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
 
Tue, 04 May 2010, 4:12pm #31
RmW
EESUrient
Skull_and_crossbones_oil
Registered: Jun, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 1762

Generic √-1/10ⁿ wrote:

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.

There was a recent news special on one of the major networks that showed a superconductor in place (nitrogen). I just can't find it. It showed pictures, etc. It was excellent but VERY EXPENSIVE.

I know that there is consideration of using the same to bridge the 3 major US transmission sytems, TX, West, East also.

Offline


Tue, 04 May 2010, 5:53pm #32
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Sean wrote:

This whole carbon foot print/ long tail pipe argument is ridiculous, why does it keep getting rehashed. In the end no one cares how much co2 is produced during construction/transportation of a car (or any other product) or it's fuel. People care about how much money comes out of their pocket when they buy the car/fuel and then how much they have to pay each month, thats it period. You can argue until you are blue in the face. In the end the person will go with the cheapest solution.

While you are correct regarding the motivation of the average consumer, the early adopters are those primarily motivated to buy because of factors other than price. Many or most of the early EV adopters will be those more concerned with the environmental impact of car emissions than they are with price.

For this reason, I think it's important to make sure the Long Tailpipe fallacy, which "Student", Tec and Oakthicket keep trying to promote, gets discredited as the Big Lie it is. We constantly have new lurkers and forum members; I presume it's primarily *those* people who "Student" and Tec are trying to persuade, because anyone who's been here for awhile should know better than to believe anything posted by those two.

Last edited Tue, 04 May 2010, 8:52pm by Lensman


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

Offline
Tue, 04 May 2010, 8:21pm #33
Oakthicket
EESUrient
Zombatar_1
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 22 Jun 2013
Posts: 2087

Nice analysis Student. It's the most thorough one I've seen on these boards. I once considered doing a similar one, but chose not to because of the predictable emotional responses of the deniers.


Cherish what is most important in your life - family and loved ones.

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 1:55am #34
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

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.

Apparently you didn't read the following section:

student wrote:

Over one third [of all emissions in the U.S. come from the production of electricity] according to the Fusion Institute of Technology Wisconsin (ref21). And, according to the EPA, more GHG emissions come from electricity than from any other source (ref32).

EPA wrote:

The U.S. greenhouse gas inventory…presents emissions by more commonly used economic categories: agriculture, commercial, electricity generation, industry, residential and transportation. Using this categorization, emissions from electricity generation accounted for the largest portion of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2006. Transportation activities accounted for the second largest portion and emissions from industry comprised the third largest portion. The agriculture, commercial and residential economic sectors, listed in descending order of their contribution, together account for the remaining U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

That’s right. More GHG emissions come from the production of electricity than driving cars. You might think the most effective area to cut emissions would be emissions from the production of electricity. If so, you’d be right.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/ES8-8.gifhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/ES9-9.gif

To learn all about it, read this document: ref33

Electricity emits more GHG than transportation does.

Last edited Wed, 05 May 2010, 2:33am by student


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 2:02am #35
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

Sean wrote:

Lensman wrote:

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.

This whole carbon foot print/ long tail pipe argument is ridiculous, why does it keep getting rehashed. In the end no one cares how much co2 is produced during construction/transportation of a car (or any other product) or it's fuel. People care about how much money comes out of their pocket when they buy the car/fuel and then how much they have to pay each month, thats it period. You can argue until you are blue in the face. In the end the person will go with the cheapest solution.

Very interesting this trend. People here used to tell me EVs are more efficient than ICEVs, emit fewer GHGs and, are cheaper. Once I showed how EVs are more inefficient just on a fuel-to-wheels basis they stopped with the efficiency argument and kept on with the cheaper and emissions argument.

Now everyone seems willing to abandon the emissions argument as well, claiming the fact EVs are cheaper is the only thing which makes EVs worth buying.

I wonder what will happen when I show what an EV has to cost to be cheaper than the ICEV version?


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 2:02am #36
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

Oakthicket wrote:

Nice analysis Student. It's the most thorough one I've seen on these boards. I once considered doing a similar one, but chose not to because of the predictable emotional responses of the deniers.

Thanks Oak.


