Google Spends Money to Jump-Start Hybrid Car Development

slugo writes "Internet search giant Google (GOOG) hopes to speed the development of plug-in hybrid cars by giving away millions of dollars to people and companies that have what appear to be practical ways to get plug-in hybrid automobiles to market faster. 'While many people don't associate Google with energy, analysts say the fit isn't all that unnatural. Renewable energy, unlike coal or nuclear, will likely come from thousands or tens of thousands of different locations. Analysts have long said that one of the big challenges will be managing that flow into and out of the nation's electric grid, and that companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task.'"

I'm betting ...

... every Google Car will have Google Maps built in ... complete with Google ads based on your GPS derived location.

Re:I'm betting ...

I like how Google Maps updates all the time.

Back when MapPoint was the only game in town, Microsoft was still 2 years behind in map updates. Sure, the up-to-date construction information was nice but I'be been stuck in 2 states where there was no road in MapPoint and I had to resort to old school tactics by buying a map.

Re:I'm betting ...

Yes, but how frequently are the in-car ones updated? Just because the data source updates doesn't mean the technologists deploying the data (ie. Google, TomTom, whoever) are updating as frequently as the data is released.

Re:I'm betting ...

I guess I may get a Beta-Car

Re:I'm betting ...

they are offering development money to help spur on new technology.

Google is a branding monster. Don't doubt for even a second that there will be a GPS (Google Positioning System) with a GPS (Google Powered Search) in any car produced with Google investment capital.

Re:I'm betting ...

they are offering development money to help spur on new technology.

Google is a branding monster. Don't doubt for even a second that there will be a GPS (Google Positioning System) with a GPS (Google Powered Search) in any car produced with Google investment capital.

Don't get your hopes up; this is a google.org initiative, so I'm not sure they are looking to make money off it.

Re:I'm betting ...

In your own flambaity, trolling, AC douchebag way... that was strangely insightful.

There's nothing wrong with trying to improve the world and make a profit at the same time, in fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's just about the best possible thing a proper capitalistic corporation can be doing. Beats the hell out of what most companies do... namely trying to make a buck by screwing over the planet and public.

Re:I'm betting ...

I'll expand upon that and say that we should want companies that improve the world to make profit. Profit should be a way of rewarding people and companies that make our lives better. If they're rewarded for bettering the world, then they'll be more inclined to keep doing so. I agree with you: a company getting profit for doing good things is a best-case scenario.

Why even bother with Hybrid Cars

They are just as efficient as non-hybrids. We should perfect solar cells and windmills and use that for alternative energy.

Re:Why even bother with Hybrid Cars

They are just as efficient as non-hybrids.

Hybrids are more efficient. Non hybrids have no way of recapturing the kinetic energy of the vehicle. Hybrids can capture and store that energy for use later. Also, a car that is cruising on the highway that only needs 30 hp to maintain speed could get that from an electric motor. If you were to run the car off electric only, then switch to gasoline-engine only (and recharging what was used when running on electric) and repeating, you would get better mileage than just cruising on gasoline (also note, this would not be effective at saving energy for a diesel car). Another thing about hybrids is that they generally size the engine and motor to match an equivalent gasoline only offering. That is, the gasoline engine is sized smaller, but the total available power is the same. That results in increased efficiency. And yes, I know there are ones like the Accord where the hybrid offers better acceleration than any other offering, but those are not the highest sellers, nor what people think of with hybrids. But even then, they are more efficient than if there were an offering with a just petrol engine which matched the acceleration.

Add to that the plug-in hybrids (which could spend much of their lives as if they are electric-only), and you have some very efficient choices.

Re:Why even bother with Hybrid Cars

You're assuming a few things:
1. The grid can handle the new load.

According to this study [pnl.gov], there's currently enough off-peak capacity to run 84% of US cars, light trucks, and SUVs as plug-in hybrids. Of course, it would take years for that many vehicles to be replaced, allowing some lead time to get additional generating capacity installed.

2. The electric companies will not immediately turn to foreign oil to cover the power increase.

The utilities have been moving away from oil as fuel for a long time now, even 10 years ago when oil was fairly cheap it still cost more than coal and even natural gas. Currently [doe.gov] only 2% of electrical generation comes from oil. I would expect future increases in capacity to continue this trend and come mainly from coal or possibly natural gas. Not necessarily the best choices for the environment, but a modern plant design should include CO2 sequestration and other emission controls to deal with acid rain gases and mercury.

