Electric Vehicles: Setting the Record Straight (and long!)

[IDemo]

(edited for formatting purposes - proud patriot DU Moderator)


I have decided to put together some information about electric vehicles and the surrounding technology. I'm doing this in light of a couple of lengthy recent threads on GD, initiated by someone apparently with an axe to grind against EV's, but poorly armed with the facts. That, along with the predictable responses whenever an item is posted about electric vehicles: they just "move pollution from tailpipe to smokestack", they're energy-inefficient, they will overload the power grid, etc. I will try to address each of these issues, supplying the numbers, graphs, and sources where appropriate.

The abbreviation 'EV' means electric vehicle, or battery-electric vehicle. The Tesla is doubtlessly the most popular current example of a "pure" EV. GM's EV1 is also a sentimental favorite, except, well, you all know what happened there. I am not going to address alternative fuels, fuel cell vehicles, hybrids, or plug-in hybrids.

For the record, I do not own an EV (but would like to), nor do I work for a vehicle or battery manufacturer. I would probably attempt a conversion project if I had the garage space available, but I don't. Hats off to DU's wtmusic for showing us the way on that one!

The arguments against electric vehicles, and the facts --

1 - EV's do not represent a true energy savings compared to gasoline or diesel power after the inefficiencies of power generation, transmission, battery charging, and electric motors are included.- False

Comparing the total energy usage of vehicles which use completely different fuels and propulsion systems is commonly referred to as a "well-to-wheel" analysis. By using a common measure of energy, it is possible to derive "equivalent miles per gallon" for non-internal combustion vehicles. The unit of measure most commonly used to replace mpg in well-to-wheel analyses is kilometers per megajoule (km/MJ) ¹. Beginning with the energy content of the source fuel from the ground, and removing the energy required to refine/process it and transport it to filling station or electrical outlet yields a "well-to-tank" (or "well-to-station") efficiency number. If you stopped here, you might abandon all hope for the Tesla and other EV's. What you see favors gasoline, with a well-to-tank figure of 81.7% ², versus only 52.5% for even the most efficient electricity, generated by high efficiency natural gas powered turbines.

The most efficient ordinary gasoline car made was the 1993 Honda Civic VX, which was EPA-rated at 51 mpg for combined city and highway driving. Converting to metric, this car was rated at 21.7 kilometers per liter of gasoline. Thus, its efficiency is 21.7 km/l / 42 MJ/l = 0.52 km/MJ.

But the big difference comes when you factor in the relative efficiencies of the internal combustion motor versus the "battery-cycle" (charging and discharging), motor controller, and electric motor efficiency of the EV. The 51 miles-per-gallon of the Honda Civic VX (21.7 kilometers per liter) now becomes a total end-to-end energy usage of 0.52 kilometers-per-megajoule. The Tesla, rated at 110 Watt hours/kilometer, gets an equivalent 1.14 km/MJ. The Tesla more than doubles the numbers for the gasoline-powered Civic VX, and even doubles the highly touted Toyota Prius. The numbers are displayed, along with those for other 'fuel-efficient' vehicles, in the chart below:


The numbers are further supported by the GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) model, from the Argonne National Laboratory. GREET is relied upon by the US Department of Energy.



*********************************************************************************

2 - EV advocates are playing a pollution shell game. They are merely moving pollutants from the tailpipe to the smokestack, the point of electric power generation. - False

Studies by several groups have demonstrated that generating electricity for an electric vehicle pollutes less overall than does an equivalent internal combustion powered vehicle, and by a wide margin. This includes, incredibly enough, electrical power from coal (though obviously not by as much as other sources).

Again using the GREET study, the graph below shows that electric vehicles, though not strictly "zero emission", as some may claim, produce less greenhouse gases per mile than combustion engines. (note: 'ICEV Crude RFG' means 'internal combustion engine - reformulated gasoline', and 'ICE CrudeLSD' refers to 'low sulfur diesel'. These are shown at the far left in the graph, with 'EV' on the far right)



*******************************************************************************************

3 - The strain placed on an already overloaded power grid will be too much to support millions of people wanting to recharge their eBoxes and Obvios. - False

This one may come as a surprise even to many EV advocates. But when you take a look at the nature of power generation/grid administration and combine that with existing/improving and upcoming technology, the real surprise comes: Electric vehicles, far from being the massive energy sinks (electrical loads) envisioned by skeptics, may in fact offer great benefits both for the car owner and the grid owner/operator.

About energy utilities - they must build their electrical energy delivery systems to support a worst-case load; i.e., air conditioning units humming full blast on 100 degree days. But that doesn't mean the 'excess' energy is being wasted on 72 degree days. What utilities use to support massive demand are called 'spinning reserves', meaning generating capacity which is 'up and running' and synched to the grid, just not delivering power. The term 'spinning' originates from the days when hydro and NG powered turbines were the prevailing technology, but it is equally applicable to any source, including solar.

The majority of EV's will likely be recharged at night time, when spinning reserves are (usually) most available. In fact, according to a report by Pacific Northwestern National Laboratory (PNNL), a Department of Energy lab, there is enough excess generating capacity during the night and morning to allow more than 80 percent of today's vehicles to make the average daily commute solely using this electricity. If plug-in-hybrid or all-electric-car owners charge their vehicles at these times, the power needed for about 180 million cars could be provided simply by running these plants at full capacity.

But another factor that comes into play is that EV's can not only sink (draw) AC electricity, they can source (provide) it. Electric vehicles can not only supply emergency backup power to an owner's home, they can supply it to the grid, along with other 'ancillary' service such as regulation, using Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technology. Most new production EV's, such as the TZero from AC Propulsion (a V2G innovator), come with V2G capabilities. The technology is not "out there" somewhere in the future.

Power utilities are becoming interested in V2G as their demand increases. Pacific Gas and Electric Company showcased a demonstration project this month utilizing a modified (plug-in) Prius. V2G will work with any vehicle with plug-in capabilities; battery electric, plug-in hybrid, fuel-cell, etc.

In a March 2007 report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:

It is our opinion that the potential benefits of
vehicle-to-grid (V2G) PHEVs (or the “CashBack” hybrid) are so
compelling that the technology is clearly an enabler of both the
“smart grid” and the successful market penetration of the PHEV
itself. As such, DOE should incorporate the CashBack hybrid into
the PHEV R&D Plan.

and, - The PUF article indicated that the payments to individual PHEV
owners using V2G technology could be as much as $2,000 to $4,000
per year per vehicle for just spinning reserve or regulation services.
This is consistent with the earlier Kempton and Tomic article
(“Vehicle to Grid Fundamentals”, J. Power Sources Volume 144,
Issue 1, 1 June 2005), which calculates revenue up to
$6,000/year/vehicle. This is a sufficient payment to the prospective
CashBack hybrid purchaser to completely offset the higher
incremental cost of the vehicle in less than 5 years. While these
numbers assume a high-power plug and do not include costs that
could reduce them by approximately half, there is still a large net
payback.