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 2:03am #37
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

Here's what everyone's been asking for. Play to your heart's content. :-)

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 10,084 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, 05 May 2010, 9:04pm by student


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 3:30am #38
ONeil
EESUrient
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 2149

student wrote:

Very interesting this trend. People here used to tell me EVs are more efficient than ICEVs, emit fewer GHGs and, are cheaper. Once I showed how EVs are more inefficient just on a fuel-to-wheels basis they stopped with the efficiency argument and kept on with the cheaper and emissions argument.

NO! EVs are more efficient than ICEVs, and, when used with reasonably clean energy sources are much cleaner. All you've managed to demonstrate is your own inability to understand the basic flaws in your own arguments. All those numbers you've tried to use to obfuscate the truth are cherry picked, exaggerated or worse, barefaced lies. Tec will buy your BS because that's what he wants to hear and he's too stupid to figure it out for himself. Oakhead will applaud your misguided efforts because they put money in his pocket. Nobody else with any education or foresight is buying this crap.


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
Wed, 05 May 2010, 3:40am #39
seslaprime
EESUrient
Eagle
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 27 Nov 2012
Posts: 2256

Completely irrelevent OP. EVs can get fuel from "any" electrical source. ICE only one source. EV = zero emissions from renewable source. ICE = zero renewable sources = massive personal emissions for "life".

I can go on and on as there are many benefit for EV over ICE. But for emission purposes, the Original Post is bologna.

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 3:45am #40
bEElzebub
EElevated
Beelzebub
Registered: Aug, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 453

student, I hate the AGW argumentations and always did. It is based on assumptions and exaggerations. Their solutions are reactionary, stupid and directly impossible. But when it comes to EVs it is just a matter of time. Not because of AGW, that might only speed it up a bit, but because everything is better with an EV compared to an ICEV. Electric engines are superior in every aspects compared to a ICE and that is solely the only true argument why the ICEV park will be be replaced by EVs. It is only a matter of time.


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
Wed, 05 May 2010, 3:46am #41
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

ONeil wrote:

All those numbers you've tried to use to obfuscate the truth are cherry picked, exaggerated or worse, barefaced lies... Nobody else with any education or foresight is buying this crap.

I've presented the formulae. Why don't you work out the calculations yourself?

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

Only in the, currently nonexistent, future would the U.S. actually reduce emissions related to electricity. The EU committed to 30% over all emissions reductions, China has made commitments, where is the U.S.?

The U.S. hasn't made any solid commitments yet that I'm aware of. There would have to be a sizable investment in renewables before the Roadster emits less than all the diesels on the market. Until any commitments are actually carried out and renewables actually used more on the U.S. grid, the Roadster will continue to emit more emissions than a diesel which gets 47 mpg U.S. for an average driver.


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 3:49am #42
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

seslaprime wrote:

Completely irrelevent OP. EVs can get fuel from "any" electrical source. ICE only one source. EV = zero emissions from renewable source. ICE = zero renewable sources = massive personal emissions for "life".

I can go on and on as there are many benefit for EV over ICE. But for emission purposes, the Original Post is bologna.

So Seslaprime, are you actually completely off-grid?


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 3:53am #43
seslaprime
EESUrient
Eagle
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 27 Nov 2012
Posts: 2256

student wrote:

Sean wrote:

Lensman wrote:

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.

This whole carbon foot print/ long tail pipe argument is ridiculous, why does it keep getting rehashed. In the end no one cares how much co2 is produced during construction/transportation of a car (or any other product) or it's fuel. People care about how much money comes out of their pocket when they buy the car/fuel and then how much they have to pay each month, thats it period. You can argue until you are blue in the face. In the end the person will go with the cheapest solution.

Very interesting this trend. People here used to tell me EVs are more efficient than ICEVs, emit fewer GHGs and, are cheaper. Once I showed how EVs are more inefficient just on a fuel-to-wheels basis they stopped with the efficiency argument and kept on with the cheaper and emissions argument.

Now everyone seems willing to abandon the emissions argument as well, claiming the fact EVs are cheaper is the only thing which makes EVs worth buying.