3. The local electric company is competent in some way.

Well, you got me on that one! They do, however, have to answer to various public utility commissions and whatnot so there's a dim glimmer of hope.

Re:Why even bother with Hybrid Cars

"They are just as efficient as non-hybrids."

Non-hybrids have about a century of refinement behind their current performance.
Getting hybrids into the production stream can pave the way for better hybrids, gradually reducing the need to run the internal combustion engine for support. Until energy storage tech improves, the gas engine "crutch" is among reasonable workarounds.

Re:Why even bother with Hybrid Cars

They talked mostly about bring plug-in hybrids to market which is a notable difference from current hybrid cars. Regular hybrid cars don't make a whole lot of sense economically and whether they make sense environmentally is arguable (i.e. does the reduction in emissions make up for the emissions/waste from manufacturing and disposing of the battery packs they use?). Plug-in hybrids, on the other hand, are essentially full-on electric cars that also have gasoline engine of some sort in them, so they're really a different beast in many ways.

At current, one of the biggest problems with making a mass-market electric car is that they take too long to charge up. You can easily make an electric car with a range that matches a car with a full tank of gas, but once that power is used up, it takes too long to charge up. Even if you build a car with lithium ion or lithium polymer batteries which charge faster than standard NiMH batteries (and are also more expensive and don't age as well) the charge time is still a decent amount of time. Plug-in hybrids could potentially solve this allowing you to run your car as an electric car for your everyday driving around stuff and then being able to run on gas in situations where you wouldn't want or be able to spend the time to charge up your car. This would provide a way to get electric cars on the road and in wide use without waiting for other technologies to develop (i.e. better batteries, smaller/denser ultracapacitors, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.).

Solar cells need a lot of work... and politics

Current silicon-based PV really sucks as a general purpose power source because you need so much high qualility energy input to make the stuff. For a quick illustration, lets just use a 10 year energy payback number.

To achieve a goal of getting to 10% of PV power in one year, you'd need to put in 10% * 10 = 100% of current electrical power. That would require first doubling existing electrical generation capacity. Even a 2% PV goal requires 20% of current generation capacity which is still way too high (and 2% per year is hardly going to make any significant inroads - it would not even address growth).

Clearly PV will only ever work with a huge mindshift that goes away from curent silicon-based strategies to a new silicon-based strategy, or radically different strategy, with a far better payback. There are alternatives, but they lack funding and support eg. http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz/2007/Press_Releases /04-04-07.html [massey.ac.nz] This is not the only such different approach - there have been quite a few through the years.

The major labs are still focussed on silicon and high performance and fighting over conversion efficiency rather than $/W which is the important measurement for general usage. Until $/W is targetted as a primaray goal, these technologies will get nowhere useful.

Perhaps it is telling that many major oil companies (BP, Shell and others), with a vested interest in preserving the status quo, are directing a significant portion of the industry research.

google.ORG not google.com

this is the sort of thing they said their philanthropic foundation would invest in. It's really got nothing to do with managing the electric grid flow of information.

X-Prize

I think it'd make more sense to use the money as a bounty for advances in hybrid cars than to throw it around, the same way the x-prize does. It saves you the difficulty of efficient capital allocation.

right...

Well I know how to regulate the flow of water in and out of my body. Therefore I'm well poised to manage the future electrical grid.

PHEV already exist

* Many automakers have built PHEVs in private workshops, and DaimlerChrysler has publicly tested PHEV prototypes. They are converting up to 40 15-passenger Mercedes commercial vans into PHEVs, with some vehicles using NiMH and others advanced lithium-ion batteries, plus diesel and gasoline engines. The program is in cooperation with California's Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Southern California Edison. See the press release, EPRI announcement and Daimler's description (with graphics).

* The advanced hybrid vehicle research center at University of California-Davis (founded and directed by CalCars advisor Prof. Andy Frank) has converted nine sedans and SUVs into PHEVs that have repeatedly won prizes in US Energy Department-sponsored "FutureTruck" competitions. Dr. Frank, widely known as the "Father of the Plug-In Hybrid," has been working on PHEVs for thirty years, and building them with students for more than a decade.

* CalCars produced the world's first plug-in Prius (the PRIUS+) in 2004. Since then a number of companies have emerged to offer conversions for sale to consumers and fleet buyers, and CalCars has worked to support a growing open-source conversion movement.

