TheEEStory.com

News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
Lifecycle Emissions - Tesla Roadster: An EV Case Study (Now with Plug-And-Play formulae) « Transportation « Industry Applications
 
Mon, 03 May 2010, 8:15pm #1
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 hours ago
Posts: 4011

These are my calculations for the lifecycle emissions of the Tesla Roadster, and a few diesel cars for comparison, using data from Tesla Motors (for car efficiency), The U.S. Energy Information Administration, the International Energy Agency, and the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

I’ve used the same reference numbers as in my other thread to prevent confusion. Read the spoilers to access calculations and related information.

I provide the low-end and high-end emissions CO2/kWh in order to give an understanding of the possible range and what emission reductions are possible using the current mix of energy sources. I also provide the emissions according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration as they actually are so people know what is actually emitted per kWh.

Quick trivia question: How much of all the emissions in the U.S. come from the production of electricity? SPOILER

So now we know electricity is related to significant GHG emissions, the question arises, “how much GHGs are emitted per kWh and how many kWhs does the Tesla Roadster use per km?”

Starting with Tesla Roaster numbers (ref6, ref7, Link from Lensman: ref23):

80% efficiency battery-to-wheels

70% efficiency plug-to-battery (52.8kWh in ESS / ~75kWh at plug)

110Wh/km/1000 = 0.110kWh/km Roadster (Advert efficiency)

Alternatively, 31kWh/100mi = 0.193kWh/km at the plug for the Roadster (typical EV usage) SPOILER

Or 28kWh/100mi = 0.174kWh/km (Roadster EPA combined-cycle at the plug – this was originally on the front page of Tesla Motors’ website but now has been removed.) SPOILER

0.53km/MJ = 1.89MJ/km Jetta

93.5% efficiency power plant-to-plug in the U.S. (according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA): ref4)

(0.80)*(0.70)*(0.935) = (0.5236)

Or 52% efficiency plant-to-wheels

(0.110kWh/km)/(0.5236) = 0.21008kWh/km plant-to-wheels for the Roadster (advert efficiency)

Alternatively, (0.193kWh/km)/(0.935) = 0.20602kWh/km plant-to-wheels for the Roadster (typical EV usage)

Or, (0.174kWh/km)/(0.935) = 0.186kWh/km plant-to-wheels (Roadster EPA combined-cycle)

Electric generation in the U.S. (EIA: ref1)

Coal231,857,000kWh
Petroleum30,657,000kWh
Natural Gas173,106,000kWh
Nuclear (+other)54,376,000 + 39,000 = 54,415,000kWh
Hydro (+pumped)72,142,000 + 18,664,000 = 90,806,000kWh
Other Renewables4,066,000kWh
Total 584,907,000kWh

Electricity Lifecycle CO2 Emissions in grams per kWh (International Energy Agency (IEA): ref20)

Explanation: SPOILER

Knowing and more accurately accounting for the emissions profiles of the “other,” “other renewables,” and pumped hydro categories would tend to increase the emissions created in producing electricity for the Tesla Roadster off the U.S. grid in terms of these high and low estimations.

Coal790 – 1,182 grams CO2 / kWh
Petroleum790 – 1,182 grams CO2 / kWh
Natural Gas389 – 511 grams CO2 / kWh
Nuclear (+other)2 - 59 grams CO2 / kWh
Hydro (+pumped)2 – 48 grams CO2 / kWh
Other Renewables7 – 731 grams CO2 / kWh

Electricity Lifecycle CO2 Emissions in the U.S. are in the range of:

Calculations: SPOILER

Low-end lifecycle emissions = 470g CO2/kWh

Calculations: SPOILER

High-end lifecycle emissions = 700g CO2/kWh

According to the EIA the U.S. average is 1.35lb. CO2 emissions/kWh (ref22):

(1.35lb/kWh)*(453.6g/lb.) = 612.36gCO2/kWh Emissions

If you are tempted to argue with the Energy Information Administration’s calculation of emissions you might be comforted to understand they are well within the range of emissions calculated by the International Energy Agency and about 32 grams different from what we find using the emissions the Fusion Institute of Technology Wisconsin measured in doing a case study of a few specific electric plants.

A 2009 Audi A4 2.0 TDI e diesel gets 51.13 mpg U.S. and puts out 119g CO2/km (ref16)

The Jetta gets 50mpg according to Tesla Motors and 122gCO2/km (Link from Lensman: ref23, Link from Technopete: ref24).

The BMW 320d gets 57.36mpg U.S. and puts out 109gCO2/km (Alerted to this by Trick: ref25)

The Volvo S40/V50 DRIVe Start/Stop - 72.4mpg (British and I believe on the EU combined-cycle) diesel people carrier puts out 104gCO2/km (ref26).

Lifecycle emissions for diesel were obtained from the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (ref19). The U.S. imports 57% of its oil according to the EIA (ref27)

Using 1.0628kg oil to obtain 1kg diesel (calculated by adding the emissions from 1kg refined diesel back minus the oxygen) we obtain the following numbers for 1kg diesel lifecycle CO2 emissions (in grams CO2) SPOILER

:

Extraction1.0628*((46.6327*0.43)+(79.1874*0.57)) = 69.28 grams CO2 / kg
Oil transport1.0628*((17.8928*0.43)+(76.6231*0.57)) = 54.59 grams CO2 / kg
Diesel refining360.42 grams CO2 / kg
Diesel transport218.26 grams CO2 / kg
Total702.55 grams CO2 / kg

As we have 38.6 MJ/liter diesel and 0.833kg/liter diesel we can find

(38.6 MJ/L)/(0.833kg/L) = 46.33MJ/kg *originally I accidentally multiplied instead of dividing; correcting my mistake means diesels produce fewer emissions than I had thought*

(702.55/kg)/(46.33MJ/kg) = 15.16g/MJ

Calculations: SPOILER

1mpg diesel = 0.011017304km/MJ

Calculations: SPOILER

146gCO2/km lifecycle emissions for the A4 (U.S. EPA combined cycle I think)

Calculations: SPOILER

151gCO2/km lifecycle emissions for the Jetta (I think on the EPA combined-cycle, as it was in Tesla’s U.S. Advert)

Calculations: SPOILER

133gCO2/km lifecycle emissions for the 320d (on the EU combined-cycle)

Calculations: SPOILER

127gCO2/km lifecycle emissions for the Volvo (I think on the EU combined cycle)

For the Tesla Roadster:

Calculations: SPOILER

= 129gCO2/km EIA Tesla Roadster (Advert) Lifecycle Emissions

Calculations: SPOILER

= 126gCO2/km EIA Tesla Roadster (typical EV) Lifecycle Emissions

Calculations: SPOILER

= 114gCO2/km EIA Tesla Roadster (EPA combined-cycle) Lifecycle Emissions

Some might argue the EPA numbers should be used. But things change if you listen to ex-Tesla Motors employees. Darryl Siry, Tesla Motor’s former Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) had this to say in May 2009, “the problem is that the EPA driving cycle numbers systematically overstate what the typical driver is going to see in their daily driving…I would say that as a general rule of thumb, if a company quotes an EPA range, you should apply a factor of 70% to that to get a realistic average range for a full charge (ref30).

Taking this into consideration, the EPA emissions for the roadster need to be adjusted as they vary inversely with the energy efficiency (measured in range for EVs or km/MJ).

Doing so, we find:

(88gCO2/km)/(0.7) = 125g CO2/km Low-end Tesla Roadster (adjusted EPA combined-cycle) Lifecycle Emissions

(130gCO2/km)/(0.7) = 186g CO2/km High-end Tesla Roadster (adjusted EPA combined-cycle) Lifecycle Emissions

(114gCO2/km)/(0.7) =

163g CO2/km EIA Tesla Roadster (adjusted EPA combined-cycle) Lifecycle Emissions

That’s right. Using the EPA quoted efficiency the way a former C-level executive from Tesla Motors advises us to, the Tesla Roadster emits 163g CO2/km lifecycle emissions using electricity off the U.S. grid.

Some would argue the same rule applies to ICEVs like the diesels we used in the above example. But doing some research on that as well we find it is not so. John Voelcker from greencarreports.com says one of VW’s Jettas got 24% higher city mileage and 10% higher highway mileage than reported by the EPA. “Last July, Volkswagen hired independent tester AMCI to test the Jetta TDI's "real world" mileage on the road. They came back with 38 city / 44 highway--or 24 percent and 10 percent higher respectively” (ref31).

Many diesel and other ICEV drivers also find their mileage to be higher than the EPA numbers. I know before I sold my Honda Accord I usually got between 32 and 38 mpg while the official EPA number was only 28 (I mostly drive in the city). And I use the gas pedal.

