 | Greenland, or why you might care about ice physics | The Oil Drum | Toughness is so manly--and so effective at grabbing gas--just ask Russia |  |
| Peak Oil and Climate Change | The Oil Drum: Europe | Toughness is so manly--and so effective at grabbing gas--just ask Russia | |
The electric wheel - a breakthrough in car efficiency
Posted by Rembrandt on January 28, 2007 - 1:05pm in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: automobile, bus, electric wheel, oil dependence [list all tags]
Since the first automobile emerged in the 1880’s, the design of a car with an internal combustion chamber has been prevalent in human society. The car industry and the oil industry have become interdependent on this design, based on the combustion of crude oil. This interdependence can be observed in the struggle for survival of several car companies. Huge losses are made by General Motors, Ford and other car companies because they continue to think in the old ways, holding on to the production of big expensive and inefficient machines as long as possible. Soon this way of thinking will be extinct because the incentives in these industries are changing. The increasing fuel costs and pressure from lobby groups, civilians and politicians that care about the environment of the earth are changing the fundamental basis of the car. Super efficient new technologies have been developed which will soon arrive at a home near you.
The future of the car is based on direct power in the wheels. By transferring power without any gearing but by using an electromotor that spins itself inside the wheel, huge energy losses are averted, leading to a super efficient car. Link the four electric wheels to an embedded software and hardware system and optimum force control and traction is obtained without heavy mechanical solutions. Another beauty of the system is braking. By reversing the magnets in the wheel in the opposite direction, the forward motion of the car is converted back into electrical power. The advantage of this system is that it reduces the power necessary to propel the car by half compared by a geared traction motor thanks to the reduction of friction losses/mechanical efficiency.
The electric power of the car can be supplied in different ways. The best solution would be to mount a generator that can use a variety of fuels, powering the battery train that supplies electric power directly to the wheels on a constant basis. In this setting the radius of the car, the power, the loading time, the comfort and so on are not any different then in standard cars with an internal combustion system. Because the car becomes far more efficient, fuel and environmental costs can be reduced drastically, leading also to signficant reductions in economical costs when the lifetime of the car is taken into account. This technology has been developed independently in different forms by a variety of large and small companies. Some examples: The Tweel from Michelin, the VDO eCorner from Siemens, the Wheelmotor from PML flightlink, the Wheel from e-Traction and the colt prototype from Mitsubishi.
The technology has also been proven in a variety of prototypes. PML Flightlink has applied their technology to two mini’s which now have a quad electrical wheel system:
e-Traction has retrofitted two busses with a quad electrical wheel system:
The troubling question is why this technology, which can slash fuel usage in half, is not already applied in large quantities in the cars and busses of today. The main reason is that markets are not functioning as they should because the incentives for car companies and the oil industry to halt such progress is still bigger. Consider the companies that make gearboxes, which would no longer be needed with an electrical wheel system. Consider the decreasing dependence on crude oil, if such a technology would quickly be implemented worldwide. Such technologies mean a fundamental shift in industries, were some will win and others will lose big-time. If the incentives start to change financially because people don't want gas guzzling cars anymore, and the pressure grows hard enough to truly innovate, then innovation will come. Which company will be the first that starts to produce the electric wheel in ten thousand cars annually cannot be foretold, but that it will happen in the coming five years, is a certainty.
Rembrandt - this reads like a Michael Crichton novel. Can you please explain what autonomy is, how the mini can have zero emmisions if it contains a power generator and is that more than 640 brake horse power?!
It sounds like the power concept is an evolution of the Prius - but using electric wheels instead of a central electric power unit.
And where does this Mini come from? Made in Britain under guidance from BMW, Germany.
You super brains in the US are not even able to construct such a cart by yourself. Sometimes the parallels between the US and Iran are more than obvious. Both countries are too fanatic and are not able to produce the simplest items.
Cheers
Jan from Switzerland.
