Xref: gmd.de sci.electronics:42109 rec.autos:57141 sci.energy:12250
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!panix!not-for-mail
From: f...@panix.com (Frank Deutschmann)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.autos,sci.energy
Subject: Efficiency of electric cars
Date: 7 Dec 1993 15:45:52 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 20
Message-ID: < 2e2q20$27s@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
All this discussion of electric cars has got me wondering:
Has anyone ever crunched the numbers and come up with an honest
comparison of efficiency for electric vehicles and gasoline-powered
vehicles? (I mean efficiency in terms of most miles per barrel of
crude oil, as reduced reliance on foreign oil seems to be a major
emphasis of the electric car movement.)
I would be really curious to see the numbers, as I can't imagine that
electrics could really beat gas...All the losses in generating,
moving, and storing the electricity must be rather large, compared to
refining, transporting, and burning gasoline.
Very curious,
-frank
--
f...@panix.com | I don't know if I'm destined for Heaven or Hell;
1 917 992 2248 | I only hope that God grades on a curve....
1 718 746 7061 |
Xref: gmd.de sci.electronics:42156 rec.autos:57168 sci.energy:12270
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.autos,sci.energy
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!rpal.rockwell.com!
headwall.Stanford.EDU!cascade.stanford.edu!everest.Stanford.EDU!eap
From: e...@everest.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: Efficiency of electric cars
Message-ID: <1993Dec8.025457.29607@cascade.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: ne...@cascade.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University,
California
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 02:54:57 GMT
Lines: 73
>All this discussion of electric cars has got me wondering:
> Has anyone ever crunched the numbers and come up with an honest
>comparison of efficiency for electric vehicles and gasoline-powered
>vehicles? (I mean efficiency in terms of most miles per barrel of
>crude oil, as reduced reliance on foreign oil seems to be a major
>emphasis of the electric car movement.)
>
I don't have all the "numbers" for you at this time.
For now, I'll guess at those, and others can argue :^)
The reasons that it can be more efficient:
Stationary plants are more efficient than mobile ones (your car engine)
(and less polluting) Simply because weight of the plant is not
constrained, and the benefits from scaling (producing more
energy in a single machine). The machine can be run at its
optimum efficiency unlike the car, which varies all over the
performance map in driving. I believe the efficiencies of power
plants (fossil) are around 50% (?). Compared to a practical
otto efficiency of 20-25%.
Transmission is very efficient owing to high voltage
transmission. (90.7 is US average. From "Fundamentals
of Energy Processes", DaRosa)
Electric motors are very efficient (90% +) and are able to
deliver power efficiently at partial loads. (unlike otto)
[so far, were down to overall of 0.5*0.9*0.90=0.4
Better than 0.2-0.25. And, since stationary plants can have
more extensive exhaust treatments than your car, you've
saved a little pollution too.]
Dynamic braking would allow otherwise wasted energy (thrown out
as heat on your gas-burner) to be thrown back into the
fuel cells. An added bonus, owing to the higher "utility"
of electric energy over chemical energy.
Also, your EV doesn't use energy while sitting at the light.
Very little loss in the driveline, since a transmission isn't
required.
Another fringe benefit is the better aerodynamics achievable
with an EV: There is no need for heat rejection equipment
or exhaust systems, allowing better streamlining of the vehicle.
Cd of GM's prototype is 0.19.
The disadvantage (IMO) to EV's is:
Range: you need to carry a lot of batteries to get the range
of a gasoline car. (with the current mainstream technology)
"refill" time: 5 minutes to fill a car with gas, hours (? depends
on technology used, I'm not familiar) to recharge.
Cost of energy? Right now, it might be a close call as to
which vehicle is cheaper for the consumer to operate(*see below).
But I'd bet Uncle Sam will tax the hell out of Electricity if
he starts losing fossil-fuel revenue.
(*) Lets assume a gas car has 25% eff. Gas costs about $1/100MJ.
and electric is about $2.50/100MJ (in the US). So an EV
would need to be 62.5% efficient ("wall socket to road")
to break even economically (for operating costs). Not unrealistic.
--
--
Governments that don't trust honest people with weapons, deserve no trust.
Xref: gmd.de sci.electronics:42172 rec.autos:57182 sci.energy:12276
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!
darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!garges
From: gar...@cats.ucsc.edu (Ken Garges)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.autos,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Efficiency of electric cars
Date: 8 Dec 1993 07:09:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <2e3uj4$lc0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
References: <1993Dec8.025457.29607@cascade.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: meow.ucsc.edu
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #1 (NOV)
Another factor often overlooked in comparing electric cars vrs traditional
internal combustion engine driven cars is the tremendous energy required
and pollution released while refining oil into gasoline.
