Anablog

Technical Editor Paul Rako looks at analog technology in power supplies, interface, the signal path, and life in general.

Advertisement

Profile

About Me

RSS Feed

Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Analog Design Articles

Blog

Anablog

« DesignCon 2009 call for papers... | Main | Six new reference designs from... »

Monday, November 10, 2008

Electricity cost vs gasoline and the 135 mpg myth

Nov 10 2008 2:04PM | Permalink |Email this|Comments (124) |

One of the common misconceptions handed down for the last few years is that the electricity cost to run an electric car is almost negligible. Tesla has talked about 135 mpg. Others have talked about 100 mpg electric cars. First off, citing mpg in a vehicle that does not use gallons is fraudulent. What needs to be cited is fuel cost per mile. Then you can compare gasoline to electric vehicles. What none of the electric acolytes seem to understand is that this comparison hinges on two very important factors: The price of gasoline and the price of electricity. Now there is some truth to the claims that electric vehicle can cost pennies a mile. That is if you live in West Virginia, where residential power costs 7 cents a kWh. But if you live in Rohde Island the cost is 18 cents a kWh. The average cost of residential electricity is 12 cents a kWh.

So how do we compare this to gasoline prices? Well there are two pretty decent data points. The first is the proposed Chevy Volt. They claim to get 40 miles range on 16 kWh of battery pack. I asked an engineer at the SAE Convergence conference last month if that was reasonable or wishful thinking and he thought it was fair based on his years of work at Ford on their electric vehicle program. So the Chevy Volt will be a, well I can’t use the profane adjective, so lets just call it a cracker-box. It will be very light and very underpowered. I estimate the performance and size to be comparable to a 36-mpg car. Only the gasoline car will get better range and use less energy since it is not hauling around 16 kWh of battery pack on the mostly hiway miles that American drivers spend their time. Knowing 16kWh gives you 40 miles and knowing 36 mpg, you can solve for equivalent cost of varying electric and gasoline prices. Here is the chart.

You can see that those lucky folks who live in West Virginia can drive around on the equivalent of 1 dollar a gallon gasoline, pretty nice. And since gasoline costs $2.10 a gallon over there, that is like having a cracker-box car that does 75 mpg. That is pretty nice, a long way from 135 mpg, but still pretty nice. But what about that 18 cents a kWh gasoline? Well that is like paying about $2.60 a gallon. That is OK, but it sure is not the pennies per mile that the eco-zombies keep chanting over and over.

But the real killer is out here in California. The average price of power is listed as 15 cents a kwh, but that is not the pertinent cost. See here in the Bay Area, we get charged 13 cents for the baseline amount. This is set by PG&E depending on the climate where you live. But once you go over that, and pretty much everybody goes over that baseline every month, then you pay 22 cents a kWh. You can bet your bippee that if you plug in an electric car you will be paying that 22 cent rate. And when you put 22-cent electricity into your electric car that is the same as driving a 36 mpg car on $3.10 gasoline. And get this; if you go to Costco you can get gasoline for that. So that means that for a poor schmuck in California, it costs about the same for gasoline as it does for electricity. There is absolutely no cost advantage in the two “fuels”. Since running your car on electric does not save on fuel costs you will never pay back the 10 or 20 grand more that a Chevy Volt will cost you than a Geo Metro. And like the rest of this delicious world, it is all analog. So even if you can get a whole heapin’ helpin’ of that 7 cent electricity, and even if gasoline goes back up to 4 bucks, the electricity is not free, it just costs a quarter of what the gasoline costs.

The happy thing is that, in general, electric cars might still save the average non - Californian some bucks, ignoring the greater purchase price of the car. Then again we should all pressure PG&E to allow electric car owners to use off-peak power at 13 cents a kWh. But if you sign up for PG&E’s current plans you can bet you will be charged way more for your daytime electricity, so this may not justify the electric car anyway. Plans are invented by actuaries to make PG&E more money. So we really need a special deal for electric car owners that can grab off-peak power at 13 cents or less, but then not get raped for turning on the AC at 4:00PM. Good luck with PG&E, I would rather wait for personal nuclear reactors and go off the grid completely. Remember utilities are right up there with the phone company and the cable companies for rapacious behavior. Until you do get that sweetheart deal from PG&E, don’t think you will be saving any money by driving an electric car in California, as long a gasoline is closer to 3 bucks than it is to 4 bucks.

Related entries in: Analog |

Reader Comments

at 11/10/2008 4:48:26 PM, Rei said:
Way, way off. "Well there are two pretty decent data points. The first is the proposed Chevy Volt. They claim to get 40 miles range on 16 kWh of battery pack." Only half of that battery pack is used for that 40 miles of range. The rest is a mix of reserve for hybrid operation and unused capacity to increase battery life. "So the Chevy Volt will be a, well I can’t use the profane adjective, so lets just call it a cracker-box. It will be very light and very underpowered." Wrong. Unlike with internal combustion engines, the more powerful the electric motor, the *more* efficient the vehicle. More powerful motors take fatter wires which means less energy lost to resistance when you're not flooring it. The Volt does 0-60 in 8.5 seconds, which while not a supercar, is quite respectable. "I estimate the performance and size to be comparable to a 36-mpg car." You don't need to estimate a thing. In EPA testing, it gets 46mpg/48mpg in charge-sustaining mode (I.e., not running on stored grid electricity). Shows how good your estimating ability is, I might add. "Only the gasoline car will get better range and use less energy since it is not hauling around 16 kWh of battery pack on the mostly hiway miles that American drivers spend their time" Instead, it's hauling around a much larger ICE. Electric motors are small and light, and the gasoline engine can be sized way down because it only needs to be able to provide continuous power, not peak power. To redo your math for you: 8kWh for 40 miles at the US average of $0.12/kWh = $0.024/mi. Times ~47 miles per gallon = an equivalent of $1.128/gal. Some places higher, some places lower, just like with gasoline.

at 11/10/2008 5:08:27 PM, Xiaowei1 said:
spot on Rei! glad someone is paying attention.

at 11/10/2008 5:35:56 PM, Hyundai Hacker said:
It's not a fraud to use MPG on either a full electric or hybrid. That's because it's based on efficiency of energy use. IE: how many miles will one KW of energy get you in the vehicle whether it's a KW of gasoline or a KW of electricity. Taken deeper, the true mpg of a vehicle can factor in the use of energy to produce and transport the energy (gasoline or electricity or both) to run the vehicle. Your focus on the cost of gas is arbitrary and simplistic. We're talking science and engineering, not marketing here. Also, choosing an efficient vehicle isn't just about money.

at 11/10/2008 5:37:32 PM, Hyundai Hacker said:
Sorry, I meant KWH, not just KW. Joules would be fine too of course.

at 11/10/2008 7:19:04 PM, marilyn said:
you make assumptions and false facts to prove your point. For a technical editor you are a MORON.

at 11/10/2008 8:07:20 PM, kerry bradshaw said:
You certainly show me that you don't know squat about electric cars. That 16 kilowatt hour Volt battery pack only uses the middlemost 8 KILOWATTHOURS to achieve those 40 miles. Anyone familiar'with electrics knows that a 3200 pound EV will get around 4 to 5 miles per kilowatthour. NOW start over again with your argiument, only this time use honest data. Jeeez!

at 11/10/2008 9:02:25 PM, terry bradshaw said:
for some of us "eco-zombies", it's not about the personal cost. it's about the collective cost to the environment from the emissions. i look forward to the day where i can make my <10mi city streets commute without using a drop of gasoline (just because the avg american spends "most" of their time on the highway doesn't mean we all do). you're also assuming that $4/gal is a high, ridiculous amount for gas to go-- i'd rather be prepared for the day when it's going to be higher than that, because it's coming.

at 11/10/2008 10:45:14 PM, graham said:
I am very confused about the logic in your article. You start out talking about how the Tesla claims 135 mpg, and then all of your data is against the Volt. The Volt, a hybrid car which must carry the weight of a gas engine as well as an electric motor is a much less efficient car than a purely electric car like the Tesla, and has never claimed 135 mpg - I think GM claims something like 48 mpg. How can you compare a hybrid car against a pure electric car, claim it doesn''t measure up, and then use this to conclude that this means electric cars are no cheaper to run than gas?

at 11/11/2008 4:45:27 AM, Graham Mewburn Australia said:
Paul The compression engine uses .60c of your gas dollar to turn the engine over. Have you ever turned a compression engine? It takes a good grip with both hands and lts of effort. An electric motor can be spun with the fingers of one hand, easily. Only 5c to a max of 15c is used to turn an electric motor. Electric motors are up to 95% efficient compared to a compression engine only 40% efficient. Transmission takes another 20c in the dollar, leaving only 20c in the dollar getting to your wheels. Yes for every $1 you spend on gas only 20c gets to the wheels and propels you. The best electric cars have the motors in the wheels, so no loss of power through transmission. The best eletric cars are 90% efficient, so 90c in every Dollar is moving you to your destination. Cheers Gray Graham Mewburn Cundletown Australia

at 11/11/2008 9:23:52 AM, Jayfry said:
From a novice, I appreciate all the comments and technical inputs. Good to challenge assumptions being made about this most important subject. The next year and onward will be full of hybrid and EV choices for consumers. I would gather I''m not alone in wanting some type of clarity and camparison. I predict many auto makers will have legitimate EV/hybrid choices for consumers WHEN oil goes back over $100/barrel.

