"Fully Charged" - Robert Llewellyn's excellent video podcast on EV's
 

As usual, Robert Llewellyn gets to the heart of the matter.

[youtube]YfTiRNzbSko[/youtube]
[youtube]hYYR_wG-x_E[/youtube]
[youtube]bMtNkB8iFyI[/youtube]

I hope that you get to watch these videos -- Robert takes on Top Gear (and their anti-EV stance), and many of the myths and FUD surrounding EV's, and he doesn't blink at the downsides of EV's, either.

His show used to be called Gearless: http://www.youtube.com/user/GearlessUK and I agree that Fully Charged is a much better name.

good vids. And very true. If gas companies want $$$$$$$$ why don't they get in on the electric cars? There is no shame in taking stock in electric cars...THEY ROCK.

...they did--didn't Exxon or Chevron buy-up the U.S. Patent for Lithium batteries here in the USA?

The Chevron thing you are thinking of was for large pack NiMH batteries.

Chevron holds the patent for large format Nimh batteries. Other oil companies have also invested in battery technology.

Very cool videos Neil.

The spirit of the podcast appears to be: "Electric cars are green, practical, and fun." That's only a slight overstatement, so I'll go along with it.

Lewellyn is upset with "a certain popular light entertainment programme", i.e. Top Gear. I understand. Those guys are clowns, and they glorify tire smoke and engine noise. He's trying to reach out to Top Gear viewers using an approach that program is familiar with: sensationalism and goofy camerawork.

However, the specific claims made in the podcast, especially the first video, aren't quite right. His math is completely off, e.g. suggesting 40Wh/mi for a Tesla. This podcast is a light entertainment program, and should be used only for entertainment. Don't take any of the numbers it presents seriously, and I have to disagree with many of his conclusions too.

Hi Matt,

You may be right -- the numbers, may be completely off, or he might be right. His number of 120gm/km for a typical ICE powered car (in England/Europe) is correct, I think. Here's another take on this, from Mike Boxwell:

[youtube]dSVc2SrXVIk[/youtube]

Interesting video. One thing I noticed is that he focused on cost to "run," not cost to own. Take the iMiEV, for example. It costs $43,000 to buy (before government incentives). The Aygo costs $10,753 to buy. How many miles will he have to drive his iMiEV before he recoups the cost difference?

The iMiEV electricity cost $0.30 for 14 miles: 30/14 = 2.14 cents/mile.

The Aygo gas cost $0.92 for the same distance. 92/14 = 6.57 cents/mile.

So the iMiEV saves him: 6.57 - 2.14 = 4.43 cents/mile.

$43,000 - $10,753 = $32,257 price difference.

$32,257/$0.0443 = 727,923 miles he'd have to drive the iMiEV just to break even on the price. After that he'd start actually saving some money.

I highly doubt the car would last that long. But if it did, how many times would he have to replace the battery pack and at what cost?

And he says that if the powerplant is coal fired the carbon footprint is 30-40 % lower. Not much better than the ICE cars. I don't think too many people are going to pay the huge price difference for a small reduction in CO2 output.

I'll agree, in his tests the iMiev and the G-Wiz came out ahead of the Aygo and Panda. However, the G-Wiz isn't really a car. It's an enclosed moped on four wheels, with little cargo room and no crash safety. The iMiev is an electric keicar, which is fine if that's all you need. But to compare it to an Aygo isn't quite apples-to-apples.

The Aygo starts at 9575 Euro in Germany. That's 2100 Euro less than a base model Yaris, which has a 1.0L and a stick. The Aygo is engineered to be a very cheap car. But for vastly less than the price of the batteries and motor in the iMiev, you could have something more efficient than a 1.0L gas engine. A hybrid Aygo would certainly beat the CO2 figures of a BEV Aygo, and there would be room left in the hybrid's budget for things like an aluminium unibody, active aerodynamics, and all the goodies we wish automakers would spend money on to save us fuel.

I think the first apples-to-apples comparison will be the Focus BEV vs Focus HEV vs EcoBoost Focus in 2012 or 2013. I expect the BEV to be roughly on par with the ICE-only focus in terms of CO2, which will be very disappointing considering the price of each of the three.

I'm happy to see that Mr. Boxwell has come with the same upstream refining efficiency figure as I have: around 83%.

