Dirt to Wheels analysis?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
109 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Dirt to Wheels analysis?

AMPhibian
I'm looking for a recent, comprehensive, dirt to wheels comparison of EV's, (including inputs used to get the fuel to generate the electricity and resources and energy used to build the batteries and power train), and ICE's, (also including inputs used to drill for oil and resources and energy used to build motors, transmissions and exhaust systems).  This is assuming the current US grid mix of about 48% coal.  I'm not aware if such a study exists and it would seem daunting to take into account all the many possible variables.  The anti-EV lobby is "drilling down" even further, as they should, trying to suggest that the entire EV chain is less efficient than the ICE chain when battery pack construction inputs and fuel source extraction inputs are included.  This is of course ignoring the fact that increased renewables in the future would skew things further in favor of EV's.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

tomw
Not as sweeping as you are looking for, but here is a well-to-wheel analysis from Norway:

http://tinyurl.com/2u73pw8

What data published in refereed journals do they offer to substantiate their argument? Remember to include the segment of the U.S. military budget for protecting ships in the gulf region, and off-budget items like the Iraq war, in the cost estimate for procurement of oil.  

Myself, I think it is a waste of time to argue this since oil demand will exceed supply in a few years. Even the normally over-optimistic International Energy Agency (IEA) states in their 2010 World Energy Outlook that global oil production peaked in 2006, and that despite this being in part due to the global recession, there will be a growing gap between oil demand and oil production which needs to be filled by “as of yet undiscovered sources”.  It seems very likely there is not enough undiscovered oil at high enough energy return on energy invested (EROEI) to fill the gap.  So quite soon it will become apparent we have limited options, and "drill baby drill" isn't one of them.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

Matt Childress
In reply to this post by AMPhibian
How do you choose to measure efficiency?

        www.illinois.edu/goto/co2

The above graph is from the New York Times based on US EPA data (sorry,
haven't been able to source where the original EPA data comes from --
perhaps contact the NYT?).  It takes into account all of the data you
ask for various fuel types but neglects to include energy consumed
protecting oil-rich regions (war) as well as direct deaths & trauma
caused by such actions as well as coal mining/mountain topping & holler
filling, buried alive/black lung (electricity).

>From a CO2 perspective, it's resoundingly in favor of EV's NOW and EV's
in the future, irrespective of the greenness of the grid -- it's
important to note in the graph, that the baseline IS ICE-based vehicles.

There's also this study here highlighted and discussed at a recent
Illinois EV Club meeting (we have a fair number of academics and
wanna-bes ;-):
       
    "One of the items that we discussed briefly at tonight's September
meeting of the
     Illinois EV Club was a paper published by Dominic Notter et al.
that compared the
     environmental effects of battery-powered cars to those of
conventionally-fuelled
     automobiles when one takes into account the entire life cycle of
the batteries.
     A summary of the paper is given below. I'd like to thank Diana
Yates for posting
     this link to our club's Facebook page and Mercedes Mane for
bringing a copy of
     the journal article with her to the meeting, and initiating and
moderating the
     discussion."

      - Dave Noreen

     http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/sflf-te083010.php

It is a detailed lifecycle assessment (LCA) comparison, and the upshot
is that for both ICE vehicles and electrics, it is much more a question
of power source rather than the power train and the resources used to
build the vehicle.  The ICE was a "best in class" with a liter/100km
value "significantly lower than the European average".  On the flipside,
they "fueled" the plug-in vehicle from the "standard European
electricity mix".  So they took a best-in-class vehicle and compared it
to an average-to-middling EV (VW Golf sized & performance vehicle).

Their conclusion was "a petrol-engined car must consume between three
and four liters per 100 kilometers (or about 70 mpg) in order to be as
environmentally friendly as the e-car studied, powered with Li-ion
batteries and charged with a typical European electricity mix."  Note
that their "best in class" vehicle did not attain 3-4 L/100km.

So in the second study you have strong research indicating that it is
the source of the power over the life cycle of the car that is the most
significant factor (the embodied energy of the vehicles being roughly
equal -- negating the Lithium-Ion batteries being worse than an ICE
controversy), and in the first study you have a fuel analysis that shows
that the dirty, coal-fired grid-based electricity will result in a 47%
CO2 reduction over gasoline.  Today.  