* In 2003-04, the US Marine Corps demonstrated a diesel-electric PHEV-20 HUMVEE. (The military likes the silent, zero-heat "footprint" in all-electric mode, and appreciates saving fuel that can cost well over $100/gallon to deliver to front lines.) This advanced Shadow RST-V (Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Targetting Vehicle PHEV, built by General Dynamics, uses lightweight lithium-ion batteries and motors in four wheel hubs. See details and photos and more descriptions.

* Long Island, NY has converted a city bus to a plug in hybrid with 40 miles of all-electric range. Many more heavy-duty vehicle conversions (including three recycling dump-trucks that will run in "silent" mode for pickups) are in progress.

see here [calcars.org]

Re:PHEV already exist

The problem isn't building a plug-in hybrid. The problem is building a plug-in that can be sold for more than it costs to build. The state of today's battery technology makes it impossible, but that could change soon.

The commercialization of plug-in hybrids is completely dependent on the ability to manufacture what are now top of the line lithium ion batteries for 40-70% less than they currently cost. I believe this is the focus of Google's money. 10 mill isn't going to get you anywhere with fuel cells (which have been 5 years away for 30 years).

Today's hybrids are not going to seriously dent our dependence on oil, plug-in hybrids absolutely could. Unless a major car company announces a release date for a retail plug-in by next year, I'm going to buy or build a Ford Escape plug-in conversion.

Re:PHEV already exist

Adding a plug to an existing Prius costs about $50 in parts. There are people who will do it for $250 or so. The result is a vehicle that you can run in full electric mode for most of your zipping around town.

Clearly, there is something lacking with getting a plugin Prius to market, but it isn't technical.

Oh boy oh boy oh boy!!!!

If Microsoft copies this endeavor we can all start up the "if Microsoft made cars" jokes again. Here's hoping!

Wait a minute...

Analysts have long said that one of the big challenges will be managing that flow into and out of the nation's electric grid, and that companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task.

That doesn't make any sense. They distribute information on a virtual network and they own almost none of the hardware used to distribute it... but they are somehow well placed to distribute power from a power grid, which is a completely different network?

That doesn't make any sense at all. It makes so little sense, I can't even think of an analogy close enough to what they said to properly mock them.

Re:Wait a minute...

I totally agree with you. Google doesn't direct traffic. People request things from them, and they provide it. Yes, Google is working on knowing more and more about the people that use them, but their 99% use case is still anonymous user traffic.

How about Red Hat? They make a Linux distribution, so certainly they must be good at distribution. How about Starbucks? They are used to distributing energy to people, so this should translate to hybrid cars. What about McDonalds? They...oh just stfu slugo.

Why does every Slashdot story contributor wander off into his own little world of conjecture? Can't we just stick to the story? If you want to comment on the subject, just put it as a reply. Oh yeah, because no one would see it after it got modded down.

It's there money but personally I would

have put that money to energy source research.
Better batteries and fuel cells.

an efficient car takes a lot of resources for different parts, so the research money gets spread thin amongst many different technologies.

Relax, it's just an opinion.

Wha?

"Renewable energy, unlike coal or nuclear, will likely come from thousands or tens of thousands of different locations. Analysts have long said that one of the big challenges will be managing that flow into and out of the nation's electric grid, and that companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task.'"

That's definitely not in TFA.

Which forces me to ask why "companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task"?

You'd think that the power companies, at most, would need to update their billing software. WTF does managing the flow of information have to do with a $1 million grant? Am I missing something else?

As an aside, one of the continuing problems with electric vehicles is battery temperature.

Re:Wha?

Simple.
Information = knowledge
Knowledge = Power
Power = Electricity
Therefore: Information = Electricity

Google will become the waterwheel of the 21st century.

Swi

I couldn't start my hybrid car...

...until I hooked up my LAN cable to it and did a Google search. Then it started right up!

Another way to save the planet...

I recommend you get a license to sell real estate [dilbert.com]

Google-EV1

What about the EV-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 [wikipedia.org] the "leasee's" of these vehicles seemed to be satisfied with them and the batteries were specified to produce a 125 mile range, would it be so hard to have a google version?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=ev1&start=0&ie=u tf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en- US:official [google.com.au]

Seems to me the oil companies are just making sure we keep using oil and make sure no competing infrastructure exists to provide vehicles with energy.

Re:Google-EV1

While primarily composed of cellulose, paper has a number of other organic binding components in a complex composite macro-structure which degrades as part of the recycling process. It is also created from relatively simple, cheap easy-to produce biological source materials (raw wood or hemp fiber). The problem with paper production isn't as much its production as its volume in disposal. The relatively low cost of production of paper is what makes profitable recycling difficult.

