+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 54
Latest: abrogard
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16393
Total Topics: 269
Most Online Today: 6
Most Online Ever: 1155
(April 20, 2021, 12:50:06 pm)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 0
Total: 1

Author Topic: Electric Vehicles  (Read 30368 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #60 on: December 01, 2014, 01:56:11 am »
An Electric Tuk Tuk!   

Solar powered car hits Dhaka streets
Photo credit: Solar for Bangladesh

100% Renewable Rural Communities in Bangladesh   

100% Renewable Energy Goal Achieved: 

100% Renewable First-Time Electricity For Rural Villagers   

Location: Bangladesh   


Summary: 


As is the case for most rural communities in developing countries, grid access is extremely limited in rural Bangladesh, and renewable energy has been a cost effective, pragmatic solution for providing electricity to these areas.   In 2002, only 30% of the 162 million people of Bangladesh had access to electricity, greatly impairing quality of life and economic development. In response, the International Development Agency (IDA) financed the Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Development project, which in just seven years, raised the percentage of people with electricity to 40%--all with decentralized renewable energy. The project brought renewable power to more than 600,000 people who had never before had electricity.   

The technology mix included 320,000 new solar homes (far surpassing the original target of 50,000) and a 250 kw biomass plant that uses rice husk as its feedstock and produces electricity for 300 homes and shops. The project was implemented by the Rural Electrification Board through its rural electric cooperatives, in partnership with NGOs and private sector companies.


A woman engineer demonstrating a Solar Home System. Photo credit: Grameen Shakti 

The benefits were many for those with this new electricity.  Children's study time is reported to have increased by approximately 6%,  children's sick days from school dropped 20%, home businesses rose 8%, household chore times decreased by 6%, and distribution network losses went down about 6%.

The total cost of the program was US$290 million. Financing was provided by IDA, the Global Environment Fund (GEF), the Government of Bangladesh, and local communities. The financing structure consisted of micro-credit loans and up to 80% refinancing for participating organizations through the central Infrastructure Development Company.   


The end of the Ganges river: the Indian delta, Bangladesh (NASA)

The project's success attracted other financial support partners to come on board, including the Asian Development Bank, KfW and GTZ (German development bank and German international cooperation enterprise). The Inter-American Development Bank, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation and the Global Partnership on Output-Based Aid have also shown interest in participating. 

Bangladesh has set a target of providing 1 million rural consumers with solar home systems by 2012, and the country is aiming for 100% rural electricity access by 2020. To help accomplish these ambitious goals, IDA is committed to strengthening the managerial capacity of the Rural Electrification Board. And in August 2009, IDA approved additional financing of about US$ 130 million to expand Bangladesh's rural renewable electricity project. 

Links:
World Bank
Grameen Shakti
The Un Refugee Agency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YTNWRgHYqw&feature=player_embedded

http://www.go100percent.org/cms/index.php?id=80&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=126&cHash=a3fd2bdc6e88e6cf10419f99fc23a006

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Can EVs Ever Be Completely Powered by PVs?
« Reply #61 on: December 04, 2014, 07:19:01 pm »
Can EVs Ever Be Completely Powered by PVs? 

The Engineer posted on November 07, 2014 | 3 Comments

solar, PV, nanotech, cars, batteries, EVA

A car powered by its own body panels could soon be driving on our roads after a breakthrough in nanotechnology research by a QUT team.  

Researchers have developed lightweight "supercapacitors" that can be combined with regular batteries to dramatically boost the power of an electric car.


The discovery was made by Postdoctoral Research Fellow Dr Jinzhang Liu, Professor Nunzio Motta and PhD researcher Marco Notarianni, from QUT's Science and Engineering Faculty - Institute for Future Environments, and PhD researcher Francesca Mirri and Professor Matteo Pasquali, from Rice University in Houston, in the United States.

The supercapacitors - a "sandwich" of electrolyte between two all-carbon electrodes - were made into a thin and extremely strong film with a high power density.

The film could be embedded in a car's body panels, roof, doors, bonnet and floor - storing enough energy to turbocharge an electric car's battery in just a few minutes.

The findings, published in the Journal of Power Sources and the Nanotechnology journal, mean a car partly powered by its own body panels could be a reality within five years, Mr Notarianni said.

"Vehicles need an extra energy spurt for acceleration, and this is where supercapacitors come in. They hold a limited amount of charge, but they are able to deliver it very quickly, making them the perfect complement to mass-storage batteries," he said.

"Supercapacitors offer a high power output in a short time, meaning a faster acceleration rate of the car and a charging time of just a few minutes, compared to several hours for a standard electric car battery."

Dr Liu said currently the "energy density" of a supercapacitor is lower than a standard lithium ion (Li-Ion) battery, but its "high power density", or ability to release power in a short time, is "far beyond" a conventional battery.

"Supercapacitors are presently combined with standard Li-Ion batteries to power electric cars, with a substantial weight reduction and increase in performance," he said.

"In the future, it is hoped the supercapacitor will be developed to store more energy than a Li-Ion battery while retaining the ability to release its energy up to 10 times faster - meaning the car could be entirely powered by the supercapacitors in its body panels.

"After one full charge this car should be able to run up to 500km - similar to a petrol-powered car and more than double the current limit of an electric car."

Dr Liu said the technology would also potentially be used for rapid charges of other battery-powered devices.

"For example, by putting the film on the back of a smart phone to charge it extremely quickly," he said.

The discovery may be a game-changer for the automotive industry, with significant impacts on financial, as well as environmental, factors.

"We are using cheap carbon materials to make supercapacitors and the price of industry scale production will be low," Professor Motta said.

"The price of Li-Ion batteries cannot decrease a lot because the price of Lithium remains high. This technique does not rely on metals and other toxic materials either, so it is environmentally friendly if it needs to be disposed of."

Source: QUT

http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/8895/Can-EVs-Ever-Be-Completly-Powered-by-PVs.aspx

Renewable energy=                                 =Fossil Fuelers
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  PART 1 of 5 parts

For everyone in general and JoeP in particular, the following presentation is an overview with some pertinent information. It does get into some details but PART 1 excludes a detailed cost benefit analysis and cost comparison (including the environmental costs). I'll get to that later.


1. This Consumer Reports video is one year old but has pertinent info about The Prius, Volt and Leaf at 13:00 - 16:00. The Tesla Model S is discussed at 23:14 - 27:44.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBb3YUmInIY&feature=player_embedded


2. Are American cars getting better?    Consumer Reports says YES! First 5 minutes covers why GM is improving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m87HaGNXwdY&feature=player_embedded

3. Consumer Reports on hybrid cars August 2013. Volt discussion at 9:30-11:30. Discussion of how batteries are NOT having negative environmental impact at 14:24-16:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm9_GAsihpA&feature=player_embedded


4. Great video on the nuts and bolts cost comparison of hybrids and non-hybrid internal combustion engine powered vehicles.
Watch all of it. This guy did his homework. He stumbles his words sometimes but his data is solid. Brake maintenance basically does not happen for 150,000 miles due to regenerative braking. Excellent!
Battery pack life seems to be non-issue on a PHEV. More on that later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh_V1zwmCOA&feature=player_embedded


5. Chevy Volt Engineering is advanced, prudent and saves on BOTH weight and cost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMokamy19kg&feature=player_embedded


