Pure BEV Dogma

[rolosrevenge]

As some of you may know, I work as a VP at a Canadian electric utility, and we are gearing up to actively promote and support EV adoption. We have Volts in our fleets and refer to them as electric vehicles, or range-extended electric vehicles (not "hybrids" or "plug-in hybrids"). This debate is interesting in these circles, but we have to simplify it for the consumer. The Volt runs via an electric motor, and as I understand it, the only time the gas engine ever directly powers the car is when the battery is fully depleted and the car is being driven over (something like) 70 MPH. In simplified terms for Joe Consumer, it is an electric vehicle with a generator on board. Too many subtleties and nuances is just going to make what is already difficult for consumers to understand even more difficult.

From a utility perspective the difference between a PHEV and an EV is huge, since one has a backup generator it means that it can perform additional services to the grid under a V2G scenario. Also, if it doesn't get charged, the person can still drive it. As a V2G researcher, I'd want customers to recognize this difference should they ever sign up for a V2G program.

 

[gregincal]

I totally disagree that the Volt needs more all electric range. If you are going to have an EREV plug in hybrid, then you carefully choose the electric range to balance cost, weight and life.
If 90% of total miles driven in Volts today really are electric, then I think they have done a great job of balancing the equation.
If they increased the electric range by 50% and the electric miles went up to 95% that is probably a very bad trade. When battery energy density improves, they should reduce the size of the battery while keeping the same range and get the 3rd seat back in the car so that it is a 5 seater.

I don't agree with that. Even if 90% of Volt miles are electric that's just because it was only purchased by people who's needs were met by the range. With a 70 mile round trip commute and no way to charge at work the Volt was a complete non-starter for me. Increased range increases the market opportunity. Ideally you do it like Tesla and offer different versions to people with different needs.

I prefer to carry around extra battery and not an extra ICE.

I certainly agree with that, but we did pay a premium to be able to do that.

 

[richkae]

I don't agree with that. Even if 90% of Volt miles are electric that's just because it was only purchased by people who's needs were met by the range. With a 70 mile round trip commute and no way to charge at work the Volt was a complete non-starter for me. Increased range increases the market opportunity. Ideally you do it like Tesla and offer different versions to people with different needs.

I think the Volt would be a suitable car for the vast majority of drivers in the US ( I think BEVs are better for most of them ). I bet that the additional market served by a 70 mile EV range EREV versus a 40 mile EV range EREV is very tiny and not worth going after - at least its not the highest priority market I would target right now.
People in that category should probably buy a regular hybrid or a real long range EV. The more you drive the more compelling the economics of a BEV are, you just lose flexibility. With a regular 70 mile round trip, the economics of a BEV should be very compelling.

 

[JRP3]

Last I knew Volt EV only driving was a little over 60%, so there is certainly a case to be made for a larger battery pack.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1077801_if-63-of-volt-miles-are-electric-isnt-it-an-electric-car

 

[mknox]

From a utility perspective the difference between a PHEV and an EV is huge, since one has a backup generator it means that it can perform additional services to the grid under a V2G scenario. Also, if it doesn't get charged, the person can still drive it. As a V2G researcher, I'd want customers to recognize this difference should they ever sign up for a V2G program.

First things first. We need to get people comfortable with electric vehicle technology first, before we start complicating things with V2G. Some Ontario electric utilities are, in fact, experimenting with V2G, but I think it's far too early to push that in to the mainstream yet. Chevrolet is doing some interesting DSM work through OnStar, but this is more of interest to us utility guys than the general public.

As a 34 year utility vet and EV owner, I'm not even sure I'd want to be sacrificing my finite number of charge/discharge cycles by participating in V2G.

 

[rolosrevenge]

But if you only had to burn a bit of gas to make a profit and keep the lights on, then no harm done, hence the very big difference between the PHEV and the EV.

 

[mknox]

But if you only had to burn a bit of gas to make a profit and keep the lights on, then no harm done, hence the very big difference between the PHEV and the EV.

Here in Ontario, we do have Feed in Tariff programs, but only renewable sources of generation are eligible. Further, environmental laws often preclude running fossil fuel generators for all but emergency backup purposes. V2H (Vehicle to Home) as opposed to grid-tied solutions are another matter, and some individuals may be interested in that. I think, though, if I was going to use an ICE as backup to my home, I'd rather use a purpose-built gasoline or natural gas genset.

I see a market down the road for re-purposed used EV batteries as either residential or grid-scale storage, which would be useful for demand management and for buffering intermittent renewables like solar and wind. EV batteries that have lost 20 or 30% of their capacity are still good candidates for stationary storage where size and weight are not as much of an issue.

 

[richkae]

First things first. We need to get people comfortable with electric vehicle technology first, before we start complicating things with V2G. Some Ontario electric utilities are, in fact, experimenting with V2G, but I think it's far too early to push that in to the mainstream yet. Chevrolet is doing some interesting DSM work through OnStar, but this is more of interest to us utility guys than the general public.

As a 34 year utility vet and EV owner, I'm not even sure I'd want to be sacrificing my finite number of charge/discharge cycles by participating in V2G.

As an EV owner what I really think would be great from the utilities is real time communication between my car and the grid and smarter charging.

If I plug in my car at work at 8AM and I want the battery full by 5PM, I would like the car/EVSE to talk to the grid and decide when to suck juice. I don't care when during that 9 hour period it sucks juice - just as long as it is done by 5PM.
At a small scale my building should be doing something like this already before it can have 100s of EVs in the parking garage. If I had 100 EVs plug in at 8AM it would be stupid for them all to pull 6kW = 600kW for a couple of hours and then nothing the rest of the day.
Right now that is handled by having only 3 EVSEs and people have to shuffle their cars - but that is extremely stupid. One of the reasons I like big battery BEVs is that I don't have to play plug shuffle. If I had a PHEV I would be tempted to waste my time with that until I got frustrated and stopped - wasting the advantage of my PHEV.
With a 100 J1772 plugs a master controller could decide when and where to distribute the power, but without a way for the cars to communicate their desires ( except by sucking juice when the pilot signal is present ) to the EVSE it would have to be a stupid system - but better than moving the cars around.
A really smart system would communicate all the way back to the grid to tell it how much energy it wants to draw and how long a window it has to get it.

I would be perfectly happy for all this to happen at home too. There should be no human interaction with utility rate schedules. I plug the car in at home and tell it I want it full at 7AM, then the car talks to the utility and figures out when to draw juice.

 

[mknox]

As an EV owner what I really think would be great from the utilities is real time communication between my car and the grid and smarter charging.

What you describe is being worked on, and there could be some real benefits to both consumers and the utility. OnStar is working on something like this through their Smart Grid Developer Network, but of course that is limited to GM vehicles right now. Ideally, EV charging could be scheduled to balance the load on the grid and even take advantage of renewables by scheduling when renewables are in surplus (wind power is predominant at night, which is perfect for EV and battery storage). EVSE makers are also building equipment that can be upgraded with utility communications equipment for this purpose as well.

 

[richkae]

What you describe is being worked on, and there could be some real benefits to both consumers and the utility. OnStar is working on something like this through their Smart Grid Developer Network, but of course that is limited to GM vehicles right now. Ideally, EV charging could be scheduled to balance the load on the grid and even take advantage of renewables by scheduling when renewables are in surplus (wind power is predominant at night, which is perfect for EV and battery storage). EVSE makers are also building equipment that can be upgraded with utility communications equipment for this purpose as well.

Unfortunately there is nothing ( that I know of, please correct me if I am wrong ) in the J1772 spec that would allow the car to tell the EVSE its intentions.

 

[JRP3]

As a 34 year utility vet and EV owner, I'm not even sure I'd want to be sacrificing my finite number of charge/discharge cycles by participating in V2G.

The small amount of shallow cycling involved would not have any noticeable impact on pack life, nor would simple charge throttling.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Putting the plugin Prius (which most people will use with a combination of gas and electricity) in the same bucket as the BMW i3 with the same or more all electric range than a Nissan Leaf and an optional motorcycle engine that will rarely get used seems silly to me.

Not silly at all to me. PHEV tells the buyer immediately in a very clear way that the car can use both gasoline and external electricity. The AER rating of the car will tell the driver how much EV range is available. There's nothing unclear about this. The original proposal was PHEVxx where xx is the number of AER, but the whole EREV thing meant this idea was thrown out.

For cars that do use gas during their CD mode, you can have the amount of gas used per mile on the label (which is what the EPA does). Even for the PHEV that uses MOST gas in CD mode (the PiP), it's only 0.2 gallons per 100 miles (or 500mpg).

Personally, if they want to use EREV as a subcategory of PHEV, that's fine by me as long as the consumer knows what it means. But right now the "definition" is kind of mixed with different acronyms as represented by the Volt (EREV), Karma (EVER), and i3 REx, all of which have extremely different operation.

If fleet wide 90% of the miles driven in Volts are electric miles, then it's 90% an electric car (I don't know whether that's true, has somebody come up with a statistic?).

If a PiP drives 90% electric miles then is it a 90% "electric car"? (Alternatively you can measure the kWh and gas usage for more accuracy). Does it really matter if the electric miles have a tiny bit of gas mixed in (which apparently can also happen for the Volt)? And in the Energi case it won't even use gas in highway usage as long as you keep speeds under 85mph.

 

[GSP]

The 2011 Volt's "electric miles," as reported on the center stack when you shut the car off, do not include any gasoline usage. If the engine runs for any reason, the miles are reported as "gas miles."

In the 2011 car, it has switched to CS mode when I am about 1/2 mile from home. I coast and drive very slowly, so that CS mode does not start the engine. On arrival I confirmed the engine did not start by touching the exhaust manifold and catalytic converter. They were stone cold. The car reported this as "gas miles" with "0.00 gal used."

The 2013 Volt may be different. I'd like to get one and find out (but I'd rather have a Model S).

GSP

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately there is nothing ( that I know of, please correct me if I am wrong ) in the J1772 spec that would allow the car to tell the EVSE its intentions.

The new SAE J1772-DC recommended practice includes power line communications as a separate "J-spec". It likely has the necessary communications defined. if not, they could be easily added.

GSP

- - - Updated - - -

First things first. We need to get people comfortable with electric vehicle technology first, before we start complicating things with V2G. Some Ontario electric utilities are, in fact, experimenting with V2G, but I think it's far too early to push that in to the mainstream yet. Chevrolet is doing some interesting DSM work through OnStar, but this is more of interest to us utility guys than the general public.

As a 34 year utility vet and EV owner, I'm not even sure I'd want to be sacrificing my finite number of charge/discharge cycles by participating in V2G.

As richake points out, unidirectional V2G, as proposed by rolosrevenge elsewhere, has none of these drawbacks, and possibly real benefits to utilities. With enough EVs, spinning reserves could be eliminated by taking the EVs off charge immediately while firing up a generator.

GSP

 

[mknox]

Unfortunately there is nothing ( that I know of, please correct me if I am wrong ) in the J1772 spec that would allow the car to tell the EVSE its intentions.

The proposed implementations I have seen involve communications directly between the EVSE (wall "charger") and the utility. Sometimes via cellular data connection and sometimes via a Zigbee connection to a Smart Meter (we can control demand response devices and home automation equipment that way right now).

- - - Updated - - -

As richake points out, unidirectional V2G, as proposed by rolosrevenge elsewhere, has none of these drawbacks, and possibly real benefits to utilities. With enough EVs, spinning reserves could be eliminated by taking the EVs off charge immediately while firing up a generator.

I get the benefits to the utility... trust me. We are already pretty far down the road with both residential and commercial/industrial demand response programs right now. I'm saying as an EV owner, I'm not sure I want my personal property being utilized that way unless I'm richly rewarded.