And the critical piece to the puzzle is that the entire argument becomes
moot once you're able to charge on renewables.  So if you drive an EV,
you really need to be out there beating the drum locally in support for
every ounce of renewable-generated electricity brought online.  Because
then this argument disappears, almost like magic.

And then you're just left with fun ;-)

M@



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of AMPhibian
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:23 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?


I'm looking for a recent, comprehensive, dirt to wheels comparison of
EV's,
(including inputs used to get the fuel to generate the electricity and
resources and energy used to build the batteries and power train), and
ICE's, (also including inputs used to drill for oil and resources and
energy
used to build motors, transmissions and exhaust systems).  This is
assuming
the current US grid mix of about 48% coal.  I'm not aware if such a
study
exists and it would seem daunting to take into account all the many
possible
variables.  The anti-EV lobby is "drilling down" even further, as they
should, trying to suggest that the entire EV chain is less efficient
than
the ICE chain when battery pack construction inputs and fuel source
extraction inputs are included.  This is of course ignoring the fact
that
increased renewables in the future would skew things further in favor of
EV's.
--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Dirt-to-Whe
els-analysis-tp3076445p3076445.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

EVDL Administrator
In reply to this post by tomw
Forgive me if I seem cynical, but after doing so for over 20 years, I mostly
don't much bother with defending EVs against these attacks any more.  

As in politics and commerce, the attackers don't present any valid evidence
to support their arguments.  They don't need any.  The claims are structured
like advertising, to have the maximum emotional effect on the audience, and
whether they're true or verifiable doesn't matter.  The gullible American
populace will apparently believe anything - especially if it tells them that
everything will be fine and they don't need to change anything they're
doing.

The news media are complicit in this.  They dutifully report anti-EV claims
without examining or verifying them, no matter how bizarre they may seem.

Certainly there are exceptions, but most reporters (can't call 'em
journalists any more) are ignorant of science, and have no interest in
taking the time and effort to learn about or do research about the subjects
on which they report.  If the speaker or news release writer claims to be an
"expert," why should they question him?

Not that it matters: more and more Americans (and increasingly other
nationalities) get their "news" from sources of opinion, on both sides of
the political spectrum.  They seldom bother to corroborate those views, but
internalize them as facts, unexamined. For them, belief - implicit trust in
the source - trumps knowledge.

For now, people with "green" tendencies will buy EVs.  This is a relatively
small number and the EVs they buy will mostly remain relatively expensive
specialty vehicles for the near future.

When liquid fuel is no longer available without appreciable inconvenience
and cost, nearly everyone will buy EVs.  Manufacturers which are ready for
that day with good, appealing EVs that they can crank out by the thousands
will prosper.  The rest will not.  It'll be interesting to see whether the
US automakers try to sell the EV equivalents of Vegas and Pintos.

EVs will dominate when and where there's no alternative.  I'm increasingly
skeptical that our talk and PR are going to much increase the pace of that
change, though I guess it can't hurt other than wasting a bit of time. ;-)

The good news is that I've never seen as wide a selection of EV conversion
components as is available today.  Nor have there ever been as many ways to
learn how to build an EV and absorb the experience of hundreds of EV
pioneers.

Folks who think for themselves - that would be the EVDL membership, among
others - and build, buy, and use EVs are, and will continue to be, the best
and most public proof that EVs work and are a good idea.  

In other words, building an EV and driving it is the best way to counter the
EV opponents.  Just do it.

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not
reach me.  To send a private message, please obtain my
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

wjdennis@qwest.net
In reply to this post by AMPhibian
> This is assuming the current US grid mix of about 48% coal.

Actually, the 48% number is misleading.  It includes industrial, commercial
and residential use.  If you're just looking for residential or residential
plus commercial use (which EVs would tap into), then the number is more in
the 35% - 40% range--toward on the 35% end if you think most EV charging
will be done at home, or closer to the 40% end if you think a lot of it
will be done while people are at work.  

Interestingly, one of the biggest users of coal-fired electricity is the
oil refinement industry.  

Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting



_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

AMPhibian
In reply to this post by EVDL Administrator
I agree with both points but it has become something of a pastime to involve myself in these arguments.  I can't walk away from the misinformation that I often come across.  Certainly building and driving an EV is a good counter, but at the same time many of our conversions have limited range and are not the best representation of the potential for EV's, and they do nothing to counter the long tailpipe arguments on their own.  
I've started a blog where I'm posting some of my EV thoughts, often inspired by an argument I've had about EV practicality.  It's non technical stuff aimed at the general public that I hope to use as a reference in future discussions and I'm always looking for more ammunition.  http://ephase.blogspot.com/ 
 
EVDL Administrator wrote
Forgive me if I seem cynical, but after doing so for over 20 years, I mostly
don't much bother with defending EVs against these attacks any more......  

.....In other words, building an EV and driving it is the best way to counter the
EV opponents.  Just do it.

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not
reach me.  To send a private message, please obtain my
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to ev@lists.sjsu.edu only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

AMPhibian
In reply to this post by wjdennis@qwest.net
Good points but I need backup documentation if you can provide it.  Too often I see counter arguments with no support, I don't want to be guilty of the same.  Does the refining industry use a lot of coal power or does some/most of it come from petroleum/natural gas?

Bill Dennis wrote
> This is assuming the current US grid mix of about 48% coal.

Actually, the 48% number is misleading.  It includes industrial, commercial
and residential use.  If you're just looking for residential or residential
plus commercial use (which EVs would tap into), then the number is more in
the 35% - 40% range--toward on the 35% end if you think most EV charging
will be done at home, or closer to the 40% end if you think a lot of it
will be done while people are at work.  

Interestingly, one of the biggest users of coal-fired electricity is the
oil refinement industry.  

Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting



_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to ev@lists.sjsu.edu only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

Roger Heuckeroth
In reply to this post by wjdennis@qwest.net

On Dec 7, 2010, at 1:27 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

>> This is assuming the current US grid mix of about 48% coal.
>
> Actually, the 48% number is misleading.  It includes industrial,  
> commercial
> and residential use.  If you're just looking for residential or  
> residential
> plus commercial use (which EVs would tap into), then the number is  
> more in
> the 35% - 40% range--toward on the 35% end if you think most EV  
> charging
> will be done at home, or closer to the 40% end if you think a lot of  
> it
> will be done while people are at work.
>
> Interestingly, one of the biggest users of coal-fired electricity is  
> the
> oil refinement industry.
>
> Bill


What the critics don't get is this:  Its not entirely relevant as to  
what the current mix of electrical energy is now.  EVs allow you to  
clean up your energy sources at the power plant level without having  
to deal with millions of point sources of pollution.  The pollution is  
centralized at the generators, so it is easier to deal with.   This is  
never mentioned in any of these negative articles.



_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

NeilBlanchard
In reply to this post by AMPhibian
Hi,

> Does the refining industry use a lot of coal power or does some/most
> of it come from petroleum/natural gas?

The refining stage of petroleum uses both electricity and natural gas directly.  There is a lot of heating involved, and a fair bit of electricity as well -- Nissan has said about 7.5kWh / US gallon of gasoline.  (What is not clear is whether this is *just* the refining, or all the way through the entire process?)  A single large refinery uses power directly from the power station, and it uses about as much electricity as a city of 250,000 people.  (From a "Fully Charged" podcast, from an interview with a manager of a large refinery.)

A detail that is often forgotten: different quality crude requires different amount of energy to refine.  And you get significantly less gasoline from heavy sour crude, than you do from sweet light crude.

Another very important point is that refining is *not* the only stage with significant energy input -- extraction uses a lot of electricity.  Transportation around the globe requires a lot of energy; be it supertankers or pipelines.  Storage (at several stages along the way) also requires some energy input.  And exploration and the initial drilling take a lot of energy; even things like the so-called "drilling mud" take a lot of energy intensive processing to make; similar to making concrete, or maybe even more so.  Drilling mud is expensive for a reason.  Large drilling rigs have to be "sailed" to locations, and they are constantly powered just to stay in place -- the BP rig that burned and sank had 6 or 8 engines, each in the 1,000's of horsepower range.

