Xref: gmd.de alt.folklore.suburban:268 alt.folklore.urban:
99234 alt.fan.joel-furr:584
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!
news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!acpub.duke.edu!jfurr
From: jf...@acpub.duke.edu (Joel Furr)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.suburban,alt.folklore.urban,alt.fan.joel-furr
Subject: Urban Legend of the Day: The Amazing Invention
Followup-To: alt.folklore.suburban,alt.folklore.urban
Date: 11 May 1994 12:12:43 GMT
Organization: Moderator, alt.config
Lines: 26
Approved: jf...@acpub.duke.edu
Message-ID: <2qqi3r$s6q@news.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bio5.acpub.duke.edu
Urban legend of the day: the amazing invention that accidentally gets into
a consumer's hands and is eventually tracked down by the company and
bought back for $$$.
Sometime's it's something so pedestrian as a razor blade that never goes
dull, but often it's the car that gets thousands of miles per gallon.
I first heard it as this guy bought a car at a Dodge dealership and went
driving around. Didn't fill the tank after he left the dealership, since
it already had a nearly full tank. Drove around for the better part of a
week in town and noticed the tank still wasn't getting empty. Peered into
the tank to see if the indicator was broken, and the tank was almost full
of gas. Drove off to Charlotte and got there *without* having to fuel up.
Upon checking into his hotel in Charlotte, he got a call from his wife
saying that men from Chrysler were there offering hundreds of thousands of
dollars if they could buy back the car -- it was an experimental model and
wasn't supposed to leave the lot.
The moral of this story is usually that companies are conspiring to keep
wondrous devices of this sort out of our hands since they'd break the back
of the oil industry (or, in the case of the ever-sharp razor blades,
destroy the razor blade industry since no one would ever need to buy any
more).
Anyone ever heard this one, or a variation on it?
Xref: gmd.de alt.folklore.suburban:366 alt.folklore.urban:100112
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!
news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!rene
From: re...@u.washington.edu (Rene Magritte)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.suburban,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Urban Legend of the Day: The Amazing Invention
Date: 14 May 1994 17:54:04 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 10
Approved: jf...@acpub.duke.edu
Message-ID: <2r337s$501@news.u.washington.edu>
References: <2qqi3r$s6q@news.duke.edu> <smthsen-110594100509@oc24.bc.edu>
<2qtpm4$o67@news.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bio5.acpub.duke.edu
Originator: jf...@bio5.acpub.duke.edu
What of the lightbulb version of this -- that filiment incadescent
lightbulbs could be made that would burn for many years, but that this
isn't done so they can reap more profit -- citing bogus safety
reasons.
This is actually semi-believable to me. There is little
inducement for GE etc. to make a long-lived lightbulb...
Xref: gmd.de alt.folklore.suburban:389 alt.folklore.urban:100438
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!wb8foz
From: wb8...@netcom.com (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.suburban,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Urban Legend of the Day: The Amazing Invention
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 14:29:49 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex
Lines: 14
Approved: jf...@acpub.duke.edu
Message-ID: <wb8fozCpwG9p.J09@netcom.com>
References: <2qqi3r$s6q@news.duke.edu> <smthsen-110594100509@oc24.bc.edu>
<2qtpm4$o67@news.duke.edu> <2r337s$501@news.u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: wb8...@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bio8.acpub.duke.edu
Originator: jf...@bio8.acpub.duke.edu
re...@u.washington.edu (Rene Magritte) writes:
> What of the lightbulb version of this -- that filiment incadescent
>lightbulbs could be made that would burn for many years, but that this
>isn't done so they can reap more profit -- citing bogus safety
>reasons.
There is a direct tradeoff in lamp design - efficiency for lifetime.
I fail to understand how anyone who can do simple math worries about
lamp cost. That ~$0.50 lamp uses ~~$6.00 worth of electricity over its
life. Do I care more if I can save 25% on the lamp, or 25% on
electricity cost?
--
Xref: gmd.de alt.folklore.suburban:405 alt.folklore.urban:
100714 alt.fan.lightbulbs:475
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.duke.edu!math.psu.edu!jim
From: j...@math.psu.edu (Jim Duncan)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.suburban,alt.folklore.urban,alt.fan.lightbulbs
Subject: Re: Urban Legend of the Day: The Amazing Invention
Date: 18 May 1994 18:12:50 GMT
Organization: Department of Mathematics, Pennsylvania State University
Lines: 43
Approved: jf...@acpub.duke.edu
Message-ID: <JIM.94May18141251@augusta.math.psu.edu>
References: <2qqi3r$s6q@news.duke.edu> < smthsen-110594100509@oc24.bc.edu>
<2qtpm4$o67@news.duke.edu> < 2r337s$501@news.u.washington.edu>
<wb8fozCpwG9p.J09@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bio7.acpub.duke.edu
Originator: jf...@bio7.acpub.duke.edu
In article <wb8fozCp...@netcom.com> wb8...@netcom.com (David Lesher)
writes:
re...@u.washington.edu (Rene Magritte) writes:
> What of the lightbulb version of this -- that filiment incadescent
>lightbulbs could be made that would burn for many years, but that this
>isn't done so they can reap more profit -- citing bogus safety
>reasons.
There is a direct tradeoff in lamp design - efficiency for lifetime.
I fail to understand how anyone who can do simple math worries about
lamp cost. That ~$0.50 lamp uses ~~$6.00 worth of electricity over its
life. Do I care more if I can save 25% on the lamp, or 25% on
electricity cost?
--
Of course, this totally ignores the "complete" cost of obtaining, stocking,
and replacing the lamp. Consider the last in out-of-the-way locations, like
stairwells, wet locations, high locations, etc.
I think it's horrendous that lightbulb manufacturers and distributors
perpetrate such obnoxious hoaxes on the general public. My mother used to
keep *very* accurate records about lamp replacement in the whole house, and
she used to buy her bulbs with a certain number of hours guaranteed from the
folks selling them for various charitable organizations. They stopped
calling her for sales since she was getting so many free replacements.
Or the folks selling those "wonderful" diode "buttons" you insert in the
base of the socket before screwing in the bulb. These prolong lamp life by
converting the current from AC to DC, but it also greatly reduces the
current going to the filament, and as a result light output is *greatly*
reduced. The end result is folks buy much more powerful bulbs than they
need just so they can get back to equivalent light output.
The lighting industry is full of hoaxes, and folks seem to be falling for
them all the time. They're fully capable of producing truly long-life
lightbulbs (where it's *not* simply an issue of trading efficiency for
MTBF), but they choose not to, probably for fear of minimizing an industry.
Jim
Xref: gmd.de alt.folklore.suburban:447 alt.folklore.urban:
101162 alt.fan.lightbulbs:479
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!
news.pop.psu.edu!ctc.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!
lorien!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!
news.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.dkrz.de!dscomsa.desy.de!galileo!sean
From: se...@galileo.desy.de (Sean Willard)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.suburban,alt.folklore.urban,alt.fan.lightbulbs
Subject: Lightbulbs
Followup-To: alt.folklore.suburban,alt.folklore.urban,alt.fan.lightbulbs
Date: 19 May 94 08:31:09 GMT
Organization: U.C.Davis Particle Physics, Hamburg Office
Lines: 19
Approved: jf...@acpub.duke.edu
Message-ID: <2rf84e$dbb@dscomsa.desy.de>
References: <2qqi3r$s6q@news.duke.edu> <smthsen-110594100509@oc24.bc.edu>
<JIM.94May18141251@augusta.math.psu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bio6.acpub.duke.edu
Originator: jf...@bio6.acpub.duke.edu
Jim Duncan (j...@math.psu.edu) writes --
| In article <wb8fozCp...@netcom.com> wb8...@netcom.com (David Lesher)
| writes:
|
| I fail to understand how anyone who can do simple math worries about
| lamp cost. That ~$0.50 lamp uses ~~$6.00 worth of electricity over its
| life. Do I care more if I can save 25% on the lamp, or 25% on
| electricity cost?
| --
|
| Of course, this totally ignores the "complete" cost of obtaining, stocking,
| and replacing the lamp.
It also completely overlooks the hidden costs of electricity production
(pollution, use of irreplaceable natural resources, etc.), which I
consider worse at the end of the day.
Sean
Xref: gmd.de alt.folklore.suburban:484 alt.folklore.urban:
101766 alt.fan.lightbulbs:483
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!
news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!stevet
From: ste...@eskimo.com (Steven Thornton)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.suburban,alt.folklore.urban,alt.fan.lightbulbs
Subject: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 07:48:57 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Lines: 31
Approved: jf...@acpub.duke.edu
Message-ID: <CqAr1M.G2q@eskimo.com>
References: <2qqi3r$s6q@news.duke.edu>
<smthsen-110594100509@oc24.bc.edu> <JIM.94May18141251@augusta.math.psu.edu>
<2rf84e$dbb@dscomsa.desy.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bio5.acpub.duke.edu
Originator: jf...@bio5.acpub.duke.edu
Sean Willard (se...@galileo.desy.de) wrote:
> It also completely overlooks the hidden costs of electricity production
> (pollution, use of irreplaceable natural resources, etc.), which I
> consider worse at the end of the day.
I wonder if I could change the subject just a little here, and report a
potential UL about electricity use. I can't remember where I read it, but
it's to do with the new California law that will soon require all new
cars to be "non-polluting", which practically speaking means "electric".
It was claimed that in fact electric cars pollute the air much MORE than
gasoline-powered ones, just in a different place. Supposedly, the modern
internal-combustion engine is an extremely efficient little bastard, in
terms of getting the most energy out of the fuel and turning it into
motion, while electricity generation (from coal or oil-fired plants) and
then battery charging is not. So the increased electrical requirements to
charge up all those batteries would cause MORE pollution than the gas
engines they replace. The difference is, the car exhaust is released in
the midst of the people who use it, and presumably deserve it, while the
LA Basin's power mostly comes from plants hundreds of miles away, and
pollute things like the Grand Canyon. The author of the piece that I read
was suggesting that this was not a step forward.
So: is this true? I know that power plant pollution HAS started to
obscure the formerly pristine air over the Grand Canyon, and that this is
attributable to the exploding demands of the Southwest metropoli such as
LA, Phoenix, and Las Vegas, but it this bit about electric cars polluting
more true?
I await your wisdom.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!
howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!
guvax.acc.georgetown.edu!keithk
From: kei...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Message-ID: <1994Jun2.120729.10323@guvax>
Date: 2 Jun 94 12:07:29 -0500
References: <2qqi3r$s6q@news.duke.edu> <smthsen-110594100509@oc24.bc.edu>
<CqDH91.6oC@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Followup-To: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University
Lines: 32
In article < CqDH9...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, ken...@hawaii.edu (Kennan Ferguson)
writes:
> Steven Thornton (ste...@eskimo.com) wrote:
> : I wonder if I could change the subject just a little here, and report a
> : potential UL about electricity use. I can't remember where I read it, but
> : it's to do with the new California law that will soon require all new
> : cars to be "non-polluting", which practically speaking means "electric".