In contrast, lithium is a fairly rare and expensive, volatile "metal" and is combined in lithium-ion batteries cathodes [nec-tokin.com] with other moderately rare elements from simple raw molecules through chemical and mechanical processes. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the process for recycling lithium-ion batteries would be substantially more productive, lucrative, and worthwhile.

Apples, oranges.

Plastics are somewhere in between the two. They are often created from a finite non-renewable resource (for which cost is increasing, but nowhere near the cost of lithium) but based on moderately long complex molecules using processes which usually aren't easily reversible. So often, like with paper, you can't go back to the source materials you used to create the plastic. Thus, as the price of oil increases through greater scarcity, plastic use will substitute with types or plastics that can be created without oil (and hopefully which also can be broken down more easily), or substitution will occur with other products that can be more cheaply produced or recycled (aluminium, cardboard, tinfoil hats...)

In the long run, the increasing price of oil will be good for the environment, although it will cause a lot of pain on the way as economies adjust to increasing average costs for energy.

It's nuketastic

Renewable energy, unlike coal or nuclear, will likely come from thousands or tens of thousands of different locations.

That's great and all, and I'm all in favor of utilizing the zillions of acres of rooftop in the US and around the world to accommodate solar cells. But if you're going to move the automobile infrastructure to electricity and away from petroleum, you're going to have to build more nuclear power plants.

why not hydrogen?

Nice gesture, but can we ditch the fossil fuel dependancy? I can already blow up at the gas pump when Bill Dumbass is smoking next to me or leaving the engine running. Hydrogen cant be much worse.

Re:why not hydrogen?

In my opinion, the energy storage system to work for is a generalized alcohol fuel cell, designed to be able to handle methanol and ethanol mixtures in any proportion. This system has a number of advantages: for one, this would largely be a refinement of existing technology, and for another, light molecular weight alcohols are very easy to generate from waste biomass. Anything from hemp, to straw, harvested algae, to waste products from paper and other industries, and yet again that it is a carbon neutral technology no net carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Alcohols also have the considerable advantage of being liquid at standard conditions, which makes transport very easy. It's really just a matter of putting the infrastructure in place.

Google is pushing electric.

If anyone wants some good history about the electric car and how it was killed in california, the documentary "Who killed the Electric Car" is worth watching.
You can catch the trailer over at youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBykAngDpY [youtube.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electr ic_Car? [wikipedia.org]

Why not electric?

I think its a great initiative by Google, but why aim for producing Hybrid cars? As I see it, the overall idea is trying to move away from fossil fuels. Why keep a fosil fuel component at all?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OXqYbNEiW0Y [youtube.com]
Purely electric cars look like a great option.

Take this seriously for a minute

Google is doing this simply because they can not lose and may gain big. This is not going to change anything else that they are doing.

The article is very long on fluff and does not give up a lot of details which makes it very hard to read between the lines or even to read much into the article. This is not something that aligns itself with Google's "core business" so one must ask why is Google doing this?

Almost everyone will agree that the folks at Google are smart. Frankly they have not comitted a lot of money. It could be that they are just funding this for the goodwill (and publicity) that they will gain. From the amount of money that they have pledged, this could be the only reason. Aligning yourself with an energy issue that everyone cares about is worth a million or even ten million to a company with the reach (and pocketbook) of a company like Google. Google is certainly doing "no evil" with this.

Going back to the part where I said the folks at Google are smart makes me think that this may be something a bit more. Something that they can justify simply for the goodwill and publicity that the effort generates but can maybe give them something more. It seems like this is how they almost always work. In this light, I am wondering if this is a "testing of the water" of the energy venture capital business. Low risk (with billions in available cash one or ten million is not a big wager) with huge potential rewards if the smart folks at Google pick the right project(s) to fund.

The smart people at Google come from a wide range of sciences and specialties. If you put the right people together to review the requests for funding, they stand a fair to middlin chance of picking the right one(s).

Google is indeed smart.

Better headline: Bubble 2.0

Bubble 2.0, but this time it's almost entirely funded by google.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't wait for the crash.