It's much less energy costly and less polluting to refine crude into fuel
oil, the stuff power plants use.
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!
ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen.apl.jhu.edu!
jmhodapp.jhuapl.edu!user
From: jmho...@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Jon Hodapp)
Subject: Re: Efficiency of electric cars
Message-ID: <jmhodapp-081293084305@jmhodapp.jhuapl.edu>
Followup-To: sci.electronics,rec.autos
Sender: ne...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Not much
References: <1993Dec8.025457.29607@cascade.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1993 08:43:05 -0500
Lines: 21
In article < 1993Dec8.0...@cascade.Stanford.EDU>,
e...@everest.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) wrote:
> >All this discussion of electric cars has got me wondering:
>
> The disadvantage (IMO) to EV's is:
>
> Range: you need to carry a lot of batteries to get the range
> of a gasoline car. (with the current mainstream technology)
>
> "refill" time: 5 minutes to fill a car with gas, hours (? depends
> on technology used, I'm not familiar) to recharge.
>
What if there was an arrangement that Texaco and Exxon
stations carried lots of batteries and charged them up. You drive
into the station, give them your depleted battery and 10 bucks
(or whatever a 'tank' of energy costs), they give you a battery
with a fresh charge. If everyone exchanged drained batteries for
fresh ones, a fill up could take minutes. Just a thought.
Jon
Xref: gmd.de sci.electronics:42209 rec.autos:57286 sci.energy:12283
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.autos,sci.energy
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!
lerc.nasa.gov!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!
rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu!rjwade
From: rjw...@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Efficiency of electric cars
Message-ID: <CHq171.By6@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Sender: ne...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
References: <1993Dec8.025457.29607@cascade.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 14:49:49 GMT
Lines: 97
>
cut cut...
>The reasons that it can be more efficient:
>
>Stationary plants are more efficient than mobile ones (your car engine)
>(and less polluting) Simply because weight of the plant is not
>constrained, and the benefits from scaling (producing more
>energy in a single machine). The machine can be run at its
>optimum efficiency unlike the car, which varies all over the
>performance map in driving. I believe the efficiencies of power
>plants (fossil) are around 50% (?). Compared to a practical
>otto efficiency of 20-25%.
>
>Transmission is very efficient owing to high voltage
>transmission. (90.7 is US average. From "Fundamentals
>of Energy Processes", DaRosa)
>
>Electric motors are very efficient (90% +) and are able to
>deliver power efficiently at partial loads. (unlike otto)
but....how efficient are those batteries supplying the motor with power?
you must look at the total energy of the whole system and what that use
delivers.
>
>[so far, were down to overall of 0.5*0.9*0.90=0.4
>Better than 0.2-0.25. And, since stationary plants can have
>more extensive exhaust treatments than your car, you've
>saved a little pollution too.]
and, as i have stated before, stationary sources now pollute more than all
the cars on the road. increases in mpg and decreases in emissions have
been amazing on cars in the last 10-15 years. even with more cars on the road
over this time....their share of pollution has dropped. attention should
now be focused on cleaning up stationary sources...but that doesn't seem
to be politically correct these days....
>
cut.. cut..
>The disadvantage (IMO) to EV's is:
>
>Range: you need to carry a lot of batteries to get the range
>of a gasoline car. (with the current mainstream technology)
gm's 3rd generation impact EV(with 3point belts, dual airbags, and, i think,
5mph bumpers) is a 2-seater that can go 70 miles in the city, or 90 miles on
the highway, IF, you are light-footed, and don't use the heater or a/c.
top speed is 75mph. pretty pathetic and nowhere close to the capabilites of
any gasoline powered car.
>
>"refill" time: 5 minutes to fill a car with gas, hours (? depends
>on technology used, I'm not familiar) to recharge.
gm does have some magno-coupling device that can fully charge the car in
20 minutes, BUT, it takes special expensive equipment...doubtful anyone would
spend thousands to update their home for this. so that means only 'gas'
stations would have them. and still...you stand around for 20 minutes
getting filled up. meanwhile the line grows longer as the other ev's come
coasting into the station.
>
>Cost of energy? Right now, it might be a close call as to
>which vehicle is cheaper for the consumer to operate(*see below).
>But I'd bet Uncle Sam will tax the hell out of Electricity if
>he starts losing fossil-fuel revenue.
actually it is not even a contest. if you look at the cost of gas and what
it can do for you and compare that to how far you go in an EV and what it
costs....gas wins big time. and of course if consider the coast of the vehicle,
including completely new battery sets every 2-3 years(and the loss of efficiency
of those batteries during that time), EV's are extremely *wasteful* of
energy and pollute more(depending on what types of plants make the electricity).
>(*) Lets assume a gas car has 25% eff. Gas costs about $1/100MJ.
>and electric is about $2.50/100MJ (in the US). So an EV
>would need to be 62.5% efficient ("wall socket to road")
>to break even economically (for operating costs). Not unrealistic.
i think it is. i've seen widely different numbers for this...best and worst
cases. worst case being 'old' batteries in a cold climate, versus fresh
batteries in sunny l.a. another point is that if the e.v. can't do for you
what you need done(i.e. haul kids, furniture, trips) you have to buy another
car to do those things. who wants to buy an extra car? especially when that
'extra' car can do far more, for far less, than any e.v.???
i think so-called 'city-cars' are a much more viable option for big cities that
have problems with congestion and pollution.
>--
>Governments that don't trust honest people with weapons, deserve no trust.
nice footnote...i agree.
>
Xref: gmd.de sci.electronics:42232 rec.autos:57307 sci.energy:12295
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.autos,sci.energy
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!
lerc.nasa.gov!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!
rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu!rjwade
From: rjw...@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Efficiency of electric cars
Message-ID: <CHqHAo.HM3@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Sender: ne...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
References: <1993Dec8.025457.29607@cascade.Stanford.EDU>
<2e3uj4$lc0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 20:37:35 GMT
Lines: 21
In article <2e3uj4$l...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> gar...@cats.ucsc.edu
(Ken Garges) writes:
>
>Another factor often overlooked in comparing electric cars vrs traditional
>internal combustion engine driven cars is the tremendous energy required
>and pollution released while refining oil into gasoline.
what about energy used to make all those batteries and replace them all
every 2-3 years??? what about pollution from making electricity(i know,
depends on plant type and efficiency etc.)
>
>It's much less energy costly and less polluting to refine crude into fuel
>oil, the stuff power plants use.
doesn't fuel oil burn pretty dirty?
don't be fooled folks. electric cars don't reduce pollution, they move it...
from the tailpipe, to the powerplant, and in many cases total pollution
increases depending on type of plant etc.
Xref: gmd.de sci.electronics:42312 rec.autos:57426
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.autos
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
umn.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!
rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu!rjwade
From: rjw...@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Efficiency of electric cars
Message-ID: <CHrzH5.5Ko@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Sender: ne...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
References: <1993Dec8.205224.13112@cascade.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 16:07:52 GMT
Lines: 22
In article <1993Dec8.2...@cascade.Stanford.EDU> e...@everest.Stanford.EDU
(Eric Perozziello) writes:
>>> Range: you need to carry a lot of batteries to get the range
>>> of a gasoline car. (with the current mainstream technology)
>>>
>>> "refill" time: 5 minutes to fill a car with gas, hours (? depends
>>> on technology used, I'm not familiar) to recharge.
>>>
>>What if there was an arrangement that Texaco and Exxon
>>stations carried lots of batteries and charged them up. You drive
>>into the station, give them your depleted battery and 10 bucks
>>(or whatever a 'tank' of energy costs), they give you a battery
>>with a fresh charge. If everyone exchanged drained batteries for
>>fresh ones, a fill up could take minutes. Just a thought.
hardly, lots of problems with this:
-how long/how many people needed to changed 1000 lbs of batteries?
-what if you get an older set and the charge doesn't last as long?
-what if you have trouble with that set of batteries? who owns them? who
pays to replace them.
-different EV's would have different types and numbers and configurations of
batteries.
Xref: gmd.de sci.electronics:42314 rec.autos:57431 sci.energy:12344
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!waikato!
comp.vuw.ac.nz!newshost.wcc.govt.nz!HAMIL...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
From: hamil...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.autos,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Efficiency of electric cars
Date: 9 Dec 1993 16:37:54 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <2e7k92$9p@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
References: <1993Dec8.025457.29607@cascade.Stanford.EDU>,
<2e3uj4$lc0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
Reply-To: hamil...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix.wcc.govt.nz
In article <2e3uj4$l...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, gar...@cats.ucsc.edu
(Ken Garges) writes:
>Another factor often overlooked in comparing electric cars vrs traditional
>internal combustion engine driven cars is the tremendous energy required
>and pollution released while refining oil into gasoline.
Sorry, this is nonsense. I suggest you wander down to your local library
and read a liitle about petroleum refining. Refinerys are built to a
wide range of designs, depending on the market for the products.
