Electric vehicles to pay for detroit bailout?

[mheslep]

...

You do know where most of America's oil comes from?

I do! (Imported that is.)
http://forum.camofire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/canada-flag.jpg
Doesn't matter though w/ regards to the point above on OPEC. If they raise prices so will Canada.

 

[LURCH]

I don't see in the article a statement about what how much of each (coal and natural gas) would be added under their calculations, but it doesn't really matter: the 27% pollution reduction is the bottom line either way.

As far as I'm concerned (and I've repeated this many, many times), until we get rid of our coal power plants, the environmental benefit of switching to electric cars is marginal at best.

The political benefit, however, is real but harder to quantify.

I've crunched some numbers myself, and the reduction in CO₂ emissions comes to about 50%, at a very conservative geuss.

 

[mheslep]

Getting back to PNNL grid capacity report after the holiday ...

I originally posted the digest summary of the PNNL report to address the capability of the grid to cover a surge in electric vehicles. The report also addresses other issues such as emissions and gasoline usage changes due to the use of electrics, with a stated set of assumptions for the model they ran.

According to the wiki on coal power, it is loaded at 67%, so that's quite a bit of headroom for extra night generation. But anyway - it's your article that says there would need to be a lot more coal power generation...

You're right about the latter, the [PLAIN]http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf" model assumes a lot of coal plants will run harder to meet the theoretical nationwide PHEV demand.

So a 27% reduction in pollution,

That figure is the reduction only in green house gasses (CO2), nationwide, not all pollution for which the story is much more complicated. Here's the emissions chart from the [PLAIN]http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf" report. The top row is the ~dozen US grid segments. CNV=California/Nevad, ERCOT=Texas, etc.

Note in some grid segments heavy in natural gas power (versus coal) like California and Texas the reduction in CO2 would be 40%, while the heavy coal midwest stays about flat. Other pollutants like organic compounds (VOC), e.g. benzene, and CO fall nearly 100%. Particulates and SOx would go up over most of the country. However, in urban areas all emissions types fall drastically.

Some comments about the assumptions in the PNNL report. Amazingly to me, their model rules out the use of gas based "Peaking Plants" because according to PNNL they wouldn't be economic:

Peaking plants (combustion turbines). These plants are designed for a relatively short run time. Typical capacity factors for combustion turbines are in the 0.15 to 0.20 range. Although the capacity factor could be increased to some degree, the significantly higher operating costs are unlikely to make combustion turbines a viable resource for PHEVs.

I doubt that assumption holds now w/ US natural gas discoveries and falling gas prices, but even if PNNL is still right in 2009, a consequence of that assumption is that national policy in a PHEV equipped country could by fiat call for more natural gas electric generation from the utility operators, or to use only low sulphur coal, or more and better coal scrubbers, at the cost of a couple more cents per kWh for the PHEVs.

So instead of peaking gas, PNNL assumes that mainly coal and gas boiler plants would be dispatched to meet the difference:

The remaining marginal generation capacity [for charging cars] consists of coal-fired thermal plants, natural-gas-fueled steam plants, and combined cycle plants. Not considered as marginal capacity for the valley-filling are nuclear, conventional hydro power, and renewable energy capacities because these are already fully utilized. Nuclear capacity is normally operated at its maximum capacity. Wind and solar generators are fully utilized whenever the resource is available. Conventional hydro generation is limited by finite water resources.

brackets mine.

[...] mostly covered by regenerative braking and the lack of idle consumption

Where's that 'mostly' coming from? The electric drive train is more efficient than an ICE at nearly any operating point.

In other words, if you switch from a 25 mpg car to a 30 mpg car, you get the exact same environmental benefit as switching to a full electric!

I'm guessing when you say 'hybrid' there you mean with no plugin as in the current Prius. This report only addresses Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), not fully electric vehicles. Either way, the overall environmental benefits for a 20% efficiency improvement for an ICE vehicle and a PHEV are not the same.

