From: bi...@execnet.com (BILLC)
Subject: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/04
Message-ID: <8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 103776197
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 198.232.143.136
reply-to: bi...@execnet.com (BILLC)
newsgroups: sci.energy
x-mailer: PCBoard/UUOUT Version 1.10
I have been following the threads on the elec. car & air pollution on
this and other newsgroups. I'm not very impressed by the force of the
arguments in favor of switching pollution from urban to remote
locations. Why ruin a more pristine environment to satisfy the
selfishness of the urban masses. Anyway, I've never seen a study that
doesn't contradict my gut feeling that the inefficieny of generation,
transmission, and storage of the electricity will not mandate more air
pollution ; especially if a dirty fuel like coal in burned.
Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
Pb releases attendant on the smelting or recycling of sufficient Pb to
make the Pb/acid battery (the only economically feasible one at hand)
and the manufacture of the batteries.
I have no basis to challange this conclusion which vitiates much of the
policy rhetoric on urban air pollution. Another illustration of the
Law of Unintended Consequences?
Oh well! I guess we get the goverment we deserve. Policy IS made by
technical illeterates.
---
SLMR 2.1a Old Chemists never die! They just reach Equilibrium.
From: dor...@cochlea.bu.edu (Clark Dorman)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/05
Message-ID: <DORMAN.95Jun5165206@cochlea.bu.edu>
X-Deja-AN: 103835985
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
organization: Boston University - CAS/CNS
newsgroups: sci.energy
In article <8AAA3FC.0628...@execnet.com> bi...@execnet.com (BILLC)
writes:
> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
> Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
> comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
> Pb releases attendant on the smelting or recycling of sufficient Pb to
> make the Pb/acid battery (the only economically feasible one at hand)
> and the manufacture of the batteries.
>
> I have no basis to challange this conclusion which vitiates much of the
> policy rhetoric on urban air pollution. Another illustration of the
> Law of Unintended Consequences?
>
> Oh well! I guess we get the goverment we deserve. Policy IS made by
> technical illeterates.
> ---
> SLMR 2.1a Old Chemists never die! They just reach Equilibrium.
Those involved with the electric vehicle industry were rather surprised by the
report. Their review of it found a number of problems. Here's a summary that
was posted on the EV mailing list:
--
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.
This document should have never been published in a reputable
journal such as Science, much less picked up and run on the front
page of the New York Times. That it was indicates that pressure
from established interests forced its publication.
Inaccuracy
The primary point and the one that should recieve the most
emphasis is the study's sheer inaccuracy.
In a letter to Science, David Goldstein of Program
Development Associates in Gaithersburg, Maryland examines and
rejects the study's arguments, pointing out where mistaken
assumptions and mathematical errors have caused mistaken
conclusions. The study's mistakes are numerous, fatally
undercutting its credibility.
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.
Accornding 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.
Source of Support
The Carnegie Mellon Science article footnote 19 acknowledges
two research grants for their study. These include National
Science Foundation grant EEC-8943164, from the Green Design
Consortium of the Carnegie-Mellon University Engineering Design
Research Center and NSF grant 9319731. It might be noted that
the amount of the first NSF grant is $13,571,655.
This information is publicly available from Carnegie Mellon
University. They describe the purpose of their Engineering Design
Resarch Center:
"The goal of the Engineering Design Research Center 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."
This includes evaluating "marketability (or user
acceptability)".
The EDRC's directory lists industry affiliates. Among them
are BP America, Exxon Research and Engineering, Mobil R and D,
and Shell Development.
The Green Design Consortium of the ERDC "is open to
industrial partners interested in participating and guiding
consortium projects." Membership (on the order of $10-20K yearly)
benefits include:
"The opportunity to provide input on research direction and
suggest specific research programs"
"Access to: Carnegie Mellon University laboratories and
researchers, Green Design research data, working papers, and
government research grants through cooperative university
proposals."
NSF grant 9319731 totals $450,000. The instigator is Lester
B. Lave, for a Management of Technology program.
This grant discusses developing a system to measure the
environmental consequences of alternative products or designs.
It is to be implemented in the the design of printers for a large
computer company, but there is a statement that says "The Ford
Motor Company will work with us in transfering the research
results...to quite a different setting."
--
Clark Dorman
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/Dorman.html
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/05
Message-ID: <3r064q$es1@crl3.crl.com>
X-Deja-AN: 103942384
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
newsgroups: sci.energy
BILLC (bi...@execnet.com) wrote:
: I have been following the threads on the elec. car & air pollution on
: this and other newsgroups. I'm not very impressed by the force of the
: arguments in favor of switching pollution from urban to remote
: locations. Why ruin a more pristine environment to satisfy the
: selfishness of the urban masses. Anyway, I've never seen a study that
: doesn't contradict my gut feeling that the inefficieny of generation,
: transmission, and storage of the electricity will not mandate more air
: pollution ; especially if a dirty fuel like coal in burned.
: Oh well! I guess we get the government we deserve. Policy IS made by
: technical illiterates.
The EVs thus far running, when compared on the basis of equal size,
performance and range, can be out-performed 10 to one in energy
consumption by little gas buggies with motorcycle engines that get 100
miles per gallon. Only when we import ten times as much oil can we switch
to EVs.
Here is how that is computed:
This analysis is based on actual EV test track performance data
Some 70 electric vehicles (EVs) participated in 1992-93 testing events at
the Phoenix 500, Atlanta Clean Air Grand Prix, American Tour de Sol and
the Ford HEV at Dearborn. Data was collected, and as one reporter stated,
"analyzing this data is very difficult". Results were not related to
non-EV vehicles, except they compared within their group the Zero
Emission Vehicles (ZEV) and the Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV). ZEVs are
propelled by batteries alone, and HEV have an internal combustion engine
(gasoline) as Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). One observer noted that in APU
operations mode, energy costs were about twice as high as when in pure
ZEV operations mode, and he concluded therefrom that "it is hard to
escape the fact that electricity makes sense".
Major things wrong with above conclusion
Pre-thermal-conversion gasoline was compared with post-thermal-conversion
electricity. Taxes were included in gasoline, but none for electricity.
The gasoline was measured at entry into the vehicle and the EVs' electric
energy was measured after where major on-board losses occur, i.e. just
before the motors. These inequities in favor of EVs amount to 75% for
thermal conversion (and transmission), 40% for taxes and 25% for
measurement location. To travel with two-passenger capacity powered by
something that delivers 20 to 30 Hp, an internal combustion engine (IC)
from a motorcycle would suffice. It would get about 100 miles per gallon
(mpg) at 60 miles per hour (mph). At 37 kWhs/gallon this comes to IC
(pre-thermal-conversion input) = 370 Watt-hours/mile . The EVs in the
tests used highly inflated special tires to reduce rolling resistance
(RR). A 4000 lbs EV would have an RR = 4000*0.02 = 80 lbs with normal
tires, but only RR = 4000*0.005 = 20 lbs with special tires, a difference
of 4 to one. Also, the EVs' average speed on open road was only about 35
mph. To compare at 60 mph, requires air drag (AD) energy increase in
proportion to square of speed. Conversion factors 5280 ft/mile and 2655
ft-lbs/Watt-hour. "Thermal-conversion" means burning fuel to obtain
mechanical energy.
Dearborn Proving Ground results properly compared
In Dearborn tests the worst EV used 270, the average 213, and the best
161 Watt-hours/mile (pre-motor). Let's use the average, multiply by motor
efficiency to bring it to energy at pavement (AD + RR), 213*0.9 = 192,
(assume weight 4000 lbs) less rolling energy 192 - 4000*0.005*5280/2,655
= 192 - 40 = 152 (AD energy at 35 mph), increase 152* 60^2/35^2 = 447 (AD
energy at 60 mph), add normal tire rolling energy 447 + 40*4 = 607
Watt-hours/mile output energy at road surface. To obtain input divide
output by efficiency factors, motors 0.9, batteries & charger 0.75, power
transmission & thermal conversion 0.25 for a total EV
(pre-thermal-conversion input) of 607/(0.9*0.75*0.25) ~ 3600
Watt-hours/mile. Divide by the above calculated IC amount, and the
conclusion is:
EVs use about 10 times as much energy as equivalent ICs
Calculations and conclusions are based on reported test results and on
equal size and equal performance comparison. Prepared by Ernst G. Knolle,
Mechanical Engineer, licensed in California and Europe, California
License No. 12372, member of the New York Academy of Sciences. Address:
Knolle Magnetrans, 2691 Sean Court, South San Francisco, CA 94080,
U.S.A., phone (415)871-9816, fax 871-0867, e-mail kno...@crl.com.
Revised December 10, 1994
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/06
Message-ID: <3r22is$b9o@crl5.crl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 103942414
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com> <DORMAN.95Jun5165206@cochlea.bu.edu>
organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
newsgroups: sci.energy
Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu) wrote:
: In article <8AAA3FC.0628...@execnet.com> bi...@execnet.com (BILLC)
: writes:
: > Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
: > Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
: > to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
: > comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
: Those involved with the electric vehicle industry were rather surprised by the
: report. Their review of it found a number of problems. Here's a summary that
: was posted on the EV mailing list:
: --
(Political babble omitted)
: Inaccuracy
On both sides?