And, in addition to traditional sources for electrical power, alternatives such as wind, solar photo-voltaic, and solar thermal are coming on-line at an ever higher pace. As well, solar panels are increasing efficiency and lowering costs. In fact, Tesla Motors offers to arrange installation of solar panels through one of their partners - see 'Can the Tesla Roadster use Solar Power?' on their FAQ page.

"If you travel less than 350 miles per week, you will therefore be “energy positive” with respect to your personal transportation. This is a step beyond conserving or even nullifying your use of energy for transport – you will actually be putting more energy back into the system than you consume in transportation!"

And, solar panels keep getting better.

And, batteries keep getting better.

***************************************************************************************


Now I'm the last to call solar power or electric vehicles 'planet savers'. Rhetoric like that has no place in a discussion of the very serious energy and environmental crisis we face. That's kind of like pointing to "The Hydrogen Economy" as the final answer to oil depletion. But I believe a combination of a number of alternatives, solar photovoltaic, solar-thermal, wind, along with some fundamental lifestyle changes, will indeed yield benefits in the coming decades. And electric vehicles should figure prominently in the equation.

"I really believe the future is electric vehicles. I think we will look back upon gasoline-powered cars ... as a temporary aberration," (Tesla) company chairman Elon Musk said Monday at a news conference.



http://imgred.com/
Phoenix Motorcars All-Electric Sports Utility Truck


Definitions

1. A Joule is the SI unit of energy, and can be defined in several ways, but for our purposes, one Joule equals one watt second. With 3600 seconds in an hour, one watt-hour equals 3.6 kilojoules. For a more usable measure of automotive energy, let's multiply by one thousand. Starting with a thousand watts per second, we get one kilowatt-hour, or 3.6 megajoules (3.6 million). One megajoule then equals just over ¼ kilowatt hour.

2. Gasoline’s energy content - Equal to 46.7 MJ/kg, or 34.3 MJ/l. We know that production of the gas and its transportation to the gas station is on average 81.7% efficient, meaning that 18.3% of the energy content of the crude oil is lost to production and transportation. Third, 34.3 MJ/l / 81.7% = 42 MJ/l; 42 mega-joules of crude oil are needed to produce one liter of gasoline at the gas pump.

[robinlynne]

1. I can't wait to have an EV. I saw who killed the electric car a year ago and have

been in awe ever since. All you have to do is meet someone who has one, and you will be convinced within minutes. there are 4 or 5 people who have them still in california, and they will do anything to keep them. Therre was lsit of 80,000 people trying to get EV1s 10 years ago! It is definitely a major part of the solution! And if you live in a place with lots of sun, you can put solar panels on top and not even use the grid. (We saw some after the film; the people in the moveie were there, live, showing us their cars and answering questions.)
Forget hybrid. electric is king.

[pretzel4gore]

2. and they were making e cars back in model t time!

the forklifts at the place i work have fake licence plates! they charge every 3rd night, and run every day. They are obviously aples versus ornges in the e car debate, but some warehouses post rules that the f'lifts don't go too fast.
it is really strange to think such a bunch of wool coulda been pulled over the public's eye, in the interest of oil and profiteers, asthe killing of the electtric car. and we wonder how the herd can be stampeded into senseless war...
(can the op sidescroll be taken out?)

[Greyhound]

15. The history of America can be defined as a 150 year long corporate

wool-pulling conspiracy. You name today's problem and it leads back to some company, or group of companies, lying, bribing, and in many cases murdering, in order to force their industry on us in spite of a clearly better alternative.

[pretzel4gore]

30. if bush can be credited with anything

it's this corruption-as-so-normal-it's-like-sea-to-the-fishes world we've grown up in! And some people go to India to 'transcend reality' or at least find out how. The entire human race could literally embark on a transcendental journey, together, if there was leadership to point out the possiblitities (they wouldn't have to lead, per se, as it would involve everyone)...bush certainly wasn't intending to unite humanity in sudden realization there's no way forward but progress, but it appears he has!
Junyer could end up a hero!
seriously

[Greyhound]

79. Or at least a catalyst, if not a hero. His utter incompetence has placed a spotlight

on their shadow world. Had he, like his father, stuck to the playbook, we wouldn't be having this conversation, it would be just business as usual with them making fortunes from the suffering and dying of thousands of people in some far away land.
:kick:

[Jonathan50]

3. I've seen an EV1 once..

It was dead on the side of the interstate.

The Tesla costs $93,000 has two seats, no roof, no AC and no heat.

Using the Tesla as an example of EVs is like using a Lamborghini as an example of commuter cars.

As I stated in another thread, I'm not anti EV, I actually look forward to EVs.

There are more than a few problems with EVs which have not been addressed by EV enthusiasts.

Heating and air conditioning will cut the range of an EV by a large percentage.

Many, many people do not have the ability to simply plug in an EV at night.

[IDemo]

4. Wrong and wrong

As I replied here -> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=632653&mesg_id=641240

Tesla's do indeed have heaters. And heated seats. And air conditioning.

And roofs -> http://www.teslamotors.com/styling/body.php?js_enabled=1

[Jonathan50]

10. Whoops, I stand corrected..

About the roof..

Was I wrong about the Tesla costing $93,000?

Was I wrong about heating and AC cutting the range of EVs?

Was I wrong about many people lacking a place to plug in an EV?

My wife is regional manager for an international retail chain, she does at *least* a hundred miles a day and sometimes considerably more than that.

Where I live, the traffic flow on the interstate runs a minimum of 70 to 75 mph and often a good bit faster than that, I can go 80 and get passed on a regular basis.

If you drive much less than 70 you will have an 18 wheeler glued to your bumper constantly, hardly a safe situation.

On the back roads we have a lot of logging trucks that often crawl along at 20 to 30 mph uphill, passing them is necessary if you wish to make any time on those roads.

Is there a practical and affordable EV that will deal with these requirements?

[IDemo]

17. You started last week with some false statements

"EV's are not as energy efficient as internal combustion"
"The Tesla has no heat and no air conditioning, therefore is useless"

When it was shown to you in both threads that you were mistaken, you vanished. Now the argument has shifted ala "He's got weapons of mass destruction" to "but he sure wanted weapons of mass destruction!" Now, it's not the lack of heating and air conditioning that is the Tesla/EV killer, but the presence of it?

The reason your Caravan has such great heating capabilities is because it wastes gasoline enormously as heat. Tesla attempts to use innovative, energy saving technology in their HVAC. -> http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/index.php?p=43&js_enabled=1

The Tesla and all other EV's represent a technology under continual development. The batteries are very much better than they were five years ago, but there is great promise for further developments in the near future.

If you're after a $25,000 vehicle right now that can make 700 mile trips, or traverse snow-covered mountain passes, this vehicle is not for you. Yet, anyway. That should be obvious to the casual observer. The costs of producing vehicles in a market where auto giants have had the benefits of massive volumes and (mostly) developed technology can't be overstated. The Tesla is a showpiece meant to draw attention to the company and to the technology, and to generate cash flow for more affordable models:

The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)
by Elon Musk
Chairman of the Board

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=8

Almost any new technology initially has high unit cost before it can be optimized and this is no less true for electric cars. The strategy of Tesla is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then drive down market as fast as possible to higher unit volume and lower prices with each successive model.

Without giving away too much, I can say that the second model will be a sporty four door family car at roughly half the $89k price point of the Tesla Roadster and the third model will be even more affordable. In keeping with a fast growing technology company, all free cash flow is plowed back into R&D to drive down the costs and bring the follow on products to market as fast as possible. When someone buys the Tesla Roadster sports car, they are actually helping pay for development of the low cost family car.

[ret5hd]

25. Just tell 'im the seat-covers are...

"pot-seed burn" resistant and he'll go buy one tomorrow. :rofl: (oh god i kill me.)

[Jonathan50]

32. I have a loved one doing hard time right now for a simple possession "drug crime"

When something similar happens to you, we'll see how hard you laugh.

[ret5hd]

34. ...never mind

[Jonathan50]

31. I pointed out normal driving conditions in the area I live in

And asked if there was an affordable EV that would do the job.

Your answer was apparently "no".

I still do not see how a diesel engine that is nearly 40% efficient ends up with a total vehicle efficiency of under 15%.

Perhaps you can explain that for me.

[IDemo]

35. The 40% number for diesel efficiency is not end-to-end

Well-to-wheel means just that, all of the processes involved in extracting, refining, and transporting an energy source, along with using it in a vehicle.

Don't get me wrong, I think diesel will make a great comeback in this country, especially with 'clean diesel' coming online. I would recommend those who need a vehicle, or whose needs would not be met by public transportation, to make it a diesel. But, that said, they still are not in the same ballpark efficiency-wise as EV's.

[Jonathan50]

37. Here's where I got the figure for diesel efficiency.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:5eTih1GdmjYJ:www.uaf.edu/energyin/webpage/pages/heat_engines/DEG.htm+diesel+efficiency&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Diesels are normally more efficient than gasoline engines. Efficiency is defined as the amount of power an engine can produce per amount of fuel it burns. For a diesel engine, this efficiency can approach forty percent.



And there is more about diesel efficiency here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/diesel.html

For an air standard engine with g = 1.4 , compression ratio rC = 15 and expansion ratio rE = 5, this gives an ideal diesel efficiency of 56%.

[Jonathan50]

50. I think you quoted the well to pump efficiency at 82.5 %

Diesel engines have an efficiency in the high 30% range according to my link above.

So 38% * 82.5% = 31.35% well to wheel efficiency.

I'm neglecting transmission losses since the Tesla has a transmission also.

Given that a coal plant has an efficiency of 33% then there is only 33 - 31.35 = 1.75%

1.75% isn't much to allow for all the grid losses, battery charge/discharge losses, control electronics losses and motor losses in an EV.

Didn't you quote 7.5% as grid losses?

I want to know where the 14% efficiency rating of IC cars comes from.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Your 38% efficiency is for a diesel running at its most efficient

but a diesel in a car, undergoing a real-world test, will have to operate at a variety of speeds and loads, so won't always be at its most efficient. That may be where electric vehicles really score - the most inefficient stage (conversion of chemical energy to mechanical) can be done in an engine specially designed to run continuously at its most efficient setting. That is, after all, why a hybrid can get a better mpg figure than the equivalent standard IC vehicle, despite carrying around the extra weight of batteries.

[Jonathan50]

53. Diesels are most efficient at low power settings, such as in a cruise.

The reason for that is diesels have no throttle, they take in a full charge of air at every power setting. It is the fuel which is regulated in a diesel engine, at low power settings diesels run very lean and all the fuel is burned creating thermal energy.

Furthermore, in a turbo diesel the turbo extracts a good portion of the thermal energy from the exhaust gases and uses that to compress the intake air charge which boosts efficiency even more.

I have a cousin in the UK that has an Audi turbo diesel, it gets over 50 mpg and inside the car you can't tell it is a diesel. The mileage on the highway is 64 mpg.

http://www.autoplanet.co.uk/vehiclePages/1/113831.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. Who says they're most efficient at low power?

Here are some measured figures for a generator using biodiesel:

Load = 2500W Fuel = .125 Gal / KW-Hr. 10.46 KW-Hr in 4h 6m; 1.313 gal of fuel used.

Load = 1469W Fuel = .146 Gal / KW-Hr. 5.25 KW-Hr in 3h 33m; 0.766 gal of fuel used.

Load = 1100W Fuel = .169 Gal / KW-Hr. 4.96 KW-Hr in 4h 26m; 0.836 gal of fuel used.

Load = 291W Fuel = .436 Gal / KW-Hr. 1.72 KW-Hr in 5h 54m; 0.750 gal of fuel used.

http://utterpower.com/jeffm.htm

So, at the highest load, you get 10.46/1.313 = 8.0 kWh/gallon; at the lowest, 1.72/0.75 = 2.3 kWh/gallon. Yes, the figures will be different for a turbocharged automotive engine, but it's not a question of whether the fuel is completely burnt or not: it's how efficiently that thermal energy is converted to mechanical energy.

In any case, I hope you see your calculation involving a 38% efficiency is irrelevant, because that involved a different engine working at constant load and speed. Wherever the most efficient point is for a diesel engine, it will have to spend time in a road test at different loads and speeds, and thus at less than maximum efficiency.

Note that the Audi A3 gets 64mpg (British gallons) in the extra urban test, which is 64 / 1.201 = 53 mpg (US gallons). So that shows the figures used for the Jetta should be about right.

[Jonathan50]

64. That doesn't necessarily speak to the efficiency of the diesel engine.

The efficiency of the generator will have a large effect on the overall efficiency of the engine/generator combination.

[Jonathan50]

65. Audi says so..

http://www.audiusa.com/audi/us/en2/experience/technology/Audi_TDI/Audi_R10_V12_TDI.html

One of the diesel engine’s biggest advantages is the low fuel consumption, especially at part-throttle and overrun. However, when compared to more classic circuits which demand a higher ratio of part throttle, the lower specific consumption will hardly be noticeable at Le Mans because the quota of full-throttle is almost 75 percent.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. That's relative to a gasoline engine

It doesn't say the engine is at its most efficient at 'part-throttle' - it's just comparing its efficiency with a gasoline-engined car.

See, for instance the brake specific fuel consumption (eg gallons/hour/HP) map for a diesel engine:

http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~amaliko/Research%20Projects.htm (figure 1)

(bigger image at )

The best figures occur at the highest load, for most speeds (but not necessarily, below 1500 rpm), and it's at its most efficient near to its highest torque at about 1900 rpm.

[Jonathan50]

84. That map is for full power, not idle fuel consumption.

The low rpm figures are at a high torque, not idling.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. And you have 0% efficiency when idling, by definition

The y-axis is torque - the map covers low and high torque situations, and low and high rpm. Power is the product of torque and rpm.

[Jonathan50]

88. And an EV is 0% efficient when it is sitting still with all the accessories going.

The lowest torque reading on the graph is just under 400 Nm at somewhere around 800 rpm.