Yes, the cost of an EV purchase at the moment is too high, in many cases. Robert Llewellyn has the same guesstimate on why that is -- and like any new technology that has yet to get into mass production, it will be much higher than many people can afford. But, I don't think you can dismiss it for this reason either. The maintenance costs of an EV are virtually nil, and the electric motor should last long enough to let you recoup your money.

In fact, if you do the cost comparison of energy to run and cost to maintain, the EV will easily save you enough money in just 100K miles to more than pay for the new set of batteries that you may need. Newer lithium batteries may well last you 200K miles, and in which case the cost of purchase will be easily offset.

But Mike Boxwell's numbers on carbon footprint approximately confirm the numbers mentioned by Robert Llewellyn -- EV's are 50-60gm/km on the existing UK grid. Mike Boxwell adds the "full coal" number that still slightly better than the gasoline alone. and it is the embedded energy in the gasoline that we need to get a handle on.

I highly doubt that. Please provide your numbers.

As my post above shows, you can buy 4 NEW Aygos for the price of one iMiEV. You can drive an Aygo til it drops and just buy another one and still be money ahead. The iMiEV will never pay for itself on money saved vis-a-vis a gas car.

Patrick, I did not say you'd save the original cost, just the cost of a new pack.

Using the RAV4 EV and the ICE powered RAV4, and compare the costs for 100K miles:

RAV4 EV has a range of 80-120 miles on it's 27.4kWh NiMH battery pack, and cost about $3 to charge the pack, so

~100miles per charge = 1,000 charges x $3ea = $3,000 for electricity, and $0 for regular maintenance (on the EV drivetrain).

Being fairly generous, the ICE RAV4 can get 25mpg (the actual average of the 6 listed in the EcoModder Garage), so it would burn 100,000 / 25 = ~4,000 gallons of gasoline x $2.75 gallon = $11,000 (if you get 22mpg which is the average EPA Combined, the cost goes up to $12,500 - a increase of $1,500 for the 3mpg drop...)

The difference in energy cost is $8,000. Now for the maintenance, at the dealer:

Minor Service every 5K miles = ~$50 (I actually just paid $63.79 for my Scion xA) x 13 = $650
Intermediate Service every 15K miles = ~$150 x 3 = $450
Major Service every 30K miles = ~$450 x 3 = $1,350
Total for regular maintenance = $2,450

So the total cost difference is $10,450 per 100K miles.

There is also likely brake service on the ICE (EV's use regenerative braking and probably would not), and/or transmission/clutch service, too. The common costs would be for tires, and things like wiper blades, and washer fluid; and so these more or less cancel out.

Now the batteries will likely last longer than 100K miles -- say 150K-200K would be very possible, so adjust the cost savings accordingly: $15,675 - $20,900 plus any major repairs on the ICE drivetrain.

I'm very skeptical on this point. They may well last that long, and they may well not.

It takes the average person 16 years to drive that far. We have seen some batteries in the lab that could possibly last that number of cycles, and plenty that don't. I haven't seen Winter and summer shortens a battery's life faster than laboratory conditions, as can underuse and overuse.

If 2/3 the price of the iMiev comes from its battery, imagine what a six year old iMiev with a dead battery is worth.

I really can't see EV's taking off until the price comes down below that of a hybrid, especially considering the EV's disadvantages: larger carbon footprint, limited range, battery depreciation. I certainly wouldn't recommend one to family or friends if they were for sale right now.

Doug was speculating that the cost will come down when they make real battery factories for cars.

But even then, the cost is still largely a function of supply and demand, and not terribly indicative of efficiency.

Hmm. My regular maintainence on the Insight for the nine months it's been on the road is up to $24.99 for oil and a filter, plus $165 (would have been $450 at fair market value) for a junkyard battery pack and the equipment to refurbish it. At the dealer, it would have been $50 and $3000. Not really relevant to the topic at hand, but still, :rolleyes:

Matt,

How can the RAV4 EV that gets ~111MPGe have a larger carbon footprint than the 25MPG ICE RAV4? That is less than 25% of the energy consumed, and the carbon from that is no more than 1/3 as much as the gasoline alone; and does not count the embedded energy to produce the gasoline. The source-to-wheels of the EV is about 1/3 of the tank-to-wheels of the gasoline.

The Leaf battery pack will probably cost ~$9,000, and maybe less in 10-12 years when you replace it. The RAV4 EV battery packs have lasted more than 150K miles -- and they are NiMH.

Neil, why'd you pick the RAV4 EV to compare? They haven't been made since 2003 and the prices are obscene. If you get one, you will probably have to replace the pack soon, further increasing the cost and the gas version's advantage. Check how much a used gas RAV4 costs compared to a RAV4 EV and you again will see that you will never save any money driving the EV version. You must include the purchase price, as that's part of the ownership experience. Mr. Boxwell conveniently left that out of his video in an attempt to make EVs look better than they are and lure people into buying his book. Same thing with Llewellyn: he says how great the Tesla is, but doesn't tell you that you have to spend $109,000 to buy one. You can buy 2 optioned-out Lotus Elises for the price of one Tesla.

Maybe someday EVs will be affordable and can compete with gas cars, but they just aren't there yet.

Hi Patrick,

The RAV4 EV is the best apple-to-apples comparison we have right now. And again purchase cost is much higher now because the RAV4 EV's are in such demand, and the supply is very limited.

The Tesla is much faster than the Elise. And the Tesla is faster and less expensive than a Ferrari. Remember, apples-to-apples; and more importantly, EV's have to get into production for costs to come down. You could compare the Leaf to the Versa, or even the Leaf with the Prius, I suppose.

Are you going to ignore my numbers, after asking for them? :p

I think he was talking about EVs vs. hybrids. I just went to fueleconomy.gov and compared a 2003 RAV4 EV to a 2010 Toyota Prius. Guess what the carbon footprints were? 3.8 tons/15,000 miles for both. The EV had NO advantage. I can buy 2, 3, or 4 brand new Prius for the price of one used 2003 RAV4. If I only buy one (actually, I did), I'm way ahead on money and my carbon footprint is the same. And, I have a brand new car, with warranty. :)

No, but they're incorrect. You haven't saved any money until you have covered the purchase price of the vehicle, which you didn't include.

c'mon, the rav4 is a barn compared to a prius.

Really? How about the iMiEV vs. Aygos comparison that Mr. Boxwell used in the video you posted? And don't forget to include the purchase prices of the vehicles. :D

Hey, I didn't pick the RAV4, Neil did. ;)

We should only limit ourselves to using the dolphin for a measure of EV miles/ cost effectiveness ;)

Where can I buy one? Oh, wait, I can't.

You absolutely can roll up your sleeves and buy everything.

Yes, but one in, what, 1,000,000 people may be willing to build their own car? Definitely not mainstream. :rolleyes: And the dolphin doesn't meet crash test requirements or have what most people would consider necessary conveniences.

The cost of EV's will come down when they're in mass production. And what does the cost of purchase have to do with the efficiency of the vehicle?

I doubt very much that the carbon footprint for the Prius's gasoline included the well-to-wheels. Need I mention again, that a car that burns fuel refined from petroleum is consuming as much electricity as the EV is PLUS the gasoline/diesel. 3-5 days "cooking" the oil into fuel takes a lot of additional energy; including electricity (with it's own embedded carbon) and natural gas (which includes it's drilling, transportation, etc.).

Can you tell me how much energy is embedded in gasoline? Because, if you want to be fair, then you have to take this into account.

Edit:

Toyota RAV4 EV: 887 BTU/mile
Toyota Prius: 2250 BTU/mile
Toyota RAV4 Gas: 4423 BTU/mile

(From: http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/byfueltypeNF.shtml)

How can 887BTU/mile emit the same carbon as 2250BTU/mile? It is 2.5X higher for the Prius -- is exploring for oil, drilling, transporting, storing, transporting, refining, storing, transporting, storing, and then pumping it into your Prius really that much more efficient than the electric grid? If so, then prove it.

17%. Mr. Boxwell agrees, too.

It's that 34% efficient upstream generation thing again.

Neil, arguing with you is a lot of work, and a lot of math. You're wrong; I'm done.

Matt,

887 + 66% = 1472 < 4423 + 17% = 5174

or

887 + 66% = 1472 < 2250 + 17% = 2633

I very much doubt that it only takes 17% of a gallon of gasoline to produce that gallon of gasoline. The would be 33.4 x 17% = 5.7kWh. Nissan says it take 7.5kWh just to refine a gallon of gasoline, let alone all the rest. It might be as high as 10kWh/gallon, all told.

You have not convinced me, that 1472 is greater than 5174 or 2633.

