The car of the future

[I Citro]

splendid, it looks like an aptera whose wings would have grown.

... And the car that makes 20 Kwh / 100 is the size of a car that makes 6 L / 100 ....
No miracle ....

Absolutely. 20 Kwh / 100km is there real consumption from my electric 106 to the power outlet.
It is also the real consumption 106 petrol or diesel.

[Michel Kieffer]

Corrigendum,

How many m2 of solar panel do you need to power an electric vehicle fitted with batteries?

Useful energy for an electric vehicle: an electric vehicle close to the reference vehicle is equipped with approximately 300 kg of batteries (autonomy of the order of a good hundred km with lithium batteries) of batteries weighs approximately 1300 kg + 300 kg - 100 kg of engine (delta between diesel engine and electric motor) = 1500 kg. Therefore, we need about 15% more energy (see note C). The energy useful for moving such an electric vehicle then becomes = 83 MJ (notes A and B) x 1,15 = 95 MJ per cent

Energy to produce to complete 100 km = 95 MJ / 0,7 (note D) = 136 MJ per cent = 1,36 MJ / km

Usage hypothesis, energy required: for example 55 km / day (i.e. 20000 km per year if the user drives every day) requires the production of 1,36 MJ / km x 55 km = 75 MJ to be produced per day

Energy produced per m2 of solar panels: 225 kWh / year (this value seems rather high) = 810 MJ / year = 2,2 MJ / day (given by Christophe) (note E).

How many m2 of solar panel do you need to produce 75 MJ / day (55 km)?
At the rate of 2,2 MJ per m2 per day, we need 75MJ / 2,2MJ = 34 m2 of solar panels

See below the explanation (note F) of the 25m2 obtained by Christophe (the 2 results are correct)

Michel Kieffer (assisted by Christophe, thank you)



Note (for the brave who want to know where the above figures come from):

A - Reference vehicle: car with diesel engine, vehicle mass around 1300 kg:
• Data: assumption of average diesel engine consumption: 6,5 liters per cent; yield 35%; diesel density 0,85; diesel energy 43 MJ / kg; releases: 0,073 kg of CO2 per MJ of diesel fuel (3,16 kg / kg)
• Onboard energy to complete 100 km (U2) = 6,5 liters x0,85x43MJ = 237 MJ

B - Useful energy for the reference vehicle
Motor efficiency = 35% => 'useful energy for displacement = 237x0,35 = 83 MJ per hundred. These 83 MJs are used to accelerate the vehicle, to overcome aerodynamic resistance, rolling resistance and gradients. The rest, 154 GM, is lost.

C - Origin of the coefficient 1,15 above: this coefficient represents the additional power necessary to move 300 kg of batteries - 100 kg of engine (delta between diesel engine and electric motor) = +200 kg. Analogy with a classic car: the consumption of a car increases by around 0,5 liters per hundred per additional 100 kg. Consequence, this 200 kg overweight leads to an increase of 2x0,5 l / 100 = +1 liters per hundred or about + 15% (consumption base: 6,5 l), here is the origin of the coefficient 1,15 above .

D - Overall yield of the “solar production + static storage” x “mobile storage + engine” = 0,84x0,84 = around 70% or 0,7 (see Christophe hypothesis)

E - Energy and power units: see page BD “electricity and CO2” pages 20 21 http://cocyane.chez-alice.fr/pdf/electricite_et_co2.pdf

F - Explanation of the difference with Christophe's 25 m2: 25 m2 corresponds to Christophe's low assumption 0,2 kWh which corresponds for the diesel equivalent vehicle 5,7 liters of diesel per hundred (43 MJ / kg, density 0,85, diesel engine efficiency = 35%). The basis of my calculation is a little different: I started on a consumption of the reference vehicle = 6,5 l per cent plus 15% driven by the additional mass of the batteries. This gives us a ratio = 6,5x1,15 / 5,7 = 1,31; 1,31x25 = 33 m2… so it sticks!

[dirk pitt]

I take the thread of this post to say that I still find it as illogical to take 1500kg for the reference vehicle with electric traction. see the dagne hybrid vehicle to which I was referring which must not weigh more than 700 or 800kg (with the 2 passengers).
I had contact with someone from revolutionmotor. the proto tests give around 42Wh / km but they prefer to advertise 55wh / km on a standardized route in the US (45% highway and 55% city).

moreover, regarding the efficiency of heat engines, an idea has been on my mind for a long time: really measuring what energy at the wheels is necessary for a journey urban or semi urban. I have the very clear impression that in this case there, the necessary energy / km is very weak and that the 6 or 7 liters / 100kms corresponding must make fall the total output of the thermal engine rather on the side of 20% that of 35 %.

in the case of urban or semi-urban journeys, the speeds reached are low reducing the energy due to penetration into the air, all stops are made at yield: 0% and God knows that sometimes they are numerous and long ... The main source of energy consumption is located in the many accelerations (Mass is therefore essential) inevitably followed by braking wasting this precious energy.
remains to support my point with figures but I must manage to do data logging on my vehicle.

[Michel Kieffer]

Why 1300 kg? To compare 2 comparable and representative things of current vehicles.

On the other hand, the comparison between 2 very light vehicles, one electric and the other fossil, remains identical! ... the batteries in addition for the electric version.

The fact remains that a stopped vehicle in a traffic jam is more economical in an electric version in this particular case.

Regards

Michel Kieffer

PS: for urban travel, it's the bike that wins!

[dirk pitt]

To compare 2 comparable and representative things of current vehicles.

Exactly, the current vehicles are what they are because they are of universal use: they are used as well to make the city by unnecessarily moving tons of scrap as to make 1000kms with 5 people + luggage.

if you want to save energy (by obligation when it becomes scarce or expensive) you have to specialize the tools. small urban vehicle AND minivan AND delivery van must be different and suitable for their use.