That is not an idle situation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. No, the lowest torque reading on the map is about 50 Nm

I think you're just looking at the top line on the map - which shows the maximum torque for any given engine speed. So at 2000 rpm, and 700 Nm, the specific fuel consumption is about 216 (the units aren't specified - g/kWh, perhaps), while at 2000 rpm and 100 Nm, it's about 288.

[Jonathan50]

93. Still not an idle situation.

The lowest torque reading at the lowest rpm is still 100 Nm, that is still not an idle situation.

The lowest torque reading of 100 Nm is 1/8 of the highest reading of 800 Nm.

With no legend, the chart is not very clear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. But we know the efficiency at idle - 0%

I'm not sure why you keep going on about it. The BSFC would be infinite, by definition, since there would be zero braking force on an idling engine.

[Jonathan50]

97. I already pointed out that the EV also has an efficiency of 0% at a standstill

While all the accessories are still running.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. Yes, I know you did

and I also can't work out why you're repeating that as well. Is there any point in me replying to you in future - or are you just going to repeat what you've already said?

[Jonathan50]

101. You repeated yourself first, why may I not do the same?

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. I repeated myself because you asked again about the efficiency at idle

I assume that's sunk in, now.

[IDemo]

66. From the US Department of Energy

They are addressing the total vehicle as a system, not just the engine.

The graphic below is from fueleconomy.gov (US Department of Energy). Using the 'engine losses' shown of 62.4% would yield an engine efficiency number of 37.6%, or just about your number of 40% for diesels. When all other losses; from idling, operating accesories, and driveline, are included, the total energy efficiency becomes greatly reduced.

- Tesla and other electric vehicles are using a very much more efficient motor (90-95%) than an equivalently powered IC engine.
- Idling losses are non-existent for EV's.
- EV's have the benefit of returning braking energy to the battery, whereas IC powered vehicles turn it into heat loss.

Only about 15% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets used to move your car down the road or run useful accessories, such as air conditioning. The rest of the energy is lost to engine and driveline inefficiencies and idling. Therefore, the potential to improve fuel efficiency with advanced technologies is enormous.

[Jonathan50]

69. The Tesla has a driveline, just like an IC car.

Diesels are extremely efficient at idle.

The EV also has to run accessories, lights, heater, AC, stereo, windshield wiper, etc.

The control electronics and the battery charging electronics as well as the batteries themselves have losses, your link refers to only the motor itself.

Unless you use a direct electrical connection for charging (some danger involved) you must use an inductive system for charging (much safer), the inductive charging system has considerable losses associated with its use.

I've seen a 300 amp panel melt down and spray molten aluminum from the bus bars all over the room, you really don't want to be messing with the voltages and amperages involved in EVs unless it is absolutely fool proof.

A twelve volt car battery will turn the battery leads red hot and melt them if the leads are shorted out, I've seen it happen right in front of me.

Even sticking a single AA nicad cell in your pocket is dangerous, if it shorts out on coins or keys in your pocket it will get hot enough to burn the hell out of you, I've had that happen too.

[Jonathan50]

96. Looking at your graphic above..

The only loss I see that the IC vehicle has over the EV is standby/idle, all the others are present in the Tesla.

For the Tesla

33% for the coal fired power plant.

7.5% for grid losses.

10% for motor losses.

10% for battery charge/discharge losses.

5% for charging electronics losses (I'm estimating here, but there is either a step up transformer and a rectifier in the charger or it has an electronic voltage booster of some sort).

5% for power control circuits for the motor (another estimate, but I think I'm in the ballpark)

2.2% for accessories (I don't see why it would be any different than for an IC car).

2.6% for aerodynamic drag (that sounds awfully low)

4.2% for rolling resistance.

4.8% for inertia and braking (unless you brake quite gently regenerative braking isn't going to accomplish much of the braking action, I'm allowing 1% for that).

So we end up with a total efficiency of the Tesla at:

33*.925*.9*.9*.95*.95*.978*.974*.958*.952 = 19.38%



Here are some interesting numbers I found about the economic efficiency of different power sources:

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=262

Economic Efficiency is the most important measure of efficiency because it measures how a plant uses scarce resources and what the value of those resources is. Economic Efficiency is measured using production cost. Production cost is the cost of operating the plant—including fuel, labor, materials, and services—to produce one kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. In 2005, nuclear power had the lowest production cost of the major sources of electricity, with production cost of 1.72 cents/kWh. Coal had a cost of 2.21 cents/kWh, natural gas 7.51 cents/kWh, and petroleum 8.09 cents/kWh. Hydro had a production cost of 0.83 cents/kWh, wind 0.04 cents/kWh and solar 2.17 cents/kWh.

Strangely enough, they do not count the amortized cost of the power plant into the production cost numbers. For nuclear plants in particular that is going to be a big percentage of the production costs, especially if you add in decommissioning costs which are probably going to be very high for a nuclear plant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. I think you're using a few figures from the graphic incorrectly

The 2.6%, 4.2% and 4.8% (=5.8-1) are explanations of where the 12.6% of the gasoline energy goes to - they add up to 12.6%. What it's saying is that, in typical driving, 2.6% of the gasoline energy is dissipated in aerodynamic drag (ie 2.6/12.6=21% of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle), 4.2% in rolling resistance (33% of KE) and 5.8% (46% of KE) is dissipated through the brakes.

The PDF from which the OP's figures came gives the relevant figures they use:

grid transmission losses 8%
battery charging/discharging combined efficiency 86%

Using those, and your 33% for coal-fired electricity, 90% for electric motor efficiency, 2.2% for accessories, we get
33*.92*.86*.9*.978 = 23.0% efficiency - which should be compared with the 18.2% efficiency of the output of the gasoline engine (I suspect the Tesla's transmission, which is effectively manual, would have lower losses than the one given in the diagram, but they don't give a figure for that - they give the figure of 'kilometres driven per megajoule supplied to the motor'). The regenerative braking would get another 20% of the energy dissipated in braking back - assuming the driveline efficiency is a conservative 70% (same as the diagram), that's .23*.7*.46*.2 = 1.5%. So, using coal-fired generation, it would be about 24.5% compared to 18.2%.

[Jonathan50]

107. I would really like to know what speed those figures were taken at.

Aerodynamic drag increases with the square of the velocity while rolling resistance is relatively constant.

It's only going to take increasing the velocity by a quite small amount in order to greatly increase the aerodynamic drag to the point where it exceeds the rolling resistance.

I routinely see people going 80+ here in 55 speed limit zones. Keeping from doing that in a Tesla is going to be hard, particularly because it is so smooth and silent.

I know from personal experience with motorcycles that the quieter they are, the faster you tend to go. Lots of noise attracts attention and when your bike is quiet you don't feel as obvious as you do with loud pipes.

On a 750 Honda I had, when I bought it there was a Kerker pipe on it with no baffle. After I had been riding the bike for a few months I bought a Supertrapp muffler for the pipe and the noise level was cut by at least 90%. It was a revelation, places where I was afraid to crank it on because of the noise I was now accelerating wildly.