My brother-in-law tells me this story of a FORD

Not being a farmer, when I came to live with my sister and her husband, I have become quite spell-bound when my brother-in-law tells me his "Farm" Stories. One of those, he recounts to me, is about this guy that bought a new Ford F250 and found he was getting 30mpg no matter how he drove it. On the Farm, on the Highway, in the city, no matter what he did, he got 30mpg. Instead of thanking his lucky stars and keeping this a secret, the guy returns the truck to the dealership, where they take it from him and tell him they have to order him a new one. Apparently, this F250 was made for Saudi Arabia and not to be used in the US. So, I got to ask this. Are those folk-stories true that the BIG Car Companies having gobbled up the technology that would allows to get 60, 70, 80, or even 90mpg in our autos and trucks? And if so, then why would we even have to consider hybrids? Just one of those hmmmm moments

Charge time is the issue

I think one of the biggest issues with electric cars and plug-in hybrids is not battery life, but charge time. Right now, Tesla has a car that goes 200 miles on a charge at freeway speeds. The problem is that it takes several hours to charge it. When it takes hours to charge a car, then range is a problem. If you could charge a car in minutes, then a slightly reduced range is less of an issue.

One manufacturer (ZAP) is claiming their new ZAP-X car, based on a Lotus chassis, can get 350 miles with a charge time of 10 minutes using new nanotechnology batteries. Aerovironment (designers of the EV-1) has independently tested these batteries and claim they deliver as promised. But who knows, it could still be hype.

If Google can focus their attention on reducing charge times, then a lot of the problems associated with electric cars go away.

oh dear

Google thinks it knows mechanical engineering. And they think they know where to put money in efficient cars. And they think it's plug-in hybrids. Please stick to what you know Google. You're basically awesome at what you've done, but take it from a mechanical engineer, you're barking up the wrong tree with this one.

A serious thought, for the moment...

Nuclear Energy is non-renewable? Excuse me? That is like stating that solar energy or wind power is non-renewable. They are ALL in infinite supply and are non-expendable (we cannot use them all up.)

Coal fired power plants, which burn a non-renewable and expendable resource, release tons of "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. With Nuclear power, we know precisely where every single molecule of waste material goes, which is into a barrel, encased in ceramic, and stored away in a facility designed to last 5x longer than the radiological half-life of the waste material stored there.

The fear of nuclear energy has its rational sources. First is the environmental movement that fought against atmospheric testing of nuclear warheads during the cold war era. I applaud those efforts. What also happened is during this same period is we were taught what to do in case of a nuclear attack from Russia, which by every measure would have been horrific. Add in a 3 Mile Island and a Chernobyl and you've got an entire generation of Americans that has transferred the horror and fear of Nuclear weapons over to everything Nuclear. Fact is that 3 Mile Island, while it did release radon gas is not a catastrophe that even approaches the generational fear that it inspires and Chernobyl is a classic Soviet-Era f**k-up-cover-up situation. Its funny that nothing is ever said of the 100+ nuclear reactors currently in use in America, or that ALL of France is currently powered by Nuclear Power. With hundreds upon hundreds of plants in use throughout the globe running for all these years, all with nary an incident to report... What are we so afraid of?

Charging a battery takes electricity. Electricity that is generated from anything other than nuclear, wind, or solar power is a net negative on the 'greenhouse gases' scale. Of all those energy sources, the only one viable for long term is nuclear. Sorry, but it is a fact.

A renewable resource is one that can be replaced, like a tree. The lumber that is used to build houses, the wood that is used to make paper is all generated from (ghasp!) a renewable resource. What drives me nuts is that these multinational corporations that produce lumber and paper harvest it ALL from their OWN TREE FARMS. They own millions of acres of land where they methodically grow their trees on a rotational basis where they harvest the same spot every 20 years. Oh, and your Christmas tree; it is grown on a tree farm as well. To say that paper production or wood production depletes our natural resources is the same thing as saying that eating french fries depletes our national supply of potatoes.

I'm an expert (of sorts) in document printing, specifically with optical document security and printing of security papers. A small printing company I work with consumes 28 tons of paper every single day. They know exactly where the wood pulp comes from. You don't make paper from just any old wood pulp (although you could). The trees are bred and grown specifically for use in making paper. But some folks out there want you to believe that they are forever seeking a new rainforest to chop down to consume their insatiable desire for more wood pulp.

Uh, sorry folks, trees, yeah, trees are a renewable resource.

Why not slot cars instead?

Instead of all the rigmarole of dealing with hybrids, why not go with an all-electric car that draws its power from the road like the old toy slot cars did? Electrify the interstates and be done with it. That way, you don't care if your car with cheap lead-acid batteries only has a 100 mile range because the interstates aren't any further away than that. You power the rails with nuclear power and away goes the demand for 40% of the world's oil. Standardize the nuclear plant designs and you can stamp them out of a factory which makes electricity dirt cheap.