Now, did anyone notice what the Tesla Roadster emits compared to the diesels?

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

Plug-And-Play Numbers

Unless cited, the data in this section has already been referenced and cited above.

Tesla Roadster efficiencies
Advert at wheels efficiency (b)110Wh/km/1000 = 0.110kWh/km
Typical EV* at-plug usage (c)31kWh/100mi = 0.193kWh/km
EPA at-plug usage (d)28kWh/100mi = 0.174kWh/km
Roadster Batter-to-wheels efficiency (e)0.80
Roadster Plug-to-battery efficiency (f)0.70
U.S. grid efficiency (g)0.935
EPA EV error adjustment factor (h)0.7

*It should be noted “Typical EV,” as used in the above table, refers to Tesla kWh/km using the typical EV plug-to-battery efficiency of 70% and the typical EV battery-to-wheels efficiency of 80% as measured by Tesla Motors itself and resulting in a kWh at-the-plug number measured by Tesla Motors itself. An EV’s kWh/km at-the-wheels may be different than the Roadster’s and, in such a situation, would result in a different kWh at-the-plug usage even if it has the same plug-to-wheels efficiency.

Emissions from the production of electricity
U.S. EIA Average grams CO2/kWh (i)(1.35lb/kWh)*(453.6g/lb.) = 612.36gCO2/kWh
U.S. kWh from Coal (ikCoal)231,857,000kWh
U.S. kWh from Petroleum (ikPetro)30,657,000kWh
U.S. kWh from Natural Gas (ikNG)173,106,000kWh
U.S. kWh from Nuclear (+other) (ikNuke)54,376,000 + 39,000 = 54,415,000kWh
U.S. kWh from Hydro (+pumped) (ikHydro)72,142,000 + 18,664,000 = 90,806,000kWh
U.S. kWh from Other Renewables (ikRen)4,066,000kWh
IEA Coal avg grams CO2/kWh Low (iCoalEmL)790 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Coal avg grams CO2/kWh High (iCoalEmH)1,182 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Petroleum avg grams CO2/kWh Low (iPetroEmL)790 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Petroleum avg grams CO2/kWh High(iPetroEmH)1,182 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Natural Gas avg grams CO2/kWh Low (iNGEmL)389 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Natural Gas avg grams CO2/kWh High (iNGEmH)511 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Nuclear avg grams CO2/kWh Low (iNukeEmL)2 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Nuclear avg grams CO2/kWh High (iNukeEmH)59 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Hydro avg grams CO2/kWh Low (iHydroEmL)2 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Hydro avg grams CO2/kWh High (iHydroEmH)48 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Other Renewables avg grams CO2/kWh Low (iRenEmL)7 grams CO2 / kWh
IEA Other Renewables avg grams CO2/kWh High (iRenEmH)731 grams CO2 / kWh

Derived Variables

j = ikCoal + ikPetro + ikNG + ikNuke + ikHydro + ikRen

k = either i, kL, or kH

One would use “kL” to determine the lowest possible emissions per kWh electricity using the current mix of sources.

One would use “kH” to determine the highest possible emissions per kWh electricity using the current mix of sources.

One would use “i” to determine the actual emissions per kWh electricity using the current mix of sources.

kL = (ikCoal * iCoalEmL) / j + (ikPetro * iPetroEmL) / j + (ikNG * iNGEmL) / j + (ikNuke * iNukeEmL) / j + (ikHydro * iHydroEmL) / j + (ikRen * iRenEmL) / j

kH = (ikCoal * iCoalEmH) / j + (ikPetro * iPetroEmH) / j + (ikNG * iNGEmH) / j + (ikNuke * iNukeEmH) / j + (ikHydro * iHydroEmH) / j + (ikRen * iRenEmH) / j

Knowing and more accurately accounting for the emissions profiles of the “other,” “other renewables,” and pumped hydro categories would tend to increase the emissions created in producing electricity for the Tesla Roadster off the U.S. grid in terms of these high and low estimations.

a = (either (b /e / f), c, or d)/ g

It should be noted some dispute Tesla’s quoted efficiencies, claiming the Roadster attains higher efficiencies than stated by the Tesla Motors website. Those asserting this ridiculous argument will find a = d/g mutes their ability to complain as the EPA (a third party) is quoting at-the-plug kWhs which makes battery-to-wheels efficiencies unneeded.