[IDemo]

105. regenerative braking: your results may vary

But unless you spend the majority of your time on the highway, it will increase the overall efficiency of the vehicle:

With an AC system regenerative braking can extend range by up to 50% under extreme traffic conditions without complete stopping. Otherwise, the range is extended by about 10 to 15% in city driving, and only negligibly in highway driving, depending upon terrain.

[Jonathan50]

106. Certainly regenerative braking will extend the range of the vehicle

But I'm not sure that the effect is going to be all that much, particularly in something like the Tesla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_braking

Traditional friction-based braking is still used with regenerative braking for the following reasons:

* The regenerative braking effect rapidly reduces at lower speeds.
* The amount of electrical energy capable of dissipation is limited by either the capacity of the supply system to absorb this energy or on the state of charge of the battery or capacitors. No regenerative braking effect can occur if another electric vehicle on the same supply system is not currently drawing power or if the battery or capacitors are already charged.


I've had and driven enough hot rod cars to know just how hard it is to keep one's foot off the loud pedal and the brakes. The Tesla has a very effective loud pedal and massive Brembo brakes. The temptation to use both is going to be well nigh overwhelming.

As you can see from above, regenerative braking rapidly reduces at lower speeds, such as in bumper to bumper traffic.

[wtmusic]

44. Yes, there was an EV that could do the job

The EV1 was everything you asked for, and more. And had GM continued development over the past eight years it likely would have been as affordable as any other midsize car.

"Not having an outlet" is about the most ridiculously petty, solvable disadvantage I've yet heard. How about never having to go to a gas station again?

But you're obviously determined to feed the Oil Beast and I won't stand in your way -- just don't pretend like your obstinacy is a legit basis for the ridiculous notion that EVs "aren't there yet".

[Jonathan50]

48. The EV1 wasn't even close to being capable of what I described.

Even with the NiMH upgrade in '99 it had a range of about 100-130 miles.

http://www.ev1.pair.com/charge_across_america/charge_html/nimh_test2.html

Plugging in the vehicle is a major problem for a lot of people, apartment dwellers and city dwellers in particular. In NYC you can't even park on the same side of the street all week.

Ever forget to turn on your alarm clock?

What happens when you forget to plug in your EV?

[wtmusic]

58. You're getting desperate

What happens when you forget to fill up your gas tank? :eyes:

Many apartment dwellers have outlets in their garages; some will have to get them. Major technological obstacle? I think not.

btw, once your EV runs out on the road you can park it for about ten minutes and it will "grow amps" -- if you're within a few miles of home, you get a free ride.

How did people ever get by with internal combustion all those years?

[Jonathan50]

60. Most apartments don't have garages.

Where do you live that apartments have garages?

I have run out of gas in a car before, you walk or hitchhike to the gas station, get a can and some gas, walk or hitchhike back to the car, pour gas in and off you go.

Can't do that with an EV, you'll have to call a towing service.

[DCKit]

77. We get it. IT'S NOT FOR YOU

But what about those of us who want/need a car for <50 miles /day?

Why is this all about your needs? Even the EV-1 had a minimum range of 70 miles/charge, which would be more than enough for my needs.

Jeebus, we've got to start somewhere.

[Jonathan50]

82. I know EVs will suit some people.

But truly, how many people are there that *never* drive more than say 100 miles per day?

Most people take trips, on vacation, going to Grandma's house for Thanksgiving, "leaf lookers" in the fall, etc etc.

Given the security hassles at the airports these days, if the trip is less than about 400 miles or so it's usually quicker to drive than to fly.

As you can see below, if there is more than one person in the car and you have a relatively fuel efficient car, the fuel used is less to drive than to fly.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/10/1/181114/667

So my roundtrip travel from NYC to Raleigh (if we were flying a 747, which is not usually true)** would require 19 gallons of fuel per passenger (38 gallons for the two of us), as compared to 28 gallons for the two of us to go from NYC to Raleigh in the car (1000 miles / 35mpg = ~28 gallons). So once you have 2 people in the car, it's worth it to drive from New York to Raleigh on the basis of fuel consumption and C02 emissions. (And not to mention cost, except that we had gotten frequent flier tickets.)

Which brings us inexorably back to the question: how does the fuel consumption and C02 emissions of the flight compare to the time (about 10 hours) and heartache required to drive from New York to Raleigh?

[MindPilot]

71. It's your refusal to look at the situation as anything but all or nothing.

that is bugging me. I saw it months ago when I first posted about the Tesla.

Of course an electric car is not viable for everyone. But for the vast majority of commuters who drive less than 50 or 60 miles a day and come home to a place where they can plug in, it works.

So the Tesla costs a lot. New technology always does. My first VCR cost a month's salary, my first computer memory upgrade--from 4MB to 8MB--was the better part of a thousand bucks. The price will come down.

As to heating and cooling cutting the range, yeah so? Maybe that's a problem that may have to be addressed with the most horrifying and anti-american measures imaginable: People will actually have to learn how to properly operate the machinery they are using.

All I'm saying is give the technology and the markets a chance to develop. Just because an EV isn't right for you, doesn't mean it won't work for a whole lot of other people.

[Jonathan50]

83. I don't think that I have posted anything about EVs except in the last few weeks.

I think EVs will be fine for some people, but I don't think it will be as many as you imagine.

How many people really and truly never drive more than say 100 miles at a time?

As to cooling and heating, what is there to operate? You turn on the heater or AC and set the temp you desire.

I know that down here in the south where I live you have to run the AC full out in most cars during the summer to keep the interior comfortable. Cars are big solar collectors and when you first get in, you can't touch the steering wheel it's so hot. A lot of the energy used by an AC also goes to dehumidification rather than just cooling. If you leave the AC compressor on too much the evaporator coils will ice up and then you lose cooling and dehumidification.

[Touchdown]

28. Looks like it's got heat and A/C on the console to me.

http://www.teslamotors.com/styling/cockpit/cockpit.php

[chaska]

5. I haven't read this yet (I will though), but I think it's a mistake...,

judging from what I've read, to think that we will be able to continue on the way things are by just replacing gas powered cars with electric ones.

Just for starters, there will be far fewer places to go once the oil is gone and we're going to have a lot less money to spend once we get there. The end of oil, at some point, will quite possibly (if we're lucky) bring about Thomas Jefferson's vision of an America of small farmers. Between now and then, there will be massive unemployment as one business after another shuts its doors.

We no longer make anything in this country, and we will someday (and soon) have massive inventories of things that will be recognized to be as utterly useless as they truly are, and that nobody will want. We will have to start making things again. I'd suggest gardening equipment. We'll need it.

Nothing can replace oil, not even all other technologies combined.

I'd suggest googling 'Alice Friedemann' and reading her stuff.

Respecfully,

Chaska

[IDemo]

6. I'm not saying we will 'continue on the way things are'

At the end of my post, I noted "But I believe a combination of a number of alternatives, solar photovoltaic, solar-thermal, wind, along with some fundamental lifestyle changes, will indeed yield benefits in the coming decades."

I think that before 'the oil is gone' we have the opportunity to make drastic changes in the way we use energy; local produce, conservation, and tremendously more energy-efficient transportation modes. I put more value on the development of light rail than I do on EV's or any other passenger automobile. But at more than double the energy efficiency of even the best gasoline powered car, EV's offer good short to mid benefits, as well as cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions.