Adding slots adds a few more benefits. Now that the car knows where the slot is, it knows where the road is so you can get on the highway and turn the driving over to the car. You can read, sleep or do whatever on your commute. You get the benefit of trains combined with the flexibility of cars.

  Since the power source is not coal or gas, the air in the cities clears. If you ever have seen Los Angeles on a clear day, you know why people wanted to move there in the 30's - it's really, really pretty when you can see 60 miles. The cities would become attractive places to live again.

It just requires the will to electrify the roads and we can tell the Saudis to go to hell. Forget hybrids - give me slot cars instead.

hmm...

investing in hybrids, ay.

Make them go both ways!

I mean, make sure the cars are able to supply power to the grid as well as get power from it. Almost all cars spend most of their time standing still, and their vast battery capacity could be a great help for grid stability and take some load off of dirty peak power plants.

Ticker?

What's with the ticker symbols? Either the submitter did a simple cut&paste from a press release, or he's still lost in the dot-com era.

What information value has the ticker symbol in this news?

The car of the future, is not a car at all

Cars seem to have become useless in large metro areas. At best all they can do is create traffic jams. I'd prefer not to have to drive at all, and let someone/something else do the driving.

Swappable batteries

Swapping out batteries works pretty well for phones and laptops. Is anyone working on swappable batteries for cars? Filling stations would offer a pretty good infrastructure for keeping people on the road. What are the conceptual problems, if any?

Power Plant Beta

I think I see a Google Power Plant (beta) coming in the future (between servers, cooling and now plug in cars, their electric bill will be huge). To subscribe to Google Power Plant you must be invited by a friend (who get's 6 invitations). Your bill will come with targeted ads if they notice you use power at night you will get ads for sleep aids, if you use it during the day you will get ads for work at home jobs, if your power usage spikes at 5:30 they will assume you are cooking dinner and send out some grocery ads.

worried about financial future

Google should focus on a core business, and not be a piggy-bank for new-age hobbies. Almost every company goes through financial bottlenecks sooner or later.

Great idea, but in the wrong direction

Tesla Motors already has a very nice electric car that will suit most people's needs. The only bad thing is the price ( about 90K - they are paying off R&D ) http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php [teslamotors.com] Google ( as well as the Federal Government and the auto industry ) should forget about hybrids and focus on enhancing all electric cars. These cars will work with whatever form of energy is used to generate electricity. Maybe the can donate money to battery research to either get longer range batteries are ones that charge fast enough for a pit stop.

What !?!?!? OMG!!!

Renewable energy, unlike coal or nuclear, will likely come from thousands or tens of thousands of different locations. Analysts have long said that one of the big challenges will be managing that flow into and out of the nation's electric grid, and that companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task.'"

WHAT!?!?!?!? Oh NoooooooooooooooooOO!

Can you say GoogleRON ???

Re:Why hybrids?

They're slow, inefficient, and thirsty. Manufacturing the batteries and disposing of them when they wear out after five years or so is an ecological nightmare.

Batteries can be r-e-c-y-c-l-e-d.

Re:Why hybrids?

Um, all of the current Hybrids already use NiMH [cleangreencar.co.nz] batteries. I don't know why you think they use Lead-Acid. Recycling the batteries would be a problem, but they're designed not to wear out--and empirical evidence suggests that they do a pretty good job of not wearing out, the only people that I've found who replace Prius batteries are the guys who are converting them into plug-in Hybrids and want to get more miles out of them.

Re:Why hybrids?

The battle for more efficient cars

We're talking about the battle for zero-emission vehicles. Of which, the PHEV is a step on the road towards. Besides which, there's diesel hybrids as well as gasoline hybrids.

Re:Why hybrids?

Here is a nice overview of compressed air cars. They are going into production soon.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/659/ [ecogeek.org]

Re:Why hybrids?

he battle for more efficient cars has been fought already, and diesels won.

Mmm, diesel hybrids.....

Aside from the battery issues, what is wrong with hybrids? AFAIK they're not particularly slow, ineffeicient (diesel hybrids can be pretty darn efficient), OR thirsty. I mean the whole POINT of them is that they are efficient (for city driving at least).

They're "complex" mostly because they're new and most mechanics don't know how to work on them. The idea is to get more out there and standardize them and make them less novel.

How are hybrids and evolutionary dead end if electric cars will eventually be the future? Hybrids will drive battery development, electric motor development, etc. Seems like a natural step to me. Where do you get off calling it a dead end.