The current carbon output from EV's depends on the efficiency of the vehicle and where you get the power from -- they range from 40-100gm/km, source-to-wheels; including the mix of coal and other sources, disposal of coal ash, as well.  All the electricity used all along the way to produce petroleum and make gasoline -- is "dirty" and that carbon must be added to the carbon produced by ICE vehicles.  Ditto for the natural gas used along the way to producing gasoline.  So, typical ICE vehicles produce 300-500gm/km; source-to-wheels.

Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

wjdennis@qwest.net
In reply to this post by AMPhibian
> I need backup documentation if you can provide it.

Here's a start:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfilees1.pdf

See table ES1.  In 2009, 44.5% of U.S. electricity was generated by coal.
For total electricity consumption (not just from coal), here's the
breakdown by megawatt hours used:

Residential:  1,364,474
Commercial:   1,307,168
Industrial:     917,442

I'll have to dig a little deeper to find out the breakdown of that 917,442
industrial megawatt hours.

Bill


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint



_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

Larry Gales
In reply to this post by AMPhibian
Below is a reply from Stephan at EV which talks about the energy consumption
of extraction and refining of gasoline in California, but some of the links
no longer work:

.......................................................................................
[hidden email] to me
show details 10/12/07





Hi Larry,

It was nice to meet you at the SEVA meeting.  Here is the source for the
calculations about how much electricity and also natural gas energy is used
for extracting and refining oil in the state of California.

>From a California Energy Department website:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/iaw/industry/petro.html

The key numbers are below:

3,700GWh or 1.5% of all electricity consumed by the state is used for
Petroleum EXTRACTION

7,266 million KWh of electricity for Petroleum REFINING (1997)- 15% of
California's manufacturing sector (if 3700 is 1.5, then 7266=2.9%.
1.5+2.9=4.4%. That looks more like 1/20th of all Electric usage to me)

1,061 million Therms of natural gas Petroleum REFINING (1997)- 28% of
California's manufacturing sector
48% of energy from Petroleum is used in the transportation sector.
                      --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --
Below are the calculations of Mr. William Korthof (Bill is a nice guy and
owns a factory built Toyota Rav4EV which now has over 100,000 trouble free
miles on it!)   http://evnut.com/rav_owner_100k.htm


Well, by my calculations,

the electricity used in CA to extract and refine oil for gasoline (11,000
Gwh) would be enough to power 4 million full function electric cars. 11000
million kWh / 0.25 kWh per mile /11000 miles per year per car = 4
million E cars

Adding the natural gas used to refine oil for gasoline, 1,061 million
therms, we could get
enough power to run another 5 million electric cars
1061 million therms * 30 Kwh per therm / 50% combined cycle power plant
efficiency
/ 11000 miles per year per car / 0.25 miles per kWh = 5 million electric
cars

Adding in the energy used to produce and ship imported oil (over 50% is
now), plus the
energy used to distribute and retail oil...

-wk-

William's calculations seem fairly accurate in my opinion, and 250whrs per
mile is a reasonable average for EVs of various sizes although some cars can
get even better.

For more specific information on the factory produced EVs including the GM
EV1, Chrysler Minivan and various others you can check out:

http://avt.inel.gov/fsev.shtml

Each smaller pdf contains detailed info on power consumption at various
speeds as well as battery type and weight. Lots of good stuff from the Idaho
National Labratories.

Talk to you later,
-Stephen Johnsen-

............................................................................................................................................................

According to Nissan, it takes 7.5 hours to refine a gallon of gasoline:

        http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=820&start=70

-- Larry Gales

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:22 AM, AMPhibian <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I'm looking for a recent, comprehensive, dirt to wheels comparison of EV's,
> (including inputs used to get the fuel to generate the electricity and
> resources and energy used to build the batteries and power train), and
> ICE's, (also including inputs used to drill for oil and resources and
> energy
> used to build motors, transmissions and exhaust systems).  This is assuming
> the current US grid mix of about 48% coal.  I'm not aware if such a study
> exists and it would seem daunting to take into account all the many
> possible
> variables.  The anti-EV lobby is "drilling down" even further, as they
> should, trying to suggest that the entire EV chain is less efficient than
> the ICE chain when battery pack construction inputs and fuel source
> extraction inputs are included.  This is of course ignoring the fact that
> increased renewables in the future would skew things further in favor of
> EV's.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Dirt-to-Wheels-analysis-tp3076445p3076445.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>



--
Larry Gales
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101207/c9fe2bbf/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

EVDL Administrator
On 7 Dec 2010 at 13:37, Larry Gales wrote:

> the electricity used in CA to extract and refine oil for gasoline (11,000
> Gwh) would be enough to power 4 million full function electric cars.

I calculated this a little differently, but still got an impressive answer.

To be consonant with typical American driving habits, I took 350 Wh/mi as a
starting point.  This is pretty typical of a moderately efficient conversion
such as a medium sedan or small pickup.  (A carefully designed small car
conversion can manage 150-200 Wh/mi.)

I also figured 15000 miles per year - high for a city car, obviously, but
the average motorist is going to look at how many miles he put on last year
and raise an objection if we use too low a number.

So this mythical average EV would use .35 kWh/mi * 15000mi = 5250kWh per
year or 5.25MWh/yr.

Refineries use 11000000MWh/yr, or enough to power 2,095,238 such EVs.

I found a reference on the net saying that California's 2000 vehicle
population was 23.4 million.  So the electricity used by refineries could
power about 9% of California's vehicles if they were electric.

The problem with this argument (aside from the fact that EV opponents simply
won't listen to it) is that surely CA refineries distribute gasoline all
over the nation, and not all gasoline used in CA comes from CA.  So, to get
an accurate picture, we'd have to take this analysis to a national level (if
not international).

Or not.  Just use that number.  It sounds big and has a nice emotional
appeal.  "If we shut down all the gasoline refineries in California, we
could power over 2 million electric cars with the electricity they'd been
using!"  If ya can't beat 'em ...

David Roden
EVDL Administrator
http://www.evdl.org/


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

John O'Connor-3
In reply to this post by wjdennis@qwest.net
Bill,

Are you indicating different user categories 'get' energy produced by  
different fuels. If so that is not accurate except if the user is  
directly connected to the power plant.

Power goes into the grid from different sources, then its all the  
same. Even if your utility says they are importing hydro (or coal) ,  
or that you are getting green energy, the energy you use to charge  
your EV comes from the same grid. You could argue your energy comes  
from the closest source given the path of least resistance property.

If you are talking about different times of day, then the mix of  
generation may change, but I would argue it is a stretch to make the  
connection between time of use and user category.



On Dec 7, 2010, at 1:27 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

>> This is assuming the current US grid mix of about 48% coal.
>
> Actually, the 48% number is misleading.  It includes industrial,  
> commercial
> and residential use.  If you're just looking for residential or  
> residential
> plus commercial use (which EVs would tap into), then the number is  
> more in
> the 35% - 40% range--toward on the 35% end if you think most EV  
> charging
> will be done at home, or closer to the 40% end if you think a lot  
> of it
> will be done while people are at work.
>
> Interestingly, one of the biggest users of coal-fired electricity  
> is the
> oil refinement industry.
>
> Bill

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

wjdennis@qwest.net
>Are you indicating different user categories 'get' energy produced by
different fuels. If so that is
>not accurate except if the user is directly connected to the power plant.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  Some manufacturing facilities generate
their on electricity on-site, from coal.  There are also some Independent
Power Producers who generate goal-fired electricity that doesn't get fed
into the grid.  When you count the electricity that's fed into the grid,
it's more in the 40% range than the 48% range from coal--though these
numbers are hard to come by.  I'll see if I can find a more authoritative
reference than myself for the claim.

Bill  

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

John O'Connor-3
OK that makes sense. How are you separating industrial from residential?

As for The Grid, I believe most utilities are required to inform customers of the generation mix of the energy they buy, and most of the country is covered by an RTO, ISO or other multiple-utility balancing authority that is likely to publish generation mix data.