Actually a very elegant wheel powered electric car was developed in the USA in the 1960s. It was collapsible and weighed only 208 kg. They worked perfectly even in a challenging offroad environment but were never marketed to consumers.
Technical data here: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apololrv.htm
My son has a DVD set called fire power which features an 8 wheel drive diesel hybrid with in wheel motors. A very impressive concept developed for the US military, the dating on the DVD suggest that it is current or fairly recent. This suggests that someone in the US is taking things seriously.
The above scurrilousness may well be true (or not), but it has nothing to do with production and use of energy.
I'm not the moderator of this group, but such comments do seem inappropriate, and should be discouraged
I thought swiss cheesers were neutral like there holy cheeses,[that is to say; they dont bite ] and seppo's, [as we affectionately refer to u.s.americans in oz] like the nationalist armies of Europe they helped us defeat in ww2 were always right [even when its blatantly obvious to the rest of us they dont have to win to be right].ANYHOW...Consider the BAKER ELECTRIC automobile of 1911 vintage .It looked very similar to granny's car in the sylvester tweetie pie cartoons re: that stereotypical seppo maroon; bugs bunny.It was a large heavy 5+seater of sound rubust pedigree and technology [relative to the era and if truth be known,right up till the 70's ]and returned remarkable mileage from its cheap bank of deep cycling lead/acid batteries under its floor boards .In fact it was so good that it embarrassed a shed load of prodigious auto heavyweight seppo's the likes of William Crappo Durant,the dodgey brothers,old henry et.al . To make sure this innovative method of propulsion was embraced publicly,they relegated the technology to there [not the consumer's] benefit. The BAKER ELECTRIC CAR COMPANY was bought off and its innovative patents were licenced in the form of all those little shuttle carts we still see in the big factories/airports today.And amazingly the 1911 baker electric car [Ive driven one],100 odd years later still returns similar mileage stats to its progeny.Sure its not reverse polarity energy cycling or redox elecrolite powered or super conductive technology,but it worked and it had the potential to decentralise a fair whack of 'c'word.Just imagine where we would be if the seppo dollar had embaced BAKER et.al instead of buying into watt ,otto,atkins miller and alike.NOT REAL SMART IN RETROSPECT UNCLE SAM.
No single individual, company or government ever decided that the internal combustion engine had to become the dominant technology in the auto industry. At a certain moment in time this technology just became dominant because of a number of different types of economies of scale in the auto industry and in related industries. This was just a historical accident; coincidence. Evolution plays a game of chance at all times. Therefore, in retrospect a lot of technological developments are suboptimal. In potential an electrical propulsion system is superior to the internal combustion engine. This was true 100 years ago, and it still is true right now. We're locked into the technology of the internal combustion engine. The problem we have to think about is how to get out of this lock-in.
Nothing truly new under the sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_wheel_drive, link to Porsche's heavy mover.
Saw a picture and caption years ago where this design was tested for moving Austrian artilley in the alps. The tractor/cab unit incorporated the generator.
HERES ANOTHER SEPPO INIVATION THAT NEVER GOT OFF THE GROUND PLUS WATER POWERED ENGINES.In the 1960's I was keen on the magazine called'popular mechanics'[dont even know if it still exists].One very intriguing and innovating article of the time featured a picture of a housewife with one of those old school yet progressive 'reusable string bags' and in it was a miniature jet motor that weighed about 20kg. this little power plant could run a 60's yank tank for 140 miles on a pound of coal dust and in those days u could buy 2000pound [yankee short ton] for a buck [do the maths its magic].Now riddle me this.....If super heated steam passed over a catalyst[red hot carbon] produces hydrogen and o2 which instantly burns creating heat [power] and water vapour why havent we seen water powered engines anywhere?Anyone care to comment or make there mark?
'Autonomy' obviously means the range of the vehicle. It depends on whether you use batteries, or additionally an internal combustion engine to reload them.
As of carbon emissions: The car can be run on batteries only, but recharging them means using electricity that today mostly will not be produced carbon-free.
