Eric and Koz, I think you guys have hit on the absolute cusp of the energy problem and are now deciding on the fine details of implementation.
I too am going back and forth over quick-charge and swap-out. Both of you make great points for the advantages and disadvantages of each. I'm now looking at short, medium and long term implications for each option. Here are my thoughts (very close to both of you):
*** Battery charging station analysis - Version 1.0 ***
Short-term facts and assumptions:
Batteries are expensive and heavy.
Batteries have unknown cycle and shelf life.
Charging speeds are getting very good (15 minutes is realistic).
No standards exist.
No infrastructure exists.
Short-term swap-out proposal:
1) Define standard blade size (Koz - I like this analogy and term).
2) Design EV chassis to accept different number of blades from underside. The order of insertion is important for weight distribution.
3) Design swap-out station mechanics - Robotic functions.
4) Define station power usage - using bulk storage so substation level power delivery is not required. I agree that several municipal size (2MW) solar farms would be a perfect fit for this application. See Nanosolar's blog (
www.nanosolar.com) for their ideas on this.
Short-term quick-charge proposal:
1) Design high power induction charging port to charge the car's battery pack from the underside. Delco has many patents from their work on the EV1. They have a patent for an oil cooled, minimum 130 kW coupler. It's oil cooled because there is heat generated and due to the fact that if a person handles the coupler it must be at a safe touch temperature. However, if the charging is a hands-free and automatic process from beneath the car the port can remain hotter and also have a much larger surface area (induction area). The technology for this device is proven but will take time to design an optimized solution that is safe, high power, robust in all weather, cost effective, etc.
2) Design matching charging port on EV. This would become a high power induction charging standard.
3) Define station power usage. This is similar to the swap-out station but is greatly simplified because there's no movement of batteries. The only part that moves is the automatic, high power induction charging port.
Medium term (5-10 years) assumptions:
Several fast charge battery technologies start to arrive.
5X Lithium-ion hits production but cost are high in order to recover R&D expenses and because it has such value.
EEstor like technology hits production but the units prove to not be a silver bullet.
There are many models of hybrids and pure EV on the market but penetration has been low for EVs due to lack of infrastructure. Hybrids are selling very well.
Life, weight, cost, capacity, etc. of batteries have all improved significantly.
Medium-term swap-out station proposal (assume first generation stations were built in the short term timeframe):
1) Design new blades with improved battery technology. Perhaps there are a few standards (high power, high capacity, low weight, etc.). Customer can decide based on their needs and vehicle capabilities. Think AA, AAA, C, D, like designations. Probably retain the same standard physical characteristics to make the swap easier. However, a smaller blade would allow better vehicle design flexibility.
2) More EV cars arriving at each station require increased storage and solar acreage. Since initial stations were planned for this expansion the process is relatively easy and results in further increases in grid capacity and stability.
Medium term quick-charge station:
1) The old style charging port has been significantly improved in terms of efficiency and power delivery and a full conversion of all stations is implemented. The design is backward compatible but due to a radical change in shape the port interface has to be redesigned to allow ports to be automatically selected based on the vehicle. There are slight problems with having multiple ports but the new design was so superior that it was decided to go forward.
2) Station capacity is expanded in the same way as the swap-out station. Same benefits are seen.
Long term (over 10 years) assumptions:
Full 10X battery technology is in full production. It's light, inexpensive, extremely safe. It has caused a mass movement toward the EV. Because of the grid-battery-motor system's inherent efficiencies and reliability older technologies like hydrogen, hybrids, air cars, pure ICEs, even diesels have been rendered obsolete.
Trucks are now running on the new battery technology.
Charging stations are now considered a main component of the National Smart Power Grid (NSPG).
The national transportation fleet is 95 percent electrified.
The power grid has reached 90 percent renewable by the year 2040.
The last remaining peak-oil holdouts admitted that the world reached peak oil production in 2012.
Global electrification is an on-going project not expected to be completed until after 2100.
Long term swap-out Proposal:
1) Convert swap-out stations to dual use. Must be able to swap-out legacy vehicles while quick-charging new vehicles. This should not be difficult because there already exists the robotic swap-out structures.
Long term quick-charge proposal:
1) Upgrade to 3rd major quick-charge technology. Safer, quicker, more efficient.
Summary:
Based on my assumptions I'm now leaning towards swap-out stations. However, I think both paths are viable. This is good and bad because having a choice leads to standards selection delay (BDVD - HDDVD only multiplied many times). In previous threads I was considering a duel format that had both an integrated, owner purchased battery as well as having swap-out areas. Maybe having both systems in one car is a bit too much. Perhaps one or more of the "server" bays could be filled with purchased blades (again, love the server-blade analogy). You buy the vehicle and purchase just the amount of battery capacity you need for around 80 percent of your daily driving. You then have the remaining bays available for long trip swap-out charging. The batteries could be rented, leased, purchased, etc. Here are the many reasons for choosing the swap-out station over the quick-charge station for initial infrastructure build out:
1) Current batteries are heavy. With the swap-out bay system you can carry around just what you need. Very efficient!
2) Battery upgrades would be very easy to implement. They just use the same physical blade box and insert the upgraded technology and electronics. Since it looks like a lot of changes are on the horizon I now think this is a must have feature. Do you really want to be the guy with the Playstation 2 battery technology when your buddy just got the Playstation 3 battery technology? I know I don't.
3) Current battery cycle life is in question. Automobile companies must overcharge for the frame integrated battery in order to cover long-term risks.
4) Current batteries are expensive. I would rather pay $10,000 for my first 10 kWhs and $3000 for my next 10 kWh in 3 years then pay $20,000 today for the same capacity. You can add more capacity in following years and it just gets cheaper and lighter. It's like the price for a gallon of gas gets cheaper and cheaper! Much better than the post peak-oil increases that we will have to endure.
What do you guys think? Please share your proposals or tear mine apart. In the end we might just have something.