From: sm...@uoft02.utoledo.edu Subject: Electric Vehicles Date: 1995/04/24 Message-ID: < D7Jyst.n36@utnetw.utoledo.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101507885 sender: ne...@utnetw.utoledo.edu (News Manager) organization: University of Toledo newsgroups: sci.energy A few colleagues of mine and myself have been doing research on electric vehicles and different aspects of their construction and use. The main topic we are researching is the difference between the point-source pollution and total pollution created through production and construction. It has been puzzling when talking to different people in the industry in that they are split between the advantages of EV's and whether the zero emmisions type of vehicle actually exists in an electric car. Any thoughts or help would be greatly appreciated. Any and all sources that would be of assistance would be of great help. Thank you very much. Stephen Mather
From: Azeez Hayne < aha...@cc.swarthmore.edu> Subject: Re: Electric Vehicles Date: 1995/04/25 Message-ID: <3nhm00$15t@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101507902 references: <3nh0s0$41n@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 organization: Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA x-url: news:3nh0s0$4...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: sci.energy x-mailer: Mozilla 1.1b2 (Macintosh; I; 68K) If I'm not mistaken, large fossil fuel plants are considerably more efficient than the IC engines of cars. This would seem to indicate that pollution would be lessened. This of course depends on the efficiency of the engine in the EV.
From: han...@hmsp04.wg.waii.com (Griff Miller) Subject: Re: Electric Vehicles Date: 1995/04/25 Message-ID: < 3njrln$31m@airgun.wg.waii.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101507935 references: <3nh0s0$41n@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> <3nhm00$15t@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu> organization: Western Geophysical newsgroups: sci.energy In article <3nhm00$1...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu> Azeez Hayne <aha...@cc.swarthmore.edu> writes: >If I'm not mistaken, large fossil fuel plants are considerably more >efficient than the IC engines of cars. This would seem to indicate that >pollution would be lessened. This of course depends on the efficiency of >the engine in the EV. Even if they are, I think the big problem is, how do you get the electricity generated at the plant to the car without losing whatever advantage you have? You're not being fair to the IC engine - on the one hand, you point out how much more efficient it is to generate energy from FF on a large scale, but ignore the losses from there to the EV on the other. So it comes to this - which is greater, the losses in transmission from electric plant to EV, or the difference in efficiency between electric plant and ICE? BTW, when I say plant->car, I'm not just talking about getting the juice from the plant to the electrical outlet; I mean all the way to the drive wheels. The losses from the plant to the outlet are not too bad, nor from the electric motor to the drive wheels - it's the batteries that are the Achilles' heel of the EV at this time. -- griff....@waii.com - Resident Programmer - Western Geophysical *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. *** "A man's own folly ruins his life, yet his heart rages against the Lord." (Proverbs 19:3)
From: dor...@cochlea.bu.edu (Clark Dorman) Subject: Re: Electric Vehicles Date: 1995/04/26 Message-ID: <DORMAN.95Apr26115720@cochlea.bu.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101627741 references: <3nh0s0$41n@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> <3nhm00$15t@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu> organization: Boston University - CAS/CNS newsgroups: sci.energy In article < 3njrln$3...@airgun.wg.waii.com> han...@hmsp04.wg.waii.com (Griff Miller) writes: [snip] > Even if they are, I think the big problem is, how do you get the > electricity generated at the plant to the car without losing whatever > advantage you have? You're not being fair to the IC engine - on the > one hand, you point out how much more efficient it is to generate > energy from FF on a large scale, but ignore the losses from there to > the EV on the other. [snip] This has been discussed here before. The comparison between EV's and ICE's is a huge can of worms, and depending on who you ask and what they consider, it can go either way. Here's my back of the envelope calculation: EVs: Plant 40-50% Transmission+Distribution: 95% Charging: 95% Batteries: 90% Controller: 95% Motor: 95% ------ Total: 29.3-36.7% ICE: Total: 25-35% Yes, these numbers are what is technically referred to as a SWAG (super wild ass guess). No, I don't have any references for the numbers, I just pulled them out of the air. Buuuut...this completely ignores the effects of the diversity of power plants (what about nuclear, renewables, old coal plants, etc.?), assumes pretty good numbers for the EV, assumes pretty old numbers for the ICE (what about low emissivity ICEs, new mpg regulations, 100 mpg toyotas, hybrids, gas turbine ICEs, etc.?), does not include anything about the driving cycles (an EV doesn't consume anything during the ICE "warm-up" when the efficiency is atrocious or when it is stopped at the light) , and does not include anything about the large difference in range or difference in charging times or air conditioning or heat. I'm sure that Ernst Knolle would be happy to post his numbers again, although I personnaly think that they are bogus. He thinks that they indicate that the ICE is 10 times better. I don't. But even with my numbers, you just are not going to get huge improvements in efficiency. Benefits (if any) that accrue will be due to power supply mix and moving the emissions to someplace else. Probably significant where there is a large percentage of nuclear power or in the LA basin where emissions cause health problems. Probably not significant otherwise. But there are radicals on both sides that will tell you that EVs are either the best thing since sliced bread or the work of the devil. -- Clark Dorman http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/Dorman.html
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) Subject: Re: Electric Vehicles Date: 1995/04/26 Message-ID: <3nn2bu$sij@crl7.crl.com> X-Deja-AN: 101627770 references: <3nh0s0$41n@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> <3nhm00$15t@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu> <3njrln$31m@airgun.wg.waii.com> organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] newsgroups: sci.energy Griff Miller (han...@hmsp04.wg.waii.com) wrote: : In article <3nhm00$1...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu> Azeez Hayne : <aha...@cc.swarthmore.edu> writes: : >If I'm not mistaken, large fossil fuel plants are considerably more : >efficient than the IC engines of cars. This would seem to indicate that : >pollution would be lessened. This of course depends on the efficiency of : >the engine in the EV. : Even if they are, I think the big problem is, how do you get the : electricity generated at the plant to the car without losing whatever : advantage you have? You're not being fair to the IC engine - on the : one hand, you point out how much more efficient it is to generate : energy from FF on a large scale, but ignore the losses from there to : the EV on the other. : So it comes to this - which is greater, the losses in transmission : from electric plant to EV, or the difference in efficiency between : electric plant and ICE? : BTW, when I say plant->car, I'm not just talking about getting the : juice from the plant to the electrical outlet; I mean all the way to : the drive wheels. The losses from the plant to the outlet are not too : bad, nor from the electric motor to the drive wheels - it's the : batteries that are the Achilles' heel of the EV at this time. : -- : griff....@waii.com - Resident Programmer - Western Geophysical : *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. *** : "A man's own folly ruins his life, yet his heart rages against the Lord." : (Proverbs 19:3) Here is what I came up with a while back on transmission losses from fuel all the way to the wheels: 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/(��.9*0.75*0.25) ~ 3600 Watt-hours/mile. Divide by the above calculated 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)871-9816, fax 871-0867, e-mail kno...@crl.com. Revised December 10, 1994 Yours, Ernst
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) Subject: Re: Electric Vehicles Date: 1995/04/27 Message-ID: <3nprus$rpi@crl9.crl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101627795 references: <3nh0s0$41n@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> <3nhm00$15t@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu> <3njrln$31m@airgun.wg.waii.com> <3nn2bu$sij@crl7.crl.com> organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] newsgroups: sci.energy Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote: : Griff Miller (han...@hmsp04.wg.waii.com) wrote: : : In article <3nhm00$1...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu> : : Azeez Hayne <aha...@cc.swarthmore.edu> writes: : : Even if they are, I think the big problem is, how do you get the : : electricity generated at the plant to the car without losing whatever : : advantage you have? You're not being fair to the IC engine - on the : : one hand, you point out how much more efficient it is to generate : : energy from FF on a large scale, but ignore the losses from there to : : the EV on the other. : : BTW, when I say plant->car, I'm not just talking about getting the : : juice from the plant to the electrical outlet; I mean all the way to : : the drive wheels. The losses from the plant to the outlet are not too : : bad, nor from the electric motor to the drive wheels - it's the : : batteries that are the Achilles' heel of the EV at this time. : Here is what I came up with a while back on transmission losses from fuel : all the way to the wheels: : 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. Since I prepared this analysis last December, all sorts of after-thoughts haunt me, such as: 1. I assumed California (CA) conditions, where any incremental increase in electricity can only be obtained through burning of fossil fuel. 2. Major transmission of power in CA is by 500 kV AC lines with relatively low transmission losses. 3. A new one million volt DC transmission line is expected to reduce transmission losses in the north-south direction. 4. Unable to meet peak demands with their own generators, CA imports power from other states. Some of it travels over 1000 miles with close to 20% in line losses. 5. Then there are "wheeling" losses, which nobody seems to know about. Wheeling means power that is passing through, for example, coming in from Arizona and going out to Oregon. 6. The power companies report their power productions with notations like "except for plant use" or "excluding company use". How much might that be? 7. While I tried my best to compare the EV with an IC of equal size and performance, I neglected to throw in energy use estimates for the normal other than propulsion power stuff, like air conditioning (a must in CA), heating, power brakes, power steering, lights and controls. Just some thoughts. Ernst