems promising. Then again, I imagine if it was really that easy, Tesla would have put a generator charge hookup and exhaust ventilation capabilities in the trunk already.
Edit: Hmm, I'm definitely missing something, since the $1000 generator says it can go 8.1 hours on a gallon of gas, and it doesn't seem likely for that to translate into powering a Tesla for 8 hours of travel.
This is nonsense. The dimensions are wrong. Watts are instantaneous power. To be meaningful, you would have to give either kWh/h or kWh per mile or km.
Besides that 300 W is only 0.4 hp. Sorry, but that is just not credible.
Not to dispute your claim that it's low, but the physics checks out.
The cited link saves me explaining it:
>Reports are 300 W/mile at 55 mph. If you do the product of these two numbers (300 * 55) all units but W will cancell eachother out so the answer is 16500 W = 16.5kW
The time component being on the mph allows the conversion.
No. 300 Watts / mile * 55 mile / hour leaves you with 16500 Watts / hour, which is a non-sensical unit.
On the other hand, using the correct units (300Wh/mile):
300 Watt * hour / mile * 55 mile / hour = 16500 Watts [a sensible unit] (or about 22 horsepower which is reasonable for a steady 55mph cruise).
Do that for an hour, and you get 16.5kWh of energy consumption and cover 55 miles, for an energy efficiency of 3.33 miles/kWh, which is in the ballpark (albeit low) for what my LEAF delivers (averaging a bit over 4 miles/kWh at average speeds somewhat lower than 55 mph)
Yeah. I expect the unit being used is 300 Watt-hours. IOW: (300 Wh/mi 55mi/h) =16500 W, or 16.5 kW. Which actually sounds about reasonable, being 22 horsepower.
From what I read about HCCI engines (the brand-neutral name for the general engine concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneous_charge_compression... ) I suspect that they are not easily operated over a power band as wide as conventional gasoline or diesel engines. If that is the tradeoff, they could be a perfect match for hybrids.
I don't think hybrids have any future except in the heaviest of vehicles, where batteries won't make sense for another few decades.
We're already seeing companies being interested in making battery-only buses, tractors, semis, and even airplanes. Not all models of those types of vehicles may work with batteries, but it's a sign of what the future could bring.
Total individual perspective here, but my dad took me on his worksite like 15 years ago to see the big super gorram awesome trucks (seriously those things are HUGE). When I asked about the engines, he said the trucks had massive diesel generators that powered motors, that in turn powered the wheels and hydraulics. So in a way, lots of construction equipment has kind of already been "hybrid."
An electric power transmission is hardly hybrid. You just have two extra conversions in your transmission, mechanical to electric and electric back to mechanical.
The diesel-electric system used in Locomotives and heavy off-road mining trucks are literally examples of series hybrids. You may be objecting to ththe lack of battery storage, which isn't useful in those applications.
battery only buses make sense because the bug needs to run over rush hour and then can sit all do to charge. Battery operated tractors do not make sense without vastly better batteries because a tractor needs to run for 16 hours at max power (500hp). Sustaining 400000 kw for 16 hours is not easy. For semis and airplanes you need to consider your use: for short in town loads/short flights batteries can work, for longer distances we don't have the battery technology today to make it work.
Someone once told me battery technology has 2-3 more doubling left and then we hit chemical limits and cannot get more out of them. If this is correct batteries can never do the longer distances, but I don't know if it is correct.
> battery technology has 2-3 more doubling left and then we hit chemical limits and cannot get more out of them
We still have energy cells which are essentially bateries that you charge by pouring in some fluids just like in a regular car. However the tech is not mature enough yet.
While I don't believe hybrids will survive in the long run, I think that hybrids (and plug-in hybrids specifically) will play important role in transition period of passenger cars (use EV in cities, use gasoline if you want to go >100 km, refuel whenever you want).
A have Toyota Auris with hybrid synergy drive and even though it has really small battery (so it costs less than $25000 including tax), I am able to ride through small town using EV mode only and then use ICE between towns. My mileage is 4.4 l/100 km which is ~53.5 miles per gallon and I'm driving in city most of the time.