From: mgra...@prairienet.org (Mark Graffis)
Subject: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/08/20
Message-ID: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 108540379
organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
reply-to: mgra...@prairienet.org (Mark Graffis)
newsgroups: sci.environment
A new generation of deep-cycle batteries that will revolutionize electric
car usage is due to start hitting markets in a few years. Does anyone
know what companies are at the forefront in this battery developement? I'd
love to invest in this, thanks.
--
MARK GRAFFIS phone 809-772-9025
232 LITTLE LAGRANGE
FREDERIKSTED, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
00840
From: Carlo Izzo
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/08/26
Message-ID: <41n2e4$p61@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 108904572
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<41n15e$fln@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching
x-url: news:41n15e$f...@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: sci.environment
x-mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; OSF1 V3.0 alpha)
I have a question: what is the reason why electric car batteries
are less polluting than combustion of fossil fuels? Where are
the exhausted batteries dumped (or are they eternal)?
Just curious,
Carlo
iz...@rosat.mpe-garching.mpg.de
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/08/27
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.561.3040A94E@irl.cri.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 108954331
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<41n15e$fln@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
<41n2e4$p61@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.environment
In article <41n2e4$p...@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
Carlo Izzo <izzo> writes:
>I have a question: what is the reason why electric car batteries
> are less polluting than combustion of fossil fuels? Where are
> the exhausted batteries dumped (or are they eternal)?
I've no wish to get into any protracted debates about this, so
I'll provide some references and you can decide for yourself.
Basically EVs have two problems, one is that current
economically-viable batteries don't have the specific energy
of gasoline. Gasoline = 12,000 Wh/kg ( excluding weight of
fuel tank), Pb/H+ = 25-40Wh/kg, Na/S = 80-85Wh/kg. Batteries
also can only stand a limited number of recharges ( Pb/H+ =
400-700 cycles, Na/S = 800-900 cycles), and currently the US
Advanced Battery Consortium has set mid-tern goals of
80Wh/kg, 600 cycles and calendar life of 5 years, and long
term goals of 200 Wh/kg, 1000 cycles and 10 year life.
The second problem is that over 80% of US electricity is
derived from the combustion of fossil fuels, consequently
it is important that the final efficiency of the Power Station
to EV is greater than that of oil well to ICV. The oil to ICV
has always been so cheap that little thought has gone into
efficiency, except from the point of meeting emissions
targets. There has been little attempt to address the
concept of using a 1000kg vehicle to carry a 100kg person,
as the public like "solid" vehicles - just in case they meet
another large vehicle.
So most of the research into EVs has focussed on getting
the most from the batteries, but as an interim measure EV
proponents have moved towards Hybrids, which contain a
small IC engine running very efficiently, as a supplement
to a much smaller battery. Pb/H+ batteries are still cheaper
than alternative and some of the alternatives ( Cd ) have
environmental problems of their own.
Now to answer your question, when all the various parameters
are considered various agencies and researchers come up with
reports that have totally different conclusions.
The most recently discussed research is a report in Science
( v.268 p.995 (1995)) that found EVs will probably use lead/acid
batteries, and thus cound be responsible for 60 times the lead
pollution caused by vehicles burning leaded gasoline ( 1.34g/km
for batteries using newly mined lead, compared to 0.022g/km
for leaded fuel ). Obviously most occurs away from the vehicle
at the battery manufacturing/recycling facilities, but mitigation
costs could significantly increase the cost of Pb/H+.
For an overview of the battery problem,I'd recommend
"Advanced batteries for electric vehicles"
G.L.Henriksen, W.H.DeLuca, D.R.Vissers
ChemTech November 1994 p32-38
Other good articles include:
"Check the tyres and charge her up"
J.Glanz
New Scientist 15 April 1995 p.32-35
"Battery and Electric Vehicle Update"
Automotive Engineering September 1992 p.17-25
" Electric Vehicles: Getting the Lead Out"
B.Siuru
Mechanical Engineering December 1991 p.36-41
"Electric Vehicles"
Various articles
IEEE Spectrum November 1992 p.18-24,93-101.
"Hybrids"
Various articles
IEEE Spectrum July 1995 p.16-31.
" Electric Cars: will they work?, and who will buy them?
Business Week 30 May 1994 p.36-42
Bruce Hamilton
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/08/30
Message-ID: <421s48$kjh@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109170000
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<41n15e$fln@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
<41n2e4$p61@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
<B.Hamilton.561.3040A94E@irl.cri.nz>
organization: Netcom
newsgroups: sci.environment
In <B.Hamilton....@irl.cri.nz> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
Hamilton) writes:
>The most recently discussed research is a report in Science
>( v.268 p.995 (1995)) that found EVs will probably use lead/acid
>batteries, and thus cound be responsible for 60 times the lead
>pollution caused by vehicles burning leaded gasoline ( 1.34g/km
>for batteries using newly mined lead, compared to 0.022g/km
>for leaded fuel ). Obviously most occurs away from the vehicle
>at the battery manufacturing/recycling facilities, but mitigation
>costs could significantly increase the cost of Pb/H+.
This was a rehash of the since discounted Carnegie Mellon Draft paper
on the subject. It would be well to note that a final paper supporting
the premises of the draft has not passed peer review.
>For an overview of the battery problem,I'd recommend
For another reference, web accessible, try;
http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hottopic.html
Regards,
Will Stewart
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/08/31
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.562.3045E71E@irl.cri.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109250823
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<41n15e$fln@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
<41n2e4$p61@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
<B.Hamilton.561.3040A94E@irl.cri.nz> <421s48$kjh@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.environment
In article <421s48$k...@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>In <B.Hamilton....@irl.cri.nz> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
>Hamilton) writes:
>>The most recently discussed research is a report in Science
>>( v.268 p.995 (1995)) that found EVs will probably use lead/acid
>>batteries
....
As I noted earlier, this field is extremely debatable, and the wide
diversity of calculations that can be used means that people
may establish whatever conclusion they set out to find.
However....
>This was a rehash of the since discounted Carnegie Mellon Draft paper
>on the subject. It would be well to note that a final paper supporting
>the premises of the draft has not passed peer review.
As usual, the EV proponents consider their adverse comments
as "since discounted". There are many reasons why drafts don't
initially pass peer review, and it does not necessarily mean all the
comments and conclusions are wrong.
>>For an overview of the battery problem,I'd recommend
>For another reference, web accessible, try;
> http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hottopic.html
Just in case anyone visits this site and doesn't bother obtaining
the articles I posted, please remember the articles I suggested
are from respected, balanced journals ( New Scientist, IEEE Spectrum,
Mechanical Engineering ), whereas this site is appears
to host paranoid delusions that the current dearth of EVs
is a result of " The Oil Industry's WAR against Electric Vehicles"
which is the lead item at the site. There are also articles
allegedly demonstrating a link between oil and auto industries and
the funding of the Carnegie Mellon study. I didn't carefully
check to see if they had also established a conspiracy based on
the names Carnegie and Mellon as well, but wouldn't be surprised
to find such a claim there.
I repeat my recommendation, read the articles I suggested
earlier to obtain some balanced information, the information
at this site does not present a balanced view of the technical
issues that explain why ICVs currently outnumber EVs by a
very small margin :-)
Bruce Hamilton
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/01
Message-ID: <4275dj$en@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109324712
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<41n15e$fln@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
<41n2e4$p61@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
<B.Hamilton.561.3040A94E@irl.cri.nz> <421s48$kjh@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
<B.Hamilton.562.3045E71E@irl.cri.nz>
organization: Netcom
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In <B.Hamilton....@irl.cri.nz> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
Hamilton) writes:
>
>In article < 421s48$k...@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
> will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
[Discussion per the Carnegie Mellon draft paper on lead pollution]
>As usual, the EV proponents consider their adverse comments
>as "since discounted". There are many reasons why drafts don't
>initially pass peer review, and it does not necessarily mean all the
>comments and conclusions are wrong.
I'm still waiting to see the final report. The reason you won't see it
is because the academic community there would become laughing stocks.
And by the way, two of the three writers were *economists*, not
engineers or material scientists.
>>For another reference, web accessible, try;
>> http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hottopic.html
An excellent site.
>Just in case anyone visits this site and doesn't bother obtaining
>the articles I posted, please remember the articles I suggested
>are from respected, balanced journals ( New Scientist,
Not a journal,
>IEEE Spectrum,
Electrical engineering does not cover the areas of lead mining or
recycling, and is therefore inappropriate. It merely reports that
Carnegie Mellon came up with certain figures, but does not support or
confirm those figures.
>Mechanical Engineering
I saw no quotes from this publication. Please provide the quotes
again, with volume and date references.
> whereas this site is appears to host paranoid delusions
>that the current dearth of EVs
>is a result of " The Oil Industry's WAR against Electric Vehicles"
>which is the lead item at the site.
It is no secret that the oil companies are fighting this, as would any
company that perceives its profit margin to be reduce. It would be bad
business not to.
>There are also articles
>allegedly demonstrating a link between oil and auto industries and
>the funding of the Carnegie Mellon study.
Are you denying the link? Can you provide evidence that will falsify
the information provided?
>I didn't carefully
>check to see if they had also established a conspiracy based on
>the names Carnegie and Mellon as well, but wouldn't be surprised
>to find such a claim there.
An attempt to prop up the "paranoid delusion" comment above by
inventing a red herring.
>I repeat my recommendation, read the articles I suggested
>earlier to obtain some balanced information, the information
>at this site does not present a balanced view of the technical
>issues
Yes, read these articles and read the web site;
http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hottopic.html
Cheers,
Will Stewart
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/02
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz>
X-Deja-AN: 109375022
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<41n15e$fln@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
<41n2e4$p61@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
<B.Hamilton.561.3040A94E@irl.cri.nz> <421s48$kjh@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
<B.Hamilton.562.3045E71E@irl.cri.nz>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In article <4275dj$e...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
This response to my post is exactly why I didn't want to continue this
thread after providing some references to some good technical
available in journals. This will be my last post in this thread.
In article < 4275dj$e...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>In <...> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:
>>In article <...> will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>[Discussion per the Carnegie Mellon draft paper on lead pollution]
No. It appears you have not even read the article in the Policy Forum
section of Science. The specific relevent details were
" Environmental Implications of Electric Cars "
L.B.Lave, C.T.Hendricksen, F.C.McMichael
Science v.268 p.993-995 (1995)
The footnote states " L.B.Lave is Higgins Profossor of Economics and
University Professor, Graduate School of Indistrial Administration,
Carnegie Mellon University... C.T.Hendrickson is professor and associate
dean of engineering, Carnegie Mellon University... F.C.McMichael is
Blenco Professor of Environmental Engineering, Carneque Mellon
University"
It's not the draft paper - it is in the "Policy Forum" section.
>I'm still waiting to see the final report. The reason you won't see it
>is because the academic community there would become laughing stocks.
>And by the way, two of the three writers were *economists*, not
>engineers or material scientists.
So?, please specify which two. Their current positions listed above
don't make that clear, and their current positions all appear relevent
to the article. I doubt they are worried about become "laughing stocks
of the academic community - they might regret writing on a subject area
filled with zealots though...
>>>For another reference, web accessible, try;
>>> http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hottopic.html
>An excellent site.
This is what it has to say about the authors..
"Lester Lave is a professor of economics. What is an economics
professor doing conducting research in an area way out of his
expertise? The evaluation of EVs and batteries demands a highly
specific and technical background. There are lists of qualified
individuals who could have performed this study. Lave is not
on them. How then did he get $450K to do research that he was
unqualified to undertake?
Lave is also assocated with a right-wing think-tank. As a
consultant, he has gained a reputation for being adamantly
anti-EV. Parrell, the writer that did the NYT piece, is also and
economist and of the same persuasion as Lave."
While there are apparently errors in the study ( remember that when
I first posted the reference I made no comment on its accuracy, just
that it was one reference ) the authors have correctly cited all the
sources they used in the policy forum, such as EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory, and the 1994 EPA Technical Report "Metallurgical Industry
Emissions Factors". Contrast this with other information at the web
site...
[begin quote]
In the Carnegie Mellon study, much of the technical information
on GM's Impact in incorrect. For example: the study states that
the Impact's battery pack weighs 3,032 pounds--it weighs 1,150 pounds-
-the entire vehicle weighs less than 3,032 pounds; ...
....
It is wrong about the energy capacity of the Impact's
battery pack, deriving a capacity figure of 25kWh from the
incorrect battery mass times the incorrect energy density. The
Impact's battery pack is 16.8 kWhr.
[end quote]
The article states (p.994) "As one comparison, a General Motors 1994
Test vehicle, the Impact, has a battery weight of 500kg and an energy
supply of 16.8 kWh...."
>>Just in case anyone visits this site and doesn't bother obtaining
>>the articles I posted, please remember the articles I suggested
>>are from respected, balanced journals ( New Scientist,
>Not a journal,
Straw clutching. New Scientist is defined as a journal in this
part of the world. The article ( "Check the tyres and charge her up"
New Scientist. 15 April 1995 p.32-35 ) was postive about the future
for EVs, but I suppose we should discount it because you don't
consider NS to be a journal...
>>IEEE Spectrum,
>Electrical engineering does not cover the areas of lead mining or
>recycling, and is therefore inappropriate. It merely reports that
>Carnegie Mellon came up with certain figures, but does not support or
>confirm those figures.
No. The list I posted was intended to provide background information
on the current status of EVs. The facts is that neither of the
excellent articles I cited from IEEE Spectrum discussed the Carnegie
Mellon paper - the EV articles were published before the draft
was available, and the Hybrid articles were only in the July issue,
and make no mention of the CM paper. The articles recommended were:-
"Electric Vehicles"
Various Articles
IEEE Spectrum. November 1992 p.18-24,93-101
- provides a good general discussion of the issues and technology
"Hybrids"
Various Articles
IEEE Spectrum. July 1995 p.16-31
>>Mechanical Engineering
>I saw no quotes from this publication. Please provide the quotes
>again, with volume and date references.
I didn't save any of my earlier posts, and they have expired at this
site. I will assume Will Stewart is correct, and I did not include
the Mechanical Engineering articles, I believe I may have cited the
more recent Chemtech article ( " Advanced Batteries for Electric
Vehicles" G.L.Henriksen, W.H.DeLuca, D.R.Vissers. Chemtech. November
1994 p.32-38 ) instead. They all contain similar information.
"Energising the Batteries for Electric Cars"
L.O'Connor
Mechanical Engineering. July 1993 p.73-75
"Alternative Vehicle-Propulsion Systems"
R.Harmon
Mechanical Engineering. March 1992 p.58-65.
"Electric Vehicles: Getting the Lead Out"
B.Siuru
Mechanical Engineering. December 1991 p.36-41.
>> whereas this site is appears to host paranoid delusions
>>that the current dearth of EVs is a result of " The Oil Industry's WAR
>>against Electric Vehicles" which is the lead item at the site.
>It is no secret that the oil companies are fighting this, as would any
>company that perceives its profit margin to be reduce. It would be bad
>business not to.
The auto and oil industries probably has a very great desire to avoid
product litigation actions from disappointed EV owners, and it
is also no secret that EV proponents continually point to the
GM Impact as what an EV is capable. The reason why?, pretty
obvious really, it was the only EV that even approached the
performance envelope of a small ICV, the rest were glorified
London milk-carts. Undoubtably the ICV will be replaced, but
with around 67% of the electricity generated in the US coming
from fossil fuels the oil industry may just purchase shares in utilities.
EVs may not be "zero-emissions" for a long time, and may be more polluting
than the new generation of ICVs. Obviously the auto and oil companies will
support EVs when the time is appropriate, when they are economically
viable, and when consumers want them.
>>There are also articles
>>allegedly demonstrating a link between oil and auto industries and
>>the funding of the Carnegie Mellon study.
>Are you denying the link? Can you provide evidence that wil falsify
>the information provided?
What information? Oh, you mean.
[begin quote]
6/11/95 - Carnegie Mellon Study Ties to Oil Industry Revealed
Four major oil companies have been found to be "industrial partners"
of the Carnegie Mellon-based organization that produced the now-infamous
EV lead hazard study. The following information was provided by
Clare Bell, editor of the Electric Auto Association's magazine,
Current EVents:
In the Science Magazine article on the Carnegie Mellon study, footnote
19 acknowledges two research grants that funded the study. These include
National Science Foundation grant EEC-8943164, from the Green Design
Consortium of the Carnegie-Mellon University Engineering Design
Research Center, for $13,571,655 and NSF grant 9319731, for $450,000.
Information available to the public from Carnegie Mellon University
describes the purpose of their Engineering Design Resarch Center:
"The goal of the Engineering Design Research Center (ERDC) at
Carnegie Mellon University is to provide the research and
educational base for the development and integration of design
methodologies that will make US industry preeminent in design
practice."
The Green Design Consortium of the ERDC "is open to industrial partners
interested in participating and guiding consortium projects."
Benefits of membership, which costs $10-20K yearly, include:
- The opportunity to provide input on research direction and suggest
specific research programs and
- Access to: Carnegie Mellon University laboratories and researchers,
Green Design research data, working papers, and government research
grants through cooperative university proposals.
An ERDC directory lists industry affiliates. Among them are BP
America, Exxon Research and Engineering, Mobil R and D, and Shell
Development.
The NSF grant 9319731 grant abstract discusses development of a system
to measure the environmental consequences of alternative products or
designs. It is to be implemented in the the design of printers for a
large computer company, but there is a statement that says "The Ford
Motor Company will work with us in transfering the research results..
...to quite a different setting."
Do we need any clearer indication of the origin and motivation behind
the now-infamous "Carnegie Mellon scientific study"?
[end quote]
Well, I suppose it depends on the standard and quality of evidence
that you want. The minor fact that the footnote of the Science
article said
" We thank IBM for a Product Design for the Environment research grant,
the Green Design Consortium of the Carnegie Mellion University
Engineering Design Research Centre (NSF grant EEC-8943164) and
Environmental Insitute, and NSF (grant III-9319731). F.C.M is a
1994 AT&T Foundation Industrial Ecology Faculty Fellow. "
inplies to me that maybe the NSF EEC grant of $13.57million did not
all go to these researchers, and they also had funding from IBM and
AT&T. But hey, I'm not going to waste time chasing details of US NSF
grants, but if they did front up with $14 million smackers, please
let me know, I'll do the same analysis for 20% of the cost.
Frankly the above doesn't demonstrate that either the oil or auto
industry were involved, after all, the vast majority of the money
came from the government. Why aren't the EV proponents pushing a
government conspiracy as well. Frankly if the US government gave
$14 million for the study, I want to become part of the US research
community.
>>I repeat my recommendation, read the articles I suggested
>>earlier to obtain some balanced information, the information
>>at this site does not present a balanced view of the technical
>>issues
Boringly repeated. As I said previously, this field if full of
studies that manage to reach totally different conclusions. The
articles I recommended provide some technical discussions of
issues, including the energy storage problem, which ultimately
may be solved using flywheels, IC engines (hybrids), ultracapacitors,
fuel cells, or improved batteries or combinations thereof . It is an
interesting field to watch.
Bruce Hamilton
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/04
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.568.304AC0F4@irl.cri.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109485253
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<41n15e$fln@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
<41n2e4$p61@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> <B.Hamilton.561.3040A94E@irl.cri.nz>
<421s48$kjh@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <B.Hamilton.562.3045E71E@irl.cri.nz>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In article <B.Hamilton....@irl.cri.nz>
B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:
> This will be my last post in this thread.
Well, not-so-famous last words. Today, the 11 August 1995 Science
arrived here. The letters section has 7 responses to the Lave et al
article, including ones by
1. Daniel Sperling ( well known transportation expert - Director. Institute of
Transportation Studies, University ofCalifornia ),
2. Robert C. Stempel and Stanford R. Ovshinsky ( if my memory serves me,
the former ran a small car company in Detroit, and the latter gave his name
to the Ovonic nickel-metal-hydride battery that was claimed could propel the
Impact 240-300 miles ) of Energy Conversion Devices.
3. Roland J. Hwang of the Union of Concerned Scientists ( whose unreferenced
contribution should also be a cause for their concern )
4. Robert H Socolow of Princeton University.
The editors note " An unusual number of letters were received about the
19 May Policy Forum "Environmental Implications of Electric Cars". Most
criticized the thesis of Lave et al. that "these vehicles do not deliver the
promised environmental benefits" and would create more lead pollution
than would comparable cars burning leaded gasoline. "Amazing," "absurd,"
and "the analysis does not appropriately support its conclusions" were
some of the comments "
The response of Lave et al starts " Reaction to our Policy Forum has been
astonishing in term of the level of attention, venom, and desire to defend EVs.
Before getting to the details, we emphasise four points:
* Environmental problems are complicated; the obvious solution s often turn
out to be much less beneficial than first appearances suggest. The
life-cycle impacts of products and processes should be analysed.
* We used the best data available, although the data are less than definitive.
Consequently, we used a wide range of data. for environmental discharges,
data on individual facilities are not substitutes for systematic life-cycle
and mass balance data
* We examined technologies available for 1998 vehicles, not proposed or
hoped-for technologies.
* We examined total environment discharges of lead, not just air emissions.
Dismissing nonair discharges is inappropriate...."
So, while getting the article, you should get the letters and response,
spread over p.741-p.745.
Bruce Hamilton
From: van...@netcom.com (Van)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/06
Message-ID: <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109613000
sender: van...@netcom12.netcom.com
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
This morning a friend pointed out a fundamental point that I had
never really considered, and his opinion was that it doomed
electric cars.
The main thing about cars that burn fuel is that they can just grab
the oxygen required to burn the fuel out of the air wherever they are.
(A big problem for the shuttle is that it has to carry liquid oxygen
up with it just to burn it).
Baterries have a similar problem--they can't just grab electricity
out of the air.
--
Van -- Email: van...@netcom.com
From: ssm...@paltech.com (Bob Ssmith)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/06
Message-ID: <ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109613018
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
organization: Capital Area Internet Service in...@cais.com 703-448-4470
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In article <vanjacDE...@netcom.com> van...@netcom.com (Van) writes:
>This morning a friend pointed out a fundamental point that I had
>never really considered, and his opinion was that it doomed
>electric cars.
>The main thing about cars that burn fuel is that they can just grab
>the oxygen required to burn the fuel out of the air wherever they are.
>(A big problem for the shuttle is that it has to carry liquid oxygen
>up with it just to burn it).
>Baterries have a similar problem--they can't just grab electricity
>out of the air.
Not only that, consider also that the energy content of a gallon of gasoline,
which is about 35 kWh, is equivalent to the energy that's carried by 2,500 lbs
of lead-acid batteries, of which 65% is lead, which means that everywhere
you go, and for every gallon equivalent of gasoline energy that you're
carrying, you're hauling around about 1,500 pounds of lead. That's REALLY
LOUSY engineering!
Bob Ssmith
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/06
Message-ID: <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109613036
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com>
organization: Netcom
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In <ssmith.57...@paltech.com> ssm...@paltech.com (Bob Ssmith)
writes:
>
>In article <vanjacDE...@netcom.com> van...@netcom.com (Van)
writes:
>
>>This morning a friend pointed out a fundamental point that I had
>>never really considered, and his opinion was that it doomed
>>electric cars.
>>The main thing about cars that burn fuel is that they can just grab
>>the oxygen required to burn the fuel out of the air wherever they
are.
>>(A big problem for the shuttle is that it has to carry liquid oxygen
>>up with it just to burn it).
>>Baterries have a similar problem--they can't just grab electricity
>>out of the air.
How do ICEs grab gasoline out of the air? Oh, they have to carry it
with them. And spew pollutants out into the same air.
>Not only that, consider also that the energy content of a gallon of
>gasoline, which is about 35 kWh, is equivalent to the energy that's
>carried by 2,500 lbs of lead-acid batteries, of which 65% is lead,
>which means that everywhere you go, and for every gallon equivalent of
>gasoline energy that you're carrying, you're hauling around about
>1,500 pounds of lead.
Your figures aside, we must also consider that for commuting purposes,
the electric car is several times more efficient that the ICE car.
>That's REALLY LOUSY engineering!
Oh, you must be my straight man....
Cheers,
Will Stewart
From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/07
Message-ID: <DEIF30.Mu0@midway.uchicago.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109664797
sender: ne...@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
x-nntp-posting-host: cars3.uchicago.edu
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637
reply-to: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In article <42l00s$d...@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, will...@ix.netcom.com
(Will Stewart ) writes:
>In <ssmith.57...@paltech.com> ssm...@paltech.com (Bob Ssmith)
>writes:
>>
>>In article <vanjacDE...@netcom.com> van...@netcom.com (Van)
>writes:
>>
>>>This morning a friend pointed out a fundamental point that I had
>>>never really considered, and his opinion was that it doomed
>>>electric cars.
>
>>>The main thing about cars that burn fuel is that they can just grab
>>>the oxygen required to burn the fuel out of the air wherever they
>are.
>
>>>(A big problem for the shuttle is that it has to carry liquid oxygen
>>>up with it just to burn it).
>
>>>Baterries have a similar problem--they can't just grab electricity
>>>out of the air.
>
>How do ICEs grab gasoline out of the air? Oh, they have to carry it
>with them. And spew pollutants out into the same air.
>
>>Not only that, consider also that the energy content of a gallon of
>>gasoline, which is about 35 kWh, is equivalent to the energy that's
>>carried by 2,500 lbs of lead-acid batteries, of which 65% is lead,
>>which means that everywhere you go, and for every gallon equivalent of
>>gasoline energy that you're carrying, you're hauling around about
>>1,500 pounds of lead.
>
>Your figures aside, we must also consider that for commuting purposes,
>the electric car is several times more efficient that the ICE car.
>
Not when this efficiency is used to haul lead around.
>>That's REALLY LOUSY engineering!
>
>Oh, you must be my straight man....
>
Disregarding unpleasant figures is also bad engineering.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/07
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.571.304F35A3@irl.cri.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109664869
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In article <42msie$c...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>In <DEIF3...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>Your figures aside, we must also consider that for commuting
>>>purposes, the electric car is several times more efficient that the
>>>ICE car.
>>Not when this efficiency is used to haul lead around.
>Regenerative braking recovers much of the energy used to move the mass
>of the car around. I am unaware of any such technology available for
>internal combustion engine vehicles.
No. regenerative braking only extends the range of the TEVan by 8% (SAE
C-cycle refer IEEE Spectrum article I cited earlier ) and the Impact III by
"as much as 25%" :-) ( Road and Track mag. ). The problem is that convential
brakes are also required, as the braking profile of RGB is not appropriate for
urban driving.
The fact that you are unaware of such technology for ICVs does not mean
that it doesn't exist, there have been discussions in sci.energy on several
schemes that have been proposed for ICVs, some utilise the rotational
motion, others the heat. They generally fail the economic test, with fuel
so cheap the additional mass and complexityu aren't justified.
>Disregarding superior technology just because "that's not the way we've
>always done it" is the most regressive form of engineering.
Selling inferior technology on spurious environmmental and economic
grounds is unfortunately a very successful form of engineering. The
basic fact is that EVs have not yet overcome their energy storage
problem, and until they do, their economics aren't viable. When they
do the utility companies will become the multinational oil companies
of the future.
Bruce Hamilton
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/07
Message-ID: <42nmm4$12n@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109664886
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Thu Sep 07 2:03:00 PM PDT 1995
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In <B.Hamilton....@irl.cri.nz> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
Hamilton) writes:
>
>In article <42msie$c...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
>will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>
>>Regenerative braking recovers much of the energy used to move the
mass of the car around. I am unaware of any such technology available
for internal combustion engine vehicles.
>No. regenerative braking only extends the range of the TEVan by 8%
>(SAE C-cycle refer IEEE Spectrum article I cited earlier ) and the
>Impact III by "as much as 25%" :-) ( Road and Track mag. ).
I see the problem is with the way I worded the statement. I should
have said 'decelerate' instead of 'move'. My mistake.
>The
>problem is that convential brakes are also required, as the braking
>profile of RGB is not appropriate for urban driving.
There are a number of approaches for regenerative braking. Please
provide a reference showing that the braking needs of urban driving
cannot substantially be met by regenerative braking.
>The fact that you are unaware of such technology for ICVs does not
>mean that it doesn't exist, there have been discussions in sci.energy
>on several schemes that have been proposed for ICVs, some utilise the
>rotational motion, others the heat. They generally fail the economic
>test, with fuel so cheap the additional mass and complexityu aren't
>justified.
I seen many attempts at the technology for ICVs, but due to the
'tack-on' nature of a totally different drive mechanism, they have not
been able to make an impact in ICVs. Actually, Germany was using
compressed air on some of its buses years ago, but I don't know how
that pilot turned out.
>>Disregarding superior technology just because "that's not the way
>>we've always done it" is the most regressive form of engineering.
>Selling inferior technology on spurious environmmental and economic
>grounds is unfortunately a very successful form of engineering.
You have not established a basis for identifying EV technology as
inferior. I do not measure the technology solely on vehicle
performance, but on vehicle pollution impact to large segments of the
population as well.
The
>basic fact is that EVs have not yet overcome their energy storage
>problem, and until they do, their economics aren't viable. When they
>do the utility companies will become the multinational oil companies
>of the future.
I am also a proponent of Demand Side Management, where other
organizations or homeowners themselves can generate electricity.
Regards,
Will Stewart
From: rnw...@slip.net (Robert Ward)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/07
Message-ID: <rnward-0709952339360001@sfsp96.slip.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109739740
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: San Francisco Symphony
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
There has been a lot of technical discussion in this thread which is very
interesting. I wanted to point out that there are new batteries that have
been invented by Energy Conversion Devices of Troy, MI that give a GM
Impact a range of over 200 miles, recharge to 60% in 15 minutes, are fully
recyclable and last 100,000 miles. General Motors has entered into an
agreement with ECD to produce this Ovonic battery and use it in the
production of the Impact. Right now they are building a plant to make
these batteries in Dayton, OH, I believe. The agreement with ECD is that
ECD may sell the battery to whomever they wish.
I'd be curious as to your reaction to this information if it has not
already been discussed previously.
Cheers,
Bob
--
Robert N. Ward
Associate Principal Horn
San Francisco Symphony
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/08
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.573.30501090@irl.cri.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109739735
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In article <42nmm4$1...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>In <...> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:
>>In article <...>will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>>The
>>problem is that convential brakes are also required, as the braking
>>profile of RGB is not appropriate for urban driving.
>There are a number of approaches for regenerative braking. Please
>provide a reference showing that the braking needs of urban driving
>cannot substantially be met by regenerative braking.
Why is it you think you can make assertions in these groups, but
feel you should challenge others to provide references to negate
your nonsense?. If you had the nous to have bothered to read the
references I have previously provided to you, you would have known
that RGB looses effectiveness at slower speeds. The reference?, why
naturally it's the same IEEE refrence I've recommended previously...
There has also been extensive discussions about the EV loss of braking
efficiency at lower speeds in sci.energy over the last 12months.
It's not surprising that when challenged, you start adding weasel
words like "substantially". It seems you haven't even bothered
to read any of the references suggested, you want to flaunt your
ideological views in the vain hope that frequent recitation will make
them true, and nobody will ask the obvious "well, if they are so good,
where are they", and the few that bother can be advised that it's all
an oil company conspiracy.....
"Pursuing Efficiency"
IEEE Spectrum November 1992 p.93
" How much energy regenerative braking will save, or more meaningfully,
how much will it extend a vehicle's range depends on the anticipated
drive cycle.. Overall, says Chrysler's Davis, regenerative braking will help
extend the range of the TEVan by 8% on the SAE C-cycle.
Since the effectiveness of regereative braking falls off with vehicle
speed, EVs will have to be fitted with conventional hydraulic friction
brakes as well as with regenerative systems. That leads to one of the
more challenging EV engineering problems: designing a braking system
that glides smoothly from regenerative to mechanical braking, while
preserving the "pedal feel" of conventional brakes".
Of course you realise that there can be a problem when the batteries
are fully charged - the energy produced by the brakes normally goes
to the batteries, imagine what happens when they are fully charged
halfway down a hill :-). All electric vehicles have mechanical brakes as
well, and Honda even managed to combine Anti-lock braking with RGB
on one of their EVs.
>>Selling inferior technology on spurious environmmental and economic
>>grounds is unfortunately a very successful form of engineering.
>You have not established a basis for identifying EV technology as
>inferior. I do not measure the technology solely on vehicle
>performance, but on vehicle pollution impact to large segments of the
>population as well.
Well, if you had actually been reading some of the literature you
would realise that the current reliance of the US electricity supply
utilities on fossil fuels means that EVs will probably not reduce all
pollutants and, in fact, may increase several toxins - including
sulfur oxides.
An Electric Power Research Institute report compared an existing ICV
with an EV using power from stations with existing controls and power
with the new, stricter standards for utility emissions.
ICV TEVan TEVan
(1992) (1992) (1995)
CO2 g/km 410 190 200
SO2 g/km 0.15 1.8 0.5
NOx g/km 1.1 0.75 0.17
VOCs g/km 0.63 0.006 0.006
CO g/km 6.2 0.031 0.031
Few of the studies allow for the fact that the ICV is also improving..
As I've said before, there are studies available to match any agenda.
Bruce Hamilton
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Electric Car Batteries Breakthrough
Date: 1995/09/08
Message-ID: <42p918$l3i@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109739870
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
<rnward-0709952339360001@sfsp96.slip.net>
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Fri Sep 08 4:22:16 AM PDT 1995
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In <rnward-0709...@sfsp96.slip.net> rnw...@slip.net (Robert
Ward) writes:
>There has been a lot of technical discussion in this thread which is
>very interesting. I wanted to point out that there are new batteries
>that have been invented by Energy Conversion Devices of Troy, MI that
>give a GM Impact a range of over 200 miles, recharge to 60% in 15
>minutes, are fully recyclable and last 100,000 miles. General Motors
>has entered into an agreement with ECD to produce this Ovonic battery
>and use it in the production of the Impact. Right now they are
>building a plant to make these batteries in Dayton, OH, I believe.
>The agreement with ECD is that ECD may sell the battery to whomever
>they wish.
This is much more than I had expected. 100,000 miles will
significantly improve the battery replacement time and the recharge
rate exceeds the target of 50% in 90 minutes. Are these lead acid
batteries?
Is the range predicated on a particular driving profile?
Regards,
Will Stewart
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries Breakthrough
Date: 1995/09/08
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.574.3050A2C3@irl.cri.nz>
X-Deja-AN: 109739957
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In article <42p918$l...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>In <...> rnw...@slip.net (Robert Ward) writes:
>>There has been a lot of technical discussion in this thread which is
>>very interesting. I wanted to point out that there are new batteries
>>that have been invented by Energy Conversion Devices of Troy, MI that
>>give a GM Impact a range of over 200 miles, recharge to 60% in 15
>>minutes, are fully recyclable and last 100,000 miles.
While Mr Ward is to be commended for putting a disclaimer on his
original post, and asking for comments, Will has frantically clutched
this straw. If he had bothered to read the references provided he
would have found in "Energizing the Batteries for Electric Cars"
( L.O'Connor IEEE Spectrum. July 1993 p.73-75 ) that Ovonics claimed
$5,000-$6,000 cost in quantities of over 10,000, that it can power the
Impact up to 240 miles, can power a vehicle more than 120,000
miles, and can be 60% recharged in 15 minutes, and "virtually all of its
energy recharges in 60 minutes". Their nickel metal hydride battery
was developed using a$18.5 million contract with the US Advanced
Battery Consortium, which then gave them a further $1.4 million in
April 1993 to supply evaluation batteries to Ford, Chrysler and GM.
They claimed a specific energy of 80 Wh/kg and $200/kWh, with the
ability to reach 150 Wh/kg.
For the curious, the Ovonics battery owes its performance to an
carefully-engineered negative electrode. The electrode is a metal hydride,
an alloy that easily absorbs hydrogen. The positive electrode is nickel
hydroxide, and the current-carrying electrolyte is potassium hydroxide.
Water in the aqueous electrolyte splits into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions
when the battery charges. The hydrogen is absorbed into the negative
electrode - which then converts from metal to metal hydride. At the same
time, hydroxyl ions react at the positive electrode and are converted from
nickel hydroxide to nickel oxyhydroxide. During discharge, hydrogen
leaves the electrode to form water and release an electron... The unique
aspect of the Ovonics battery is the mixed-metal-matrix negative electrode
( V,Ni,Cr,Zr,Co,Mn,Al and Fe ) which does not dissolve, fracture, or
recrystallise during charging and discharging.
So why hasn't this wonder battery created a breakthough in EVs, well
if WIll had read another of the references he might not have rushed to
create a thread with this title.
Type Manufact. Model Weight Capacity Specific Energy Peak Life Van
Energy Density Power Cycles Range
kg Ah Wh/kg W/L W/kg km
Na/S ABB B-11 253 238 81 83 152 592 246
Na/S CSPL BP-Mk3 29.2 292 79 123 90 795 240
Ni/Cd SAFT STM5-200 24.5 214 55 104 175 1018 163
Ni/MH Ovonics H-Cell 0.628 28 55 152 175 505 155
Zn/Br SEA ZBB5/48 81 126 79 56 40 334 149
Ni/Fe EP NIF200 25 203 51 118 99 918 139
Pb/H+ Sonn. 6V160 31.5 184 36 92 91 370 82
Pb/H+ CEVS 3ET205 32.8 185 33 78 68 149 75
Various footnotes and qualified omitted, the weights looke strange,
but I haven't time to clarify from the text.
They used the Federal simplifies urban driving schedule and a IDSEP
( improved dual-shaft electric propulsion) van - details in the
reference "Advanced batteries for electric vehicles" G.L.Henriksen,
W.H.DeLuca, D.R.Vissers. ChemTech. November 1994 p.32-38.
Note the 55 Wh/kg versus the 80 claimed above, note also the
superior performance of other batteries, but then remember that
ECD has Robert Stempel ( ran a small car company in Detroit :-) ) to
help with selling the product to GM..
>This is much more than I had expected. 100,000 miles will
>significantly improve the battery replacement time and the recharge
>rate exceeds the target of 50% in 90 minutes. Are these lead acid
>batteries?
Refer above. Basically, even with the NMH batteries the Impact is
not ecomonically competitive with a current ICV, much less one of
the more frugal ICVs that will appear in 1997.
>Is the range predicated on a particular driving profile?
Commonly known as London milk trolley acceleration profile and
the housewives pram pushing urban cycle. The GM Impact ( as does any
EV ) range plummets as speed or acceleration are pushed, GM quotes
50-70 miles for the Impact on the EPA city cycle and 70-90 for the
highway cycle, with the lower figures being for less frugal drivers
( or frugal drivers who forget they aren't in an ICV and turn on the
heating or air conditioning). It is governed at 75mph, and is only a
two seater ( adding another seat would reduce the range by 20% ).
The Impact does have a range of 250 miles at 25mph for those who
can stand the stress of high speed driving...
Bruce Hamilton
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries Breakthrough
Date: 1995/09/09
Message-ID: <42qns9$n2a@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109740889
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Fri Sep 08 5:41:45 PM PDT 1995
newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism,sci.energy
In <B.Hamilton....@irl.cri.nz> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
Hamilton) writes:
>
>>>I wanted to point out that there are new batteries
>>>that have been invented by Energy Conversion Devices of Troy, MI
>>>that give a GM Impact a range of over 200 miles, recharge to 60% in
>>>15 minutes, are fully recyclable and last 100,000 miles.
>While Mr Ward is to be commended for putting a disclaimer on his
>original post, and asking for comments, Will has frantically clutched
>this straw.
Mr. Hamilton has mentioned he would no longer comment on the subject,
but can't seem to resist ad hominem attacks. I believe the corporate
entities with which Mr. Hamilton is associated are the ones who are
frantically clutching for straws. Certainly there is no threat to New
Zealand motoring zealots by a California law, if indeed Mr. Hamilton is
posting as a New Zealander.
Cheers,
Will Stewart
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries Breakthrough
Date: 1995/09/09
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.577.30514DCA@irl.cri.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109809697
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism,sci.energy,sci.environment
In article <42qns9$n...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>In <...> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:
...
>>While Mr Ward is to be commended for putting a disclaimer on his
>>original post, and asking for comments, Will has frantically clutched
>>this straw.
...
>Mr. Hamilton has mentioned he would no longer comment on the subject,
>but can't seem to resist ad hominem attacks.
...
The problem is that I don't like opinions masquarading as facts,
and you appear to be particularly obdurate. You were the person
who took a post discussing a battery that is not exceptional and
hyping it up with the title " breakthrough " - if you had read some
of the suggested references, you would have realised that.
You have been referred to publications that would help you
understand the technology and obtain the facts, but you still
persist in making claims without supporting evidence, and
then demanding references from others who challenge you.
> I believe the corporate entities with which Mr. Hamilton is
> associated are the ones who are frantically clutching for straws.
Even the most rudimentary search of the WWW
http://www.irl.cri.nz/company/irlintro.html
would have found that my employer ( Industrial Research Limited )
is not associated with any corporate entity - yet another example
of your ability to present assertion as fact.
Bruce Hamilton
From: j...@news.cldc.howard.edu (Joshua B. Halpern)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/10
Message-ID: <42to0t$j5g@sulu.cldc.howard.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109925344
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
followup-to: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
organization: Howard University, Computer Learning & Design Center
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
Bruce Hamilton (B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz) wrote:
: In article <42nmm4$1...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
: >In <...> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:
: >>In article <...>will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
Massive Snip of discussion on Regenerative Braking
: Well, if you had actually been reading some of the literature you
: would realise that the current reliance of the US electricity supply
: utilities on fossil fuels means that EVs will probably not reduce all
: pollutants and, in fact, may increase several toxins - including
: sulfur oxides.
: An Electric Power Research Institute report compared an existing ICV
: with an EV using power from stations with existing controls and power
: with the new, stricter standards for utility emissions.
: ICV TEVan TEVan
: (1992) (1992) (1995)
: CO2 g/km 410 190 200
: SO2 g/km 0.15 1.8 0.5
: NOx g/km 1.1 0.75 0.17
: VOCs g/km 0.63 0.006 0.006
: CO g/km 6.2 0.031 0.031
:
: Few of the studies allow for the fact that the ICV is also improving..
: As I've said before, there are studies available to match any agenda.
: Bruce Hamilton
Well, as far as I can see the TEVan cycle is far superior on everything
_except_ SO2. I assume this is because many power stations burn coal,
and the TEVan statistics reflect the current mix of power stations.
This raises the interesting question: What if we raised the % of power
generated by nuclear stations to that of France? What's more, how
much of the recution in CO2, NOx, VOCx and CO is due to the current
% of power generated in nuclear stations, and how much is due to
superior scrubbers in large central stations?
Regards
Josh Halpern
From: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/11
Message-ID: <DEr5K0.HvH@midway.uchicago.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 109925424
sender: ne...@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
x-nntp-posting-host: cars3.uchicago.edu
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637
reply-to: me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
In article <42to0t$j...@sulu.cldc.howard.edu>, j...@news.cldc.howard.edu
(Joshua B. Halpern) writes:
>Bruce Hamilton (B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz) wrote:
>: In article <42nmm4$1...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
>: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>
>: >In <...> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:
>: >>In article <...>will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
>Massive Snip of discussion on Regenerative Braking
>: Well, if you had actually been reading some of the literature you
>: would realise that the current reliance of the US electricity supply
>: utilities on fossil fuels means that EVs will probably not reduce all
>: pollutants and, in fact, may increase several toxins - including
>: sulfur oxides.
>
>: An Electric Power Research Institute report compared an existing ICV
>: with an EV using power from stations with existing controls and power
>: with the new, stricter standards for utility emissions.
>: ICV TEVan TEVan
>: (1992) (1992) (1995)
>: CO2 g/km 410 190 200
>: SO2 g/km 0.15 1.8 0.5
>: NOx g/km 1.1 0.75 0.17
>: VOCs g/km 0.63 0.006 0.006
>: CO g/km 6.2 0.031 0.031
>:
>: Few of the studies allow for the fact that the ICV is also improving..
>: As I've said before, there are studies available to match any agenda.
>: Bruce Hamilton
>
>
>Well, as far as I can see the TEVan cycle is far superior on everything
>_except_ SO2. I assume this is because many power stations burn coal,
>and the TEVan statistics reflect the current mix of power stations.
>
>This raises the interesting question: What if we raised the % of power
>generated by nuclear stations to that of France? What's more, how
>much of the recution in CO2, NOx, VOCx and CO is due to the current
>% of power generated in nuclear stations, and how much is due to
>superior scrubbers in large central stations?
>
>Regards
>Josh Halpern
>
I don't know the exact answer to your question but I'm sure that the
amount of CO2 is basically scrubber independent. Unlike the other
stuff mentioned above, CO2 is a one of the main products, not a
byproduct of the reactions and is generated by any big power station
in million tons per year quantity. It also cannot be converted to
other gaseous product.
As for the numbers above, my feeling is that they are squewed. While
it is true that utility plants burn fuel at higher efficiency than
cars, the current has to be transmitted, converted to low voltage DC
(for charging) flown through the battery in order to charge it and at
the end converted back to mechanical work. Assuming 90% efficiency at
each stage (highly optimistic), an initial power generating efficiency of 40%
results in overall efficiency of 26%, quite comparable to a decent
modern ICE. And, that's an important point, utilities burn either
heavy oil (higher carbon to hydrogen ratio) or coal (carbon), meaning
that in comparicon to cars a bigger fraction of their power is
generated by burning carbon. This means that they produce more CO2
per kWh then ICEs.
Based on this, I think that the numbers above were arrived at using
ICVs and TEVs with vastly different power rating. Either this or they
were made for a country which, unlike the US, generates a big part of
its power using nuclear plants.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Batteries?
Date: 1995/09/12
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.581.3055CE44@irl.cri.nz>
X-Deja-AN: 110003528
references: <417g5c$23t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<B.Hamilton.566.3048BDB8@irl.cri.nz> <DEAzI3.G52@midway.uchicago.edu>
<42cjhb$kfk@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <vanjacDEHrE1.Jpu@netcom.com>
<ssmith.575.0048BAB7@paltech.com> <42l00s$d4r@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism,sci.physics
Will can berate me for returning to this thread, but I'll just add to the
reference information :-).
In article <...> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <...>, j...@news.cldc.howard.edu (Joshua B. Halpern) writes:
>>Bruce Hamilton (B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz) wrote:
>>Massive Snip of discussion on Regenerative Braking
>>: Well, if you had actually been reading some of the literature you
>>: would realise that the current reliance of the US electricity supply
>>: utilities on fossil fuels means that EVs will probably not reduce all
>>: pollutants and, in fact, may increase several toxins - including
>>: sulfur oxides.
>>
>>: An Electric Power Research Institute report compared an existing ICV
>>: with an EV using power from stations with existing controls and power
>>: with the new, stricter standards for utility emissions.
>>: ICV TEVan TEVan
>>: (1992) (1992) (1995)
>>: CO2 g/km 410 190 200
>>: SO2 g/km 0.15 1.8 0.5
>>: NOx g/km 1.1 0.75 0.17
>>: VOCs g/km 0.63 0.006 0.006
>>: CO g/km 6.2 0.031 0.031
>>:
>>: Few of the studies allow for the fact that the ICV is also improving..
>>: As I've said before, there are studies available to match any agenda.
>>Well, as far as I can see the TEVan cycle is far superior on everything
>>_except_ SO2. I assume this is because many power stations burn coal,
>>and the TEVan statistics reflect the current mix of power stations.
Firstly. I justr cited this study because I had previously mentioned the
refrence. There are many other studies that arrive at different conclusions,
including some using fuel cells ( The clean machine R.H.Williams
Technology Review April 1994 p21-30 ). Using gasoline as 100% for
Greenhouse gas emissions, they arrived at
Battery EV = 55%
Fuel Cell Vehicle using MeOH from natural gas = 40%
Fuel Cell Vehicle using Hydrogen from natural gas = 33%
Fuel Cell Vehicle using MeOH from biomass = 7%
Fuel Cell Vehicle using hydrogen from biomass = 10%
The US EPA issued a report that claimed that EVs would fail to
achieve zero emissions " because the electric utilities that would
charge EV batteries emit as many harmful pollutants as the internal
combustion vehicles that EVs would replace " ( EPA acknowledges
flaws in anti-EV report IEEE Spectrum September 1994 p.14 )
The report was apparently withdrawn after vociferous criticism
from Edison Electric Institute, EPRI ( source of earlier report I
quoted ) and the Electric Transport Coalition.
There are several studies available, and ones often quoted are
"Achieving Acceptable Air Quality: some reflections on Controlling
Vehicle Emissions " J.G.Calvert et al Science v.261 p37-45.
good summary of options for ICVs
"Emission Impacts of Electric Vehicles" Q.Wang, M.A.DeLuchi, D.Sperling
J.Air Waste Manage.Assn. v.40 p.1275-1284 (1990)
They projected out to 1995 and 2010 and predicted that CO and HC would
reduce, NOx would decrease under most conditions, and SOx and
particulates may increase or decrease.
" Use market forces to reduce auto pollutiuon" W.Harrington et al
Chemtech May 1995 p.55-60
They cite the following cost ( $ /ton of VOCs reduced )
Fix the car ( alternative fuel vehicles )
Methanol 30,000 - 60,000
CNG 12,000 - 22,000
Electric 21,000 - 108,000
Fix the fuel ( reformulated gasoline )
Federal standards 1,900 - 3,900
California standards 4,100 - 5,100
Fix the driver ( inspection and maintenance )
Enhanced EPA plan 4,500 - 6,000
Remote sensing 2,600 - 6,000
Hybrid ( EPA/RS ) 4,000 - 6,000
Economic Incentives
Accelerated vehicle scrappage 4,000 - 6,000
Gasoline tax increase 4,500
Congestion tolls on road Free ( footnote discusses )
Parking Cashout Free
Emissions-based registration fees 1,700
>>This raises the interesting question: What if we raised the % of power
>>generated by nuclear stations to that of France? What's more, how
>>much of the recution in CO2, NOx, VOCx and CO is due to the current
>>% of power generated in nuclear stations, and how much is due to
>>superior scrubbers in large central stations?
>I don't know the exact answer to your question but I'm sure that the
>amount of CO2 is basically scrubber independent. Unlike the other
>stuff mentioned above, CO2 is a one of the main products, not a
>byproduct of the reactions and is generated by any big power station
>in million tons per year quantity. It also cannot be converted to
>other gaseous product.
In fact there have been several studies looking at the economics of
removing CO2 from power station flue gases, because it is present
in such large amounts it is possible to capture it and sequester it,
and there already exists well-known technologies for scrubbing
CO2 ( usually from "clean fuels" like natural gas to avoid having to
remove toxic metals and compounds from coal-fired sources ),
and some commercial CO2 is produced this way. An excellent
techical discussion of options for power stations is in
"Results and full fuel cycle study plans from the IEA greenhouse
gas research and development programme" P.W.F.Riemer et al
Fuel v.73 p.1151-1158 ( 1994) which looked at membranes, MEA
absortion, crygenics, Selexol, CO2/O2 recycle and other options.
The emission rates ( gCO2/KWh)
Base Case 794
+ membrane 232
+ membrane and MEA 193
+ absorption (MEA) 199
+ cyrogenics 210
+ adsorption PSA 61
+ adsorption TSA 332
high/low shift + selexol 170
+CO2/O2 recycle 28
They give power, avoided CO2, and recovered CO2 costs for each option
There are other paper as well eg
CO2 mitigation - measures and options N Nakicenovic
ES&T v.27 p1986-1989 (1993)
>Based on this, I think that the numbers above were arrived at using
>ICVs and TEVs with vastly different power rating. Either this or they
>were made for a country which, unlike the US, generates a big part of
>its power using nuclear plants.
No. they were based on the TEVan and the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth
Voyager, both of which have the same body and chassis as the TEVan.
As I've said before there are studies available that show a whole range of
available conclusions. Curious readers should try to obtain the
7 August 1995 Chemistry and Industry (UK) which as a series of articles
on alternatives including "towards electric vehicles" D. Sperling p.609-612.
He gives the Greenhouse gas impacts as
EVs, solar and nuclear energy -90 to -80% change
EVs, natural gas powerplant -50 to -25
EVs, current US power mix -20 to 0
Gasoline -
EVs, new coal-fired powerplant 0 - +10.
There are articles on hybrids, CNG, catalysts etc.
As a note Honda has had their Accord ULEV ( VTEC) 2.2 engine
approved as complying with the California ULEV regulations, and
expects to have it in the market by 1997 - two years before the
law requires them. Honda claims virtually identical power and
torque to the current 2.2 engine. ICVs are a moving target.
Bruce Hamilton
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Lead Emissions per Carnegie/Mellon
(Re: Electric Vehicles: Efforts to Complete Advanced Battery *)
Date: 1995/10/14
Message-ID: <45o4pu$m19@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
X-Deja-AN: 117541977
references: <44ah58$ldt@crl2.crl.com>
<1995Oct3.161013.18599@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>
<44s967$hmo@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <stafford.171.000929D7@hc.ti.com>
<45j4d9INN3sg@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <45lrqt$n4s@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
<45nbpm$rk6@zephyr.grace.cri.nz>
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Sat Oct 14 3:52:46 AM PDT 1995
newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,
misc.transport.urban-transit,rec.autos.tech
Readers, I have included a summary of the material I referenced
earlier.
In <45nbpm$r...@zephyr.grace.cri.nz> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
Hamilton) writes:
>This post gives me a sad sense of deja vu.
>It appears Will Stewart is obdurate, and I'm
>fortunately not responsible for teaching him.
In other words, what Bruce believes should be taken as Gospel, and I
should not post anything that presumes otherwise.
[Carnegie Mellon study concerning the amount of lead emitted in the
production of batteries]
>This report was discussed in sci.energy in early September, and
>Will made the same claims then...
Since you want to discuss this further, I will provide a summary of the
overall points from http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hottopic.html ;
1. The study is inaccurate and sloppy. In their haste to
discredit the EV movement, the authors have published a seriously
flawed document, containing errors that would shame a high school
engineering student.
2. The study was done with an axe to grind. Far from being an
unbiased independent investigation, it was commissioned and
carried out to mislead the public and dishearten the proponents
of EVs.
3. Publicly available information shows that the study
recieved petroleum and auto industry money.
(More specifically;)
a. It overstates the battery mass of an "Available
Technology" EV by a factor of three. The authors assume a
battery mass of 1378 kg (3,032 lb), ignoring the fact that the
entire weight of the GM Impact, including batteries, is 1350 kg
(2970 lb). Even the 17-year old EVT-1 has a total weight of only
1509 kg (3320 lbs).
Impact's battery pack (derived from the
capacity times energy density) is approximately 420 kg or 925 lb
b. It is wrong about the energy density of lead-acid
batteries. By confusing kilograms with pounds, the authors
mistakenly state that the value is 18 watt-hrs/kg. The correct
value is 40 wh/kg or 18.18 wh/lb.
c. It is wrong about the energy capacity of the Impact's
battery pack, deriving a capacity figure of 25kWh from the
incorrect battery mass times the incorrect energy density. The
Impact's battery pack is 16.8 kWhr.
d. It overstates the car's energy consumption as 310 wh/km
when the figure is closer to 100 whr/kg. If one takes the car's
average range of 80 km times x 310 whr/km, energy required would
be 24.8 kWh, greater than the capacity of the battery pack!
e. It uses data from the ETV-1, a 17-year old test vehicle
as an example of current technology. EV technology has moved far
beyond the ETV-1. As Goldstein states, "it is rather like
comparing a Model T Ford with a Chevrolet Corvette." ETV-1
aceleration performance was 0-30 mph in 9 seconds; Impact does
0-60 in 8.5.
f. It underestimates battery cycle life, using the 450 cycle
value from the 17 year-old ETV-1, ignoring the 500-600 cycle
lifetime of today's sealed lead-acids and the 900 cycle life of
the new Electrosource Horizon. Goldstein points out that "this
factor alone would cut the calculated lead "emissions" by half."
Bias:
The authors seize upon factors that support their conclusion
and ignore those that don't. Clearly the conclusion was written
first and the data twisted to validate it. For example:
The authors use their own estimate of environmental lead
discharges, based on a Bureau of Mines study that happened before
environmental regulations were implemented. They use guesses to
make an estimate of current discharges instead of attempting to
obtain exact data. To quote Goldstein, "In view of the the
authors' careless mistakes throughout the study, one can hardly
view these guestimates with any degree of credibility."
"Even if we accept the authors highly questionable
percentages," says Goldstein, "the worst-case senario for
lead-based waste products would be no more than approximately 3
times (not "60 times") the amount of lead released from leaded
gasoline. However, most of this material would be in a
locally-controlled solid waste form - not the air emissions
associated with gasoline."
He then points out that it will take two decades for EVs
to reach 5 % of the total US vehicle population. Within 5 years
these EVs will use advanced battery technologies that offer
increased range and greater environmental advantages over ICEs.
Accordding to Goldstein, the study also:
Ignores the study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a
group with the highest reputation and responsibility. UCS found
that introducing EVs in northern states would reduces CO
emissions by 99.8 percent, VOCs by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent
and C02 by 60 percent. UCS also determined that EVs were
significantly cleaner than the even the proposed ULEV gasoline
vehicles.
Ignores the presence of hundreds of millions of automotive
lead batteries already IN the environment. Compared to that, the
number of EV batteries will be a negligible addition.
Furthermore, despite the increase in vehicle population, CDC data
show that blood lead levels in the US are declining.
Ignores the percentage of lead recycled in battery
manufacturing (97 percent for flooded lead-acids).
Ignores the changes in manufacturing facilites for sealed
lead acids (cleanroom versus factory floor)
Does not consider the environmental effect of displacing 10
million ICE cars with EVs over the next two decades.
Ignores the damage done by toxic oil spills in rivers, lakes
and oceans.
Does not discriminate between airborne lead emissions and
solid waste slag, which can be easily controlled at the origin
point.
Ignores sources of lead such as the heavy accumulation of old
paint on bridges (EPA cites this as a major source) and flaking
paint on old houses.
There are other points in addition to Goldstein's. Metallic
lead enters the environment through various paths. Lead sources
include:
Lead weights for tire and wheel balancing. How many tons of
these get thrown to the side of the road each year?
Lead shot and lead sinkers used by hunters and fishermen.
These are a significant enough source that some states have
outlawed their use.
Batteries in industrial trucks and golf carts, which
presently outnumber road-going EVs and will continue to do so for
decades.
Small disposable batteries from consumer electronics, toys,
etc. How many AA, C and D cells end up in landfill?
Although metallic lead is fairly inert, interaction with
acids or oxidizing agents turns it into water soluble toxic
compounds. This is the process called leaching. Lead ingested
by or shot into an organism encounters strong organic acids that
transform it. Birds will eat fine lead shot. The pH of their
stomachs is 1-2. The toxin kills the bird and is released to do
more damage when the carcass decays. Acid rain works more slowly
(but in much larger quantities) on discarded lead weights.
Other interesting points:
Lester Lave is a professor of economics. What is an economics
professor doing conducting research in an area way out of his
expertise? The evaluation of EVs and batteries demands a highly
specific and technical background. There are lists of qualified
individuals who could have performed this study. Lave is not
on them. How then did he get $450K to do research that he was
unqualified to undertake?
Lave is also assocated with a right-wing think-tank. As a
consultant, he has gained a reputation for being adamantly
anti-EV.
Parrell, the writer that did the NYT piece, is also and
economist and of the same persuasion as Lave.
>While there are apparently errors in the study ( remember that when
>I first posted the reference I made no comment on its accuracy, just
>that it was one reference )
An understatement, Bruce, and certainly not a position you held
earlier.
The oil industry is fighting this tooth and nail; don't expect a
frontal assault, but more of a rumor-mongering campaign; and they are
*well* financed.
Cheers,
Will Stewart
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Lead Emissions per Carnegie/Mellon
(Re: Electric Vehicles: Efforts to Complete Advanced Battery *)
Date: 1995/10/15
Message-ID: <B.Hamilton.581.30805C92@irl.cri.nz>
X-Deja-AN: 117542037
references: <44ah58$ldt@crl2.crl.com>
<1995Oct3.161013.18599@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>
<44s967$hmo@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <stafford.171.000929D7@hc.ti.com>
<45j4d9INN3sg@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <45lrqt$n4s@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
<45nbpm$rk6@zephyr.grace.cri.nz>
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,
misc.transport.urban-transit,rec.autos.tech
Seeing Will once again wants to spread this throughout
the groups, rather than just sci.energy, here are a couple
of questions for him...
In article <45o4pu$m...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
...
>[Carnegie Mellon study concerning the amount of lead emitted in the
>production of batteries]
Will carefully deleted the following...
[ this extract from what I wrote yesterday is indented ]
>will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) wrote:
>>In <...> fis...@ivy.dt.navy.mil (Steven Fisher) writes:
>>>Earlier this year, there was an article in Science about EVs.
....
Note - this article was in Science.
>>This draft report by Carnegie Mellon has been thoroughly discredited.
>>No final paper with the same conclusion has been forthcoming, due to
>>the numerous errors, false assumption, and poor data collection on the
>>part of the writers (2 out of the 3 were economists).
>No. It appears you have not even read the article in the Policy Forum
>section of Science. The specific relevent details were
>" Environmental Implications of Electric Cars "
>L.B.Lave, C.T.Hendricksen, F.C.McMichael
>Science v.268 p.993-995 (1995)
>The footnote states " L.B.Lave is Higgins Professor of Economics and
>University Professor, Graduate School of Indistrial Administration,
>Carnegie Mellon University... C.T.Hendrickson is Professor and
>Associate Dean of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University...
>F.C.McMichael is Blenco Professor of Environmental Engineering,
>Carneque Mellon University"
>It's not the draft paper - it is in the "Policy Forum" section.
>>I'm still waiting to see the final report. The reason you won't see it
>>is because the academic community there would become laughing stocks.
>>And by the way, two of the three writers were *economists*, not
>>engineers or material scientists.
>So?, please specify which two. Their current positions listed above
>don't make that clear, and their current positions all appear relevent
>to the article. I doubt they are worried about become "laughing stocks
>of the academic community - they might regret writing on a subject
>area filled with zealots though...
So I repeat my question. Which two? - as the positions they hold
seen to be relevant to the subject.
Now about the Website....
>[begin website quote]
> In the Carnegie Mellon study, much of the technical information
> on GM's Impact in incorrect. For example: the study states that
> the Impact's battery pack weighs 3,032 pounds--it weighs 1,150 pounds
>-the entire vehicle weighs less than 3,032 pounds; ...
> ....
> It is wrong about the energy capacity of the Impact's
> battery pack, deriving a capacity figure of 25kWh from the
> incorrect battery mass times the incorrect energy density. The
> Impact's battery pack is 16.8 kWhr.
>[end website quote]
>The Science article states (p.994) "As one comparison, a General
>Motors 1994 Test vehicle, the Impact, has a battery weight of 500kg
>and an energy supply of 16.8 kWh...."
[ End of extract from my post ]
Given that I've quoted directly from the Science article, why do
you keep reposting this misinformation. The topic for discussion
has been, and still is, the Science article. You compound this
but repeating this misinformation *yet again* below, when any
reader can go to a Library and examine the relevant issue of
Science to ascertion who is telling the truth.
> a. It overstates the battery mass of an "Available
>Technology" EV by a factor of three. The authors assume a
>battery mass of 1378 kg (3,032 lb), ignoring the fact that the
>entire weight of the GM Impact, including batteries, is 1350 kg
>(2970 lb).
...
> c. It is wrong about the energy capacity of the Impact's
>battery pack, deriving a capacity figure of 25kWh from the
>incorrect battery mass times the incorrect energy density. The
>Impact's battery pack is 16.8 kWhr.
...
>>While there are apparently errors in the study ( remember that when
>>I first posted the reference I made no comment on its accuracy, just
>>that it was one reference )
>An understatement, Bruce, and certainly not a position you held
>earlier.
Sorry Will, That was a direct quote from my 2/9/95 post, as
the subsequent [ end of earlier post ] marker indicates...
It was in the original post, I've not moved much at all :-)
Bruce Hamilton
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Lead Emissions per Carnegie/Mellon
(Re: Electric Vehicles: Efforts to Complete Advanced Battery *)
Date: 1995/10/16
Message-ID: <45u53v$ftn@zephyr.grace.cri.nz>
X-Deja-AN: 117615239
references: <44ah58$ldt@crl2.crl.com>
<1995Oct3.161013.18599@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>
<44s967$hmo@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <stafford.171.000929D7@hc.ti.com>
<45j4d9INN3sg@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <45lrqt$n4s@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
<45nbpm$rk6@zephyr.grace.cri.nz> <B.Hamilton.581.30805C92@irl.cri.nz>
followup-to: sci.energy
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,misc.transport.urban-transit,
rec.autos.tech
Apologies for following my own post. I've been reminded
that I omitted to reference the published criticisms, and the
response from the study's authors. These were discussed
in sci.energy in August, but I forgot the widespread
cross posting of this thread. Once again followups set
to sci.energy.
B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
> >" Environmental Implications of Electric Cars "
> >L.B.Lave, C.T.Hendricksen, F.C.McMichael
> >Science v.268 p.993-995 (1995)
> >The footnote states " L.B.Lave is Higgins Professor of Economics and
> >University Professor, Graduate School of Indistrial Administration,
> >Carnegie Mellon University... C.T.Hendrickson is Professor and
> >Associate Dean of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University...
> >F.C.McMichael is Blenco Professor of Environmental Engineering,
> >Carneque Mellon University"
> >It's not the draft paper - it is in the "Policy Forum" section.
The editors of Science noted " An unusual number of letters were
received about the 19 May Policy Forum. Most criticised the thesis
of Lave et al...." These letters and the response from Lave et al
are on pages 741- 745 of the 11 August 1995 Science.
Interesting letter writers include
David Allen ( Uni California ) who points out that the study is
oversimplied, and that further work is needed before the issue of
lead waste from EVs is decided ( he notes that 80% of the lead
waste sent to hazardous waste incinerators comes from battery
cases from two secondary smelters ).
Robert C.Stempel and Stanford R.Ovshinsky
( Energy Conversion Devices )
They use the opportunity to promote their Ovonic battery.
( This engenered an interesting thread in sci.energy on the
track record of Ovonic to deliver )
Clark W Gellings and Stephen C. Peck ( EPRI )
- consider the reported battery density is an "apparent error"
and the analysis does not appropriately support its conclusions.
Roland J. Hwang ( Union of Concerned Scientists )
- notes "we have serious reservations about the accuracy and
completeness of Lave et al.'s study "
Daniel Sperling ( Uni California )
- notes lead acid batteries will soon be superceded
The above were responded to by Lave et al, some major points;-
- they were astonished at " the level of attention, venom, and
desire to defend EV's"
- they note that environmental problems are complicated; the
obvious solutions often turn out to be much less beneficial than
firts appearances suggest.
- they examined technologies available for 1998 vehicles, not
proposed or hoped-for technologies.
- they examined total environmental discharges of lead, not
just air emissions.
- they did not produce a "worst-case scenario" eg they omitted
the 5-7% nonrecycled lead-acid batteries, if they had included
that rate their estmated emissions would double.
- they note that the ovonic nickel batteries are hazardous waste
in Canada, and nickel is carcingenic.
- they claim that their low battery energy density range is what
is currently available, and that their upper range is not yet
available.
- they also corrected a couple of the calculations of letter writers.
Their final comments include
" the 1998 mandate means that automobile and battery manufacturers
must spend hundreds of millions of $ on current battery technology:
lead-acid, nickel-cadmium, and nickel-metal-hydride. These batteries
would require up to 1000 pounds of toxic metals in each EV. Heroic
efforts would be required to smelt and recycle these metals without
significant environmental discharges. Forcing lead-acid or other
available technology ( and the associated recharging infrastructure )
is not attractive compared to pushing advanced technologies such as
fuel cells. Research and development should focus on promising
technologies that do not require the processing of large quantities of
toxic materials".
My comments:
I'm surprised at the continual comparisons with leaded gasoline
emissions made by some of the writers, given that lead has
virtually been eliminated. It should be remembered that Lave et
al were examining the environmental effects induced by forcing
EVs in 1998 - they exhibit no anti-EV bias, just anti-heavy and toxic
metals in the environment. These letters and the response from
Lave are all quite moderate. Lave et al obviously believe their
study is OK, they conceded little. As I indicated the first time
around, I believe there are errors, and even in their response they
use " up to 1000 lbs of toxic metals in each EV ", whereas such
numbers will depend on the batteries used. The issue is more about
the ability to produce and completely recycle EV batteries with less
pollution than ICVs, rather than the mass being carried around. Low
pollution recycling of batteries should be designed in at the start,
but in the race to lighten batteries, is seldom considered until large
scale manufacturing is being contemplated. It's all very well to point
to the obvious failing of the ICV ( which is slowly being cleaned
up - but which may never reach "clean-enough" as a sole primary
engine with stepped gearing ), but consideration has to be
given to the environmental consequences of the alternatives.
Just because the lead doesn't obviously appear out the tailpipe
doesn't mean that it doesn't create environmental problems....
Once again, I consider the failure of the WWW site to accurately
reflect what has been published as indicative of it's bias.
As I've recommended earlier, there are several good technical
studies of the batteries proposed for EVs, including
"Advanced Batteries for Electric Vehicles"
G.L.Henriken, W.H.DeLuca, and D.R.Vissers
Chemtech November 1994 p.32-38.
-- reports results of life and operational tests for
a diverse range of batteries
"Energizing the Batteries for Electric Cars"
L.O'Conner
Mechanical Engineering July 1993 p.73-75.
-discusses some of the technologies, especially
Ovonic, and the technical hurdles remaining...
" Electric Vehicles "
Various authors
IEEE Spectrum November 1992 p.18-24,93-101
- several good articles discussing gains and problems yet
to be solved.
" Hybrids"
various authors
IEEE Spectrum July 1995 p16-31
- discusses their advages over pure IC and EV.
for those with access to Australian publications, try
"Candidate batteries for road electric vehicles"
D.Rand
SAE-Australasia May/June 1993 p.38-49
- good technical discussion of most of the candidates.
For a good overview of the current situation try,
" Towards electric vehicles"
Daniel Sperling
Chemistry & Industry (UK) 7 August 1995 p.609-612
-this details where he ( one of the long-term technical
proponents of alternative transportation ) envisages
the EV will sucessfully compete with the ICV. He offers
some results of studies to show what market segment
is likely to purchase EVs ( already have 2 cars, buy new,
have a garage, do not travel long distances - represent
40% of new car sales )
Bruce Hamilton
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Lead Emissions per Carnegie/Mellon
Date: 1995/10/16
Message-ID: <45u8qs$ej3@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 117640515
references: <44ah58$ldt@crl2.crl.com>
<1995Oct3.161013.18599@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>
<44s967$hmo@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <stafford.171.000929D7@hc.ti.com>
<45j4d9INN3sg@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <45lrqt$n4s@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
<45nbpm$rk6@zephyr.grace.cri.nz> <B.Hamilton.581.30805C92@irl.cri.nz>
<45u53v$ftn@zephyr.grace.cri.nz>
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Mon Oct 16 11:38:20 AM PDT 1995
newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,misc.transport.urban-transit
Bruce Hamilton continues in his strident defense of the disreputed
Carnegie/Mellon Lead Study authors, by following his own posts. He has
yet to address all but one of the points that I posted.
In <45u53v$f...@zephyr.grace.cri.nz> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
Hamilton) writes:
>I'm surprised at the continual comparisons with leaded gasoline
>emissions made by some of the writers, given that lead has
>virtually been eliminated.
The authors of the Carnegie/Mellon report originated this comparison.
>It should be remembered that Lave et
>al were examining the environmental effects induced by forcing
>EVs in 1998 - they exhibit no anti-EV bias, just anti-heavy and toxic
>metals in the environment.
By citing the worst possible case scenario in just the lead emissions
in mining alone (1940's technology), it is clear that the authors
indeed exhibited an anti-EV bias. The exclusion of almost all benefits
of EV operation cements that perception. You have not addressed all of
the points I posted that show an over-emphasis on trumped-up data and
an absence of mitigating activities and technologies. Interesting use
of the word "forcing" to describe a legislative action.
>These letters and the response from
>Lave are all quite moderate.
You sound like a professional spin-doctor. You yourself said "they
were astonished at ' the level of attention, venom, and
desire to defend EV's'". Nothing I have seen rates that sort of
response. Of course, they find nothing wrong with their report, though
they have not chosen to defend their data/calculation.
>Lave et al obviously believe their study is OK, they conceded little.
I choose to follow the best minds in the industry (Electrical Power
Research Institute, Union of Concerned Scientist, etc), than a report
funded by oil companies, a group with the greatest amount of financial
loss risk if EVs gain a foothold.
>As I indicated the first time
>around, I believe there are errors, and even in their response they
>use " up to 1000 lbs of toxic metals in each EV ", whereas such
>numbers will depend on the batteries used.
What do you believe their errors are?
>The issue is more about
>the ability to produce and completely recycle EV batteries with less
>pollution than ICVs, rather than the mass being carried around.
Then why ignore all other pollution except lead? Don't forget that the
lead emissions from ore refining is contained in inert slag and does
not become airborne particulate.
>Low
>pollution recycling of batteries should be designed in at the start,
>but in the race to lighten batteries, is seldom considered until large
>scale manufacturing is being contemplated. It's all very well to point
>to the obvious failing of the ICV ( which is slowly being cleaned
>up - but which may never reach "clean-enough" as a sole primary
>engine with stepped gearing ), but consideration has to be
>given to the environmental consequences of the alternatives.
Agreed.
>Just because the lead doesn't obviously appear out the tailpipe
>doesn't mean that it doesn't create environmental problems....
Let's not forget the other pollutants in a consideration of
environmental consequences of the alternatives.
>Once again, I consider the failure of the WWW site to accurately
>reflect what has been published as indicative of it's bias.
For those of you who have come in late, the WWW site is;
http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard.html
This is the site of Ecoelectric, a converter of ICEV into EVs. They do
not hide their connection to the EV field. And they receive no funding
from oil companies.
I'd say that the Carnegie/Mellon authors' refusal to admit their many
errors and false assumption indicative of their bias.
Cheers,
Will Stewart
From: B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Lead Emissions per Carnegie/Mellon
Date: 1995/10/17
Message-ID: <460mh4$hs@zephyr.grace.cri.nz>
X-Deja-AN: 117689143
references: <44ah58$ldt@crl2.crl.com>
<1995Oct3.161013.18599@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>
<44s967$hmo@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <stafford.171.000929D7@hc.ti.com>
<45j4d9INN3sg@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <45lrqt$n4s@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
<45nbpm$rk6@zephyr.grace.cri.nz> <B.Hamilton.581.30805C92@irl.cri.nz>
<45u53v$ftn@zephyr.grace.cri.nz> <45u8qs$ej3@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
followup-to: sci.energy
organization: Industrial Research Limited
newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,misc.transport.urban-transit
Whew, finally down to just three groups :-)
Followups set to sci.energy
will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) wrote:
>Bruce Hamilton continues in his strident defense of the disreputed
>Carnegie/Mellon Lead Study authors, by following his own posts. He has
>yet to address all but one of the points that I posted.
Boring. Several were addressed first time around.
>In <45u53v$f...@zephyr.grace.cri.nz> B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
>Hamilton) writes:
...
>>These letters and the response from
>>Lave are all quite moderate.
>You sound like a professional spin-doctor. You yourself said "they
>were astonished at ' the level of attention, venom, and
>desire to defend EV's'". Nothing I have seen rates that sort of
>response. Of course, they find nothing wrong with their report, though
>they have not chosen to defend their data/calculation.
1. Science presumably chose the letters it wanted to publish, and
asked Lave et al to respond to them. They may well have also been
given the unpublished ones to respond privately to as well...
The letters in Science were all quite moderate...
2. Strangely enough, I would consider their detailed response
( with references ) as defending their data and calculations,
but others may differ.....
>I choose to follow the best minds in the industry (Electrical Power
>Research Institute, Union of Concerned Scientist, etc), than a report
>funded by oil companies, a group with the greatest amount of financial
>loss risk if EVs gain a foothold.
We went over this the first time. From my earlier post...
[ begin quote from earlier Bruce/Will Dialogue )
>>There are also articles
>>allegedly demonstrating a link between oil and auto industries and
>>the funding of the Carnegie Mellon study.
>Are you denying the link? Can you provide evidence that will
>falsify the information provided?
What information? Oh, you mean.
[begin quote from Will's WWW reference]
6/11/95 - Carnegie Mellon Study Ties to Oil Industry Revealed
Four major oil companies have been found to be "industrial partners"
of the Carnegie Mellon-based organization that produced the
now-infamous EV lead hazard study. The following information was
provided by Clare Bell, editor of the Electric Auto Association's
magazine, Current EVents:
In the Science Magazine article on the Carnegie Mellon study,
footnote 19 acknowledges two research grants that funded the study.
These include National Science Foundation grant EEC-8943164, from
the Green Design Consortium of the Carnegie-Mellon University
Engineering Design Research Center, for $13,571,655 and NSF grant
9319731, for $450,000.
Information available to the public from Carnegie Mellon University
describes the purpose of their Engineering Design Resarch Center:
"The goal of the Engineering Design Research Center (ERDC) at
Carnegie Mellon University is to provide the research and
educational base for the development and integration of design
methodologies that will make US industry preeminent in design
practice."
The Green Design Consortium of the ERDC "is open to industrial
partners interested in participating and guiding consortium
projects." Benefits of membership, which costs $10-20K yearly,
include:
- The opportunity to provide input on research direction and suggest
specific research programs and
- Access to: Carnegie Mellon University laboratories and
researchers,
Green Design research data, working papers, and government research
grants through cooperative university proposals.
An ERDC directory lists industry affiliates. Among them are BP
America, Exxon Research and Engineering, Mobil R and D, and Shell
Development.
The NSF grant 9319731 grant abstract discusses development of a
system to measure the environmental consequences of alternative
products or designs. It is to be implemented in the the design of
printers for a large computer company, but there is a statement
that says "The Ford Motor Company will work with us in transfering
the research results.....to quite a different setting."
Do we need any clearer indication of the origin and motivation
behind the now-infamous "Carnegie Mellon scientific study"?
[end quote]
Well, I suppose it depends on the standard and quality of evidence
that you want. The minor fact that the footnote of the Science
article said
" We thank IBM for a Product Design for the Environment research
grant, the Green Design Consortium of the Carnegie Mellion
University Engineering Design Research Centre (NSF grant
EEC-8943164) and Environmental Insitute, and NSF (grant
III-9319731). F.C.M is a 1994 AT&T Foundation Industrial Ecology
Faculty Fellow. "
inplies to me that maybe the NSF EEC grant of $13.57million did not
all go to these researchers, and they also had funding from IBM and
AT&T. But hey, I'm not going to waste time chasing details of US NSF
grants, but if they did front up with $14 million smackers, please
let me know, I'll do the same analysis for 20% of the cost.
Frankly the above doesn't demonstrate that either the oil or auto
industry were involved, after all, the vast majority of the money
came from the government. Why aren't the EV proponents pushing a
government conspiracy as well. Frankly if the US government gave
$14 million for the study, I want to become part of the US research
community.
[ End earlier quote ]
>Then why ignore all other pollution except lead? Don't forget that the
>lead emissions from ore refining is contained in inert slag and does
>not become airborne particulate.
They didn't ignore other pollution. They noted nickel-cadmium and
nickel-metal- hydride are " highly toxic and do not appear to offer
environmental advantages", and noted that " sodium-sulfur and
lithium-polymer technologies may eventually be attractive".
While the emissions are solid, they are not inert, they note that
lead ore is mined at depth, away from the water table, but that
smelter waste is often exposed to weathering. They estimate
4% primary, 2% secondary, and 1% manufacturing releases of
lead to the environment, compared to the 1988 Bureau of Mines
average over a 49 year period of 6.5%, 3.4%, and 1.1% respectively.
Several of the critics ignored nonair and offsite discharges, but one
of the writers also not that off-site incineration of battery cases
can result in substantial Pb emissions.
>I'd say that the Carnegie/Mellon authors' refusal to admit their many
>errors and false assumption indicative of their bias.
They reported their perception in the Policy Forum section of Science,
( 19 May 1995 p.993-995 ),they referenced their sources, and they
responded to critics (11 August 1995 p.741-745 ). I'm not going to
respond point-by-point to the claims at the WWW site - I haven't
time nor inclination, others can make up their own minds, all I've
done is provide references to articles that provide good technical
information. I've asked Will several times to identify which of the
authors have inappropriate qualifications for the "Environmental
Implications of Electric Cars" article - I'm still waiting...
The sad part of this vendetta is the failure of the EV proponents
to recognise that these authors are not anti-EV, they are anti-heavy
metal pollution. In attacking the messenger before reading the message
( Will - have you actually read the Science paper and the subsequent
correspondence? ) they do their cause few favours. I should note
that the original article in Science was part of a Policy Forum
devoted to vehicles, and alongside it was " On-Road Vehicle
Emissions: Regulations, Costs, and Benefits " - another controversial
article on a very controversial topic - whether current US laws do
cost-effectively target vehicle pollution, the EPA has stoutly
defended their stance, but this article from the major proponents of
remote sensing was another attack on the existing system, and it
also engendered debate in sci.energy and rec.autos.tech.
Bruce Hamilton
Article Unavailable