For the record, 70% plug-to-battery and 80% battery-to-wheels efficiencies are fairly typical of EVs – meaning the Roadster is a decent representative of what one could expect in plug-to-wheels efficiency (but not necessarily in kWh at-the-wheels/km).

Derived variables
U.S. total kWh produced (j)584,907,000kWh
Emissions avg/kWh (k)either i, kL, or kH
Lowest IEA Emissions avg/kWh (kL)470g CO2/kWh
Highest IEA Emissions avg/kWh (kH)700g CO2/kWh
Roadster kWh/km at the plant (a)(either (b / e / f), c, or d)/ g

In the general case;

a * k = grams CO2/km lifecycle emissions

Adjusting for blown-up EPA or advertised range;

a * k / h = grams CO2/km lifecycle emissions

Results:

Advert Emissions EIA average =
((b / e / f) / g) * i = 129gCO2/km

Advert Emissions IEA Low =
((b / e / f) / g) * kL = 99gCO2/km

Advert Emissions IEA High =
((b / e / f) / g) * kH = 147gCO2/km

Typical EV Emission EIA average =
(c / g) * i = 126gCO2/km

Typical EV Emissions IEA Low =
(c / g) * kL = 97gCO2/km

Typical EV Emission IEA High =
(c / g) * kH = 144gCO2/km

EPA combined-cycle Emissions EIA avg =
(d / g) * i = 114gCO2/km
((d / g) * i) / h = 163g CO2/km

EPA combined-cycle Emissions IEA Low =
(d / g) * kL = 88gCO2/km
((d / g) * kL) / h = 125g CO2/km

EPA combined-cycle Emissions IEA High =
(d / g) * kH = 130gCO2/km
((d / g) * kH) / h = 186g CO2/km

For Diesels

Diesels burn diesel fuel. According to the EPA (ref34);

CO2 emissions from a U.S. gallon of diesel being burned = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams/gallon

Apparently this varies according to undefined parameters. Around 1% of the carbon burned in a diesel vehicle engine does not bond with oxygen, thus the 0.99 factor.

~9,800 grams of CO2 emissions/gallon were used in calculating emissions for the A4 and Jetta. VW may have some sort of process that prevents some of the carbon from bonding with oxygen. This results in around a 2-3g CO2/km reduction in emissions for the A4 and Jetta compared to the norm.

There are also emissions related to the extraction of oil, transportation of oil, refining of oil into diesel, and transportation of diesel.

Adding the emissions (minus oxygen) from refining oil into diesel gives us 1.0628kg oil needed to produce 1kg of diesel.

57% of U.S. oil consumed is imported.
43% thus is domestically produced.

One can then properly interpret the following table:

Extraction1.0628*((46.6327*0.43)+(79.1874*0.57)) = 69.28 grams CO2 / kg
Oil transport1.0628*((17.8928*0.43)+(76.6231*0.57)) = 54.59 grams CO2 / kg
Diesel refining360.42 grams CO2 / kg
Diesel transport218.26 grams CO2 / kg
Total702.55 grams CO2 / kg

There are 3.1529736kg for each gallon of diesel.

3.1529736kg/gallon * 702.55 grams CO2/kg = 2215.12 grams CO2/gallon

So we have 2215.12 grams CO2/ gallon emitted from oil extraction, oil transportation, oil-to-diesel refining, and diesel transportation.

Combining the CO2 emitted in burning diesel in vehicles, 10,084 grams CO2/gallon, with the CO2 emitted from oil extraction, oil transportation, oil-to-diesel refining, and diesel transportation, 2215.12 grams CO2/gallon, and we get 12,299 total grams CO2/gallon of diesel:

10,084 grams CO2/gallon + 2215.12 grams CO2/gallon = 12,299 grams CO2/gallon lifecycle emissions

Knowing there are 1.60934km/mile, we can directly convert miles per U.S. gallon of diesel to grams CO2/km emitted as follows:

(12,299 grams CO2 / U.S. gallon of diesel) / (Miles/ U.S. gallon of diesel) / (1.60934km / mile) = grams CO2/km lifecycle emissions

Alternatively, we can use this formula using 2,215 instead of 12,299 and adding the result to quoted vehicle CO2/km emissions.