And if you switch to a hybrid, you get a much better environmental benefit than if you buy an electric car! I don't see in the article a statement about what how much of each (coal and natural gas) would be added under their calculations, but it doesn't really matter: the 27% pollution reduction is the bottom line either way.

The generation mix matters as demonstrated by the Texas and California regions. Coal throws off twice as much CO2 as natural gas and all of the SOx.

As far as I'm concerned (and I've repeated this many, many times), until we get rid of our coal power plants, the environmental benefit of switching to electric cars is marginal at best.

In addition to the emissions benefits, PHEVs per the report would cut petroleum imports by 52%.

 

[mgb_phys]

In addition to the emissions benefits, PHEVs per the report would cut petroleum imports by 52%.

Craigslist For Sale:
One army, suit global superpower, only used twice. Removal of dependence on middle eastern oil forces sale.

 

[Phrak]

There is no efficiency improvement of electric over gasoline powered cars.

The losses in electric power generation and transmission offset the efficiency of the onboard electrical power delivery to place gasoline and electric on par.

As for "carbon footprint", forget about it.

The energy from coal is nearly all carbon. From gasoline, some comes from oxidation of hydrogen. There is a greater "carbon footprint" from rechargable electric batteries. It's feel-good technoecology for the delusional. (Canadian's with hydroelectric power can still feel eco-holy, and spiritually superior driving electric cars.)

 

[Nebula815]

Was wondering what people thought of that documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Conspiracy-theory nonsense, partially-true in some senses, etc...?

 

[mheslep]

Was wondering what people thought of that documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Conspiracy-theory nonsense, partially-true in some senses, etc...?

Modicum of both.

 

[mheslep]

[...]As for "carbon footprint", forget about it.

The energy from coal is nearly all carbon. From gasoline, some comes from oxidation of hydrogen.

Combustion of any hydrocarbon implies oxidation.

There is a greater "carbon footprint" from rechargable electric batteries. ...

Do the math.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf" (table 1): 2 lbs CO2 / kWh, or
0.5 lbs CO2 per mile in a 4 mile / kWh EV charged only by coal powered electricity.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm": 19.4 lbs CO2 emitted per gallon of gasoline. Thus a 40 mpg gasoline vehicle is required to match the CO2 footprint of the EV charged from coal based electric, and that number is increasing 1% a year as the coal fleet becomes more efficient. A ~70 mpg gasoline vehicle is required to match the CO2 footprint of the EV charged from natural gas based electric.

And of course the EV requires zero imported petroleum.

 

[LURCH]

Was wondering what people thought of that documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Conspiracy-theory nonsense, partially-true in some senses, etc...?

Straight up conspiracy theory nonsense, starting right from the title. The electric car was never alive. Or, if one considers that it was alive with the EV 1, then it is far more alive now than it has ever been.

I did see a section of the movie in which an auto executive was confronted with the fact that there was a "waiting list" of 50,000 customers willing to purchase an electric vehicle. After speaking to the people on that list, and telling them what the EV 1 would and would not be capable of, there remained only about 40 people on the list.

In response to this, one of the makers of the film said something to the effect of, "when you are trying to market a new product, you do not market it by telling people about its limitations…". I find this to be a very telling statement: one of the makers of the film is plainly stating that she finds it perfectly acceptable to use deception (in the form of the omission of crucial information), in order to get people to buy the electric car.

 

[mugaliens]

There is no efficiency improvement of electric over gasoline powered cars.

The losses in electric power generation and transmission offset the efficiency of the onboard electrical power delivery to place gasoline and electric on par.

As for "carbon footprint", forget about it.

The energy from coal is nearly all carbon. From gasoline, some comes from oxidation of hydrogen. There is a greater "carbon footprint" from rechargable electric batteries. It's feel-good technoecology for the delusional. (Canadian's with hydroelectric power can still feel eco-holy, and spiritually superior driving electric cars.)

