News Electric vehicles to pay for detroit bailout?

[mheslep]

Happened to see I Robot the other night. Of course he's driving around in EV, but where he drives is interesting: large underground tunnels everywhere he goes. Creating the tunnels aside, I suspect operating them with personal vehicles is only practical on a large scale with zero emission EVs. Another reason to dump ICE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bzg1mzwZDko&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bzg1mzwZDko&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
http://www.vidivodo.com/183990/i-robot-part-2

 

[mheslep]

Wonderful photographic history of the electric car in today's WSJ, going back to the 19th century.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...70542192.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_lifestyle#

 

[RonL]

Wonderful photographic history of the electric car in today's WSJ, going back to the 19th century.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...70542192.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_lifestyle#

A very interesting link indeed.
Looking at the timeline, in 1899 the first car ever to reach 60mph was electric, from then all electric cars seem to fall off the chart and list max. speed as 35 or 40 mph, It makes no sense to me how any car company would produce such dismal products, and expect to make sales.
Over 100 years later and the first signs of serious engineering seems to be coming into the picture. When I see some of the things that are on the road, it is proof that people will buy what is offered and that demand of the people does not drive what is built.

I know there are many factors to consider, but it is an amazing picture any way it is looked at.

 

[mheslep]

A very interesting link indeed.
Looking at the timeline, in 1899 the first car ever to reach 60mph was electric, from then all electric cars seem to fall off the chart and list max. speed as 35 or 40 mph, It makes no sense to me how any car company would produce such dismal products, and expect to make sales.

Nothing dismal about electrics for the first ~10 years of the century. Speed limits were 12-20mph. Horses everywhere. Good roads nil. NY city traffic (horse drawn, gasoline, pedestrian, electric, bicycles) would come to a stand still, 100 years ago. Stock gasoline vehicles did only marginally better for awhile.

Edit: after reading about the era, and looking again at your post I have to grin. Women used the electrics back then, all the ads targeted the ladies. Men wanted the speed.

 

[mugaliens]

Electric motor power density reaches 4kw/kg (2.4 HP/lb), no combustion engine I've seen short of a gas turbine reaches that power density. So let's be clear: power density is not a problem with this class of batteries and motors. Energy density is difficult problem #1, which manifests itself as range limitation in EVs.

The acceptance issue will be lifetime per-mile expense while providing the same "look what I've got" prestige as cars have always tended to give.

 

[Nebula815]

Are hybrids and electrics, with all the batteries and so forth, really a viable technology for the future, or would a more realistic alternative be in finding a way to double the fuel economy of the current IC engines...?

 

[mugaliens]

Are hybrids and electrics, with all the batteries and so forth, really a viable technology for the future, or would a more realistic alternative be in finding a way to double the fuel economy of the current IC engines...?

Even the best IC engines can't match the efficiency of a turbo diesel.

Even the best turbo diesel can't match the efficiency of the engine in Toyota's Prius.

Even the best Prius engine can't match the efficiency of a Stirling engine.

The Prius is a step in the right direction, but it still uses engine direct drive. What's required is this:

Engine --> generator (small) --> batteries --> electric motor/generator (large) --> drivetrain

Drivetrain --> electric motor/generator (large) --> batteries

Part of the Prius' design philosophy was to do away with two generators (makes sense). However, their philosophy also was to pick an engine powerful enough for driving 100 mph, and use the batteries for boosting acceleration as well as capturing energy for regenerative braking.

A much more efficient design uses the batteries as primary, with a typical commute as the target goal, +50% more just to keep most people happy. People would be able to plug into their household current, and if their commute was typical, their engine would not be used until they exceeded the distance.

The engine in such as design would be less than what was required to maintain normal driving speeds. It might, for example, hold 45 mph in a sustained effort. However, it would run 24/7, if needed, which would allow, say, a 12-hour per 24 hour driving cycle at 70 mph.

Even if you never plug them in, these 4-person vehicles are getting 100 mpg, simply because of these design modifications.

 

[mgb_phys]

Even the best IC engines can't match the efficiency of a turbo diesel.
Even the best turbo diesel can't match the efficiency of the engine in Toyota's Prius.

That's VW's arguement. You are better off with just a 70mpg diesel engine than a 30mpg gasoline engine + hybrid for most users.
Especially with new technology like the instant start that turns the engine off when you stop at lights.
If >50% of your grid power comes from coal (as in USA and Germany) they claim that a small diesel is greener than even a plugin.
Of course VW make a lot of diesel engines so they might be a little biased!

Part of the Prius' design philosophy was to do away with two generators (makes sense). However, their philosophy also was to pick an engine powerful enough for driving 100 mph, and use the batteries for boosting acceleration as well as capturing energy for regenerative braking.

The prius had a difficult job, it had to have the same looks and performance as a regular car to gain acceptance, given the constraints it did a reasonable job.
Now you would probably be better making something like a Smart car with direct electric drive and a constant rate diesel driving the generator with a pure plugin to follow.