: The primary point and the one that should recieve....
Get a spelling checker.
: 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).
The needed battery mass depends on how far you want to drive. The 2970
lbs GM Impact included batteries to carry it 70 miles in city, and 90
miles in highway driving. For double the distance, you need double the
batteries. Here in California we would need at least a 200 mile
range. (Ref. IEEE Spectrum Nov 1992, p. 18-24, 93-101)
: b. By confusing kilograms with pounds, the author...
: d. It overstates the car's energy consumption as 310 wh/km
: when the figure is closer to 100 whr/kg. ......
And who is confused here? Is this going to be a contest as to whether BU
or CMU can be more confusing? Can't you guys employ some proof-readers?
The number originally given was 140wh/mile, but that is based on a lot of
deceiving little gimmicks. Like, having extremely hard tires, measuring
at the motor, and ignoring substantial other on-board losses. (Read my
other posting)
: e. It uses data from 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.
The GM Impact was produced by an under-employed Southern California
aerospace team. It is made of 100 times more expensive carbon fiber
material. It is a two-seater, has a 137 Hp motor intended as a high
performance sports car at a price tag of $120,000, batteries not
included (just a joke).
: the amount of the first NSF grant is $13,571,655.
To think that I do all this for nothing. Read my other posting in this
thread.
Ernst Knolle
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/06
Message-ID: < 3r2ejf$nh7@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 103942417
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
<DORMAN.95Jun5165206@cochlea.bu.edu> <3r22is$b9o@crl5.crl.com>
organization: Netcom
newsgroups: sci.energy
In <3r22is$b...@crl5.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>
>Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu) wrote:
>: 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).
>The needed battery mass depends on how far you want to drive. The 2970
>lbs GM Impact included batteries to carry it 70 miles in city, and 90
>miles in highway driving. For double the distance, you need double the
>batteries. Here in California we would need at least a 200 mile
>range. (Ref. IEEE Spectrum Nov 1992, p. 18-24, 93-101)
What percentage of Californians drive 200 miles one way to work? 100
miles one way? You avoided discussion of the error in the report.
Call Chevrolet and ask them the configuration of the Impact.
Regards,
Will Stewart
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/07
Message-ID: < 3r4rkt$sm0@crl4.crl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104070176
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
<DORMAN.95Jun5165206@cochlea.bu.edu> <3r22is$b9o@crl5.crl.com>
<3r2ejf$nh7@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
newsgroups: sci.energy
Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3r22is$b...@crl5.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: >
: >Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu) wrote:
: >: a. It overstates the battery mass of an "Available
: >lbs GM Impact included batteries to carry it 70 miles in city, and 90
: >miles in highway driving. For double the distance, you need double the
: >batteries. Here in California we would need at least a 200 mile
: >range. (Ref. IEEE Spectrum Nov 1992, p. 18-24, 93-101)
: What percentage of Californians drive 200 miles one way to work? 100
: miles one way? You avoided discussion of the error in the report.
Will,
In our Crown Victoria the low fuel light comes when you can still drive
it safely another 80 miles, that is at my speed 90 minutes of freeway
driving. As soon my wife sees the big yellow light, she comes apart. She
start by reciting all the gas stations that we already passed before the
light even came on, and that she told me so to get first gas and that we
are surely going to run out of the damn stuff.
Now, Will, if we had an EV with only a 70 mile range, would I ever
even get it out of the garage?
Please, I am only just barely hanging on to my sanity.
Ernst
PS. Clark Dorman's error "d. ..100 whr/Kg .." Should correctly be 100
whr/mile.
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/07
Message-ID: < 3r5r52$3rc@crl9.crl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104070185
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
<DORMAN.95Jun5165206@cochlea.bu.edu> <3r22is$b9o@crl5.crl.com>
<3r2ejf$nh7@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3r4rkt$sm0@crl4.crl.com>
organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
newsgroups: sci.energy
Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
: Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : In <3r22is$b...@crl5.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: : >
: : >Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu) wrote:
: : >: a. It overstates the battery mass of an "Available
: : >lbs GM Impact included batteries to carry it 70 miles in city, and 90
: Will,
: Now, Will, if we had an EV with only a 70 mile range, would I ever
: even get it out of the garage?
: Please, I am only just barely hanging on to my sanity.
: Ernst
: PS. Clark Dorman's error "d. ..100 whr/Kg .." Should correctly be 100
: whr/mile.
Second PS: The 1992 data of the GM Impact includes (1) energy use 140
whrs/mile, (2) 137 Hp motor and (3) 72 mph top speed.
Mindless Clark Dorman bandies around the 140 number, rounded off to 100.
So, let me do you a little calculation. Assuming that at top speed of 72 mph
the engine runs at full power of 137 Hp, then we have an energy use of
137x745.7/72 = 1420 whr/mile. That is 14 time greater than Dorman's
number.
I think Dorman should teach a course at Boston University on "How to lie
with Statistics".
Ernst
From: dor...@cochlea.bu.edu (Clark Dorman)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/08
Message-ID: <DORMAN.95Jun8091123@cochlea.bu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104070161
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
organization: Boston University - CAS/CNS
newsgroups: sci.energy
In article <3r5r52$3...@crl9.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
> Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
> : PS. Clark Dorman's error "d. ..100 whr/Kg .." Should correctly be 100
> : whr/mile.
I wrote :
" 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!"
No, it should be 100 whr/km, and that should be fairly obvious from the
context. I switched a "g" for a "m". Sorry, mea culpa. The whole point is
that the authors of the study haphazardly mixed units, as you are apparently
doing as well. Yes, my post had a typo, but I think the number is correct,
and certainly much better than 310 whr/km.
> Second PS: The 1992 data of the GM Impact includes (1) energy use 140
> whrs/mile, (2) 137 Hp motor and (3) 72 mph top speed.
What is 100 whr/km in whr/mile? Actually, it's 161 whr/mile. Using your 140
whrs/mile, the Impact uses only 87 whr/km.
HERE'S THE POINT: THE AUTHORS OF THE REPORT USED 310 WH/KM. IT IS _WAY_ OFF.
Yes, I know I'm shouting, but you seem to be missing this point. Do you think
that the authors' number is accurate? If you want to, go ahead and recompute
the values in the report yourself.
> Mindless Clark Dorman bandies around the 140 number, rounded off to 100.
Mindless Ernst Knolle doesn't understand units.
> So, let me do you a little calculation. Assuming that at top speed of 72 mph
> the engine runs at full power of 137 Hp, then we have an energy use of
> 137x745.7/72 = 1420 whr/mile. That is 14 time greater than Dorman's
> number.
1. Assuming that the "engine" is putting out 137 Hp at 72 mph is incredibly
stupid. The limitation on the speed of the Impact was not the motor but the
controller, which artificially limited the speed to 72 mph. The present
record for non-track based EV's is 187 mph, set by the Impact with a new
controller in spring of 1994. Slightly higher than 72 mph, eh?
2. There is this thing called air resistance. Look into it. I'll use small
words so you'll understand. As you go faster, the drag on the car from the
air goes up. At 72 mph, the resistance is much higher than at 55 mph. The
resistance goes up much faster than linear.
3. In modern usage of the words, electic vehicles do not have engines; they
have motors.
> I think Dorman should teach a course at Boston University on "How to lie
> with Statistics".
>
> Ernst
And you are clearly unqualified to teach anything.
--
Clark Dorman
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/Dorman.html
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/08
Message-ID: <3r8297$abt@crl2.crl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104070196
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com> <DORMAN.95Jun8091123@cochlea.bu.edu>
organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
newsgroups: sci.energy
Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu) wrote:
: In article < 3r5r52$3...@crl9.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: > Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
: > : PS. Clark Dorman's error "d. ..100 whr/Kg .." Should correctly be 100
: > : whr/mile.
: context. I switched a "g" for a "m". Sorry, mea culpa. The whole point is
: 1. Assuming that the "engine" is putting out 137 Hp at 72 mph is incredibly
: stupid. The limitation on the speed of the Impact was not the motor but the
: controller, which artificially limited the speed to 72 mph. The present
: record for non-track based EV's is 187 mph, set by the Impact with a new
: controller in spring of 1994. Slightly higher than 72 mph, eh?
: 2. There is this thing called air resistance. Look into it. I'll use small
: And you are clearly unqualified to teach anything.
Now, now, Clark,
Just because I lose my civility, doesn't mean you have to follow suit.
Your info now makes sense. Your teaching qualification are restored.
Let's work it backwards. At 187 mph (280 fps) we get air drag at sea
level = drag factor x sea level factor x frontal area x speed*2 = .19 x
.00116 x 20 x 280*2 = 347 lbs air drag, add to that rolling resistance of
extra hard tires = weight x RR factor = 3000 x .005 = 15 lbs for total
resistance to forward motion 347 + 15 = 362 lbs. At 280 fps and 550
fps/Hp it comes to 280 x 362/550 = 184 Hp, which is not too far off the
listing of 137 Hp in 1992. Keep in mind that motors can be routinely
overloaded by 50%. Also, the the Impact is a two-seater and my assumed
frontal area of 20 sq.ft. may be off. I also ignored motor-to-road
efficiency.
Clark, how am I doing thus far?