So long as the vast majority of our electrical power continues to come from fossil fuels, this will continue to hold true.

I'm not sure where the break-even point lies, but I suspect we're close to it. If so, the emphasis shouldn't be on electric cars, but on power production by means other than fossil fuels. Currently, the only technologies which are both proven and widespread are nuclea, solar, and wind.

The question is: Can we migrate to a non-fossil fuel economy before the oil runs out?

As for the OP, the very idea of electric vehicles bailing out Detroit is hopelessly and selfishly myopic. Far more important issues abound.

 

[mgb_phys]

As for the OP, the very idea of electric vehicles bailing out Detroit is hopelessly and selfishly myopic. Far more important issues abound.

I'm the OP, the point was that the boss of Tesla motors (then the only available consumer electric car) was complaining that the promised R+D grants for electric cars were just being poured into the general bailout GM+Chrysler money pit.

 

[mheslep]

[...] If so, the emphasis shouldn't be on electric cars, but on power production by means other than fossil fuels. Currently, the only technologies which are both proven and widespread are nuclea, solar, and wind.

Currently, almost all oil goes to transportation. Currently, therefore, transportation is not capable of using nuclear, solar, and wind, unless transportation moves to electric.

The question is: Can we migrate to a non-fossil fuel economy before the oil runs out?

Fossil fuel includes much more than petroleum, and petroleum will plateau along time before coal and gas.

 

[fireofenergy]

E-cars are the most efficient. I have "done the numbers too". It doen not matter though as we all want a green grid and will demand it. Problem is the costs of renewable energy capital and electrical storage. Sure, we could use pumped water or air, but those are already perfected down to the obvious physical constraints (what about air bladders deep below offshore wind?). Therefore, battery tech needs to be developed, not in itself, but in how to mass produce the LiFePO4 in unlimited and cheap utility scale (not li-ion). I "know" there is no large scale supply issues since the cathode does not require lithium cobalt oxide.

Now, that's my question: Why isn't that being done already? Is it because of proprietary issues or is it really that much of an engineering challenge to simply make much larger versions?

Thanks,
the new guy

 

[mgb_phys]

One of the big advantages promoted for PEVs is to solve the grid storage issue.
If you are prepared for you car to be charged for 4hours sometime overnight then it becomes a lot easier to use unreliable sources.
With enough electric cars and a smart enough grid you can even use the millions of cars as a distributed storage scheme to buffer local extra demand without needing to bring gas stations online.

 

[Nebula815]

One other problems I was thinking about electrical vehicles is that even if you can plug them into your wall socket, not everyone has that kind of parking setup. For example, a lot of people live in apartment buildings or row homes, where they must park on streets, where you probably couldn't have wires being run from every car into every house in order to charge them. For apartments with parking lots, that gets even more problematic.

And then there's always the chance some punk kids might decide to start snipping people's wires or something.

Regarding oil running out, my fear with that would more be about the fact we need it for things like plastics, rubber, all sorts of chemicals, etc...

 

[LURCH]

There is no efficiency improvement of electric over gasoline powered cars.

The losses in electric power generation and transmission offset the efficiency of the onboard electrical power delivery to place gasoline and electric on par.

As for "carbon footprint", forget about it.

The energy from coal is nearly all carbon. From gasoline, some comes from oxidation of hydrogen. There is a greater "carbon footprint" from rechargable electric batteries. It's feel-good technoecology for the delusional. (Canadian's with hydroelectric power can still feel eco-holy, and spiritually superior driving electric cars.)

As I said in my earlier post, the reduction in CO₂ emissions is roughly 50%. That is a very conservative estimate, assuming that all future electric vehicles get the same mileage as the Tesla (a sports car), and that all electricity is generated by nothing but coal, being burned in power plants operating on the emission standards that were in place in 1995 (the most recent data available when I investigated). In reality, coal only supplies a little over half of electricity and the U.S., and emission standards have gotten more strict, so the real carbon savings is actually substantially greater.