A lot of the current hybrids are obviously just to cash in on either tax breaks or green-ness.
We have a fleet of hybrid Ford SUVs where the battery capacity and tiny electric motor is just about sufficent for parking them but the regular gas engine cuts in as soon as you get to walking pace.
Mercedes even make a hybrid luxury limo, it has a 300hp engine and a 20hp electric motor - but allows your CEO to show how green he is.

 

[Nebula815]

I think one thing with electric vehicles and/or hybrids is that they need to get where they have the same capabilities as big gasoline and diesel engines. Americans like to drive big SUVs and pickups (I am one of them---cars IMO are too small and too low to the ground and a pain-in-the-rear to get in and out of).

People also use their SUVs and pickups for hauling lots of groceries, towing things like boats and campers, and so forth.

And of course simply by their design, no SUV or pickup will be as aerodynamic as a car. So electric and hybrid technology need to get where we could have say a electric or hybrid Ford F-150 that literally can get say 60 mpg while providing the same capability as an F-150 with a 300+ hp gasoline or diesel engine.

One question though, if electric motors have a lot more torque than IC engines, why are freight trains pulled by locomotives that are engine-powered as opposed to electric powered? Only the lighter, passanger trains are electric-powered...?

 

[mgb_phys]

One question though, if electric motors have a lot more torque than IC engines, why are freight trains pulled by locomotives that are engine-powered as opposed to electric powered? Only the lighter, passanger trains are electric-powered...?

Freight trains in Europe are electrically powered, the most powerful locos in the world are the channel tunnel freight trains.
For purely electric you need the infrastructure of power lines. There are many freight trains where the diesel engine in the loco generate electric power with electric traction motors. The advantage of diesel-electric is that you can put motors in the cars and spread the motive power over the whole train, that gives you much better acceleration. This only matters if you are going fast and stop and start frequently so is more of an advantage for passenger trains and fast freight services.

The difference between Eu and USA freight is mostly geography an historical accident. The US has long distances and single line tracks so single large slow trains with lots of locomotives is a good fit. Europe has a denser network of tracks an destinations so smaller high speed freight trains make more sense.

 

[Nebula815]

Freight trains in Europe are electrically powered, the most powerful locos in the world are the channel tunnel freight trains.
For purely electric you need the infrastructure of power lines. There are many freight trains where the diesel engine in the loco generate electric power with electric traction motors. The advantage of diesel-electric is that you can put motors in the cars and spread the motive power over the whole train, that gives you much better acceleration. This only matters if you are going fast and stop and start frequently so is more of an advantage for passenger trains and fast freight services.

The difference between Eu and USA freight is mostly geography an historical accident. The US has long distances and single line tracks so single large slow trains with lots of locomotives is a good fit. Europe has a denser network of tracks an destinations so smaller high speed freight trains make more sense.

Thankyou for the information, very interesting, so in certain diesel locomotives, the diesel engine essentially runs an electrical generator that then sends power to electric motors in all the train cars, if I am reading right?

 

[mgb_phys]

Thankyou for the information, very interesting, so in certain diesel locomotives, the diesel engine essentially runs an electrical generator that then sends power to electric motors in all the train cars, if I am reading right?

In almost all passenger trains yes, it gives you the best acceleration because the power is spread along the mass of the train, it also gives a smoother ride because there is no bump as the strain is taken up by each coupling.

It's not as common in freight cars because they are much cheaper than passenger carriages and the trains are split up and remade more often so it it would be a pain to have special power cars among the general freight wagons.

You still use diesel electrics because although there are efficiency losses in the generators and motors it saves the weight and maintenance complexity of a huge gearbox and transmission (imagine the clutch for a 10,000ton train !). The motors are in the locomotive boggies and driven from the generator in the loco.
It also means the engine can be built to run at a constant speed and power level which makes it more efficent and quieter/cleaner.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, I just saw this...

No. [that electric cars don't require more coal plants]


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211221149.htm

Well yes, it will require a few more coal plants just not many more. But more importantly, they do also require significantly more coal-based power. Ie, coal plants will need to increase their output at night.

All of that is discussed in the article.

It does also say that the net effect would be a reduction in CO2 output since electric cars are more energy efficient than the gas cars they would replace. It isn't clear, but it doesn't suggest to me that they have included in the study the potential for significant energy efficiency gains that are likely to come for cars in the near future. In other words, if a Prius owner buys a Volt, I highly doubt there will be a net carbon benefit. What fuel economy did they use? The fleet average requirement is 25mpg, but who is really more likely to buy a Volt, a 34mpg Civic owner or a 12 mpg Suburban owner?

Either way, the goal of an electric car isn't just a small improvement in CO2 production. I rather think people would be pretty upset if they bought an electric car for the sake of being green and found their "emission free" car only actually reduced their CO2 emissions by (for example) 20%.