I wonder what will happen when I show what an EV has to cost to be cheaper than the ICEV version?

the problem is that you are showing data that is only good if the electricity used is from a coal or fuel fired power plant. Plus, you apply this data like the EV itself actually emits these hydrocarbons. and completely disregard all other benefits of the EV.

your argument is simply too weak to affect anyone who actually knows this stuff. you are right, people do not care about emissions power plants produce. these emissions are already being produced and will not increase with the small amount of EVs that will be on the road over the next 5 years or so.

There just is no way anyone can "slap" down the benefits of the EV. it is not possible. any garbage attacking the EV is just that,,, irrelevent garbage

regardless of all this propaganda against EVs, Evs will prevail. count on it.

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 3:55am #44
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

bEElzebub wrote:

student, I hate the AGW argumentations and always did. It is based on assumptions and exaggerations. Their solutions are reactionary, stupid and directly impossible. But when it comes to EVs it is just a matter of time. Not because of AGW, that might only speed it up a bit, but because everything is better with an EV compared to an ICEV. Electric engines are superior in every aspects compared to a ICE and that is solely the only true argument why the ICEV park will be be replaced by EVs. It is only a matter of time.

I like the ideal imaginary EV some here dream of. Until it is a reality I don't even have the option of purchasing one.

Comparing todays diesels with todays EVs and you find they emit very similar amounts of lifecycle emissions. I posted this thread to point out there is no emissions advantage for EVs until the U.S. actually changes major portions of electricity generation to renewables. Until that very expensive day has passed, EVs present no emissions advantage.


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:02am #45
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

seslaprime wrote:

the problem is that you are showing data that is only good if the electricity used is from a coal or fuel fired power plant.

Not true. Why don't you find out the average lifecyle emissions for 1 kWh of electricity from you own source and use the above formulae to calculate grams CO2/km?

I am fairly certain it will be very similar.

seslaprime wrote:

Plus, you apply this data like the EV itself actually emits these hydrocarbons. and completely disregard all other benefits of the EV.

Were do you think the kWh you pump into your EV come from? Pixie dust? I'm guessing you're still using electricity off the U.S. grid.

seslaprime wrote:

you are right, people do not care about emissions power plants produce. these emissions are already being produced and will not increase with the small amount of EVs that will be on the road over the next 5 years or so.

So you're saying you don't actually care about the emissions from the electricity you use in your EV?

seslaprime wrote:

regardless of all this propaganda against EVs, Evs will prevail. count on it.

The day of the EV has not yet arrived. Currently an EV driven by an average U.S. driver emits more grams of CO2 than that emitted if that driver drove a diesel with 47 mpg U.S. or more.


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:04am #46
seslaprime
EESUrient
Eagle
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 27 Nov 2012
Posts: 2256

student wrote:

seslaprime wrote:

Completely irrelevent OP. EVs can get fuel from "any" electrical source. ICE only one source. EV = zero emissions from renewable source. ICE = zero renewable sources = massive personal emissions for "life".

I can go on and on as there are many benefit for EV over ICE. But for emission purposes, the Original Post is bologna.

So Seslaprime, are you actually completely off-grid?

No, but I live in Oregon. we are Nuclear and Hydro so zero emissions. but even if I was on a "dirty" energy grid. the electricity I use to charge my EV will not effect my carbon footprint in the slightest.

for one, if I am not driving my EV, I am driving my ICE which we all know how efficient those are. so even if the electricity I use to charge my EV causes the power plant to produce the same hydrocarbons, I am still status quo. but my City is clean because those hydrocarbons are not coming out of my personal tailpipe.

your whole argument is not relevent. more than half the country is on nuclear, Hydro, wind and solar. all Clean energy. if we were to completely replace all ICE vehicles with Electric Vehicles tomorrow, we would cut hydrocarbon output from transportation in half.

Trying to say the EV is as dirty or more dirty that the ICE is ridiculous, and no one is listening.

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:08am #47
Tec
EExhilarating
New_tec
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 8307

Plus, you apply this data like the EV itself actually emits these hydrocarbons. and completely disregard all other benefits of the EV.

What point are you attempting to make here?

I don't see that it makes much difference where the hydrocarbons are emitted, power station or car. Nor can I see the relevance of any other benefits EV may have to the discussions on the quantity of pollutants emitted.

And the facts are that at the moment most electricity generated in the world comes from coal. Nor are they all going to be replaced with solar or nuclear very quickly.