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

Doing this sort of math is fairly arbitrary and capricious though, I think. It is like saying that since only ~20 gallons of gasoline and 10 gallons of diesel come from 42 gallons of oil, we need to account for the other 12 gallons by adding 8 to the gasoline and 4 to the diesel... So, for every gallon of gasoline or diesel you burn, you really are burning 1.4 gallons... bogus math!

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

The efficiency of the drive train is accounted for in the BTU/mile (or MPGe) number.

EV's are now approaching 80-85% here, while most ICE's are stuck below 20%. Now, you might say; wait Atkinson cycle engines (like in the Prius) are up to 38% efficient! But they can only run at peak efficiency a small part of the time, and by definition, and system that requires a transmission is going to be off peak much of the time. There are transmission losses, and a warm up period, and all that heat production means crappy end use efficiency!

And as I said, the BTU/mile or MPGe number accounts for the efficiency of the entire drivetrain as a system. End use efficiency is what it is all about! If you can only use ~15-20% of the energy you put into the car (on a good day), then that multiplies the inefficiencies of the upstream energy. EV's are so much more efficient in this stage -- look at the heat output!

MPGe tells the story in the vehicle -- X-Prize did this right.

Now, for the carbon footprint, sure you have to take full account of ALL the energy used along the way FOR ALL THE TYPES OF ENERGY, and no matter where it comes from. The electricity used to refine oil *may* come from the process itself, but if the generation of electricity is low efficiency for EV's, then it is the same for the embedded electricity used to refine gasoline -- for purposes of carbon footprint. Ditto for the natural gas used in refining. And for oil extraction, etc.

The article I linked to in the "How much Energy does it take..." thread talks about 1.5% of all California's electricity is being used just for extracting oil. Even if it is really >1%, then that is still enormous. Refining oil takes a lot more than that, plus natural gas, so if you use all that energy for running the EV's directly, then I am fairly certain that you come out way ahead.

can we forget all that baggage and talk about efficiency?

Agreed. And I hope they do. Soon. But the sales prices out now are all we have to work with.

Nothing, but the videos posted are rather disingenuous in trying to show that EVs save the owner money, which they don't once the purchase price is included. The purchase price must be included in any cost/benefit analysis.

And don't try to tell me you "saved" enough through EV efficiency to buy a battery pack when you haven't paid off the car price difference yet.

I already did. Fueleconomy.gov uses the GREET 1.7 model, which is well-to-wheels. It's already figured in. If you don't like it, go argue with the DOE and Argonne National Labs.

"Our carbon footprint shows a car's CO2 emissions in tons per year, along with the CO2 emitted in producing and distributing the fuel."

The bottom line with all of this is that EV proponents have to be honest about their limitations as well as touting their advantages before EVs will be widely adopted. Only telling half the story will result in disgruntled buyers who will spread the word and kill off any potential foothold in the marketplace that EVs may have gained.

Right, efficiency and carbon footprint are related but separate issues. And costs and efficiency are related, but separate issues. I am trying to untangle these conflations.

Electric drive vehicles are far more efficient, as end use devices, than are ICE driven vehicles. The fact that gasoline is so "compact" and diesel even more so, *masks* the fact that today's ICE's are pretty dismally inefficient. The largest available battery pack today is worth only about 1.5 gallons of gasoline. This alone forces an EV designer to make better decisions.

And the question of efficiency of the energy chain for electricity is a lot less difficult than it is for oil. I think we need to add in a "cost" for spills and military spending that subsidizes our oil habit; among other things.

So, I think we should use MPGe to compare efficiencies; as the X-Prize has done.

[youtube]ONbDtWHysyY[/youtube]

A hybrid this time (which is a little off topic...):

[youtube]xLWcNhVrGXg[/youtube]

Fully Charged Delta E4
 

Next episode!

[youtube]JvWduKDj3Tk[/youtube]

New series with a more general focus:

[youtube]DvKvkxwMlbg[/youtube]

[youtube]nmDaWwSIdVs[/youtube]

Just wondering where all this extra grid power is going to come from. to power electric cars.

About the only new power stations that I have noticed were the big gas turbines which are raising the price of natural gas through the roof and wind energy which around here mainly provides wind energy in the day when the winds are blowing.

How many years ago did california have those rolling brownouts because their grid was over loaded.

I don't see myself driving a "coal" fired auto.