>
> I though it was that 2% of all cars sold would have to be non-polluting
> by 1995 or 1997. Which brings up an important question: how do you get
> people to buy them?
2% by 1998, 10% by 2003, according to the scare-tactic campaign ad
against it in today's _New York Times_ (aren't they a little
off-target, here?). The whole line about electric cars requiring more
electrical generation, and another about how the cost of these cars
will be as much as $30,000 higher per car than the cost of regular
ones, and "who do you think is going to pay that?". I wanted to write
back "You are - for failing to phase them in for the last two decades
that people have been asking for them and complaining about pollution
while you produced the Ford Pinto and made Lee Iacocca a millionare on
profits from serial murders he personally ordered.", but they didn't
seem in the mood for rational debate.
As far as buying them, they are expected to be popular for corporate
fleets, and the first models are predicted to be short-haul trucks and
things like that (where you do a lot of stop-and-go, but don't cover
that many miles and are always near the garage for recharging). They
are also expected to be popular as a second car for commmuters, for
the same reason, who can save on gas in city traffic and keep their
regular car for long trips.
Kevin "or walk, if it comes to that" T. Keith
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!qns1.qns.com!constellation!convex!
news.oc.com!news.kei.com!MathWorks.Com!news2.near.net!yale!yale.edu!
noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!gberkowitz
From: gberk...@BIX.com (gberkowitz on BIX)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Date: 4 Jun 94 01:06:34 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <gberkowitz.770691994@BIX.com>
References: <2qqi3r$s6q@news.duke.edu> <smthsen-110594100509@oc24.bc.edu>
<JIM.94May18141251@augusta.math.psu.edu> <2rf84e$dbb@dscomsa.desy.de>
<qAr1M.G2q@eskimo.com> <CqDH91.6oC@news.Hawaii.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7092 sci.energy:4445
ken...@hawaii.edu (Kennan Ferguson) writes:
>I though it was that 2% of all cars sold would have to be non-polluting
>by 1995 or 1997. Which brings up an important question: how do you get
>people to buy them?
Simple. Massachusetts has an excise tax that must be paid every
year based on the value of the auto. Make electrics=no excise.
Add an income tax credit, like there used to be for solar, etc.
Give the best parking spaces at all destinations to electric
vehicles, with charger. Allow single passenger electrics in
the high-occupancy (carpool) lanes. Raise the gasoline tax to
$2.50/gallon. Impose a CO2 tax.
--Gene
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.kei.com!
MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!
waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!newshost.wcc.govt.nz!HAMIL...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
From: hamil...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Date: 5 Jun 1994 18:51:43 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <2st6rv$qs6@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
References: <2qqi3r$s6q@news.duke.edu> <smthsen-110594100509@oc24.bc.edu>
<JIM.94May18141251@augusta.math.psu.edu> <2rf84e$dbb@dscomsa.desy.de>
<CqAr1M.G2q@eskimo.com> <CqDH91.6oC@news.Hawaii.Edu>
<gberkowitz.770691994@BIX.com>
Reply-To: hamil...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix.wcc.govt.nz
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7143 sci.energy:4453
In article <gberkowitz...@BIX.com>, gberk...@BIX.com (gberkowitz on BIX)
writes:
>ken...@hawaii.edu (Kennan Ferguson) writes:
>>I though it was that 2% of all cars sold would have to be non-polluting
>>by 1995 or 1997. Which brings up an important question: how do you get
>>people to buy them?
This is a very good question, and a lot of issues are raised, it's
not as simple as it first appears. If a state decides to use a
transportation source that is not economically competitive with
current alternatives, the viability of any industries that export
may be threatened.
>Simple. Massachusetts has an excise tax that must be paid every
>year based on the value of the auto. Make electrics=no excise.
Presumably the state used the excise tax for some purpose,
remember that has to be funded from an alternative source.
>Add an income tax credit, like there used to be for solar, etc.
Any EV owner is going to *need* a really big one of these, given
the projected annual operating costs when compared to a IC alternative.
>Give the best parking spaces at all destinations to electric
>vehicles, with charger. Allow single passenger electrics in
>the high-occupancy (carpool) lanes.
This is hysterical :-). You'll soon be implying that an EV
weighing the same as a 4-5 person IC car is actually more
efficient _even_ if it only carries one person, at a fraction
of the speed. I can imagine the joy of the IC cars slowing
down for the EV.
>Raise the gasoline tax to >$2.50/gallon.
The surprise is that in Europe and some other countries, the
tax _is_ already at or near this value, _and_ EV aren't
competitive with ICs.
>Impose a CO2 tax.
54% of the US electricity is derived from coal, 9% is from gas,
and 4% from oil, thus 2/3 of the electricity is also going to
be subjected to the tax.
I would suggest that you should have little trouble getting
funding from Japan and Europe, as energy cost can significantly
affect national economic competitiveness. Suggesting a single
person EV should share the same lane privileges as multi-person
commute vehicles is strange - I thought one of the reasons for
encouraging such lanes was to reduce the cost of delays in towns
and to reduce the requirement for parking.
It woulds also seem you don't worry too much about the environment,
as EVs can halve the CO2, for similar vehicles, but if the EV only
has one and the ICV three or more people, then the CO2 emissions
are greater. EVs will also increase the SO2 emissions, but will
decrease the NOx, CO, and VOCs
So your "simple" solutions are significantly environmentally
unfriendly, they may also be economically unfriendly, and they
rely on legislative compulsion, which may have adverse political
effects on the introducers. It will be an interesting experience
to watch from here....
Bruce Hamilton
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.kei.com!MathWorks.Com!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!koriel!
decwrl!sony!sonysjc!43.134.1.10!ronny
From: ronny@cheetah.all (Ron Karpel)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Date: 06 Jun 1994 17:33:49 GMT
Organization: Sony Corporation of America, San Jose, CA
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all>
References: <CqDH91.6oC@news.Hawaii.Edu> <94060218264600049@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cheetah.lsi.sel.sony.com
In-reply-to: Chuck Rice's message of Fri, 3 Jun 1994 01:26:46 GMT
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7238 sci.energy:4468
Electric cars pollute less; the pollution from the power plant is 1%
of the pollution of IC (Internal Combustion) cars. The cost of parts
for EV is less then IC. It is just that there is a very small or
really no market for EV today. The hope is that as a market develop so
will the technology. EV have a much better potential for pollution
free transportation then ICV.
So the problem today is how to develop the market for EV. And that is
why we need to give incentives for EV's.
Ron Karpel
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!
howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!
slee01.srl.ford.com!eccdb1.pms.ford.com!eccdb1.pms.ford.com!westin
From: wes...@dsg145.nad.ford.com (Stephen H. Westin)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Date: 07 Jun 1994 15:35:08 GMT
Organization: ECC at Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Michigan
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <WESTIN.94Jun7113508@dsg145.nad.ford.com>
References: <CqDH91.6oC@news.Hawaii.Edu> <94060218264600049@netcom.com>
<RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all>
Reply-To: wes...@jake.nad.ford.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsg145.nad.ford.com
In-reply-to: ronny@cheetah.all's message of 06 Jun 1994 17:33:49 GMT
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7356 sci.energy:4483
In article <RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all> ronny@cheetah.all (Ron Karpel)
writes:
> Electric cars pollute less; the pollution from the power plant is 1%
> of the pollution of IC (Internal Combustion) cars.
I'm not sure about that, but I don't have figures here to refute it.
Power plant pollution is also different: sulfur is more of a problem,
for example.
> The cost of parts
> for EV is less then IC.
Wrong. Batteries are lots more expensive than gas tanks, and the
control electronics are expensive because they need to be fairly
sophisticated and yet pass lots of power. Advances in computer
circuitry don't apply directly, as computer circuitry deals with
microwatts, but an IC auto routinely deals in over a hundred
kilowatts.
As for the battery, Ford is currently betting on sodium-sulfur technology.
If you have a cheap way of carrying around molten sulfur (at 700F approx.),
maintaining its temperature, and protecting everyone from getting burned
in the process, we would certainly like to hear it. Other technologies
have their problems as well.
> It is just that there is a very small or
> really no market for EV today. The hope is that as a market develop so
> will the technology.
The fundamental problem, as everyone agrees, is battery
technology. The market for dense storage batteries has been there for
years; lift trucks, aircraft and IC vehicle batteries, camcorders...
The current state of the art in batteries is hopelessly ineffiecient
in energy density compared to gasoline. Ford's Ecostar hauls around 800lb.
of battery to get the energy contained in 3 gallons of gasoline!
I am typing this on a 150 MIPS workstation, and I don't expect to have
a 3000 MIPS workstation five years from now, even though digital
electronics is a young technology. Why do you expect a 20x improvement
in batteries in the same time frame, even though the technology has
been worked on for over a century? Even if that did happen, it would
take several more years to make the new technology into a product.
In the foreseeable future (and around here 1998 is VERY foreseeable),
electric cars will be slower, have shorter range, and cost more than
IC cars. Various manufacturers will trade that off differently; maybe
lower cost but less performance, or greater range with greater cost.
> EV have a much better potential for pollution
> free transportation then ICV.
>
Only inasmuch as power plants might be easier to regulate than
individual vehicles.
> So the problem today is how to develop the market for EV. And that is
> why we need to give incentives for EV's.
>
> Ron Karpel
But why not set a standard for the level of pollution, rather than its
mechanism? I would bet that several manufacturers would be prepared to
build ultra-low-emission hybrid vehicles to match the _real_ emission
levels of EV's (i.e. powerplant emissions); they could offer reasonable
performance and range at a significant cost penalty.
Remember, this is not Ford's official position; it's my opinion. For
once, they bear some similarity :).
--
-Stephen H. Westin
wes...@dsg145.nad.ford.com
The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.world.net!usenet
From: ba...@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Date: 8 Jun 1994 06:07:47 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research
Lines: 15
Sender: ba...@bluesky.bluesky.com
Message-ID: <2t3n7k$a97@pdx1.world.net>
References: <CqDH91.6oC@news.Hawaii.Edu> <94060218264600049@netcom.com>
<RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all>
<WESTIN.94Jun7113508@dsg145.nad.ford.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: barry.bluesky.com
X-Posted-From: InterNews 1....@barry.bluesky.com
X-Authenticated: barry on POP host bluesky.bluesky.com
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7469 sci.energy:4511
In article < WESTIN.94...@dsg145.nad.ford.com>
wes...@dsg145.nad.ford.com (Stephen H. Westin) writes:
> an IC auto routinely deals in over a hundred kilowatts.
One hundred kilowatts at 12 volts is 8333 amps, at 100 volts
it's 1000 amps. Considering that to accelerate a 1 ton automobile
from zero to 60 mph requires just about 0.1 KWh, that rate of energy
expenditure would give zero-60 times of 3.6 seconds.
Please check your arithmetic.
Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
ba...@bluesky.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!