For example
CAISO
MISO
PJM Interconnection
ISO-NE
NYISO
Southwest Power Pool
Bonneville Power Authority


John

On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:46 PM, "Bill Dennis" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Are you indicating different user categories 'get' energy produced by
> different fuels. If so that is
>> not accurate except if the user is directly connected to the power plant.
>
> No, that's not what I'm saying.  Some manufacturing facilities generate
> their on electricity on-site, from coal.  There are also some Independent
> Power Producers who generate goal-fired electricity that doesn't get fed
> into the grid.  When you count the electricity that's fed into the grid,
> it's more in the 40% range than the 48% range from coal--though these
> numbers are hard to come by.  I'll see if I can find a more authoritative
> reference than myself for the claim.
>
> Bill  
>

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

AMPhibian
In reply to this post by wjdennis@qwest.net
If it's self generated and doesn't enter the grid is it still counted as part of the grid mix?  I wonder if the increased industrial coal usage comes from the fact that much of industrial processes run 24/7 and take a greater percentage of night time generation, which might be more base load coal.  Also much of industry might be grouped in areas of high coal usage, Great Lakes/Detroit area for example.

Bill Dennis wrote
>Are you indicating different user categories 'get' energy produced by
different fuels. If so that is
>not accurate except if the user is directly connected to the power plant.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  Some manufacturing facilities generate
their on electricity on-site, from coal.  There are also some Independent
Power Producers who generate goal-fired electricity that doesn't get fed
into the grid.  When you count the electricity that's fed into the grid,
it's more in the 40% range than the 48% range from coal--though these
numbers are hard to come by.  I'll see if I can find a more authoritative
reference than myself for the claim.

Bill  

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to ev@lists.sjsu.edu only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

Lee Hart
In reply to this post by Roger Heuckeroth
The real problem with this type of analysis is that its real purpose is
to shift the focus and prevent change. The auto companies and oil
companies are masters of this game. They have used it successfully for
decades to stall any and all changes and regulations.

Rather than say you disagree with someone, you instead say "You have a
good idea, but how big a difference would it make? We'll have to study
it first." Then the studies go on forever. As each one comes out, you
find some fault with it, and so insist on a new one.

When you argue this way, you are playing their game. They have the "home
team" advantage, and are almost certain to win.

The average driver doesn't care about dirt to wheels analysis. He
doesn't know what his car costs him per mile, or how much pollution it
makes. We don't want or need to sell EVs to the oil or auto companies or
government -- we want to sell *consumers* on them! To do that, write
your appeal to them!

- Cheaper to run: 10 cents/KWH versus $3.00/gallon
- Cleaner: No pollution
- Simpler: no oil, filters, belts, hoses, exhaust system, etc.
- Convenient; no more trips to the gas station, oil changes, etc.
- Fun! Exciting! New!
--
Lee A. Hart | Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave N | Forget the perfect offering
Sartell MN 56377 | There is a crack in everything
leeahart earthlink.net | That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

Dennis Miles
In reply to this post by AMPhibian
Perhaps, surprising is the high coal usage in Florida, but it less expensive
even with ocean going barge transport than the "Bunker Fuel" oil used in
many of the plants here also, Florida seems to use an eclectic mix of oil,
coal, and natural gas. Since the early 60's when a large gas pipeline was
run from Texas to Florida we have seen a large number of large industrial
sites using gas fueled co-generation (EG. Disney World, which helps power
Orlando and all of the Disney site with its twin turbine generator set, )
Then near my home the city of Lakeland owns the Electric Utility and has a
large coal fired plant with a peaking generator which is a gas fueled
turbine. They bring the coal in from the port at Jacksonville because the
Port of Tampa is set up for oil. But on the other side of Tampa bay Progress
Energy has a string of plants connected by a oil pipeline and all their
plants except one are oil fired, exception being a Nuclear plant which when
it is on line is the most economical to operate. I only report what they
told me as a customer here in Florida for the past 50 years. I recall
1998-1999 I lived in Springfield, Oregon, the city had a "Hydro" plant and
power was 1/2 the price the Florida utilities charge.
Regards,
Dennis Miles
=============================================
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:49 AM, AMPhibian <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> If it's self generated and doesn't enter the grid is it still counted as
> part
> of the grid mix?  I wonder if the increased industrial coal usage comes
> from
> the fact that much of industrial processes run 24/7 and take a greater
> percentage of night time generation, which might be more base load coal.
> Also much of industry might be grouped in areas of high coal usage, Great
> Lakes/Detroit area for example.
>
>
> Bill Dennis wrote:
> >
> >>Are you indicating different user categories 'get' energy produced by
> > different fuels. If so that is
> >>not accurate except if the user is directly connected to the power plant.
> >
> > No, that's not what I'm saying.  Some manufacturing facilities generate
> > their on electricity on-site, from coal.  There are also some Independent
> > Power Producers who generate goal-fired electricity that doesn't get fed
> > into the grid.  When you count the electricity that's fed into the grid,
> > it's more in the 40% range than the 48% range from coal--though these
> > numbers are hard to come by.  I'll see if I can find a more authoritative
> > reference than myself for the claim.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Dirt-to-Wheels-analysis-tp3076445p3078226.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>



