Electric cars, unclean at any speed

[UFO]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

22-Month Renault-Nissan Electric Vehicle Trial Proves That EVs Can Reduce CO2 Emissions by 45.5 Tons Over 350,000 Miles

Seems to me that should shut the door on the original premise of this thread. But I am assuming that the claimed reduction in CO2 is comparing electrics to gassers, that is certainly the implication.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by UFO

Seems to me that should shut the door on the original premise of this thread. But I am assuming that the claimed reduction in CO2 is comparing electrics to gassers, that is certainly the implication.

Comparing EVs to gassers seems to be a reasonable assumption, but without any detail or any reference to the report, it's difficult to tell what the reference point is... it could be:

• The average CO2 production of all the gassers (including commercial vehicles) in the world
• The average CO2 production of all the gassers (including commercial vehicles) in France
• The average CO2 production of passenger vehicles only in France
• The average CO2 production of gassers owned by the kind of people that would buy an EV in France
• Something else...?

There's a pretty broad range there, and without a reference it's difficult to tell how relevant to this thread the data really is.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Sorry you have not laid out your argument very well, you cannot blame that on me, but I have yet to see a clear specification of what you are thinking using realistic value, instead you insist I am finally "seeing the light", nor do I read such derogatory posts. I don't think you have anything here. Please enumerate your ideal system so I can nit pick it.

I'm not psychic ... If you didn't understand some part of an explanation I gave ... you have to point that thing you don't understand , out to me ... in order for me to have a chance of being able to try and explain it to you again some other way.

I am not perfect by any means ... Despite my best efforts I will always be less than perfect.

Your not reading my posts ... does not effect the existence or accuracy of the logic , or evidence presented in them ... your not understanding my posts , does not effect the existence of accuracy of the logic , or evidence presented in them.

You talked about science ... well ... science is clear about this ... evidence has been presented ... the burden to disprove that , is on you... or you are just not being scientific.

As I have written to you ... many times now ... there is no ideal system ... why you keep asking for my ideal system , when I keep telling you this same thing ... doesn't make any sense.

As for A potential system that contains significant situations for the generator option to be more efficient than the pusher ... that was already done ... is it always , no ... is one setup ideal for all situations , no ... go back and re-read previous posts about it ... if you need clarification about any part of it ... I'm not psychic ... you would have to tell me what that is , in order for me to try and clarify it to you.

Originally Posted by P-hack

So far the more efficient generator sounds like a unicorn, every unproven claim or concern becomes absolute proof of its existence. Build it, lets see it, we know what ICEs can do in the right hands (indeed we know what EVs can do in the right hands now too). TZero spent $75,000 building one that got 30-35 when that ICE/weight should be getting 55mpg easily. But they took the tools of ICE efficiency away from the driver by hooking it up to an electronic torque converter.

Well ... you talked about science ... science is clear ... I presented evidence ... you have only offered empty opinions presented in this post ... evidence trumps opinion every time ... even your opinion.

Either go back to the evidence presented ... to make a rational case about presented evidence ... or I don't see how your opinion anything but just your opinion ... currently with evidence stacked against it.

And just to point out one more time... as I have many many times now ... it is not that the generator is always more efficient ... weather it is or not will depend on the situation... there is no always ... there is no one winner for all situations.

As the well known expression puts it.

YMMV

[P-hack]

Well I did ask you to clarify, and you chastise instead. Your beliefs hinge on vaporware as far as I can tell.

I think it is more accurate for you to say something like:"maybe there is a scenario where an optimized generator is actually more efficient than an optimized pusher with a skilled driver, but I haven't really done a complete analysis, nor can I say that the bulk of range extended miles would be most efficiently accomplished by a generator, we do know that a pusher has higher peak efficiencies and that a good driver can make a world of difference, such as the %25 improvement in the renault-nissan EV link".

The advantages you want to remove is the driver, and higher peak efficiency (over a wide range of operating parameters). I am not convinced of your assertion that an ICE and/or technique optimization applied to the same scenario on a pusher as an optimized generator will not always be more efficient for the "pusher", we have some clear cases where pusher is more efficient, the cases where you claim generator is more efficient are still a mystery (and what pusher and technique are you comparing them to?).

My insight tells me that the generator is ALWAYS going to be some fraction as efficient as the pusher in the right hands, except maybe for some fluke edge conditions, using today's technology anyway. It is a reasonable conclusion.