Autonomy is range, zero emmissions are possible when the car's fuel is derived from a zero emmissions source, such as methanol created from sustainable forestry or if it is a directly electric vehicle, electrictity generated by solar or wind power.
I am not a technician so I can't explain why more than 640 brake horse power is possible, if you want to know just call or send an email to PML Flightlink who states this on their website. I have been in contact with them, and see this information as reliable.
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html
Rembrandt, if all their claims are true, then this little Mini is a truly amazing machine. Recently I've been thinking that PO is not going to have the drammatic effect on our lives that many who write here believe and incremental technology developements such as this reinforces those thoughts.
This vehicle more than doubles fuel performance, in want to buy packaging, if the claims made are true. The main obstacles seem to be Big Oil and Big Car manufacturers.
The other day, Chris was saying that the main focus should be on clean electricity generation and I'm beginning to lean in that direction - if we had loads of low C electricity - problem solved - for several decades at least.
So to my mind, two of the main issues are:
Safe nuclear and size of U reserves etc
Upgrading the quality of renewable electricty
Euan, the main point that comes out of peak oil is that growth is unsustainable. If we can't transition to zero growth, we will get collapse. If we can transition to zero growth, we'll have a completely different society. If you want to believe in a magical world of continued growth, using alternative this, that and the other, that's fine but can you come up with a convincing argument for why that growth will not hit limits?
I don't want to dilute the EV discussion and maybe we can take this over to Drumbeat, but if growth is your worry, it is not well founded. By 2025 most g-20 nations will see flat GDP because of aging population. Working age segment of societies will be decreasing. This is not a japan problem. Europe is on the heels. By 2040, much of the world will have a reverse triangle demographic. Lotsa Old fogies at the top. Few kids at the bottom.
This includes China. Believe it or not their one kid program is twenty years old and there are huge ramifications. By 2035 china will have more over 65-yr olds as a % of society than the usa.
The middle east is one of the few areas of the globe that will maintain a conventional demographic mix after 2050.
Have a look at India
Freddy - if you like movies, I'd thoroughly recommend "Children of Men".
This isn't a drumbeat. Invoking a SciFi movie to make a point is very irresponsible.
Hothgor - if you are not being satirical then you need to get a life. Star Wars and Star Trek are science fiction. Children of Men, Brazil and Blade Runner are futuristic. Life of Brian is a historical documentary. And Freddy, stuck up there in the Yukon, needs advice from time to time.
Anyone who hasn't seen the excellent futuristic drama Children of Men should try to do so.
If it is just half as good as Blade Runner I'm sold, going to watch it.
I found the first half great, interesting story, imaginative glimpse of a dysfunctional near future. Set in the UK too which makes a nice change. I found the ending weak though and my female company wasn't so impressed, a bit too grim!
.
Don't worry, the american are doing their best to reduce the demographic mix in the middle east.
Hmmm... but at the moment we waste vast amounts of energy. This technology appears to offer 100% energy savings in one of our most energy consumptive activities.
I used to agree with what you just said about economic growth - but I'm changing my mind.
The main problems with growth may be more realted to demographics (see Freddy), debt and climate change
Most of the long term Demand Outlooks are based on GDP growth, not projected Supply flows. Unfortunately, most of them end in 2030. While we assume that post 2030 "apparent" Demand will continue to grow, my initial sentiment of global demographics tells me that we may reaching a Peak of working age (20-65) persons at around 2025.
Thus while we have fears at the moment that the post peak decline may be detrimental, the severence of that may be overstated when one considers that there will be several g-20 nations with negative GDP and absolute relevant populations will be coming down. There is no doubt in my mind that we will see global pop'n Peak around 2045. The scary part is that some countries will see their demographic mix move from 4 workers supporing one elder to one or two workers supporting one elder. Real financial burdens ahead.
No doubt? I've been keeping an eye on the CIA World Fact Book estimate of world population growth. That, combined with a 2000 estimate by the UN, it looks as though growth has remained fairly stable at 1.14%. So it hasn't come down for about 6 years, at least. What makes you think it will come down to zero(other than through collapse)?