[chaska]

7. I agree wholeheartedly...

I didn't read your post yet, so i wasn't commenting on anything you did or didn't say. I just wanted to kick you back to the top - for one. And since I have truly begun to "get it" about peak oil, I feel like an evangelist or Chicken Little or something. Got to get the word out, BUT QUICK!

Light rail is a great idea. Our rail system is an embarrassment. If we could get some of that 300 mph action happening here we could forget about air travel, with all it's planet destroying side effects, to a great extent.

I'm a big promoter of electric cars myself. Although, I did see something recently that caused me to want to investigate how green battery production is. Maybe you addressed that.

I will read your thread tonight.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Has anyone done any studies comparing light rail to a battery-powered bus?

What's nice about buses is that they can use the extensive existing road network, extremely flexibly. Light rail may be great for high-use routes, but for routes that you only want to have a couple of vehicles an hour on, can the extra infrastructure of rails be justified? Buses use the roads that delivery vehicles and bicycles will continue to need, as well as the possibility of personal electric vehicles, whether 2 wheeled or 4 wheeled, using them.

[wtmusic]

61. And even when the infrastructure is already there

many communities are pulling up the rails and building busways/bikeways. LA's San Fernando Valley's Metro Orange Line uses NG-powered carbon-fiber buses on a dedicated busway built on an old railroad easement. The buses can change streetlights, and are the fastest way to get across town, by far.

http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/orangeline/images/ol_interactive.htm

[conscious evolution]

8. Great post

Especially in point three-The overloaded electrical grid myth.There is not an electricity shortage in this country unless it is artificially created by Enron type people. When it comes to power availability in this country there is excess generating capacity.Think about it.All those plants and factories that have been moved off shore no longer require power.The generaion facilities are still here though.

[chaska]

9. Introducing Alice Friedemann....

Alice Friedemann is THE authority on peak oil and the coming post oil age.

I'd suggest googling her articles. We just don't get this level of research, and this level of insight very often.

This is her latest. I haven't read it yet, but if it's anywhere near as good as her others, I'll be well satisfied.

http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1

[YankeyMCC]

11. Good job

[jbnow]

12. Is it too late

to edit and shorten the lines of ****s?
I think that is what is making the post too wide so you have to scroll back and forth to be able to read it.
It's so good but when it's long and you are scrolling sideways you loose your place.

(It doesn't look like you need it that wide to fit the graphs but I could be wrong)

[IDemo]

13. Apologies to all on the display of the post

I don't know if it's because of the run-on '***'s or not. I'm using a 1280 x 960 screen resolution and it displays correctly, but the lines do run off the page at lower resolutions. Too late to edit x(

[druidity33]

14. agreed... i can't really read it. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

18. really...great stuff, but I'm not going to read it the way it's formatted. please start a new

thread that's readable

it takes too much.....electricity!

[gravity]

16. The main problem with electric cars is the energy density of the batteries

It might be more effecient, but the amount of energy it can store is limited. You can only drive 50 miles, then have to wait 4 hours for it to recharge again.

[IDemo]

19. Five times 50 miles, actually

250 Miles Between Charges

Before now, electric vehicles typically capped off around 60 miles per charge, relegating them to the status of commuter cars. The Tesla Roadster changes all that. Plug it in at night when you pull into the garage, and you can drive about 250 miles on that charge the next day.

[gravity]

21. That's if you spend $90k for a two seater

If can do that in a mid-sized car for a reasonable price, then maybe electric cars will become a viable alternative.

[IDemo]

22. See post #17 above

Plans are already in the works from Tesla. Phoenix Motors and others already have lower priced vehicles.

[gravity]

23. I'll believe it when I see it.

[IDemo]

20. Mods - is there anyway the edit window can be re-opened to fix this?

[Duppers]

24. K & R

The mods should be able to do something about the side scroll problem of the OP, but it's worth the read EVEN with the scroll.

Bottom line is that the internal combustion has to go and do the naysayers have a better idea? Hell no. We could all ride on trolleys? }(

[Gregorian]

26. It's pretty simple.

But first, I should say that the electric car is an elegant design. And highly efficient. Having said that,

Generally speaking we either use photovoltaics or we use the grid.

If we use photovoltaics to charge batteries, we're talking electric cars.

If we use the grid, we're talking internal combustion, or other ugliness. (Unless it's hydroelectic. But they don't separate out like that). And the only difference between burning gasoline and getting it off the grid (in the case of coal or oil fired power plants) is the efficiency of the generator engine versus the autombile engine. And that's fairly significant, but does not solve much. Not to mention the line losses such as capacitance to ground, when running an ac grid. Those factor in as well.


Personally, I'm getting ready to go off the grid. And when I do, I'll be either building or buying an electric car. But how many people are going to be doing that?


It's never as simple as it seems. I'd like to see a link for your first table. The Greet link doesn't work for me. It locks up.


The argument I have is that we already know the internal combustion engine is horribly inefficient. It throws off gobs of energy in the form of waste heat. We know the electric car is efficient. That is not the argument. We're trying to get off of the oil addiction. This is why I am not inclined to get excited about electric cars yet. They've been around for nearly a half century. It's nothing new. Yes, electric cars would be an improvement. Let's do it. It's hardly worth talking about in comparison to the generation of electricity. This is where we need to focus our efforts. Why are we talking about cars when the big issue is not about the cars. It's about how we generate the power. And this is why I always have a bone to pick with these posts. Everyone knows electric cars are efficient.

Edit- Sorry. I don't mean to pick on you. Here, have this interesting link. I'm getting ready to meet this guy. I now live down the street from him.

http://www.renewables.com/Permaculture/Charging.htm

[IDemo]

29. The GREET link works, but it may take a while to display

I forgot to include my standard .pdf warning. After I am named the Internet Czar, I will ban pdf (Painful Document Format)!

The points you make about line losses on the grid are dealt with in the "well-to-tank" analysis. Another study from 1995 showed transmission line losses of around 7.2% for the US. The point being that when the 'electrical outlet-to-wheel' portion comes in, electric vehicles are far more efficient overall than internal combustion.

But solar is good. Your friend sounds like someone I would definitely like to meet (particularly if he wants to help me build a battery powered Porsche).

[happydreams]

27. Damn this is a weird bit of de-ja vu. ....

I was reading about how JP Morgan bankrolled then busted Tesla over a century ago. Tesla's work on electromagnetism could have rendered the fossil fuel industry obsolete. :crazy:

[Jcrowley]

33. Good work

K&R

[seasat]

36. Zapx Lotus designed EV SUV is what I want.

I saw an article on these in Popular Science. They have a range of 350 miles and a top speed of 155 mph (LINK)



Only 60k estimated price. Anyone want to buy me one?

[Jonathan50]

38. Recharge the batteries in ten minutes?

350 miles * 1.609 KM/mile = 563.15

563.15 * 110 WH/KM = 61,946.5 watt hours

62 KWh * 6 ten minute periods in one hour = 372 KW to recharge in ten minutes.

372,000 watts/ 240 volts = 1,550 Amps..