6. Chevy Volt 2013 PLUG IN Hybrid review (pretty thorough). It has four driving modes. I like the flexibility the plug in feature gives to recharge the battery with solar power rather than burning gasoline to do it. That means a smaller carbon footprint. You CAN always drive 35 to 40 miles pure EV every day as long as you can plug in charge it in your garage at night. Charging at work will extend that.  Also, you NEVER have range anxiety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFGyM40F774&feature=player_embedded

7. Consumer Reports 2014 Volt review.
One Volt owner was not happy with the review. He thinks Consumer Reports low balled some numbers.
Quote
David Wilson 
I find Consumer Reports' review of the Chevy Volt lacking credibility. My worst electric range was 37 miles on a charge and best has been 47. For this guy to say he gets 20 mpg on a charge seems like he is purposely attacking the Volt with false accusations. Look at the video at 3:36 and you will see what appears to be a full charge and range of 36 EV miles. If CR was really getting less, the computer would average it, and show less. I get 400 range, not 300 like he said. Pathetic review.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLy3e3uIcds&feature=player_embedded

End of PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  PART 1 of 5 parts

PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  PART 2 of 5 parts
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 09:54:11 pm by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #63 on: December 17, 2014, 09:53:53 pm »
The ICE powered car is the car mechanic's license to lie, cheat and steal, PERIOD!  :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb4YanZYH8E&feature=player_embedded
Of course they are "hard at work" thinking up scams for the PEV and the PHEV too.  >:(

But it's a bit harder for the mechanic to charge more for maintenance when you DON'T have an ICE garage queen that requires many visits to said mechanic ( i.e. less moving parts means less maintenance).   ;)
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #64 on: December 17, 2014, 09:56:22 pm »
I just learned that the people that designed the battery pack for the Volt worked in Hughes satellite battery systems! These scientist engineers plan for endurance in harsh environments. GM brought in a good team for that car.  :emthup:


Structural enhancements to fit to Chevy Volt electric car to avoid post-crash battery-pack fires (2012) .

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1071491_nhtsa-chevy-volt-battery-pack-fix-ok-ends-investigation



Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  PART 2 of 5 parts
Alternate humility     expressing title:
CFS (common forking sense) transportation in a world of logic challenged Homo SAPS.

Anybody in the lower forty eight considering purchasing an EV or a PHEV needs, first of all, to know where their electric "gas" stations are.

The above image is from a MyFordMobile app. It has nothing to do with Ford cars. It appears that eight states have the lion's share of "not at home in the garage" charge spots.

The battery pack is a BIG deal. So let's discuss their use or abuse. If you a have a pure electric and drive between 9k and 12k (average 10.5k) a year and you plan to own the vehicle for 10 years, you will need a new battery pack in, 9.5 years.
To increase consumer confidence, manufacturers have warranted the batteries for time periods deemed pretty long even by internal combustion car standards.

Typically it’s eight years, and mileage is usually at least 100,000 miles.
http://www.hybridcars.com/how-long-will-an-evs-battery-last/

If you have a a PHEV and drive between 9k and 12k (average 10.5k) a year and you plan to own the vehicle for 10 years, you will need a new battery pack in, you will need a new battery pack, uh, NEVER.  This fellow says they can go 300,000 miles in New York City Taxis.
[embed=640,380]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh_V1zwmCOA#[/embed]

The article below talks about a Volt owner that has gone past the 120,000 mile mark without changing the battery pack. HOWEVER, 46,000-plus miles were done on electricity. The guy commutes 220 miles round trip A DAY!  :o

Quote
Quote

"As Belmer tells InsideEVs, the Volt was purchased on March 28, 2012. Since then, it’s seen a daily commute of 220 miles there and back, with a single longest trip of 430 miles in a day.
At 120,000-plus miles, Belmer seems to love his Volt now more than ever.

What’s not to love when oil changes come every 38,000 miles and tire rotations every 10,000 miles. That’s basically all the maintenance that’s been required on Belmer’s Volt."

Chevy Volt Owner Zips Past 120,000 Miles
12 months ago by Eric Loveday
http://insideevs.com/chevy-volt-owner-zips-past-120000-miles/

So, the person that buys a used PHEV must be prepared to deal with the battery pack replacement. I expect the depreciation math of PEVs and PHEVs will be even more mileage based than with gasoline only cars. Unlike the old used salesman pitch about the car that was just used on Sundays by grandma making it more valuable (if you like a sitting rust bucket  :P), a seldom used PHEV or EV really IS more valuable, just from the battery pack standpoint. We shall see.

And provided your regenerative brake technology does not fail in 100,000 miles, you won't ever have to change the brakes, either.




A sign to get familiar with.


Is your new home away from home free or not?

Is the juice Renewable Energy powered like the above?

The above is important. Someday you will sell the car. The main market for them is where the more people are buying them.

Google Maps now tell you where  the Charging Stations are.

The charging stations are now standardized (as of 2012). The speed with which your batteries are charged varies with the level of the charger. Not said for those who want the fastest charging rate (the most expensive chargers) is that routine slow charging extends battery pack life. Routine fast charging will shorten it. Be real. Most of us park our cars and leave them parked for several hours at a time either at work or at home. Assume you will, as a matter of prudence, economy, cost savings and common sense, use slow charging routinely.    


The standard for chargers comes from the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers):
SAE International Releases New Fast-Charging Combo Coupler Standard (SAE J1772) for Plug-In Electric and Electric Vehicles

Quote
WARRENDALE, Pa., Oct. 15, 2012
“This new technical standard is a real game-changer,” Andrew Smart, Director of Industry Relations and Business Development for SAE International, said. “It reflects the advancements in technology within PHEV and EV engineering and we are pleased to represent the collaborative efforts within industry that made it possible.”

The standard represents the future of charging technology and smart grid interaction, while addressing the needs of today. Such needs include reduced times at public charging stations, enabling consumers to travel greater distances in their PHEV’s and EV’s.

“This new standard reflects the many hours that top industry experts from around the world worked to achieve the best charging solution – a solution that helps vehicle electrification technology move forward.” Gery Kissel, Engineering Specialist, Global Battery Systems, GM, and SAE J1772™ Task Force Chairman, said. “We now can offer users of this technology various charging options in one combined design.”

The original version of J1772 defined AC Level 1 and AC Level 2 charge levels and specified a conductive charge coupler and electrical interfaces for AC Level 1 and AC Level 2 charging. The new revision incorporates DC charging where DC Level 1 and DC Level 2 charge levels, charge coupler and electrical interfaces are defined. The standard was developed in cooperation with the European automotive experts who also adopted and endorsed a combo strategy in their approach.
http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showRelease&RELEASE_ID=1897

These charging systems are not just about charging the car. They are designed to incorporate using your car's battery pack as an emergency power plant for your house!  :o   

I realize some wise guy might try to charge at some free place during the day and juice his house with it at night but that would be dumb. Why? Because he would increase the number of charge and discharge cycles of his battery pack and thereby shorten the life of the rather costly battery pack even with short driving distances.

Quote
GM official said,

“The combined charging approach will reduce development and infrastructure complexity, improve charging reliability, reduce the total cost-of-ownership for end customers and provide low maintenance costs.”

The new standard will also speed the transition to a two-way, interactive power grid that incorporates vehicle batteries as a significant energy source. For example, car owners could use their vehicle battery for auxiliary power at home or to run other equipment, or they could sell excess power back to the grid.

