[apeweek]

Originally Posted by infamous

Very true, however, but you need to remember that much of the electricity produced in this country is done so by burning fossil fuels. Soooo, I ask you then; Why compound the efficiency loss by first burning the fossil fuel at the station and then adding to it the transmission over the grid?
....................................Infy

You have to remember that fossil fuel burns much more efficiently at a big powerplant than it does in a little auto engine.

Then it's just a matter of multiplying out the efficiency numbers I provided. Greater efficiency means less energy is needed to move a vehicle the same distance, and therefore less pollution is generated. We will compare efficiencies as they relate to the production of pollution:

---------------------------------------------
Efficiency of an internal combustion vehicle:
---------------------------------------------
Efficiency of gasoline:

-After electricity used for refining: ~90%
-Reduction in efficiency for transportation costs: average about 20 cents/gallon,
from ratio of this to cost of gas, about ~92%
-Efficiency of internal combustion engine: ~25%
*
Result: ~20.7% efficient (Today we won't even consider the losses in the vehicle's transmission, which an EV doesn't need.)
*
----------------------------------------------
Efficiency of an electric vehicle:
----------------------------------------------

-Approximate combined fossil fuel efficiency of various power sources on the electric grid:
50% from coal and oil at 37% -- 8% from natural gas at 48% -- 42% from from nuclear/hydro/wind/ at 100% (100 because no fossil fuel used)= average 64%
-Efficiency of electric power transmission grid: ~95%
-Efficiency of battery power input and output: ~88%
-Efficiency of electric traction motor: ~93%
-Efficiency adjustment for energy reclaimed from regenerative braking: ~ 110% (increase result upward by 10 %)
Result: ~55% efficient
*
That's at least 2.7 times more efficient, with a corresponding reduction in pollution. I'm being conservative here. The EV advantage is almost certainly greater than this.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by apeweek

You have to remember that fossil fuel burns much more efficiently at a big powerplant than it does in a little auto engine.

Then it's just a matter of multiplying out the efficiency numbers I provided. Greater efficiency means less energy is needed to move a vehicle the same distance, and therefore less pollution is generated. We will compare efficiencies as they relate to the production of pollution:

---------------------------------------------
Efficiency of an internal combustion vehicle:
---------------------------------------------
Efficiency of gasoline:

-After electricity used for refining: ~90%
-Reduction in efficiency for transportation costs: average about 20 cents/gallon,
from ratio of this to cost of gas, about ~92%
-Efficiency of internal combustion engine: ~25%
*
Result: ~20.7% efficient (Today we won't even consider the losses in the vehicle's transmission, which an EV doesn't need.)
*
----------------------------------------------
Efficiency of an electric vehicle:
----------------------------------------------

-Approximate combined fossil fuel efficiency of various power sources on the electric grid:
50% from coal and oil at 37% -- 8% from natural gas at 48% -- 42% from from nuclear/hydro/wind/ at 100% (100 because no fossil fuel used)= average 64%
-Efficiency of electric power transmission grid: ~95%
-Efficiency of battery power input and output: ~88%
-Efficiency of electric traction motor: ~93%
-Efficiency adjustment for energy reclaimed from regenerative braking: ~ 110% (increase result upward by 10 %)
Result: ~55% efficient
*
That's at least 2.7 times more efficient, with a corresponding reduction in pollution. I'm being conservative here. The EV advantage is almost certainly greater than this.

Assuming your figures are correct, they do make a good argument for this conversion. However, as I've already stated, until we learn to generate electricity from another source, I believe making this transition to electric powered automobiles is premature. Another factor to consider is the cost of manufacturing these vehicles. At the present, it's still too expensive. And that doesn't take maintenance into the equation either. At best, I think it's a toss-up, too many unanswered questions like, what are we going to do with the pollution caused from the disposal of these spent batteries and the nasty stuff contained within them?..........Just my two cents........................Infy

[pgrmdave]

Is there a place where we can verify those numbers, apeweek?

[apeweek]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Is there a place where we can verify those numbers, apeweek?

Yes, of course. I provided references to most of those numbers in my earlier post. Here are the rest. Again, if anyone feels I've glossed over something important, let me know. Also, just like before, this system won't let me post links yet, so I have removed the WWW to get the links through. Just add to the front of the links to reconstitute.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of coal and other energy sources used to make power
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia energy patterns and trends
energy.vt.edu/vept/electric/index.asp
Chart at energy.vt.edu/vept/electric/netgeneration.asp
or energy.vt.edu/vept/electric/netgeneration_year.asp?yr=2004
(says coal plus oil percent = about 50%)

----------------------------------------------------
Efficiency of coal and gas plants:
----------------------------------------------------
ieej.or.jp/aperc/pdf/GRID_COMBINED_DRAFT.pdf
(page 36, footnote 50, coal plants are 37% efficient)
(gas plants are 48% efficient)

National renewable energy Laboratory
healthgoods.com/Education/Energy_Information/General_Energy_Information/fossil_fuel%20coal.htm
says average coal plant (back in 1992) is 33% efficient - but new technology plants are up to 85% efficient.