Sticking with a purely combustion drive train the dead end.

-matthew

Re:Why hybrids?

Hybrids are not a dead end. They are the equilibrium waiting to be punctured.

Or, in less metaphorical terms, they are the bridging technology that makes the transition to electics possible when the battery technology improves. When the first really economical, environmentally reasonable battery comes along, it will face the chicken-and-egg problem of cars first or charging stations first. Hybrids wiil solve that.

Re:Why hybrids?

They're slow, inefficient, and thirsty.

what hybrid car exactly have you been driving? at the very least they are more efficient than most of the cars on the road and certainly any SUV that people drive.

Manufacturing the batteries and disposing of them when they wear out after five years or so is an ecological nightmare.

that is what recycling is for.

They're costly and complex to build and repair.

so is everything that is relatively new technology. especially when it hasn't yet been put into production at the scale that normal cars have.

Why are people so hung up on hybrids?

because cars are a necessary evil and yet there are some of us who would like to lessen the impact of the cars we need to use. The battle for more efficient cars has been fought already, and diesels won. Forget hybrids, they're an evolutionary dead end. no, fuel cells won the battle of efficiency but lost in power [at the moment at least] but then again all chemical fuel sources are an evolutionary dead end, there are better things on the horizon, they just require a lot of work to start rolling.

Re:Why hybrids?

because cars are a necessary evil and yet there are some of us who would like to lessen the impact of the cars we need to use.

Yes and No. Most people can get away with one car and a bicycle or velomobile for their daily short commutes. adding electric assist would greatly improve your distance. Every wingle other country on the planet has more bikes on the roads than cars.

Americans are just too lazy and fat. They would rather drive 2 blocks to get ice cream instead of riding a bike or god forbid... walk there.

Cars ARE a necessary evil for trips over 10 miles. and even then I guarentee I can find at least 1000 people that will disagree with that and mention that public transit like busses and trains will get you there.

But I'm like you, I cant stand sitting next to some icky poor person or not look like I'm rich by pulling into work in my Mercedes.

so I ride in to work on a $4500.00 recumbent. I'm hoping to buy a velomobile [go-one.us] by the end of this summer for all weather commuting (yes even winter) simply with the money I am saving on Heath club membership, gas and insurance.

Side benefit, I stay in way better shape than everyone else, my cost to commute is zero, and I get to be even more smug than the prius drivers.

Re:Google and energy

Most people don't know that.
SUprise, must people don't know google uses a cluster.

I wonder if the moved into some of the new mainframes. Some of which could run 90,000 machines in memory. Seems it would cost a lot less when power is considered.

Hopefully not

Overall, Biofuels are a mistake. About the only place that I see them of use is in the algae's ability to accumulate a LOT of CO2. But if we move from fuels in the first place, we will almost certainly move to electric cars. That means that we will have the ability to manage the pollution at single sources rather than multiple points.

Re:Hopefully not

Nice to hear an informed opinion. Biofuels will have their place, and I hope that farmers can finally make a few bucks on corn and soybeans. However, we need to think in terms of "quads", or quadrillions of barrels of oil. That means we need to stop focusing on low-potential technologies like burning sewage waste, and focus on the big wins. Google's right on the mark here, since converting 50% of transportation energy to the grid would push the needle tons in the right direction. At 2X the well-to-wheel efficiency, the grid and plug-in-hybrids represent a cheap and easy way to make a real dent in the energy problem http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/foreign_oil. php [teslamotors.com]. Given recent major battery advances like A123 Systems http://www.a123systems.com/ [a123systems.com], plug-in-hybrids finally make both green sense and financial sense. So, why hasn't Toyota started shipping them? Conspiracy theories abound...

For those who like details, A123 batteries kill Tesla's argument that smaller batteries just die faster, and don't save money. Small A123 batteries will last longer than your car, and never need to be replaced. They also have way lower series resistance, and can push one of those tiny 300HP induction motors http://acpropulsion.com/ [acpropulsion.com] with as much current than they can take. There's simply no reason that a modern plug-in Prius couldn't leave a Porche in the dust (ok, accept for those small hard tires, and crummy handling). By plugging into the grid, we give ourselves the freedom to produce energy however makes the most sense, whether solar, hydro, nuclear, gas, wind, or (God forbid) coal, oil sands, and oil shale. And if this sounds like an add for A123, it turns out that they're simply the first to market among many who will shortly sell competing batteries. Google continues to show some real vision!