In an SAE article in 2012 by Patrick Ponticel, Gross explained:

“We [GM] learned a lot of lessons on the EV1, and we have vowed to make sure some of the hard lessons learned don’t happen again. One lesson is that we can’t go it alone on infrastructure, and on the standard for infrastructure… So we vowed on the [Chevrolet] Volt program to not proceed until the industry had condensed around charging infrastructure.”

GM apparently took no chances when developing the Volt.   
According to Ponticel, GM’s Engineering Specialist for Global Codes and Standards Development, Gery Kissel, also chairs the SAE International J1772 Task Force

Full 2012 article of technology that is now, as of 2014, in place.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/08/gm-ford-and-chrysler-adopt-new-sae-standard-for-ev-charging-ports/

End of PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  PART 2 of  5 parts

Continued in
PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  PART 3 of  5 parts
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 09:47:45 pm by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #66 on: December 20, 2014, 07:24:25 pm »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #67 on: December 21, 2014, 04:10:47 pm »
PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  PART 3 of 5 parts

Tesla claims      that you CAN use fast charging routinely WITHOUT shortening your battery pack life.   

Will slow charge extend battery life?
Quote
Quote
justineet | 20 Juin 2013

This is an interesting -- good -- question....in other words, does fast charging -- especially supercharging -- affect the life span of the battery pack negatively in any significant way??? Reports indicate, NO! That is primarily due to Tesla's innovation to run the battery cells through cool and hot cycles during the charging and operation stages so the battery cells are always at optimum temp range required to extend the life span. Tesla reportedly has proven this in the labs.
But one thing for sure will shorten the life span of your battery pack is leaving your battery in complete or near complete(deep) discharge state for long periods of time. So you should always try to never leave your car in deep discharge state for an extended period of time. Frequent deep discharging is not also recommended. Tesla probably has incorporated a safety circuit to avoid deep discharge state. Still frequent deep discharging is not recommended. Even with deep discharge safety circuit on board, the battery pack might still go below the "safe" discharge level since batteries continue to self discharge on their own at some rate.
http://www.teslamotors.com/fr_CA/forum/forums/will-slow-charge-extend-battery-life

My take is that unnecessary fast charging is a bad idea. A slow charge would slightly improve charge efficiency (ratio of Wh stored to Wh from the wall) since the HEAT dissipated by the power feeders is proportional to the SQUARE of current.


So, very roughly speaking, charging at 30A will result in approximately half the heat when compared to 40A. And 20A will result in a quarter of the heat when compared to 40A.
At 40A, the batteries (and the charging equipment) get hotter and the actual energy transfer is less efficient (i.e. less environmentally friendly) so don't do it unless you have to. 


ICE powered cars. PEVs and PHEVs: The Truth about their Impact (Damage) to the Biosphere:

As far as the environmental impact of vehicle carbon footprint, the giant, huge, polluting, biosphere poisoning ELEPHANT in the room is the internal combustion engine AND the LEAD ACID battery toxicity that THOSE ICE powered cars cause to the environment. I wrote about the lead acid pollution her over a year ago. It's somewhere in the DD Dustbin if you want to learn another way first world ****S trash the third world.   

Lead acid batteries are a HORROR to the environment, whereas the PEV and PHEV battery pack infrastructure is almost fully recyclable (as well as valuable and in demand in a secondary market).

In other words, the HUGE, but long lasting and fully recyclable battery pack has LESS environmental impact than the lead acid battery, relatively tiny battery on an ICE powered car!

Yes Monsta and Charles Hall (the creative number cruncher  ;) for EROEI on behalf OF BIG OIL), a Lot of Lithium is being mined and it takes a lot more energy to do that than the industrial process that brings us lead acid batteries.

So? Once that battery pack is built, the emissions and environmental impact STOP. The ICE powered car with the lead acid battery has FUTURE negative impact(s) in lead acid battery pollution and fuel use pollution translating to tremendous damage to the environment.    

Because of the fuel and the lead acid battery, the ICE powered car has a much higher, and a toxic one at that, carbon footprint.

The PHEV does have an environmental impact with its ICE but it's is tiny in comparison because MUCH less energy is used to mine for the materials and build it. And the PHEV, if used properly, has negligible engine pollution and  maintenance (an ICE small engine rarely used NEVER needs an overhaul and rarely needs an oil change, period).

What about the car body along with the engine metal? ???

At present, about 75 to 80 percent of the steel that goes into a car of any type is recycled. So the issue is, HOW MUCH STEEL BY WEIGHT is used.  A PEV or a PHEV requires LESS of everything in weight and quantity. That's the bonus of engineering a car to have less weight in order to maximize pure EV range. Again, the PEV or PHEV is the better choice, environmentally speaking. Keeping the ICE in a PHEV from polluting is within the control of the PHEV owner. 

That choice is not open to the owner of a car that just runs on gasoline or diesel. The PEV and the PHEV are both easier on the environment, in regard to initial manufacturing AND recycling, than the ICE powered car. Remember the energy required to make a large ICE is multiples of that required to make the relatively small ICE for a PHEV. 

From a National Geographic article:

Quote
Production, recycling, and disposal costs to the environment are difficult to quantify and largely beyond the control of most consumers. They are also relatively minor.

Most of an automobiles’ environmental impact, perhaps 80 to 90 percent, will be due to fuel consumption and emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases that climate scientists say are driving global warming. Fortunately, the level of that impact is very much under the control of the driver.

Fuel Costs

Petroleum products raise environmental red flags even before they are burned. Extracting them from the earth is an energy-intensive process that can damage local ecosystems. Shipping fuels can also consume a lot of energy, and creates an occasional environmental disaster such as an oil spill. As world demand rises, and unconventional fuel sources, such as oil sands, become more economically viable, the ecological impacts of petroleum extraction might also increase dramatically. That’s one more reason why fuel efficiency is so important.

Air Quality

Vehicles are America’s biggest air quality compromisers, producing about one-third of all U.S. air pollution. The smog, carbon monoxide, and other toxins emitted by vehicles are especially troubling because they leave tailpipes at street level, where humans breathe the polluted air directly into their lungs. That can make auto emissions an even more immediate health concern than toxins emitted high in the sky by industrial smokestacks.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/buying-guides/car/environmental-impact/

The bottom line is that the ICE powered car is far more environmentally UNFRIENDLY than the PEV or PHEV. However, I agree that a bicycle (with solar charged electric boost) is better if you can handle that. Monsta might suggest a bare bicycle is the only truly environmentally friendly option, howevah.  He is such a purist!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53rsISWpsMU&feature=player_embedded
Happy peddling! The above green transportation is recommended if you have bike paths to keep cars from running you down and NOT recommended if your daily destination work place is more than 10 miles away without shower facilities.  

ANECDOTE ALERT: Back in 1979-81 in Syracuse, New York, I had a "hybrid" powered bike. I bought a tiny two cycle ICE that fitted with a roller on to the front wheel when I applied it with a lever. I would bike 8 miles to the Control Tower (during the summer only) using renewable energy (me) as the main power source. I got lazy after a while and just applied the roller most of the time. That didn't work too well when it rained; wet rubber on wet rubber is the embodiment of slippin' and slidin'. At any rate, I saved a ton of gasoline.
Below please find a reasonable fascimile of what I called my "Arab Buster".
[embed=640,380]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7vaqTeP6X4#[/embed]


Here's another excellent article from the MIT Technology Review that directly answers Surly's carbon footprint question:
July 12, 2013
Are Electric Vehicles Better for the Environment than Gas-Powered Ones?