at 11/11/2008 9:30:20 AM, phevfan said:
Diehard gas guzzlers miss the point whenever they only base their rebuttal of PHEVs on straight cost of kWH vs Gal. The point is to have enuf PHEVs to convert power consumption from oil to the grid, w/c keeps the $$ in country & improve security. Mr. Rako wud want us all to remain susceptible whenever OPEC decides to yank the $$ chain.

at 11/11/2008 10:11:34 AM, John Spradley said:
My solar electric system grew piecemeal as my goal was to supply 50% of my electrical load at the winter equinox. This left me with excess energy most of the year, which now charges my EV. My fuel cost is a byproduct, basically free. Lead-acid battery cost is recovered in one year. www.evalbum.com/1749

at 11/11/2008 10:16:07 AM, John Spradley said:
Winter equinox? John you know better. Have a cup of coffee, and look forward to the winter solstice data collection next month.

at 11/11/2008 10:48:53 AM, OldNeil said:
To the author: please do your homework next time. Your glaring inaccuracies are an embarrassment to your profession.

at 11/11/2008 11:56:50 AM, namyzarc said:
People that write articles like this should be subject to some type of peer-review by people that know what they are talking about. Otherwise they fill the internet with uneducated misinformation. Your entire article slams electrics, yet, uses the volt - a HYBRID, as the comparison?? Your arguement doesn't even come close to making sense...

at 11/11/2008 2:07:39 PM, Pizzaman said:
The author also did not recognize the overall efficiency of the transportation. The "well to wheel efficiency" is what really drives the point to me. If you were to burn the same amount of oil in a power plant to charge your car instead of using your gas engine in your car, the electricity from the power plant would make you go about 4 times farther. This is also why hydrogen doesn't work, because the fuel cells are only about 25% efficient. Go to teslamotors.com, and go to the well to wheel efficiency page. It will teach you a lot.

at 11/11/2008 2:13:14 PM, Larry M said:
Wow, Paul! The Treehuggers certainly react with hostility, don''t they? Well, why didn''t you factor in the "collective cost to the environment." @Marilyn, don''t bother calling me an idiot. Sticks and stones can break my bones....

at 11/11/2008 2:16:18 PM, Chris PE said:
Well, enough of that old fashioned ,stinky gasoline engines.We live in 21st century! By the way , electricity is in SURPLUS in the evening and at night as much as you might think opposite , so we can expect lower prices, not higher.I surely hope that it will be government controlled , so no speculators can put their paws on it.The main point is that we need a new modern and GREEN cars and we need a rebirth of our automotive industry.If you think that hybrids and electric cars would not help a current situation , you are mistaken.Little bit of optimism and good old fashioned American ingenuity will make it happen.

at 11/11/2008 2:20:06 PM, JD said:
I didn't run the numbers to see if the author (or other experts) considered it, but no mention was made the losses to charge a battery.

at 11/11/2008 2:23:36 PM, AnEngineer said:
Paul's a tecnical Editor not a scientist, come on guys, give him a break. He's got stock in the oil industry and hates to see the time coming where he will continue to lose the high dividends. Ooops, looks like its happening already with oil so low a barrel today and prices dropping. What's he going to do but slam a threat to his stock?

at 11/11/2008 2:25:32 PM, Crunchmaster said:
Most of you ECO-koolaid drinkers are nuts. The energy density of present battery technology does not approach gasoline, therefore it cannot be as efficient as ICE technology (gas=80x lithium ion, 250X lead acid, and his point on battery wt is that they are 25X the mass of gas). As for cost, maybe cheaper than ICE short term, until the batteries need replacing. The infrastructure of the US elec grid will not support elec cars for another 30 years as we build more nukes (at least in the volume of todays traffic). Face it, its gonna be a while before elec, hybrid, etc., make it into mainstream. Until then, much more oil please!

at 11/11/2008 2:38:14 PM, mcu_guy said:
Larry M - the people commenting here are rightly offended by a journalist that is using bad facts to "prove" his assertion that electric or hybrid vehicles are a bad idea. This author has been trying to push this viewpoint over numerous blogs now. I just don''t understand why he hates non gasoline based vehicles. Does he like sending money to the Arabs? This is not only an environmental issue, this is a national security issue too.

at 11/11/2008 2:42:55 PM, mcu_guy said:
Again with the bizarre logic? Crunchmaster - energy density and energy efficiency are 2 different things. Electric motors are 90% efficient, ICE is about 20%. Who's been drinking the koolaid?

at 11/11/2008 2:48:21 PM, DM said:
It is not accurate to compare combined city/highway driving in a hybrid or PHEV with highway driving in a non-hybrid. In real driving scenarios, a lot of the fuel is burned in city driving, much less than 36 mph. The vast majority of driving can be done within the 40 mile range of the battery, so effectively paying $0.02/mi for electricity @ $0.10/kWh. This compares to about $0.04/mi for 48 mpg @ $2.00/gal. So the Volt is half the per-mile cost, but with a purchase premium. It makes much more sense to do a total cost of ownership analysis to factor that in.

at 11/11/2008 2:57:06 PM, Policebox said:
Instead of railing about details, let us get back to the basic argument. Energy cost per mile of travel. End of speech. It appears he made a reasonable run at the Chevy Volt in all electric mode versus a 36 MPG Cracker Box car. At that point there are a few important points he missed: 1) He showed that, worst case, the two are equivalent. That means that under typical case, the Volt is better and even worst case the volt has zero emissions with all other things but price being equal. That makes it better in my book. 2) Many have complained that electricity generation is inefficient and far from carbon neutral. That is fixable! So let''s fix that, the electric car is already solved.

at 11/11/2008 3:10:56 PM, Greg said:
Lot of good comments here..... I think the editor missed a lot. As with any technology that is new you better be sure to have the facts straight and know how to explain to consumers. I sold Cell phones in 1985 at $2995.99 at Radio Shack and pc computers about $2k (was before windows)no printer or monitor... Lots of people would walk in the store with interest but with sales people not able to explain properly the uses and how to operate etc it was a hard sale. It can be the best product but without giving the consumer proper information in a easy to understand way, consumers will not buy in big numbers. Remember personal computers for home use did not start selling big until the 1990''s even though many people had them at work. Ms Windows made them easy to use and e-mail, internet gave people reasons to buy. In addition prices came way down as sales volume grew . and made them affordable. Same thing needs to happen on these electric cars and electric Hybrid cars. We need the US government to put first step forward and buy some small fleets of these cars to get things going. As technology is perfected the government can buy bigger fleets. with more demand car mfrs will spend the money to make improvements and as volume grews it will be more affordable cost -both initial

at 11/11/2008 3:10:56 PM, Greg said:
Lot of good comments here..... I think the editor missed a lot. As with any technology that is new you better be sure to have the facts straight and know how to explain to consumers. I sold Cell phones in 1985 at $2995.99 at Radio Shack and pc computers about $2k (was before windows)no printer or monitor... Lots of people would walk in the store with interest but with sales people not able to explain properly the uses and how to operate etc it was a hard sale. It can be the best product but without giving the consumer proper information in a easy to understand way, consumers will not buy in big numbers. Remember personal computers for home use did not start selling big until the 1990''s even though many people had them at work. Ms Windows made them easy to use and e-mail, internet gave people reasons to buy. In addition prices came way down as sales volume grew . and made them affordable. Same thing needs to happen on these electric cars and electric Hybrid cars. We need the US government to put first step forward and buy some small fleets of these cars to get things going. As technology is perfected the government can buy bigger fleets. with more demand car mfrs will spend the money to make improvements and as volume grews it will be more affordable cost -both initial

at 11/11/2008 3:31:24 PM, Dave said:
DM is closer to the truth. We talk about HWY MPG but that only works on trips out of the city. I live in Seattle and I would like to see any gasoline fueled car do well during any time of the day. The electric vehicle or a hybrid seems to be the way to go when you spend most of your time going between 0 and 20 MPH. I own a 2007 Corvette and it gets 30MPG on the HWY but only 12 to 16 in town or worse sitting on the freeway during the day. The cars need to be rated on the energy consumption during real driving conditions not HWY Estimates.

at 11/11/2008 3:36:55 PM, David Buuck said:
Paul - I did not read through all the posts. I think the critical thing your analysis neglects are the total life-cycle costs of ownership and operation, including maintenance and re-fitting. For example, for the EV, at between 5 and 10 years, you will completely replace the battery pack and potentially the inverter and other electronics. I think the only reasonable thing to do is take such maintenance into account on both sides, as it may (read: will) hide some nasty surprises. As for the normalized cost of future maintenance and re-fitting, all you can say is, "BEST GUESS"...bit it has to be accounted for.

at 11/11/2008 3:48:27 PM, bff said:
The answer to the future is certainly not drill, drill, drill. If the first units that hit the street are just a little cheaper to operate, and BTW, quieter, non-polluting from C02 and waste lubrication oil, then sooner or latter electric cars will win the fight. Engineeers have been playing with Internal combustion engines for more than 50 years. They are out of new idea. Just wait until energy storage gets better, and better ways of producing electricity from Solar, Wind and Fusion become available. BTW, there was a huge incentive put into the recent stimulus packages, which may also offset this even with the cost of gas being $2.50 a gallon.

at 11/11/2008 4:05:39 PM, MrAl said:
a 16kWh battery does use more than 16kW in charging. Usually one recovers only 50 to 60 percent of charging energy.

at 11/11/2008 4:35:27 PM, Stew said:
David Buuck - But there are lower maintenance costs with EV's. No oil/filter changes, brakes lasting life of car because of regen braking, no coolant, etc, so it's probably a wash. I wish an EV like the Think City would hurry up and be for sale in the US, not so much for eco-reasons, I don't want to give another damn dime to the oil companies. I don't care if gas cost $1.00/gal, I want an EV.