For the Volvo we find;

(12,299 grams CO2 / U.S. gallon of diesel) / (60.29 Miles/ U.S. gallon of diesel) / (1.60934km / mile) = 127 grams CO2/km lifecycle emissions

The A4 and Jetta emit 2-3g less per km than the general rule would dictate.

A4 gets 51.13 mpg U.S. and puts out 146g CO2/km lifecycle emissions (ordinary diesel would put out 149).

The Jetta gets 50 mpg U.S. and puts out 151g CO2/km lifecycle emissions (ordinary diesel would put out 153).

The 320D gets 57.36 mpg U.S. and puts out 133g CO2/km lifecycle emissions.

If we work the formula backwards we find the Tesla Roadster’s 163g CO2/km is the same amount of emissions a diesel getting 46.89 mpg U.S. would emit. So if you average 47 mpg U.S. or more in your diesel vehicle, then your vehicle emits fewer grams of CO2 / km than the Roadster does using electricity off the U.S. grid.

Last edited Wed, 22 Sep 2010, 1:51am by student


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline


Mon, 03 May 2010, 8:25pm #2
jimbobway
EEndearing
Nm_internet_addiction_china_090714_mn
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 02 Apr 2013
Posts: 858

So you're saying the Teslas have a bigger carbon footprint than cars such as the Jetta?


Lensman 10/8.6

Offline
Mon, 03 May 2010, 8:35pm #3
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 hours ago
Posts: 4011

jimbobway wrote:

So you're saying the Teslas have a bigger carbon footprint than cars such as the Jetta?

Using electricity off the current U.S. grid, the Roadster emits the above emissions.


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Mon, 03 May 2010, 8:37pm #4
Geofree
EEcclesiastical
Clear_skys_again
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Sun, 22 Apr 2012
Posts: 1005

He is referring to current technology. He is not seeing tomorrow.


I am addicted! This is my most FAVORITE SOAP Opera :)~
Lensman Scale: 10/?

Offline
Mon, 03 May 2010, 8:38pm #5
Sunsavior
EErudite
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 01 Jan 2012
Posts: 83

Just use solar and wind. Problem solved. No more funding terrorists and letting the price of gasoline control my life and spending habits.

Now lets move on to the next pressing issue, gamma ray bursts from exploding stars, how do we prevent that disaster?

Offline
Mon, 03 May 2010, 8:43pm #6
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 hours ago
Posts: 4011

newbEE,

In that case change all the electricity generation capacity in the U.S. to renewables.

Good luck getting that done.

In the meantime we have the above emissions.


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Mon, 03 May 2010, 9:34pm #7
Sunsavior
EErudite
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 01 Jan 2012
Posts: 83

Student, it will happen, it's just going to take time. From my post the other day:

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j223/Cardforlife/EnergySolution-TheTransitionToRenew.png

Original article:
http://www.solartoday-digital.org/solartoday/20...

Offline
Mon, 03 May 2010, 9:49pm #8
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 hours ago
Posts: 4011

So we can expect that in 2060? And even if we follow that plan the U.S. will emit just as much through 2020? And won't emit significantly fewer until 2040? Sounds like any car bought today will be old by then.

Half of theeestory.com members will be dead. Looks like driving a diesel will emit fewer GHGs than driving an EV using electricity off the U.S. grid.

Buy a diesel today to save emissions. Wait until 2040 or later to buy an EV so it'll actually emit fewer GHGs.


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Mon, 03 May 2010, 9:52pm #9
Sunsavior
EErudite
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 01 Jan 2012
Posts: 83

Well, it's not going to happen overnight.

Offline
Mon, 03 May 2010, 9:53pm #10
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 hours ago
Posts: 4011

I'm all for reducing the emissions related to the production of electricity. They are huge.


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Mon, 03 May 2010, 9:58pm #11
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 hours ago
Posts: 4011

Oh, and I like that plan's idea of getting rid of nuclear power.


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 3:14am #12
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Geofree wrote:

He is referring to current technology. He is not seeing tomorrow.

Actually, he's just repeating the Big Lie of "The Long Tailpipe". The strategy is to hope people will think "Well, it *must* be true, or he couldn't say it!" His figures ignore many factors, and he's perfectly aware of that.

The only *real* question is: Why does "Student" spend so much time here spreading an anti-EV message? Does his income depend on Big Oil?

The reality is that running an EV puts out less than half the pollution required to power even the most efficient gas guzzler made today. And here is the proof.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 3:23am #13
DGDanforth
EESUrient
Palosparkfallavatar
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Sat, 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 2484

Hey Student,
How about a little algebra?
Write everything out without numbers and then at the end, specify the values of the variables in a table and then put those values into the expression to give you the final result. Makes reading and understanding much easier.


EEStor Hopeful.

"Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler" A. Einstein
"Alas, simplicity is rarely simple" curiositEE

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 3:38am #14
ONeil
EESUrient
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 2149

What a colossal load of horseshit. A large collection of cherry picked numbers, gross distortions and outright lies. I particularly puked at the: "70% efficiency plug-to-battery (52.8kWh in ESS / ~75kWh at plug)" It's been pointed out to him several times before that this number was the result of a bug in the Tesla software (causing a cooling system to run continuously) that has since been fixed. Battery charges run the gamut of efficiency ratings from 85% to over 95%. Most inefficient chargers are used for small consumer devises where the efficiency of the charger is irrelevant. That's just one example.

Re: shortsighted. "The U.S. imports 57% of its oil according to the EIA" ... just how long do you think your economy can support that kind of nonsense? Where exactly do you expect to get all that diesel fuel from? There simply isn't enough biomass in the US to support your kind of driving habits and the moment you get away from fossil petroleum as your source of diesel (such as CTL) the efficiency dies and the pollution goes through the roof. Student, you're advocating a one way ticket to bankruptcy and ruin (but hey, party on dude, there's no tomorrow).


Just assume everything I say about EEStor includes the phrase "if it works".
... 7 on the Lens scale (up from a low of 1)

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 4:49am #15
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 hours ago
Posts: 4011

DGDanforth wrote:

Hey Student,
How about a little algebra?
Write everything out without numbers and then at the end, specify the values of the variables in a table and then put those values into the expression to give you the final result. Makes reading and understanding much easier.

It's fairly easy to follow. If you want the calculations then blow up all the spoilers.

A lot simpler than thermodynamics.

If you're still having trouble then I suppose I can work something out.

Basically:

(EPA kWh used/km at the plant) x (grams CO2/kWh on U.S. grid) = EPA grams CO2/km using electricity off the U.S. grid.

(EPA grams CO2/km using electricity off the U.S. grid.)/(Siry's 0.7 adjustment factor) = Adjusted EPA grams CO2/km using electricity off the U.S. grid.

I gave a low end average emissions per kWh (470g/kWh) and a high end emissions per kWh (700g/kWh) of electricity off the grid. I also provided the actually U.S. average emissions per kWh (~612g/kWh per the EIA).

All three calculations have been shown.

I also did all three of those calculations for three different Tesla Roadster kWh/km numbers: first the advert number (0.110kWh/km at wheels), second the typical EV number (31kWh/100miles at the plug), and third the EPA number (28kWh/100miles at the plug).

Only the advert number, 0.110kWh/km at the wheels, needed to utilize the plug-to-battery and battery-to-wheels efficiency numbers. All three were taken out to the plant using the EIA 93.5% grid efficiency number.

Last edited Tue, 04 May 2010, 5:14am by student


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 4:51am #16
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 hours ago
Posts: 4011

ONeil wrote:

What a colossal load of horseshit. A large collection of cherry picked numbers, gross distortions and outright lies. I particularly puked at the: "70% efficiency plug-to-battery (52.8kWh in ESS / ~75kWh at plug)" It's been pointed out to him several times before that this number was the result of a bug in the Tesla software (causing a cooling system to run continuously) that has since been fixed. Battery charges run the gamut of efficiency ratings from 85% to over 95%. Most inefficient chargers are used for small consumer devises where the efficiency of the charger is irrelevant. That's just one example.

Re: shortsighted. "The U.S. imports 57% of its oil according to the EIA" ... just how long do you think your economy can support that kind of nonsense? Where exactly do you expect to get all that diesel fuel from? There simply isn't enough biomass in the US to support your kind of driving habits and the moment you get away from fossil petroleum as your source of diesel (such as CTL) the efficiency dies and the pollution goes through the roof. Student, you're advocating a one way ticket to bankruptcy and ruin (but hey, party on dude, there's no tomorrow).

ONeil, calm down you'll notice I used the EPA 28kWh/100 miles at the plug number. No need to worry about the efficiency if you don't wish. It's all explained. Blow up the spoilers.