Now, at 60 mph (90 fps), same calculation, the air drag comes down to 36
lbs and the energy 4,560/550 = 8 Hp or 4560/(.737 x 60) = 103 whr/mile.
Clark, I never got an "A" for anything. How about giving me one now?
However, if people don't want to ride a truck disguised as an EV,
and if mom wants to take her three kids to school and not make three
trips, we need a normal sensible vehicle with soft tires and more than
just elbow room.
Then there are the simply enormous energy losses that EVs would cause. A
little motor cycle engine driven two-seater would beat this EV at a ratio
of about ten to one in energy use. See my previous postings. Of course, EV
fanatics don't want be confused by facts. (Sorry, Clark, I started up
determined to be nice to you, but I couldn't help slipping this in.)
Ernst
From: td...@makedust.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (Tony Dean)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/08
Message-ID: <D9v2z6.Dy1@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104234198
sender: ne...@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (IT Netnews)
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com> <
8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
organization: U S WEST Technologies
newsgroups: sci.energy
In article < 8AAA3FC.0628...@execnet.com>, bi...@execnet.com (BILLC) writes:
|> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
|> Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
|> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
|> comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
|> Pb releases attendant on the smelting or recycling of sufficient Pb to
|> make the Pb/acid battery (the only economically feasible one at hand)
|> and the manufacture of the batteries.
This surprised me. I recently spent some time examining battery
technology and the numbers I read about seemed much lower than
this. I am curious about this. I'll have to track down some
references but I was of the impression that due to recent
EPA mandates, recycling in the US is extremely clean.
Can anyone trackdown anymore info regarding the root of the calculations?
Specifically, where they got their numbers. Was it current with
regard to battery reporcessing? Did it include world wide practices?
I'll also try to relocate my info and post it when I turn it up.
Regards
td
From: dor...@cochlea.bu.edu (Clark Dorman)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/09
Message-ID: <DORMAN.95Jun9091438@cochlea.bu.edu>
X-Deja-AN: 104177731
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
organization: Boston University - CAS/CNS
newsgroups: sci.energy
In article < 3r8297$a...@crl2.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
> Just because I lose my civility, doesn't mean you have to follow suit.
> Your info now makes sense. Your teaching qualification are restored.
Ok then, peace. I've seen your posts before and I was surprised at your
tone. Usually they are decent even when I disagree with them (and I
frequently do).
> Let's work it backwards. At 187 mph (280 fps) we get air drag at sea
> level = drag factor x sea level factor x frontal area x speed*2 = .19 x
> .00116 x 20 x 280*2 = 347 lbs air drag, add to that rolling resistance of
> extra hard tires = weight x RR factor = 3000 x .005 = 15 lbs for total
> resistance to forward motion 347 + 15 = 362 lbs. At 280 fps and 550
> fps/Hp it comes to 280 x 362/550 = 184 Hp, which is not too far off the
> listing of 137 Hp in 1992. Keep in mind that motors can be routinely
> overloaded by 50%. Also, the the Impact is a two-seater and my assumed
> frontal area of 20 sq.ft. may be off. I also ignored motor-to-road
> efficiency.
>
> Clark, how am I doing thus far?
Great, and I would not be surprised if they were overloading the motor when
they were trying to get the speed record.
> Now, at 60 mph (90 fps), same calculation, the air drag comes down to 36
> lbs and the energy 4,560/550 = 8 Hp or 4560/(.737 x 60) = 103 whr/mile.
Which is, IMHO, more interesting than the above, since we agree that 140
whr/mile is more accurate.
> Clark, I never got an "A" for anything. How about giving me one now?
Somehow, I don't believe that you never got an "A", but ok.
> However, if people don't want to ride a truck disguised as an EV,
> and if mom wants to take her three kids to school and not make three
> trips, we need a normal sensible vehicle with soft tires and more than
> just elbow room.
There are all sorts of cars on the road today. Last week, I almost bought
a friend's '88 Porsche 911 that has been raced with (but it's going to need
a new transmission, so I passed. Anybody interested? Bitchin' cool car,
newly painted). It rides like a brick. My real estate agent drives a
Cadillac with a ride so soft it makes me nauseous.
There are also a variety of different EV's, and in a couple of years there
will be many more. Some have softer rides, some have harder rides, and
you can find out about some of them at:
http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/
http://lorien.qualcomm.com:80/users/sck/ev/
http://northshore.shore.net/~kester/
I would not give up my Dodge Caravan and have an Impact as my only car
right now since the wife, kid, and dog (and bikes etc.) wouldn't fit.
But, before I got married I would. As a second car, I would.
What's the point? There are lots of cars. There always will be. No one
car or car type is for everyone.
> Then there are the simply enormous energy losses that EVs would cause. A
> little motor cycle engine driven two-seater would beat this EV at a ratio
> of about ten to one in energy use. See my previous postings.
And here we part company. I think that your post is simply wrong. It
scales and converts and adds to make the EV look bad and ICE look good in
ways that are simply out of line with reason. I'll post my analysis of
your analysis in another message and we can work from there in hopefully a
civil tone. Hopefully we can at least clarify where we disagree.
> Of course, EV
> fanatics don't want be confused by facts. (Sorry, Clark, I started up
> determined to be nice to you, but I couldn't help slipping this in.)
>
> Ernst
Who's the fanatic here? (It's a rhetorical question.) You certainly don't
see me posting that EV's are the answer to everything. Those that oppose
EV's try to paint all that offer support of them in the same light. They
accuse them of being fanatical, unable to reason, and wanting to take over
the world to destroy all internal combustion engines. It is a common
practice to demonize your opponent in any battle. However, you and others
should realize that there are those of us who see EV's as a good element of
the mix of vehicles on the road, especially when they can significantly
reduce emissions. Which they do.
--
Clark Dorman
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/Dorman.html
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/09
Message-ID: <3rb74p$3kr@crl4.crl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104177795
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com> <DORMAN.95Jun9091438@cochlea.bu.edu>
organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
newsgroups: sci.energy
Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu) wrote:
: In article < 3r8297$a...@crl2.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: > Then there are the simply enormous energy losses that EVs would cause. A
: And here we part company. I think that your post is simply wrong. It
: ways that are simply out of line with reason. I'll post my analysis of
: your analysis in another message and we can work from there in hopefully a
: civil tone. Hopefully we can at least clarify where we disagree.
I am looking forward to that. - "My" analysis was produced with the help
of several others right here about five months ago. I would post my ideas
and someone would point out some fallacy in it, and I would make changes
until someone else raised another aspect. But my December '94 version is
where it all stopped.
Recently I had a go-around with the EPA and air resources people, where I
included the following list of what is and what is not yet fully covered
in my December 14, 1994 statement:
"Here is an itemized listing of my key elements compared with that of a
similar one prepared by Southern California Edison:
Item Knolle Edison Comments
1 Thermal conversion Btu/kWh 10,000 10,000 Only item in agreement
2 Power use at plants reflected? No No Was unavailable to K.
3 Edison's internal use reflected? No No Was unavailable to K.
4 Wheeling losses reflected? No No Was unavailable to K.
5 Transmission losses 16% 0% Conservative estimate by K.
6 Battery charging losses 25% 0% Gets worse as batteries age
7 Other than motor energy reflcd? No No Data unavailable
8 EV motor loss 10% 0% Conservative estimate by K.
9 EV rolling resistance (RR) .02 .005 Diff.due to type of tires
10 ICE rolling resistance (RR) .02 .02 Normal soft tires
11 EV energy at 25mph, kWh/mile .190 .210 RR plus air drag (AD)
12 Can Geo go 60mph? ICE yes EV no RR+AD requires .400 kWh/mile
13 Taxes in cost/mile estimate, ICE na 35% Edison unequal comparison
14 Taxes in cost/mile estimate, EV na 0 Edison unequal comparison
15 (Extinct) Geo mpg, highway 46 39 EPA 1992 46 mpg highway
16 Economy ICE mpg, highway 100 Several 1995 economy cars
17 Edison power cost, cents/kWh 10 LA has lower rates
18 Bay Area power cost, cents/kWh 14 SF has higher rates
Edison acknowledges that when one put 34,000 Btu into their power plants,
out comes 10,000 Btu. But then, bringing those Btus to the wall outlet,
where an EV might be plugged in, and on through the EV to the road
surface, where it provides propulsion, Edison shows no losses. In fact,
the total losses from power plant to road surface amount to at least
100{1-(1-.16)*(1-.25)*(1-.10)}=43.3% . This alone more than wipes out
Edison's claim to EV's 30% superiority."
This is just part of my letter to the bureaucrats. Anyway, you can see, the
more one thinks about it, the more complicated it gets. I am still hard
on the trail of these "wheeling" losses. Our power company is purchasing
substantial amounts of power out-of-state. In 1992 it amounted to over 30%.
In addition, it borrows power to meet peaking loads. Power comes in
during morning and evening peaks, and goes back in off-peak periods.
Where does it come from and go back to? Arizona, Oregon, Washington
State, etc, which is literally thousands of miles. And for each 1000
miles along the wire the loss is 15%.
As I said, Clark, I am looking forward to your review of my numbers.
Ernst
From: dor...@cochlea.bu.edu (Clark Dorman)
Subject: Energy Usage of Electric Vice Internal Combustion
Date: 1995/06/11
Message-ID: <DORMAN.95Jun11153055@cochlea.bu.edu>
X-Deja-AN: 104234208
distribution: world
organization: Boston University - CAS/CNS
newsgroups: sci.energy
This post is in response to Ernst Knolle's post that EVs require 10
times the energy of a comparable ICE. I've probably made errors all over the
place, and I try to keep an open mind, so be gentle with the corrections.
>The EVs thus far running, when compared on the basis of equal size,
>performance and range, can be out-performed 10 to one in energy
>consumption by little gas buggies with motorcycle engines that get 100
>miles per gallon. Only when we import ten times as much oil can we switch
>to EVs.
As I hope to show below, the comparison is not accurate. The comparison is
between apples and oranges. Further, the apple is saddled with additions
to make it look like an bad orange and the orange isn't real anyway.
Also, even if everything else is correct about the his post, the last
sentence is certainly false. Even if the total energy usage for an
electric vehicle (EV) is 10 times that of a comparable internal combustion
engine vehicle (ICE), then the amount of imported oil will not be ten
times. First, not all of our electrical energy comes from oil. Others in
this group would be happy to point out that nuclear, natural gas, and hydro
and other renewables provide electrical energy. Second, not all of our oil
is imported. Third, not all of the oil used in this country goes toward
fueling personal vehicle transportation. I think the last sentence is
hyperbole intended to scare the reader away from EVs.
>Major things wrong with above conclusion
>
>Pre-thermal-conversion gasoline was compared with post-thermal-conversion
>electricity. Taxes were included in gasoline, but none for electricity.
>The gasoline was measured at entry into the vehicle and the EVs' electric
>energy was measured after where major on-board losses occur, i.e. just
>before the motors. These inequities in favor of EVs amount to 75% for
>thermal conversion (and transmission), 40% for taxes and 25% for
>measurement location. To travel with two-passenger capacity powered by
>something that delivers 20 to 30 Hp, an internal combustion engine (IC)
>from a motorcycle would suffice. It would get about 100 miles per gallon
>(mpg) at 60 miles per hour (mph). At 37 kWhs/gallon this comes to IC
>(pre-thermal-conversion input) = 370 Watt-hours/mile . The EVs in the
>tests used highly inflated special tires to reduce rolling resistance
>(RR). A 4000 lbs EV would have an RR = 4000*0.02 = 80 lbs with normal
>tires, but only RR = 4000*0.005 = 20 lbs with special tires, a difference
>of 4 to one. Also, the EVs' average speed on open road was only about 35
>mph. To compare at 60 mph, requires air drag (AD) energy increase in
>proportion to square of speed. Conversion factors 5280 ft/mile and 2655
>ft-lbs/Watt-hour. "Thermal-conversion" means burning fuel to obtain
>mechanical energy.
We need to be clear here what this ICE is: it gets 100 mpg at 60 mph. It
is also supposed to have the same performance as the EV. What is the
weight? What is the "performance"? What sort of tires does it have? You
might think that you can just pull out the engine of a normal car and put
in this smaller engine and you'd be done.
The specs for the car are not given, so let's see if we can figure some
out. Since the EV later is changed so that it has normal rolling
resistance (RR) tires, we can assume that this ICE does as well. Let's
assume 2000 lbs as a round number, and according to the above, it should
have 40 lbs of RR.
RR: ( 40 lbs * 5280 ft/mile ) / 2655 (ft-lbs / Wh) = 80 Watt-hrs / mile
or it uses 80 Wh per mile traveled. Now, we need to figure out the air
resistance. In this case, I assume that the automobile has 20 ft^2 frontal
area and a drag coeff of .3. Yes, I know what the Impact's drag
coefficient is, and I'll deal with that in a minute:
Air Drag = drag factor x sea level factor x frontal area x speed*2
= .3 x 0.00116 x 20 x 90*2
= 56.4 lbs air drag
AD: ( 56.4 lbs * 5280 ft/mile ) / 2655 (ft-lbs / Wh) = 112 Watt-hrs / mile
So, at 60 mph the total output of the car AD+RR = 192 watt-hrs/mile.
But, as Ernst points out, to get 100 mpg, we need to have 370 wh/mile pre-
conversion. And that means that our conversion process must be 51%
efficient. I don't know of any automobile engines (or motorcycle engines)
that are 51% efficient. I would say that the above car cannot be built
with those specs.
The best thing to do would be to find a 100 mpg car and use those specs for
the rest of the calculations. Well, there is one. It is the GM Ultralite,
and is discussed in the April 1992 Popular Mechanics. It has a 3-cylinder,
2 stroke, 1.5 liters engine. The total curb weight is 1400 lbs, has the
length of a Mazda Miata, and the body is made out of carbon fiber to reduce
weight. Like the Impact, the drag coefficient is .192 (and in fact looks a
little like it, no surprise). They clearly worked very hard to reduce
weight and increase mileage. The engine also has a maximum output of 111
Hp, so like the Impact, it can move (0-60 in 7.8 seconds). But, also like
the Impact and other high efficiency cars it does not have a lot of space
and has rock hard tires. And finally, the 100 mpg only comes if you are
doing 50 mph rather than 60.
If anybody knows of a real 100 mpg car at 60 mph (without special tires) I
would very much like to know about it. But as of right now, I think that
it does not exist. If you post an example, please check the speed of the
test. In the mean time, for the purposes of comparison I think that it is
fair to compare the Ultralite with the Impact. They clearly share many
features, although in all honesty there are actually back seats in the
Ultralite; on the other hand, the Impact doesn't have a carbon fiber body.
In any case, lets assume that the ICE is the GM Ultralite at 370 wh/mile at
50 mph and the EV is the GM Impact.
For comparison (because I happen to have stats handy), the 1995 Geo Prism
weighs 2359 lbs, has a 20.5 hp engine, and gets 34 mpg highway. So it
would use 1110 wh/mile.
>Dearborn Proving Ground results properly compared
>
>In Dearborn tests the worst EV used 270, the average 213, and the best
>161 Watt-hours/mile (pre-motor).
If we use the Impact, it uses about 140 wh/mile. Are we agreed on this?
To be honest, I don't know what the speed is for that number. One of the
most frequently quoted numbers for the Impact is that it gets 90 miles for
the "highway" range. That number is for 80% depth of charge, and the
Impact has 16.8 kWh batteries, giving:
16800 wh * .8 / 90 miles = 149 wh/mile
I would presume that "highway" means at highway speeds. Let's assume that
this is at 50 mph. If it is at 55 or 60, the numbers below get better for
the Impact.
> Let's use the average, multiply by motor
>efficiency to bring it to energy at pavement (AD + RR), 213*0.9 = 192,
>(assume weight 4000 lbs) less rolling energy 192 - 4000*0.005*5280/2,655
>= 192 - 40 = 152 (AD energy at 35 mph), increase 152* 60^2/35^2 = 447 (AD
>energy at 60 mph), add normal tire rolling energy 447 + 40*4 = 607
>Watt-hours/mile output energy at road surface.
To reiterate, since personally it took me a couple of minutes to figure out
what is going on in the above and check it:
At 35 mph, pre-motor energy used 213 wh/mile = 213 wh/mile
Multipy by the effiency of the motor 0.9 * 213 = 192 wh/mile
Subtract off the rolling resistance -40 + 192 = 152 wh/mile
Convert to 60 mph (60^2)/(35^2)=2.94 2.94 * 152 = 447 wh/mile
Add "normal" rolling resistance back +160 + 447 = 607 wh/mile
And this is necessary because the conversion of the air drag to 60 mph
needs to be done without the rolling resistance.
The problem with the above is what to compare it to. It certainly cannot
be compared to any 60 mph, 100 mpg ICE. If you are going to use a 100 mpg
ICE, then you need to compare it to the Impact which is 149 wh/mile at 50
mph.
>To obtain input divide
>output by efficiency factors, motors 0.9, batteries & charger 0.75, power
>transmission & thermal conversion 0.25 for a total EV
>(pre-thermal-conversion input) of 607/(0.9*0.75*0.25) ~ 3600
>Watt-hours/mile. Divide by the above calculated IC amount, and the
>conclusion is:
Here we have a difference of opinion regarding what should be included.
I think that the efficiency of the motor should not be in this calculation.
Look at it this way:
Oil --> Generate --> Distribute --> Charge --> Battery --> Motor --> Road
What we want to know is the amount of energy going into the generation
process. That will determine the total amount of energy to make it go down
the road. The value that we know is the amount of energy coming out of the
batteries. What happens after that point is kind of irrelevant to the
calculation. In other words, if what we want to know what goes in upstream
and we know what it is at a certain point, it doesn't really matter what is
going on downstream as long as we know that the final output is the desired.
[If the batteries are putting out 149 wh/mile, then if we assume that the
motor is 90% efficient only 134.1 wh/mile is hitting the road.]
In the original calculation, the battery and charger are lumped (75%
efficient), as are the generation and transmission (25% efficient). I
think that both of these numbers are too low. First, I thought that the
charging system was well above 90% efficient and the batteries themselves
are likely at 90%. I don't have a reference for the numbers though so
we'll use the 75%. I'd appreciate real numbers though if someone has some.