Munich.Germany.EU.net!thoth.mch.sni.de!athen!egn
From: e...@athen.mch.sni.de (Emil Naepflein)
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Reply-To: Emil.Na...@mch.sni.de (Emil Naepflein)
Organization: PHILOSYS Software GmbH, Unterschleissheim, Germany
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 10:07:50 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Jun8.100750.16209@athen.mch.sni.de>
References: <94060218264600049@netcom.com> <RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all>
<WESTIN.94Jun7113508@dsg145.nad.ford.com>
Lines: 48
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7481 sci.energy:4516
In article < WESTIN.94...@dsg145.nad.ford.com> wes...@jake.nad.ford.com
writes:
>In article < RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all> ronny@cheetah.all (Ron Karpel)
>writes:
>> It is just that there is a very small or
>> really no market for EV today. The hope is that as a market develop so
>> will the technology.
>
>The fundamental problem, as everyone agrees, is battery
>technology. The market for dense storage batteries has been there for
>years; lift trucks, aircraft and IC vehicle batteries, camcorders...
>The current state of the art in batteries is hopelessly ineffiecient
>in energy density compared to gasoline. Ford's Ecostar hauls around 800lb.
>of battery to get the energy contained in 3 gallons of gasoline!
>
>I am typing this on a 150 MIPS workstation, and I don't expect to have
>a 3000 MIPS workstation five years from now, even though digital
>electronics is a young technology. Why do you expect a 20x improvement
>in batteries in the same time frame, even though the technology has
>been worked on for over a century? Even if that did happen, it would
>take several more years to make the new technology into a product.
>
It's not necessary to have the same amount of energy in a battery
as in a gas tank, because the path from the battery to the wheels
is much more efficient than from the gas tank to the wheel.
Let's do a simple calculation: (I only estimate :-))
EC efficiency = 70 % (battery) * 95 % (transmission) * 90 % (motor) = 60 %
IC efficiency = 20 % (motor) * 90 % (transmission) = 18 %
This gives an advantage of at least 3 to the EC. If you use an IC engine
for driving in the city the efficiency drops dramatically. Add regenerative
braking and you may get another 20 % of the energy.
If you factor in that in the near future most EC will be used mostly
in the city, than you can clearly see that you don't need the energy
of 20 gallons gas in your battery.
>In the foreseeable future (and around here 1998 is VERY foreseeable),
>electric cars will be slower, have shorter range, and cost more than
>IC cars. Various manufacturers will trade that off differently; maybe
>lower cost but less performance, or greater range with greater cost.
>
I agree.
Emil Naepflein
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.world.net!usenet
From: ba...@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Date: 8 Jun 1994 10:35:26 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research
Lines: 87
Sender: ba...@bluesky.bluesky.com
Message-ID: <2t46tf$cti@pdx1.world.net>
References: <CqDH91.6oC@news.Hawaii.Edu> <94060218264600049@netcom.com>
<RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all>
<WESTIN.94Jun7113508@dsg145.nad.ford.com> <2t3n7k$a97@pdx1.world.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: barry.bluesky.com
X-Posted-From: InterNews 1....@barry.bluesky.com
X-Authenticated: barry on POP host bluesky.bluesky.com
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7484 sci.energy:4518
In article <2t3n7k$a...@pdx1.world.net>
ba...@bluesky.com (Barry Smith) writes:
> In article <WESTIN.94...@dsg145.nad.ford.com>
> wes...@dsg145.nad.ford.com (Stephen H. Westin) writes:
>
> > an IC auto routinely deals in over a hundred kilowatts.
>
> One hundred kilowatts at 12 volts is 8333 amps, at 100 volts
> it's 1000 amps. Considering that to accelerate a 1 ton automobile
> from zero to 60 mph requires just about 0.1 KWh, that rate of energy
> expenditure would give zero-60 times of 3.6 seconds.
>
> Please check your arithmetic.
OOPS, sorry; let me correct myself before you flame me.
You did, clearly, say *IC* auto up above, and I read it as EV.
My mistake, and my apologies.
Having said that, let me put my foot in a little further, perhaps. ;-)
I think my arithmetic, above, is also correct, and shows the
importance of the question of efficiency in energy systems.
(In other words, why *doesn't* a >100 KW IC engine drive a vehicle
from 0->60 in 3.6 seconds?)
I'd like to consider an "ideal", simplified framework for comparing
pollution from automotive power systems, with the following pretenses:
(1) energy "source" is chemical fuel, e.g., petroleum, coal, hydrogen,
but *the same fuel* for all systems; (2) overall system pathway is
source->vehicle motion->sink, i.e., the significant energy transforms
are from the source to the kinetic energy of motion, and from there to
some sink; (3) air and bearing friction losses are ignored; (4) vehicle
masses are equal; (5) "batteries" are any form of high-efficiency
reversible electrical storage (6) electrical transforms and batteries
are 100% efficient (due largely to my ignorance of actual values,
although my guess is that actual transforms are >90% efficient :).
Given these assumptions, some typical pathways and (pretended) transfer
efficiencies are:
(a) [IC direct]: fuel -> motion @ 20%, motion -> ambient @ 100%, or in
other words we burn the fuel in a heat engine and convert it directly
to motion, and we dump the motion to the ambient environment at a total
loss, as in friction brakes;
(b) [central electric]: fuel -> central electric @ 50%, central
electric -> battery @ 100%, battery -> motion @ 100%, motion -> ambient
@ 100%; here we burn (the same) fuel in a high-efficiency convertor
(Carnot efficiency possibly as high as 60%?), giving electricity which
we transfer at high efficiency to the vehicle, and then dump to ambient
as above;
(c) [central electric, regenerative]: as in (b), except motion ->
battery @ 100%; here we convert electricity to *and* from motion at
high efficiency. Notice that (ignoring resistance and conversion
losses) this is a perpetual-motion system, which would do very well on
EPA urban mileage tests;-)
(d) [IC, hybrid]: fuel -> battery @ 30%, battery -> motion @ 100%,
motion -> ambient @ 100%; here we take advantage of the fact that an IC
engine in its best operating regime is more efficient than when
operated over widely varying loads;
(e) [IC, hybrid, regenerative]: as in (d) but with motion -> battery @
100%, taking advantage of the electrical storage.
This analysis makes it clear exactly why EV's might be expected to have
lower net pollution: the primary transformational efficiency of the
central heat engine is (perhaps) three times that of the IC engine. It
also shows why, with mixed fuels, this expected reduction might not be
achieved: if we burn coal that is (say) three times as dirty, net, as
the gasoline burned by the IC engine, the pollution increase per
primary energy unit balances the increased net efficiency of the
central generation. Of course changing fuels, or (for electric
systems) switching to other sources, e.g., PV, wind, will have a direct
effect on net pollution without affecting the system energy
efficiencies.
OK, having set up the straw men, I'd like y'all to start shooting at
them! Please (a) correct the models (b) add other models (c)
contribute hard data as to *real* conversion efficiencies, in practice
and in theory, average and peak (d) tell me why regenerative braking
isn't a given for EV's...
Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
ba...@bluesky.com
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!get.hooked.net!decwrl!ames!
tulane!wupost!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!newshost.wcc.govt.nz!
HAMIL...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
From: hamil...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Date: 9 Jun 1994 17:23:55 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <2t7j7b$epj@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
References: <CqDH91.6oC@news.Hawaii.Edu>
<94060218264600049@netcom.com> <RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all>
<WESTIN.94Jun7113508@dsg145.nad.ford.com>
<2t3n7k$a97@pdx1.world.net>
Reply-To: hamil...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7649 sci.energy:4578
I'm aware that Barry has posted another article asking for lots
of numbers to plug into different scenarios, but I haven't
got that sort of time. I suggest that he refer to the Bosch
Handbook for data on ICVs, an Engineering Thermodynamics book
for data on efficiencies for various power generation systems,
and the Nov 1992 IEEE Spectrum for discussions on EVs.
In article <2t3n7k$a...@pdx1.world.net>, ba...@bluesky.com
(Barry Smith) writes:
>In article <WESTIN.94...@dsg145.nad.ford.com>
>wes...@dsg145.nad.ford.com (Stephen H. Westin) writes:
>> an IC auto routinely deals in over a hundred kilowatts.
>One hundred kilowatts at 12 volts is 8333 amps, at 100 volts
>it's 1000 amps. Considering that to accelerate a 1 ton automobile
>from zero to 60 mph requires just about 0.1 KWh, that rate of energy
>expenditure would give zero-60 times of 3.6 seconds.
>Please check your arithmetic.
I think you will find that most US vehicles _do_ routinely deal
in such power. The question is why. The Bosch Handbook will help
you there. Basically the US motorist is a "just-in-case" type,
they want the assurance that when they push the accelerator they
get acceleration up to ( and above ) the legal top speed.
Sure, at low speeds details such as vehicle mass are dominant, but
it soon changes. For a mid-sided european vehicle
Fuel Consumption ( litres/100km )
Driving Speed ( km/hr ) 40 80 120 160
Drive Train 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Air Resistance (Cw*A) 0.5 1.2 4.0 8.0
Rolling and Falling Resistance 1.0 1.1 1.5 2.0
Zero Load Consumption 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Total 6.7 6.7 10.1 15.3
( From a 1sq" graph in the Bosch Handbook, so excuse errors )
Now while this doesn't give the various engine efficiencies
at the various speeds you can see the relative consumptions.
It may also help you realise _why_ the GM Impact is governed
to 120km/h, because although the vehicle has a low drag
co-efficient of 0.19, the rolling resistance becomes significant
at 120km/h+, thus dramatically reducing range. It's worth
comparing two 1990s GM prototypes of similar drag co-efficient.
GM Impact GM Ultralite
Design 2 seater 4-5 seater
Horsepower 114 111 @ 5000rpm
Weight (lbs) 2,200 1,400
Payload (lbs) 350 750
Torque (lb.ft) 94 127 @ 4000rpm
0-60 mph (secs) 8 7.8
Top speed (mph) 75 135
Range (miles) 120 400
Drag Coefficient 0.19 0.192
Fuel Economy -EPA Highway 81
(mpg) -EPA Urban 45
Now you look at the above and decide which you would prefer,
and which is more environmentally friendly. In a previous
post I provided data that showed the CO2 emissions of an
existing production ICV were double those of a similar EV.
The above ICV would match the emissions of any current EV
of similar performance and payload capacity. Until the
battery problem of EVs is sorted, they don't look like
competing with future ICVs. Note that both of the above
vehicles use special tires to reduce rolling restance.
The Ultralite only require 4 hp to push it through the
air at 55 mph, compared to 7.6 hp for a contemporary sedan.
Regenerative braking depends on the speed, but on the SAE
C-cycle the Chrysler TEVan, the regenerative braking only
extended the range by 8%.
Ford's Ecostar van, when driven in accordance with the Federal
Urban driving Cycle, consumes about 8kW. Its heater is rated
at 5kW, and its airconditioner uses about 6kW. Thus in adverse
climate, the range is dramatically shortened ( To all the
advocates of supplementary small combustion heaters - remember
to add their emissions to the power plant emissions )
If you want more details...
"GM's Ultralite is racing towards greater fuel efficiency"
Steven Ashley Mechanical Engineering May 1992 p64-67
"Electric Vehicles - a special report"
IEEE Spectrum Nov 1992 p18-24,93-101.
"Electric Vehicles Only" Popular Science May 1991 p76-81,110
"electric Vehicles: Getting the Lead Out"
Bill Siuru Mechanical engineering Dec 1991 p36-41
"Battery and Electric Vehicle Update
Automotive Engineering Sept 1992 p17-25
Bruce Hamilton
( who's wondering whether to drag out all the historical ICV/EV
flamefest of 1992/1993, which did seem to have contributors
that were prepared to provide real or reported data )
>Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
>ba...@bluesky.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!
zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!
news.dell.com!pmafire!russ
From: ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Message-ID: <1994Jun9.202850.29111@pmafire.inel.gov>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 20:28:50 GMT
References: <94060218264600049@netcom.com> <RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all>
<WESTIN.94Jun7113508@dsg145.nad.ford.com>
<1994Jun8.100750.16209@athen.mch.sni.de>
Organization: WINCO
Lines: 34
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7671 sci.energy:4586
In article < 1994Jun8.1...@athen.mch.sni.de>,
Emil Naepflein <Emil.Na...@mch.sni.de> wrote:
>In article <WESTIN.94...@dsg145.nad.ford.com> wes...@jake.nad.ford.com
>writes:
>>In article <RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all> ronny@cheetah.all (Ron Karpel)
>>writes:
>>> It is just that there is a very small or
>>> really no market for EV today. The hope is that as a market develop so
>>> will the technology.
>>
>
>It's not necessary to have the same amount of energy in a battery
>as in a gas tank, because the path from the battery to the wheels
>is much more efficient than from the gas tank to the wheel.
>Let's do a simple calculation: (I only estimate :-))
>
>EC efficiency = 70 % (battery) * 95 % (transmission) * 90 % (motor) = 60 %
>
>IC efficiency = 20 % (motor) * 90 % (transmission) = 18 %
>
>This gives an advantage of at least 3 to the EC. If you use an IC engine
>for driving in the city the efficiency drops dramatically. Add regenerative
>braking and you may get another 20 % of the energy.
>If you factor in that in the near future most EC will be used mostly
>in the city, than you can clearly see that you don't need the energy
>of 20 gallons gas in your battery.
>
>Emil Naepflein
Tut, tut! Please include the thermodynamic efficieny of the power
plant. You will find that many are in the 25-35% range. Your
calculation assumes that power is generated at 100% efficiency.
russ
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.onramp.net!convex!convex!news.oc.com!
news.kei.com!eff!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!swrinde!
pipex!uknet!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!Munich.Germany.EU.net!thoth.mch.sni.de!
athen!egn
From: e...@athen.mch.sni.de (Emil Naepflein)
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Reply-To: Emil.Na...@mch.sni.de (Emil Naepflein)
Organization: PHILOSYS Software GmbH, Unterschleissheim, Germany
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 15:55:02 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Jun10.155502.24912@athen.mch.sni.de>
References: <WESTIN.94Jun7113508@dsg145.nad.ford.com>
<1994Jun8.100750.16209@athen.mch.sni.de> <1994Jun9.202850.29111@pmafire.inel.gov>
Lines: 55
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7757 sci.energy:4616
In article <1994Jun9.2...@pmafire.inel.gov> ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
writes:
>In article <1994Jun8.1...@athen.mch.sni.de>,
>Emil Naepflein < Emil.Na...@mch.sni.de> wrote:
>>In article <WESTIN.94...@dsg145.nad.ford.com> wes...@jake.nad.ford.com writes:
>>>In article <RONNY.94Jun6103349@cheetah.all> ronny@cheetah.all (Ron Karpel)
>>>writes:
>>>> It is just that there is a very small or
>>>> really no market for EV today. The hope is that as a market develop so
>>>> will the technology.
>>>
>>
>>It's not necessary to have the same amount of energy in a battery
>>as in a gas tank, because the path from the battery to the wheels
>>is much more efficient than from the gas tank to the wheel.
>>Let's do a simple calculation: (I only estimate :-))
>>
>>EC efficiency = 70 % (battery) * 95 % (transmission) * 90 % (motor) = 60 %
>>
>>IC efficiency = 20 % (motor) * 90 % (transmission) = 18 %
>>
>>This gives an advantage of at least 3 to the EC. If you use an IC engine
>>for driving in the city the efficiency drops dramatically. Add regenerative
>>braking and you may get another 20 % of the energy.
>>If you factor in that in the near future most EC will be used mostly
>>in the city, than you can clearly see that you don't need the energy
>>of 20 gallons gas in your battery.
>>
>>Emil Naepflein
>
>Tut, tut! Please include the thermodynamic efficieny of the power
>plant.
WRONG!!!
For the above discussion it wasn't necessary to include the efficiency
of power generation. The question was
"How much energy is necessary in the EV battery in comparision
to a the energy content of the fuel in a gas tank of a IC vehicle?"
The answer is that less energy is necessary, because the transformation
of the energy in the battery to the kinetic energy is much more efficient
for EVs than for IC vehicles.
The total energy consumed must contain the efficiency of the power
generation.
> You will find that many are in the 25-35% range. Your
>calculation assumes that power is generated at 100% efficiency.
Why do the utilities not replace this old inefficient power stations
with new, nearly twice as efficient ones? This alone would save a lot
of fuel, and reduce the environmental damage.
I think someone has to come up with some incentive (tax cuts) or
punishment (energy tax) to change the situation.
Emil Naepflein
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!
vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!kpaar
From: kp...@iastate.edu (K R Paarlberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Date: 10 Jun 1994 22:15:32 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <2taom4$qav@news.iastate.edu>
References: <1994Jun8.100750.16209@athen.mch.sni.de>
<1994Jun9.202850.29111@pmafire.inel.gov>
<1994Jun10.155502.24912@athen.mch.sni.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pv6801.vincent.iastate.edu
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:7785 sci.energy:4628
In article < 1994Jun10.1...@athen.mch.sni.de> Emil.Na...@mch.sni.de
(Emil Naepflein) writes:
>
>Why do the utilities not replace this old inefficient power stations
>with new, nearly twice as efficient ones? This alone would save a lot
>of fuel, and reduce the environmental damage.
>I think someone has to come up with some incentive (tax cuts) or
>punishment (energy tax) to change the situation.
It simply costs too much to replace a power plant. There are so many
environmental laws that would really slow a company down that wanted a new
power plant.
On the other hand, cars are replaced much more often than power plants. So,
why not concentrate on getting the old impalas and LTDs that get 10 MPG and
pollute all over the place off the road.
>
>Emil Naepflein
--
Kevin Paarlberg e-mail...@iastate.edu Ag & Biosystems Engineering
(515)-294-6286 Oskee-wow-wow Iowa State University
109 Davidson Hall
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
newsserver.jvnc.net!phinet!seibel
From: seibel%p...@sb.com (George Seibel)
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: Re: Lightbulbs)
Message-ID: < 1994Nov24.174219.19631@netnews.smithkline.com>
Followup-To: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Sender: ne...@netnews.smithkline.com (USENET News System)
Organization: SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <1994Jun8.100750.16209@athen.mch.sni.de>
<1994Jun9.202850.29111@pmafire.inel.gov>
<1994Jun10.155502.24912@athen.mch.sni.de> <2taom4$qav@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 17:42:19 GMT
Lines: 36
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:25902 sci.energy:8721
K R Paarlberg (kp...@iastate.edu) wrote:
> In article < 1994Jun10.1...@athen.mch.sni.de> Emil.Na...@mch.sni.de
> (Emil Naepflein) writes:
> >
> >Why do the utilities not replace this old inefficient power stations
> >with new, nearly twice as efficient ones? This alone would save a lot
> >of fuel, and reduce the environmental damage.
> >I think someone has to come up with some incentive (tax cuts) or
> >punishment (energy tax) to change the situation.
> It simply costs too much to replace a power plant. There are so many
> environmental laws that would really slow a company down that wanted a new
> power plant.
But that's Naepflein's point - maybe we need to change the economics
of power plant upgrades. Unless your point is really that there should
be no environmental laws...
> On the other hand, cars are replaced much more often than power plants. So,
> why not concentrate on getting the old impalas and LTDs that get 10 MPG and
> pollute all over the place off the road.
This is the best reason of all for EVs! It's politically impossible to
make people maintain the pollution control systems on their older cars.
Even in places where emissions inspections are in place, the allowable
levels of pollutants are more generous than the same car produced when
new. Electric cars centralize the maintainance of the pollution control
technology. A ten year old electric car is as clean as a brand new
one. This is an enormous advantage! Any comparison of pollution
between brand new IC cars and electrics is just a waste of time. It
is, on the other hand, the sort of disinformation that one can expect
from, say, the oil industry. To address the subject of this thread,
"Do Electric Cars Pollute More?", the answer is no, if you consider
real-world behaviour over the full lifetime of the cars in question.
George Seibel
seib...@sb.com
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.mathworks.com!
zombie.ncsc.mil!cs.umd.edu!news.coop.net!news.den.mmc.com!
iplmail.orl.mmc.com!alcyone!rgilbert
From: rgil...@orl.mmc.com (Bob Gilbert)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: R
Date: 28 Nov 1994 15:54:55 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Orlando
Lines: 35
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: rgil...@orl.mmc.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: alcyone.orl.mmc.com
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:26071 sci.energy:8787
->In article <1994Nov24.1...@netnews.smithkline.com>, seibel%p...@sb.com
(George Seibel) writes...
->[snip]
->>
->>This is the best reason of all for EVs! It's politically impossible to
->>make people maintain the pollution control systems on their older cars.
->>Even in places where emissions inspections are in place, the allowable
->>levels of pollutants are more generous than the same car produced when
->>new. Electric cars centralize the maintainance of the pollution control
->>technology. A ten year old electric car is as clean as a brand new
->>one. This is an enormous advantage! Any comparison of pollution
->>between brand new IC cars and electrics is just a waste of time. It
->>is, on the other hand, the sort of disinformation that one can expect
->>from, say, the oil industry. To address the subject of this thread,
->>"Do Electric Cars Pollute More?", the answer is no, if you consider
->>real-world behaviour over the full lifetime of the cars in question.
And how many batteries will have to be disposed of during the ten years
of operating an EV? What will be the environmental impact in generating
the infrastructure required to make EV's usable?
The problem with comparing the pollution of IC vs. EV is that they
produce different types of pollution. Switching from IC to EV will
only change the types of pollution that have to be dealt with. EV's
may very well produce much more hazardous waste that we haven't
realized yet. It will just be a new set of problems to solve.
The biggest problem with EV's is that they are just plain inefficient
if you consider the loses from fuel refinement, electicity generation,
transmission, battery charging, and finally locomotion from the car
itself. IC's skip all the electicity generation, transmission, and
battery charging parts and use the fuel more directly. A big advantage
IMHO.
-Bob
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!
cunews!dfs
From: d...@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: R
Message-ID: <Czzn5w.Iuv@cunews.carleton.ca>
Followup-To: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Sender: ne...@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 17:27:32 GMT
Lines: 50
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:26076 sci.energy:8789
In article <3bcugf$q...@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>, Bob Gilbert
(rgil...@orl.mmc.com) wrote:
> And how many batteries will have to be disposed of during the ten years
> of operating an EV? What will be the environmental impact in generating
> the infrastructure required to make EV's usable?
You're assuming that EV's will use batteries. An article in IEEE Spectrum
about a year ago discussed experiments with extremely high-speed flywheels
acting as motor-generators. Energy used in braking the vehicle was fed
back to recharge the flywheel, making them very efficient.
[...]
> The biggest problem with EV's is that they are just plain inefficient
> if you consider the loses from fuel refinement, electicity generation,
> transmission, battery charging, and finally locomotion from the car
> itself.
IC's lose in fuel refinement, too, so you can't include that in the
comparison. Electricity generation can be inefficient or extremely
efficient, depending on how it's done. Oil- or coal-fired plants are
probably only 30-40 percent efficient (still better than an IC
engine), while hydroelectric plants are probably about 80-90 percent
efficient. Losses due to electicity transmission are negligible --
electric power is transmitted at very high voltage, resulting in low
I^2R losses. Losses in battery charging or flywheel replenishing are
likewise small. Finally, "locomotion from the car itself" is very
efficient. Electric motors are routinely over 90% efficient, compared
to 20-30% for IC engines.
>IC's skip all the electicity generation, transmission, and
>battery charging parts and use the fuel more directly. A big advantage
>IMHO.
No advantage, in fact. As far as pollution goes, the pollution per
joule of energy from an electic generating station is far lower than
that from an IC engine, because generating stations can afford very
sophisticated pollution control techniques such as scrubbers and
ionizing filters, which are too big and expensive for mobile use.
About the only pollution problem with EVs is battery disposal. This
is being addressed as less toxic batteries or alternatices to batteries
are explored.
--
David F. Skoll
<a HREF="http://www.doe.carleton.ca/students/dfs/">
Click here for my home page</a> "Query two pi" on typewriter.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!
crl8.crl.com!not-for-mail
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: R
Followup-To: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Date: 29 Nov 1994 15:32:22 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Lines: 80
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3bgdm6$erk@crl8.crl.com>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl8.crl.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:26216 sci.energy:8854
Bob Gilbert (rgil...@orl.mmc.com) wrote:
: ->In article <1994Nov24.1...@netnews.smithkline.com>, seibel%p...@sb.com
:> (George Seibel) writes...
: ->[snip]
: The biggest problem with EV's is that they are just plain inefficient
: if you consider the loses from fuel refinement, electicity generation,
: transmission, battery charging, and finally locomotion from the car
: itself. IC's skip all the electicity generation, transmission, and
: battery charging parts and use the fuel more directly. A big advantage
: IMHO.
: -Bob
To this, I can add an example from the real world, a 60 mph commute
comparison.(Note that oil has an energy equivatent of 34 kWh/gallon. I
increased this amount to 37 kWh/gallon to account for refining losses.)
John L. Loch (JLL) wrote that 20 Trojan T-105 would weight 1220 lbs and
give a range of 25 miles per day. Steve Lough (SL) suggested T-125s as a
little bigger and better. Dave Hatunen (DH) complained that 25 miles per
day is not good enough in California. Bob Jackson (BJ) suggested 20
miles/day with half the battery weight and less battery life. BJ also
wrote that "as a rule of thumb, battery weight should be about 1/3 of the
empty weight". I opt for maximizing range and also BJ's advice as to
vehicle size, reflecting the necessary ruggedness to carry a 3/4 ton
load. Thus EV weight: 1220*3 + 2 adult passengers @ 200 each ~ 4000 lbs.
Dick Brewster (DB) compared an EV to a Honda, which he modified to
approximately equal the EV in passenger numbers and performance, in a
situation that he qualified as slanted 'in favor of an EV using
regenerative braking', a feature that I believe is not very important. I
accept DB's IC weight of 1500 lbs, IC road resistance of 19.5 lbs and
air drag calculation. I commute 40 miles one way from SSF to Sunnyvale at
60 mph on cruise control almost the entire way. At the few traffic
lights, I often manage to roll through without touching the brakes. My
last brake linings lasted almost 100,000 miles. So, what can an EV do for me?
DB's formula with higher speed gives ADic= .5*.075/32.2*.35*17*90^2= 56.1
lbs. Add to this the RRic of 19.5 and we get total resistance to forward
motion TRFMic = 56.1+19.5 = 75.6 lbs. DB had a little more frontal
profile area for the EV, 19.6 instead of 17, that brings ADev =
56.1*19.6/17 = 64.7 lbs. Similarly, we change the rolling resistance in
proportion to weight thus: RRev = 19.5*4000/1500 = 52.0 lbs, for a total
of resistance to forward motion of TRFMev = 64.7+52.0 = 116.7 lbs.
At this point, we can say the EV uses 116.7/75.6 = 54.4% more energy than
DB's modified IC Honda. But, we haven't finished yet. There is this
difference still, where we pour the gas directly into the Honda, but the
EV has to get its energy the long way around, and that costs the country
dearly. "Don't ask what ...., do ask what you can do for your country"
Somebody famous said that ... was it Rush or Newt?
I outlined the electric route in my response of 08 Nov at 21:10:17. JLL
responded on 09 Nov at 14:47:19, and gave an efficiency from power plant
to EV motor of 24.3%, which might be a little high (I would say 20%), but
I can accept JLL's number. But, let's add battery-controller-motor-gear
efficiency of .87*.8*.8*.8 = 45%. Thus, we get from power plant to road
surface a total of .243*.45 = 11% efficiency. DB didn't give the
estimated gas mileage of the motorcycle engine for the IC Honda, but I
guess it would get 100 mpg. The gallon contains 37 kWh (JLL said 50 kWh,
which is not right). At 11.0% overall efficiency, the energy reaching the
EV wheels is 37*.11 = 4.1 kWh = 4.1*2,655,000 = 10,806,000 ft-lbs. The
EV can travel with this 10,806,000/116.7 = 92,600 feet = 92,600/5,280 =
17.5 miles.
Subject to DB verifying the gas mileage of the motorcycle engine in his
Honda modification scheme to simulate the performance of an EV, we have
the result that the IC gets 100 mpg and the EV 17.5 mpg, a ratio of 5.7
to one in favor of the IC.
A rough check of the numbers: Take the EV's 4.1 kWh at the wheels, back
out 45% battery-controller-motor-gear efficiencies and divide by
distance, we get (4.1*1000/.45)/17.5 = 520 watt-hrs/mile for the EV.
That is in the ballpark, I think.
Which means, an EV pollutes, uses energy, causes world oil shortage,
balance of trade deficit at a rate six times greater than an equivalent
IC car.
Ernst Knolle
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!malgudi.oar.net!witch!services!secret
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Message-ID: <217@services.win.net>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <3bgdm6$erk@crl8.crl.com>
Reply-To: sec...@services.win.net (Technologist)
From: sec...@services.win.net (Technologist)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:28:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: R
Lines: 311
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:26331 sci.energy:8884
In article <3bgdm6$e...@crl8.crl.com>, Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com)
writes:
>Bob Gilbert (rgil...@orl.mmc.com) wrote:
>: ->In article <1994Nov24.1...@netnews.smithkline.com>, seibel%p...@sb.com
>: (George Seibel) writes...
>: ->[snip]
>
It seems to me this paper has been submitted and it's "Teacher grading time".
Final grade 25%
*************
*
*
*
******* *************
*
*
*
*
*
Why? Read on....
>: The biggest problem with EV's is that they are just plain inefficient
>: if you consider the loses from fuel refinement, electricity generation,
>: transmission, battery charging, and finally locomotion from the car
>: itself. IC's skip all the electricity generation, transmission, and
>: battery charging parts and use the fuel more directly. A big advantage
>: IMHO.
>
>: -Bob
-5 Wrong answer
Some electric vehicles have raced thousands of miles "across the entire
country" at speeds up to 55mph. Powered only by the sun and producing Zero
emissions.
Bob is not correct and quoting Bob to better your thesis is a bad move. In
the real world, many electric vehicles have demonstrated that after counting
all losses 85% of the energy going into an electric vehicle(not counting
power line loss) is being converted to the wheels rotation. Conversion
Electrics are more around the 70% range because they tend to use many
inefficient IC parts not really suited for EV work. This is far higher than
any IC engine or vehicle ever built. Documented references and studies are
available upon request.
As a former Nuclear Fire Safety inspector- With Red badge clearance at age
19, "I carried the highest Nuclear security level in the nation", I'm now 31
and I can attest that with Hydrogen fuel cells- "power plants, batteries,
chargers, fuel refinement and pollution from the EV can be completely
eliminated" even to the point that an electric vehicle equipped with on-board
fuel cells and solar panels could generate zero pollution and harmful
emissions into the atmosphere without any need for external electricity, just
sun light.
Fuel cell's just like solar panels are not a dream and I will be happy to
Free UUEncode plans on building an "experimental grade" small fuel cells that
generate electricity from hydrogen gas. They cost about $100 each. Also some
fuel cells can operate in reverse. They use electrolysis running off a PV
solar panel or other electric source to separate water- Hydrogen from oxygen
and storing the hydrogen into a tank completely freeing a EV from the need for
batteries or other external energy other than the sun. Because the hydrogen
electricity making re-conversion only produces heat and water vapor- "fuel
cells are zero polluting" some Fuel cells have achieved as high as 85% energy
conversion rate already. Fuel cells just like solar panels will take years to
become an everyday inexpensive item but they are available today.
>
>To this, I can add an example from the real world, a 60 mph commute
>comparison.(Note that oil has an energy equivalent of 34 kWh/gallon. I
>increased this amount to 37 kWh/gallon to account for refining losses.)
Close enough to be correct.
>
> John L. Loch (JLL) wrote that 20 Trojan T-105 would weight 1220 lbs and
>give a range of 25 miles per day.
-5 inaccurate enough in general to be Wrong.
Very misleading and inaccurate and only true in extreme adverse conditions
and designs. Many 3-4K pound electric vehicles have demonstrated several
times this range with half as many Trojan T-105 batteries. In the extreme
some lighter 4 wheel EV's have attained several hundred miles on just one <63
pound Trojen T-105 battery.
Side Note: You can buy a $300-400 electric kit for a mountain bike called a
ZAP. It consumes about 20 watts per mile of battery power at 20mph or an
equivalent of 1,850 mpg. You can ride half a day on 10 cents of
electricity with a 200+ pound rider. Not bad for an electric bike and it has
regenerative braking too. So don't think getting into electric has to break
the bank.
> Steve Lough (SL) suggested T-125s as a
>little bigger and better. Dave Hatunen (DH) complained that 25 miles per
>day is not good enough in California. Bob Jackson (BJ) suggested 20
>miles/day with half the battery weight and less battery life.
-5 Again almost as inacurate as above.
>BJ also
>wrote that "as a rule of thumb, battery weight should be about 1/3 of the
>empty weight". I opt for maximizing range and also BJ's advice as to
>vehicle size, reflecting the necessary ruggedness to carry a 3/4 ton
>load. Thus EV weight: 1220*3 + 2 adult passengers @ 200 each ~ 4000 lbs.
-5 Wrong.
Rarely does a non-hybrid EV need to weigh 4,000 pounds as stated. It is
clear you picked a "bad example" to base an efficient EV on, as your
comparing it to a motorcycle engine driven 1,500 pound IC vehicle. 2-3K
pounds would even be high. EV's can easily be built lighter than 1,500
pounds and achieve several times the quoted 25 miles range. So your 4,000
pound conclusion alone is off over 300%.
>
>Dick Brewster (DB) compared an EV to a Honda, which he modified to
>approximately equal the EV in passenger numbers and performance, in a
>situation that he qualified as slanted 'in favor of an EV using
>regenerative braking', a feature that I believe is not very important.
-5 Wrong assumption
It has been documented Regenerative braking can account for a 23-25%
increase in total vehicle range.
> I
>accept DB's IC weight of 1500 lbs, IC road resistance of 19.5 lbs and
>air drag calculation. I commute 40 miles one way from SSF to Sunnyvale at
>60 mph on cruise control almost the entire way. At the few traffic
>lights, I often manage to roll through without touching the brakes. My
>last brake linings lasted almost 100,000 miles. So, what can an EV do for me?
-5 Wrong.
You simply forgot to account for the fact that- your IC with the gas pedal
off and throttle plate mostly closed, "your evacuating air from the
cylinders" and this "engine vacuum" along with drive-train inefficiencies is
causing a braking effect. effectively wasting energy instead of regenerating
it for future use. Brakes do not need to be applied to demonstrate energy
losses.
>
>DB's formula with higher speed gives ADic= .5*.075/32.2*.35*17*90^2= 56.1
>lbs. Add to this the RRic of 19.5 and we get total resistance to forward
>motion TRFMic = 56.1+19.5 = 75.6 lbs. DB had a little more frontal
>profile area for the EV, 19.6 instead of 17, that brings ADev =
>56.1*19.6/17 = 64.7 lbs. Similarly, we change the rolling resistance in
>proportion to weight thus: RRev = 19.5*4000/1500 = 52.0 lbs, for a total
>of resistance to forward motion of TRFMev = 64.7+52.0 = 116.7 lbs.
-5 Wrong.
This entire paragraph was based on highly inaccurate exaggerated data.
>At this point, we can say the EV uses 116.7/75.6 = 54.4% more energy than
>DB's modified IC Honda.
-5 Wrong
Besides being based on inaccurate data. Your making the assumption that equal
weight and size vehicles(EV verses IC) both consume equal amounts of energy to
overcome each vehicles parasitic drag. No IC vehicle has ever demonstrated
even close to the 85% energy conversion factor demonstrated in recent EV
tests(not counting road friction) IC's to date average less than 20% of
-energy in- verses -energy out- efficiencies and have never reached even
close to 50% efficiency to the tires yet.
>But, we haven't finished yet. There is this
>difference still, where we pour the gas directly into the Honda, but the
>EV has to get its energy the long way around,
-5 Wrong again
Many EV's can convert energy directly from the sun, wind, waves, hydro power,
fuel-cell, or other in-house methods.
> and that costs the country
>dearly. "Don't ask what ...., do ask what you can do for your country"
>Somebody famous said that ... was it Rush or Newt?
Opinion's vary...
>
>I outlined the electric route in my response of 08 Nov at 21:10:17. JLL
>responded on 09 Nov at 14:47:19, and gave an efficiency from power plant
>to EV motor of 24.3%, which might be a little high (I would say 20%)
-5 Wrong again as many hydro-electric plants have proven 85% energy
conversion rates and to assume all electrical generation methods are 400%
less efficient in the delivery is highly inaccurate. Case studies instead of
your guesses have proven your numbers are very far from realistic.
>, but
>I can accept JLL's number. But, let's add battery-controller-motor-gear
>efficiency of .87*.8*.8*.8 = 45%.
-5 Wrong
This statement is very inaccurate and misleading. Many controllers work by
pulsing -full on- -full off- numerus times a second for speed control with
some 98% efficiency. EV Motors have now demonstrated 93-95% efficiency and the
complete elimination of any gearing makes the gear elimination portion 100%
efficient.
Documented EV Energy conversion factors of 85% have already been reached
and even finding one at 45% efficient would be a good challenge.
>Thus, we get from power plant to road
>surface a total of .243*.45 = 11% efficiency.
-5 Wrong
Even posting this inaccurate conclusion of 11% is truly an embarrassment to
most of the scientific community. As we are working at surpassing 85% energy
conversion for a EV. This number really makes me wonder what your motives
really are?
> DB didn't give the
>estimated gas mileage of the motorcycle engine for the IC Honda, but I
>guess it would get 100 mpg.
Since some IC vehicles have achieved this number. I will give you credit for
a correct answer. But then again many EV's have demonstrated as high as a
1500-1800 mpg gas energy equivalent so in reality your numbers tend to show
you are too highly biased against EV's for a fair comparison.
> The gallon contains 37 kWh (JLL said 50 kWh,
>which is not right). At 11.0% overall efficiency, the energy reaching the
>EV wheels is 37*.11 = 4.1 kWh = 4.1*2,655,000 = 10,806,000 ft-lbs. The
>EV can travel with this 10,806,000/116.7 = 92,600 feet = 92,600/5,280 =
>17.5 miles.
-5 Wrong.
While it is possible to build a EV with 1,200+ pounds of lead acid
batteries and a 17.5 mile max. range. In doing so the designer would have
created one of the least efficient EV's made to date maybe even setting a
record. Your team of theorists are responsible for this theoretical mess
so the grade reflects it.
>
>Subject to DB verifying the gas mileage of the motorcycle engine in his
>Honda modification scheme to simulate the performance of an EV, we have
>the result that the IC gets 100 mpg and the EV 17.5 mpg, a ratio of 5.7
>to one in favor of the IC.
-5 Wrong as demonstrated many times EV's of this size have achieved as high
as 200-300 mpg energy equivalents. But 1500-1800 mpg equivalents have been
reached in lighter EV's.
>A rough check of the numbers: Take the EV's 4.1 kWh at the wheels, back
>out 45% battery-controller-motor-gear efficiencies and divide by
>distance, we get (4.1*1000/.45)/17.5 = 520 watt-hrs/mile for the EV.
>That is in the ballpark, I think.
>
>Which means, an EV pollutes, uses energy, causes world oil shortage,
>balance of trade deficit at a rate six times greater than an equivalent
>IC car.
-5 Wrong again in great proportions. Your final conclusion is so ridiculous
most people are probably embarrassed that such an ingenious and resourceful
person as yourself could not only create such an exaggerated biased
misguided conclusion, but worse is the effect your conclusion will have on
our citizens and eventually on our environment. Many studies have
demonstrated that an EV can be a highly efficient zero emission form of
transportation. I find your attempt to propagate clear misinformation on EV's
is the same as conning our children out of the right to breath clean air.
Ernst in the future, take a trip to LA where the sun rarely shines and watch
the children suffer because an expert like you conned the public into the
false belief that EV's pollute and ruin the earth. Ernst, Your conviction
that Electric Vehicles pollute more than Gas engines is "amazingly" shocking
to me as I know you are otherwise rather intelligent. Wake-up
Reed Mueller
>
> Ernst Knolle
>
"An EV uses one-third the resource (oil, coal, natural gas, etc., to produce
the electricity) and one-tenth the air pollution (at the power plant) of a
gasoline mile. Power plants work at peak efficiency all the time and their
single stack is easily monitored for pollutants. In California, electric
power is generated from the wind, sun, and water. Conversely, there is only
one source of gasoline." - Hackleman 1993 Homepower magazine.
New air quality legislation in California mandates the sale and use of
non-polluting vehicles. By 2003, at least 10% of the vehicles sold in
California must be (((((zero emission vehicles)))) (ZEVs). This is a State
Law!!!
Get it EV = (((((Zero Emission vehicle))))) not ((((Pollution Machine))))
Z E V
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!
crl3.crl.com!not-for-mail
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: R
Followup-To: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Date: 1 Dec 1994 21:21:30 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <3bmasq$61i@crl3.crl.com>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <3bgdm6$erk@crl8.crl.com>
<217@services.win.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl3.crl.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:26549 sci.energy:8956
Technologist (sec...@services.win.net) wrote:
: In article <3bgdm6$e...@crl8.crl.com>, Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com)
: writes:
: >Bob Gilbert (rgil...@orl.mmc.com) wrote:
: >: ->In article <1994Nov24.1...@netnews.smithkline.com>, seibel%p...@sb.com
: >(George Seibel) writes...
: >: ->[snip]
: >A rough check of the numbers: Take the EV's 4.1 kWh at the wheels, back
: >out 45% battery-controller-motor-gear efficiencies and divide by
: >distance, we get (4.1*1000/.45)/17.5 = 520 watt-hrs/mile for the EV.
: >That is in the ballpark, I think.
: >
: >Which means, an EV pollutes, uses energy, causes world oil shortage,
: >balance of trade deficit at a rate six times greater than an equivalent
: >IC car.
: -5 Wrong again in great proportions. Your final conclusion is so ridiculous
: Reed Mueller
So, Reed, you gave me a failing grade. Einstein and I have something in
common, we both flunked out of high school. It didn't get us down, did
it? Now, my grandmother always said the proof is in the pudding. So,
instead of theories, let's turn to facts.
Reed was so considerate and e-mailed me results from fairly recent EV
tests. (Under that rough exterior of Reed is really a nice guy) One of
the better vehicles got 141 Watt-hours/mile at 36.7 mph average speed.
Remember GM coming out with the $120,000 Electra? It was advertised at
150 Watt-hour/mile. These EV tests were conducted by university types
eager to win. I imagine the tires were pumped up to 90 psi, where the
rolling resistance approaches zilch. Then they measured the power not at
the wall, where you plugged the EV in. They measured it between battery
and motor.
Sorry, Reed, even with actual test results, Einstein and myself find
ourselves forced to occasionally do a little calculation:
1. Actual test measurement taken behind battery 141 Watt-hour/mile. To
obtain amount at wall outlet divide by charger-battery efficiency 141/
.75 = 188 Watt-hours/mile.
2. Average speed given of 36.7 mph. Energy increases with square of speed
due to air resistance. At 60 mph we would get: 188*60^2/36.7^2 = 502.5
Watt-hour/mile.
3. Compare this actual 502.5 Watt-hour/mile test result with my
'theoretocal...in the ballpark' above number of 520 Watt-hour/mile.
4. Adjusting for inequity of tire inflation would mean overkill. We
wouldn't want to do that to Reed. I would be satisfied if he would
re-grade my paper and give me a 200%. - Ha!
Ernst
PS Who cares about LA. I am an environmentalist, I like nature and I like
to be able to look across the Grand Canyon, which we can hardly do
anymore because of smog from the many huge electric power plants nearby. EV
people are out to ruin the beautiful West even more. But, we will put a
stop to it.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!
psinntp!newshost.ea.com!dhewson.eac.ea.com!user
From: dhe...@ea.com (DHewson)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: R
Date: 2 Dec 1994 23:49:26 GMT
Organization: EAC
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <dhewson-0212941545220001@dhewson.eac.ea.com>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <Czzn5w.Iuv@cunews.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dhewson.eac.ea.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:26649 sci.energy:8998
In article <Czzn5...@cunews.carleton.ca>, d...@doe.carleton.ca (David F.
Skoll) wrote:
> IC's lose in fuel refinement, too, so you can't include that in the
> comparison. Electricity generation can be inefficient or extremely
> efficient, depending on how it's done. Oil- or coal-fired plants are
> probably only 30-40 percent efficient (still better than an IC
> engine), while hydroelectric plants are probably about 80-90 percent
> efficient. Losses due to electicity transmission are negligible --
> electric power is transmitted at very high voltage, resulting in low
> I^2R losses. Losses in battery charging or flywheel replenishing are
> likewise small. Finally, "locomotion from the car itself" is very
> efficient. Electric motors are routinely over 90% efficient, compared
> to 20-30% for IC engines.
>
> About the only pollution problem with EVs is battery disposal. This
> is being addressed as less toxic batteries or alternatices to batteries
> are explored.
Here's some things I've wundered 'bout:
EV emissions may look good when compared to the "average" IC vehicle, but
how would they compare to an carefully designed IC car...such as:
Take a high fuel economy car like the Honda Civic VX (the lean-burn engine
model); reproduce it in aluminum for weight loss, strip it of all unneeded
stuff (side intrusion, rollover protection, rear seats), put on the low
rolling resistance tires, take out the fuel tank and install a 1 or 2
gallon tank (this would bring the range in line with EV's);
The engine comes out; replace it with a much smaller lean burn engine as
you aren't gonna be hauling around 800 pounds of batteries or even a
hundred pounds of gasoline; gear it low as there's no need to exceed 70
mph; add the neat feature that shuts down the engine when coasting,
restarting it only when needed;
A neat, lightwieght commuter car, using existing, proven technology; not
cheap, but the government can always force the car companies to sell
them...
How much better can a EV be? I mean, once they come up with a practical,
affordable battery.
I know! why not use cold fusion? < grin>
And another thing: Does a hydroelectric power source "pollute"? Generating
electricity at the cost of damming up rivers? how 'bout those salmon runs?
DaveH
Oh yeah -- "opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily reflect
those of my employer" ...
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!malgudi.oar.net!witch!services!secret
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Message-ID: <231@services.win.net>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <3bgdm6$erk@crl8.crl.com>
<217@services.win.net> <3bmasq$61i@crl3.crl.com>
Reply-To: sec...@services.win.net (Technologist)
From: sec...@services.win.net (Technologist)
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 1994 04:02:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: R
Lines: 16
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:26656 sci.energy:8999
In article <3bmasq$6...@crl3.crl.com>, Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) writes:
>2. Average speed given of 36.7 mph. Energy increases with square of speed
>due to air resistance. At 60 mph we would get: 188*60^2/36.7^2 = 502.5
>Watt-hour/mile.
Ernst, Since when does air drag account for 100% of a EV's total energy
consumption. Your waaaaay off again as usual. It amazes me you really think
you'll get away with it.
Your Final grade is down to a Triple F- You better hang it up soon or I'll
have to take away college credits from other courses.
Reed Mueller
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu!not-for-mail
From: rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More?
Date: 4 Dec 1994 09:19:55 -0700
Organization: University of Denver, Math/CS Dept.
Lines: 23
Sender: rcan...@nyx10.cs.du.edu
Message-ID: <1UJukidpPHhB073yn@nyx.cs.du.edu>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <3bgdm6$erk@crl8.crl.com>
<217@services.win.net> <3bmasq$61i@crl3.crl.com> <231@services.win.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.cs.du.edu
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:26766 sci.energy:9024
In article <2...@services.win.net>, sec...@services.win.net (Technologist)
wrote:
>
>In article <3bmasq$6...@crl3.crl.com>, Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) writes:
>
>>2. Average speed given of 36.7 mph. Energy increases with square of speed
>>due to air resistance. At 60 mph we would get: 188*60^2/36.7^2 = 502.5
>>Watt-hour/mile.
>
>Ernst, Since when does air drag account for 100% of a EV's total energy
>consumption. Your waaaaay off again as usual. It amazes me you really think
>you'll get away with it.
>
>Your Final grade is down to a Triple F- You better hang it up soon or I'll
>have to take away college credits from other courses.
>
>Reed Mueller >
You didn't do a very good job yourself, technologist for not
noticing that air drag increases with the cube of the speed.
--
Rod Anderson rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Don't be so hard on Willie, wouldn't you cheat on Hillary too ?
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!decwrl!nntp.crl.com!crl2.crl.com!not-for-mail
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More?
Followup-To: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Date: 4 Dec 1994 17:59:46 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <3bts6i$mdt@crl2.crl.com>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <3bgdm6$erk@crl8.crl.com>
<217@services.win.net> <3bmasq$61i@crl3.crl.com> <231@services.win.net>
<1UJukidpPHhB073yn@nyx.cs.du.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl2.crl.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:26805 sci.energy:9032
Mr. Nice Guy (rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: In article <2...@services.win.net>, sec...@services.win.net (Technologist)
: wrote:
: >
: >In article <3bmasq$6...@crl3.crl.com>, Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com)
: >writes:
: >
: >>2. Average speed given of 36.7 mph. Energy increases with square of speed
: >>due to air resistance. At 60 mph we would get: 188*60^2/36.7^2 = 502.5
: >>Watt-hour/mile.
: >
: >Ernst, Since when does air drag account for 100% of a EV's total energy
: >consumption. Your waaaaay off again as usual. It amazes me you really think
: >you'll get away with it.
: >
: >Reed Mueller >
: You didn't do a very good job yourself, technologist for not
: noticing that air drag increases with the cube of the speed.
: --
: Rod Anderson rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
:
: Don't be so hard on Willie, wouldn't you cheat on Hillary too ?
Thanks for the help, Rod
In all this debate, Dick Brewster and I have actually submitted full
calculations with rationale for everyone to examine and comment. Dick
stated early on that his comparision was "slanted in favor of the EV".
In view of the EV people's religious-like sensitivity, I too used numbers
very much in favor of EVs, but I am not willing to give away the store.
Before I factored up the 141 Watt-hours/mile to 60 mph, I stated that
the EV tests were probably done with tires inflated to around 90 psi
where road resistance approaches "zilch", which is zero. Of course, the
deceitful EV people like to hide this fact. In the report, at one point
tire inflation was stressed, and then a tire exploded and severely
injured the driver and wife. - I think these guys are lunatics!
Now my 141 Watt-hour/mile number is the very very lowest number I could
find in the report. Let's play a little hardball, shall we? Let's take
the Dearborne average of 4.7 Miles/kWhr, we get 1000/4.7 = 213
Watt-hrs/mi. Divide by battery-charger efficiency 213/.75 = 284
watt-hrs/mi. From Mark's ME Handbook, I see tire rolling friction
factors with 1000 lbs loads at 20 psi of .027 and at 36 psi of .018. (Dick
Brewster used .0195, which I adopted). The Handbook indicates that with
almost 100% increase in tire pressure, the rolling friction goes down
50%. There is no info as to what happens at 90 psi, but us intelligent
truth-in-EV scientists can project: .005.
Way back, we calculated EV rolling resistance of 52 lbs at .0195 factor,
which we now change to 52*.005/.0195 = 13.3 lbs times 5280/2,655 = 26
Watt-hour/mile total rolling resistance per mile. Deduct from 284 above,
and we have 284 - 26 = 258 Watt-hours/mile air resistance at 36.7 mph.
And now, Reed, because you keep sticking your foot in your mouth, here is
Jonny: Factor up 258*60/36.7 = 690 and add rolling resistance back in and
we get a grand total (Dearborn average) of 716 Watt-hours/mile at 60 mph.
I can just laugh myself silly.- Now we refined our calculations with Reed
Mueller's great help, and the result shows that, when compared on the basis
of equal size and performance:
AN IC IS ABOUT 8 TIMES MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN AN EV.
Ernst
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!
newsfeed.pitt.edu!hudson.lm.com!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!
sec396-news.jpl.nasa.gov!NewsWatcher!user
From: lo...@aig.jpl.nasa.gov (John L Loch)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More?
Followup-To: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Date: 5 Dec 1994 17:58:15 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 41
Message-ID: < loch-051294101925@137.79.107.113>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <3bgdm6$erk@crl8.crl.com>
<217@services.win.net> <3bmasq$61i@crl3.crl.com> <231@services.win.net>
<1UJukidpPHhB073yn@nyx.cs.du.edu> <3bts6i$mdt@crl2.crl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.79.107.113
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:26848 sci.energy:9046
In article <3bts6i$m...@crl2.crl.com>, kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
wrote:
>
> In all this debate, Dick Brewster and I have actually submitted full
> calculations with rationale for everyone to examine and comment. Dick
> stated early on that his comparision was "slanted in favor of the EV".
>
> In view of the EV people's religious-like sensitivity, I too used numbers
> very much in favor of EVs, but I am not willing to give away the store.
[Much handwaving analysis deleted]
> I can just laugh myself silly.- Now we refined our calculations with Reed
> Mueller's great help, and the result shows that, when compared on the basis
> of equal size and performance:
>
> AN IC IS ABOUT 8 TIMES MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN AN EV.
The errors that Ernst has made in his assumptions and calculations are
far too numerous to list here. He started out using GM's Impact EV as
proof that EV's could never be successful. After pointing out that this
$120,000 EV was not indicative of what could be done be competent
designers and engineers, Ernst then attempted to prove that EV's use
more power because they have more loss terms in their energy use
equations. After pointing out that the value of the loss terms are
what's important, Ernst went on to publish erroneous data from
a wide variety of questionable sources. Many people posted corrections
to his data which reversed the conclusion that Ernst had reached.
Now all poor Ernst can do is say, look I gave all you guys the information
and now let me wave my hands and gee look the ICE beats the EV by
8 times. Tomorrow it will be 10. Ernst, why don't you post a summary
of your analysis so that we can see for ourselves? And please don't mix
the calculations in with the paragraphs and try to explain your
methodology. I will try to dig up my posts which showed that EV's are
already competetive with ICE's in terms of cost of operation.
And now back to our previously scheduled mud-slinging match...
- John Loch
lo...@aig.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!trib.apple.com!amd!amdahl.com!
juts.ccc.amdahl.com!DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com!jti01
From: jt...@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Jeff Isozaki)
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: R
Message-ID: <1994Dec7.185726.15661@ccc.amdahl.com>
Sender: net...@ccc.amdahl.com (UTS Tech Support)
Reply-To: jt...@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Jeff Isozaki)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <Czzn5w.Iuv@cunews.carleton.ca>
<dhewson-0212941545220001@dhewson.eac.ea.com>
<WESTIN.94Dec6111533@dsg145.nad.ford.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 18:57:26 GMT
Lines: 16
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:27176 sci.energy:9136
>> Take a high fuel economy car like the Honda Civic VX (the lean-burn engine
>> model); reproduce it in aluminum for weight loss, strip it of all unneeded
>> stuff (side intrusion, rollover protection, rear seats), put on the low
>> rolling resistance tires, take out the fuel tank and install a 1 or 2
>> gallon tank (this would bring the range in line with EV's);
>>
>> ----------- (SNIP) ----------------------
I got into this thread very late so this may have already been discussed
but does anyone know on average how many gallons of fuel needs to be
burned to produce one kilowatt worth of work from an electric motor (as
used in an EV). It seems that all the power loss due to power transfer
would be considerable (i.e. gas motor to generator to transformer(s) to
transmission lines to transformers to battery to electric motor).
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!nntp.crl.com!crl10.crl.com!
not-for-mail
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More? (Was: R
Followup-To: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Date: 9 Dec 1994 21:27:24 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <3cbe7s$8hr@crl10.crl.com>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <Czzn5w.Iuv@cunews.carleton.ca>
<dhewson-0212941545220001@dhewson.eac.ea.com>
<WESTIN.94Dec6111533@dsg145.nad.ford.com> <1994Dec7.185726.15661@ccc.amdahl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl10.crl.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:27520 sci.energy:9219
Jeff Isozaki (jt...@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com) wrote:
: >> Take a high fuel economy car like the Honda Civic VX (the lean-burn engine
: >> model); reproduce it in aluminum for weight loss, strip it of all unneeded
: >> stuff (side intrusion, rollover protection, rear seats), put on the low
: >> rolling resistance tires, take out the fuel tank and install a 1 or 2
: >> gallon tank (this would bring the range in line with EV's);
: >>
: >> ----------- (SNIP) ----------------------
: I got into this thread very late so this may have already been discussed
: but does anyone know on average how many gallons of fuel needs to be
: burned to produce one kilowatt worth of work from an electric motor (as
: used in an EV). It seems that all the power loss due to power transfer
: would be considerable (i.e. gas motor to generator to transformer(s) to
: transmission lines to transformers to battery to electric motor).
This was my handout at the San Jose Convention Center two days ago where the
Silicon Valley Defence/Space Consortium held a transportation workshop:
EV Consumer Protection Warning
This analysis is based on actual EV test track performance data
Some 70 electric vehicles (EVs) participated in 1992-93 testing events at
the Phoenix 500, Atlanta Clean Air Grand Prix, American Tour de Sol and
the Ford HEV at Dearborn. Data was collected, and as one reporter stated,
"analyzing this data is very difficult". Results were not related to
non-EV vehicles, except they compared within their group the Zero
Emission Vehicles (ZEV) and the Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV). ZEVs are
propelled by batteries alone, and HEV have an internal combustion engine
(gasoline) as Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). One observer noted that in APU
operations mode, energy costs were about twice as high as when in pure
ZEV operations mode, and he concluded therefrom that "it is hard to
escape the fact that electricity makes sense".
Major things wrong with above conclusion
Pre-thermal-conversion gasoline was compared with post-thermal-conversion
electricity. Taxes were included in gasoline, but none for electricity.
The gasoline was measured at entry into the vehicle and the EVs' electric
energy was measured after where major on-board losses occur, i.e. just
before the motors. These inequities in favor of EVs amount to 75% for
thermal conversion (and transmission), 40% for taxes and 25% for
measurement location. To travel with two-passenger capacity powered by
something that delivers 20 to 30 Hp, an internal combustion engine (IC)
from a motorcycle would suffice. It would get about 100 miles per gallon
(mpg) at 60 miles per hour (mph). At 37 kWhs/gallon this comes to IC
(pre-thermal-conversion input) = 370 Watt-hours/mile . The EVs in the
tests used highly inflated special tires to reduce rolling resistance
(RR). A 4000 lbs EV would have an RR = 4000*0.02 = 80 lbs with normal
tires, but only RR = 4000*0.005 = 20 lbs with special tires, a difference
of 4 to one. Also, the EVs' average speed on open road was only about 35
mph. To compare at 60 mph, requires air drag (AD) energy increase in
proportion to square of speed. Conversion factors 5280 ft/mile and 2655
ft-lbs/Watt-hour. "Thermal-conversion" means burning fuel to obtain
mechanical energy.
Dearborn Proving Ground results properly compared
In Dearborn tests the worst EV used 270, the average 213, and the best
161 Watt-hours/mile (pre-motor). Let's use the average, multiply by motor
efficiency to bring it to energy at pavement (AD + RR), 213*0.9 = 192,
(assume weight 4000 lbs) less rolling energy 192 - 4000*0.005*5280/2,655
= 192 - 40 = 152 (AD energy at 35 mph), increase 152* 60^2/35^2 = 447 (AD
energy at 60 mph), add normal tire rolling energy 447 + 40*4 = 607
Watt-hours/mile output energy at road surface. To obtain input divide
output by efficiency factors, motors 0.9, batteries & charger 0.75, power
transmission & thermal conversion 0.25 for a total EV
(pre-thermal-conversion input) of 607/(0.9*0.75*0.25) ~ 3600
Watt-hours/mile. Divide by the above underlined IC amount, and the
conclusion is:
EVs use about 10 times as much energy as equivalent ICs
Calculations and conclusions are based on reported test results and on
equal size and equal performance comparison. Prepared by Ernst G. Knolle,
Mechanical Engineer, licensed in California and Europe, California
License No. 12372, member of the New York Academy of Sciences. Address:
Knolle Magnetrans, 2691 Sean Court, South San Francisco, CA 94080,
U.S.A., phone (415)871-1896, fax 871-0867, e-mail kno...@crl.com.
Revised December 8, 1994
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!
newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newshost.marcam.com!
charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!decwrl!nntp.crl.com!crl6.crl.com!
not-for-mail
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Do Electric Cars Pollute More?
Date: 10 Dec 1994 16:11:39 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <3cdg3r$535@crl6.crl.com>
References: <25NOV199410362772@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
<3bcugf$qo0@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <3bgdm6$erk@crl8.crl.com>
<217@services.win.net> <3bmasq$61i@crl3.crl.com> <231@services.win.net>
<1UJukidpPHhB073yn@nyx.cs.du.edu> <3bts6i$mdt@crl2.crl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl6.crl.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: bga.com rec.autos.misc:27576 sci.energy:9233
01...@137.79.107.113>
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Distribution:
John L Loch (lo...@aig.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <3bts6i$m...@crl2.crl.com>, kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
: wrote:
: > AN IC IS ABOUT 8 TIMES MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN AN EV.
: and now let me wave my hands and gee look the ICE beats the EV by
: 8 times. Tomorrow it will be 10. Ernst, why don't you post a summary
: of your analysis so that we can see for ourselves? And please don't mix
: - John Loch
: lo...@aig.jpl.nasa.gov
John, I see you are great in rhetoric. The "sci." above stands for
numbers, logic and rationale. Let's keep it that way. Since you asked for
proof of ICs beating EVs 10 to one, I just happened to have one up my
sleeve, and here it is:
EV Consumer Protection Warning
This analysis is based on actual EV test track performance data
Some 70 electric vehicles (EVs) participated in 1992-93 testing events at
the Phoenix 500, Atlanta Clean Air Grand Prix, American Tour de Sol and
the Ford HEV at Dearborn. Data was collected, and as one reporter stated,
"analyzing this data is very difficult". Results were not related to
non-EV vehicles, except they compared within their group the Zero
Emission Vehicles (ZEV) and the Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV). ZEVs are
propelled by batteries alone, and HEV have an internal combustion engine
(gasoline) as Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). One observer noted that in APU
operations mode, energy costs were about twice as high as when in pure
ZEV operations mode, and he concluded therefrom that "it is hard to
escape the fact that electricity makes sense".
Major things wrong with above conclusion
Pre-thermal-conversion gasoline was compared with post-thermal-conversion
electricity. Taxes were included in gasoline, but none for electricity.
The gasoline was measured at entry into the vehicle and the EVs' electric
energy was measured after where major on-board losses occur, i.e. just
before the motors. These inequities in favor of EVs amount to 75% for
thermal conversion (and transmission), 40% for taxes and 25% for
measurement location. To travel with two-passenger capacity powered by
something that delivers 20 to 30 Hp, an internal combustion engine (IC)
from a motorcycle would suffice. It would get about 100 miles per gallon
(mpg) at 60 miles per hour (mph). At 37 kWhs/gallon this comes to IC
(pre-thermal-conversion input) = 370 Watt-hours/mile . The EVs in the
tests used highly inflated special tires to reduce rolling resistance
(RR). A 4000 lbs EV would have an RR = 4000*0.02 = 80 lbs with normal
tires, but only RR = 4000*0.005 = 20 lbs with special tires, a difference
of 4 to one. Also, the EVs' average speed on open road was only about 35
mph. To compare at 60 mph, requires air drag (AD) energy increase in
proportion to square of speed. Conversion factors 5280 ft/mile and 2655
ft-lbs/Watt-hour. "Thermal-conversion" means burning fuel to obtain
mechanical energy.
Dearborn Proving Ground results properly compared
In Dearborn tests the worst EV used 270, the average 213, and the best
161 Watt-hours/mile (pre-motor). Let's use the average, multiply by motor
efficiency to bring it to energy at pavement (AD + RR), 213*0.9 = 192,
(assume weight 4000 lbs) less rolling energy 192 - 4000*0.005*5280/2,655
= 192 - 40 = 152 (AD energy at 35 mph), increase 152* 60^2/35^2 = 447 (AD
energy at 60 mph), add normal tire rolling energy 447 + 40*4 = 607
Watt-hours/mile output energy at road surface. To obtain input divide
output by efficiency factors, motors 0.9, batteries & charger 0.75, power
transmission & thermal conversion 0.25 for a total EV
(pre-thermal-conversion input) of 607/(0.9*0.75*0.25) ~ 3600
Watt-hours/mile. Divide by the above pre-therm.-cov.IC input amount, and
the conclusion is:
EVs use about 10 times as much energy as equivalent ICs
Calculations and conclusions are based on reported test results and on
equal size and equal performance comparison. Prepared by Ernst G. Knolle,
Mechanical Engineer, licensed in California and Europe, California
License No. 12372, member of the New York Academy of Sciences. Address:
Knolle Magnetrans, 2691 Sean Court, South San Francisco, CA 94080,
U.S.A., phone (415)871-1896, fax 871-0867, e-mail kno...@crl.com.
Revised December 10, 1994
Anyone commenting on the above analysis, please, state your
qualifications and experience, so that readers can weigh the merits.
Ernst