Comparing electric and gas-powered versions of the same car show the environmental benefits of electric vehicles.

This week I met an owner of an Tesla Model S electric sedan who raised the question of whether electric vehicles are really better for the environment when you include the resources that go into making the battery and the impact of disposing of it. He was feeling uneasy about his environmental bona fides.

Renault recently made public a report that provides a fair assessment by comparing an electric version of its Fluence sedan with gas and diesel-powered versions of the same car. And it makes clear that electric cars are, indeed, better for the environment. The report is a life-cycle assessment, a “cradle to grave” analysis, including not only the emissions involved in using the car, but also the emissions from making it, the resources consumed in manufacturing, and a range of environmental impacts. It looked at not only greenhouse-gas emissions, but impacts on acid rain, ozone pollution, algae blooms, consumption of water and materials such as steel and copper, and total energy demand. 

The study found that while the environmental impact of making electric vehicles is greater* than for making gas and diesel vehicles, this is more than made up for by the greater impact of gas and diesel vehicles while they’re being used. This is true in terms of total energy consumption, use of resources, greenhouse gases, and ozone pollution. *The electric vehicles were assumed    to be charged from a grid that includes significant amounts of fossil fuels.

Other studies show that electric vehicles beat gas-powered ones in terms of greenhouse gas emissions even if they’re charged in regions that depend heavily on coal.  Here’s one such study. (see link below) In some areas, hybrids are a better choice than electric cars.

Electric vehicles come out behind in two areas.  ::)  They contribute slightly more to acid rain. And they’re slightly worse in terms of causing algae blooms than gasoline cars (but better than diesel).
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517146/are-electric-vehicles-better-for-the-environment-than-gas-powered-ones/

So, IF you are getting your electricity to power your battery pack from RENEWABLE ENERGY, you can tell the fossil fuelers that disingenuously claim you are just shifting the pollution for your "fuel" to a fossil fuel or nuclear power plant that, uh, well, see the detector reading below every time they make this claim.





Meanwhile, in one of those 1% la la land Profit over Planet Havens (Dubai), they are buying bug out vehicles that are, well... Never mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6RdmEinhhI&feature=player_embedded
Quote
The world's most expensive motorhome has gone on sale in Dubai - covered in gold and worth a cool £2 million.
The space-age eleMMent Palazzo comes complete with a colossal master bedroom, 40-inch TV, on-board bar, fireplace and even its own rooftop terrace.
But the most impressive piece of luxury is the 'Sky Lounge' - at the press of a button the 40ft home transforms into a personal retreat with pop up ****tail bar, underfloor heating and extravagant marble lighting.
 


 
End of PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  PART 3 of  5 parts

PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  PART 4 of  5 parts
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 09:58:44 pm by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #68 on: December 29, 2014, 09:33:38 pm »
PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  PART 4 of 5 parts
A couple of VERY relevant thoughts before diving into the numbers:

VERY RELEVANT THOUGHT NUMBER ONE:
24/7  Bernays consent manufactured, Convenient Cognitive Dissonance  AFFLICTS our consumer society victims when they CONSTANTLY FORGET to ask how long it will take, for example, a Buick Encore Premium to "pay for itself", in order to justify the hefty premium it demands over the Toyota Corolla.

Two ICE powered cars. One costs thousands more than the other because, well, just BECAUSE!
Well, one good reason is that there's no objective sense in which it possibly could, so the question's just not worth asking, is it?

Volt and Leaf getting REALLY cheap FUEL!

Ironically, it's because a PHEV like a Volt and also an EV like the LEAF in fact CAN reasonably be claimed to pay much of its own way that the argument turns quickly to whether it pays ALL its own way. 
That's a double standard, based on the reality that we've been trained to pay for brands and luxury features and levels of performance that are meaningless in everyday driving, and don't have any equivalent experience in valuing the unique appeal of EV/PHEV driving, something that the overwhelming majority of drivers have so far never bothered to experience for themselves.

VERY RELEVANT THOUGHT NUMBER TWO: The negative impact cost to the biosphere of an ICE only car  continues after the purchase of the vehicle to the point (and well beyond) of a GREATER amount of pollution than that generated to manufacture it! You are COMMITTING to damage the biosphere MORE by buying an ICE only car. The only way to minimze or eliminate ICE only car pollution is to not drive it.
So, if you are a responsible, caring human, you either avoid purchasing a car altogether (like Monsta) and stick to public transportation (or human powered devices like bicycles) OR you buy a PEV or a PHEV, PERIOD.
Some numbers on the Volt:

The Volt appears to cost a lot more than a Prius. The fact is that the Prius is more expensive when 5 years of driving 15k a year in both cars is figured.

From a one year old article:
"... one factor is the fuel savings you get from an electric car, but what really has GM-Volt.com all excited is that the numbers come out a lot better for the Chevy Volt than for Toyota’s Prius.

As Jeff Cobb of GM-Volt (the site is not affiliated with GM, btw) enthused last week:

As we enter the holiday season, you who chose a Volt may know it is like a gift that keeps on giving, whereas a Toyota Prius is an expense that ultimately costs more to own even though it sells for much less.
The numbers vary somewhat according to zip code so you can check them out for yourself at Edmunds, keeping in mind that there may be other algorithms out there.

The takeaway really is that when you go to buy a new car, you need to look at your costs over time rather than just the retail price."

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/21/true-cost-owning-chevy-volt-might-surprise/

GM in China is making this tiny electric city car (Chevy EN-V 2.0). I like it. Monsta probably likes it. But I don't think Fazio (JoeP's boss) would go for it. 
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/28/chevy-en-v-2-0-used-ev-sharing-program/

So, let us concentrate on the Volt and an EV that costs about the same as the Volt. I am doing this in view of JoeP's purchase price budget. I'll throw in a typical ICE only powered car in the same initial cost price range for comparison of "competing" fossil fueler polluting piggery (2015 Chevrolet Impala  LT MSRP $36,000). 

2015 Chevrolet Impala  LT, V6 Cylinder Engine, Transmission: 6 Spd Automatic, Drivetrain: Front Wheel Drive, City MPG: 19, Hwy MPG: 29, Tons/yr of CO2 Emissions @ 15K mi/year: 8.2,  Battery, 70AH, heavy-duty 512 cold-cranking amps.

The goodies that ALL have environmental costs:
KEY FEATURES INCLUDE
Rear Air, Satellite Radio, iPod/MP3 Input, Onboard Communications System, Dual Zone A/C MP3 Player, Keyless Entry, Remote Trunk Release, Child Safety Locks, Steering Wheel Controls.
More:
PREMIUM AUDIO AND SPORT WHEELS PACKAGE includes (UQS) Bose Centerpoint Surround Sound premium 11-speaker system, (C9B) ambient door lighting, (C9J) ambient instrument panel lighting, (KI6) 120-volt power outlet, (RT9) 19" aluminum wheels and (T43) rear spoiler, SUNROOF, POWER, TILT-SLIDING WITH ADDITIONAL SKYLIGHT FIXED GLASS AFT OF THE SLIDING GLASS with power sunshade, CONVENIENCE PACKAGE includes (UD7) Rear Park Assist, (UVC) Rear Vision Camera, (DD8) auto-dimming inside rearview mirror, (BTV) remote vehicle starter system, (UG1) Universal Home Remote, (B58) premium carpeted front and rear floor mats and (B36) carpeted trunk mat, PREMIUM SEATING PACKAGE includes (KA1) heated driver and front passenger seats, (AG2) 8-way power front passenger seat adjuster and (AP9) cargo convenience net, ADVANCED SAFETY PACKAGE includes (UEU) Forward Collision Alert, (UFG) Rear Cross-Traffic Alert, (UFL) Lane Departure Warning and (UFT) Side Blind Zone Alert, REAR VISION CAMERA, REMOTE VEHICLE STARTER SYSTEM, ENGINE, 3.6L DOHC V6 DI WITH VARIABLE VALVE TIMING (VVT) (305 hp {227.4 kW} @ 6800 rpm, 264 lb-ft of torque {356.4 N-m} @ 5200 rpm) (Includes E85 FlexFuel capability with (FE9) Federal emissions or (YF5/NE1 and NC7) California emissions with the Federal override only.) (STD)