Second, a while back, Ernst posted some information about the transmission
and distribution losses (message id: <3f9q88$o...@crl11.crl.com>). The
production was 32.5% efficient and there were 8.8% losses, or 29.6% total
efficiency.
Total EV energy: 149 / (0.75*0.296) = 671 wh/mile.
>EVs use about 10 times as much energy as equivalent ICs
>
>Calculations and conclusions are based on reported test results and on
>equal size and equal performance comparison.
GM Ultralite: 380 wh/mile
GM Impact : 671 wh/mile
Geo Prism: 1110 wh/mile
The final result: the GM Impact EV uses 1.8 times as much energy as the GM
Ultralite ICE if you count from the chemical source. Once the energy is in
the car, the EV uses half as much as the Ultralite. The Impact uses 60% of
the energy of a Geo Prism (or other 34 mph car) from the source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, a couple of comments.
1. Ernst and others will complain that the ranges are not similar. This
is true but irrelevant. Both of the high efficiency cars are niche cars
and the 70/90 mile range is plenty for many people. In addition, the
comparison is being done in terms of energy per distance. Increasing the
range of the EV will increase the energy required per distance (increased
RR for the increased weight, for example), but not in a linear way. It is
certainly true that you can build an ICE vehicle with range that a
"similar" EV cannot reach.
2. You wll be able to buy the Impact long before you will be able to buy the
Ultralite. In fact, it appears that GM has decided to go ahead and start
producing the car in limited numbers (7500 of them for $40,000 each in the
next 18 months; there is already a list of people who want to buy them. Quote
about the research trials: "The biggest problem we've had is getting people to
give back the car"). See Business Week for 23 Jan 1995. I'd be interested to
hear more info about this if anyone has any. Will there be any 100 mpg cars
(at 50 or 60 mph) for sale in the next couple of years?
3. The Impact is a good design but it does not push the technology the way
that the Ultralite does. The $13,000 carbon fiber body in particular will be
difficult to mass produce for the Ultralite.
4. The major loss locations for EVs and ICEs are different but due to the
same processes, namely the conversion from the source to useful energy.
Aside from reducing RR losses by reducing weight further, the Impact just
is not going to get much better (assuming 100% efficient motor, charger,
battery: 134 / .296 = 453 wh/mile) . You are also not going to get a much
better vehicle than the Ultralite with some unobtanium (mythological
substance with infinite strength and zero weight; frequently used in the
concept stage of military aircraft, my previous profession). If our goal
is to improve efficiency (is it?) then the place to look is the conversion
process for both cases. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe that there
is greater room for increasing the efficiency of industrial conversion (for
example, >50% efficient cogen plants vice 32% present) than there is for
increasing efficiency of automobile engines.
5. The primary reason that environmentalists give for EVs is that they
will reduce pollution, not increase efficiency (although they also believe
that). In particular, they will reduce pollution in urban areas where the
pollution represents a health hazard. We haven't even begun to discuss
that, beyond the (IMO, bogus) Pb study. The different sources of
electrical energy (nuclear, hydro, coal) will change the relative amounts
of types of pollution depending on your location.
EV's are not a panacea, but they wont' kill the patient either (to
keep with the medical analogy); they definitely are not the suppositories
that some people would like to paint them to be.
--
Clark Dorman
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/Dorman.html
--
Clark Dorman
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/Dorman.html
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/12
Message-ID: <3rhm1d$kt6@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104353896
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
<D9v2z6.Dy1@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
organization: Netcom
newsgroups: sci.energy
In <D9v2z...@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
td...@makedust.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (Tony Dean) writes:
>
>In article < 8AAA3FC.0628...@execnet.com>, bi...@execnet.com
(BILLC) writes:
>|> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
>|> Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is
estimated
>|> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
[...]
>Can anyone trackdown anymore info regarding the root of the
calculations?
>Specifically, where they got their numbers. Was it current with
>regard to battery reporcessing? Did it include world wide practices?
>I'll also try to relocate my info and post it when I turn it up.
One excellent source of information is;
http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard.html
Regards,
Will Stewart
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/14
Message-ID: <3roa62$9ic@crl12.crl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104491816
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
<D9v2z6.Dy1@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
<3rhm1d$kt6@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
newsgroups: sci.energy
Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <D9v2z...@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
: td...@makedust.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (Tony Dean) writes:
: >
: >In article < 8AAA3FC.0628...@execnet.com>, bi...@execnet.com
: (BILLC) writes:
: >|> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
: >|> Carnegie-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is
: estimated
: >|> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
: [...]
: >Can anyone trackdown anymore info regarding the root of the
: calculations?
: >Specifically, where they got their numbers. Was it current with
: >regard to battery reprocessing? Did it include world wide practices?
: >I'll also try to relocate my info and post it when I turn it up.
: One excellent source of information is;
: http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard.html
Only just now, someone e-mailed me the whole 19 May Carnegie Mellon
article. If Tony Dean has not found the article, here are the two
key paragraphs. If you divide the number 1340 in the first paragraph by
the number 22 in the second paragraph, you get the 60 number:
"Using 4% losses from virgin production, 2% losses
from recycling and reprocessing, and 1% losses from battery
manufacturing, we calculated the amount of lead discharged into
the environment for the two vehicle scenarios in Table 1. The
lead discharge ranges from 1340 mg of lead per kilometer (for
the existing technology battery that has the lowest energy
density and shortest lifetime distance and uses virgin lead) to
about 117 mg of lead per kilometer (for a goal technology
battery that has high energy density and long lifetime driving
distance and uses scrap lead). If a large number of electric
cars are produced, the demand for lead for batteries will
surge, requiring that more lead be mined (16).
In 1972, leaded gasoline sold in the United States
contained 2.1 g of lead per gallon. A vehicle of comparable
size and weight to those of an electric car, the Geo Metro,
gets about 19 km/liter (45 mpg) (17). Using leaded gasoline,
this vehicle would emit 22 mg of lead per kilometer (or 35 mg
per mile), with 25% of the lead retained in the engine and
exhaust of the car. Thus, an electric car using batteries with
newly mined lead releases 60 times the peak fraction released
by combustion of leaded gasoline. If use of recycled lead and
technology goal batteries is assumed, the lead releases are
only five times the TEL emissions per kilometer."
If anyone wants the whole article. Let me know. It takes only a few
button pushes to send it.
Ernst
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/15
Message-ID: <3rpfbg$qtc@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104491761
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com> <3r064q$es1@crl3.crl.com>
organization: Netcom
newsgroups: sci.energy
In <3r064q$e...@crl3.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>[...]
>
>In Dearborn tests the worst EV used 270, the average 213, and the best
>161 Watt-hours/mile (pre-motor). Let's use the average,
Why not use the best? So you can cook the results...
>multiply by motor
>efficiency to bring it to energy at pavement (AD + RR), 213*0.9 =
192,
>(assume weight 4000 lbs)
Is this the weight of your 100 mpg ICE? Oh, I thought not..
>less rolling energy 192 - 4000*0.005*5280/2,655
>= 192 - 40 = 152 (AD energy at 35 mph), increase 152* 60^2/35^2 = 447
(AD
>energy at 60 mph), add normal tire rolling energy 447 + 40*4 = 607
>Watt-hours/mile output energy at road surface. To obtain input divide
>output by efficiency factors, motors 0.9, batteries & charger 0.75,
power
>transmission & thermal conversion 0.25
What references are you using for the above figures? What are their
sources?
>for a total EV
>(pre-thermal-conversion input) of 607/(0.9*0.75*0.25) ~ 3600
>Watt-hours/mile. Divide by the above calculated IC amount, and the
>conclusion is:
>
>EVs use about 10 times as much energy as equivalent ICs
If you cook the results. How many times have you had to rescind bogus
calculations like the above?
Where are these 100 mpg ICEs you keep referring to? Why aren't they on
the road?
Do they really weight 4000 pounds?
>Calculations and conclusions are based on reported test results and on
>equal size and equal performance comparison. Prepared by Ernst G.
Knolle,
>Mechanical Engineer, licensed in California and Europe, California
>License No. 12372, member of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Address:
>Knolle Magnetrans, 2691 Sean Court, South San Francisco, CA 94080,
>U.S.A., phone (415)871-9816, fax 871-0867, e-mail kno...@crl.com.
>Revised December 10, 1994
I hope your clients don't read this.
Will Stewart
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/15
Message-ID: <3rpfog$r0n@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104491762
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com>
<D9v2z6.Dy1@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
<3rhm1d$kt6@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3roa62$9ic@crl12.crl.com>
organization: Netcom
newsgroups: sci.energy
In <3roa62$9...@crl12.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>
>Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <D9v2z...@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
>: td...@makedust.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (Tony Dean) writes:
>: >
>: >In article < 8AAA3FC.0628...@execnet.com>,
bi...@execnet.com
>: (BILLC) writes:
>: >|> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
>: >|> Carnegie-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is
>: estimated
>: >|> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
>
>: [...]
>
>: >Can anyone trackdown anymore info regarding the root of the
>: calculations?