 

[fireofenergy]

EV's are 4 times as efficient than what we drive today. This leads me to believe in conspiracy theories...
I'm hoping someone can tell me why the LiFePO4 battery isn't being mass produced for both renewable energy storage and for EV's. I'm not (really) one for conspiracy theories, but it seems there is one that explains the preventing of this (seemingly miracle) solution on an affordable level. This should be the most serious concern as it is not good to keep using (whatever) fossils indefinitely (for whatever).
That battery can handle 2,000 full charge cyles and over 8,000 partial! It's impossible to make them explode (search youtube "Lifepo4", it's funny what people will do to them!). Their only downfall is below freezing temps(without insulation) and of course, that outragously screwed up price.

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm hoping someone can tell me why the LiFePO4 battery isn't being mass produced for both renewable energy storage and for EV's. ... Their only downfall is below freezing temps(without insulation) and of course, that outragously screwed up price.

Their main downfall is that they have lower energy density than Li-ion and versions in research labs only began to compete with Li-ion in the last couple of years.
If you are engineering an electric car, proposing spending millions of $ on tooling a plant, building parts and infrastructure and one of your major problems is that batteries don't have anything like the energy density of dead dinosaurs do you:

A, go with something that has been developed for nearly 20years and has been used industrially for 10-15years and hope that it continues to improve with lots of battery makers all competing to be your supplier.

B, go with a technology that shows promise in a lab at MIT, doesn't have the energy density of the current technology but MIGHT be better one day. And you have to build your own chemical plant to manufacture them.

 

[mheslep]

One other problems I was thinking about electrical vehicles is that even if you can plug them into your wall socket, not everyone has that kind of parking setup. ...

This thread may be of interest:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=363020"

 

[mheslep]

EV's are 4 times as efficient than what we drive today. This leads me to believe in conspiracy theories...
I'm hoping someone can tell me why the LiFePO4 battery isn't being mass produced for both renewable energy storage and for EV's. ...

Their main downfall is that they have lower energy density than Li-ion and versions in research labs only began to compete with Li-ion in the last couple of years.
If you are engineering an electric car, proposing spending millions of $ on tooling a plant, building parts and infrastructure and one of your major problems is that batteries don't have anything like the energy density of dead dinosaurs do you...

I think the question was more of a why aren't Lithium batteries in general being mass produced, LiFePO4 in particular. My general answer. First, petroleum has an energy specific density at least 50x that the best Li based batteries, meaning electric vehicle range, with the existing infrastructure, is very limited in comparison to gasoline/diesel vehicles just as it was 100 years ago. LiFePO4 solves the reliability, safety, and life cycle problems. It doesn't solve the range and cost problems by themselves.

Edit: missed this on the first pass, so you beat me to it:

one of your major problems is that batteries don't have anything like the energy density of dead dinosaurs do you

 

[Nebula815]

This thread may be of interest:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=363020"

Thankyou, will read through it.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Sounds like the knee jerk reaction of all knee jerk reactions or a frustrated employee of a toy company. Maybe we should bring back Deloreans and fly using our jet packs.

 

[Proton Soup]

worrying about energy density may be missing the point. one of the "easiest" ways to reduce fuel consumption by the average american is to reduce their mobility. then it really isn't a question so much about whether electric produces less CO2, because the new paradigm of reduced mobility will force it.

 

[mheslep]

This must be a new price low for LiFePO batteries, from Chinese vendor Thunder-Sky via this http://www.evcomponents.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=TS-LFP100AHA" (45Wh/kg) which are 3x heavier.

 

[mheslep]

worrying about energy density may be missing the point. one of the "easiest" ways to reduce fuel consumption by the average american is to reduce their mobility. then it really isn't a question so much about whether electric produces less CO2, because the new paradigm of reduced mobility will force it.

Easiest for you perhaps. a) I don't want that forced on anyone, b) that's not going to happen, and c) there are other ways to go.

 

[LURCH]

..Sounds like the knee jerk reaction of all knee jerk reactions or a frustrated employee of a toy company...

What does?

 

[mheslep]

Came across this article that stands out from the usual daily electric car press. Not only does it seek out the opinion of the more knowledgeable EV players, both critic and proponent, but it also filtered their comments to the more crucial issues.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ghosn-overruling-electric-engineers/382035/

Starting point for the article is Renault-Nissan's 100 mile range, pure EV plugin vehicle. Nissan is way out front on mass production of electric only vehicles, versus GMs plugin hybrid.

“The engineers will always tell you, ‘Wait a little more,’ and if you keep playing this game, you never launch any product,”

their limited range puts all-electric vehicles years from widespread adoption.
“He’s rolling the dice,” Lutz, 77, says of Ghosn’s battery-only tack. “I don’t see it happening.”

says competitors are trailing Nissan in EVs, so naturally they’re going to play down the technology’s prospects.
“They cannot say, ‘we’re forecasting a 10 per cent market share for EVs and, by the way, we have nothing,’” he says.

“He’s a superb executive and works beyond belief,”
[but]
“If gas is $2 a gallon, this whole regulatory effort to promote EVs is going to be an ugly train wreck,”

upending a century of automotive tradition by selling the Leaf without a battery. Instead, owners will rent the battery pack and pay for the miles used, like a cellular phone plan.

Drivers will recharge at home or at public plug-in stations, hitching to 3-foot-high (0.9-meter-high) metal posts. Or they may swap the batteries, like exchanging an empty propane tank for a full one. The price: about $120 a month in the US for battery rental and electricity.

Smaller countries:

pledged to use them for 20 per cent of government transportation needs, build 1,350 public recharging stations by 2011 and give buyers tax credits and subsidies of more than ¤8,000 ($11,518).

“I’ve seen three oil shocks,” says Socrates, 52, whose country of 10.6 million has no commercial coal or oil production. “It’s not possible to live through these situations and do nothing.”

History

Until the early 1900s, when Texas gushed with cheap oil, electric cars were about as popular as gas models. A century later, as governments and consumers struggle to cut fossil fuel use, EVs may be coming back.

 

[mugaliens]

"Until the early 1900s, when Texas gushed with cheap oil, electric cars were about as popular as gas models. A century later, as governments and consumers struggle to cut fossil fuel use, EVs may be coming back."

EV's will not cut fossil fuel use, as more than 95% of all electricity is produced by fossil fuels. Having said that, in countries such as Germany and France, whose energy is mostly from other sources, EVs will have a positive impact.

 

[OmCheeto]

EV's will not cut fossil fuel use, as more than 95% of all electricity is produced by fossil fuels.

I think that depends on the EV owner.

Om's boat:

Om's car:

May I remind you:

Sunlight will never cost $4/gallon.--PC

 

[mheslep]

EV's will not cut fossil fuel use, as more than 95% of all electricity is produced by fossil fuels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/figure_8_data.xls" , more like 70% and falling:

• Coal: 46%
• N. Gas: 23%
• Nuclear 20%
• All Renewables including hydro: 10%

+
EV's use less energy per mile driven.

Having said that, in countries such as Germany and France, whose energy is mostly from other sources,[...]

Again no, not mostly, not for all energy including transportation. Only France's electric energy generation is mostly from other sources, i.e. non fossil. Germany's fossil fuel fraction for electric generation is http://www.eoearth.org/image/Germelec.gif".

 

[mheslep]

I think that depends on the EV owner.

Om's boat:

Sunlight will never cost $4/gallon.--PC

Om - Did you build the motor yourself? Conversion? If so I'm interested in a similar DIY project and am wondering how well the HP rating on the piston engine matches w/ the HP rating on the electric motor in regards to actual boat speed.