Edmunds computed true cost to own for a non LT Impala (slightly cheaper):
$46,544 Edmunds True Cost to Own® Based on a 5-year estimate with 15,000 miles driven per year. Edmunds.com True Cost to Own® (TCO®) is proprietary data that helps you estimate the total five-year cost of buying and owning a vehicle - including some items you may not have taken into consideration. A benefit of using our TCO® tool is that you can easily compare the five-year totals for different vehicles and make a more informed choice.
http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/impala/2015/

Agelbert NOTE: The Edmunds estimate excludes all the biosphere impact costs from energy and pollution in mining for the materials, refining the metal and other materials and manufacturing the vehicle. The cost of 41 tons of CO2 (8.2 tons of CO2 per year for five years) is another fossil fuel SUBSIDY that your lungs and that of your dog, outside cat, your neighbors and your family and friends DO pay; so says the EPA:

"The Social Cost of Carbon
EPA and other federal agencies use the social cost of carbon (SCC) to estimate the climate benefits of rulemakings. The SCC is an estimate of the economic damages associated with a small increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, conventionally one metric ton, in a given year. This dollar figure also represents the value of damages avoided for a small emission reduction (i.e. the benefit of a CO2 reduction).

The SCC is meant to be a comprehensive estimate of climate change damages and includes, but is not limited to, changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, and property damages from increased flood risk. However, given current modeling and data limitations, it does not include all important damages. As noted by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, it is “very likely that [SCC] underestimates” the damages.

The table below presents the most recent SCC estimates (PDF, 22 pp, 780 KB) (updated in 2013) for certain years.
 
Social Cost of CO2, 2015-2050 a (in 2011 Dollars)
 Discount Rate and Statistic   
   
Year    5% Avg   3% Avg   2.5% Ave   3% 95th percentile
2015    $12   $39   $61   $116
2020    $13   $46   $68   $137
2025    $15   $50   $74   $153
2030    $17   $55   $80   $170
2035    $20   $60   $85   $187
2040    $22   $65   $92   $204
2045    $26   $70   $98   $220
2055    $28   $76   $104   $235
            
SCC values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific


For more information see the SCC Fact Sheet (PDF, 4 pp, 80 KB). See also the following documents for information about ongoing research to improve the SCC.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html

Clear as mud, right? Stick around. I'll clear it up;D
For the non-accountants here, discount rate and present value are terms used when computing the "value" NOW of something that will be worth X dollars at a future point. The SCC Fact sheet has examples (discount rates for dummies    ). It helped refresh my memory.

I knew those business administration courses I took would be good for something someday!   ;D

Here's how it works. You will pump out 41 metric tons (assuming "Tons/yr of CO2 Emissions @ 15K mi/year: 8.2" is in METRIC tons - one metric ton = 2,204.6 pounds) from your 2015 Chevrolet Impala  LT in 2015. If you use the 2.5% average discount rate (which may be a huge underestimate of the cost but we'll let that go so we aren't accused of estimating a "low probability" cost like the 95th percentile), the SCC is $61 times 41 = $2,501. That SAME 41 tons of CO2 will cost society $68 times 41= $2788 in 2020 if it is still around. The scientists (I have provided several videos about his in the last couple of years) have stated unequivocally that the CO2 will PERSIST in our atmosphere for about 1,000 YEARS.

So, your 2015 Chevrolet Impala  LT  is guaranteed to have an SCC, if every bit of CO2 it pumps out in five years at 15k miles driven a year is sequestered into the planet and stops polluting it by 2020, of  41 times 5 times $68 = $13,940.
Scientists tell us that is NOT realistic. They tell us that the CO2 will be EASILY out there, warming our biosphere, in 2050.
If you junk the  2015 Chevrolet Impala  LT in 2020 through some miraculous recycling process that uses zero energy and does not further pollute the planet so it is converted into an EV or 15 bicycles, the SCC of that 2015 Chevrolet Impala  LT  is going to be 41 times 5 times $104 = $21,320 by  2050.

And if, as a rather vocal segment of the scientist bean counters at the EPA claims, the actual SCC cost of of the the outlier 3% 95th Percentile is SPOT ON, the SCC for that car will be 41 times 5 times $235 = $48,175.

Green Escape clause:
If you run dat pig on 100% ethanol (Brazil does that - we don't cause big oil gamed the fuel laws to keep 15% polluting pigerry in the 85% ethanol blend), the above numbers don't apply.

If I made a boo boo with my math, let me know and I'll correct it.

In summary, the 3,700 pounds of car called a 2015 Chevrolet Impala  LT carries a Social Carbon Cost (SCC) by 2050 of anywhere between $21,320 and $48,175 IF it is recycled without the use of any energy into a non polluting substance in 2020. What are the odds of THAT happening? Right. Somebody will keep driving it. When it is junked there will be an energy cost to recycle the raw materials and, of course, the toxins from the battery to deal with.

And that, fellow Doomers, is why I give Mking 'what fer' every time he accuses me of driving a polluting pig. BECAUSE I drive less than 2k a YEAR, I am actually preventing someone from drivng that ICE pig 12k to 24k a year!

I suppose, if I were brutally green about this whole thing, I woulf make sure it was crushed by a solar powered electric machine! I admit I am making a compromise. But my carbon footprint is microscopic compared to a Volt owner that flies all over hell and damnation for fracking piggery.

Actually, the cost of a NEW car, for me, is an addition to the pollution picture (as Monsta has correctly pointed out OFTEN) because a LOT of energy is used to build a new car; far more than I will use in another 10 years at 2k or less a year.

That said, I wish I could get a Volt!

End of PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle: Part 4 of 5 Parts

PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle: Part 5 of 5 Parts
 
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 01:49:09 am by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #69 on: December 29, 2014, 09:36:20 pm »
PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle:  Part 5 of 5 Parts

Details:
 Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/scc-fact-sheet.pdf
Edmunds 2015 Chevrolet Impala  cost to YOU directly of driving 15k/yr for five years = $46,544
Social Carbon Cost (SCC) by 2050 of anywhere between $21,320 and $48,175. We'll split the difference and come up with an SCC of $34,748.

Cost of  2015 Chevrolet Impala $81,292. Cheer up, your grandkids will pay the LION's share!

The following info is accurate but somewhat dated. Nevertheless, remember the SCC discount rate on CO2 pollution costs up to 2050 for the stuff below that will still be there and CONTINUES to be ADDED TO:
CO2 emissions from U.S. cars & trucks totaled 314 million metric tons in 2002. That's as much as would be released from burning all the coal in a train 50,000 miles long -- enough to circle around the world, twice. (Environmental Defense, Nov-.Dec. 2006, p. 8, PDF)

Car emissions kill 30,000 people each year in the U.S. (2, 1998)

More than half of the people in the U.S. live in areas that failed to meet federal air quality standards at least several days a year (7, 1990), and around 80 million Americans live in areas that continually fail to meet these standards (6, 1998).

Most ozone pollution is caused by motor vehicles, which account for 72% of nitrogen oxides and 52% of reactive hydrocarbons (principal components of smog). (7, 1990)

Emissions from cars dwarfs that from power plants. In May 2000, Austin Energy planned to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 40% at its Decker and Holly power plants, from 1700 tons per year to less than 1000tpy by 2003. By comparison, NOx emissions in Travis county from motor vehicles totaled approximately 30,000 tons per year in 1996 -- the last year for which complete data was available. (1, 2000)

Now for some less depressing (depending on your point of view) 'believe it or not it IS true and documented'  accurate data:


Improving the average fuel efficiency of vehicles in the United States by 2.7 miles per gallon would equal all U.S. oil imports from the Persian Gulf, according to conservation advocate Amory Lovins. (12)


Big pickups even worse than SUV's. Fuel efficiency of the average pickup has also declined from as high as 19.2 miles a gallon in the 1987 model year to 16.8 miles a gallon today. The average S.U.V. gets 17.8 miles a gallon now and the average car 24.8. And even those averages do not count the very biggest vehicles those weighing more than 8,500 pounds fully loaded which are exempt under federal law. Like the Hummer and other giant sport utilities, the biggest pickups average little more than 10 miles a gallon. (NYT, July 31, 2003)

95% of a car's energy goes towards moving the car itself, and only 5% to moving the passenger. The average passenger car weighs 3000 lbs. (source), so if a person weighs 150 lbs., then 3000 / (3000 + 150) = 95.2%. Put two people in the car and it drops to 91% (3000 / (3000 + 150 + 150). With four people, it's 83% (3000 / (3000+150+150+150+150).

Contrast with a 30-lb. bicycle: 83% of the energy goes towards transporting the rider, not the vehicle (150 / (30+150).
Cigarette lighter penalty. Using the cigarette lighter to power 200 watts of devices decreases fuel economy by about 1 mpg. (200 watts is hefty—an iPhone might use around 10). (WP, 2008)

External costs of driving. The estimated annual external cost of driving (including air pollution, climate change, imported oil security, congestion, accidents, noise, etc.) is $126.3 billion.(E Magazine, 2005)

Bikes vs. Cars. David Lawyer wrote the ultimate paper comparing bicycle vs. automobile energy use, and found that bikes are 2/3 more efficient than cars even after factoring in the energy to produce the extra food the cyclist requires. (David Lawyer)

Bicycle MPG. If we spent our gas money (at $3.72/gallon) on food to fuel our biking, that $3.72 would take us 26 miles on beef, 48 miles on potatoes, 106 miles on beans, and 109 miles on rice. (source)

Bicycling is 117% more efficient than walking. (source)

Using a bicycle to commute four days a week for four miles (one-way) saves 54 gallons of gas annually. (2)
The energy and resources needed to build one medium-sized car could produce 100 bicycles. (2)
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac.html

Well then, if you want to buy an ICE only powered car, truck, SUV or whatever,



Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive

From the above graphic I computed a 15k/yr 5 year cost to own of $45,975 (Edmunds has no cost data  on it yet). Besides the energy and pollution cost to build it, there are is no additional Social Carbon Cost (SCC). You don't have all the ICE stuff like a muffler and oil changes, etc. That should save you some money down the road. With an 87 mile range, for a 40 mile a day commute, it's definitely a walk in the park.  What I don't like about is that it is heavy. It is an ICE car conversion. It was not designed from the ground up to be an EV.

Read all about it here:
2014 Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive Review — 1st Month (Exclusive)
December 14th, 2014

SNIPPET 1:
By Kyle Field
A month ago, my wife and I traded in our aging gasmobile for the newly introduced 2014 Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive EV. I considered myself to be an educated EV consumer but still had quite a few learnings — some good, some bad — in the first month with our EV. Though the majority of our learnings were not related to the car itself, but more generically to the transition from a gasmobile to an EV, that’s where I’ll start.

SNIPPET 2:
... this particular configuration results in the least efficient EV when compared to others available today, with an MPGe rating of 85/83 and most others coming in at 100+. This is largely due to the fact that the B-Class was not built from the ground up as an EV or even a fuel-efficient car but rather a converted gas mobile. This is most evident in the weight — at 3935 lbs, the B-Class is no featherweight. For comparison, the BMW i3 which was purpose-built as an EV comes in at 2853 lbs (without the Range Extender). The B-Class pays a further penalty for being a former gasmobile, as extra battery capacity was required to haul around the extra mass. The B-Class’ battery is rated at 36 kWh.

SNIPPET 3:
Under the Hood
While the B-Class looks and feels like a normal car, when you pop the hood, things change. The B-Class’ electric motor, batteries, charger, and supporting EV systems are all made by Tesla, shipped from the US to Germany for assembly. While I’m not a car fanatic (at least not the gas-powered ones), I feel a sense of pride that Mercedes came to a US company for their first EV. This was a feature on the plus side for me, as Tesla is making waves in the EV world and I’m happy to be a part of that revolution.

Driving the B-Class

With the normal looking exterior, the accelerator of the B-Class houses a fun secret — instant torque! This is difficult to put into words for non-EV drivers but suffice it to say that the accelerator on this EV (and most other EVs) is responsive. When you step on the pedal, it jumps. Continued pressure results in a very smooth acceleration up to whatever speed you desire. I occasionally treat my kids to a ride on the roller coaster and pound the pedal down to the ground on the way to pre-school resulting in what feels like a quick boost on a roller coaster. Granted, they’re too young for coasters at this point, but the sentiment is spot on.

SNIPPET 4:
One unique challenge EV owners have is the large variety of charging networks out there. After test driving a few charging network apps, we have found that the crowdsourced PlugShare app (Web, iOS, Android) has the best overview of the entire public charging network and includes chargers from many of the big networks, like ChargePoint, Blink, EV Connect, and NRG’s eVgo, as well as personal charging locations! Wanting to build capability and make the most of our EV, we have signed up for several different charging networks, each of which has it’s own unique way to charge — some with set monthly fees, others with a price per kWh or per hour, etc. It’s been an interesting process but the net takeaway is that, here in Southern California, there are lots of chargers in lots of areas we frequent.
Full article with lots of cool pictures: 
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/12/14/2014-mercedes-b-class-electric-drive-review-1st-month/

The Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive, because it's, well, a MERCEDES, has some Bernays  status (mine is better than yours - yada yada ya - gives the finger to neighbor) puffery attached to it but that company generally does make pretty good cars. Besides, it's got the "Tesla inside" branding to help it along.  Consequently, the Mercedes B-Class EV has a rep to uphold as well as a built in loyal costumer base. If this Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive does what they say it does, it's resale value will also be quite high.

The Volt, with excellent sales figures and a good track record of reliability is guaranteed to have outstanding resale value.
A smart fellow that calls himself "The Energy Czar" has had a Volt for two years.

He is SERIOUS about getting TOTALLY off of fossil fuels. He has a lot of solar power in his house juicing the Volt. AND he has a set up to use the Volt as an auxiliary power plant to send power to his house! His voice of experience is all you need to hear. The Volt is a FANTASTIC investment for, not just transportation, but SECURE driving above and beyond what a pure ICE car can provide.

The lower center of gravity provides better cornering. The acceleration, if you need it, is Corvette quality without paying the Corvette price!

The fact that people will NOT be lead footed with their cars most of the time means PHEV and EV owners in general and Volt drivers in particular will have less drivng accidents. This mean lower insurane premiums down the road.
It's design is functional, not just for looks. That means your car will hold its resale value because the appearance will not change much, if at all, over the years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqKCuilRMGg &feature=player_embedded

The Energy Czar dude also made an initial review when he bought the car with lots of talk about the goodies in sound systems and some kind of cell phone setup. He also has a one year review on the internet.

Internal combustion engines CANNOT handle deep water. They stall when the water travels up the muffler and chokes the exhaust. Electrics DON'T STALL in high water! There's a video out there of a Volt going through deep water happy as a pond duck (knee deep) but I haven't been able to track it down. GM has an official video of Volt stream fording tests that you can ask the dealer to show you (it's not available on the internet anymore).

And the Volt coming out in January of 2015 is even BETTER for the environment. "Automotive News reports that the next version will trade its 1.4-liter four-cylinder engine for a 1-liter three-cylinder engine. It will also get a fifth seat." The Volt ICE is becoming even more of an auxiliary power plant. The 1-liter three cylinder ICE requires less energy to manufacture and is cheaper to maintain. GOOD!
"Chevy says it has sold 65,000 since Volt went on sale in 2010."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/08/07/chevrolet-volt-2016-debut/13723803/

Edmunds 15k/yr cost to own a 2013 Volt = $42,078 ((data for newer ones not available but remember they are about $5,000 cheaper up front AND they have a smaller ICE. That means this price is on the high side. The SCC of his vehicle depends entirely on how many of the 15k a year miles are driven on the ICE. If you use 100% ethanol (not legal in the USA yet but it should be) or even 85% Ethanol, your SCC will be negligible, period.
http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2013/?sub=hatchback

Now let's look at the three cars side by side:
The Energy cost and associated pollution to recycle the cars steel back to raw material is not included. However, due to the fact that PEVs and PHEVs are lighter and use less steel, the aftermarket for EV and PHEV battery packs and the toxicity of lead acid batteries from ICE only cars, it is clear that the PEV and PHEV vehicles are  less damaging to the environment and use less energy when they are put through the recycling process. 
Ownership cost to you and your grandkids of 15k/yr for five years:
2015 Chevrolet Impala                                    =  $81,292
2015 Mercedes B-Blass Electric Drive (EV)                                             =  $45,975
2013 Chevrolet Volt (PHEV)                                                                               = $42,078


In summary, the Agelbert Institute of Penny Pinchers for a Viable Biosphere and CFS gives the Volt a TOP rating for REALLY green transportation that will FUEL (pun intended!) DEMAND DESTRUCTION of fossil fuels. The small ICE can EASILY run on ethanol instead of gasoline so that is that! You might not save the world, but just think of all the fossil fuelers you will drive crazy!

And if you are influenced by people saying gasoline is "cheap", please consider that the gamed LOW gasoline price coming down the pike now is strictly temporary.

At any rate, since a Volt DOES have an ICE in it, nobody can call you a sucker for electrics with a PHEV. The real sucker is the idiot that runs out and buys a gas hog because gasoline is "cheap".

Don't let the rockefeller T-rex eat Patrick Henry's rat. If you can't do the bicycle commute, buy an EV or a PHEV. They are the most prudent and fun investment in transportation you can make.

End of PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle: Article and Part 5 of 5 Parts

P.S. If I helped to convince even one person to never buy an ICE only powered car again, all this research, sweat and toil to put this together has been worth it!



PEV or a PHEV Compared With a non-electric powered vehicle: Part 1 of 5 Parts

« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 10:39:20 pm by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2015, 07:01:55 pm »
INSANE Mode


Agelbert NOTE:
The so-called "Insane" mode is a security measure a Tesla driver has available if someone is intent on car jacking. It is quite sane to have high acceleration available instantly. 

Anyone who has ever driven next to a person exhibiting road rage or had to dodge a drunk, distracted or reckless driver can attest to that.  8)

  Brian Donovan  
 January 29, 2015 

Electric cars have had an "old persons car" problem since their inception. It's brilliant marketing and design to completely demolish that concept and make gas cars the tame ones. Top Gear needs to do a race with these cars.


Dennis Houghton   
 January 29, 2015 

Electric motors deliver high torque at low RPM, gasoline engines require high RPM to deliver high torque. The performance curve is reversed in the two types of drive systems. Electric dragsters could win every race but produce little of the tire smoke and engine noise necessary to the motor sport experience. Three of the first five in the latest Peak's Peak race were electric; higher torque at lower speeds.

The first couple of years of the Prius demonstrated the extraordinary torque delivered by electric motors. Drivers who tried to accelerate the Prius in its unnamed "insane mode" aka "foot-to-the-floorboard", occasionally snapped the drive shaft. Customers were not impressed.   Manufacturers quickly built in torque control to prevent the negative outcome. Tesla engineered a physical solution in a more robust drive train   :emthup: and allowed the driver to intentionally over ride torque control, a feature that is probably used mostly during the sales process and occasionally to show off to your envious friends.

Full article an comments here: 



What Solar Marketers Can Learn from Tesla’s “Insane” Mode


Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #71 on: February 26, 2015, 02:42:53 pm »
Quote

Great article! My wife and I own a Leaf and could not be happier. We have been saving for a Tesla to replace the Leaf after lease expiration. When people hear this, their response is often, "Tesla is a luxury car". While my first reaction is to say that it is not, because of the many points in your article, I agree with them wholeheartedly instead.

Indeed, it will be luxury to never buy gas. It will be a luxury to pack food, a tent, and drive to Moab without bringing my wallet. It will be a luxury for children on the sidewalks to not have to breath in toxic chemicals emitting from our vehicle. It will be a luxury to never worry about a timing belt replacement, oil changes, transmission replacement, coolant flushes, tune-ups, exhaust leaks, etc., etc. 

The caveat here is that when I go to DMV in Glenwood and register the Tesla, the $4000 registration cost will certainly feel like I'm paying for a luxury car...  ;)

Craig Farnum

Why EVs Are AND Aren’t Luxury Cars
   

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2015_02_26_why_EVs_are_and_arent_luxury_cars


Quote
Luxury is what people experience RIGHT NOW, either sitting in the vehicle or observing it from the roadside. Total Cost of Ownership is an outcome of the robustness of the technologies implemented in the vehicle. A luxury car owner doesn't care that much about TCO, unless their eyes were bigger than their wallet, and luxury car brands - Lexus excepted - don't try that hard to lower TCO through super-robust design. Instead, they offer free maintenance for the duration of the leases through which these cars are usually acquired and, not coincidentally, the usual duration of ownership.

 I and many others perceive the passing Tesla as a luxury car; big, powerful, expensive, looks a bit like a Jaguar, which is ostensibly the brand with the best sense of theatre that is an essential part of the projection of luxury. Inside the car, it's a different story. The driver's console DOES look techy, but not necessarily practical as a driving tool. It's showy, and that's not what a luxury car is supposed to provide its passengers - there's an element of taste that's missing. But the car is unquestionably comfortable, and it does give the driver and passengers a sense of power and privilege that is what luxury cars are supposed to do. Remember that offensive ad for the Cadillac CTV with the overprivileged white guy strutting and preening? Cadillac understands the luxury experience ( )...it just made the mistake of telling the truth.   