>: >Specifically, where they got their numbers. Was it current with
>: >regard to battery reprocessing? Did it include world wide
practices?
>: >I'll also try to relocate my info and post it when I turn it up.
>
>: One excellent source of information is;
>
>: http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard.html
>
>Only just now, someone e-mailed me the whole 19 May Carnegie Mellon
>article. If Tony Dean has not found the article, here are the two
>key paragraphs. If you divide the number 1340 in the first paragraph
by
>the number 22 in the second paragraph, you get the 60 number:
>
> "Using 4% losses from virgin production, 2% losses
> from recycling and reprocessing, and 1% losses from battery
> manufacturing, we calculated the amount of lead discharged into
> the environment for the two vehicle scenarios in Table 1. The
> lead discharge ranges from 1340 mg of lead per kilometer (for
> the existing technology battery that has the lowest energy
> density and shortest lifetime distance and uses virgin lead) to
> about 117 mg of lead per kilometer (for a goal technology
> battery that has high energy density and long lifetime driving
> distance and uses scrap lead). If a large number of electric
> cars are produced, the demand for lead for batteries will
> surge, requiring that more lead be mined (16).
>
> In 1972, leaded gasoline sold in the United States
> contained 2.1 g of lead per gallon. A vehicle of comparable
> size and weight to those of an electric car, the Geo Metro,
> gets about 19 km/liter (45 mpg) (17). Using leaded gasoline,
> this vehicle would emit 22 mg of lead per kilometer (or 35 mg
> per mile), with 25% of the lead retained in the engine and
> exhaust of the car. Thus, an electric car using batteries with
> newly mined lead releases 60 times the peak fraction released
> by combustion of leaded gasoline. If use of recycled lead and
> technology goal batteries is assumed, the lead releases are
> only five times the TEL emissions per kilometer."
Besides mistakingly using 3032 pounds as the weight of the lead,
instead of the weight of the car, there were several other mistakes and
misleading comments throughout. For an analysis of this *draft*
article, connect to;
http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard.html
and compare the corrected information with the article Ernste can send
you.
Will Stewart
From: eny...@vt.edu (Rick Nyman)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/16
Message-ID: <3rr05a$akt@clarknet.clark.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104491814
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com> <3r064q$es1@crl3.crl.com>
<3rpfbg$qtc@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: Virginia Tech Graduate (Mechanical Engineering)
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: sci.energy
will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) wrote:
>>(assume weight 4000 lbs)
>Is this the weight of your 100 mpg ICE? Oh, I thought not..
Just curious . . . I don't think it covers the whole difference, but
I'm curious as to how much weight the batteries add. I understand it
can be quite significant.
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/16
Message-ID: < 3rs3he$9g8@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104633297
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com> <3r064q$es1@crl3.crl.com>
<3rpfbg$qtc@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3rr05a$akt@clarknet.clark.net>
organization: Netcom
newsgroups: sci.energy
In <3rr05a$a...@clarknet.clark.net> eny...@vt.edu (Rick Nyman) writes:
>
>will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) wrote:
>>>(assume weight 4000 lbs)
>
>>Is this the weight of your 100 mpg ICE? Oh, I thought not..
>
>Just curious . . . I don't think it covers the whole difference, but
>I'm curious as to how much weight the batteries add. I understand it
>can be quite significant.
In the Chevy Impact, the battery weight I've seen quoted is 1032
pounds. There are several electric vehicles in production at this
point in time, from pickups, buses, two seater 'sports' car, etc., so
battery weights vary considerably. One place to look is the
Rennaisance Car web page;
http://www.qualcomm.com/users/sck/ev/product_line_up.html
Total vehicle weight of the Tropica is 1960 pounds, with 12 6v
batteries. I don't have precise figures for the battery weight but it
is considerably less than the Chevy Impact.
Regards,
Will Stewart
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
Date: 1995/06/16
Message-ID: <3rssig$8k8@crl10.crl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104633339
distribution: world
references: <8AA953A.0628005381.uuout@execnet.com>
<8AAA3FC.0628005388.uuout@execnet.com> <3r064q$es1@crl3.crl.com>
<3rpfbg$qtc@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3rr05a$akt@clarknet.clark.net>
<3rs3he$9g8@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
newsgroups: sci.energy
Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In < 3rr05a$a...@clarknet.clark.net> eny...@vt.edu (Rick Nyman) writes:
: >
: >will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) wrote:
: >>>(assume weight 4000 lbs)
: >
: >>Is this the weight of your 100 mpg ICE? Oh, I thought not..
: >
: >Just curious . . . I don't think it covers the whole difference, but
: >I'm curious as to how much weight the batteries add. I understand it
: >can be quite significant.
: In the Chevy Impact, the battery weight I've seen quoted is 1032
: pounds. There are several electric vehicles in production at this
Probably not many of you caught on the fact that Clark Dorman posted a
response to my calculations that EVs use 10 times as much energy at
equivalent size and performing as ICEs. It was posted 11 Jun 95 under
"Re: Energy Usage of Electric Vice Internal Combustion".
Clark came up with a ratio of 1.8 to one, instead of my 10 to one in
favor of ICEs. At least he is agreeing with me that EVs use much more
energy than ICEs. So, I am not really in the mood of pouncing on him for
discrediting some of my numbers.
The only response in that thread came from Eric Gisin at the University of
British Columbia, who pointed out that according to the "Gould Battery
Book" the efficiency of batteries is 50% at 2-hr discharge and 33% at
1-hr discharge. If we would insert this fact into my calculation instead
of an assumed (and reluctantly agreed upon by Clark) 75% efficiency, we
would get pretty well back to my "10 to one" ratio.
Ernst
From: richard0...@srs.gov (Richard H. Rustad)
Subject: Electric Car Questions (was Re: Pb and ...)
Date: 1995/06/21
Message-ID: <01HRYWNAXGT2001VHS@mr.srs.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104923971
sender: nob...@cs.utexas.edu
organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
newsgroups: sci.energy
I have some questions concerning battery powered cars:
1. If everyone in the U.S. today immediately switched over to using
electric cars, does the generating capacity currently exist to
charge all those cars (assume charging is done at night)? If
not, how much new generating capacity would need to be built?
2. If everyone in the U.S. today immediately switched over to using
electric cars, what would be the resultant increase in emissions
from all the increased amounts of fossil fuel that would need to
be burned in conventional electric power plants? Would the
increase in conventional power plant emissions be large enough to
offset any tailpipe emission reductions made by switching?
3. Does the infrastructure currently exist to handle the increase in
hazardous materials and waste (i.e. lead, electrolytic solutions,
maybe even cadmium) that would be generated as part of this
switch? Many of the materials (such as lead) stay poisonous
forever, and as waste need to be recycled or disposed of properly
(anyone volunteering their back yard?).
4. What are the comparable life-cycle costs for electric and gas
vehicles of similar size and performance?
I drive approximately 15 miles to work each way, at speeds not
exceeding 55 mph - well, usually not exceeding 55 mph. I don't need
super performance, although the terrain is hilly in places. Anyway,
I wouldn't mind giving an electric car a try. How about it, GM?
Ford? Dodge? Let me use a prototype car for a year, and I'll
provide feedback, both positive aspects and constructive criticism.
I'll pay for the electricity if you provide maintenance. How about
it, Big Three?
From: hu...@news.an.hp.com (Hugh Lippincott)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Questions (was Re: Pb and ...)
Date: 1995/06/22
Message-ID: <3sc5dk$nfa@hpaneqb4.an.hp.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104924037
distribution: world
references: <01HRYWNAXGT2001VHS@mr.srs.gov>
organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
newsgroups: sci.energy
In article < 01HRYWNAX...@mr.srs.gov>, richard0...@srs.gov
(Richard H. Rustad) writes:
|> I have some questions concerning battery powered cars:
|>
|>
|> 2. If everyone in the U.S. today immediately switched over to using
|> electric cars, what would be the resultant increase in emissions
|> from all the increased amounts of fossil fuel that would need to
|> be burned in conventional electric power plants? Would the
|> increase in conventional power plant emissions be large enough to
|> offset any tailpipe emission reductions made by switching?
Please define "immediately".
With figures from memory (no ref) the USA has ~100 Million autos in use
The USA new car production is ~ 10 M autos
If 100% of production could be "switched over" in ~3-5 years
another ~ 10 years [ 100m/10m/yr ] would be required.
The results from American Tour de Sol electric vehicle race in May
indicate fossil fuel consumption would drop to ~50% of current.
Summary of Assumptions/Comparison:
-The comparison was miles per gallon of equivalent crude oil
-"race" was ~300 miles of mixed city & country driving
-ICV = Geo Metro => 45 mpg gas = to 35.8 miles per equivalent gallon
after adjusting for losses incurred when making gasoline from crude oil.
-EV = Geo Metro, converted to electric power by Solectria Corporation
65.2 miles per equivalent gallon.