I think the most damning fact about EVs is that the batteries are simply not up to the job. It really doesn't matter much if an electric motor is better, more efficient, cheaper, more reliable, if you can't carry enough power to run it. A car that conks out after 50 miles like the leaf is not going to have many buyers.

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:14am #48
seslaprime
EESUrient
Eagle
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 27 Nov 2012
Posts: 2256

student wrote:

seslaprime wrote:

the problem is that you are showing data that is only good if the electricity used is from a coal or fuel fired power plant.

Not true. Why don't you find out the average lifecyle emissions for 1 kWh of electricity from you own source and use the above formulae to calculate grams CO2/km?

I am fairly certain it will be very similar.

seslaprime wrote:

Plus, you apply this data like the EV itself actually emits these hydrocarbons. and completely disregard all other benefits of the EV.

Were do you think the kWh you pump into your EV come from? Pixie dust? I'm guessing you're still using electricity off the U.S. grid.

seslaprime wrote:

you are right, people do not care about emissions power plants produce. these emissions are already being produced and will not increase with the small amount of EVs that will be on the road over the next 5 years or so.

So you're saying you don't actually care about the emissions from the electricity you use in your EV?

seslaprime wrote:

regardless of all this propaganda against EVs, Evs will prevail. count on it.

The day of the EV has not yet arrived. Currently an EV driven by an average U.S. driver emits more grams of CO2 than that emitted if that driver drove a diesel with 47 mpg U.S. or more.

look student, I have been driving EVs for 10 years. the day of the EV was 20 years ago. You are obviously one of those people who have never seen a EV before so I can understand your confusion, especially with others telling you what to say.

I am done with the emission argument, it is irrelevent. but I can tell you from experience, the EV out performs the ICE, and it is cheaper to opporate and cheaper to maintain. there is only one drawback, ED. that is it.

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:14am #49
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

According to a study by Environmental Science and Technology, the average lifecycle emissions are actually "670 g CO2-eq/kWh" electricity in the "U.S. avg. scenario" (ref35)

Thats higher than the 612g CO2/kWh I used. Hmmmmm... Looks like you're gonna have a hard time backing THAT argument up Seslaprime.

Last edited Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:22am by student


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:19am #50
seslaprime
EESUrient
Eagle
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 27 Nov 2012
Posts: 2256

Tec wrote:

Plus, you apply this data like the EV itself actually emits these hydrocarbons. and completely disregard all other benefits of the EV.

What point are you attempting to make here?

I don't see that it makes much difference where the hydrocarbons are emitted, power station or car. Nor can I see the relevance of any other benefits EV may have to the discussions on the quantity of pollutants emitted.

And the facts are that at the moment most electricity generated in the world comes from coal. Nor are they all going to be replaced with solar or nuclear very quickly.

I think the most damning fact about EVs is that the batteries are simply not up to the job. It really doesn't matter much if an electric motor is better, more efficient, cheaper, more reliable, if you can't carry enough power to run it. A car that conks out after 50 miles like the leaf is not going to have many buyers.

Ha Ha, Tec, you got no business in a thread talking about the problem with hydrocarbon emissions. you are a Pollution Lover, driving the biggest polluter ever built, Diesel ICE.

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:21am #51
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

seslaprime wrote:

look student, I have been driving EVs for 10 years. the day of the EV was 20 years ago. You are obviously one of those people who have never seen a EV before so I can understand your confusion, especially with others telling you what to say.

I am done with the emission argument, it is irrelevent. but I can tell you from experience, the EV out performs the ICE, and it is cheaper to opporate and cheaper to maintain. there is only one drawback, ED. that is it.

I don't blame you for enjoying the benefits of EVs; quiet, reliable on 50mile or less round trips, no exhaust (no matter how clean) coming out the back end.

But GHG emissions is simply NOT an advantage to driving an EV when using electricity off the U.S. grid.


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:23am #52
seslaprime
EESUrient
Eagle
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 27 Nov 2012
Posts: 2256

student wrote:

According to a study by Envronmental Science and Technology, the Average lifecycle emissions are actually "670 g CO2-eq/kWh" electricity in the "U.S. avg. scenario" (ref35)

Thats higher than the 612g CO2/kWh I used. Hmmmmm... Looks like you're gonna have a hard time backing THAT argument up Seslaprime.