at 11/11/2008 4:51:05 PM, David Buuck said:
Stew --- Could be a wash, but honest estimates and a spreadsheet will give a much better estimate than "most likely about the same". Replacing a $20,000 battery subsystem every 5 years is a pretty steep maintenance cost - try comparing this to an ICEV (internal combustion engine vehicle). Today, I think for tax purposes you can claim $0.45 per mile for total cost of operation and maintenance of an ICEV. There is not currently enough data or excursion on the cost-compression curve to know what an EV will look like in the out-years. My bet today is that ICEVs, after 100+ years of refinement, are pretty cheap to operate, inclusive of ALL costs. That is my contribution to sticking my wet finger in the wind to estimate speed and vector

at 11/11/2008 4:52:46 PM, RobS said:
One might wonder how we''re going to generate all that motive electricity when all our infrastructure spending is devoted to inefficient solar and unreliable wind generation. We''re not going to get back to 7 cents a kWh with the PVs on John''s roof - unless we neglect the initial cost and ongoing maintenance.

at 11/11/2008 4:55:38 PM, call your bs said:
As old Abe Lincoln once said 'liars can figure and figures can lie'. It certainly applies to this sorry piece of manipulated nonsense. You should have caught on with him calling the Volt a cracker box or comparing it to a Geo Metro.Of course we are all eco-zombies to boot.Taken straight out of the text books supplied by the Limbaugh Institute of IGNORANCEISAVIRTUE. To him it would be underpowered since it cannot accelerate from zero to 60 in 4 seconds between red lights while running down old people in the crosswalk. He sounds more like what Rush Limbaugh would sound like if forced to be a Volt salesperson. All of his calculations start off being wrong by half simply by virtue of the fact that the Volt,although having a 16kwhr battery pack,will never use more than 1/2 that amount or 50% depth of discharge. No one worth their weight in salt would be dumb enough to charge on peak time so even buying gas at Costco your still miles and dollars ahead driving an electric vehicle. I have a suspicion this guy was also brain dead enough to vote for John Bush McSame and the Knuckle Dragger from Wassila.

at 11/11/2008 5:01:09 PM, Jerry Roane said:
This article needs to be corrected in several places especially calling a GM product a purpose built electric car. There are dual mode cars that would blow the socks off this interim product that roll on guideway and have a Cd of .07. These combining to yield high speed at incredible mileage. TriTrack as the search word will explain the details of electric propulsion with energy sipping avoiding the battery cost problem by constant battery pack swapping at 40 mph.

at 11/11/2008 6:19:17 PM, counterproductive said:
personal nuclear reactors.... take a hike fat neck. Literally.

at 11/11/2008 6:21:05 PM, counterproductive said:
personal nuclear reactors..... take a hike fat neck. Literally.

at 11/11/2008 7:32:46 PM, Paul said:
Alternatively, he could have just gone to the government site that gives the official fuel economy of all cars. The 2003 RAV4 2WD is 24MPG, while the 2003 Toyota RAV4-EV is 112 mpg (www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19296.shtml) That comparison is about as apples to apples as you will get at the moment.

at 11/11/2008 7:53:38 PM, Paul said:
To add to the above, the Toyota RAV4EV got a real-world 4 miles per kwh, or 3 cents per mile at the authors stated average of 12 cents per kwh for electricity. The gas RAV4 at 24MPG would require gas to be at 72 cents a gallon to equal 3 cents per mile. If you pay 18 cents per kwh in California, then the RAV4 costs a whopping 4.5 cents per gallon, which would require gas to be $1.08 to match in price. Of course if you are a Californian with half a brain, you put up solar panels to use our ample free sun to power your car. You are also also wrong about paying a higher rate to charge your car. Charging at night uses excess generation capacity and is charged at a low rate and is counted separate from your baseline allowance for the rest of your house.

at 11/11/2008 7:56:11 PM, Paul said:
Correction to the above: I meant to say "4.5 cents per mile", not "4.5 cents per gallon"

at 11/11/2008 9:34:19 PM, KF said:
This article seems rather bias. If hes going to take into account that city drivers will be paying more for electricity, he should take into account that most commuters will be charging there vehicles when the get home in the evening, when electricity is significantly cheaper!

at 11/11/2008 10:02:05 PM, Dave Kelly said:
Hi, A few weeks ago EDN talked about the BYD Auto from China. Though it is a lower powered car its results is impressive. website www.byd.com A number of the Japanese are bringing out all electric cars as well. My company well we are one of those companies developing energy storage in the $50 to $100 dollar per kilo-watt hour range, next generation of super capacitor. Our website is www.1-LTL.com expect to have pilot manufacturing going in less than 2 years. Electric power is the next energy wave, in surfing “you quickly learn to ride the tube to avoid becoming a wiped out.” David Kelly CTO 1st Lighten the Load Inc.

at 11/11/2008 10:58:35 PM, Stan said:
"gasoline car will get better range and use less energy" Who ever is responsible for allowing such a lie to be published should be put in jail. If your writing an article to banish a myth by stating myths, the article must have no credibility. Electric vehicles use far less energy. It is simple to see if you look at some rough energy efficiency values. Average Auto Internal Combustion Engine: 25% Automatic Transmission: 90% Estimated energy loss from production of gasoline and trucking and shipping it around: 10% ~~ 90% Efficiency Overall 25% x 90% x 90% = 20% Average Electric Motor: 90% Electricity Generation*: 20%Nuclear + 10%Other + (50%Coal + 20%Natural gas)35% = 54% Power lines: 93% Transmission (in drive train): 95% (Simple transmission due to vast RPM range of electric motors) Battery and Charger loss: 95% Overall: 90% x 54% x 93% x 95% x 95% = 41% I know this may have significant uncertainty but its not too bad. I was trying to be very nice to the ICE. It may be safe to say that overall energy efficiency of an Electric vehicle would be at least double that of ICE vehicle. *www.kidwind.org/images/lessons_generationPie.gif

at 11/12/2008 2:42:03 AM, Battar said:
If thousands of owners are going to be charging their electric vehicles "off peak", you will have peak electricity demand at that time. So the off-peak benefit will vanish.

at 11/12/2008 5:55:44 AM, Laughing said:
Paul, You show you''re a good editor/writer - you always write a story that gets everybody rev''d up - no pun intended. It''s amusing reading all of the vitriol. I look forward to your next post!

at 11/12/2008 10:19:00 AM, J.O. said:
Keep up the good work and keep up the skepticism, Paul. I generally look favorably upon hybrids and the eventual intelligent use of electric cars, but as with solar voltaics there are so many “true believers,” conspiracy theorists, hucksters and eco-wishfull- thinkers hyping this stuff that it is hard to cut through the B.S. I particularly love to hear folks who charge their cars from a coal-burning power plant referring to electric cars as “zero-emission” technology. To all who made sincere posts with a technical argument, thanks and I hope to have some time to examine some of the arguments and calculations. Maybe there can be a follow-up column some time?

at 11/12/2008 10:24:19 AM, Streetcar Eddie said:
Plug hybrids are containers to store stale gasoline.

at 11/12/2008 11:15:18 AM, tim said:
wow, that's a lot of guessing what electric companies will do. how do you know they will charge more in the day if people use electricity at night? makes no sense. also, since you didn't read any of the info on the volt, i'll tell you the specs on it - it will only charge to 80% and only drain the battery to 20% in order to maximize batter life, so it's not using 16kwh to go 40 miles. get the facts before you speak.

at 11/12/2008 1:10:17 PM, EVangel said:
The US DOE this year reported that 80% of US autos, were they electric, could be recharged at homes overnight without building one new power plant. J.O.: Roof-top solar syatems charge a hundred Toyota RAV4 EVs today: these EVs are virtually zero emission. Also, your complaint assumes that gasoline magically appears in the pump...

at 11/12/2008 2:15:01 PM, J.O. said:
EVangel: Last time I checked, there was more energy consumed in the production of a solar panel(existing technology) than the panel could be expected to produce over its entire lifetime. So the day those roof-top folks ordered their PV panels they very likely commissioned some company to burn a few tons of coal ( unless powered by a nuke or hydro plant) to build their panels. When we go nuke or the PV companies leave the grid to power up their energy intensive operations from their own PV cells , then maybe electrics will be zero emission. Till then, those coal-burners are admittedly “low emission” but far from zero. Not having any skin in the game, I haven’t ruled out hydrogen cars ( hydrogen produced from nuke electricity could be zero emission too) and might leave out the heavy , dirty, expensive batteries. My mind is still open.

at 11/12/2008 4:10:59 PM, occ said:
J.O.: it''s easy to say "the last time I checked". Si Solar panel will recoup it''s energy to manufacture in about 2 years time, at average of 5hrs/day insolation. You better go "check" again, and dont rely on Mr Rako''s articles for those facts the next time. "Life-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy payback time was estimated as 8 to 11 years, but more recent studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems [73]" [73] Alsema, E.A.

at 11/12/2008 4:16:01 PM, pizzaman said:
one of the posts mentioned the lifetime costs of an electric car versus a gasoline car. I once figured out that over 100,000 miles, the gas car will cost you $40,000 on gas, oil changes, ect... The electricity costs only $2,000, and then add your conversion cost. I have seen many good conversions for a lot less than $38,000. Plus, you could start with a nice car with a blown engine. Think about it. :)

at 11/12/2008 4:16:53 PM, occ said:
[73] Alsema, E.A.; Wild - Scholten, M.J. de; Fthenakis, V.M. Environmental impacts of PV electricity generation - a critical comparison of energy supply options. ECN, September 2006; 7p. Presented at the 21st European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Dresden, Germany, 4-8 September 2006

at 11/12/2008 7:43:38 PM, vbstenswick said:
The writer ignores climate change, which should be second only to national security in national policy. Electric or partially electric vehicles are one means of weaning us from fossil fuels. I heat my house with a geothermal heat pump and buy all of my electricity from our local utilities "WindSource" program. With an electric vehicle I could drive as well as heat my house with wind.