- Best EV ="four-seater, pre-production prototype vehicle also built by
Solectria (the Sunrise), achieved 70.7 miles per equivalent gallon
- "To translate energy use of the electric vehicles to equivalent
miles per gallon, the efficiency of a similarly state-of-the-art
natural gas-fired power pl ant (51 percent efficient) and
transmission losses of 7.5 percent were used.
see: http://nesea.nrel.gov/mpg.html
--
Hugh Lippincott hu...@an.hp.com
From: richard0...@srs.gov (Richard H. Rustad)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Questions
Date: 1995/06/23
Message-ID: <01HS1P72T5EO00056Y@mr.srs.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104923995
sender: nob...@cs.utexas.edu
organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
newsgroups: sci.energy
I need to define how and why I used the word "immediate." I wanted
to perform a gedanken experiment that ignored the transition period
that in reality would occur. In order to do that, I made the
unrealistic assumption that all of us would wake up with electric
cars in the driveway, and then examine the impacts on the electric
utility infrastructure and waste treatment/disposal infrastructure.
Yes, there would be a transition period of several years, much like
that which occurred switching from leaded to unleaded gasoline.
My electric car questions weren't directed at the equivalent amount
of gasoline saved by switching from gas to electric. What I am
interested in is the tradeoff between the elimination of exhaust pipe
emissions and the potential increase in the smokestack emissions from
conventional power plants, because all of those batteries would have
to be charged from some prime energy source. In other words, zero
emissions at the tailpipe may be a noble goal, but if it results in
greater emissions at the smokestack, why bother? Of course, if we
(as a nation) are truly committed to zero (or greatly reduced) air
emissions, our energy policy should be rearranged to discourage the
use of fossil fuels for electricity generation by utilities.
I am also interested in knowing whether or not we even have the
current capacity to charge all those cars even if we could switch
"immediately." In other words, is there a current generating
shortfall that would have to be overcome? What would be needed here
is something like a gallons burned/kilowatt-hours generated
conversion factor.
From: pub...@news.gate.net (Publius)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Questions
Date: 1995/06/25
Message-ID: <3sjrep$273o@hopi.gate.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 105054607
references: <01HS1P72T5EO00056Y@mr.srs.gov>
newsgroups: sci.energy
Richard H. Rustad (richard0...@srs.gov) wrote:
: My electric car questions weren't directed at the equivalent amount
: of gasoline saved by switching from gas to electric. What I am
: interested in is the tradeoff between the elimination of exhaust pipe
: emissions and the potential increase in the smokestack emissions from
: conventional power plants, because all of those batteries would have
: to be charged from some prime energy source. In other words, zero
: emissions at the tailpipe may be a noble goal, but if it results in
: greater emissions at the smokestack, why bother? Of course, if we
: (as a nation) are truly committed to zero (or greatly reduced) air
: emissions, our energy policy should be rearranged to discourage the
: use of fossil fuels for electricity generation by utilities.
: I am also interested in knowing whether or not we even have the
: current capacity to charge all those cars even if we could switch
: "immediately." In other words, is there a current generating
: shortfall that would have to be overcome? What would be needed here
: is something like a gallons burned/kilowatt-hours generated
: conversion factor.
Electric Cars only make sense if the electricity is generated by
Atomic Power.
The destruction of our Atomic Power commitment will prove to
be the greatest 'crime against humanity' of modern times since
it will bring about thre eventual economic and social collapse
of our Country - and with it the World.
The now defunct 'Atoms for Peace' program would have lead to
to the electrification of all surface transport, with the cost
electricity less than a third of its present cost.
Thank 'Greenpeace' and the like for what has happened.
When you think of Acid Rain and Hot-House Effect, think
of 'Greenpeace'. PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>
From: en...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: Electric Car Questions
Date: 1995/06/26
Message-ID: <3sn6bk$fpi@netaxs.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 105163679
references: <01HS1P72T5EO00056Y@mr.srs.gov> <3sf81f$l86@hpaneqb4.an.hp.com>
to: richard0...@srs.gov
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Net Access - Philadelphia's Internet Connection
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: sci.energy
x-mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit)
First the short answer: stack emissions are different than auto emissions
since you are burning different fuels, despite this though it has been
measured and there would be an increase in some pollutants, a decrease in
others and some totally different pollutants from stacks but overall
there would be the same amount of pollution in tonnage. Second question:
No there is not enough capacity from all of the country's power plants to
provide enough energy to power the electric cars (if an electric car
comparable to an IC engine auto were even conceivable, which it is not).
I think you might explore some other questions: What about the people
living near the power plants that have suddenly seen their local plant
double its output and therefore its stack emissions, with electric
plug-in and charge autos the emissions are being displaced not
eliminated. What about battery disposal, the best batteries available
today have a 3yr life span if they are used properly, and that would mean
not draining them past 60% on a regular basis which suggests that
electric cars cannot be used at their maximum range between charges
without some serious degradation of battery life, so three years is a
VERY liberal estimate, calculate the number of cars and pounds of
batteries and that is what you have to deal with at least every three
years. If your goal is truly zero emissions then that would necessitate
harnessing natural power sources, hydro, goethermal, wind etc... there
are not enough geographic sites available to harness even a fraction of
the power necessary, realistically speaking the possible power sources
are fossil fuels and nuclear followed distantly by solar. If you were to
use nuclear to make up the current short fall in fossil fuels power plant
output the nation would need to increase the nuclear output by something
like 50% which is not likely to happen, plus we do not even know how to
dispose of nuclear waste. You must assume also that consumers would
expect and in fact require that an electric car have at least reasonable
performance to an IC engine auto. At this point the best electric car on
the market is a whopping $30,000 and it has a 120mi range on an 8 hour
charge (if the 60% battery drain rule is followed diligently then you
lose 48 miles so forget about driving long distances quickly). It could
never repalce current autos in the marketplace, so making the assumption
that there is a car out there that can fit the bill is a HUGE and totally
unrealistic and inappropriate assumption. Finally power plants are
about as clean as they are going to get, regulating stationary
pollution sources is easy that is why power plants are so highly
regulated, and stack emission improvements are facing the law of
diminishing returns, 10 years ago $1 of techology may have improved
emissions considerably, now that $1 does not help as much, it is much
more difficult and costly to improve emissions from 95% - 96% than it is
to go from 60% - 90%, emissions reductions now at fossil fuel power
plants will be very expensive and not very productive. The issue is not
power plant output and electric cars, but how can we improve today's IC
engine cars while we develop zero emission technology like burning
hydrogen, electric cars are simply not feasible at this time.
From: wste...@deispo.deisva.msd.eds.com (Will Stewart)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Questions
Date: 1995/06/28
Message-ID: <3sshbk$4j4@maverick.tad.eds.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 105302154
references: <01HS1P72T5EO00056Y@mr.srs.gov> <3sf81f$l86@hpaneqb4.an.hp.com>
<3sn6bk$fpi@netaxs.com>
organization: EDS-DEIS
newsgroups: sci.energy
In article <3sn6bk$f...@netaxs.com>, en...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu says:
>
>First the short answer: stack emissions are different than auto emissions
>since you are burning different fuels, despite this though it has been
>measured and there would be an increase in some pollutants, a decrease in
>others and some totally different pollutants from stacks but overall
>there would be the same amount of pollution in tonnage.
Please supply supporting data on the last sentence fragment. Show how the
pollution from electric plants is as dangerous as the same 'amount' from
ICE pollution.
Second question:
>No there is not enough capacity from all of the country's power plants to
> provide enough energy to power the electric cars (if an electric car
>comparable to an IC engine auto were even conceivable, which it is not).
Obviously, electric cars would not magically appear overnight in everyone's
garage. There would be a transition period to *some* level of EVs.
> I think you might explore some other questions: What about the people
>living near the power plants that have suddenly seen their local plant
>double its output and therefore its stack emissions, with electric
>plug-in and charge autos the emissions are being displaced not
>eliminated.
This is an issue that likely would be resolved to the benefit of the
majority.
What about battery disposal, the best batteries available
>today have a 3yr life span if...
Recycling is currently the law in many jurisdictions.
If your goal is truly zero emissions then that would necessitate
>harnessing natural power sources, hydro, goethermal, wind etc... there
>are not enough geographic sites available to harness even a fraction of
>the power necessary, realistically speaking the possible power sources
>are fossil fuels and nuclear followed distantly by solar.
How are you estimating natural resources? Why don't you consider solar a
natural resource? How are you estimating the projected need? How much roof
space does the current commuter have (for use by PVs)?
>You must assume also that consumers would
>expect and in fact require that an electric car have at least reasonable
>performance to an IC engine auto.
Not a given.
At this point the best electric car on
>the market is a whopping $30,000 and it has a 120mi range on an 8 hour
>charge (if the 60% battery drain rule is followed diligently then you
>lose 48 miles so forget about driving long distances quickly).
You have made unwarranted assumptions. The range provided by EV manufacturers
includes a margin for battery drain.
It could
>never repalce current autos in the marketplace, so making the assumption
>that there is a car out there that can fit the bill is a HUGE and totally
>unrealistic and inappropriate assumption.
No persons on this newsgroup are making those assumptions. Current EVs have
certain limitations that still allow their use over typical commuter-sized ranges.
>Finally power plants are
>about as clean as they are going to get,
Technology has reached an impassable hurdle?
>.... electric cars are simply not feasible at this time.
>
You have yet to bring forth evidence to allow us to reconsider.