---------------------
EV Regen braking benefits
----------------------
onechip.co.uk/simon/electric/regen.html
Says 5 to 10% increase in range from EV regen braking.

ihpva.org/pipermail/velomobile/2000-March/000016.html
Claims 22% increase in range (using a trike, a very efficient electric vehicle)

rmi.org/sitepages/pid433.php
says 30% of energy is typically lost to braking

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_braking
says regen braking has 31.3% efficiency; combined with above figure for 30% energy loss to braking, implies 9.4% increase in energy efficiency.

------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of trucking, shipping, piping gasoline
------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Chronicle news article
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/08/28/BU220409.DTL&;type=business
"We get our gasoline barged up to us at a cost of 3 cents a gallon versus the 10 cents a gallon cost of trucking" (this was from 2001, may be higher now.)

Federal trade Commission
ftc.gov/bc/gasconf/comments2/jacobsstevee.pdf
"Cost of Transporting Gasoline 1000 miles. Cents/Gallon. Pipeline. 1.5 - 2.5. Barge. 4 - 5. Truck. 30 - 40."
(this was from 2002, may be higher now.)

[apeweek]

Originally Posted by infamous

... until we learn to generate electricity from another source, I believe making this transition to electric powered automobiles is premature. Another factor to consider is the cost of manufacturing these vehicles. At the present, it's still too expensive. And that doesn't take maintenance into the equation either. At best, I think it's a toss-up, too many unanswered questions like, what are we going to do with the pollution caused from the disposal of these spent batteries and the nasty stuff contained within them?..........Just my two cents........................Infy

As to the 'unanswered questions', I will try to answer them.

-First of all, why do we need to generate electricity from another source? I have just shown that, even using existing sources, efficiency is increased and pollution decreased. What do I not understand?

-The cost of manufacturing EVs: You're thinking about expensive EVs like the Tesla, but EVs do not need to be expensive. An electric motor is extremely simple, and has only one moving part. Economy of scale is what's needed to make them cheap. China is presently building large numbers of EVs, and they are indeed cheap. Here's a Chinese EV due for import next year:

milesautomotive.com/products_xs200.html

It will sell here in the US for $28500, but in China, you can be certain it sells for far less. The US importer has to pay for crash testing and certification for US roads. Once he recovers his cost, I predict this car can get VERY cheap.

-Maintenance costs: far, far lower for EVs. Electric motors have only one moving part, remember? No oil changes, Tune-ups, radiator flushes, mufflers, etc. The only ongoing maintenance cost used to be battery replacement. But thanks to battery advances, newer cars like the Tesla and the Chinese EVs are coming with 100,000+ mile battery packs.

-Pollution from spent batteries: Li-ion batteries are not an environmental hazard, according to the EPA and most local municipalities. The same can not be said for used motor oil and coolant, can it?

Besides, there are substantial financial incentives to recycle the expensive batteries.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by apeweek

As to the 'unanswered questions', I will try to answer them.

You make an interesting and intellignet case apeweek, welcome to Hypography forums my friend. It seems you have much to offer and I'm anxious to hear more............................Infy

[apeweek]

Originally Posted by infamous

You make an interesting and intellignet case apeweek, welcome to Hypography forums my friend. It seems you have much to offer and I'm anxious to hear more............................Infy

Likewise. I'm liking this place so far. It can sometimes be difficult to find intelligent discussion on the internet.

[TheBigDog]

Before he retired my dad was the Director of Technical Services for Yugo America. In that position he went to a meeting in California where car companies were gathered to present their plans to CARB for reducing future emissions. The meeting he attended around 1990 had a contigent from GM making a presentation on an electric vehicle - a presentation that had been specifically requested of GM by CARB. They did the whole presentation which my dad said was fantastic. At the end of the presentation the head of CARB got up and stated his 8th grader did a better presentation in school than he had just seen from GM. And that before he would discuss an electric car with them, they needed to do an environmental impact study about the batteries. At that point the GM team walked out of the meeting.

Perhaps understanding the nature of this relationship will help us understand why some of the later decisions were made.

Bill

[apeweek]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Before he retired my dad was the Director of Technical Services for Yugo America....
Perhaps understanding the nature of this relationship will help us understand why some of the later decisions were made.

Bill

Great story. I live in the Detroit area, and talk with quite a few automotive types. I can confirm that there is a deep distrust of alternative fuel technologies among quite a few of these people. They have spent their lives engineering cars a certain way, and they don't want to have to learn anything else.

We just had the 'Woodward Dream Cruise' here this weekend. It's a big Detroit event, probably our equivalent of Mardi Gras. People drive their historic, classic, or unusual cars up and down Woodward Avenue all day long, while about a million people (no exaggeration, maybe more) line the sidewalks.

I drove my electric vehicle, and attached magnetic signs so everyone would know. The result was very polarized. I got cheers or sneers. Nothing in between.

[freeztar]

It looks as if Toyota is going to produce some PHEVs.
Toyota moves to corner the 'plug-in' market | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

The article makes the claim, similar to Apeweek's claim above, that even if the electricity is supplied via coal burning, there will still be a substantial reduction in harmful emmissions.