at 11/12/2008 8:12:17 PM, Zero X Owner said:
My electric vehicle gets 40 miles out of 0.8 kWh, real world. So Paul's assumptions show more about his inexperience with real world electric vehicles than about how artificially skewed his wrong assumptions are towards gassers. My electric cost is $ 0.069 a kWh (I use wind power though a subscription plan with my local power company) and the IEA reports today (in their annual world forecast) that as soon as the economy recovers (within a couple years or so) we can expect oil quickly back in the $100/barrel range (think $3.50 gasoline). That gives me about 600 mpge. So I like Paul's method. Just be sure to do your own math and don't use the highest possible electric price and lowest possible gasoline price, like Paul did, if it won't fit your real world situation in the near future. The solution to Paul's inexperience? Get many, may thousands of plug in hybrids and electric cars on the road. NOW. We'll all figure out this stuff better if we drive it daily, like I do.

at 11/12/2008 8:38:34 PM, Gregory House said:
The writer is an idiot On the other hand I do, just love to pollute

at 11/12/2008 8:44:18 PM, Gregory House said:
Wow I just read a couple more comments... Paul really is an idiot. ...If I were you I'd tell him what you think about him. Here's his contact information: Paul Rako/ Technical Editor/ EDN/ 408- 745-1994/ paul.rako@reedbusiness.com/ 110 Plaza Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089

at 11/13/2008 11:47:07 AM, W17053 said:
I thought that I saw that the 2008 Tesla Roadster accelerates from 0 to 60 in ~ 4 seconds, had a top speed of 125 mph, can be driven ~ 220 miles on 1 charge, has a battery life of ~ 100,000 miles, generates ~ 185-kW (~ 248 hp)and cost ~ $0.02 (2 cents) per mile to drive. I guess the Volt missed the mark in comparison - oh, that is right, the Tesla only has 1 cup holder -- the Volt wins!

at 11/13/2008 12:16:27 PM, zben said:
My electricity cost is about 12 cents per kWh and my existing gasoline car gets about 24 MPG. At $2 a gallon that's 8.3 cents a mile, at $3 a gallon that's 12.5 cents a mile. If an electric car used 200 Wh per mile it would cost 2.4 cents a mile, at 500 Wh per mile it would cost 6 cents a mile. Electricity is cheaper under all cases.

at 11/13/2008 1:45:29 PM, -Anon- said:
From the UK perspective this is quite illuminating. Because even with the sums in the original blog it would make sense: Currently our petrol costs about £0.94/litre (about £4.23/gal) or ($6.25/gal at the exchange rate according to google)

at 11/13/2008 1:46:07 PM, jimbob said:
From the UK perspective this is quite illuminating. Because even with the sums in the original blog it would make sense: Currently our petrol costs about £0.94/litre (about £4.23/gal) or ($6.25/gal at the exchange rate according to google)

at 11/13/2008 1:59:49 PM, -anon- said:
From a European perspective, it becomes more compelling, the $3.10/gal in the original blog works out at $0.82/litre, and we were recently paying £1.05/litre for petrol in my part of the UK. (according to google, this would be about $5.88/us gal)

at 11/13/2008 2:01:33 PM, jimbob said:
I had forgotten the difference between US gallons and UK gallons in my subsequent posts

at 11/15/2008 12:35:35 PM, G D Bryan said:
I find it odd that the author of EDN did not consider wind or solar chargers in his cost equasion. A solar panel capable of 48 volts at 4.5 amps with designed in current limiting costs about 700 dollars at the local electric distributor. It will have an average life of 25 years. The question is for the math majors. How many years will the solar panel have to charge a 48 volt battery in an electric car to pay for the $700 cost of the item? Plug it in and you get 160watts for free for about 25 years. Go to hell oil companies and PG&E. End of story!

at 11/15/2008 5:37:10 PM, Hyundai Hacker said:
Gasoline does indeed have greater energy density than current batteries. However, if you're lucky, you'll get only 20% of that where the rubber meets the road. Even if you factor in things like coal power plants and battery charging losses, you still beat gasoline in overall efficiency. It's called "well to wheel efficiency." Too bad some people let their ego short circuit their scientific thought processes. When we lack intellectual horsepower and factual knowledge, we revert to insults, attacks, and inuendo. Too Too bad...

at 11/15/2008 5:39:23 PM, Hyundai Hacker said:
That lucky 20% does not take into account the full well to wheel efficiency. It only looks at "gas nozzle to wheel" efficiency. Needless to say, it gets uglier when you look at the whole picture.

at 11/17/2008 4:44:20 AM, arclight said:
All: Lots of vitriol spewed here but not much real science. Where is the fully-annotated, ruthlessly peer-reviewed, integrity-at-ALL-costs spreadsheet showing end-to-end costs of all approaches? Has anyone here done the whole chain? Or is everyone just pulling up the "facts" that support their position? Have we collectively forgotten how to do science? In the words of Yogi Berra, "Is there anyone here who knows how to play this game?"

at 11/17/2008 4:54:45 AM, arclight said:
@GDBryan: Solar panel with a 25 year life? In what environment? Over what temperature range? What humidity range? How resistant to rain? Ice? Hail? Repeated quick temperature changes (i.e. thermal shock)? The relatively benign weather patterns of SoCal aren't replicated everywhere. The idea of every rooftop in America being full of solar panels appeals greatly to me, but nothing I have seen to date appears to be really ready for that type of utilitarian, high-reliability service across the entire nation's weather. Until it's THAT ready, we probably need to do more work here.

at 11/17/2008 12:02:18 PM, Paul Rako said:
Whew, I guess I have amply proved that electric car fanaticism is a religion, not a science,. OK, the 16kWh for 40 miles is a valid estimate for two reasons-- remember that I ran all this by that Ford engineer at the SAE convention and he said, in public, that 40 miles for 16 kWh is reasonable. He was pro-electric car guy so he had no reason to magnify the energy use. The other fact is that I, the former automotive engineer, built a fully electric car 15 years ago, while most of the eco-folk were poking at their Speak-and-Spell. I used a 1975 Honda Civic as the platform because it was the lightest chassis for a "real" car that I could find. I tore out the passenger and rear seat and put in ten 69 amp-hour deep-cycle marine batteries. The car had a GVW (gross vehicle weight) of 2400 pounds and it weighed 2200 when I was done, just enough for my fat neck. So 69 amp-hours at 120 volts is 8.2 kWh. The car would barely get 20 miles range. And as it ran out or electricity, it would only go about 30 miles per hour. And yes, the "mileage" if you will, of an electric car is just as variable as the mileage of a gas car. I took one trip where I stomped the "gas" pedal every stop. I got 11 miles range on that 8.2 kwh and I crept back to my shop at 5 mph. There is a hill on the coast about 2000 feet high. The car would have not been capable of even reaching the peak, much less going to the Santa Cruz Boardwalk and then back for a day. OK, so if GM is hedging their bets by saying that only 8kwh should be used in pure electric I guess they realized that they can't get 50,000 miles out of the pack if they deep-cycle it. Fine, but I stand by my 40 miles takes 16 kWh. But people, even if it is 8 kwh, also note that gas is under 2 bucks a gallon in places and it is 2.25 here in Silicon Valley. The point is still that electricity is not free and is a substantial cost in the use of an electric car. And no, there is no way any series hybrid can reach 135 mpg-- that is BS and I will do a post this week that explains where this number came from (the government, naturally). Everybody accuses me of being evil and a dupe of the oil companies but did you every think I love you folks and don't want to see you suckered in by a BS technology the way I was 15 years ago? This brings up the next point. Sure, an AC induction motor is more efficient than a DC motor system, but not THAT much better. To ascribe to power electronics, motors and batteries the same improvements as digital electronics is absurd. I had an engineer at Tesla (now laid off by the way) that told me that was a fundamental problem. High tech types think everything doubles in performance every 18 months according to Moore's Law, but nothing is further from the truth. That Tesla engineer told me that the killer is that batteries only improve 8 percent every 18 months and that still makes it a tough nut to crack. A few other myths that need to be elucidated are that an electric motor is 90% efficient. Yeah, an induction mother operated at its design frequency is right up there, but when you are in city traffic the motor is hardly ever in that range, you are speeding up and slowing down. Another bit of pathos is people quoting 0-60 times and then in the same breath saying the car sips energy. Not if you floor it, it gobbles it right up. Electric motors get maximum torque at stall and do leave the line just dandy. The 1000 amp currents you draw when you do that are not conducive to high efficiency. Since I really care about what is good for this planet, rather than what makes me part of a social pack, I look at what is important-- what the car costs to the consumer. If you think CO2, a fundamental plant food and life force, is a poison there is nothing I can do to convince you liquid fuels make a lot of sense. It is like asking the Pope or a suicide bomber to renounce his religion. For the same reason you can't try to put all kinds of fudge factors and BS studies on the "real" energy costs of things. If there are real costs it is imbedded in the price. Sure, oil does pollute but so does electricity for crying out loud. You also have to realize that gasoline has a big fat tax on it that is so abundant it can be used to build bridges to nowhere. Lets add that into the electricity cost because your electric cars will still have to use the roads don't they? Note that since I posted this last week gasoline at Costo has dropped to $2.25 a gallon out here in Silicon Valley. No, we have to stick to prices and that is why I have to doubt the statement that solar panels consume more energy than they ever produce. Yeah, take away the subsidies and the payback is maybe 20 years, but there still is a payback, so we have to look at delivered costs to us and accept that, although poor uses of capital, solar panels do not cost more than the energy they deliver. This is especially true here in California with that 22-cent juice. And yes, if I plugged a car in to my panel I would pay 22 cents a KWh because I am way past my 13-cents/kwh baseline usage. On the "Where do these people come up with this logic?" track, yes, it IS absurd to talk about mpg in a car that does not use gasoline. What the EPA is trying to do is show how well the gasoline mode of the car works and it is madness to think that you can add the inefficiency of an electric power train to a car the way a series hybrid like the Volt does and get anything better than if you took out all the batteries, controller, electric motor and just used the gasoline motor. If you still use the batteries for acceleration, you might get 60mpg out of this, but you will never get 100 or 135. Remember the 80mpg car fiasco, the latest example of government bureaucrats trying to design cars? Will guess what? It is pretty tough to get 80mpg when the road load of the car going 50 mph means you only get 60 mpg best-case. And all this is best case. I guess that is what astonishes me about the religious fanaticism surrounding this, where I, the former auto engineer am called an idiot and any clown that has read a press release and Mother Jones is an expert. All I am trying to say is that 1) The electricity for the electric part of a PHEV or full electric is a non-trivial cost and 2) anybody that says a four-passenger car can get 135 mpg is playing with the figures and ignoring the cost of electricity. Next, electric power trains are pretty lossy, and so is electric generation. The NY Times did an article where the chairman of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano, stated ""Sixty-seven percent of electrical energy, for example, is lost because of inefficient power generation and grid management." OK, folks, so which bunch of press releases are we supposed to believe, the ones from the electric car fanatics that say electricity at your house is 90% efficient or the CEO of IMB that says it is 33% efficient? And that is only to your house. If you look at the efficiency of the charger and battery and the motor, please, don't delude

at 11/17/2008 1:50:19 PM, Zero X Owner said:
I''ll believe end consumers of real world current day production electric vehicles any day over a CEO. Ignored in all these comments is that the costs of extreme volatility (represented by the cost of gasoline being about half of what it was a couple of months ago) of energy prices are just as important as a high absolute price. Consumers like to smooth their consumption, if possible. Wildly gyrating prices make that difficult, make family budgeting and big purchase decisions hard and mess up the economy. It''s telling that Paul keeps insisting on using the lowest gas prices in two years, rather than, say, the national average price for the last 12 months. Long term trends are upwards, once we start climiung out of the current economic hole. Electric power uses flexible energy sources, so its price will always be more stable than a single energy source, such as imported liquid fuel. It''s also educational to compare the Tesla Roadster''s "problem" performance to Paul''s d-i-y Honda''s range and speeds. I''m actually heartened by Paul''s old creation - is it for sale? An update to a modern power pack, electric motor and controller software and yee-haw! Paul is right that electricity is not free. It''s just dirt cheap compared to gasoline, per mile traveled, and an insubstantial and trivial part of electric vehucle operation realtive to gasoline. Paul''s own numbers show that. I''ll try to remember how inefficient electric vehicles are the next time I pass a Porshe. At least my money for my vehicle fuel stays in the US, going towards domestic manufacturing and installation of wind turbines (high wage domestic jobs). Paul, this comment is support for your method (I like and approve of it), not vitriol. What is Mother Jones? Your topic has no science, just math, assumptions and decisions. Can you directly compare electric power and gasoline fuel by cost per mile traveled. Absolutely. Did the way you chose to do the math to apply that method mislead in favor of gasoline? Absolutely. Is electric still way cheaper than gasoline, always, even with your shenanigans? Absolutley.

at 11/17/2008 2:23:17 PM, Vet said:
If you are going to add in utility transmission losses to at vehicle electric drive efficiency calculations, I ask, in the name of fairness, that you add in the cost of gasoline trucking transportation, imported liquid fuel shipping, and the recent trillions in military costs (including soldiers'' lives and the costs to their families) to control movements of imported oil to gasoline drive efficiency calculations. In neither case, did we add in fundamental extraction costs or capital expenses.

at 11/18/2008 12:09:20 PM, able to do math with real world vehicles said:
Comparing, using Paul's method, a real world electric two wheeler with a roughly equivalent performance gas version at the most recent published US DOE EIA annual (2006) national prices for electricity and gasoline: The gasser used 5.2 cents of gas per mile, the electric drive used 0.2 cents of electricity per mile. The electric fuel costs were thus 3.8% of the gasoline fuel costs, using real world vehicles and real world national annual averages, not some pre-production guesses and the lowest possible gas and higherst possible electric prices. That 3.8% sure looks trivial and insubstantial to me.

at 11/18/2008 1:17:46 PM, Paul said:
Hey, since it only "costs" about 2 cents per kWh to produce electricity RIGHT NOW (must of the rest is distribution and profit), my vote is for hydrogen distributed via pipelines to power the vehicles of the future. Zero emissions, low cost, practical and doable. PS - If paying 20 cents+ for electricity really bugs you that much, you're welcome to move! PS - Don't forget to include the amortized cost to replace the batteries in your cost/mile. For some vehicles, that'll be a deal breaker.

at 11/18/2008 1:22:16 PM, Flint said:
First of all: Maybe pure.. EV adoption will get Utilities who transmit energy to do it without melting the conductors during peak time. Get it wildfire... 1). There is no fuel used by the consumer if solar is used to charge their electric car. Just the tax break and the cost / year. issues till reward 2). I want 300 miles per charge and can have it with less speed, more batteries and a little less TESLA. The absolute best. Like a premier pitcher they get paid. 3). We need an EV that is subsidized by the govt.(battery) and can be mass produced in both the conversion and new formats. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting diff. results? We need industry lets create some with reality engineering of the EV and its associate engineering and construction.

at 11/18/2008 1:34:19 PM, Joel said:
With a combination of solar and wind power to charge the battery, cost is reduced significantly. And the biggest benefit is no pollution. In some areas, this is the highest concern (LA, etc.).

at 11/18/2008 1:37:42 PM, Howard said:
Of course driving only at highway speeds the best current solution is the ICE. However, for the millions of us that drive in stop & slow or stop & go traffic electric & hybrid vehicles make a lot more sense. The volt is a step in the right direction for many of us, but not all. If you live in the "wide open spaces" it won't be very cost effective, and if you live in an apartment, where can you plug it in? The long term solution is a mix of technologies, but in the end, we will run out of oil.

at 11/18/2008 1:40:17 PM, Flint said:
The real qusetion, other than the folks at Google and such(god bless em) .. will anybody else be able to fight off the buyout boys and their paradigm. Control the supply and demand of necessity where does your demand go...up,up,up Elect. Dereg.? bet Arnold would like those billions now. Has anybody ever looked at the Nedra site. We(EV) can get speed then we can get on-board charging one pack while utilizing another. We can also put it in a car that doesnt look like a shoebox. By the way Phoenix is still making EV- Choice...we deserve a choice from point A to B. PERIOD

at 11/18/2008 1:46:22 PM, Flint said:
Once we create the new industry lets not give it to the bean counters to screw up They can not get their stuff right we need to keep them from ours...lol

at 11/18/2008 1:59:19 PM, Vibeguy said:
A new, "disruptive" technology changes the equation when it comes to battery charging and battery lifespan, search for Energenx or r-charge It''s real, it works,3 patents and it''s shipping NOW!

at 11/18/2008 2:06:55 PM, Mr. Smith said:
Oh, yeah, EV gov''t subsidy. What cell in the spreadsheet do I put my increased tax bill in? I like the people who fund their own solar panels. They are entitled to be as smug as they like. When electric cars are cheaper, people will buy them, period end of story. Those who would use the power of government to lead us around by the wallet ought to consider that there are some who think you ought to walk to work.

at 11/18/2008 2:08:28 PM, Flint said:
Here is how we turn the aircraft carrier. I can hardly remember when engineers were able to innovate what was best for mankind without the bottom line $ ..set up to fail governors. Anything we can do is better than the further deployment of arms and what will be the resultant of the oil burning insanity. This country should be stock piling oil in the stategic reserves...EV transition will take years Back to EV. Subsidize & tax break all start-ups and local entities who want to start a shop or EV associates. Give em huge govt money to produce. We give money to AIG? Lower prerequisites for this capital.. 1). Standardize and mass produce Li-Ion. Ni Cad cells. Voltages and sizes as per NEDRA and other tech.96v,144, etc.. 2). Standardize motors + AC-DC- controls etc. as per NEDRA and other associates. 3). Research money for on-board charging and dual battery designs. Also using air and other assoc technologies. 4). Set up $ for homeowners and business to add charging stations. 5). Re-tool automakers out of their paradigm and or prevent the oil lobby from buying out their new engineering. 6). Let Exxon Mobile do their thing with batt tech then do like they did with the 80 mpg carb in the 80's. The end result will be a cleaner more prosperous USA

at 11/18/2008 2:09:34 PM, steve said:
How about factoring the cost of replacing the batteries at the end of 4-5 years? Cost per mile will probably go way up if it is included.