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 5:54am #17
bEElzebub
EElevated
Beelzebub
Registered: Aug, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 453

student, I applaud your study. But please do the algebraic version, suggested by DGDanforth, so we can easily change the numbers if input figures change during discussion. The study is very interesting because it stresses the naivity upon which all green politics are built.

Look at the chain of green idiocy,

1. CO2 is a scientifically confirmed greenhouse gas. (The fundamental statement)

2. CO2 in the range of hundreds ppm in atmosphere increases due to human emissions. (confirmed)

3. Temperature increases. (plausible but not really statistically significant)

4. Climate models suggest CO2 increase implies temperature change. (plausible but difinitely not confirmed)

5. Green scientists invents doomsday scenarios with 5 degrees increased temperature and melted ice caps implying 50m increased sea levels within 100 years. (this is all crap, 1 degree perhaps and even if they got 10 degrees higher it would take thousands of years to melt antarctica and the arctic has been melting for 150 000 years already with no confirmed speedup process last century)

6. Green politics suggest we start to decrease CO2 emissions. (based on above assumptions)

7. Solutions include solar and wind power, electric trains and electric cars. (Energy consumption is 16TW but solar and wind production is less than 100GW/year probably around 20-50GW/year so with todays production rate it would take 500 years to replace energy consumption with green alternatives. Stepping up the production to say 1TW will take decades. And consumption increases steadily. So to lower CO2 emissions by 2025 is an impossibility without going down the development ladder which will never happen. And now student showed us that the naiv EV calculations doesn't really hit the goal either.)

Maybe it is time to split the earth between the progressive and the reactionary. Let the reactionary have their own country and see how well thay will do. Hell with it let them take 50% of all land and let them choose which 50% and let them have 50% of all goods and commodities as of today. I bet in 100 years they will have less than 10% of the progressives GDP anyway. Then let us see how happy they are.


Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking. —Albert Einstein
(Go DW&CN)

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 7:20am #18
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 hours ago
Posts: 4011

student has heard the people.

I will try and see if I can get you guys a simplified plug-and-play version for this evening (eastern time U.S.). If not by then, then by tomorrow morning (eastern time U.S.).


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 11:51am #19
X_Y_Z
EEluminated
Hamster_eesu
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 08 Jun 2011
Posts: 587

There is something else to consider here - in CA it would be much cheaper to use an EV than a diesel. Considering diesel is from a little higher to significantly higher than regular gas, diesel is not likely to be cost effective for many drivers. Simple fact is that - right now - per mile an EV would be the cheapest way to go. Last I checked unleaded (reg) was about $3.09 here and diesel was like $3.49. Now go back a year or two and it was even higher. I am not knocking diesel - I do think a bio diesel may be part of the overall solution as big trucks in an EV age will still need a more energy dense fuel source. You can go back and forth on the emmisions all you want but what drives the consumer toward products are cost and government (rebates, etc). If the cost of an EV gets close to a regular car and the cost of fuel is much lower, its what consumers will buy.


Lensman scale: Lets say, 42.
No, really, I have no idea, 4-5.
I'll believe when I see it.

"I don't lack attention span, I just lack a tuning device."

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 12:02pm #20
RmW
EESUrient
Skull_and_crossbones_oil
Registered: Jun, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 1762

student wrote:

I'm all for reducing the emissions related to the production of electricity. They are huge.

Yes, but maybe not as big as the emissions spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for your Jetta, etc.

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 12:28pm #21
RmW
EESUrient
Skull_and_crossbones_oil
Registered: Jun, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 1762

We tend to look at things from a static viewpoint. However, practically speaking, the cost of oil has increased dramatically as compared to inflation. Predicting the future is always a guess. But looking at the recent price for oil (last 10 years) shows a troubling trend. So when I look at the evidence, oil production increases, etc., that would happen in a normal market they haven't existed for oil. Even with every possible straw in the ground (i.e. 2007-2008) world oil production was flat. I tend to ignore the conspiracy theorists because too many oil execs say they are concerned also. Note nominal and inflation adjusted oil prices in the chart below. I've added the current price and green trend line. The data is from inflationdata.com.

It's a scary slope.

http://www.theeestory.com/files/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.jpg

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 1:01pm #22
trick
EElevated
Registered: Feb, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 19 May 2010
Posts: 486

RmW wrote:

student wrote:

I'm all for reducing the emissions related to the production of electricity. They are huge.