However, I have an issue with all this

First, google and everybody is focused on doing cars. That is a HUGE mistake. Cars are subject to a load of regulations. Worse, you have to deal with styling, specs and all the interior/exterior. The right way to start this, is to fire up a company doing hybrid Trucks. In particular, just the frame, cab, motor(s), and a serial generator/ICE that is in one component. The frame should have multiple sizes that match many of today's trucks. From there, they should make it available as stripped or as a simple panel truck. What will happen is that all the bus manufacturers, Panel trucks, delivery trucks, even mail trucks will port their stuff over to it. Once the company is up and running AND they have a name, then switch up to doing Automobiles. One of the most important things here is to develop the name and the manufactuers line. Later, as battery or even better yet, capacitor tech improves, the generator/ICE can be pulled in one piece, and the new energy carrier put in.

But yeah, Google doeas continue to show innovation.

The Problem with Trucks

There is one very sever problem with doing trucks first; trucks actually have to be economical. You can sell a consumer a car that costs more over life of the vehicle on warm thoughts and green trendiness. For a truck, you will have absolutely no such luck. Trucking companies run on thin margins and will demand economics above all else. Further, trucks are the hardest of all possible problems to solve. Namely, a truck demands extreme range and extreme power. The range issue in particular is very hard problem for 'green' cars to solve.

Cars are (relatively) low hanging fruit. You still need range, but in truth, if you can offer a car that for the first 40 miles runs off the grid and then switches over to gas, you have just made a car that will spend 95% of its time on the grid and make a dent in the problem. For a 'first 40 miles is on the grid' truck on the other hand doesn't even begin to touch the problem nor entice any trucking companies to buy your product.

I am not suggesting that shipping is not a major environmental problem. It is. That said, it is a problem that is much farther out of reach then the issue of personal transportation. To fix shipping, it is going to take a major technological breakthrough that really is not yet on the horizon. Cars on the other hand can be tackled with the tools of today and have a significant environmental impact.

Re:Hopefully not

Biofuels will have their place, and I hope that farmers can finally make a few bucks on corn and soybeans.

I hope you're being ironic. The US corn industry is the richest bunch of corrupt thieves in the country. They put the RIAA and MPAA to shame. Not only do they get government subsidies so they can undercut the world market price, but their competitors are kept out of the US market by tariffs. Ever wonder why "sugar" is spelled "high fructose corn syrup" these days?

Re:Why hybrids?

Part of the benefit of hybrids and electrical plug-in vehicles is that they are source-neutral. Any source can feed the grid, and in turn, your vehicle. As new energy sources become viable, your vehicle reliability increases and it becomes easy to phase in and phase out sources depending on economical viability, political environments (wars, etc), disasters, and technological breakthroughs.

Diesel is a great start to help us get there in the meantime.

Re:Google and energy

Funny that I just read a macworld article about google in the enterprise [macworld.com], which stated:

The company also announced that it will be "carbon neutral" by 2008, which involves reducing its energy consumption as much as possible, then "canceling out" its carbon-dioxide emissions by funding projects that help the environment.

Google has reduced the energy consumption at its giant data centers by more than 50 percent compared with "standard" data centers, using evaporative cooling for its servers and other means, said Urs Hoelzle, a senior vice president of operations. At the same time, he admitted, Google is growing so fast that its energy consumption each year is actually increasing.

Funding hybrid development is apparently one of their "carbon neutral" endeavors.

Re:Why hybrids?

Manufacturing the batteries and disposing of them when they wear out after five years or so is an ecological nightmare. Hardly... at least insofar as the Prius is concerned. Its batteries are recyclable, and NiMH isn't toxic or dangerous like lead-acid or lithium anyway. Furthermore, the batteries should last the life of the vehicle; testing showed no measurable degradation after 150,000 miles.

Re:Why hybrids?

They're slow, inefficient, and thirsty.

Have you ever driven a hybrid? Mine is plenty fast and gets great gas mileage.

I will say that the current cars are only the start, and the technology will get better with each new generation.

Re:Why hybrids?

Gee, good thing the Toyota and Honda hybrids come with a 8 years/100,000 mile warranty on the batteries! (http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2005/prius/faq.htm l) This warranty means that the batteries won't fail every 5 years.

I'll believe it when I see it. I know hybrids use NiMH batteries, but I haven't bought a normal lead-acid car battery in ten years because I buy the "Guaranteed for Five Years" ones and replace them every three or four years when they eventually lose capacity.