at 11/18/2008 2:10:15 PM, Flint said:
Smitty, Power of government though the oil lobby? I wish I was an oil man...lol

at 11/18/2008 2:14:40 PM, Flint said:
Make enough batteries...standardize... and they will become cheap

at 11/18/2008 2:24:56 PM, Terry T said:
Definately some eco fanatics. 36 mpg cracker box? I have 35000 miles experience with a hybrid Civic that got 37 mpg overall for the time I had it. The Civic was traded for a Camry hybrid for more room, power, and comfort. we have 25000 miles on it with a life time mpg of 34.5. No additional electricity cost for the electric motors, but hardly free. The upfront cost premium over the non hybrid was about 3000$. This cost is substantially subsidized by the manufacturer, nobody would buy one if they to pay the true cost of the technology upfront. An ICE civic would get 32-34 mpg for the same driving and a 4-cyclinder Camry would make 27-30 mpg. Factor in battery replacements sometime down the road, there really is no payback economically. Now if I am able to sell it at a premium to some unsuspecting Eco-weanie just before it needs new batteries there might be some payback for me. I missed out on being able to sell my 35000 mile 2 year old Hybrid civic for full retail plus this past summer when gas hit 4$ plus, made me sad

at 11/18/2008 2:29:24 PM, Flint said:
I dont put gas in a PURE-EV... PERIOD...

at 11/18/2008 2:30:18 PM, Mr. Smith said:
would that I were an oil man, Flint! It's just that the government is lousy at picking winners. Will GM spend its bailout cash on R&D? Not likely. They're trying to stay current with the screws vendor. I would rather give that money to the people on this board to invest as they saw fit. They're a sharp crowd!

at 11/18/2008 2:41:50 PM, Terry T said:
The chevy volt is going to be a 35000-40000 dollar small car that I doubt GM is going to make a dime on, that is if they don't go bankrupt in the next month or two. For 18000 $ you could buy an similarly sized and performing small car like a civic or corolla. Even if plug in electricity is dirt cheep compared to gasoline, there is probably not enough life or miles in the car to ever have any economic payback other than having Eco-Weanie bragging rights.

at 11/18/2008 2:57:52 PM, Zero X Owner said:
@ Paul and Steve. Since my power pack is an energy carrier, not a fuel source, why would I include it in the fuel costs, which is the topic of this blog? You guys are really clutching at straws here. Still, buying into your faulty logic, with the power pack replaced every 5 years, and with fuel costs included, my electric vehicle will still be much, much cheaper overall (at any life span you care to choose) than the comparable gasser. Then you have to add the costs to the gasser of oil changes, fuel and air filters, maintenance, rusting exhaust systems, etc. etc., none of which I have. Also, after 20 years, I'll have a vehicle with more than 200% performance (range) improvement over the original, due to power pack upgrades, while you'll have something ready for the landfill. The comments here have gotten wildly off topic, so obviously the rational, electric crowd defeated the FUD that this blog is.

at 11/18/2008 3:08:01 PM, anon said:
All Paul''s trying to show is that is that with everyone driving electric cars, we''re not suddenly living in some utopia. No more foreign oil, polution, health care for all! It would be great if we all had electric cars and we would use less energy. But electrics are not the cure-all. You need to make electricity from something

at 11/18/2008 3:09:07 PM, anon said:
All Paul's trying to show is that is that with everyone driving electric cars, we're suddenly living in some utopia. No more foreign oil, polution, health care for all! It would be great if we all had electric cars and we would use less energy. But electrics are not the cure-all. You need to make electricity from something; coal? polution; natural gas? heating cost and consumer products will go up; nuclear reactors? better find out what to do with the waste. Road projects are funded by gas tax; no more gas and no more tax. It will have to be replaced by something; electricity tax? Your $0.13/kwh may be more like $0.20/kwh. What about those living in the north, they need to heat their car in the winter. Now it is done with waste heat from the ICE. With electrics, heating a car with electricity is an expensive way to go (besides reducing the range). Ask anyone with electric heat in their home. Just like the rage on using ethanol to solve our energy needs; until food prices began to soar. You don't hear much about that anymore. Everything has its cost. There's no magic bullet. Electrics may be better than what we have now but they will introduce other challeges; some of which we don't know until millions take to the roads.

at 11/18/2008 3:14:24 PM, Rational thinker. said:
@ Terry T Remind me again when the economic payback occurs on leather seats and sunroofs? I thought so. How about the economic payback on soldiers lives? My economic payback come every time I pass a gasser and don't send my money to the middle east. That's money in the bank.

at 11/18/2008 3:22:36 PM, Anon 2 said:
@ Anon Nothing is a cure-all. Don't make perfect the enemy of the good. Electric heaters and heated seats work way faster (and more efficiently) than waiting for your ICE to heat up - try it, you'll like it - it's called 18th century technology and are way cheaper (remember that this blog shows that electricity is much, much cheaper than gas?). My electric vehicle runs off 100% domestic wind power, cheaper than coal power in most states, thanks to a subcription plan from my local power utility. We'll see what problems we face (a roaring economy from keeping our fuel dollars within the country?) after we have million more electrics on the streets.

at 11/18/2008 3:26:52 PM, Economist said:
@ Terry T. Thanks for asking. I did the math. I reached the economic payback on my electric vehicle the day that I bought it. How about on yours?

at 11/18/2008 8:08:35 PM, milepost said:
Whether Paul R. wishes to admit it or not, peak oil is real. The name of the game is to kick the oil habit and move to renewables. The problem with any economic analysis is the variable or variables get ignored because no one knows how to include them. And as far as load on the grid is concerned, the latest thinking is the "smart grid" with renewable sources permitting distributed generating capacity as opposed to point sources such as a 2000MW nuc.

at 11/18/2008 8:09:48 PM, Flint said:
Facts 1). More power packs more mi. 2). More elec. cars < oil burnt. 3).Transistion A to B 10 years by then 40% elec. 4).Fear No more oil or war to get rights,puppet govt etc. 5). Better stock up on oil for the defense of this country 6). I love ICE had 55 cars from vets to MG 7). The Toyota and Volt are Toys we need tools 8). Bio-Diesel electric trains,trucks.etc 9). Use K.I.S.S., with not 5 answers to the same question coming from different places undocumented...lol 10). We need to do it because it is the right thing to do and if it burns up the wires in the high current distribution system the utilities will have to design abatt. storage units etc. for peak demand or just do some plain old fashioned distribution eng.

at 11/18/2008 8:13:46 PM, Flint said:
I think my biggest problem coming from the utility eng moving to the chem industry is that I see the many major uses for oil products. We need to start saving this resourse and for more than one reason we need to stop burning it up. PERIOD

at 11/19/2008 6:32:07 AM, Flint said:
Phoenix makes this: They can prob get more range if they wanted to: Performance Top Speed (factory set-controller limited) 95 m.p.h. 0-60 m.p.h. less than 10 seconds Range Urban (UDDS) 100+ miles per charge Highway (HFEDS) 100+ miles per charge Charging Time On-Board Vehicle 6.6kW Charger 5 to 6 hours (220V) *Off-Board High-Power 250kW Charger Under 10 min. to 95% SOC Electric Drivetrain Motor Manufacturer NEW Proprietary Motor Technology Power Rating 200kW peak/100kW continuous 268 horsepower Torque Rating 800Nm peak/520Nm continuous 590 foot lbs. Motor Thermal Management Air cooled Controller Thermal Management Liquid cooled Regenerative Braking Programmable Battery Pack Battery Type (Power Rating) Lithium Titanate Battery (35kWh) Dimensions & Weights Overall Length 175.4 in / 4,455 mm Overall Width 74 in / 1,880 mm Overall Height 68.3 in / 1,735 mm Wheelbase 107.9 in / 2,740 mm Gross Vehicle Weight 5,520 lbs. / 2,503.8 kg Curb Vehicle Weight 4,820 lbs. / 2,186.2 kg Payload 700 lbs. / 317.5 kg

at 11/19/2008 6:36:54 AM, arclight said:
those losses won''t be reduced without completely rebuilding the grid or doing away with it in favor of all-local generation. Either approach costs very large $$$$ (how does THAT fit into the cost/benefit equation??). (2) Battery pack costs are part of the vehicle total cost of ownership. So are the periodic greasing of the joints (which doesn''t go away if the "oil change" does). (3) It is prejudicial to automatically assume that because someone is a CEO or has wealth they are a liar. @milepost: The cost to upgrade existing electric infrastructure to be "smart" must be factored into the equation. Distributed plants will require more labor $$$$ (unions will see to that) and more siting costs (gotta take care of the NIMBY BIMBOs). All: Why is it a given that electricity costs will stay the same if there''s a great increase in demand? Normally a great increase in demand is followed by an INCREASE IN COSTS. "Tight regulation" will just force prices to be even higher than they would otherwise be. There is no free societal lunch either. @Flint: Absolutely. What most folks don''t realize is that we use petroleum in lots of ways besides burning it, and there''s no easy substitutes for petro in those processes! THIS, rather than ecological concerns, is probably the driver for moving away from petro-based transportation;

at 11/19/2008 6:37:54 AM, arclight said:
Comment got chopped (again): @Zero X owner: (1) The efficiency of the electric power grid really IS about 35% (got that from an independent source). Losses are present in the transformers and lines themselves; those losses won't be reduced without completely rebuilding the grid or doing away with it in favor of all-local generation.

at 11/19/2008 7:48:08 AM, anon said:
Has anyone considered that maybe cause of pollution, demand for fuel and crowded cities and roads is that there are just too many people? The planet doesn't need 6 billion people. The US doesn't need 300M people. Having this many people doesn't benifit society. Maybe population control is a much better solution. On the other hand, if global warming is true and caused by man (cars), look at the vast areas in canada and siberia that will be opened up for people to live and grow food. In the 70's global cooling was a real threat. Looks like we took care of that with our polluting cars! Better warm than cold; can't grow food with 2 feet of snow on the ground. If we change over to electric cars, will this then reverse warming and once again have a threat of another ice age? Be careful what you wish for.

