CARB’s BEVx to automakers: You don’t understand plug-in cars
The wrong kind of range extended plug-in through 2025?
Leaf, Plug-in Prius, and Volt all bad by design?
Not surprisingly the California Air Resources Board unanimously passed its Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program for the technological requirements to meet emission requirements from 2015 – 2025. Under the plan, for instance, 1 out of 7 cars, or 15 percent of car sales, must be zero emission vehicles by 2025.
While the aggressive goals are an interesting conversation in and of themselves, what’s perhaps even more interesting is the new kind of plug-in that CARB is now expecting automakers to develop, the BEVx. Apparently, as far as CARB is concerned, technologies such as the Nissan Leaf, the Toyota Prius plug-in, and the Chevy Volt, just aren’t good enough.
As a result, the BEVx is a plug-in electric vehicle that offers an auxiliary power unit, or APU, that provides a gasoline powered range extending unit. However, this concept varies greatly form the Chevy Volt, another range extended electric vehicle. Unlike the Volt, the APU is not intended to provide long range or full power. It’s essentially the most minimal emergency option — cheapest — for dealing with range anxiety. Think of it as an emergency limp mode.
Ultimately, through 2025 CARB anticipates that both the costs of of zero emission vehicles and limited range will prevent the ACC’s goals of 1 in 7 plug-in sales by 2025. Thus, they propose that a BEVx can be the solution.
Interestingly, automakers already aren’t very supportive of CARB, and now that CARB is developing automotive concepts that it expects automakers to embrace is only going to create even more tension I’m sure.
Regardless, I can’t help but wonder, is CARB really that smart?
For instance, the wave generator hybrid offers a potentially cheap way to radically change the market place. While such a technology doesn’t provide zero emissions, if such a technology powered all light transportation vehicles in California by 2025, might it not achieve more than ACC, both faster and cheaper? And if not a wave hybrid, isn’t is possible that some other disruptive technology could significantly disrupt the industry in the next 13 years?
Maybe not, but should CARB be at all focused on technological requirements? If regulators aren’t just going to tell automakers what their emissions requirements are, but also tell them what kinds and how many vehicles to produce, even conceptualizing technological platforms, is it time for the government to take over the auto industry?
Or maybe the government should create contracts for the BEVx as it does F-15 fighters?
Certainly, CARB’s focus on emission’s regulations themselves seems a right inherent to such a regulatory body, but can their expertise really extend so far as to propose how automakers go about the business of conceptualizing, developing, and producing cars for 2025 and beyond?
Can’t wait to see how the auto industry responds. Minimally, this should provide a good and healthy debate, because it’s beyond obvious that the status quo certainly isn’t the right direction.
Source: GreenCarCongress
I think you came up with a wonderful answer LarryG.
“I suspect some folks will find the low HP to be a problem but others may never really know if their use never “feels” it.
If most people don’t see any difference in going from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ MANY won’t care if it’s 35 HP or 350 HP. I do think that men are going to have a harder time adjusting than women, ha ha.
I much appreciate the explanation and analogy Tom.
I don’t know the answer to your question. I suspect some folks will find the low HP to be a problem but others may never really know if their use never “feels” it.
despite the political derision of California and it’s approach to emissions and energy use – they have a lot of credibility in that often..the rest of the nation eventually follow their lead.
Despite having dropped a notch or two as of late, California is still the worlds 8th largest economy.
that gives it a LOT of clout when it comes regs.
they can “drive” (pun intended) what regs eventually look like for the rest of the country.
They rankle some in Congress so much that Congress passes laws that says that California cannot pass laws that apply only to their state!
I know LarryG it get’s frustrating at times doesn’t it? The first time I use a term or invent something I try to remember to put it in brackets. Like the following California Air Resources Board [CARB] definition.
A battery-electric vehicle [BEVx] with a small limp-home range extending engine.
Basically the CARB is saying what I have been saying for years. The engines in vehicles are WAY TO BIG. For example; let’s buy a Chevrolet Malibu and drive it down the highway at 80 mph. That takes 39.12 horse power [HP].
However, what the automotive industry has been doing is putting far LARGER engines in vehicles for lots of different reasons. One might be to take care of some towing people might want to do someday or maybe just to burning rubber every once in a while. Maybe because it’s been marketed that way for the last 50 years. Maybe because we have been told bigger it better.
Anyway let’s move on to building our new 2015 Malibu. It has a small gasoline engine of 39.12 HP. Using such a small engine means you might never get this car above 80 mph or climb a long hill UNLESS we did some other things. Let’s add a small battery pack and drive the vehicle with electric motor[s]. It doesn’t have to be a very big battery pack; just enough battery to get us up the hill at 80 mph or to maybe pass someone. Of course from a standing start we could still burn rubber since that is when electric motors have their maximum torque.
So now we have our Malibu with a REALLY small range extending gasoline engine of 39.12 HP, a small battery pack and electric motor[s] to drive the wheels.
Now most people don’t drive 80 mph all day long or even most of the time. Oh sure a short burst to pass maybe or late at night on a 4 lane Interstate highway when everyone else including the highway patrol are sleeping we do, LOL
Most of the time we will probably be driving our Malibu about 70-75 mph and that would only take 27.25 HP [11.25 HP less than at 80 mph]. That means that our Malibu’s 39.12 HP engine would have enough power to do 2 things. Power the vehicle down the road at 70 mph AND charge the battery if it needed it.
Our Malibu with its small battery pack and 39.12 HP engine and electric drive motor[s] may even be OVER POWERED. If the battery pack was fully charged when we left home we could; drive all day long at 70 mph on our tiny 27.87 HP engine. If we needed more power to pass someone or climb a hill we could draw that extra power from the small battery pack. Only after passing many times or climbing lots of hills would the full 39.12 HP be needed to power the vehicle and charge the battery pack.
Almost all driving involves a certain amount of stop and go driving. Let’s say I have a fully charged battery pack that normally could take me 20 miles. If my trip is less than this and I can plug it in at home I never use gas. In this case we certainly don’t need more than 27.87 HP to get me home if I run out of battery power.
So the CARB wants engines downsized to the maximum amount of power needed to get a range extended electric vehicle home. For probably 90% of the population, that’s going to be about 27.87 HP for a Malibu sized vehicle if the vehicle has a small battery pack and electric drive system.
What do you think – do we really need 150-350 HP engines in our vehicles?
[...] CARBs BEVx to automakers: You dont understand plug-in cars var addthis_product = 'wpp-262'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":false,"data_track_addressbar":false};if (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}Leaf, Plug-in Prius, and Volt all bad by design? Not surprisingly the California Air Resources Board unanimously passed its Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program for the technological requirements to meet emission requirements from 2015 2025. Under the plan, for instance, 1 out of 7 cars, or 15 percent of car sales, must be zero emission … Read more: http://www.hybridcarblog.com/ [...]
what does BEVx stand for?
Isn’t CAB specifying a certain emission standard and they are saying in response to those who say it can’t be done – that it can with the BEVx (whatever that is)?
I think this is interesting when one state sets a standard for that state.. what happens when other states set their standards and they are not the same?
does that mean there are special state-specific cars?
I know for a while there – there were some cars that could not be sold nor registered in California. Is this more of the same but even more?