--
Regards,
*Dennis Lee Miles*   (Director)     *E.V.T.I. inc*.
*www.E-V-T-I-Inc.COM <http://www.e-v-t-i-inc.com/>    *(Adviser)*
EVTI-EVAEducation Chapter
*
Phone (813) ID4 - E V T I   or  (813) 434 - 3884
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101208/4fb1310e/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

Roland Wiench
In reply to this post by wjdennis@qwest.net
Hello Lee,

One thing you might want to change on your Simpler list is that many EV's
still use oil,  A transmission uses up to 12 qts, a differential takes about
10 qts, the power steering takes about 2 qts and the braking systems takes
about 2 qts.

Still use filters,  A transmission uses a filter, and even some use a
external filter,  there is also filters on the power steering fluid and
brake fluid.  There is A/C oil, fluids and antic freeze for a water cool
controller and water heater system.

Belts, I have lots of belts,  double belt for the inverter-alternator drive,
one for the vacuum pump, one for the A/C and another double belt for speed
reduction off the pilot shaft of the motor.

Hoses, I have so many hoses and tubes it worse then what the new cars have.
The Zilla takes about 10 feet of cooling hoses that run from the Zilla to a
fill tank to a pump down to the front of the A/C radiator and back up to the
Zilla.  The power steering takes another 10 feet of hoses, which runs from
the power steering to the Hydro-Boost Braking system and then to the
steering rack and back to the power steering pump.  Then there all kinds of
vacuum lines with vacuum canisters and check values.  The A/C also has about
10 feet of hoses.

Exhaust System:  My battery box has a exhaust system which must be turn on
first, or the AC power contactor will not apply power to the battery
charger.  When the battery box explosive proof acid proof fan comes on, it
exhaust air from the battery box through a 2 inch PVC only 1/4 inch hose
which pulls in air from the other end of the battery box through another pvc
hose which has one of those 3-M air filters in the line.  The hose that
comes out of the exhaust fans, goes down and out like a exhaust pipe.  If I
charging in the garage, I can connect one of those service stations exhaust
hoses to a port on the external wall.

A person that does the EV conversion there selves, may never have to go a
service station, because what do they know about your EV.

Roland


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[hidden email]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?


> The real problem with this type of analysis is that its real purpose is
> to shift the focus and prevent change. The auto companies and oil
> companies are masters of this game. They have used it successfully for
> decades to stall any and all changes and regulations.
>
> Rather than say you disagree with someone, you instead say "You have a
> good idea, but how big a difference would it make? We'll have to study
> it first." Then the studies go on forever. As each one comes out, you
> find some fault with it, and so insist on a new one.
>
> When you argue this way, you are playing their game. They have the "home
> team" advantage, and are almost certain to win.
>
> The average driver doesn't care about dirt to wheels analysis. He
> doesn't know what his car costs him per mile, or how much pollution it
> makes. We don't want or need to sell EVs to the oil or auto companies or
> government -- we want to sell *consumers* on them! To do that, write
> your appeal to them!
>
> - Cheaper to run: 10 cents/KWH versus $3.00/gallon
> - Cleaner: No pollution
> - Simpler: no oil, filters, belts, hoses, exhaust system, etc.
> - Convenient; no more trips to the gas station, oil changes, etc.
> - Fun! Exciting! New!
> --
> Lee A. Hart | Ring the bells that still can ring
> 814 8th Ave N | Forget the perfect offering
> Sartell MN 56377 | There is a crack in everything
> leeahart earthlink.net | That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dirt to Wheels analysis?