William R. Stewart, Jr (Will) "Don't worry, be happy" - Bobby McFarren
Defense Enterprise Integration Services
wste...@deispo.deisva.msd.eds.com (703)760-0239
From: ch...@skorpio3.usask.ca (Henry Choy)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Questions
Date: 1995/07/15
Message-ID: < 3u8ttq$gkn@tribune.usask.ca>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 106239659
references: <01HS1P72T5EO00056Y@mr.srs.gov> <3sjrep$273o@hopi.gate.net>
<bhoglund-2806950805330001@198.51.35.175>
organization: University of Saskatchewan
newsgroups: sci.energy
Somebody wrote:
: > Electric Cars only make sense if the electricity is generated by
: > Atomic Power.
I think solar power is a good source too
--
Henry Choy "Math class is hard" - Barbie
e-mail: ch...@cs.usask.ca "Stupid is as stupid does." - Mrs. Gump
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Questions
Date: 1995/07/17
Message-ID: <3ueu0j$bie@crl10.crl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 106469482
references: <01HS1P72T5EO00056Y@mr.srs.gov> <3sjrep$273o@hopi.gate.net>
<bhoglund-2806950805330001@198.51.35.175> <3u8ttq$gkn@tribune.usask.ca>
organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
newsgroups: sci.energy
Henry Choy (ch...@skorpio3.usask.ca) wrote:
: Somebody wrote:
: : > Electric Cars only make sense if the electricity is generated by
: : > Atomic Power.
: I think solar power is a good source too
: Henry Choy "Math class is hard" - Barbie
: e-mail: ch...@cs.usask.ca "Stupid is as stupid does." - Mrs. Gump
Henry,
You are both wrong, and here are the reasons:
1. All productions of electricity are mixed together. It is impossibility
to allocate atomic or solar power to electric cars, or for that matter,
to any other specific use.
2. Furthermore, we are all ruled, whether you like it or not, by the
"marginal cost principle", which means that incremental increases come at
incremental costs. In the case of electric energy, it is fossil fuel.
As an example, assume you are a big operator, and you want to build a new
aluminum plant, of which the reduction furnaces use very much
electricity. You go to the XYZ power company and ask for a low cost
supply. They say, well, we have low cost hydro, but that is 100% used,
then we have an atomic power plant, but that is also already 100% used,
then we have still more expensive, also already at full capacity, natural
gas, also at more cost, coal (100% fully utilized) and finally, we have
imported very expensive low-sulfur oil power plants with lots of
capacity still available, and that is the cheapest we can do for your
aluminum plant, which is the marginal supply at marginal cost.
Sorry about that,
Ernst
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Electric Car Questions
Date: 1995/07/18
Message-ID: <3uggu1$gpa@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 106469451
distribution: world
references: <01HS1P72T5EO00056Y@mr.srs.gov> <3sjrep$273o@hopi.gate.net>
<bhoglund-2806950805330001@198.51.35.175> <3u8ttq$gkn@tribune.usask.ca>
<3ueu0j$bie@crl10.crl.com>
organization: Netcom
newsgroups: sci.energy
In <3ueu0j$b...@crl10.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>..., we are all ruled, whether you like it or not, by the
>"marginal cost principle", which means that incremental increases come
>at incremental costs. In the case of electric energy, it is fossil
>fuel.
??? You've made an assertion that still doesn't make sense even with
you handcrafted scenario below.
>As an example, assume you are a big operator, and you want to build a
>new aluminum plant, of which the reduction furnaces use very much
>electricity. You go to the XYZ power company and ask for a low cost
>supply. They say, well, we have low cost hydro, but that is 100% used,
>then we have an atomic power plant, but that is also already 100%
>used, then we have still more expensive, also already at full
>capacity, natural gas, also at more cost, coal (100% fully utilized)
>and finally, we have imported very expensive low-sulfur oil power
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>plants with lots of capacity still available, and that is the cheapest
>we can do for your aluminum plant, which is the marginal supply at
>marginal cost.
This would be a perfect scenario in which to employ Demand Side
Management (DSM), and produce your own. Solarex Corp. produces
photovoltaic panels and utilizes photovoltaic panels on site as the
electrical power source. This does not mean every single situation
should be designed this way; often wind power can be harnessed as
well. Power could be accessed from the grid only when you need to
satisfy some peak loads. It won't necessarily be the cheapest, but it
will reduce the effects of fossil fuel combustion by-products.
Cheers,
Will Stewart
From: kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
Subject: Re: Electric Car Questions
Date: 1995/07/18
Message-ID: <3uho7l$97r@crl9.crl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 106469507
distribution: world
references: <01HS1P72T5EO00056Y@mr.srs.gov> <3sjrep$273o@hopi.gate.net>
<bhoglund-2806950805330001@198.51.35.175> <3u8ttq$gkn@tribune.usask.ca>
<3ueu0j$bie@crl10.crl.com> <3uggu1$gpa@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
newsgroups: sci.energy
Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3ueu0j$b...@crl10.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: >..., we are all ruled, whether you like it or not, by the
: >"marginal cost principle", which means that incremental increases come
: >at incremental costs. In the case of electric energy, it is fossil
: >fuel.
: ??? You've made an assertion that still doesn't make sense even with
: you handcrafted scenario below.
: >As an example, assume you are a big operator, and you want to build a
: >new aluminum plant, of which the reduction furnaces use very much
: >electricity. You go to the XYZ power company and ask for a low cost
: >supply. They say, well, we have low cost hydro, but that is 100% used,
: >then we have an atomic power plant, but that is also already 100%
: >used, then we have still more expensive, also already at full
: >capacity, natural gas, also at more cost, coal (100% fully utilized)
: >and finally, we have imported very expensive low-sulfur oil power
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >plants with lots of capacity still available, and that is the cheapest
: >we can do for your aluminum plant, which is the marginal supply at
: >marginal cost.
: This would be a perfect scenario in which to employ Demand Side
: Management (DSM), and produce your own. Solarex Corp. produces
: photovoltaic panels and utilizes photovoltaic panels on site as the
: electrical power source. This does not mean every single situation
: should be designed this way; often wind power can be harnessed as
: well. Power could be accessed from the grid only when you need to
: satisfy some peak loads. It won't necessarily be the cheapest, but it
: will reduce the effects of fossil fuel combustion by-products.
: Cheers,
: Will Stewart
I agree with you, Will.
I worked in Tasmania in the 50s both in hydro power projects and
construction of an aluminum plant. The latter was especially located
there because of the availability of cheap hydro power. The bauxite, from
which aluminum is made, was mined a 1000 miles away in northern
Queensland. Yet, it was the most economical arrangement.
But, I can't see how one could copy this scenario and apply it to
electric cars.
Yours, Ernst
From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
Subject: Re: Electric Car Questions
Date: 1995/07/19
Message-ID: <3uj4e2$f2j@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 106629872
distribution: world
references: <01HS1P72T5EO00056Y@mr.srs.gov>
<3sjrep$273o@hopi.gate.net> <bhoglund-2806950805330001@198.51.35.175>
<3u8ttq$gkn@tribune.usask.ca> <3ueu0j$bie@crl10.crl.com>
<3uggu1$gpa@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3uho7l$97r@crl9.crl.com>
organization: Netcom
newsgroups: sci.energy
In <3uho7l$9...@crl9.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>
>: This would be a perfect scenario in which to employ Demand Side
>: Management (DSM), and produce your own. Solarex Corp. produces
>: photovoltaic panels and utilizes photovoltaic panels on site as the
>: electrical power source. This does not mean every single situation
>: should be designed this way; often wind power can be harnessed as
>: well. Power could be accessed from the grid only when you need to
>: satisfy some peak loads. It won't necessarily be the cheapest, but
>: it will reduce the effects of fossil fuel combustion by-products.
>I agree with you, Will.
I believe we can reason together.
>I worked in Tasmania in the 50s both in hydro power projects and
>construction of an aluminum plant. The latter was especially located
>there because of the availability of cheap hydro power. The bauxite,
>from which aluminum is made, was mined a 1000 miles away in northern
>Queensland. Yet, it was the most economical arrangement.
>But, I can't see how one could copy this scenario and apply it to
>electric cars.
We are not constricted to following a particular scenario even if it
was successful under certain circumstances.
The problem is the demand for vehicular energy sources has turned many
of our cities into smog banks. Even the Washingon DC area is getting
very hazy more frequently. Pollution alerts have more than doubled in
the last 5 years.
Either the demand for vehicular energy must diminish, or the local
pollution emissions must drop, if we are to provide some level of
healthy air for our citizens and children. If one were to take a ride
through LA, as I'm sure you probably do from time to time, one would be
engulfed in the encamping clouds of airborne wastes.
Of course, just plugging in electric cars to the garage outlet moves
some of that pollution out to the country (where there are fewer
people). This is a dilemma that has few easy cures. At the present
time, we flush our toilets to send the effluent to be processed and
disposed of elsewhere, so a like solution for electric cars does not
appear to be very different at all.
I find that there is no one party that I can rely on to satisfy my
personal desires for the direction of this country. In 1982, I
switched from being a Democrat to a moderate Republican. I have voted
Republican ever since. Now, I may reconsider my voting strategy based
on some of the environmental and energy decisions of the present
congressional majority members.
Regards,
Will Stewart