PowerSource

Advertisement

Power Topics: Blog filled with useful information about product applications, helpful hints, news, and advice for the busy design engineer.

Technical Editor Margery Conner's PowerSource streams the latest developments in electronic power design and related technologies.

Profile

About Me

RSS Feed

Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

By Category

Power Management Articles

Blog

PowerSource

« Plug-in hybrid vehicles: Here&... | Main | This company wants to turn you... »

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Andy Grove on plug-in hybrid retrofits for gas guzzlers

If you read this interview with Andy Grove [fixed now]-- one of the founders of Intel, and CEO during some of its most successful, visionary periods – you’ll get a pretty good idea of what he advocated in his speech at the Plug-In 2008 on Tuesday. (And thanks for the link, Rich.)

I'm still scratching my head about his proposal. He wants to take the worst of the gas guzzlers - the existing trucks, SUVs, and vans – and convert them to NiMH battery-based PHEVs**, but I don’t see how that can be practical. They are already being pulled off the roads by their owners who don't want to pay $4-5/gal to run them. And when I talked with one of the conversion outfits at the show, HEVT, they said the retrofit kits are currently $60k, but they anticipated the cost falling to as low as $10K. Maybe.

I know Grove is talking about government subsidies to bring the price down, but government subsidies to retrofit old pickups?

…but still - it's Andy Grove. You don’t have to agree with him, but you’d probably be smart to listen to him.

UPDATE: I just posted some pictures and a little more info on the F150-PHEV conversion: This company wants to turn your F150 into a plug-in hybrid.

**NOTE: PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which Grove like to refer to as “dual-fuel,” because a) it’s catchier, and b) because it gets the point across that you have two energy sources in the car.

Related entries in: Automotive | Power Sources/Controllers |

Reader Comments

(Add your comments)

at 7/24/2008 1:37:40 PM, JohnP said:
Ahhh - that California grass

at 7/24/2008 1:48:42 PM, W17053 said:
Your interview link does not work (can not find)

at 7/24/2008 1:53:29 PM, EH said:
It is possible to retrofit vehicles with a tow behind unit which contains batteries, motor/generator, and control electronics. This would allow for a standardized mass produced unit for each class of vehicle, that could be purchased, leased, or rented for use. Such tow behind units could even be traded along a route for a precharged unit, much like propane tanks are traded in for a full tank today. www.thegreenergrass.org/2008/02/concept-hybrid-semi-trailer-assist.html ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/metrompg-com-electric-pusher-trailer-201.html

at 7/24/2008 2:29:11 PM, Hermie said:
IMHO the auto companies, at least in the short term, would be FAR BETTER OFF to offer propane conversion, (which they already do for fleet sales), to the general public...I'd buy one! Or better yet, natural gas (like Honda is doing)...

at 7/24/2008 2:51:21 PM, BigPicture said:
Since California is already out of electricity - exactly how will these be charged? Yeah, everyone says at night, but that energy is not free - so carbon fuels must be expended at night that otherwise wouldn't be - is that better than a car exhaust? Perhaps... Also if you commute to work, you might have to charge during the day to get back home. This is not a mass produced solution that will work - unless serious infrastructure changes happen - that's unlikely now as California is seriously broke.

at 7/24/2008 3:36:25 PM, Sage said:
Dual Fuel Automobiles, which run on either compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquid gasoline, meet the same criteria of 50-60 percent reduction in oil imports. Why? Seventy to 80 miles range can be had with a single CNG cylinder. Said cylinder can be refueled overnight from you home gas supply. Most commuters travel less than 80 miles per day, hence there will seldom be a need for operating on gasoline. When gasoline is used, most likely it will be for long distance travel, where automobile gasoline fuel economy is maximized. CNG dual fuel cars are a "can do it now" technology, unlike developing new batteries to enable electic cars. Additionally we can build out the CNG infrastructure over time, as homeowners install home garage refuelling units, such as the units manufactured by fuelmaker. If the automakers were to provide dual fuel capability, and the government were to offer incentives to buy fuelmakers, then we could be off imported oil in a few years. Additionally, automakers wouldn't have to shift their fleet overnight to economy cars. The current fleet of SUV's and trucks will sell, due to the cheaper cost of natural gas. The U.S. has enough natural gas to supply our transportation fleet for many years until we can perfect battery or some other disruptive technology. Consider this thought: The Saudi's oil reserves, at current market prices, represent enough wealth to buy everything in the U.S. Personally I don't relish being either a Dhimmi, or a sharecropper in my own country.

at 7/24/2008 3:37:44 PM, Lol said:
If there wasnt so many incompetent drivers and people with little something syndrome (including women) then there would not be any SUVs in suburban streets. I am yet to find a street in suburbia that is dirt or requires off road ability to get home. My sedan can out brake, out accelerate, out corner and goes through less fuel then any SUV I have seen, and it has never been bogged.