 

[russ_watters]

A very interesting link indeed.
Looking at the timeline, in 1899 the first car ever to reach 60mph was electric, from then all electric cars seem to fall off the chart and list max. speed as 35 or 40 mph, It makes no sense to me how any car company would produce such dismal products, and expect to make sales.
Over 100 years later and the first signs of serious engineering seems to be coming into the picture. When I see some of the things that are on the road, it is proof that people will buy what is offered and that demand of the people does not drive what is built.

I know there are many factors to consider, but it is an amazing picture any way it is looked at.

I'm not quite sure you see what is really going on with that timeline. It is showing electric cars only. The issue isn't that electric car offerings have gotten worse, it's that gasoline powered cars have gotten better faster. Ie, it was advances in internal combustion engines that made airplanes possible at about the same time. Here's a timeline/history of the ICE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_internal_combustion_engine

 

[mheslep]

One question though, if electric motors have a lot more torque than IC engines, why are freight trains pulled by locomotives that are engine-powered as opposed to electric powered? Only the lighter, passanger trains are electric-powered...?

Even the 'diesel' locomotives mostly use electric motors for the traction motor, and the diesel driving a generator. Google diesel-electric locomotive.

 

[mheslep]

Sorry, I just saw this... Well yes, it will require a few more coal plants just not many more. But more importantly, they do also require significantly more coal-based power. Ie, coal plants will need to increase their output at night.

All of that is discussed in the article.

Per the article, no more plants necessary up to "84%" of electric conversion of the fleet. I doubt that last 15% would convert even in 50 years.

Regarding the increased coal plant production at night, we'd see some, I expect not much. Coal and nuclear plants run mainly base load already, i.e. coal doesn't idle much at night. Gas plants are typically charged with the peaking loads. To illustrate, gas electric capacity actually http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html" coal capacity in the US, even though actual generation from coal exceeds gas by 2:1. That is, many more gas plants sit idle in the winter and at night. So as the article says we'd expect some more SO2 emissions in the near term to the extent coal electric replaces gasoline in transportation, but not much.

It does also say that the net effect would be a reduction in CO2 output since electric cars are more energy efficient than the gas cars they would replace.

It is more than the just the vehicle efficiency improvement in moving from ICE to EV. To the extent electric transportation is sourced by nuclear, hydro and other renewables the emissions go to zero. Natural gas is also an improvement over gasoline in joules produced per carbon emissions, regardless of end use efficiency. So all those Prius owner in San Francisco, Ca, where very little coal is used, could safely assume big improvements in overall emissions improvements.

It isn't clear, but it doesn't suggest to me that they have included in the study the potential for significant energy efficiency gains that are likely to come for cars in the near future. In other words, if a Prius owner buys a Volt, I highly doubt there will be a net carbon benefit. What fuel economy did they use?

If we look at the sources supplying the grid the benefits must be large if the vehicle replaced is a Prius or even better. This is true in terms of emissions, but more importantly (for me) a PHEV Volt can eliminate the need for oil imports as it switches to another primary energy source; the Prius can not (switch sources)

 

[RonL]

I'm not quite sure you see what is really going on with that timeline. It is showing electric cars only. The issue isn't that electric car offerings have gotten worse, it's that gasoline powered cars have gotten better faster. Ie, it was advances in internal combustion engines that made airplanes possible at about the same time. Here's a timeline/history of the ICE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_internal_combustion_engine

To me it was just interesting that in the early 20's electric cars made up a 1/3 of all sales (I realize the market was small) then from the 40's until the mid 90's almost nothing.
to me it is also amazing that the mindset of most people is, batteries need to compete with fuel in the energy density, when maybe 90% of most transportation use, can be handled with the low image lead acid battery.
Just my opinion and I'm aware it dose not match up with most people.

Ron

 

[mheslep]

To me it was just interesting that in the early 20's electric cars made up a 1/3 of all sales (I realize the market was small) then from the 40's until the mid 90's almost nothing.

Slight quibble: In 1900 1/3 of sales were electric. By 1921 the mass electric auto sales were all but gone, the electric trolleys soon to follow.

to me it is also amazing that the mindset of most people is, batteries need to compete with fuel in the energy density, when maybe 90% of most transportation use, can be handled ...

An automobile is still a fairly large investment for most people. Given that investment, it is a large burden to tell them they can't drive out of their region even occasionally because the batteries deplete 1/2 way to grandma's house.

 

[russ_watters]

Per the article, no more plants necessary up to "84%" of electric conversion of the fleet. I doubt that last 15% would convert even in 50 years.

Yes, it would take a while to meet their projections.

Regarding the increased coal plant production at night, we'd see some, I expect not much. Coal and nuclear plants run mainly base load already, i.e. coal doesn't idle much at night. Gas plants are typically charged with the peaking loads.

According to the wiki on coal power, it is loaded at 67%, so that's quite a bit of headroom for extra night generation. But anyway - it's your article that says there would need to be a lot more coal power generation...

It is more than the just the vehicle efficiency improvement in moving from ICE to EV. To the extent electric transportation is sourced by nuclear, hydro and other renewables the emissions go to zero.

Again, you posted the article, and that isn't what it says. Heck, you even said (correctly) above that nuclear plants are base loaded. And hydro is already utilized at essentially 100% as well.