Dave Hymers
Plastics and lubricants are *not* gasoline being burned in an ICE.
EVs consume (explode, burn, incinerate) no oil to physically move.

BTW, you missed tires, on average I believe its 7 quarts of oil in every
tire.

If we want to go all out -

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Roland Wiench <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Lee,
>
> One thing you might want to change on your Simpler list is that many EV's
> still use oil,  A transmission uses up to 12 qts, a differential takes
> about
> 10 qts, the power steering takes about 2 qts and the braking systems takes
> about 2 qts.
>
> Still use filters,  A transmission uses a filter, and even some use a
> external filter,  there is also filters on the power steering fluid and
> brake fluid.  There is A/C oil, fluids and antic freeze for a water cool
> controller and water heater system.
>
> Belts, I have lots of belts,  double belt for the inverter-alternator
> drive,
> one for the vacuum pump, one for the A/C and another double belt for speed
> reduction off the pilot shaft of the motor.
>
> Hoses, I have so many hoses and tubes it worse then what the new cars have.
> The Zilla takes about 10 feet of cooling hoses that run from the Zilla to a
> fill tank to a pump down to the front of the A/C radiator and back up to
> the
> Zilla.  The power steering takes another 10 feet of hoses, which runs from
> the power steering to the Hydro-Boost Braking system and then to the
> steering rack and back to the power steering pump.  Then there all kinds of
> vacuum lines with vacuum canisters and check values.  The A/C also has
> about
> 10 feet of hoses.
>
> Exhaust System:  My battery box has a exhaust system which must be turn on
> first, or the AC power contactor will not apply power to the battery
> charger.  When the battery box explosive proof acid proof fan comes on, it
> exhaust air from the battery box through a 2 inch PVC only 1/4 inch hose
> which pulls in air from the other end of the battery box through another
> pvc
> hose which has one of those 3-M air filters in the line.  The hose that
> comes out of the exhaust fans, goes down and out like a exhaust pipe.  If I
> charging in the garage, I can connect one of those service stations exhaust
> hoses to a port on the external wall.
>
> A person that does the EV conversion there selves, may never have to go a
> service station, because what do they know about your EV.
>
> Roland
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lee Hart" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 8:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?
>
>
> > The real problem with this type of analysis is that its real purpose is
> > to shift the focus and prevent change. The auto companies and oil
> > companies are masters of this game. They have used it successfully for
> > decades to stall any and all changes and regulations.
> >
> > Rather than say you disagree with someone, you instead say "You have a
> > good idea, but how big a difference would it make? We'll have to study
> > it first." Then the studies go on forever. As each one comes out, you
> > find some fault with it, and so insist on a new one.
> >
> > When you argue this way, you are playing their game. They have the "home
> > team" advantage, and are almost certain to win.
> >
> > The average driver doesn't care about dirt to wheels analysis. He
> > doesn't know what his car costs him per mile, or how much pollution it
> > makes. We don't want or need to sell EVs to the oil or auto companies or
> > government -- we want to sell *consumers* on them! To do that, write
> > your appeal to them!
> >
> > - Cheaper to run: 10 cents/KWH versus $3.00/gallon
> > - Cleaner: No pollution
> > - Simpler: no oil, filters, belts, hoses, exhaust system, etc.
> > - Convenient; no more trips to the gas station, oil changes, etc.
> > - Fun! Exciting! New!
> > --
> > Lee A. Hart | Ring the bells that still can ring
> > 814 8th Ave N | Forget the perfect offering
> > Sartell MN 56377 | There is a crack in everything
> > leeahart earthlink.net | That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> > | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> > | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> > | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20101208/bf8a31fa/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [hidden email] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
1234 ... 6