at 11/19/2008 10:08:53 AM, Flint said:
Wow, Fixing the antiquated distribution grid...lol 1). Transmission is suppose to be 95-99% eff. 2). If combined system Utilization,Distribution and Transmission is 35% Houston we gotta problem. 3). We need distribution engineering? 4). Put transformation undergrd in the middle, build Nuke plants that dont eat H20. (pebble bed) 5).Monitor immediately...dont wait for AMR @100%. Did this in 1980's with apparatus and regulators group 6). Uncle Percy Thomas did not mean for ACSR to cause such problems (wildfires?) but he couldnt forcast his distribution load other than crompton ammeters. We have real time data logging that can be installed on distribution lines and compaired to in adequate utility loading formula. Someone bought this company out...before it could be REGULATION READY. Remember the lower the volrage the higher the load current or loss in HEAT. Govt will have to help $$$ fix utility systems, but stranding and unbundling assets have caused nothing but chaos. problem we spent all our money on acquisition of bounty in the sand. The power industry did get some of that also...

at 11/19/2008 10:15:33 AM, Flint said:
Anon completely rebuilding the grid will not be necessary. Perhaps the next dist. voltage conversion will be 50KV? 33kv is the highest D.V. at present. Stability and safety would be more of a concern. If transmission loading is an issue we must increase that voltage. It has been done before and can be done before any plant needs to break ground. But the plant work still needs planned.

at 11/19/2008 10:24:06 AM, Zero X Owner said:
@ anon So what's the efficiency of gasoline transmission when hauled to service stations by truck to compare aples to apples - it's limited to ICE efficiency, about 20%. 20% is less than 35%, so electric wins again. Also, you're talking energy transmission efficiency, not cost efficiency to the consumer. Electric is still way cheaper, so it's way more economically efficient to the consumer. I didn't realize just how much electric drive is a complete no brainer before this blog. Thanks for showing me than gas (bio-deisel)/electric hybrid drive is best for long distance commercial hauling and road trips to remote areas not served by electric diesel trains. Otherwise, regular gasoline in non-hybrid ICEs is going the way the of the hay for horses - a quaint, inefficient fuel source for transportation. Re: too many people - way to stay on topic, which is end consumer fuel costs per mile, electricity versus gasoline. Ice ages happen slow enough for humans to adapt (see reality - called , history, archeology, physical anthropology, paleobotany, etc.). A possible new, instant (100 years)artificial climate regime change, however - we don't know. By the way, people (even European types) lived in Canada before there were cars. Really.

at 11/19/2008 10:38:34 AM, Flint said:
0x, You sound like you are ready for the next industrial revolution..PURE ELECTRIC , Tractors, Haulers, Vechiles of any kind. Right now you need to know the amount of miles you are going but if the paradigm shift occurs it must occur HERE so we can pay our creditors..Dont worry ICE dudes you are still king of the road until the barriers toward entry are crossed.

at 11/19/2008 11:54:48 AM, Zero X Owner said:
@ anon According to the US DOE EIA, electricity transmission and distribution losses average around 6%, so I don't know what you're blathering on about. Maybe you are using Edison's DC setup rather than Tesla's AC? My losses are even lower as I live in an energy exporting state, close to an initial power generation source (keep in mind I recharge with wind turbines, which can be extremely efficient at generating (a generator is just a motor, backwards (mechanical to electrical energy), right?) electricity). Also, it's the vehicle to wheel efficiency that matters to the consumer. Last, Paul should consider using PG&E's E-9 night-time (when most electric vehicle recahrging occurs) incentive charging rate for his California rate, which will reduce his electric costs per mile by two-thirds from the .12/kwh rate he used.

at 11/19/2008 12:05:34 PM, Zero X owner said:
@flint Er, we already have those vehicles. Two of the biggest mining hauling trucks around are electric diesel (pretty much freight trains on rubber wheels). The industrial revolution to electric that you refer to occured in 1886 with real world AC electric distribution systems, quickly followed by pratical demonstrations of wireless communications in 1894. Isn't it time that household transportation use that 19th century technolgy, as we do for most household appliances? It doesn't have to be pure electric. Plug in hybrids work great, too. It's the addition of electric drive that's gaining ground.

at 11/19/2008 3:59:59 PM, arclight said:
@ZeroX: Verified your figures (close enough) from data from the EIA, so I owe you an apology there. The figure from the CEO, though, is also "right". The actual energy conversion from coal, in a coal-fired plant (most common in the US) is 35%. The original contention is still true, though: Too few facts and too much opinion / emotion (including mine). I'll have to be more careful in the future.

at 11/19/2008 6:06:56 PM, Zero X Owner said:
@arclight No worries - I'd even give up 7% - depends on what time period you choose. That's what I love about electric drive, though (other than beating Ferraris off the line). It even wins in worst case scenarios and in the face of wildly incorrect facts, faulty logic and false comparisons. Maybe you were thinking about capacity, rather than efficiency. A wind turbine, for example, can only catch at most around 60% of the energy in the wind that it interacts with. That's 60% capacity. But who cares that it fails to steal 40% of the free energy that hits it, leaving some other wind turbine somewhere else to catch some of that remainder energy, if it is able to incredibly cheaply and incredibly efficiently change that wind energy that it does capture into cheap electricity, which can be efficiently transmitted. My facts in this blog are my reported experiences from my actual daily use of an all electric drive vehicle. I encourage others to speak up with their real world electric use experiences, as the writer of this article has bravely done. If you don't own an electric vehicle, I suggest buying one, so you can comment in blogs from real world personal experience. I don't know why people get negatively emotional over electric drive vehicles. No-one gets all shrieky with rage on-line when a more efficient clothes iron comes on the market. Or am I missing the HigherPerformanceClothesIronHatersClub.com blogs? Last, I do not suggest more care in the future. If we don't have enough people voicing opinions over and over and over, we'll never be able to repeatedly challenge and get rid of all the baseless FUD about electric drive based vehicles.

at 11/20/2008 9:15:43 AM, Terry T said:
I''m not complaining about about my lack of payback on my cars to go Hybrid over conventional. There are no real personal economic reasons for buying a new car because they are just horrible as any type of investment. But the auto industry has a lot of jobs tied to it. There are many other reasons that mostly have nothing to do with it being a good "investment" to spend your money on. There is no free lunch for anything in our industrial society until nuclear fusion becomes a reality. I have 4 cars and 9 motorcycles, but in the end my opinion is that the personal transportation device (other than feet and bicycles) needs to go the way of the dinosaur and that our society need to reconfigure how we have things laid out to make public transportation for everyone a viable solution.

at 11/20/2008 7:43:30 PM, Flint said:
X...Yeah I am going to buy a TESLA....when my kids are out of college...ER...Keeping, innovating, mass producing, EV technology = no gas, no oil war, jobs and exports. I like the Prius especially with the additional battery pack....:-) Look at the NEDRA web site..newer than you might think with PURE EV POWER. CHECK IT OUT X MAN... Perhaps the green people have a paradigm that less is better when it comes to EV? Smart Car...I am 230 lbs... My belief( we are on the same team).. the more on board capacity, series parallel voltage stacked,transferrable and charged. The better the performance,longevity, sales and return...more fun too. I would love to have the 1972 Datsun on the NEDRA site. I wonder if he ever just cruised around and see how far he could go?

at 11/20/2008 7:53:24 PM, Flint said:
OX I will dispute the DOE facts on supply side efficiency. I used to build em...subs etc. I know there is no real time monitoring out on the distribution lines or utilization sys. not normally. most reclosers dont do it...The bells and whistles are out not calibrated or they just took the arc current. So in my opinion massive voltage conversion, distribution engineering and (load point) monitoring must be mandated and subsidized, way before AMR grandiousity

at 12/4/2008 1:13:05 PM, anon said:
electric won't work. no gas, no gas tax, no money for roads. then who will pay. how about less people then less demand for fuel, less polution. get the population of the us back down to 200M and all should be fine.

at 12/9/2008 4:38:34 AM, arclight said:
@ZeroX: Nope, I was thinking efficiency, and got the numbers wrong. Flint's comments are disturbing here...before we launch into a large increase in electricity use, we'd better really know what those efficiencies are. Your experiences are valuable to me and to this discussion (as are those of others). Unfortunately, as an engineer I can't accept my experiences, or yours, or anyone else's, as a substitute for a rigorous (I would use ruthless) math analysis. If there's anyone out there that's done the stem-to-stern analysis, had it subjected to equally ruthless peer review (by adverse but honest reviewers) I'd love to see it. I wonder if we still have in this country the maturity to conduct that level of analysis and review?

at 12/30/2008 8:34:55 PM, cmouille said:
I like the discussion and comments. My long ago experience with diesel conversions lead me to conclude that as long as we purchase liquid fuel by the volume, it will be more cost effective, than considering the BTU values for energy conversion. I did an engine swap (water cooled Japanese diesel engine) in place of the gasoline air cooled VW Bug engine. I got 30 to 40 MPG on gasoline and 50 to 60 (best mileage, 75 MPG) on diesel fuel. When you consider the life of the diesel engine to the gasoline engine, it was an advantage for the diesel engine. Now that the diesel fuel is so highly taxed, and some hydrocarbons removed, it would not pay today to do that conversion. I do look forward to building a light-weight low power front engine drive (multi-fueled) with electric rear wheel drive for road load leveling. Do the physics and compute the energy demands at some fixed speed in road horsepower, with coast down tests to get the true road horse power demands (mass x acc. x distance per time). Equate it to the fuel consumed per horsepower-hour x horsepower demands to get actual MPG.(If, I remember all of the physics--it has been at least 20 years ago since I did this). Good luck.