Here's the full text of the study:
http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf
http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Economic_Analysis_Part2_Final.pdf

Some quotes:

For the nation as a whole, the total greenhouse gases are expected to be reduced by 27% from the projected penetration of PHEVs. The key driver for this result is the overall improvement in efficiency along the electricity generation path compared to the entire conversion chain from crude oil to gasoline to the combustion process in the vehicle. Fundamental to this result is the assumption that a PHEV by itself would be more efficient than a conventional gasoline car because of the regenerative braking capability that stores the kinetic energy in the battery during deceleration and because the engine operates at near optimal conditions more of the time than in conventional vehicles.

So a 27% reduction in pollution, mostly covered by regenerative braking and the lack of idle consumption. In other words, if you switch from a 25 mpg car to a 30 mpg car, you get the exact same environmental benefit as switching to a full electric! And if you switch to a hybrid, you get a much better environmental benefit than if you buy an electric car!

Natural gas is also an improvement over gasoline in joules produced per carbon emissions, regardless of end use efficiency. So all those Prius owner in San Francisco, Ca, where very little coal is used, could safely assume big improvements in overall emissions improvements.

I don't see in the article a statement about what how much of each (coal and natural gas) would be added under their calculations, but it doesn't really matter: the 27% pollution reduction is the bottom line either way.

As far as I'm concerned (and I've repeated this many, many times), until we get rid of our coal power plants, the environmental benefit of switching to electric cars is marginal at best.

The political benefit, however, is real but harder to quantify.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

...
to me it is also amazing that the mindset of most people is, batteries need to compete with fuel in the energy density, when maybe 90% of most transportation use, can be handled with the low image lead acid battery.
Just my opinion and I'm aware it dose not match up with most people.

Ron

...
An automobile is still a fairly large investment for most people. Given that investment, it is a large burden to tell them they can't drive out of their region even occasionally because the batteries deplete 1/2 way to grandma's house.

You both make good points.

In reality 85% of Americans have 50 miles or less round trip commute to work. The Chevy Volt will get you to work on battery power (40 miles @ 100 MPH max). The EV1 gen 1 with lead acid batteries would get you to work and back on a charge (75-100 miles @ 80 MPH max), gen 2 would do the same thing on NiMH batteries (75-150 miles @ 80 MPH max). The ZENN will also get you to work with its lead acid batteries (40 miles @ 25 MPH max). Granted some of these options would require you to charge up at work, or because of there designation of Neighborhood electric vehicle won't get you onto the freeway. They would work for a daily driver.

If you were going to grandmas house, or on vacation most people are traveling over 150 miles. Being limited to 150 miles with 8 hours recharge time is going to make an EV impractical. However most people fly to there long distance destination. However there is the option of renting a gas powered car to get you out of your region. After all, right now I think the best option for EVs is to be a daily driver. How many people honestly need to carry more then five people and a weeks worth of groceries? I just think most Americans need to change the way they look at transportation. In reality it is unlikely if most Americans travel over 100 miles in a given day more then once a month, if that. Need to haul 4x8 sheet goods, or 8 foot 2x4. Finally how many of the big SUVs and pickup trucks have actually seen anything other then a paved street, or hauled something other then kids, a dog, and groceries?

Also the big reason I'm in favor of the US private transportation sector switching over to electric powered cars is not for environmental reasons, but for economic security reasons. When OAPEC gets it in there collective heads to hit us with another oil embargo to get something they want, were in big trouble. They've done it twice to us, in 67 and 73. We've been forced to do what they wanted or face an economic collapse that would make the one in 2008 look like a Sunday afternoon pick nick.

 

[mheslep]

...

If you were going to grandmas house, or on vacation most people are traveling over 150 miles. Being limited to 150 miles with 8 hours recharge time is going to make an EV impractical. However most people fly to there long distance destination. However there is the option of renting a gas powered car to get you out of your region. After all, right now I think the best option for EVs is to be a daily driver. How many people honestly need to carry more then five people and a weeks worth of groceries? I just think most Americans need to change the way they look at transportation. In reality it is unlikely if most Americans travel over 100 miles in a given day more then once a month, if that. Need to haul 4x8 sheet goods, or 8 foot 2x4. Finally how many of the big SUVs and pickup trucks have actually seen anything other then a paved street, or hauled something other then kids, a dog, and groceries?

I agree with you up until the paragraph quoted above. Some people will find it to their advantage to have short range only, cheap per mile car and rent to travel, say students in particular. Good for them. But most people http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BF34J20091216" to their out of town destination over the holidays. It is not practical to have 74 million travelers suddenly rent ICE cars on the holidays. Remember the scale of the problem:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/XI/heavy-traffic-I95.jpg

I find the common assertion "Americans need to change the way they look at transportation" followed by the usual diminishing remarks about kids and groceries annoying, as I generally find comments suggesting people be made to do what others think are best for them annoying. Working to find technically and economically acceptable solutions that some people want, and later many people want as the technology improves, is a more productive approach. After all this is a technical forum.

 

[mheslep]

According to the wiki on coal power, it is loaded at 67%, so that's quite a bit of headroom for extra night generation. ...

Yes, though I read the reason for that idle coal capacity is generally due long term out of commission plants, waiting for some kind of scrubbing equipment upgrade, maintenance, or for other like reasons, unlike gas generation which is the first source taken off line during slack demand due to the greater expense of gas (historically). I read that starting up a the boiler and fuel transport for a coal based steam generation plant is time consuming, much more so than spinning up a gas turbine.

I had read the reference PNNL report some time ago and was relying on the Science Daily digest summary for my prior post; I'll review the primary reference and address the rest of your post shortly.

 

[mgb_phys]

I read that starting up a the boiler and fuel transport for a coal based steam generation plant is time consuming, much more so than spinning up a gas turbine.

For a big station it's a major undertaking
Large coal plants normally run for years at capacity as a baseline load. Along with nuclear it's usually the cheapest source (once you have built the station)

Gas is the most expensive source, but it's the cheapest station to build and can be started the fastest - in minutes if you design it that way.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I agree with you up until the paragraph quoted above. Some people will find it to their advantage to have short range only, cheap per mile car and rent to travel, say students in particular. Good for them. But most people http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BF34J20091216" to their out of town destination over the holidays. It is not practical to have 74 million travelers suddenly rent ICE cars on the holidays. Remember the scale of the problem:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/XI/heavy-traffic-I95.jpg

I find the common assertion "Americans need to change the way they look at transportation" followed by the usual diminishing remarks about kids and groceries annoying, as I generally find comments suggesting people be made to do what others think are best for them annoying. Working to find technically and economically acceptable solutions that some people want, and later many people want as the technology improves, is a more productive approach. After all this is a technical forum.

What I find annoying is that most Americans are so ingrained that a vehicle is a way to show off your wealth so there ends up many large gas guzzling land yachts on the road. Also the next time you turn on the TV just pay attrition to how many ads are played for large SUV and trucks, compared to small cars.

Also in that picture I can see only maybe 9 commercial vehicles on the road, all of the other vehicles on the road cars/SUV that I'm willing to bet are running with single occupancy. Just for fun next time you are on the road look at each car, truck, and SUV you see. How many people are in that vehicle? If it is a truck, is it carrying anything in the bed, or dose it have some commercial application? If it is a SUV, how many people are in it, or has it seen any off roading?

For technical solutions, let's get a light rail system in this country that isn't a joke. Most passenger trains average around 34 MPH, and the only high speed rail that is in the US averages 68 MPH. Coal to liquids would defiantly help. Get more of our goods back onto freight trains and off of long haul trucks. H2, LNG, or bio diesel for petrol gas replacement. These would all help or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, however I still firmly think that Americans need to change the way that we view/use our transportation system. If that happened I'm sure traffic congestion, and our addiction/need for foreign oil would disappear.

It makes no sense to stay in a hostile environment with blinders on, fingers firmly in the ears, and yelling "la la la". Thinking if I just stick it out something will change even though I've been bitten twice. Then again maybe we do need a swift kick in the economic pants from OAPEC cutting us off again.

 

[mgb_phys]

all of the other vehicles on the road cars/SUV that I'm willing to bet are running with single occupancy.

Problem = congestion, too many large cars on the road with one occupant. But nobody wants to buy small ghey european cars because they are all rugged individualists who at any moment might have to turn off the I95 to drive across a mountain or over a ranch.

Simple solution gentlemen, I give you the ... motorbike ...

You drive your Canyonero to work because although your job involves auditing expenses claims you know you are really a cowboy at heart. Well with a motorbike you can be Dennis Hopper in Easyrider - while driving to work to audit expenses claims.
[URL][PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/22/Canyonero.JPG/180px-Canyonero.JPG

Other advantages, no need for hands free cell laws - you try and use a cell phone on a bike you lose it. No need for MADD, you can drink and ride but generally only once. And if enough middle aged managers buy Honda fireblades it also solves the pension crisis.

Then you only have the problem of soccer moms transporting 5 year olds in 4ton army trucks.
Well if madison avenue can convince them that tipping over SUVs are the safest form of transport then you can probably sell them this.

The SUV of motorbikes (and it's a BMW - what more could you want)

Then again maybe we do need a swift kick in the economic pants from OAPEC cutting us off again.

You do know where most of America's oil comes from?

 

[mheslep]

...

You do know where most of America's oil comes from?

I do! (Imported that is.)
http://forum.camofire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/canada-flag.jpg
Doesn't matter though w/ regards to the point above on OPEC. If they raise prices so will Canada.

 

[LURCH]

I don't see in the article a statement about what how much of each (coal and natural gas) would be added under their calculations, but it doesn't really matter: the 27% pollution reduction is the bottom line either way.

As far as I'm concerned (and I've repeated this many, many times), until we get rid of our coal power plants, the environmental benefit of switching to electric cars is marginal at best.