Most residential electric services run 200 to 300 amps max.

Sounds like its made of unobtainium to me.

[Jonathan50]

41. A couple of more points on the Lotus EV

With 644 horsepower the claimed 155 mph top speed is far too low.

I had a 93 Infiniti Q45 that had 278 horsepower and it would go 150 mph.





With wheel hub electric motors and no doubt disk brakes at all four wheels the unsprung weight on the car is going to be very high, this is going to effect both ride and handling negatively.


I've had a Lotus before, they tend to be kind of fragile.

This is the same car as my 62 Lotus Elite:

[skids]

39. Which is why I upgraded my Prius...

...it looked like the PHEV kits were not going to be produced for the 2002 model, so I grabbed a 2007.

When I'm surer of my big financial plans going forward I'll get me one of them. I already have an EV, essentially, just I generate the electricity onboard. Of course with the gas engine idle, that will be a low amount of horsepower, but not undrivable.

And the fact that its a lot easier for someone to cleanly generate electricity, whether in their own back yard or at a power plant, than it is to create a liquid fuel, should not be understated. It really is returning market power to the consumer, who has been held captive by almighty gasoline for too long.

If there's something more attractive than a conversion kit for the Prius on the market at that time, either a pure EV or factory-gate PHEV, I'll definitely be considering that option as well.

Thanks for doing the math out for everybody to see. (P.S. one of your LNG rows has units of gallons by mistake.)

[Daedelus76]

40. How about cost?

EV vehicles are not cheap.

I looked into an electric motor scooter. There currently are no serious bikes like it on the American market, but the closest is the Vectrix, which may enter American distribution soon, at a whopping 8,500 dollars (I could buy a new Harley at that price). It has nickle-metal-hydride batteries, and a range of about 80 miles or so. Top speed is 60 miles per hour- maybe not quite enough punch for the expressway, but fast enough for a highway or around town.

OK, now take a gas scooter of comparable size/weight, the Honda Reflex. It gets 65-70 mpg. Not great by scooter standards, but about average for a 250cc motorcycle/scooter with a standard carb and two cylinders. Range is hundreds of miles. Top speed is about 75-80 mph. It has a huge trunk. And it only costs about 5,000 dollars tops. I know places you can buy them for as little as 3,500, with almost no miles.

BTW, hybrid scooters and motorcycles fare even worse. You loose any storage space for the batteries, and the gas mileage isn't improved all that much, 15 percent. Possibly because the mass is so low in the first place, there just isn't alot of energy to recapture (also, two-wheelers don't necessarily have to brake for turns- unlike cars).

I suspect the economics of EV's are very similar for cars. They simply won't pay for themselves. Not unless you are replacing a Hummer... and then why not buy a Yaris? They'll need government subsidies (which exist... I wonder if the federal rebates for electric cars cover bikes?).

PS... maybe, just maybe, you'ld save money on maintanence? But how much dollars are we talking here? And will the batteries and motor last as long as the typical car engine will? I doubt it.

[Jonathan50]

43. I put 25,000 miles on a '82 Honda FT 500 and never spent a nickle on maintenance

Other than oil and filter changes.

I paid $1100 brand new in '85

It would go about 90 and got 65 mpg.






This is an '85 Honda Nighthawk S, it was described by one of the motorcycle magazines as "hot rod heart, maytag maintenance". Shaft drive and hydraulic valve lifters, goes about 130 and gets about 50 mpg.




Here is the bike I lust over now, but I'll probably never ride again.

A Honda ST1100, this is used as a Police motorcycle in Europe.

[wtmusic]

45. What, no heater?

:rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

46. No roof either, by the look of it...

:D

[Jonathan50]

49. None of them cost a fraction of $93,000 either

:P

[wtmusic]

42. Great work IDemo

When I get my car on the road I want to print this out and hand it to people. The perfect weapon against the "we're not there yet" meme. :thumbsup:

[razzleberry]

47. why did Honda squish all their EV+s ...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_EV%2B

[sendero]

54. Very nice..

.... thanks for posting. It's really no question that if we're going to drive individual cars around like we do now, we're going to have to get away from the neanderthal IC engine.

[ThomWV]

55. Did Any of You People Actually Read The Article?

The very first thing it tells you is that if you factor in all energy costs cradle to grave then the internal combustion engine wins hands down. Read it - that is what it says. The only way the electric vehicle wins is if you do not consider any cost (environmental or cultural) for the electricity at the receptacle where you plug in the charger. Really, that is what it says - read the dam thing.

[Jonathan50]

56. Which article are you referring to?

The GREET article?

I didn't see anything there about cradle to grave energy costs.

Please post a link, I would really like to read that.

[razzleberry]

57. the-electric-car cuts the petroleum pigs out of the deal

what else needs to be written?

[wtmusic]

59. Where does it say that?

I did a search for the phrase "hands down" and it came back "0 occurences".

:shrug:

[ThomWV]

67. Second Paragraph ... if you had bothered to look

"Beginning with the energy content of the source fuel from the ground, and removing the energy required to refine/process it and transport it to filling station or electrical outlet yields a "well-to-tank" (or "well-to-station") efficiency number. If you stopped here, you might abandon all hope for the Tesla and other EV's. What you see favors gasoline, with a well-to-tank figure of 81.7% ², versus only 52.5% for even the most efficient electricity, generated by high efficiency natural gas powered turbines."

Then it goes on to give the method used for the horseshit that follows. Bottom line is they ignore the loss from coal seam to electrical outlet to come out with an outcome that says that electric cars are better than gasoline cars.

Get over it, the answer is not in better cars, its in less transportation.

[Gregorian]

68. Or in better power generation.

The REAL answer is two fold. Primarily it is fewer humans. Secondarily it is less living outside of the natural system.

And I say fewer humans because I don't believe 7 billion can live in harmony on this planet.


But thanks! I made the same comments up above.

And now I'm off for a bike ride through the forest. The only way I can stay sane in an insane world. Fuck cars!

[piedmont]

70. They didn't ignore it at all.

The electric car is more efficient than the most efficient gas-burner. This more than compensates for the inefficiency in producing and distributing the electricity. Plus, if the juice were generated in a decentralized manner, using solar, wind, geothermal, etc., it's even better.

[wtmusic]

73. They ignore the loss from coal seam to electrical outlet?

It's clearly labeled as one of the >100 fuel pathways taken into account. Check out the lower right corner:



http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/

And why do you only include well-to-wheel? Shouldn't we be looking at the entire energy picture? :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. No, you've misunderstood it

They use the gas-well-to electrical outlet figure, and multiply that by the Tesla's km/MJ figure to get 'well-to-wheel' (2.18 km/MJ * 52.5% = 1.145 km/MJ). They similarly multiply the gasoline-powered car's figure by the well-to-station efficiency for gasoline to get 0.65km/MJ * 81.7% = 0.515 km/MJ.

They don't ignore the losses to the electrical outlet at all. The worst you could say about that is that they use the efficiency of the latest natural-gas power station, rather than the average efficiency of all US power generation.