On the question of economic growth. Whatever stops economic growth, whether it is peak oil or some other factors, it will have a profound effect on many. If that decline continues (and without increasing energy, how can it?) the effects will be multiplied.
And the growth in India and China will keep the demand curve going up for quite some time yet.
Of course it will hit limits, any extrapolation of an exponential can show you that. The question is how and when.
Its far more plausible to me that we will expand into much of the solar system before we really start to feel limits.
What? Do you not feel that we are quite close to limits now? Even if those limits don't start to be felt for a few decades, do you really expect us to have started serious expansion into the solar system before then? What have we done in the last 37 years, since first stepping on the Moon?
It's certainly not far more plausible (unless you can offer some well argued reasons), but we are all entitled to our opinions.
Forgive the ramble and not always quite relavent response, I have been researching renewables/sustainability over the last few weeks and as near as I can judge the only bar to mass take up of renewables for distributed generation is economics, and this holds for mobile equipment as well. I am principally interested in power generation, and in the UK, at least, it is impossible to make an economic case for domestic installations whether they are PV, Ground Source Heat Pump, Fuel Cell, CHP etc. There is just about a business case for some commercial Fuel Cell installations but there is a lot of legislation in the way of some allied technology.
As for cars there appears to be no technology bar to the production of fuel cell based systems in the now (non hydrogen but still much more efficient than ICE), the barriers are again purely economic. (This is regardless of the chosen final drive system) This is where the lobby groups come in. Do you remember the introduction of catalytic converters?. These were introduced in the US because the car giants would not invest, had not invested, in modern (clean) engine technology and catalysts were a far cheaper option. That they result in higher fuel consumption and therefore higher CO2 emissions has never been raised as an issue. All this of course stemmed from the need to reduce atmospheric pollution. In Europe and Japan, there were some excellent developments in clean and lean engine technologies that got brushed under the carpet when Europe decided to follow the US. What they should have done was set emission limits and made how you achieved them optional. The same lobby will likely prevail when it comes to commercialisation of fuel cell vehicles.(we do not have to start with renewables, better use of what we have got would be a good beginning) Look under almost any US car and you will find, steel chassis, leaf springs and live rear axles, big heavy and cheap. Moving the US automotive industry into the 20th century let alone the 21st is a major hurdle and unfortunately this will probably determine the rate of change as this is one powerful world wide political lobby.
OK!! LETS DO SOME WORD ASSOCIATION POSSUMS! HERE WE GO!!! 1.. SAFE is to NUCLEAR as MILITARY is to INTELLIGENCE 2... RENEWABLE is to ENERGY as THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS is to AN APPLE CIDER HANGOVER 3...STONE is to AGE as SAFE NULEAR ENERGY is to SAFE INTELLIGENT 20TH CENTURY SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY!!!! REMEMBER THE OLD AXIUM... 'THOSE WHO REFUSE TO LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO RELIVE IT ... KEEP THE YELLOW PIOSON IN THE COLD COLD GROUND AS A LATENT LEGAGY TO OUR GREAT GREAT GREAT GRAND CHILDREN FOR THEIR GREAT GREAT GREAT GRAND CHILDREN. THEY'LL BE SO USED TO THE HEAT BY THEN THAT MAYBE THEY WONT MIND ITS RISKS.
Please allow me to take the liberty to answer for Rembrandt.
'Autonomy' is the range the vehicle has without stopping for fueling or servicing.
With the Mini the first 400 km's (approx, since it depends of driving conditions ofcourse) are all electric. After that a small generator kicks in (which is now a gasoline version, but can be any fuel and any type of generator (including fuel cell [ideally methanol, since this can be produced efficiently and sustainably]).