The political benefit, however, is real but harder to quantify.

I've crunched some numbers myself, and the reduction in CO₂ emissions comes to about 50%, at a very conservative geuss.

 

[mheslep]

Getting back to PNNL grid capacity report after the holiday ...

I originally posted the digest summary of the PNNL report to address the capability of the grid to cover a surge in electric vehicles. The report also addresses other issues such as emissions and gasoline usage changes due to the use of electrics, with a stated set of assumptions for the model they ran.

According to the wiki on coal power, it is loaded at 67%, so that's quite a bit of headroom for extra night generation. But anyway - it's your article that says there would need to be a lot more coal power generation...

You're right about the latter, the [PLAIN]http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf" model assumes a lot of coal plants will run harder to meet the theoretical nationwide PHEV demand.

So a 27% reduction in pollution,

That figure is the reduction only in green house gasses (CO2), nationwide, not all pollution for which the story is much more complicated. Here's the emissions chart from the [PLAIN]http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf" report. The top row is the ~dozen US grid segments. CNV=California/Nevad, ERCOT=Texas, etc.

Note in some grid segments heavy in natural gas power (versus coal) like California and Texas the reduction in CO2 would be 40%, while the heavy coal midwest stays about flat. Other pollutants like organic compounds (VOC), e.g. benzene, and CO fall nearly 100%. Particulates and SOx would go up over most of the country. However, in urban areas all emissions types fall drastically.

Some comments about the assumptions in the PNNL report. Amazingly to me, their model rules out the use of gas based "Peaking Plants" because according to PNNL they wouldn't be economic:

Peaking plants (combustion turbines). These plants are designed for a relatively short run time. Typical capacity factors for combustion turbines are in the 0.15 to 0.20 range. Although the capacity factor could be increased to some degree, the significantly higher operating costs are unlikely to make combustion turbines a viable resource for PHEVs.

I doubt that assumption holds now w/ US natural gas discoveries and falling gas prices, but even if PNNL is still right in 2009, a consequence of that assumption is that national policy in a PHEV equipped country could by fiat call for more natural gas electric generation from the utility operators, or to use only low sulphur coal, or more and better coal scrubbers, at the cost of a couple more cents per kWh for the PHEVs.

So instead of peaking gas, PNNL assumes that mainly coal and gas boiler plants would be dispatched to meet the difference:

The remaining marginal generation capacity [for charging cars] consists of coal-fired thermal plants, natural-gas-fueled steam plants, and combined cycle plants. Not considered as marginal capacity for the valley-filling are nuclear, conventional hydro power, and renewable energy capacities because these are already fully utilized. Nuclear capacity is normally operated at its maximum capacity. Wind and solar generators are fully utilized whenever the resource is available. Conventional hydro generation is limited by finite water resources.

brackets mine.

[...] mostly covered by regenerative braking and the lack of idle consumption

Where's that 'mostly' coming from? The electric drive train is more efficient than an ICE at nearly any operating point.

In other words, if you switch from a 25 mpg car to a 30 mpg car, you get the exact same environmental benefit as switching to a full electric!

I'm guessing when you say 'hybrid' there you mean with no plugin as in the current Prius. This report only addresses Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), not fully electric vehicles. Either way, the overall environmental benefits for a 20% efficiency improvement for an ICE vehicle and a PHEV are not the same.

And if you switch to a hybrid, you get a much better environmental benefit than if you buy an electric car! I don't see in the article a statement about what how much of each (coal and natural gas) would be added under their calculations, but it doesn't really matter: the 27% pollution reduction is the bottom line either way.

The generation mix matters as demonstrated by the Texas and California regions. Coal throws off twice as much CO2 as natural gas and all of the SOx.

As far as I'm concerned (and I've repeated this many, many times), until we get rid of our coal power plants, the environmental benefit of switching to electric cars is marginal at best.

In addition to the emissions benefits, PHEVs per the report would cut petroleum imports by 52%.

 

[mgb_phys]

In addition to the emissions benefits, PHEVs per the report would cut petroleum imports by 52%.

Craigslist For Sale:
One army, suit global superpower, only used twice. Removal of dependence on middle eastern oil forces sale.

 

[Phrak]

There is no efficiency improvement of electric over gasoline powered cars.

The losses in electric power generation and transmission offset the efficiency of the onboard electrical power delivery to place gasoline and electric on par.

As for "carbon footprint", forget about it.

The energy from coal is nearly all carbon. From gasoline, some comes from oxidation of hydrogen. There is a greater "carbon footprint" from rechargable electric batteries. It's feel-good technoecology for the delusional. (Canadian's with hydroelectric power can still feel eco-holy, and spiritually superior driving electric cars.)

 

[Nebula815]

Was wondering what people thought of that documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Conspiracy-theory nonsense, partially-true in some senses, etc...?

 

[mheslep]

Was wondering what people thought of that documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Conspiracy-theory nonsense, partially-true in some senses, etc...?

Modicum of both.

 

[mheslep]

[...]As for "carbon footprint", forget about it.