In North America, the amount of crude oil required is dictated by the
amount of gasoline, in Northern Europe the amount of Fuel Oil required
determines the amount of crude oil. Refinerys can have "crackers"
installed that will "crack" the larger molecules into smaller gasoline
molecules.
I don't have any data handy, but the amount of energy in crude that
is lost during refining is a very small percentage ( otherwise your
local refinery would be releasing huge amounts of heat ).
>It's much less energy costly and less polluting to refine crude into fuel
>oil, the stuff power plants use.
This demonstrates a total lack of knowledge of what crude oil is,
and how it is refines. Crude oil consists mainly of hydrocarbons
from propane ( 3 carbons ) to waxes ( 60+ carbons ). A refinery
is essentially a large fractional distillation plant. Crude oil
can be distilled to provide the following.
Carbons Boiling Range Sulfur
LPG C3-C4 few ppm
Gasoline C3-C12 30C - 200C 10s ppm
Kerosine C10-C15 150C - 250C 100s ppm
Diesel C15-C24 250C - 380C up to 0.5%
Fuel Oils C20+ Residual up to 3.5%
Lubricating Oil C20+ Vacuum Distilled.
Waxes C25+ alkanes
So ( hopefully ) you can see that the crude is separated by
distillation, and while there are many other operations also
performed at a refinery to produce fuels of appropriate properties,
the basic separation is quite effective. Aviation turbine fuels are
usually kerosine ( Jet A1 = civilian ) or gasoline/kerosine ( Jet B
= wide cut military ). The refinery will have units that rearrange
the molecules to produce more desirable ( eg higher octane gasoline )
isomers or aromatics, and other units to remove unwanted material
( such as sulfur compounds in distillate fuels, or waxes in lubricating
oils). The refinery doesn't actually use much of the fuel, there is
extensive use of catalysts to reduce the amount of energy required when
manipulating molecules.
Don't take my word for any of the above ( I'm just writing from memory )
go down to the library and refer to a book on petroleum refining.
As fuel oils can be distillate ( high end of the diesel fraction ) or
residual, the amount of energy to obtain them initially is similar to
gasoline, because to obtain a fuel oil the refinery removes the gasoline.
Energy is required to remove the undesirable impurities from fuel oils,
but they are not refined to the same degree as gasoline, so power
stations and other users have to have burners or turbines that will
cope with the metals ( sodium, calcium, nickel and vanadium ), and the
sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions that are produced have to be
scrubbed from the exhaust gases. Refinerys sell residual oils with
prices based on the sulfur content and energy content ( calorific value ),
as the refinery doesn't want a huge pile of sulfur to get rid of if it
chose to completely refine the residual oils. Crude oils are also defined
by their sulfur and density, with the low sulfur oils commanding a premium
price.
Bruce Hamilton
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!
twins.cftnet.com!palan!pdn!mechanic!f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG!
mgiwer
From: mgi...@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Matt Giwer)
Sender: ufg...@mechanic.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Efficiency of electr˙˙˙˙˙
Message-ID: <1466.2D0B4F83@mechanic.fidonet.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 00:07:11 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/20 - Florida Mail Hub/NE,
St Petersburg FL
Lines: 99
RW> > It's much less energy costly and less polluting to refine
RW> > crude into fuel oil, the stuff power plants use.
RW> doesn't fuel oil burn pretty dirty?
RW> don't be fooled folks. electric cars don't reduce
RW> pollution, they move it... from the tailpipe, to the
RW> powerplant, and in many cases total pollution increases
RW> depending on type of plant etc.
.rm65
.h1 Copyright 1990 and 1991 by Matt Giwer.
.h2 all rights reserved
Electric Cars and other journeys into the past
Have you noticed something about electric cars? Every one
wants one. The demand is almost overwhelming. But who is
producing them? If the market is there why are they not in
production?
Let us review a couple of simple facts about electric cars.
If you have been awaiting them and reading of them I am certain
you have heard the publicist's misdirection that the first will
not have air conditioning. That almost guarantees a market among
the hate CFCs, hate electricity, hate American life style crowd.
But why is it misdirection? Because they will not have
heaters either. A heater is the last thing anyone would ever do
with battery power. The worst source of inefficiency in a
battery is that it produces heat. The battery that produces NO
heat is the most efficient battery.
My friends, if you intend to drive an electric car be
prepared not only to sweat in the summer but to freeze in the
winter. But will not these cars be well insulated? Insulation
is weight and to move weight takes more batteries or gives you
less range or more frequent recharging. Which leads me to ...
Do we not hear at least twice a year of races between solar
powered cars? Do they not get great distances? These are very
specially built vehicles and it is problematic they could survive
a head on collision with a squirrel.
Let us look at some fundamentals of an electric car.
Batteries are the form of energy storage and all batteries are
heavy. Simply the storage of energy is in the form of a chemical
process and to store more energy there have to be more chemicals.
The common measure is watts of energy per pound of battery.
Another fundamental. On a level surface the more an
electric car weighs the more energy it takes to move it. There
is a fixed amount of energy in any battery. The heavier the car
the less the range or the more the batteries needed for the same
range. More batteries however increase the weight so more plus a
fraction more batteries are needed.
A third fundamental. The primary weight of an electric car
is in the batteries.
In other words an electric car is primarily batteries on
wheels and carrying people is secondary to the engineering
requirements. And the conclusion of this? That the first
electric cars are going to do as advertised on level ground. Is
this a negative? Yes, very much so a negative.
Technically moving an object on level ground requires the
least energy. However moving a car requires it to be
accelerated, that is the speed of the car must increase for zero
MPH to say 30 MPH. A fixed amount of energy is required to do
this. Once it is at 30 MPH it is only necessary to overcome
rolling friction of the tires on the road and air resistance, as
any biker will tell you.
However, what is this flat surface? If you live in an area
with no hills you have a chance equally the best case advertised
performance of an electric car. However even here we do not have
the complete picture. Once accelerated the car must not stop at
all to achieve maximum efficiency. That means no traffic lights
and no stop signs. Every time the car is stopped and has to be
restarted the same amount of energy is used up again.
But again, what is this flat surface? You have hills in
your area? Ask any biker what is required to pedal up a hill.
But again, what is this flat surface? You ha
cc: ALL in 1229 on MERCOPUS
ALL in 0957 on MERCOPUS
ALL in 0242 on MERCOPUS
* RM 1.2 01261 * Soar with the Eagles, and the only way to go is down.
--
Fidonet: 1:3603/326
Internet: mgi...@mechanic.fidonet.org
Note: These are only my own opinions...but others may agree!
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
gatech!prism!gt0603f
From: gt0...@prism.gatech.EDU (Douglas A. Harrell)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Efficiency of electr
Message-ID: <128099@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 12 Dec 93 20:31:27 GMT
References: <1466.2D0B4F83@mechanic.fidonet.org>
Sender: ne...@prism.gatech.EDU
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 19
In article <1466.2...@mechanic.fidonet.org>
mgi...@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Matt Giwer) writes:
>
> My friends, if you intend to drive an electric car be
>prepared not only to sweat in the summer but to freeze in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmm, hadn't even thought about this...
Everybody keeps saying that electric cars will be fine in
southern areas where the winters are mild, but I haven't heard
anyone address AC. What's the typical power requirement for
a modern car AC system? I can't see many people willingly
giving up their AC, esp. in places like Hotlanta...
Doug
--
Douglas Alan Harrell
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Internet: gt0...@prism.gatech.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!wupost!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!
newshost.wcc.govt.nz!HAMIL...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
From: hamil...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Efficiency of electr
Date: 14 Dec 1993 07:59:25 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <2ejrot$qhf@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
References: <1466.2D0B4F83@mechanic.fidonet.org>,
<128099@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Reply-To: hamil...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix.wcc.govt.nz
In article < 128...@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt0...@prism.gatech.EDU
(Douglas A. Harrell) writes:
[ ac discussion deleted ]
>Hmmm, hadn't even thought about this...
>Everybody keeps saying that electric cars will be fine in
>southern areas where the winters are mild, but I haven't heard
>anyone address AC. What's the typical power requirement for
>a modern car AC system? I can't see many people willingly
>giving up their AC, esp. in places like Hotlanta...
from IEEE Spectrum November 1992 p24
Special Report / Electric Vehicles - Pursuing Efficiency
.... "As these examples indicate, climate control is a very grave matter
in EVs. To make clear just how serious, Bradford Bates, manager,
electrical/electronic systems at Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, Mich., cites
the following numbers; the Ecostar van, when driven in accordance with the
Federal Urban Driving Schedule ( FUDS), consumes about 8kW. Its heater is
rated at 5kW, and its air conditioner uses about 6kW." ....
The above are a direct quote, but there are a whole lot of options
available to the manufacturer ( such as interlocks that ensure the
sunroof can't open while the AC is operating ) that would reduce the
requirement. Other concept vehicles use various systems.
Bruce Hamilton