Yes, but maybe not as big as the emissions spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for your Jetta, etc.

And pretty much everything you consume, own, rent, have borrowed, etc.

Your point is...?

Oh, and as for oil price - so what? Why not put the Zenn stock price on that chart as well? It's just as meaningful.

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 1:15pm #23
RmW
EESUrient
Skull_and_crossbones_oil
Registered: Jun, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 1762

trick wrote:

RmW wrote:

student wrote:

I'm all for reducing the emissions related to the production of electricity. They are huge.

Yes, but maybe not as big as the emissions spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for your Jetta, etc.

And pretty much everything you consume, own, rent, have borrowed, etc.

Your point is...?

Oh, and as for oil price - so what? Why not put the Zenn stock price on that chart as well? It's just as meaningful.

I'm sorry, I thought that a reasonable person could figure it out.

There are other costs related to oil than just the increase in CO2:

There is the direct costs, which I've shown in the previous post. It has increased at a rate greater than that of inflation for the past 10 years. And given oil's integration into our lives, is a significant issue.

Then there is the cost related to BP's mess in the Gulf of Mexico. This isn't factored into the price of oil. It includes the direct impact on at least 300,000 jobs, the cost of clean-up, impact on our environment, health, etc.

So IMO student's continual focus on CO2 is worthless in my book. And this is just one reason.

Care for me to go on?

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 1:33pm #24
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

student wrote:

ONeil, calm down you'll notice I used the EPA 28kWh/100 miles at the plug number. No need to worry about the efficiency...

We don't need to "calm down". YOU need to stop lying, "Student".

Sometimes anger is appropriate.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 1:34pm #25
X_Y_Z
EEluminated
Hamster_eesu
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 08 Jun 2011
Posts: 587

Not to mention a lot of the money for oil goes to middle east countries who don't like us very much. why give your money to them?


Lensman scale: Lets say, 42.
No, really, I have no idea, 4-5.
I'll believe when I see it.

"I don't lack attention span, I just lack a tuning device."

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 1:40pm #26
RmW
EESUrient
Skull_and_crossbones_oil
Registered: Jun, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 1762

X_Y_Z wrote:

Not to mention a lot of the money for oil goes to middle east countries who don't like us very much. why give your money to them?

Yes. And this is only one issue. We have many others.

For example, what happens when China puts a straw in our coastal waters? And they do the same thing as BP? Now we're not dealing with just a corporation, but a monolithic government. Ugly!

Or the less obvious, like centralizing the production of power (for autos) so that when technology becomes available it won't require every Tom, Dick and Harry to buy a new car. We can just upgrade our power stations and spread the cost based upon energy use.

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 1:42pm #27
RmW
EESUrient
Skull_and_crossbones_oil
Registered: Jun, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 1762

trick wrote:

RmW wrote:

student wrote:

I'm all for reducing the emissions related to the production of electricity. They are huge.

Yes, but maybe not as big as the emissions spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for your Jetta, etc.

And pretty much everything you consume, own, rent, have borrowed, etc.

Your point is...?

Oh, and as for oil price - so what? Why not put the Zenn stock price on that chart as well? It's just as meaningful.

I'll bet you smoke cigarettes and don't understand why many non-smokers don't like you smoking near you. Or subsidizing your health insurance premiums. And think it is your right to smoke.

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 1:49pm #28
Generic
EEcclesiastical
Schrodinger
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 1247

Somewhat related.

Why aren't we spending money improving our grid infrastructure (specifically converting our transmission lines to HT Superconductors)?

It always blows my mind how much line loss we live with day to day without so much of a peep on improving it.


┌─┐
┴─┴
ಠ_ರೃ

Why monocles? Why not.

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 2:14pm #29
X_Y_Z
EEluminated
Hamster_eesu
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 08 Jun 2011
Posts: 587

Probably the same reason GM had old assmebly lines and equipment - it would save money in the long run but cost in the short run and short run is often what is looked at both in budget and idealism.


Lensman scale: Lets say, 42.
No, really, I have no idea, 4-5.
I'll believe when I see it.

"I don't lack attention span, I just lack a tuning device."

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 2:24pm #30
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Transmission loss in the USA is only about 7%. Compared to inefficiencies elsewhere in the system of electric utilities, it's a minor concern. And "High Temperature" superconductors still require liquid nitrogen cryogenic cooling.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline