Let's be fair on the high-mileage EVs

[theunchosen]

even if we jump to co2 efficiency EV wins. . . unless you can convert crude to gas magically it always will.

It takes 138 kwhr to convert 5 gallons. Half of that power comes from the same coal to get you 66 kwhr of electricity. So you can have 138 kwhr that you can convert into essentially 82.8 kwhr or you can have 5 gallons that convert to less than 69 kwhr of useable work. 5 gallons yields 110 lbs of CO2 plus 66 kwhr of Coal CO2 plus more than double the CO2 the coal plant released from the refining process itself, while the electric only drops 85 kwhr of coal CO2 to produce more useable work.

Come on this is a no brainer. EV stomps gas all the way.

[Ryland]

EV's also allow a greater flexibility of fuels to be used, try to run your gas car on sun, hydro or wind and what figures do you use for the losses in that? and as I pointed out before, most EV drivers I know of get at least some of there electricity from renewable's, but even with coal, the US has enough coal to last hundreds of years, we do not import coal, last I looked we were importing a whole lot of oil.

[theunchosen]

Alright I'll make it simple.

Refineries produce lots of CO2, Benzene NOx, SOx and some more exotics.

Refineries use electricity from coal plants to refine fuel.

EV. . .just uses the electricity.

Refinery uses 138 kwhr to convert 5 gallons of gas.

thats 66 kwhr of coal(I think coal is 22 lbs of CO2 per kwh) plus 80 lbs of CO2 at the refinery, plus 100 lbs of CO2 at your tailpipe to yield 51 kwhrs in a gasser.

coal power(transmission and all that crap is ignored because it has the same effect at the refineries so if you want to count it its going to hurt gas even more) needs to burn 26 kwhr of coal to get 51 kwhrs.

Seriously if you want data on this go read Thomas Friedman's book "The world is Hot, Flat and Crowded."

He spent more or less a year compiling the data on energy consumption, conversion and emissions. Its all there and thats the conclusion he came to. He also said for us to avoid a global climate catastrophe(Just for the US) we would have to build a Nuclear reactor a week for the next 30 years, ignoring the fact that developing nations will not be able to go green.

[dcb]

I guess the other side of that coin would be how much petrol does it take to get the coal to the plant (times %of plants using coal).

[theunchosen]

It takes very little fuel to get coal to its destination. Coal plants are always located almost side-by-side to rail. High-load freight can move an entire 240 car load one mile on just 6 gallons.

Compared to a diesel tanker that gets 20 miles per gallon on a downhill only run but can only carry much less than one car. But to be nice I'll say he can carry a full train car(its about twice more than he can carry) 20/240. . ..083 mpg. . .12 gallons per mile to transport 240 tankers of gasoline compared to 6 gallons to transport 240 cars of coal. And I was being very nice(20 mpg? train car has volumetric capacity of 3,700 F^3 while trucks have a max of 3100 f^3 in rectangular format and oil tankers always have the cylindrical form.)

[Jim Bullis]

I expect full disdain for my negative view of the Greet model and much of the Argonne work, as well as the SAE.

That said, Argonne is capable of good work. But much of the problem of EV analysis is rooted in their failure (and SAE's) to recognize that the heat energy that can be produced by electric energy is very different from the heat energy needed to produce that same amount of electric energy. I have to say this is a national embarrassment. Surely some of these folks were awake in freshman physics class.

As is Argonne's commitment to "promoting plug-in hybrids." This is a management position of course, which is without regard to technical facts.

It is harder to explain the SAE. The only thing I can think of is that our auto industry turned into a fashion industry and the SAE is mostly interested in dressing the next "America's Top Model."

Does that stir things up a bit?

[dcb]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Compared to a diesel tanker that gets 20 miles per gallon on a downhill only run but can only carry much less than one car.

Sure, supertanker ships are part of the mix too, as are the tanker trucks driving through the city traffic. Hopefully that is all in the WTW studies though, brought to you in part by General "No EV1 for you!!" Motors

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Ryland

EV's also allow a greater flexibility of fuels to be used, try to run your gas car on sun, hydro or wind and what figures do you use for the losses in that? and as I pointed out before, most EV drivers I know of get at least some of there electricity from renewable's, but even with coal, the US has enough coal to last hundreds of years, we do not import coal, last I looked we were importing a whole lot of oil.

In 1980,GM estimated that the US had 27,000 billion barrels of oil equivalent(coal and shale) within U.S.boundaries.

[theunchosen]

I still don't get where people are coming off saying EV is so in efficient.

How many different ways do I have to lay out the numbers?

EV rapes gas. . .in all aspecs except for power density(its hard to compete batteries to fuel 6 pounds to several hundred)

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by aerohead

In 1980,GM estimated that the US had 27,000 billion barrels of oil equivalent(coal and shale) within U.S.boundaries.

This does not take into account natural gas. The US has something like 50% of the worlds methane ice within our continental shelf. Effectively enough to run the world for 100 years at current energy consumption rates without any other supply.

Also the US takes most of our natural gas from domestic resources(I'm pointing this out because we will be getting power from this as well.)