A West Virginia legislator recently called for the use of Google Glass – a new consumer electronic device about to be launched by Google – to be banned while driving cars. The politician claims it is an attempt to avoid distracted driving. Unfortunately, he’s got it backwards. The use of Google Glass while driving should be encouraged, not forbidden. It offers a safer and more efficient user interface than we have today.  It also opens up possibilities for better control of the car, which means better mileage and less consumption of gasoline society-wide.

The fact is that the current practice of looking down to scan instrument panels or change the radio station is inherently unsafe. The Air Forces of the world realized that long ago and now the use of the head-up-display (HUD) is widely used by fighter pilots. HUDs were first developed for fighter pilots as a means to keep their line of sight pointed straight ahead while still being able to scan their instruments. The first HUD’s projected instrument displays onto the cockpit glass. Unfortunately, researchers found that this led to the pilots’ committing the sin of cognitive tunneling – the act of focusing on an item in the near field of vision instead of keeping their eyes focused at infinity on the wide field of vision (a good thing to do when you’re in the middle of a dogfight). Subsequently, HUDs were redesigned to give basic information in as visually simple a fashion as possible. By keeping only a few key readings on the windshield and displaying the data in simple geometric forms, the pilots soon found themselves permanently focusing on the wide field while subconsciously absorbing the information that was being presented to them – the ideal way to use an HUD.

A Google Glass-type device, likewise, is an ideal form factor for presenting limited but crucial information to a driver without interrupting their line-of-sight. The limitation of data is key: the answer to cognitive tunneling is limiting the amount of data being presented. The driver isn’t there to read a book, after all. By using an intelligent device like Google Glass, the car can present only the information the driver needs to see at the present moment (an unsafe speed warning, an upcoming turn to be made, an empty gas tank, etc.). The device can also bring advanced safety systems into play by broadcasting lane drifting warnings or other cars approaching that might warrant defensive maneuvers. Google Glass, all in all, has the potential to significantly add to the safety of the driver and riders.

Another key element that Google Glass can deliver is useful voice control. Although voice control is improving in automobiles, it is far more difficult to yell a perceptible command at a device that is 2-feet away from the driver’s mouth (ask anyone who has used Ford Sync about this issue) than it is for a device that the driver is wearing. Additionally, Google Glass is rumored to have bone conduction capabilities, meaning that it always detects when the wearer (and not an inconsiderate passenger in the backseat) is speaking.

The utility of Google Glass doesn’t have to end there. If a driver wants to save more fuel, a Google Glass app could provide an icon that provides persistent feedback on their driving habits. Simple changes to driving habits can easily lead to significant fuel savings. Too hard on the brakes? The icon could vibrate. Accelerating too quickly? The icon could glow yellow. That sort of persistent feedback is not possible from a smartphone or an instrument panel on the dashboard, but it could be easily processed by the wearer of a Google Glass device. This kind of driving would be especially advantageous for drivers of hybrids and pure electric vehicles, since optimization of regenerative braking habits is one of the easiest ways to improve mileage.

With all of the good things that Google Glass can do, it needs to be emphasized that it, like any consumer electronics device, must be limited while the user is driving. There needs to be a “Drive Mode” that shuts off visual text alerts, emails, and movie streaming while the wearer is driving. If that happens, and if the price drops considerably from its current $1,500 peak, it will be the norm for drivers to buckle in, adjust their seatbelts, and turn on Google Glass.

Ford Motor Company intends to become your home energy management supplier one day – or at least try to.  The automaker announced a new effort at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) last week in Las Vegas called MyEnergi Lifestyle, and the ensemble of players Ford has brought together for this project is impressive.

The companies joining Ford in MyEnergi include Eaton, SunPower, and Whirlpool.  Nest Labs and chipmaker Infineon are two other firms rounding out the group.  The goal is to show how typical consumers can significantly reduce electric bills by combining smart home appliances, cloud computing, solar panels, off-peak pricing, and plug-in vehicles.  Besides the car, which Ford would sell, the package of goods necessary for MyEnergi to achieve its goal includes:

• Energy efficient appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, and clothes dryers
• Hot water heaters
• Connected smart thermostats
• Rooftop solar systems

Ford quoted a Georgia Tech computer model that predicts a 60% decrease in energy costs and a 55% cut in carbon savings from a typical home that adopts MyEnergi Lifestyle products.

That sounds impressive.  But so is the estimated price for all the gear: a Ford C-Max Hybrid goes for $25,200, a new energy efficient Whirlpool refrigerator costs around $1,100, a new clothes dryer is around $500, a basic hot water heater sells for around $500, the Nest thermostat runs $250, and a rooftop solar system goes for around $10,000.  The total comes to $37,550.  How long for a payback on that investment?

Half a Century

A typical energy bill in the United States is $1,248 per year.  It would take around 50 years to pay back the equipment investment ($37,550 divided by $748.80, which is 60% of the annual bill).  These are averages, of course, and a homeowner could start with one or only a few products, so the initial investment would be less, but so would the savings.  The vision Ford has seems out of reach for typical household budgets today. Where it does make sense is for a family doing a major home remodel or building a new dwelling; but add to that a new plug-in car?

So while MyEnergi Lifestyle is an intriguing concept by Ford and its partners, it has major hurdles and this idea is probably ahead of its time.  First, plug-in vehicle demand remains sluggish; for example, Nissan sold fewer than 10,000 LEAFs last year, less than half the original estimate.  Second, electricity consumption is not expected to rise rapidly; the Energy Information Administration projects electricity use in the United States will increase on average just 0.7% a year for households through 2040; thus, with relatively flat consumption, prices aren’t likely to jump quickly either, and without a big spike consumers are not likely to feel much pain.  Third, it will take at least another 5 years to get significant numbers of people to upgrade to products like smart appliances or more efficient water heaters.  Color me skeptical at this point.  I need to see stronger market drivers and fewer, or weaker, inhibitors.

Lithium ion batteries are truly fair weather friends – just like people, they fare best in a comfortable climate.  Lately, we at Pike Research have been delving deep into how environmental factors, such as temperature, affect battery performance and the rates at which vehicles are charged or discharged.  Our discussions with automotive companies and battery pack assembly companies have revealed numerous approaches for optimizing performance and extending a battery’s life – comparable to the many ways people dress to beat extreme heat.

According to our research, lithium ion batteries perform optimally, and will last longer, if they are kept at temperatures between -10°C and +30°C.  This range is consistent with findings by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).

In very cold temperatures, batteries don’t achieve their full rated power until the battery cells warm up.  According to Ford engineers V. Anand Sankaran and Bob Taenaka, this short-term effect has greater implications for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) than for plug-in hybrids (PHEVs).  A PHEV can rely on its gas engine for power during warm up, but BEVs don’t have that other power source.

As the accompanying EERE graphic shows, batteries exposed to hotter average temperatures lose their ability to store energy; the hotter the temperature the faster they lose their storing ability.  So BEV owners in Phoenix will likely be looking to replace their batteries faster than owners living where the thermometer doesn’t often reach 110°F.

To combat the extreme temperature effect and keep batteries within their optimal temperature range, automakers use thermal management systems relying on either air or liquid cooling.  As the EERE data shows, liquid cooling is generally more likely to preserve a battery’s capacity than air cooling, though performance variations will occur depending on how well a battery management system was designed to control temperature.  According to Ford, the liquids used in cooling systems can retain a temperature for a long time, which contributed to Ford’s decision to use liquid cooling on the Ford Focus EV.  Ford has also used air cooling on its hybrid Escape and Fusion, as have Nissan and other BEV manufacturers on their vehicles.

In addition to external heat potentially shortening the usable life of a battery, operating batteries at high charge and discharge rates can have another negative impact.  That is particularly true for fast DC charging a battery pack at a rate of 50 kW for as little as 30 minutes (the expected time to charge a BEV 80%).  If done every day, that would generate enough heat to reduce the battery’s capacity.  BEVs that offer fast charging were designed with this fact in mind, so their battery management systems can force an EV charging system to slow down, thus protecting the batteries well before the pack is fully charged.

The interaction of batteries and fast charging is one of the many EV topics that Pike Research will explore at the Plug-In 2012 conference, the premier North American EV industry event, on July 23, 2012, in San Antonio.  I’ll be representing Pike Research at the conference where Ford and many of the leading companies will be discussing business models, technology challenges, and EV rollout strategies.

Though many startup companies in the electric vehicle (EV) industry have either struggled to survive produce a profit, or insure investors of their products’ worth (or all three), one company has consistently bucked the trend of disappointing news: Tesla Motors.  In 2008, the company first began selling its first-generation all electric Tesla Roadster and since then has placed more than 2,000 of the high end EVs worldwide.  The Roadster is largely credited for restarting the EV revolution, and since its debut, no other manufacturer has been able to replicate a model with similar electric range and style.

The company struggled to make its first deliveries, but has largely overcome its early production troubles.  By all accounts, it is not just surviving; it’s thriving.  Recent news items include preorders of next year’s Model X all-electric crossover, netting the company more than $40 million overnight.  In other company news, Tesla will begin repaying $465 million to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in December and has decided to begin deliveries of its more than 10,000 reserved Model S sedans one month earlier than previously forecasted.

Amid this good news, don’t forget that Tesla has never made a profit and by some current estimates, its 2Q 2012 will be its most unprofitable quarter since it went public in 2010.  However, starting a car company from scratch requires an enormous investment, and Tesla is not anticipated to earn a profit until 2Q 2013.

Having an estimated date for profitability is more than quite a few upstart EV makers and their upstart suppliers can boast.  No doubt, the promise of profitability is making Tesla attractive to investors.  Bursting Tesla’s balloon a bit, John Petersen, in a guest post on Greentech Media, describes the company’s growing popularity in the last 2 years as part of a “hype cycle,” in which interest in a company grows before an event and recedes afterwards.  For Tesla, the Model S may be that event.

Or, it may not be for two important reasons: 1) Tesla is the darling first child of the EV revolution and 2) the company continues to push the EV envelope.  People like the underdog, and despite being the first child, Tesla has kept the underdog image as the big auto makers, GM, Nissan, and Toyota, have crept into the company’s EV space.  The Model S may also be considered the company’s equivalent of Apple’s iPhone 4s, and the Model X (due out in 2013) would be the iPhone 5; meaning the hype is not going away with the Model S.

Tesla’s Model S deliveries begin on June 22.  As is customary with Tesla, a great deal of publicity has surrounded the event and the company has even put a ticker on its website, counting down the seconds to the moment that CEO Elon Musk will hand deliver the keys to the first owners.  The magnitude of this fanfare and its fan following is not uncommon among new PEVs, but it isn’t the end of the Tesla hype machine.  Let’s hope the Model S delivers on all its grand expectations, but let’s also be mindful that this is only one of potentially many new models to be delivered by the darling first child.