at 1/6/2009 5:29:45 PM, devassocx said:
Apparently, everyone here has forgotten to consider the tax that will ultimately be placed on electricity that powers the EVs. The same tax that gasoline is now subject to.

at 2/10/2009 4:43:11 PM, someone said:
WOW

at 3/20/2009 8:17:08 AM, NØPXJ said:
"You also have to realize that gasoline has a big fat tax on it that is so abundant it can be used to build bridges to nowhere." It(tax) will be added just like CNG and propane and diesel and alcohol. I wish my 94 Geo Metro XFI wasn''t rusting away.

at 3/21/2009 9:01:31 PM, Paul Rako said:
Ahhh, religion tries to trump engineering and comes up lacking again. I would be really surprised if the Chevy Volt can get 40 miles on 8kWh. See, I built an electric car-- ohhhh the tech editor has been there, 10 years ago --- and I can tell you what I found. If I put my foot in it at every stoplight, I got 11 miles range. That was with a 8160 watt-hour pack in a 2000 pound Honda Civic. I got it down to 2000 pounds by taking out the rear seat and passenger seat and anything else not nailed down. There was no heater, no defroster and certainly no air conditioning. Next I was going to pull the hood and trunk lid and after that the doors, but the car was so limited I just parted it out. I still have the 20hp motor and controller. Now it did perform OK, good acceleration, I kept it at 80 mph for a few miles once. But it would not even go over the 1200 foot hills to Santa Cruz. Now, you have to learn how companies spec things. That 40 mile range is for flat land and a constant speed and not a lot of starts and stops. I could get something like 40 miles if I drove at 35 mph and never stopped and started. Sure regenerative brakes will help, but as I said, studies have shown that Americans drive too many highway miles to justify a hybrid, so don't expect that regen to work miracles. Good points have been made about the road tax that will have to be assessed on the electricity. Also, since our secular priest class thinks carbon is a poison and nuclear is well, bad bad bad, all the electricity will end up being made by natural gas and yeah, put all the solar and wind you want, backed up with the T-Boone Pickens natural gas, it will still cost you 30 cents/kW-h retail. Oh, and add the road tax to that, so maybe 40 or 50 cents a kWh. And I really wonder where people come up with hard data about the Chevy Volt when it is not even in production. Heck, last time I checked, the engineers were pulling their hair out since they had received the batteries and the testing showed them to have higher impedance, less lifetime and worse charge retention than all the idealists had dreamed of. Anyone who has done a real engineering project knows this, that initial specs are dreamed up by marketing people, and they numbers are alway way too optimistic. We shall see, assuming Chevy ever does come out with the Volt. In real-world driving, if they only can use the first 8 kWh of charge, then the real range will be 20 miles and all my numbers still hold up. Also, I don't really care if I am off by a factor of two. The road tax and charging inefficacies will make things a lot closer to my number. Do you really think that you can put 8 or 16 kWh of charge into a battery with 100% efficiency? I guess you have never designed a high-current switch-mode power supply battery charger like I did. Good luck getting 80%. If you hit 90% that costs a ton of money, big ferrites and lots of copper. And the charge chemistry has its own inherent inefficacies, like any equilibrium reaction. And please, oh anointed ones that know so much about automotive design and electronic engineering, my whole point was not to hit an exact number. See the sentence where I talked about everything being analog? The whole point of the post was to alert more discriminating types that the electricity cost of a EV is not negligible. The cost of electricity will skyrocket in the next couple of decades because the same people that love electric cars love solar power and as I said, that is going to be some very expensive power. Please don't post how cheap it is if you have never had an accounting or economics course. If you don't understand capital investment and opportunity cost you are a "consumer" in the most insipid sense of the word. You expect us technologists to provide you with magic solutions so you can feel morally and intellectually superior, but you are only showing your arrogance and hubris. Where do you get the idea that bigger motors are more efficient and lighter than an ICE? That is the whole problem with trying to make a full-sized passenger car. Motors need magnetism, and silicon-steel is heavy. When you add in the added weight of the battery pack versus liquid fuel, the car becomes too heavy to push down the road. Look at the the Top Gear road test of the Tesla. They slogged it and got the 200 mile range down to 58 miles. And the car handled like crap because of the excess weight. It's analog people-- the harder you drive, the less the range. They also overheated the motor, and that is another huge problem, the thermal and liability problems of electrics. I will say it again-- electric motors were invented by Faraday in 1830. The internal combustion engine is the great new technology that took electric motors out of cars in the early 1900s. If you are so smart, build an electric car like I did and tell me what your real-world energy usage is. Like I said, mine was about 8kwh per 20 miles if I drove normally and that was in a very light car, too light to meet modern crash standards. And it was unable to make it over the Santa Cruz hills. Ever. Now, all that being said about 5-passenger electric family sedans, I have discovered a great electric vehicle and I will be doing an extensive write-up on it in the near future. Stay tuned, the age of electric transportation is finally here.

at 4/23/2009 12:05:23 PM, jake said:
@Paul Rako Okay not to be a hater, but as others pointed out, GM claims they only used around 30-80% SOC, so 8kWh not 16kWh. That's probably optimistic, I estimate 11-12kWh. 13.75-15kWh with charging efficiency of 80% factored in (I expect the Volt to do better, but how knows). If you want to compare, do it on two comparable cars. Like use the ~300Wh/mi number for the RAV4 EV and compare it to a normal RAV4. That way people won't complain it's a unfair comparison (the acceleration argument is iffy because the Volt goes 0-60 in 8.5, same as a Cobalt, which only gets 29mpg, not 36mpg). I'll do an example: I found consumption numbers for the MINI-E (it's on their website, 104 mile combined range, 28kWh usable capacity, factoring in 80% charging efficiency I got 337Wh/mi) and compared it to a gas MINI (32mpg combined). I get $1.29/gal for $0.12/kWh, $1.94/gal for $0.18/kWh, $2.37 /gal $0.22/kWh. I know you aren't going for complete accuracy, but it seems your cost numbers were inflated by quite a bit. Even with the current economy bringing gas prices lower (last year would have been comparing to $4 gasoline), it still compares favorably, especially if you don't hit tier2 (if you do charge the car completely on tier2 rates then all you are doing is paying the same as gasoline). Also, on your experience with an EV, a larger motor is usually more efficient (counter intuitive to an ICE). The additional weight of a larger motor is negligible compared to an ICE. Also depends on if your motor was DC or AC (most likely DC since it couldn't even go up a hill). & I'm guessing you probably used the existing transmission, which is a huge hit to efficiency. The CdA for the 2000 Civic (7.34) is probably higher than the Volt also (Prius is 6.24) so that hits efficiency. I would expect a large automaker to do better than a conversion in terms of efficiency. I'm on PG&E also. I'm well aware the energy usage is tiered. I've warned some people this may push EV bills higher than expected (much higher if on tier3,4,5). Luckily PG&E has a program specifically for EVs, with much cheaper offpeak rates (I don't know how you missed this given you have an EV, could have saved money if you planned to use an EV on the long term). I expect other power companies to do they same to encourage EV & off-peak usage.

at 4/23/2009 12:45:03 PM, jake said:
@Paul Rako Also almost forgot, on the Top Gear Track test, the often quoted 58 or so miles they got. They once tested a bunch of supercars on their track for fuel economy under track conditions. The Ferrari F430 which normally gets 11mpg got less than 2mpg on the track (less than 1/5 of regular mileage). I''ve talked to other people who regularly visits the track and they say it''s easy to get less than 1/4 of the mileage they normally get. So I don''t see what the big deal is with that number, the effect of the track seems on par with other gas cars.

at 5/7/2009 2:44:47 AM, Andrew Bissell said:
@Paul Rako A key element of your defence of your thesis appears to be that a number of years ago you tried to build an electric car and the performance it gave didn''t meet your expectations. From this one instance you reason that all electric cars will perform miserably and they are as a class a bad idea. I am sorry you weren''t able to get your EV conversion to do what you want, however I think it''s a poor piece of argumentation that starts "well I couldn''t do it so nobody can ..." Leaving aside any questions of your skill in execution, you started with converting an existing car, rather than a designed-for-electric (or dual gas and electric models) as per the RAV4 EV, EV1, Think, etc. Owners of these vehicles reported and still report 200-300 Wh/mile type performance. So the fact you were over 400 Wh/mile at best says something about your particular car but not about EVs in general. Additionally, since that generation of cars batteries have improved significantly. On the EPA cycle, a modern designed-for-EV car, the Tesla Roadster, gets 244 miles/53 KWh around 220 Wh/mile. Sincerely, I am sorry for your disappointment with your own conversion, but please don''t use it as the motivation for attacking all EVs, when the evidence just doesn''t stand up your way en-masse.

at 6/29/2009 6:39:21 PM, jackie cox said:
Tell the myth to the high school winners of the Shell Oil competition whose cars got over 2,000 miles per gallon, 2nd place was around 1500 miles per gallon, peddle yer education venture to some idiot that will believe yer journalistic jewish approved article

Anablog

Profile

RSS Feed

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Analog Design Articles

Blog

Monday, November 10, 2008

Electricity cost vs gasoline and the 135 mpg myth

Reader Comments

Post a comment

Please visit these other Reed Business sites

Display Name

Change Image Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.