[EVDL List]

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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]
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 

[EVDL List]

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 ;-)

[email protected]



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of AMPhibian
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:23 AM
To: [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

> 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=AE Windows=AE and Linux web and applicati=
on
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting



_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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 [email protected] 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-tp3076445p3076988.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

Ckdvb2QgcG9pbnRzIGJ1dCBJIG5lZWQgYmFja3VwIGRvY3VtZW50YXRpb24gaWYgeW91IGNhbiBw
cm92aWRlIGl0LiAgVG9vIG9mdGVuCkkgc2VlIGNvdW50ZXIgYXJndW1lbnRzIHdpdGggbm8gc3Vw
cG9ydCwgSSBkb24ndCB3YW50IHRvIGJlIGd1aWx0eSBvZiB0aGUKc2FtZS4gIERvZXMgdGhlIHJl
ZmluaW5nIGluZHVzdHJ5IHVzZSBhIGxvdCBvZiBjb2FsIHBvd2VyIG9yIGRvZXMgc29tZS9tb3N0
Cm9mIGl0IGNvbWUgZnJvbSBwZXRyb2xldW0vbmF0dXJhbCBnYXM/CgoKQmlsbCBEZW5uaXMgd3Jv
dGU6Cj4gCj4+IFRoaXMgaXMgYXNzdW1pbmcgdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgVVMgZ3JpZCBtaXggb2YgYWJv
dXQgNDglIGNvYWwuCj4gCj4gQWN0dWFsbHksIHRoZSA0OCUgbnVtYmVyIGlzIG1pc2xlYWRpbmcu
ICBJdCBpbmNsdWRlcyBpbmR1c3RyaWFsLAo+IGNvbW1lcmNpYWwKPiBhbmQgcmVzaWRlbnRpYWwg
dXNlLiAgSWYgeW91J3JlIGp1c3QgbG9va2luZyBmb3IgcmVzaWRlbnRpYWwgb3IKPiByZXNpZGVu
dGlhbAo+IHBsdXMgY29tbWVyY2lhbCB1c2UgKHdoaWNoIEVWcyB3b3VsZCB0YXAgaW50byksIHRo
ZW4gdGhlIG51bWJlciBpcyBtb3JlIGluCj4gdGhlIDM1JSAtIDQwJSByYW5nZS0tdG93YXJkIG9u
IHRoZSAzNSUgZW5kIGlmIHlvdSB0aGluayBtb3N0IEVWIGNoYXJnaW5nCj4gd2lsbCBiZSBkb25l
IGF0IGhvbWUsIG9yIGNsb3NlciB0byB0aGUgNDAlIGVuZCBpZiB5b3UgdGhpbmsgYSBsb3Qgb2Yg
aXQKPiB3aWxsIGJlIGRvbmUgd2hpbGUgcGVvcGxlIGFyZSBhdCB3b3JrLiAgCj4gCj4gSW50ZXJl
c3RpbmdseSwgb25lIG9mIHRoZSBiaWdnZXN0IHVzZXJzIG9mIGNvYWwtZmlyZWQgZWxlY3RyaWNp
dHkgaXMgdGhlCj4gb2lsIHJlZmluZW1lbnQgaW5kdXN0cnkuICAKPiAKPiBCaWxsCj4gCj4gLS0t
LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t
LS0tLS0tLS0KPiBteWhvc3RpbmcuY29tIC0gUHJlbWl1bSBNaWNyb3NvZnTCriBXaW5kb3dzwq4g
YW5kIExpbnV4IHdlYiBhbmQgYXBwbGljYXRpb24KPiBob3N0aW5nIC0gaHR0cDovL2xpbmsubXlo
b3N0aW5nLmNvbS9teWhvc3RpbmcKPiAKPiAKPiAKPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwo+IHwgUkVQTFlJTkc6IGFkZHJlc3MgeW91ciBtZXNzYWdl
IHRvIGV2QGxpc3RzLnNqc3UuZWR1IG9ubHkuCj4gfCBNdWx0aXBsZS1hZGRyZXNzIG9yIENDZWQg
bWVzc2FnZXMgbWF5IGJlIHJlamVjdGVkLgo+IHwgVU5TVUJTQ1JJQkU6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZXZk
bC5vcmcvaGVscC9pbmRleC5odG1sI3VzdWIKPiB8IE9USEVSIEhFTFA6IGh0dHA6Ly9ldmRsLm9y
Zy9oZWxwLwo+IHwgT1BUSU9OUzogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzLnNqc3UuZWR1L21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGlu
Zm8vZXYKPiAKPiAKCi0tIApWaWV3IHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBpbiBjb250ZXh0OiBodHRwOi8vZWxl
Y3RyaWMtdmVoaWNsZS1kaXNjdXNzaW9uLWxpc3QuNDEzNTI5Lm40Lm5hYmJsZS5jb20vRGlydC10
by1XaGVlbHMtYW5hbHlzaXMtdHAzMDc2NDQ1cDMwNzY5OTkuaHRtbApTZW50IGZyb20gdGhlIEVs
ZWN0cmljIFZlaGljbGUgRGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBMaXN0IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdCBhcmNoaXZlIGF0IE5h
YmJsZS5jb20uCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
Xwp8IFJFUExZSU5HOiBhZGRyZXNzIHlvdXIgbWVzc2FnZSB0byBldkBsaXN0cy5zanN1LmVkdSBv
bmx5Lgp8IE11bHRpcGxlLWFkZHJlc3Mgb3IgQ0NlZCBtZXNzYWdlcyBtYXkgYmUgcmVqZWN0ZWQu
CnwgVU5TVUJTQ1JJQkU6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZXZkbC5vcmcvaGVscC9pbmRleC5odG1sI3VzdWIK
fCBPVEhFUiBIRUxQOiBodHRwOi8vZXZkbC5vcmcvaGVscC8KfCBPUFRJT05TOiBodHRwOi8vbGlz
dHMuc2pzdS5lZHUvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9ldgo=

 

[EVDL List]

[email protected] 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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

> 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 =96 What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint



_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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:

.......................................................................................
[email protected] 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

AMPhibian <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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.

[email protected] 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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

>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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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

"Bill Dennis" <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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
=============================================

AMPhibian <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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

 

[EVDL List]

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

Roland Wiench <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]>
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected].xxx.edu>
> 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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