Edit: also - since LiIon is getting pretty cheap in some places, you might look at upgrading those lead acid bricks.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2513502&postcount=199

 

[fireofenergy]

Someone said "the energy density of gas is like 50x that of lithium..", Yet I believe that fifty times the volume of the gas tank is not overly impossible to make room for. Consider that 20 gallons, well, 1 US gallon = 0.133680556 cubic foot x 20 = only 2.66 cubic feet!
Whoops, need to edit, x fifty = 133 cubic feet which is a bit hard to manage. what's the cube root of that?
So the reason why the LiFePo4 battery isn't being mass produced cheaply could be the same reason the big fossil fuel companies are smearing the GW debate

 

[mheslep]

Someone said "the energy density of gas is like 50x that of lithium..", Yet I believe that fifty times the volume of the gas tank is not overly impossible to make room for...

The ~50x figure is for mass - energy density by mass. Gasoline has an energy density by volume ~17x better than Li Ion batteries.

The weight of 20 gallons of gasoline is ~120 lbs (6 lbs/gal), thus a Li Ion battery energy equivalent weighs 6000 lbs. An electric car will likely travel 3x further per unit of stored energy than a gasoline combustion engine based car, so perhaps 2000 lbs of battery is required to match the range allowed by that 20 gallons of gasoline. The mass produced electric-only cars coming out this year will carry ~500 lb batteries.

 

[fireofenergy]

I'm sorry but I had to leave, didn't have enough time to figure it out, right, hence the quick edit. It seems that the mass to volume ratio would be in reverse (But I'm probably thinking about lead acid!) I think it's time for me to do some more searching...

 

[fireofenergy]

Ok, I'm going to try it again...
Gasoline verses lifepo4

Volumetric energy density = 220 Wh/liter.
Gasoline is 8,760Wh/liter.
Thus, I get 39 times less energy dense per volume.

Gravimetric energy density = 90 Wh/kg
Gasoline is 1,270Wh/kg
Thus, I get 14 times less energy dense by weight (cause it is heavier).

Gasoline weighs about 6.25 lbs or 2.8 kg per gallon, 20 gallons being 56 kg (123 lbs) and about 76 liters.
56 x 14 = 784 kg or 1,725 lbs, however, EV's are about 4x more efficient, thus about 430lbs of LiFePo4 should do the trick...

As for volume, 20 gallons = 2.68 cubic feet (about .075 cubic meter or 75 liters) times 39= almost 3 whole cubic meters divided by 4 (for EV efficiency) = .730 cubic meters of LiFePO4 needed to compete perfectly with gas which is almost 26 cubic feet. This seems impractical (after all!) unless the whole floorboard consisted of just over 6 inches of lifepo4 (or the whole trunk). I would prefer about half the range in exchange for less bulkyness (and less protective "cage" which should also add to weight and volume).

While I'm "at it", should'nt we figure out how much would be needed to store, let's say, twice the global electrical usage (needed for EV's, conversion inefficiencies and growth)?
Global electrical generation was about 18 trillion kWh for 2006. (EIA site) divided by 365 = 50 billion per day. From a renewable energy point of view, more than one day's worth would have to be stored (even though largescale would decrease intermittancy problems). Figure on 3 days, for fun. 300 billion divided by 220Kwh/cubic meter = 1.36 cubic kilometers. Sounds like a lot, however (previous searching suggests)
humanity has consumed about 40 CUBIC MILES of oil alone (in a century)! Another way to look at it is to theoritically use solar panels to generate 100% of that electricity... (Without doing further math), they say 100 by 100 square miles is needed for USA. Times that by 10 for double global for convenience.

100,000 square miles or 259,000 sq km. 1.36 km divided by 259,000 = 5.26 (to the)-6 (that's what calculator says) or about 5 mm laminated undernieth each panel!

With LiFePO4's 5,000 or so partial charge cycles, I think it's worth some rich corporation's time to figure out how to make it a large scale objective, especially for utility use (imagine their "eco" image)!