'Zero emissions' apply for the first 400 km (on a charge of RES). For the remainder: when using short-cycle carbon fuels, or other sources (hydrogen, but that has 25% well to wheel efficiency, when used in a fuel cell)
The power concept doesn't stem from the Prius. This car is a based on a traditional concept of ICE under the bonnet, assisted with an electric motor, regenerative braking and a relatively small battery. The plug in version comes closer to the all electric vehicle, since it is able to go -almost- all electric all of the daily commute km's (and charge overnight with cheap grid electricity). When hooked to the grid during daytime, these vehicles can be used for balancing of the grid (and earn the owner some cash).
The Mini is of a different ilk.
I'm interested to know how these wheels will fare in the harsh winter conditions of the US North East and Canada. Have they been tested in these environments?
Currently they have not been tested in such environments, I will have to ask some technicians I know whether that would be a problem or not.
Let's put our efforts in finding out asap & start producing these cars by the millions. Which is rather easy, when one takes a closer look; don't let main stream spokesmen mystify this issue.
So China, India, Brazil, Russia and the rest are seriously tempted to take the all electric route as the standard for their booming car industries, rather than the ICE. For them it's relatively easy to do so, with relatively little vested interests with ICE.
If we can charge these cars with electricity from Concentrating Solar Power (which is a political issue and not a technical one) and [as soon as the DMFC becomes available] methanol from sustainable forestry, we're heading for a clean horizon.
I know that recently serious tests have been done with the Tesla Roadster at Arvidsjaur in the north of Sweden, located 110 kilometres from the Arctic Circle. The tests were very succesful. So, don't be worried, harsh winter conditions won't be a specific problem for electric vehicles.
That's what I'm talking about. The U.S. automotive and oil corporations will fight this technology all the way. People won't easily go for it either, because they love to pull their boats long distances with the AC running. There is a growing segment of the population that is clamoring for this type of vehicle though. Too bad the U.S. corporations won't be a part of the new economy. Oh well.
hi Petropest
I am clamouring!
I am not American but would not feel much sadness if the encumbent large American motor companies bit the dust as they just might. They are just holding us back. It's all the workers I worry about though e.g. in Michigan.
I have never bought a new car, the newest was 8 years old. Only a new generation in development would tempt me.
Carbon - UK
Nothing is permanent not even corporations. Eventually GM and even Dupont will die. Concern over the fate of autoworkers has never existed in Detroit boardrooms and certainly not on Wall Street. In spite of a tripling of US population over the last 50 years the number of auto workers is is only 1/4 of what it was then. Unless trade policies change significantly the US auto industry will go the way of all other consumer good manufacturing. They will build small numbers of very expensive products which only the top 1% can afford. Everybody else will buy small cars from China, India, and Eastern Europe. Hopefully these will be series hybrids.
Also the efficiency gain from eliminating reduction gears is vastly overstated. The slower a motor turns means its amperage for a given power output must be higher. Heat losses are proportional to the square of the amperage. IN-wheel motors may lower production costs but in no way will they be more efficient. It's simple physics.
Your simple physics does not comply with the test results in the busses with the in-wheel system which has been reviewed by the dutch association for applied scientific research (TNO, http://www.tno.nl/tno/index.xml). This is the same institute which has to conduct tests on various scientific fields including approval of medicine tests.
If you want to disprove this research which has been going of for decades, then be my guest, the efficiency details have been explained here:
http://www.e-traction.com/TheWheel.htm
http://www.e-traction.com/Mechanical_efficiency.htm
http://www.e-traction.com/friction_reduction.htm
http://www.e-traction.com/spiral_control.htm
I checked the references you highlighted and found nothing that contradicts my statements. As for the Dutch site I couldn't find any mention of in-wheel motors at all let alone any support for e-traction's outrageous claims. Their so called efficiency improvements could solely be the result of using a lighter vehicle. Misrepresentations of efficiency are common in the auto industry in that they claim a vehicle is more efficient simply because it has a smaller engine in a smaller car. True efficiency is measured in horsepower-hours per pound of fuel/kwh of electricity used. Overall vehicle efficiency is measured in btus per gross ton-mile.