 

[Vexar]

Look, in the grand scheme of things, hybrids remind me of those "missing link" creatures we were told about in grade school. You know, part reptile, part bird, and lousy at being either. Think of it another way: the TV/VCR combos. They were cheaply-constructed and made of shoddy parts. They also frequently ate tapes, or the tapes got stuck in them. When someone says "hybrid car," I immediately conjure a mental image of a car with a VCR slot that's covered in feathers but can't fly.

Step forward in the narrative chronology with me: we have birds. Whatever birds were before, if you believe that sort of thing, they sucked at being birds.
Now, we have televisions which play content off the internet (netflix et al). No more stuck tapes.

As for cars? 10 years from now, the only people clutching onto petrol-anything vehicles are the ones that can't make electric work for them: no engine notes, no "cylinder index" to feel all macho over, and no funny smells. Electric cars will be more affordable when battery prices plummet (catch the news about the Lithium deposit they just found in Wyoming?) or other charge storage technologies step in on the electric platform. If we see a 500-mile range Model S in 5 years, we will see electric garbage trucks, long haul freight trucks, and so forth, in my lifetime. Heck, I can even imagine those "taco lunch wagons" being electric 10 years from now.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I get the benefits (of V2G) to the utility... trust me. We are already pretty far down the road with both residential and commercial/industrial demand response programs right now. I'm saying as an EV owner, I'm not sure I want my personal property being utilized that way unless I'm richly rewarded.

Forget V2G until batteries are cheap and proven. If they wanted, utilities could do "B2G" and have batteries designed for the purpose. But they don't because it's too expensive. Plus, given all the talk of re-using lithium car batteries (because they're expensive to make and expensive to recycle) V2G may just end up describing how the cells move at end-of-automotive-use.

For now, I would prefer an emphasis on G2V. That is, smartly-managed charging. No extra cycling of the battery would occur and it could still provide useful grid management.

 

[JRP3]

I get the benefits to the utility... trust me. We are already pretty far down the road with both residential and commercial/industrial demand response programs right now. I'm saying as an EV owner, I'm not sure I want my personal property being utilized that way unless I'm richly rewarded.

You aren't understanding what he's talking about. Charge throttling simply means the grid can reduce your charge rate or stop charging your vehicle for short periods to help with FR or load leveling. They can already do this crudely with brownouts or blackouts, so allowing them to do so in a more controlled manner benefits all.

 

[mknox]

You aren't understanding what he's talking about. Charge throttling simply means the grid can reduce your charge rate or stop charging your vehicle for short periods to help with FR or load leveling. They can already do this crudely with brownouts or blackouts, so allowing them to do so in a more controlled manner benefits all.

No, that's a different thing V2G means "vehicle to grid" and that is where an EV battery can discharge and supply power back to the utility under a feed in tariff or net metered scenario. Re-reading GSP's post, he says "unidirectional V2G" so perhaps he meant Demand Response.

DR (demand response) allows a utility to throttle or curtail load based on grid conditions, and I already manage a number DR programs at my utility. At the residential level, we can issue DR calls to enrolled central air conditioners, and adding scheduling to EV chargers would be relatively easy to do. I can issue DR calls to enrolled devices via our Smart Meters (we are 100% deployed with Smart Meters) via Zigbee SEP, and all it would take is EVSE with Zigbee communications to facilitate this.

I would not be opposed to utility DR on my EVSE as long as I had some sort of override capability and as long as an attractive rate or rebate is offered.

 

[GSP]

Yes I did mean a demand response system by "uni-directional V2G." Rolosrevenge wrote an IEEE paper on the concept. I need to breakdown and buy a copy. It still is kind of "V2G" since there is bidirectional flow of information from car to utility, or aggregator, and back.

I program my Volt to "charge based on departure time." It always is done at 5:30 AM every day. I usually would not care when the car and utility negotiated the charging to occur, at at what charging current, as long as it is done by 5:30. However, I would like to turn the demand response off in the winter when I want the pack to be warm when I leave.

GSP

 

[JRP3]

You should be able to heat the pack independently of charging, and a warm thermal mass should be immune to minor fluctuations.