The energy from coal is nearly all carbon. From gasoline, some comes from oxidation of hydrogen.

Combustion of any hydrocarbon implies oxidation.

There is a greater "carbon footprint" from rechargable electric batteries. ...

Do the math.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf" (table 1): 2 lbs CO2 / kWh, or
0.5 lbs CO2 per mile in a 4 mile / kWh EV charged only by coal powered electricity.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm": 19.4 lbs CO2 emitted per gallon of gasoline. Thus a 40 mpg gasoline vehicle is required to match the CO2 footprint of the EV charged from coal based electric, and that number is increasing 1% a year as the coal fleet becomes more efficient. A ~70 mpg gasoline vehicle is required to match the CO2 footprint of the EV charged from natural gas based electric.

And of course the EV requires zero imported petroleum.

 

[LURCH]

Was wondering what people thought of that documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Conspiracy-theory nonsense, partially-true in some senses, etc...?

Straight up conspiracy theory nonsense, starting right from the title. The electric car was never alive. Or, if one considers that it was alive with the EV 1, then it is far more alive now than it has ever been.

I did see a section of the movie in which an auto executive was confronted with the fact that there was a "waiting list" of 50,000 customers willing to purchase an electric vehicle. After speaking to the people on that list, and telling them what the EV 1 would and would not be capable of, there remained only about 40 people on the list.

In response to this, one of the makers of the film said something to the effect of, "when you are trying to market a new product, you do not market it by telling people about its limitations…". I find this to be a very telling statement: one of the makers of the film is plainly stating that she finds it perfectly acceptable to use deception (in the form of the omission of crucial information), in order to get people to buy the electric car.

 

[mugaliens]

There is no efficiency improvement of electric over gasoline powered cars.

The losses in electric power generation and transmission offset the efficiency of the onboard electrical power delivery to place gasoline and electric on par.

As for "carbon footprint", forget about it.

The energy from coal is nearly all carbon. From gasoline, some comes from oxidation of hydrogen. There is a greater "carbon footprint" from rechargable electric batteries. It's feel-good technoecology for the delusional. (Canadian's with hydroelectric power can still feel eco-holy, and spiritually superior driving electric cars.)

So long as the vast majority of our electrical power continues to come from fossil fuels, this will continue to hold true.

I'm not sure where the break-even point lies, but I suspect we're close to it. If so, the emphasis shouldn't be on electric cars, but on power production by means other than fossil fuels. Currently, the only technologies which are both proven and widespread are nuclea, solar, and wind.

The question is: Can we migrate to a non-fossil fuel economy before the oil runs out?

As for the OP, the very idea of electric vehicles bailing out Detroit is hopelessly and selfishly myopic. Far more important issues abound.

 

[mgb_phys]

As for the OP, the very idea of electric vehicles bailing out Detroit is hopelessly and selfishly myopic. Far more important issues abound.

I'm the OP, the point was that the boss of Tesla motors (then the only available consumer electric car) was complaining that the promised R+D grants for electric cars were just being poured into the general bailout GM+Chrysler money pit.

 

[mheslep]

[...] If so, the emphasis shouldn't be on electric cars, but on power production by means other than fossil fuels. Currently, the only technologies which are both proven and widespread are nuclea, solar, and wind.

Currently, almost all oil goes to transportation. Currently, therefore, transportation is not capable of using nuclear, solar, and wind, unless transportation moves to electric.

The question is: Can we migrate to a non-fossil fuel economy before the oil runs out?

Fossil fuel includes much more than petroleum, and petroleum will plateau along time before coal and gas.

 

[fireofenergy]

E-cars are the most efficient. I have "done the numbers too". It doen not matter though as we all want a green grid and will demand it. Problem is the costs of renewable energy capital and electrical storage. Sure, we could use pumped water or air, but those are already perfected down to the obvious physical constraints (what about air bladders deep below offshore wind?). Therefore, battery tech needs to be developed, not in itself, but in how to mass produce the LiFePO4 in unlimited and cheap utility scale (not li-ion). I "know" there is no large scale supply issues since the cathode does not require lithium cobalt oxide.

Now, that's my question: Why isn't that being done already? Is it because of proprietary issues or is it really that much of an engineering challenge to simply make much larger versions?

Thanks,
the new guy

 

[mgb_phys]

One of the big advantages promoted for PEVs is to solve the grid storage issue.
If you are prepared for you car to be charged for 4hours sometime overnight then it becomes a lot easier to use unreliable sources.
With enough electric cars and a smart enough grid you can even use the millions of cars as a distributed storage scheme to buffer local extra demand without needing to bring gas stations online.

 

[Nebula815]

One other problems I was thinking about electrical vehicles is that even if you can plug them into your wall socket, not everyone has that kind of parking setup. For example, a lot of people live in apartment buildings or row homes, where they must park on streets, where you probably couldn't have wires being run from every car into every house in order to charge them. For apartments with parking lots, that gets even more problematic.

And then there's always the chance some punk kids might decide to start snipping people's wires or something.