PS: for urban travel, it's the bike that wins!

there is no question of winning or losing. it's all about a compromise between comfort, price, pleasure, environment, etc.
The bike is well suited in some cases not in others. I don't know about you, but when it rains, I don't take the bike to work.

[Michel Kieffer]

About the prototype “50 wh / km”, what would the same vehicle consume in fossil version?

50 wh / km = 0,18 MJ / km = 18 MJ per cent

Assumption: this car is powered by solar panels *:

Diesel data: 43 MJ / kg; density 0,85; diesel engine efficiency = 35%
Consumption = [(18 / 0,84 (cf. note A) / 0,35) / 43)] = 1,7 liters per hundred! … Taking into account the excess of batteries against the electric, our equivalent diesel vehicle should be close to 1,5 liters per hundred.

Clearly, we redid a "RENAULT VESTA" in much better (possible but not won at all, see http://cocyane.chez-alice.fr/pdf/voiture_2litres.pdf). Remember, whether electric * or fossil, this super car we all dream of will be infinitely better than our current "tanks".

… How about we start there?

Michel Kieffer


* BUT: in an electric version with our current production, predominantly largely fossil, for a very very long time (see http://cocyane.chez-alice.fr/pdf/electricite_et_co2.pdf), the “CO2 + nuclear waste + battery waste” assessment is disastrous for the electric version!

Note A - Overall yield of the “solar production + static storage” x “mobile storage + motor” = 0,84x0,84 = around 70% or 0,7 (see Christophe hypothesis). In our case, we therefore take 0,84.

[Christophe]

1)

Cost of kWh PV = 40 US cents today in 2009 (PV is the most expensive of the ENR)
EV with consumption of 20 kWh per 100km = electric cost of $ 8 per 100km
+ $ 3 per 100 km for the battery
8 + 3 = 11$

Cost with gasoline car in the USA (low taxed gasoline): $ 8 every 100km (12 cents / mile)

Excluding tax for the PV yes it is "profitable" provided you have enough to invest (installation + car) and that the State accepts ...

In Europe all the more since the mechanical (useful) kWh of fossil origin (say 1.2 € / L) is, at best, with a yield of 30%, at 1.2 / 3 = 0.36 € / kWh.

Compare with 0.23 € / kWh ...

... but it is all the same a calculation which is not fair because it does not include road taxes for PV ... And so for the moment, the governments have no interest in favoring an energy efficient road. photovoltaic origin ... because it is not measurable and therefore "uncontrollable" ... fiscally speaking of course!

We are saying that taxing fossil fuels is really good for bringing out sustainable solutions.

Toutafé but on condition that the "sustainable" solution does not survive the cost of tax exemption or worse subsidy ...

Look at the state of biofuel factories in Germany (end of tax exemption) ... it will also come for France and the farce of 1st generation biofuels will emerge. In the meantime, some investors have taken advantage of our taxes ...

2) Otherwise you are right: it is the car that must be re (conceived) to obtain 0.05 kWh / km instead of 0.2 kWh / km provided that the design / manufacturing price remains reasonable!

Indeed; looking "behind us", I am very pessimistic on this point: No serious alternative vehicle to the big manufacturers has ever seen the light of day in a lasting and other way than toys at € 30 for the rich in lack of feeling ...

We will not expand on the reasons for these failures (it's not the ideas that are missing) but it still appeals to me strongly ... but let's not forget that the cleanest car is the one that remains in the garage (no pun intended ...) or better at the factory !!

Citro is you who also has an electric scooter I think. What is its actual consumption? You already said it but I'm too lazy to look ...

[Michel Kieffer]

Origin of the internal tax on petroleum products (TIPP), extracted from an economics lesson of the 80s:

The primary goal of the TIPP is to stimulate fuel economy by artificially making a product too cheap (the objective was not ecological but aimed to limit imports, balance of payments requires)

Consequence: at identical GDP, a European consumes 2,5 times less than an American (no TIPP at home).

Let’s remove the TIPP and replace it with another tax (we sound at constant budget) and what’s going on? The consumption increases (we are getting closer to the US consumption), the prices increase and finally the price at the pump returns to its initial price. It remains to take stock:
- 100% of the HT price goes to the producing countries (whereas with the TIPP, half of the cost stayed with us)
- in the absence of TIPP, our taxes increase (we reason at a constant state budget)
- pollution increases in proportion to our new consumption (cf. USA, is there no reason!) ”

Clearly, we are 3 times losers!

As for solar energy, without being either "solar apostle" or "sunscreen", we note that the TIPP speech above no longer makes any sense: whether the tax is taken by TIPP or by n ' no matter what other tax, it's the same!

In conclusion, long live the TIPP on fossil fuels! (and thank you to my former teachers)

Michel Kieffer

[RIAZ]

Alas, three times alas, Dirk Pitt the comparison made by Michel KIEFER is not insane ...

So look what we are trying to sell us (and which you may have already seen) as the pinnacle of modernity ...


To find out more, it's here:
http://www.leblogauto.com/2008/01/meganes-electriques-better-place-les-photos-officielles.html
It has been postponed to 2011 perhaps. Phew, we may have some chances of escaping!

This is the so-called "reference" car by Michel KIEFER.

No wonder, it's the same self-proclaimed genius in the automotive industry who thought it was great to release the KOLEOS when 4x4s piled up in the parking lots of American manufacturers ...

The flair I tell you, the flair .....

[Christophe]

Uh I don't have the same figures at all: EU 17 / USA 12 we are far from 2.5! cf. https://www.econologie.com/forums/petrole-et ... t5022.html



India is doing better than France ... interesting isn't it?