at 7/24/2008 4:19:36 PM, RAGMANGUY said:
Your link is bad. RAGMANGUY

at 7/24/2008 5:58:50 PM, Infogleaner said:
One advantage to hybridizing SUVs and other gas hogs is not having to cart a vehicle to to a landfill. Energy used in its creation can be saved instead of squandered. California out of electricity? I'm in S. Cal, and still have it on demand. It looks like we will have to increase generation of electricity, but that's more beneficial to the environment than running gas guzzling SUVs up and down the freeways.

at 7/25/2008 4:22:55 AM, arclight said:
it means we learn and continue to grow. Those who are looking for perfection up front or a risk-free environment might as well look elsewhere; they aren''t going to find it on this Earth. They can''t be allowed to prevent the rest of us from living and growing. All replies welcome!;

at 7/25/2008 4:29:38 AM, arclight said:
I guess my comments got truncated. I support the multi-fuel option. Next development should be an electric drive with an APU that will run from gasoline, diesel, propane, or NG. Not every SUV or truck is purchased to be stylish. A number of them here in Washington are used for search and rescue and other similar activities. Efficiency of the grid, as qouted in a class earlier this year, is 35%. How much more generation capacity will have to be added to charge a bunch of electric cars, factoring in that inefficiency? Our purpose in dealing with energy should be to make as much available to as many folks as possible, and then lead them (not push them) to use less NOT by restricting their activities or making them physically uncomfortable but by using our heads to create more efficient end devices. That means real, unemotional, fact-based, ruthless analysis and equally dispassionate, fact-based, ruthless peer review. Considering the amount of emotion that folks bring to this problem, I wonder if we can still do dispassionate analysis any longer in this country. Bad news if we can't or won't.

at 7/25/2008 5:49:27 AM, ChrisPe said:
I agree with LOL. That discussion reminds me time when I drove early in the morning through South Carolina with my 15 years old son and ahead of us was a brand new Dodge truck filled with a pile of smoking manure.We created a stupid fashion of trucks being a fashionable vehicles and forgot that they were created for hauling stuff.... Let's get rid of that insanity.I always cringe when I see little woman driving a Durango with a fear on her face.Let's bring cars back and make them multifueled supported electric vehicles.There are many people who need trucks for their work and I do understand it.Those should be converted to better fuel economy.In Michigan we have a lot of propane fueled trucks , since Canada is near and conversion can be done there in one day.MUCH more economical ,even with current LP prices.

at 7/25/2008 11:42:11 AM, Jerble said:
Do the math! Let's see - The $60K retrofit should get to breakeven in about 60 years. Useful life of a vehicle - 10 years. What idiot would subsidize a vehicle in the junk yard for 50 years? Even government agencies wouldn't do that! Would they? But then again, who is subsidizing this E85 fiasco? You are, Mr Taxpayer!

at 7/25/2008 1:21:59 PM, QuantumEngineer said:
Hmm, a 60K retrofit to a vehicle that cost less than 20K. How exactly does that affect the depreciation on the truck? SUV's generally cost more, so the difference is not quite so absurd. Ironically, they generally have a much shorter life on the road. Andy G is a very smart guy (awful to work for though), and had some very clever ideas over the years, but this is NOT one of them. If the trucks and SUV's had a fifty year lifetime, this idea might be tenable. However, it does bring home the point that all of our new trucks SHOULD be made this way or with natural gas. But i worked on a hybrid truck design for one of the "big three" and was very disappointed by the management of the project. i had the feeling that upper management didn't really want the truck built.

at 7/25/2008 1:52:11 PM, QuantumEngineer said:
arclight had a good point: "Considering the amount of emotion that folks bring to this problem, I wonder if we can still do dispassionate analysis any longer in this country". We really need to do honest engineering reviews of product designs so we don''t drop crap products on the consumers just because it sounds like a neat or clever idea. We know that we aren''t going to have compact nuclear fusion generators for our cars (a la "Back to the Future") anytime soon, but there may be options that we simply have not imagined yet, so we need to innovate. For example, whatever happened to the "turbine car?" i had heard that it was more efficient than the conventional IC engine (i admit that i have never attempted to verify that "fact"). Electronic engine controllers (thanks, Andy Grove and Intel, as well as Motorola and others) have made some difference, but we really need a radically NEW technology either to power our vehicles or as a new form of personal transportation.

at 7/25/2008 1:58:03 PM, QuantumEngineer said:
Last comment: i made some small contributions to the E85 project, but i've never known anyone who owns a vehicle that uses E85 fuel, and until this past week, i had never even seen a gas station that sold E85 fuel. (Finally found one! But who cares?)

at 7/28/2008 10:25:11 AM, Darren Holdstock, UK said:
French car manufacturer Citroen bring out their Cactus model in 2010, it runs on diesel only, and gives 100 mpg. Far less absurd than a hybrid twonk tractor. For those wishing to lower their fuel bill for gasoline-engined cars, LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) conversion kits are available that enable the engine to run on LPG, currently about 30% cheaper to run than unleaded, and they can be switched to regular unleaded when LPG isn't available.

PowerSource

Profile

RSS Feed

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives