Let's be fair on the high-mileage EVs

[Jim Bullis]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Everyone.

You are getting lulled in to another OT argument not relevant to this discussion in any fashion.

EV is more CO2 and energy efficient chain-included and looking strictly at whats in the tank and batteries.

I'll say that again. EV is more efficient period. Even if all the electricity came from Coal its still more CO2 and electricity efficient, period.

Arguing its better because you run solar is moot. Better is better period. If it starts off better as long as you don't power it using a home-made crappy coal-fired generator it will never not be better.

Anyone and everyone can ignore that as much as you like. If I convert a prius or an insight to EV I save CO2 and energy and money on fuel, if I then jump and make my own home power system from wind and solar then comparison is nothing short of meaningless. Sure you can compare somewhat expensive, somewhat CO2 laden fuel chains, and inefficient processes to "free"(legacy), CO2 free, and efficient processes. . .but Mathematicians will tell you comparing any finite number to an infinite one is pretty asinine.

We really have some problems. Could we agree to disagree?

I need to get busy building my plug-in electric demo car. And I hope everyone learns from their projects as I do from mine. I try to get people thinking about emphasizing the efficiency of the vehicle itself, so it will not matter very much that coal has to be used to make it run.

I still have problems when it looks like things are getting badly off track for us as a country. Look at AFS Trinity brings "150 mpg" plug-in hybrids to Capitol Hill for some sweet stimulus cash if you want to know what I really think.

[Ernie Rogers]

Argonne national lab (Wang and others, the GREET model) has published the conversion from units of fuel to grams of CO2, including all of the steps like refining and mining. With those factors all you have to do is multiply--

(fuel units /mile) x (gms CO2 /fuel unit) = gms CO2 / mile

And, the tables include gms CO2 /kWh under various assumptions.

The tables are available on line, and I have a table on my computer here somewhere. I will have to send it later when I get back. (Have to get to work now.)

Ernie Rogers

[dcb]

This one Ernie? http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/273.pdf
Page 28, has EV kwh at maybe 230 grams/mile (not including renewable) and a gasoline vehicle at a little over 400.

[theunchosen]

dcb that first page just shows CO2 emissions for those various methods. The following pages also add in NOx and others(oddly SOx was left out, and there is no mention of refinining specific pollutants. It is also worth mentioning that coal power products are also not listed(trace mercury and coal particulates).)

If we want to argue whether or not EV or ICE is the way of the future we will need to start a new thread as this one will burst if we induce another rabbit hole. I'm on the other side of the fence in that argument, but as far as efficiency goes its pretty hard to beat EV.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

...as far as efficiency goes its pretty hard to beat EV.

Yes and no. We could for instance discuss the efficiency of my Insight vs someone's pure electric SUV - and I do mean that as a serious question. I'd argue that making an efficient gasoline-powered vehicle by doing weight & drag reduction and normal hybridization might well produce a more efficient (measured in energy and CO2 per mile) vehicle than converting a heavy, inefficient larger car.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Yes and no. We could for instance discuss the efficiency of my Insight vs someone's pure electric SUV - and I do mean that as a serious question. I'd argue that making an efficient gasoline-powered vehicle by doing weight & drag reduction and normal hybridization might well produce a more efficient (measured in energy and CO2 per mile) vehicle than converting a heavy, inefficient larger car.

Thats kind of disingenuous though. For a real comparison you would have to compare an SUV EV and an SUV ICE, or an EV insight and an ICE insight.

You can add other factors like putting one in an SUV and one in an insight but you would have to add a correction factor because the EV is getting screwed over by bad drag and excessive weight, while your ICE is reaping the benefits of probably the best designed car with respect to FE.

All else held equal its hard to beat an EV.

[dcb]

I'm not looking for an "electric is great", just trying to understand the problem and see if there is something I would consider a fair comparison. Yes, saying electric motors are %80 efficient doesn't tell the whole story, nor does comparing prius to hummer or any other half baked comparison (i.e. cost).

Coal puts out more co2 per BTU, about %30 more than gasoline. and almost twice as much as natural gas. So I don't know if CO2/mile is any better a reference point for comparison than cost/mile.

There is a graph on page 25 though that lists BTU/mile, and has the ICE at 5300 and the EV at 3000, but that ratio is "suspiciously" close to the CO2 numbers(400/230). Could be coincidence I suppose.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Jim Bullis

I still have problems when it looks like things are getting badly off track for us as a country. Look at AFS Trinity brings "150 mpg" plug-in hybrids to Capitol Hill for some sweet stimulus cash if you want to know what I really think.

Why such an issue with taking relevant driving patterns into consideration?

If city planner and vehicle designers did a better job at examining commute needs, we wouldn't be in the poor shape we're in now with respect to consumption. The goal, at the end of the day, isn't higher MPG numbers (that's just a metric we are familiar) - the goal is lower total consumption. And that's what any hybrid drive train does so very well. If we're limited by one technology, why go solo with it?

I don't see AFS ignoring the cost of electricity - they even state it, quite plainly, on the first page of their website


I still think the problem is a poor metric (MPG). So you pay $20 and $10 a month in electricity and gasoline, respectively to commute rather than $40-$50 a month on gasoline alone. Good things happened here 1) less oil was needed and 2) less electricity didn't go through a middle man...


I do agree with theunchosen, but I don't think he's stated it out loud - this thread needs some splitting

[theunchosen]

I did, but it was not a very loud statement. . .I am prepared to debate future tech and where we need to be going. I'd prefer really not tackling any other sort of argument about whether electrics or hybrids are more efficient(Because I believe CO2->C8H18 conversion powered by designer bacteria is the answer and last I checked batteries don't involve gasoline and fire.)

There is that thread http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post101437.

[Jim Bullis]

Originally Posted by Ernie Rogers

Argonne national lab (Wang and others, the GREET model) has published the conversion from units of fuel to grams of CO2, including all of the steps like refining and mining. With those factors all you have to do is multiply--

(fuel units /mile) x (gms CO2 /fuel unit) = gms CO2 / mile

And, the tables include gms CO2 /kWh under various assumptions.

The tables are available on line, and I have a table on my computer here somewhere. I will have to send it later when I get back. (Have to get to work now.)

Ernie Rogers

Thanks, that could be useful.

I continue to challenge Argonne for their GREET model which continues to deny the Second Law of Thermo, that is, they keep it in their model that electric energy is equivalent to heat energy, leading people to ignore the heat engine effect for conversion of heat to electric energy. This has to get fixed since they are a key national authority.