[Jonathan50]

78. Over half of US generating capacity is coal fired.

[piedmont]

81. Even if ALL U.S. electric production were coal-fired...

it would have to be less than 25.5% efficient to make internal combustion engine cars a better choice than electric vehicles.

[Jonathan50]

89. And your proof for that is what?

[piedmont]

98. From the vehicle efficiencies in the OP.

EV 2.180 km/MJ
Gasoline engine .515 km/MJ

[Jonathan50]

110. I question the validity of that..

I think they are not adding in a lot of the things that will make EVs less efficient overall.

[piedmont]

111. Such as???

[conscious evolution]

91. Probable true

However it is a lot easier to clean emmisions at a few locations than to keep 50 brazillian mobile polluters that we currently have running all over the place in a low emmission state.
Energy effiency is not the only consideration in the EV debate.Reducing greehouse emmisions is also an important part of the equation.One that seems to be left out here.

[Jonathan50]

94. Greenhouse emissions means CO2..

I think the CO2 output is going to be relatively similar between a fossil fuel plant and an IC engine for a given KWh rating.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0406/p03s03-sten.html

From 1990, when the Clean Air Act was amended, through 2004, the 100 largest electric-power companies cut by 44 percent their emissions of sulfur dioxide, the gas most associated with acid rain. Nitrous oxides, associated with ozone and smog, have fallen by 36 percent in the same period.

However, carbon dioxide emissions - which are not regulated at the federal level - rose 27 percent through 2004. Power plants are the single largest emitters in the US of carbon dioxide, which many scientists say is the primary culprit behind global warming.

[IDemo]

100. Pollutants, CO2, EVs, ICEs, and coal

An excellent source I had meant to include in the 2nd portion of the OP, but forgot:
http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf">"Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks"

According to the World Resources Institute, EVs recharging from coal-fired
plants will reduce CO2 emissions in this country from 17 to 22 percent. (1)

-- The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that EV’s operating in the Los
Angeles Basin would produce 98 percent fewer hydrocarbons, 89 percent fewer oxides of
nitrogen, and 99 percent less carbon monoxide than ICE vehicles.

In a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs are
significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity
generation process produces less then 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000
pounds for ICE vehicles. See Table 3.

CO2 emissions are also significantly lower. Over the course of 100,000 miles, CO2
emissions from EVs are projected to be 10 tons versus 35 tons for ICE vehicles.(2)

Table 3. Pounds of Emissions Produced per 100,000 Miles14


Many EV critics remain skeptical of such findings because California’s mix of power
plants is relatively clean compared to that in the rest of the country. However, in Arizona
where 67 percent of power plants are coal-fired, a study concluded that EVs would reduce
greenhouse gases such as CO2 by 71 percent.(3)

Similar comparisons to those in California and Arizona can be found in the
Northeastern part of the country where the majority of power plants are coal-fired.

A study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs in the
Northeast would reduce CO emissions by 99.8 percent, volatile organic compounds (VOC)
by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent, and CO2 by as much as 60 percent.(4)

1 -The Keys to the Car, (World Resources Institute, Baltimore, Maryland

2 - California Air Resources Board, Draft Technical Document for the Low-Emission
Vehicle and Zero-Emission Vehicle Workshop on March 25, 1994, Zero-Emission
Vehicle Update

3 - “Emissions, Quantifying the Air Quality Impact of EV Recharging,” Green Car Journal

4 - Center for Technology Assessment Transportation Technology Review, “CTA
Findings Reveal Carnegie-Mellon Study Misrepresents Environmental Impacts of
Electric Vehicles,”

[Paulie]

62. I didn't see it, but these performance metrics are at what operating temperature?

Batteries are affected by temperature, especially high-discharge batteries. How do these numbers look at -30C, 0C, and 40C? And at these temperatures, what's the additional drain for heat and cooling to an internal cab temperature to say 20C at both extremes?

Then there is the issue if you're commuting and your destination may be less than half a charge, but you have to park it in the 0C for 10 hours without a charger. Will you make it home???

[Morereason]

75. Anyone discussing the health effects of EMFs?

I am concerned about the effects of basically driving within an electric motor. Is there any published information on Electromagnetic radiation?

[MindPilot]

76. Probably not significant

You are not "driving within an electric motor". An electric motor has to have its magnetic field contained and focused in order to work--that's a fundamental design principle. I doubt if you are going to find anything as hazardous in an EV as sitting atop 20 gallons of a very VOC.

[Rosemary2205]

80. All I care is how far will it go in a day with a big payload.

If I can get one with a 1 ton payload capacity and will tow 9000lbs that will go freeway speeds for 700 miles on one charge, and in my price range, then I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

If it will charge fast and get us there in our 10-12 hr drive then I'm all for it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. Very few people cover 700 miles in one go

Your requirement is very specialised.

[Jonathan50]

90. We live near Atlanta

And have family in NY, Connecticut, Ohio and deep south Georgia (250 miles).

We drive since there are usually at least two adults and three children.

[and-justice-for-all]

87. thanx IDemo for the post...That truck is Hot!! nt

[Bushwick Bill]

104. Problems...

Natural gas generates a good chunk of our electricity in this country, it is in steep decline in North America, will be gone in a decade, and there is little infrastructure in place to replace it with dangerous LNG imports.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PFE20070413&articleId=5380

So, you are going to have to rely on nukes and coal to increase the electrical generation.

My problem with the EV types is they seem to assume we can continue consuming the way we always have, more growth, more growth, more growth.

Any solution to our energy crises which does not involve powerdown and relocalization is no solution.

[EnviroBat]

108. Your post is fantastic!

Packed with facts, numbers, and extremely educational. I really dig it when someone comes here and "walks the walk" so to speak. Thanks for your hard work. And yes, I am a devout fan of the EV. I'm hoping Tesla releases their plan for the entry market car they were discussing awhile ago. I always tell my friends that if I hit the lottery, my first two purchases are going to be a solar home and a Tesla roadster in the garage...

[IChing]

109. Toyota Prius can't pass GEORGIA's emissions test(because the state is ignorant)

Eco-conscious drivers in Georgia are finding out that the grass isn't necessarily greener on their side of the fence. 2007 is the first year drivers of the 2004 Prius are required to get their cars tested for emissions. You'd think the clean-running hybrid would have no problems breezing through the exam. But, as CNN reports, no matter how many times Georgia drivers try to test one, they all fail. Huh?

Well, sorta. It's more like the Prius refuses to take the test. When the Prius is set to idle at 2,500 rpm on the tester, it does what it's supposed to do. It shuts off the engine to save fuel. Georgia's pre-hybrid equipment issues a failing grade because of an incomplete test.

Instead of just acknowledging its system is outdated, Georgia still requires Prius owners to pay the $25 testing fee for an "aborted test." That allows them to get a failed certificate from the tester which car owners must take to one of five waiver centers (M-F, 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m.) to be granted permission to buy a license plate. Don't ya love bureaucracy? >>>>>snip

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/16/prius-cant-pass-geor...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x92248