[sheepdog 44]

Is CO2 the worst thing that comes out of a cars exhaust? Yes there's Global warming, and a record high CO2 count.

But there's also:
CxHy (or Hx or HC) = Hydrocarbons
CO = Carbon monoxide
NOx = Nitrogen oxides
SO2 = Sulphur dioxide
PM = Particulate matter
And all the other toxic compounds (that i'm not informed enough to mention).

Which studies show contribute to acid rain, smog, asthma, cancer, autism etc.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by sheepdog 44

Is CO2 the worst thing that comes out of a cars exhaust? Yes there's Global warming, and a record high CO2 count.

But there's also:
CxHy (or Hx or HC) = Hydrocarbons
CO = Carbon monoxide
NOx = Nitrogen oxides
SO2 = Sulphur dioxide
PM = Particulate matter
And all the other toxic compounds (that i'm not informed enough to mention).

Which studies show contribute to acid rain, smog, asthma, cancer, autism etc.

These days with fuel injection, catalytic converters, particulate filters and EGR, yes, CO2 is by far the largest pollutant.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by P-hack

My insight tells me that the generator is ALWAYS going to be some fraction as efficient as the pusher in the right hands, except maybe for some fluke edge conditions, using today's technology anyway. It is a reasonable conclusion.

Yep, I would agree... Based on the scenarios I presented, I don't see where the genset would make sense from an efficiency point of view. Yes, the genset can be used for other things, but that doesn't make it the most efficient choice, just the most useful choice.

IamIan - what I saw in your response to P-hack is that the individual components are more efficient than originally stated... but I didn't see anything you wrote that indicates the overall genset-to-wheels path is more efficient (from a gph consumption perspective) than a ICE-to-pusher-wheels path. I did my best with my scenarios using same vehicles and what I would consider to be realistic scenarios and could not get it to work out in favor of the genset. Do you have a realistic scenario where you can get it to work out in favor of the genset? If so, could you please share?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Well I did ask you to clarify, and you chastise instead.

Where ... what post did you do that?
If I missed this , that's my bad.

What I read was you asking me to repeat what I've already written ... And I pointed you to go back and re-read it instead of me repeating myself ... because , repeating is not clarifying.

I already showed you references and math that added up ... what about that do you need to have clarified?

Originally Posted by P-hack

Your beliefs hinge on vaporware as far as I can tell.

????? I don't understand how you could even come to that conclusion ????

None of the devices I listed are vaporware ... not the two different motor controllers ( one being from the 2004 Prius ) ... not the motor ... not the engine you gave a BSFC for ... none of it.

Originally Posted by P-hack

I think it is more accurate for you to say something like:"maybe there is a scenario where an optimized generator is actually more efficient than an optimized pusher with a skilled driver, but I haven't really done a complete analysis, nor can I say that the bulk of range extended miles would be most efficiently accomplished by a generator, we do know that a pusher has higher peak efficiencies and that a good driver can make a world of difference, such as the %25 improvement in the renault-nissan EV link".

That would actually be less accurate.

I'll just add some color codes and brief notes to explain a bit as to why ... if you want me to clarify any of these points , let me know.

Green
'maybe' is incorrect when I know of several that are... that would be like me saying ... 'maybe' earth has a moon.

Red
'a complete analysis' is not possible ... not even if we had every human on the planet working on it for 100 years.

Now if you want to change that from a complete analysis to ... I've completed an analysis ... that is entirely different ... and sense I have already completed an analysis ... that would be an incorrect statement.

Blue
Of course ... that's what I've been saying all along ... it would depend on the situation ... the specific performance curves of the devices and the specific factors that presented themselves over those miles.

But that is true on both sides ... the pusher is not the default winner ... the situation determines the winner.

Yellow
Agreed.

Bold
Agreed ... but it is important to remember that aspect is true on both sides ... not just one ... A good driver can do better with Pusher or Generator.

It is also important to remember ... the driver has limits based on the situation of the particular device and the route and such he is driving... the BSFC is the BSFC ... the Gear Ratios of the Transmission are the gear ratios... the traffic is the traffic ... etc.

Originally Posted by P-hack

The advantages you want to remove is the driver, and higher peak efficiency (over a wide range of operating parameters).

Incorrect.
I've never asked to remove the driver ... I have pointed out situations.

The points on the BSFC you showed that are less efficient than 220g/kwh are not just isolated peak points ... it is a significant chunk of the operating range of the ICE you referenced... see attached bellow.