I do not care to back anything up. because "it does not matter". your argument is completely irrelevent. it will not effect the fact that the EV is the best alternative to the ICE. the Auto manufacturer's, you know, the guys who decide what you will be driving in the future? tend to agree with me. so enjoy.

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:26am #53
seslaprime
EESUrient
Eagle
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 27 Nov 2012
Posts: 2256

student wrote:

seslaprime wrote:

look student, I have been driving EVs for 10 years. the day of the EV was 20 years ago. You are obviously one of those people who have never seen a EV before so I can understand your confusion, especially with others telling you what to say.

I am done with the emission argument, it is irrelevent. but I can tell you from experience, the EV out performs the ICE, and it is cheaper to opporate and cheaper to maintain. there is only one drawback, ED. that is it.

I don't blame you for enjoying the benefits of EVs; quiet, reliable on 50mile or less round trips, no exhaust (no matter how clean) coming out the back end.

But GHG emissions is simply NOT an advantage to driving an EV when using electricity off the U.S. grid.

Well, I see you already forgot. I live in a clean energy state. so those statistics you are so proud of? they do not apply to us over here.

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:32am #54
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

seslaprime wrote:

student wrote:

So Seslaprime, are you actually completely off-grid?

No, but I live in Oregon. we are Nuclear and Hydro so zero emissions. but even if I was on a "dirty" energy grid. the electricity I use to charge my EV will not effect my carbon footprint in the slightest.

If you use electricity from any part of the grid you are simply a part of the average. I suppose you wish to tell some poor sap EV owner who gets his electricity in WV that he has to account for your part of the U.S. average emissions.

If you bothered reading my posts in this thread (the OP for instance) you would see there are emissions associated with Hydro and Nuclear power anyhow.

seslaprime wrote:

for one, if I am not driving my EV, I am driving my ICE which we all know how efficient those are. so even if the electricity I use to charge my EV causes the power plant to produce the same hydrocarbons, I am still status quo. but my City is clean because those hydrocarbons are not coming out of my personal tailpipe.

The electricity off the U.S. grid has an average of grams CO2/kWh, that average is lowered by all the hydro and nuclear plants on the grid. But that average does indeed have emissions associated with it 612grams CO2/kWh if you listen to the EIA report and 670gramsCO2/kWh if you listen to Environmental Science and Technology.

seslaprime wrote:

your whole argument is not relevent. more than half the country is on nuclear, Hydro, wind and solar. all Clean energy.

Again, that's just part of the average. And again, nuclear and hydro power have associated emissions.

seslaprime wrote:

if we were to completely replace all ICE vehicles with Electric Vehicles tomorrow, we would cut hydrocarbon output from transportation in half.

My study in this thread shows you would actually increase emissions Seslaprime.

[edit: you might actually reduce emissions doing that but not by as much as you would if you put everyone in 47 mpg U.S. diesels.]


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:36am #55
seslaprime
EESUrient
Eagle
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 27 Nov 2012
Posts: 2256

Student, I suppose next you are going to tell me that my Water produces emission also. give it a rest man.

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:46am #56
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

Seslaprime, why don't you access one of the lifecycle emissions studies? I've provided two: ref21 and ref35

Oh, and there's the work the IEA did on the matter: ref20

If those aren't enough to make you happy, perhaps you should google the matter. Credible studies on the issue show there are lifecycle emissions associated with all forms of electricity generation. Pick one. Read it.


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 4:51am #57
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

Tec wrote:

Plus, you apply this data like the EV itself actually emits these hydrocarbons. and completely disregard all other benefits of the EV.

What point are you attempting to make here?

I don't see that it makes much difference where the hydrocarbons are emitted, power station or car. Nor can I see the relevance of any other benefits EV may have to the discussions on the quantity of pollutants emitted.

And the facts are that at the moment most electricity generated in the world comes from coal. Nor are they all going to be replaced with solar or nuclear very quickly.

Over 80% from coal here in the PRC.


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 7:35am #58
Geofree
EEcclesiastical
Clear_skys_again
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Sun, 22 Apr 2012
Posts: 1005

student wrote:

bEElzebub wrote:

student, I hate the AGW argumentations and always did. It is based on assumptions and exaggerations. Their solutions are reactionary, stupid and directly impossible. But when it comes to EVs it is just a matter of time. Not because of AGW, that might only speed it up a bit, but because everything is better with an EV compared to an ICEV. Electric engines are superior in every aspects compared to a ICE and that is solely the only true argument why the ICEV park will be be replaced by EVs. It is only a matter of time.

