Range Extenders. What's your take?

[W3H5]

It's come to a point now where EVs are becoming part of motoring life. The problem noted by many is the range of these vehicles on a single charge and the cost of technologies manufactured into these vehicles to extend the mileage.

Many companies now are adding range-extenders to their EV lines to improve range, usually in the form of a small I.C.E to charge the batteries.

Lotus Engineering have just released a cheaper form of R.E in the shape of a 1.2ltr, 47bhp I.C.E which will charge the batteries and have no involvement in powering wheels directly.

What's your take on this?
Is it the way forward for EVs or is it just another gimmick from the motor industry so that they appear to be making progress towards cleaner transport?

 

[Omnis]

Just bolt this to the front of your leaf broe.

Call it a Stem.

 

[W3H5]

In all honesty I don't believe electric cars are 'green' or the future which makes range extender tech a pointless exercise. I'm sure on of those generators could be used to power an electric motor battery using old fryer oil. Cheaper and more efficient.

 

[niky]

Electric and hybrid vehicles have the potential to be greener than conventional ICE vehicles... but conventional ICE vehicles also have the potential to be greener than themselves, given the right fuel.

I've always liked Lotus's range-extender plan. To create an engine that's very light, very fuel efficient, and specifically tuned as a generator.

If I recall right, the engine was designed with a one-piece head-and-block, too.

If they really can get 150 mpg in range-extender mode, this would be superior to the Volt, which has been surprisingly un-economical in range-extender mode because of the engine used... put the Lotus in something like that, with a smaller battery pack or capacitor bank, and you have the next step in hybrid/electric technology... and possibly cheap enough for ordinary motorists.

 

[W3H5]

Electric and hybrid vehicles have the potential to be greener than conventional ICE vehicles

A potential that has yet to be realised. The cost of manufacture for just the batteries is on par with if not exceeding the cost of manufacturing an ICE currently. Because of the distance involved that the parts need to travel I think, in the build possess at least, normal fossil fuel cars will always be considered more viable until the EV production line becomes more efficient itself.

Range extenders are a good idea but show little chance of actually swaying opinions away from conventional engines.

Is there a thread in existence about EVs? If not maybe I should change the title because I'm sure it's something many people have an opinion on, be it for or against.

 

[Philly]

I think if EV's are going to be the future, then these range extenders are going to be the way to go for now. There is still a long ways to go before electrics can be good cars for longer trips, and the range anxiety will probably hold sales back at first. I used to see Volts all over the place on the rural interstates in Michigan, so they do get used.

 

[W3H5]

This may be a bit in the wrong direction, but, most daily drives (in the UK and China at least) are in the average saloon with only one person in it. I'm aware that people have family and friends, but, aside from getting a motorcycle there are other ways to rectify this problem.

My idea. Take the wheel base of an original Mini, add a 600cc motorcycle engine/ regular electric engine, replace the gearbox with that of a 1.4 Zetec, bolt on a light weight fibreglass monocoque body that stays within the are of the wheels. One comfy seat in the middle and lots of other light weight parts like steering rack, suspension......

I've got sketches of a similar thing I designed years ago for my application to RR, they told me it was something that wouldn't happen for decades yet we are seeing cars of this manor appearing at motor show present day.

 

[niky]

Unfortunately, government regulations seem intent on nerfing such things. In the UK, there used to be a way to register such vehicles... but in most countries, four-wheeled vehicles that light are not road-legal or highway-legal.

The easiest way to do it is to register such vehicles as low-speed vehicles (in the US).

There are a number of low-displacement vehicles like you're talking about available. Heck, there are even some with smaller engines (Matiz clones with 250-500cc bike engines), but they're not globally sellable.

I've driven a 250cc four-seat car. 80 km/h is about as fast as it can go... but not without heat problems.

 

[W3H5]

I agree that most of the current options aren't in the running with the current standard of vehicles. I'm really surprised that major companies haven't gone down this route, after all, they are the ones who tend to sway the government legislation.

I really feel that the need to revolutionise the way we travel has come. Cities are over whelmed with cars and fuel is becoming more expensive. EV could provide an alternative future for motoring but they have a long way to go.

A good example of what I believe is the future of motoring is this.

 

[homeforsummer]

Is there a thread in existence about EVs?

Several...

- Electric cars - what's the big deal?
- Electric vehicles
- Alternative fuels discussion thread

I agree that most of the current options aren't in the running with the current standard of vehicles. I'm really surprised that major companies haven't gone down this route, after all, they are the ones who tend to sway the government legislation.

What you're essentially describing is very similar to the quadricycle idea. In the right hands (Renault with the Twizy) it can turn out to be a very good concept. In the wrong ones (Reva with the Gwiz) it's an automotive abortion.

The funny thing is that the Twizy will cost the same as the Gwiz. It has fewer seats and doesn't have proper doors, but it's a vastly better engineered product and shows what a major manufacturer can do when they put their minds to it.

The trouble of course is that what you're describing is something that most people simply wouldn't want to drive.

People have got used to their creature comforts now and pushing them into short wheelbase, single seat, motorcycle powered devices isn't something that most people want. Even if it's cheap.

I really feel that the need to revolutionise the way we travel has come. Cities are over whelmed with cars and fuel is becoming more expensive. EV could provide an alternative future for motoring but they have a long way to go.

True, EVs aren't there yet but the heavy criticism they get is confusing, because everyone seems to assume that manufacturers are able to come straight into the market with something no different than the ICE cars we've been driving for a hundred years. In some ways they can, but necessity is the mother of invention and we've not had the battery necessity until now.

Really, the way to do it properly is actually the route some of the small, independent companies are doing - with fresh ideas. Think Tesla, who don't have the need to produce a dozen different regular cars distracting them from the business of EVs.

A good example of what I believe is the future of motoring is this.

The T27 is a very clever idea and one I'm behind, but it's also just a regular electric car. A cleverly designed one, but the main USP of the T27 is the production method rather than the car itself.

As for the idea of the thread, range-extended vehicles:

I think they're a very good idea indeed.

Why? Well, what's peoples' main concern about full battery electric vehicles? Range. Even if they never do more than 20 miles a day, people like to think they can, just like people who buy Range Rovers like the go-anywhere ability even if the most they ever mount is a kerb.

Cars like the Chevy Volt (which I've driven) work very, very well. For the vast majority of people it has all the range they ever need in electric mode (with all the favourable driving characteristics like utter smoothness, torque from zero revs etc), but removes "range anxiety" because when you've exhausted 40 miles on EV you can just carry on.

Potential for brilliant economy too. One Chevy engineer who bought a Volt has done 1,500 miles and used only half a gallon of gas, because he's not yet done a long enough journey to go into range-extended mode and the only time the engine has turned on has been for "maintenance mode". So essentially, he's done 3,000mpg so far. Obviously not everyone will get that, but I think I'd be quite happy never using the ICE, but having it ready and waiting for when I want to make an impromptu 200 mile trip is pretty handy.

In my view then, range-extended cars are the perfect interim step for a lot of people. Price excepted of course, but as with anything else it'll get steadily more affordable.

 

[W3H5]

homeforsummer

I agree with what you say, and the mileage of that Volt has to go somewhere to proving the favour of EVs.

My step-mother sells motorcycles from here in CQ, we're famous for it, and some companies have produced E-bikes in hybrid and/or with range extenders. The basis for it never took off because (commuter) motorcycles usually return good mileage and the extenders were CNG ICE which, however useful in parts of Asia, would never make mainstream markets around the world. The idea of a CNG ICE for powering a battery on the go may be another road to go down as the production and emissions of CNG are less than that of oil.

 

[homeforsummer]

CNG is still a fossil fuel though, so every environmental concern basically still applies. The vast majority of CNG is extracted whilst extracting oil, so it also has all the political problems of drilling for oil.

And am I not right in thinking that electric scooters still sell in the hundreds of thousands every year in China? I wouldn't like to imagine what city centre air quality would be like if those extra millions of vehicles were all ICE...

 

[W3H5]

You are right, the sell by the container load. The problem is becoming space.
Due to the over crowding in many cities residents live in high-rise blocks, without a removable battery there is no way to charge the thing.

Another problem, one that I've encountered myself, is that E-bikes cannot manage an incline of more than 40% with any ease. Many cities in China are mountainous like the one I live in and therefore pose a major problem for E-bike owners.

I wonder if any of the major companies have thought about induction charging as a range extender? Using strips of conductive metal along the centre of a highway lane to charge while the car is in motion. Obviously it would be difficult to implement but it's an idea, actually one that I borrowed from a recent Top Gear.

 

[homeforsummer]

The problem with that idea is infrastructure. To have an effective induction charging system it would cost literally billions to do even a fraction of the roads.

Inductive charging is much more likely to be a parking space deal. A plate embedded in spaces would charge the vehicle whilst you were doing your parking, no plugs required. Again expensive, but far, far less so than doing all the roads, and it would be at the discretion of whoever ran the car park.

Never really worth absorbing ideas from Top Gear as they never really think them through...

 

[W3H5]

I wrote a piece a long time ago for a magazine about the possibilities of charging vehicles while in office car parks or super markets and such. I seemed to me that if the tech for inductive charging was available and used in production of the EVs then major companies with large parking areas would utilise this method as marketing tool for bringing in customers who required the facilities.

It's not quite range extension but could be considered so if it was implemented at service stations/ break stops around major highways where people travelling can take a few hours to grab some food, get a rest and power up the car at the same time. It would, under that circumstance, become a range extending technology.

 

[homeforsummer]

That's pushing the boundaries of the definition though, since you could then call gas stations "range extenders" for regular cars. It's literally correct but that's not the definition of a range-extended vehicle. Range-extended vehicles carry their generator on-board. Any type of charging infrastructure, whether inductive charging or a charging point, are just that - chargers. They're not "extending" your range, they're giving you more energy on which to travel, just like fuelling a regular car.

 

[niky]

There is the possibility of generating CNG from landfill methane or even through biogas production. The hurdle being the quality and purity of gas from either of these sources, and whether there's enough to satisfy consumer needs.

-

Personally, the biggest problem with electrics is not quite the range... as most target users will never get close to the edge of that on their daily trips, but the up-front and recurring costs of batteries. Not an inconsequential problem in places like China and the rest of the world that isn't the US, the UK and Japan.

 

[Jim Prower]

Well, as far as landfill methane goes, why not make stainless fuel lines, ECU/Carb retunes, and injector kits available with a tax credit, and start offering Methanol at fuel stations? Flex-Fuel vehicles would already be set. I mean, if it's been good enough for Indy for years...

 

[Robin]

My opinion depends on what type of range extender system it is,

If its one which simply charges the battery, take some systems off the engine then I think its slightly a gimmick because its not doing anything substantial.

If its one which actually drives the car properly and totally on electric for the first X miles then the petrol kicks in I think they are a good idea.

In any case all these technologies are just a stop gap to ween us off fuel, the true future system will be hydrogen because it has all the speed and convenience we are used to.

Robin.

 

[homeforsummer]

Well, as far as landfill methane goes, why not make stainless fuel lines, ECU/Carb retunes, and injector kits available with a tax credit, and start offering Methanol at fuel stations? Flex-Fuel vehicles would already be set. I mean, if it's been good enough for Indy for years...

Methanol is a good idea, but as with virtually everything else it still has a few problems.

One is creating the stuff as in common with any alcohol, the raw materials will need land space to grow, and that takes away land from things like food production - it's the reason that biofuels are not fantastic in every respect as, for example, for the sort of quantities we require most farmland would have to be dedicated to rapeseed, rather than food...

The other would be converting older vehicles, as methanol can be pretty nasty on things like old rubber.

On the plus side, methanol is a waste product from various types of bacteria, so theoretically we could cultivate those to produce methanol in larger quantities.

My opinion depends on what type of range extender system it is,

If its one which simply charges the battery, take some systems off the engine then I think its slightly a gimmick because its not doing anything substantial.

If its one which actually drives the car properly and totally on electric for the first X miles then the petrol kicks in I think they are a good idea.

The Chevy Volt does both of those... in fact, pretty much any range-extended car involves both of those processes.

In any case all these technologies are just a stop gap to ween us off fuel, the true future system will be hydrogen because it has all the speed and convenience we are used to.

Hydrogen really, really isn't a good option and probably won't be for far longer than it will take us to develop suitable electric cars.

I think I might bring this up every time someone mentions hydrogen and eventually everyone will get it, but more energy has to be used in the process of extracting hydrogen from water than you get back using it as a fuel in a fuel cell. All you're doing then is adding an extra and entirely un-environmentally friendly step into the chain of getting energy from a power station into a car.

The other method of extracting hydrogen at the moment? By capturing it when drilling for oil. In which case you've not improved anything.

Regardless of what Top Gear says, hydrogen is not a viable solution.

Not to mention that fuel cells cost a lot more to make than batteries so the cars are even more expensive.

 

[Dan_]

I believe they are a good idea and the most useable concept right now:

Hydrogen as mentioned by HFS is extremely expensive to distribute and store, and so is the technology needed on the car to make it work, on the upside it is the most abundant element in existence and virtually non-poluent to burn, but that alone doesn't make it a real possibility in the next few decades, because the amount of pollution generated and resources used in the extraction process are off the scale.

"Pure" EVs are a no-no option since they doesn't have suficient range for anything else than a short work commute and school run in a single day, and you can't use them for road tripping because they're not thought to do it. I won't even mention the relation of charging time * battery life since the real loss of capacity is something debatable.

For both techonologies the costs are off the scale, if you're planning a road trip you'll have to rent a normal car and that costs more money in addition to the premium paid for the electric car for crying out loud...

Range extenders aren't the best alternative to both worlds, they just get the last concept and try to get around it's major deficiency using current technology. Now, considering the environment, range extenders are the worst of both worlds, you still use batteries made of highly polluting metals and still use fuel for recharging said batteries, whose discarding and recycling processes need to be closely regulated ( and I don't know if they are.. ). Now comparing them to hydrogen, I think they're greener.

There are many flaws in range extenders but as of now, they're the best route to go if you want to be a little bit greener.

 

[W3H5]

That's pushing the boundaries of the definition though, since you could then call gas stations "range extenders" for regular cars. It's literally correct but that's not the definition of a range-extended vehicle. Range-extended vehicles carry their generator on-board. Any type of charging infrastructure, whether inductive charging or a charging point, are just that - chargers. They're not "extending" your range, they're giving you more energy on which to travel, just like fuelling a regular car.

Can't arguee with that. It's a very prominant arguement.

Personally, the biggest problem with electrics is not quite the range... as most target users will never get close to the edge of that on their daily trips, but the up-front and recurring costs of batteries. Not an inconsequential problem in places like China and the rest of the world that isn't the US, the UK and Japan.

Tis true. The cost of replacing a Litium ion+ battery in an iPhone can be close to the cost of the unit itself. There is not a lot of difference in the automotive industry.

Methanol is a good idea, but as with virtually everything else it still has a few problems.

One is creating the stuff as in common with any alcohol, the raw materials will need land space to grow, and that takes away land from things like food production - it's the reason that biofuels are not fantastic in every respect as, for example, for the sort of quantities we require most farmland would have to be dedicated to rapeseed, rather than food...

It is considered that if the States alone were to produce biofuel then there would be a food shortage due to the misuse of crops/ area for food growth.

The other would be converting older vehicles, as methanol can be pretty nasty on things like old rubber.
On the plus side, methanol is a waste product from various types of bacteria, so theoretically we could cultivate those to produce methanol in larger quantities.
The Chevy Volt does both of those... in fact, pretty much any range-extended car involves both of those processes.

I find your view are along the same lines as mine.


*Apologies in advance for the misuse of grammar and spelling but today is my birthday and I'm more than a little drunk!

 

[homeforsummer]

There are many flaws in range extenders but as of now, they're the best route to go if you want to be a little bit greener.

As I posted in the electric car thread, contrary to what a lot of people think, hybrid vehicles are actually the cleanest vehicles over a lifecycle at the moment for the average Joe. Pure EVs improve if you can guarantee a clean energy mix (so all those people charging them using solar panels in California are doing pretty well) but for the time being in the UK a regular hybrid is just about the best option.

So much as people love to hate it, the Prius really is pretty much the greenest vehicle out there, even if it can't quite match the outright economy of some diesels at motorway speeds.

Range extended vehicles? No figures of that nature yet. In theory it's a good option, because with only 40-odd miles EV range you're not going to be recharging it for as many hours off a dirty grid as a full EV, and I expect a lot of people buying them will therefore mostly drive them short distances - and reducing usage is obviously the greenest thing you can do. And then, it obviously has the option for greater range. It's not massively economical when running on petrol compared to diesels, but on the plus side you still have the seamless, smooth progress since it uses the electric motor to actually move.

On a non-green note, the Volt is a nice car to drive. People bemoan the lack of sound in EVs and stuff like that. It's a different experience but since it's not claiming to be a sports car, the serene ride is very pleasant.

Tis true. The cost of replacing a Litium ion+ battery in an iPhone can be close to the cost of the unit itself. There is not a lot of difference in the automotive industry.

Nissan pointed out the flaw in logic of the battery cost replacement claims after the Top Gear test.

There are 48 separate units in the Leaf's battery. If you replaced them all, it would be bloody expensive. Unfortunately for the nay-sayers, you essentially never have to replace every single unit in the event of battery failure - instead, they replace the single faulty unit out of the 48, which costs a couple of hundred quid, instead of tens of thousands...

 

[W3H5]

As I posted in the electric car thread, contrary to what a lot of people think, hybrid vehicles are actually the cleanest vehicles over a lifecycle at the moment for the average Joe.

The benefit of using a EV with/without a range extender is that the technology will continue to be developed and refined. By the time a Lithium ion+ battery becomes depleted, or some of it, the upgrade will most likely be more efficient than the battery it's replacing. If range extenders continue to be developed in the same way we can hope for progress in that field.

 

[niky]

Hydrogen would be fantastic... as it definitely is the cleanest fuel... to burn... but in terms of production, hydrogen production is often many times more polluting/wasteful/expensive (take your pick) to make.

Landfill gas is ideal from an environmental standpoint, because that methane is going to be generated, anyway, and it's going to be released into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas... anyway... so why not use it to generate power?

The conversion to methane/propane/?ane is really not as complicated or as expensive as you might think, considering regular, everyday engines can run on them already with slight modification. A powerplant designed solely to run on low-pressure propane or methane does not cost any more than a gasoline engine. The big problem is merely the storage dilemma for CNG applications, which require enough psi to produce a significant explosion in case of an automotive fire. (as opposed to propane, which is merely as dangerous as gasoline... in different ways)

To tie in with range-extenders: The nice thing about these gases, they don't "go bad" as quickly as liquid gasoline, diesel or bio-ethanol or diesel do, so if used in a range extender, which will only turn on very infrequently for urban users, they present a viable option for long term fuel stability as compared to regular liquid fuels

 

[homeforsummer]

To be fair on diesel it can take years to "go bad". It doesn't evaporate as quickly as petrol and not as hygroscopic either. But I do understand your point. The Volt actually has a maintenance mode that turns the engine on, circulates fluids, pumps a bit of fuel through etc to keep the engine healthy and does mean that eventually you'd need to fill it up, though still not exactly often, as that owner who has used half a gallon in 1,500 miles would attest!

 

[W3H5]

I think that if REEV are to be an option in the future the whole design of the drive train system needs to be improved. I've spoke to many people who just blame flaws in the battery technology, or the need to use fossil fuels as a range extender as the reason why these cars aren't being pushed to the forefront of development and production.

If the RE engine is economical but the batteries are not then the system is flawed and it's the same for the reverse. Development must be done to make the engines, whether diesel or petrol or gas, more efficient and also development of the battery life, capacity, output and size must be undertaken. These to parts are linked together and if one is under performing then the advantages of the other are out weighed.

 

[W3H5]

Sorry, bad connection made me double post.

 

[Tristannas]

Just bolt this to the front of your leaf broe.

Call it a Stem.

Well and thank you for sharing the information about the technology and its advancement.