Originally Posted by P-hack

I am not convinced of your assertion that an ICE and/or technique optimization applied to the same scenario on a pusher as an optimized generator will not always be more efficient for the "pusher", we have some clear cases where pusher is more efficient, the cases where you claim generator is more efficient are still a mystery (and what pusher and technique are you comparing them to?).

No mystery ... devices and technique already explained in previous posts ... if you want some part of that clarified ... I'm not psychic ... you have to tell me what part of it you want clarified.

I've given evidence ... showed you the math ... I don't know what would convince you ... if anything ever could... you haven't pointed to any issues with the evidence or the logic or the math ... As such I have no way of knowing why you are not convinced.

And ... as I have corrected many many times ... not "always" as you again incorrectly put in here , when you describe my assertion ... not "Always" ... I do not understand why you keep trying to add that kind of absolute phrase to my assertion ... I keep correcting it ... that is NOT my claim.. never has been.

Originally Posted by P-hack

My insight tells me that the generator is ALWAYS going to be some fraction as efficient as the pusher in the right hands, except maybe for some fluke edge conditions, using today's technology anyway. It is a reasonable conclusion.

It's reasonable until the evidence and math show otherwise ... and I've presented evidence and math that show otherwise... evidence trumps Insight and/or intuition every time... even yours.

- - - - - -

Perhaps a graphical example will help some ... where words have failed... for the pusher and generator as previously described.

I've added some color to the ICE BSFC you listed.

Inside the Red area the Pusher is more efficient than the generator.

Between the Red and Blue area the Pusher is more efficient than the joules the generator has to cycle through the BEV traction battery ... and ... the Pusher is less efficient than the generator for the joules that do not have to get cycled through the BEV traction battery.

Outside the Blue the Pusher is less efficient than the generator.

My claim has consistently been that there are situations where this pusher / generator situation will either be better and/or more efficient for the pusher ... and other situations where it will be better and/or more efficient for the generator... which one is more efficient will depend on the situation.

And as has been written many many times ... a different situation will give different results ... and this can change ... there is no Ideal , there is no Always... be it the component situation , or the usage situation.

Because this discussion was about pusher vs generator in general , there will be different curves for different generators and for different pushers ... not all pushers will be equally good or bad in all situations ... and not all generators will be equally good or bad in all situation ... There is no ideal pusher that is always ( for all situation ) better than all other pushers , just like there is no ideal generator that is always ( for all situations ) better than all other generators.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

IamIan - what I saw in your response to P-hack is that the individual components are more efficient than originally stated... but I didn't see anything you wrote that indicates the overall genset-to-wheels path is more efficient (from a gph consumption perspective) than a ICE-to-pusher-wheels path. I did my best with my scenarios using same vehicles and what I would consider to be realistic scenarios and could not get it to work out in favor of the genset. Do you have a realistic scenario where you can get it to work out in favor of the genset? If so, could you please share?

Sorry if you missed it... I will try to explain it again for you.

There is a functional difference between the Pusher Trailer and the Generator:

That the pusher trailer torque , RPM , and power have a finite divergence they can have from the torque , RPM , and power at the tire.

The generator does not have this limitation as it is not connected to the road ... it can put out 10kw or 20 kw weather that load is needed that second at the wheel or not ... and it can run at any torque and rpm for efficiency that it wants ... no matter what the vehicle speed is ... or what the vehicle movement load is.

This difference in functionality means that there are situations of operation where the pusher is forced into lower ICE operating conditions ... as it can not avoid the real time power , rpm , and torque of the tire.

See the color codes I added the the BSFC in past post for the sections of that graph that correspond to the numbers I gave previously.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by IamIan

The generator does not have this limitation as it is not connected to the road ... it can put out 10kw or 20 kw weather that load is needed that second at the wheel or not ... and it can run at any torque and rpm for efficiency that it wants ... no matter what the vehicle speed is ... or what the vehicle movement load is.

I was sure myself that a generator in series had to approach the efficiencies of a pusher, but I couldn't locate a diesel genset that could do much better than 30mpg using the numbers I had available.

As has been discussed, we would need to see real world examples of the setup to get real world numbers. Perhaps in the real world it performs adequately for typical driving and rest stops.

On paper though, it's not looking good. Perhaps you can link to a genset that has a sufficiently high kWh to fuel consumption rate that exceeds the 30mpg rate assuming a typical Leaf consumption and speed?