Regarding oil running out, my fear with that would more be about the fact we need it for things like plastics, rubber, all sorts of chemicals, etc...

 

[LURCH]

There is no efficiency improvement of electric over gasoline powered cars.

The losses in electric power generation and transmission offset the efficiency of the onboard electrical power delivery to place gasoline and electric on par.

As for "carbon footprint", forget about it.

The energy from coal is nearly all carbon. From gasoline, some comes from oxidation of hydrogen. There is a greater "carbon footprint" from rechargable electric batteries. It's feel-good technoecology for the delusional. (Canadian's with hydroelectric power can still feel eco-holy, and spiritually superior driving electric cars.)

As I said in my earlier post, the reduction in CO₂ emissions is roughly 50%. That is a very conservative estimate, assuming that all future electric vehicles get the same mileage as the Tesla (a sports car), and that all electricity is generated by nothing but coal, being burned in power plants operating on the emission standards that were in place in 1995 (the most recent data available when I investigated). In reality, coal only supplies a little over half of electricity and the U.S., and emission standards have gotten more strict, so the real carbon savings is actually substantially greater.

 

[fireofenergy]

EV's are 4 times as efficient than what we drive today. This leads me to believe in conspiracy theories...
I'm hoping someone can tell me why the LiFePO4 battery isn't being mass produced for both renewable energy storage and for EV's. I'm not (really) one for conspiracy theories, but it seems there is one that explains the preventing of this (seemingly miracle) solution on an affordable level. This should be the most serious concern as it is not good to keep using (whatever) fossils indefinitely (for whatever).
That battery can handle 2,000 full charge cyles and over 8,000 partial! It's impossible to make them explode (search youtube "Lifepo4", it's funny what people will do to them!). Their only downfall is below freezing temps(without insulation) and of course, that outragously screwed up price.

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm hoping someone can tell me why the LiFePO4 battery isn't being mass produced for both renewable energy storage and for EV's. ... Their only downfall is below freezing temps(without insulation) and of course, that outragously screwed up price.

Their main downfall is that they have lower energy density than Li-ion and versions in research labs only began to compete with Li-ion in the last couple of years.
If you are engineering an electric car, proposing spending millions of $ on tooling a plant, building parts and infrastructure and one of your major problems is that batteries don't have anything like the energy density of dead dinosaurs do you:

A, go with something that has been developed for nearly 20years and has been used industrially for 10-15years and hope that it continues to improve with lots of battery makers all competing to be your supplier.

B, go with a technology that shows promise in a lab at MIT, doesn't have the energy density of the current technology but MIGHT be better one day. And you have to build your own chemical plant to manufacture them.

 

[mheslep]

One other problems I was thinking about electrical vehicles is that even if you can plug them into your wall socket, not everyone has that kind of parking setup. ...

This thread may be of interest:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=363020"

 

[mheslep]

EV's are 4 times as efficient than what we drive today. This leads me to believe in conspiracy theories...
I'm hoping someone can tell me why the LiFePO4 battery isn't being mass produced for both renewable energy storage and for EV's. ...

Their main downfall is that they have lower energy density than Li-ion and versions in research labs only began to compete with Li-ion in the last couple of years.
If you are engineering an electric car, proposing spending millions of $ on tooling a plant, building parts and infrastructure and one of your major problems is that batteries don't have anything like the energy density of dead dinosaurs do you...

I think the question was more of a why aren't Lithium batteries in general being mass produced, LiFePO4 in particular. My general answer. First, petroleum has an energy specific density at least 50x that the best Li based batteries, meaning electric vehicle range, with the existing infrastructure, is very limited in comparison to gasoline/diesel vehicles just as it was 100 years ago. LiFePO4 solves the reliability, safety, and life cycle problems. It doesn't solve the range and cost problems by themselves.

Edit: missed this on the first pass, so you beat me to it:

one of your major problems is that batteries don't have anything like the energy density of dead dinosaurs do you

 

[Nebula815]

This thread may be of interest:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=363020"

Thankyou, will read through it.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Sounds like the knee jerk reaction of all knee jerk reactions or a frustrated employee of a toy company. Maybe we should bring back Deloreans and fly using our jet packs.

 

[Proton Soup]

worrying about energy density may be missing the point. one of the "easiest" ways to reduce fuel consumption by the average american is to reduce their mobility. then it really isn't a question so much about whether electric produces less CO2, because the new paradigm of reduced mobility will force it.

 

[mheslep]

This must be a new price low for LiFePO batteries, from Chinese vendor Thunder-Sky via this http://www.evcomponents.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=TS-LFP100AHA" (45Wh/kg) which are 3x heavier.

 

[mheslep]

worrying about energy density may be missing the point. one of the "easiest" ways to reduce fuel consumption by the average american is to reduce their mobility. then it really isn't a question so much about whether electric produces less CO2, because the new paradigm of reduced mobility will force it.

Easiest for you perhaps. a) I don't want that forced on anyone, b) that's not going to happen, and c) there are other ways to go.