I like the ideal imaginary EV some here dream of. Until it is a reality I don't even have the option of purchasing one.

Comparing todays diesels with todays EVs and you find they emit very similar amounts of lifecycle emissions. I posted this thread to point out there is no emissions advantage for EVs until the U.S. actually changes major portions of electricity generation to renewables. Until that very expensive day has passed, EVs present no emissions advantage.

Nonsense. Regardless if you have an EV or not, the power plants are still running the same. There for you only decreased the use of gasoline when you use an EV. The power plants are still doing what they are doing.

So stop spewing the crap. Everyone knows, if you buy Gasoline you are paying the terrorist to bomb us!!!

Buy an EV for the safety of America! Stop supporting terrorist, like China wants us to do :)

Just having fun with propaganda.


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

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 9:21am #59
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

Geofree wrote:

student wrote:

bEElzebub wrote:

student, I hate the AGW argumentations and always did. It is based on assumptions and exaggerations. Their solutions are reactionary, stupid and directly impossible. But when it comes to EVs it is just a matter of time. Not because of AGW, that might only speed it up a bit, but because everything is better with an EV compared to an ICEV. Electric engines are superior in every aspects compared to a ICE and that is solely the only true argument why the ICEV park will be be replaced by EVs. It is only a matter of time.

I like the ideal imaginary EV some here dream of. Until it is a reality I don't even have the option of purchasing one.

Comparing todays diesels with todays EVs and you find they emit very similar amounts of lifecycle emissions. I posted this thread to point out there is no emissions advantage for EVs until the U.S. actually changes major portions of electricity generation to renewables. Until that very expensive day has passed, EVs present no emissions advantage.

Nonsense. Regardless if you have an EV or not, the power plants are still running the same. There for you only decreased the use of gasoline when you use an EV. The power plants are still doing what they are doing.

As I understand it, it is not good for plants to put more energy on the grid than is used. They produce more energy when more is demanded and thus emit more GHG when you plug in your EV.

Geofree wrote:

Buy an EV for the safety of America! Stop supporting terrorist, like China wants us to do :)

Biodiesel can be American made. ;-)

Last edited Wed, 05 May 2010, 9:35am by student


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Wed, 05 May 2010, 9:29am #60
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 24 hours ago
Posts: 4011

Geofree wrote:

Regardless if you have an EV or not, the power plants are still running the same. There for you only decreased the use of gasoline when you use an EV. The power plants are still doing what they are doing.

Geofree,

A gentleman named Bramble had this to say on the matter. I can't speak for the veracity of his statements:

Bramble wrote:

The power generated by most power plants is fed to their local grid which runs at a frequency of 50 or 60 Hz. Consumers draw their power requrements from the grid. The total of these requirements is changing all the time throughout the day.

If too much power is being generated on the grid (i.e. more than is being consumed at any instant) then the extra power will cause the whole grid including all generators to speed up. There is a lot of inertia on the grid so the acceleration is not fast. Conversely the grid frequency will drop if there is excessive demand.

An important task for grid control is to keep the frequency near to constant and the total frequency count exact over the day. This is achieved by loading and unloading generators and/or bringing generators on or taking them off line. Load patterns are well known and most of this work can be planned accurately with different plants being scheduled to run at different times according to their costs and availability. Some so called "spinning reserve" (generators running below their full load, which can be loaded quickly) is often kept ready to cope with unexpected load demands. In emergencies (which are usually due to faults on plant or power-lines) certain generators are loaded or unloaded automatically (frequency support). If needed the load voltages can be reduced to lower demand or even some consumers temporarily disconnected (brown-out) if discrepancies become severe.

Therefore at the "end of the day" the energy book-keeping is exact. Energy generated less transmission loss is equal to energy consumed. And the grid has run on average at exactly the correct frequency.

Trading energy between utilities is more a commercial matter than an instrument for technical control of the grid.
Source(s):
BSc elec. eng. MIEE. Career in the power industry Link


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


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline