Morelli Shape

[Jim Bullis]

Frank Lee,

It sounds like your coop is operating as a rational business, where folks pay more or less for what they get.

Yup, they could leave off with the propaganda newsletter, fire the PR bimbo that writes it, and cut prices a tiny bit.

[miket]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

I've got three things better.

24KWh/gal - cost equivalence at $0.12/KWh and $3/gal
16KWh/gal - by CO2 equivalence
15KWh/gal - by life cycle energy content



If I understand miket correctly here, he considers direct BTU equivalence to be an EV-inflating number, and he's proposing cost equivalence in ... Saudi Arabia? ... as an EV-deflating figure. Maybe you should use $3/gal vs. the price of electricity for an off-grid solar customer instead.

I think that's silly, but if you want an arguably justifiable EV-deflating figure, consider the potential of each fuel for heating a house. The house could be equipped with a furnace with an AFUE of .95 (humor me and pretend it could be run on gasoline), or a heat pump with a CoP of 3.5. You arrive at an unflattering, and perhaps unfair, 9KWh/gal.

So there you go, whether you're heating a house, generating electricity, or turning a shaft, electricity is a form of energy that has been "improved" 2-4 times beyond what its KWh content would suggest.

I would encourage everyone to take any direct BTU mpge figures they encounter and divide by two.

Your conversions sound fine. In some ways the conversion of electricity cost is not really neccesary since we already pay per kwh and electric cars are listed in miles per kwh.

xprize style mpge isnt technically a lie it makes the mileage 'sound better' and the electricity costs for that vehicle 'sound worse'. Its more heinous for C02 conversions i suppose.

I prefer more intuitive metrics. Miles per gallon implies a fixed number of gallons or a fixed gas budget and people driving more or less miles to burn that gas. Gallons per mile implies a fixed distance and people buying enough gas to drive it. I think the second is more accurate. Gallons per 10k miles is probably the best metric for the average person for a cost and environmental standpoint. Whats more usefull this car gets 50mpg or 200gal/10kmi, 35mpg or 285gal/10kmi 20mpg or 500gal/10kmi, 16mpg or 625gal/10kmi. Notice how it would be much easier for someone to know their gas usage and cost than with mpg. Also assuming fixed distances it shows how taking a truck from 16-20 save alot more than taking a car from 35 to 50mpg even though the latter 'sounds better' in mpg.

Secondly what is the cost in saudi arabia?

[Frank Lee]

Cuppola things:

1. mpg may not be the "best" metric but it's what we've long used. It's tough to turn ships this big around. Remember in the '70's when the entire U.S. WOULD BE METRIC in a few years??? Go ahead and use gpm and see how many really get it and how many have eyes glazed over.

2. Don't assume fixed distances either. It is proven that miles driven varies with various economic conditions.

[NeilBlanchard]

Energy carried in the vehicle used per distance traveled -- is the best way to compare the energy used by a vehicle to move from A to B.

My plug-in electric lawn mower uses the equivalent of ~0.9 teaspoon of gasoline PER HOUR. Find me a more efficient powered lawn mower? (It uses about 0.38kWh in an hour of heavy use -- this is 12/1000 of a gallon of gasoline.)

Measure the waste heat from a vehicle, and that will also tell you the their relative efficiencies.

And before you get all over the losses in generation of electricity, there are lots of losses and waste heat in exploration, extraction, transportation, storage, refinement, more storage, more transportation, and more storage again -- before you even put the gasoline in your car. There is probably enough electricity *alone* invested in the gallon of gasoline to run the car 30-60 miles *without* burning the gasoline at all. And there is a lot of natural gas used along the way, as well.

Because, if you insist on adding the carbon used to produce electricity, then the electricity used to extract, move, refine, move again, etc -- all of the carbon in that electricity, gets counted in that gasoline. Ditto for all the natural gas used to produce gasoline.

The second thing is, what if I put solar panels on my roof and/or put up a wind turbine, to generate/offset the electricity used in my electric car? Can you do the same thing with an ICE powered car?

So, the bottom line is, that electric cars are more than 1.5X more efficient, and even if you include the source-to-wheels FOR BOTH, the electric cars are much more efficient.

[miket]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Cuppola things:

1. mpg may not be the "best" metric but it's what we've long used. It's tough to turn ships this big around. Remember in the '70's when the entire U.S. WOULD BE METRIC in a few years??? Go ahead and use gpm and see how many really get it and how many have eyes glazed over.

2. Don't assume fixed distances either. It is proven that miles driven varies with various economic conditions.

Divide 10,000 by mpg and you have the number. If they printed gp10km on new cars and websites, not everyone but alot people would start using it. At least while they were making the purchasing decisions. It would be much more memorable and accurate than this will cost so much per year sticker they already have. No I dont think we're going to km/l any time soon like the europeans, but that is smarter than l/km. I dont remember the 70's. Did they make speed limit signs with both km/h and mph? My backwards state has highways exits with seqential numbering but did the states with distance numbering have plans to change the exit numbers?

2.Yes the price elasticity of gasoline does not allow either to be fixed entirely. However the gallons reduce proportionly to the distance driven with gpm so its easy to see that. The gpm and gallons reduce proportionally with improvements in fuel efficiency. I think its better to keep track of gallons than the possible miles you can now drive. I dont know anyone who spends an exact amount on gas or buys an exact amount of gallons and then drives that and no more or less. mpg is better for determing the range of your vehicle than your gas usage.

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Energy carried in the vehicle used per distance traveled -- is the best way to compare the energy used by a vehicle to move from A to B.

Incorrect. Energy used BECAUSE OF moving the vehicle from A to B is the correct metric.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

My plug-in electric lawn mower uses the equivalent of ~0.9 teaspoon of gasoline PER HOUR. Find me a more efficient powered lawn mower? (It uses about 0.38kWh in an hour of heavy use -- this is 12/1000 of a gallon of gasoline.)

I mow my lawn with 0.04KWh. :-D Gas lawn mowers are terribly wasteful appliances, and I wish more people would get rid of theirs.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Because, if you insist on adding the carbon used to produce electricity, then the electricity used to extract, move, refine, move again, etc -- all of the carbon in that electricity, gets counted in that gasoline. Ditto for all the natural gas used to produce gasoline.

I have accounted for this in my analysis.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The second thing is, what if I put solar panels on my roof and/or put up a wind turbine, to generate/offset the electricity used in my electric car? Can you do the same thing with an ICE powered car?

When the Leaf arrives, you will be able to buy an off-the-shelf sustainable transportation solution consisting of EV and rooftop PV. How much will that cost? People thought a Leaf by itself was expensive. Add in tens of thousands more to power the thing in a carbon-neutral manner. If nobody can afford it, what's the point?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

So, the bottom line is, that electric cars are more than 1.5X more efficient, and even if you include the source-to-wheels FOR BOTH, the electric cars are much more efficient.

I have a car with unlimited range that you could buy for $4000. It gets 250Wh/mi(e) at the wall, or ~200Wh/mi(e) at the battery. It is therefore much more efficient than the EV1, despite the fact that the EV1 has a better body.

EVs are worth building today because some day, petroleum will be too precious to burn. But don't make the mistake of calling them low-carbon or even more efficient than a hybrid or diesel. They're not, unless combined with low-carbon electric generation.

[Jim Bullis]

RobertSmalls,

You have it right except you open the door to the tricksters when you allow claims if the system is combined with 'low carbon' generation.

Following your own guidance that the thing that counts is the energy used 'BECAUSE OF' moving the vehicle, I reason that 'generation' of any kind, that exists independently of the vehicle, can not be 'combined' in a clear thinking person's mind. So people who install solar systems, sometimes at my (the public) expense, can not assign the output to their electric vehicle. No matter what, these are independent actions, so the owner of the solar array has a choice whether to sell the solar output to the grid. If that is the sensible economic option, then it would make no sense to force the output to go to the EV --even though it might sound cute.

[nmgolfer]

Originally Posted by Jim Bullis

nmgolfer and everyone who is thinking about 10 cent electricity,

Brace yourselves; we are in for some real surprises here if either we go to plug-ins in a big way or we impose a requirement on electric power generators to capture 'carbon'.

First, the electric motor efficiency has very little effect on the overall efficiency of operating a power system. The heat engine losses, wherever they occur, are the overwhelming cause of loss in any system.

Second, the cheap electricity that we now enjoy is anchored by the price of coal under any stable governmental system, thus excluding California where we give 11 to 13 cent electricity to most of us at the welfare level of use called 'baseline' usage. For those who really need electricity the price jumps to 29 cents, then 30 cents, then 50 cents. For all of us, that first welfare handout comes at the expense of those who use a lot of electricity. I suggest that when the people of Bakersfield figure out that their air conditioners are no longer affordable, they will be sharpening their pitchforks for our government.

And when the fact that the EVs charged at night in Portola Valley (not a low rent district) will be using power at welfare level pricing, that could be used for running air conditioners in Bakersfield, we might reasonably expect discontent to be expressed.

Jim,

I'm not worried about carbon taxation or sequestration because neither will ever happen (see I'm an optimist and I believe in the American people) which of course, if it did happen would drive the price of electricity right up and beyond that of liquid fuels (which is exactly what the industrialists behind the global warming scam want to see happen). I'm a big fan of public utilities because they are coops and they can be held accountable unlike big oil and their commodities trading and refinery operating rackets.

We know how to make electricity dozens of ways and burning coal and CH4 are about the dumbest/least effective. I want to see the country go into thorium reactors in big way and make electrons too cheap to meter. Need some real political leadership first and unfortunately that's not happening. Carter is right... had his energy policies stayed in place we'd be much better off today.

Problems boils down to petrol-dollar hegemony but the world is changing... had enough of our lack of leadership... moving on with or with out us.

[Jim Bullis]

nmgolfer,

I heard somewhere that both Carter and Reagan agreed that thorium posed a nuclear proliferation threat that they deemed unacceptably difficult to manage. Please correct me if that is wrong.

[Frank Lee]

Well I know for sure it's bad when quantonium falls into the wrong hands