The LEAF is definitely a mass-market car. The BMW i3 is not. It's a Halo car for the brand in a completely different way than what you'd expect. The many Toyota/Lexus hybrids are examples of the proper balance of tech and the luxury experience...the tech is essentially invisible. It's the rest of the experience that delivers the luxury.

Elon Musk has definitely targeted the S to the luxury crowd, even though he's smart enough not to explicitly call it a luxury car. That may be just an interesting side show, however, What I find more interesting is that he's recognized the much bigger and less regulated market for 24/7 solar local power generation and is dedicating 30% of his Gigafactory's batter production towards synergizing SolarWorld's domestic solar panel systems into a distributed power grid.

Electric cars, cool. A totally different way of distributing power to the masses, world-changing. And profitable.
   

Shaun Simpkins
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #72 on: February 26, 2015, 03:07:29 pm »

The best—and worst—places to drive your electric car 

By Nsikan Akpan  20 February 2015 2:45 pm 45 Comments

For those tired of winter, you’re not alone. Electric cars hate the cold, too. Researchers have conducted the first investigation into how electric vehicles fare in different U.S. climates. The verdict: Electric car buyers in the chilly Midwest and sizzling Southwest get less bang for their buck, where poor energy efficiency and coal power plants unite to turn electric vehicles into bigger polluters.

Scientists at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, began their research by pulling public data from FleetCarma, a company that tracks vehicle performance among car fleets operated by governments and businesses. The study looked at 7000 all-electric Nissan Leafs across the country and how their driving ranges varied with temperature. Cold reduces a battery’s oomph whether it lives in your car or smart phone. “We then combined those performances with regional reports on weather and drivers’ habits to build a nationwide map of car efficiency for every hour of every day within a typical year,” says co-author and CMU mechanical engineer Jeremy Michalek.

In terms of driving range, electric cars in California and the Deep South travel the farthest, as the balmy temperatures yield the best energy efficiency and therefore longer trips before they must be plugged in again. (That’s a lucky break for Golden Staters, who also purchase the most green vehicles in the nation.) Vehicles in cold places, in contrast, have less battery capacity and thus shorter range. The average range of a Nissan Leaf on the coldest day drops from 112 km in San Francisco to less than 72 km in Minneapolis, according to the study, published online this month in Environmental Science & Technology.

Full article at link:

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/02/best-and-worst-places-drive-your-electric-car
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #73 on: March 19, 2015, 03:36:06 pm »
Electric cars are so cool they may make it colder
14:30 19 March 2015 by Aamna Mohdin
 
There's more than one way to cut emissions. Swapping conventional cars for electric ones might cut emissions from cars, but it may also help cities like Beijing beat the heat, further lowering emissions of carbon dioxide by cutting the use of air conditioning.

The role of electric cars in combating climate change is hotly debated, because although they might emit less greenhouse gas directly, they are more expensive and cause more pollution than conventional cars during the manufacturing process. But it seems there may be hidden benefits to them.

Electric cars emit almost 20 per cent less heat than conventional cars, thus contributing less to the phenomenon of cities being warmer than the surrounding areas, known as the urban heat island effect.

If this lowers temperatures, use of air conditioning would also drop, and so would the energy used to power it, argues a team led by Canbing Li from Michigan State University in East Lansing.

 
Cooler summer

Using summer 2012 in the Chinese capital of Beijing as an example, the team estimate that replacing conventional cars with electric ones could have reduced the heat by nearly 1 °C. That in turn would result in a reduction in air conditioning use in the city, leading to a drop of 10,686 tonnes in daily CO2 emissions.

"I was surprised by the level of decreased energy consumption of air-conditioning," says Li.

The team says that there are several factors contributing to the urban heat island, and not all have been addressed in the study. This makes some people sceptical about the estimates.

"Investigating a mitigation strategy is much more complicated than just considering the heat flux," says Ali Gholizadeh Touchaei of the Heat Island Group at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. "The sophisticated relation between moisture balance, effect of wind, and interactions of buildings and atmosphere should be accounted for."

And Oscar van Vliet of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich says that our heat emissions are only partly responsible for the heat island effect, it is also down to the city retaining that heat thanks to tarmac surfaces, which don't cool down quickly.

Cars of the future

Regardless of how big any cooling effect might be, the climate effects of urban transport merits further study with more sophisticated models, say other researchers.

"It is an interesting study, as the issue of heat generated by vehicles isn't something that has been thought about in great detail," says Timothy Johnson of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

It could become an ever bigger influence as electric cars catch on. Johnson expects the vehicles to dominate the transportation market in a few more decades once they overcome the technical challenges of driving range and battery charging infrastructure.

Unlike with conventional cars, which depend on non-renewable fuels, the disadvantages of electric cars can be overcome, says Li.
  ;D

Journal reference: Scientific Reports, DOI: 10.1038/srep09213
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27195-electric-cars-are-so-cool-they-may-make-it-colder.html
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33215
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #74 on: April 02, 2015, 08:08:38 pm »


This guy built an all-electric '68 Mustang that'd put a Tesla Model S in its place  ;D
 By Shawn Knight on April 2, 2015, 9:30 AM   

Tesla’s Model S P85D has received quite a bit of attention from both technology and automotive enthusiasts. Few cars can match the ridiculous all-wheel-drive acceleration its powerful electric motors are capable of generating but this story start with an earlier Tesla model.

Muscle car enthusiast Mitch Medford caught an episode of Top Gear years ago in which host Jeremy Clarkson raced a Tesla Roadster against its petrol-powered cousin, the Lotus Elise. The race wasn’t even close and soon, Medford came across a car online known as the White Zombie.


The Zombie  ;D

The Zombie was a 1972 Datsun 1200; not exactly a looker but under the hood, it was powered by two 9-inch electric motors that could rocket the car from 0-60 mph in just 1.8 seconds. Medford reached out to the owner of the vehicle with a vision to build vintage cars powered by modern electric motors.

Zombie 222 is the result of that vision, a 1968 Mustang with dual 11-inch electric motors that put down 800 horsepower and an insane 1,800 pound foot of torque (on a conservative setting). This combination can propel the car from 0-60 mph in just 2.4 seconds.

The Verge has a fascinating piece on this monster, chronicling Medford’s efforts to break the 170 mile per hour mark for an electric vehicle in the standing mile. That’s not exactly a high trap speed but for a car with a body built in 1968 (i.e., poor aerodynamics), it’s incredibly ambitious.

Look ma! 750 HP WITHOUT fossil fuel! ;D
Dark Horse
http://jalopnik.com/is-this-750-hp-electric-mustang-fastback-sacrilege-1590258114




http://www.techspot.com/news/60241-guy-built-all-electric-68-mustang-thatd-put.html
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11

 

+-Recent Topics

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
August 03, 2021, 03:29:38 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
August 03, 2021, 02:25:43 pm

Money by AGelbert
August 03, 2021, 01:13:17 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
August 02, 2021, 02:28:41 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
August 02, 2021, 12:56:16 pm

🎋 Victories Against the 🦕 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn by AGelbert
July 30, 2021, 12:05:16 pm

Geothermal Power by AGelbert
July 29, 2021, 06:55:05 pm

What A Nuclear Power Plant REALLY IS by AGelbert
July 29, 2021, 04:06:58 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
July 28, 2021, 11:50:12 am

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
July 27, 2021, 10:53:46 pm