Zibb

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



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Analog Design Articles

Blog

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

More on the 135-mpg fantasy

Nov 18 2008 4:18PM | Permalink |Comments (47) |


I got a little more insight on how electric car companies can claim 135 mpg when they are not using gallons. Like most disreputable things in life, it comes from the government. This silly article in the NY Times called out the phrase “Petroleum Equivalency Factor” and that is a bit suspect in a country where electricity ranges from 7 cents to over 22 cents a kwh and where gasoline has a similar range. It took a few seconds on Google to come up with this page on the petroleum equivalency factor. This is a section of the federal law that just mandates that a gallon of gas is equivalent to 82 kwh. If you have petroleum accessories installed, I think that means a heater, then you only get 73.8 kwh in your mythical gallon of gasoline. What this is trying to do is establish a fixed ratio between the cost of gasoline the cost of electricity. Note that here in California where I pay 22 cents a kwh, this mythical gallon of gasoline would cost 18 dollars. Even at my 13-cent baseline rate that I already consume with the refrigerator and lights, this mythical gallon costs $10.66. Out in West Virginia where people pay 7 cents a kwh, the government mandated mythical gallon would cost 5.74.

This is problematical, to say the least. But look at what this does for those trying to say you get 100 mpg. I think I have made a pretty good case that a Chevy Volt can go 40 miles on 16 kwh and a Geo Metro gets about 36 mpg. 36 and 40 are close enough to equate for a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Now what the government is saying is that you can burn up 82kwh and say that you used a gallon of gasoline, when in reality it is maybe 16 (or some people that commented on my last post insist is 8 kwh). Well if the reality is that you can go 40 miles (a gallon’s worth of gas) on 8 kwh and the government allows you to use 82 kwh, well what this does in put a factor of 10 on this phony “equivalent” fuel economy. Now does the electric car really get 13 mpg? No, that is equally absurd. It all depends on what you pay for electricity and what you pay for gasoline. Today right this minute I am pretty confident $2.25 cents gasoline is a cheaper fuel than 22 cent a kwh electricity. And that is all I am trying to say— the electricity cost is not negligible, not even if you pay 7 cents a kwh. For me at this moment is more expensive to “fuel” an electric car but that is only my situation. As all the comments in last week’s blog pointed out— gasoline is sure to go back up to 3 or even 4 bucks soon, and most people don’t pay 22 cents for a kwh. True. Maybe one day gasoline will be 5 dollars a gallon and PG&E will let me buy off-peak electricity for 7 cents a kwh. If you look at a Volt and a 40 mpg car, that means it costs 5 bucks to go 40 miles in the gas car and $1.12 to go the same in the electric. That is great, but the dollar is still not negligible, it has to be accounted for just like all the other costs.

Now in last week’s blog I did jump around a bit— considering the Volt as both a pure electric and as a hybrid, and was rightly criticized for it. But see, GM themselves say the Volt is a different beast and that it should be thought of as a pure electric car that has a gasoline assist motor that only gets used when the battery pack is dead (50% empty according to the first commenter in last week’s blog, 25% according to cited sources in Wikipedia). So now lets assume that you have exhausted the battery pack in your Volt and are running on gasoline. This is where this 100-mpg rating fiasco is really approaching actionable fraud. See, when you have a series hybrid, the efficiency of the gasoline motor is severely impacted because you have to take the mechanical energy and convert it to electricity, and then convert that electricity right back to mechanical energy with the motor. Note the Wikipedia article calls out that the Volt has a 111 kW electric motor, and a 52 kW generator. This means if the pack is depleted to the point that it cannot even be used as a booster, your car now has about half the power it did when it was on pure electric. You won’t consume 53 kW continually unless you are towing or going up a hill, so hopefully you will charge up the batteries enough so that you have some backup charge for on-ramps and passing. But now think about this mode— your gasoline engine is not only powering the car, it is also charging up the batteries. You will be lucky to get 35 mpg in this mode, and maybe 45 mpg once the battery stops sucking juice and you are really careful driving. The car will just be a series hybrid that gets worse mileage than any Prius. Toyota engineers were not stupid when they made their car a parallel hybrid.

So bottom line, electricity is not free and the government lies. No big news. As before, I would like to see the electric companies pledge to let us draw power for electric cars at 10 cents a kwh or less. As to mpg ratings on the electric portion of a car, lets just go to cost per mile and forget gallons and kwh.


Related entries in: Analog | 


Reader Comments



at 11/19/2008 2:10:23 PM, Jonathan Williams said:
Insight (pun?) :o)



at 11/19/2008 2:37:06 PM, W17053 said:
How can the Battery pack fully deplete when you have the ICE to re-charge it?
Why do you NOT want to run the ICE on gas until the Battery is dead? And then add fuel?!?
You ask some funny and not related questions.



at 11/19/2008 3:07:00 PM, bempey said:
Good in general, except for this: "The car will just be a series hybrid that gets worse mileage than any Prius. Toyota engineers were not stupid when they made their car a parallel hybrid."
Future Hybrids will likely be series because it eliminates a ton (euphemistically, but also literally when applied to trucks) of un-necessary, heavy, lossy mechanical linkage.
The new F-150 electric truck, developed in England for Ford and shown at SEMA will grow a tiny engine and generator in the huge, vacant engine compartment.
Trains went that way 50 years ago, mid-size ships followed 25 years ago, and the small vehicles are just late to the party.
Contrary to your comments, the engine in a series hybrid is much more efficient, because it doesn't have to operate over a range of speeds and loads. It is optimized for just one speed and load.

As for Toyota's engineers ... unfortunately the German submarines that they copied were not series hybrids. If they were, then that's what the Prius would be. Toyota has never invented anything of significance, other than extremely cost efficient means of implementing other company's inventions!



at 11/19/2008 3:29:45 PM, John said:
"As to mpg ratings on the electric portion of a car, lets just go to cost per mile and forget gallons and kwh."
This would be the worst way to rate a vehicle and make comparisons almost impossible. If the station I usually go to is 2.09 this week and one across the road is 2.15 should my vehicle ratings change? If you can''t do the math for your situation you should not be driving a car.



at 11/19/2008 8:40:06 PM, DM said:
To add to bempey's comment, in a series hybrid, the battery acts like a low pass filter, so the engine only has to be sized for the worst case long term demand, i.e. the Eisenhower grade on I-70 west of Denver, or towing a trailer. Internal combustion engines have maximum efficiency when operating near maximum RPM, so in a serial hybrid the engine can operate at high speed for long periods, then shut off. As bempey noted, similar to a locomotive.






at 11/19/2008 11:46:00 PM, Dave W said:
Some notes on numbers. Years ago, the number for the EV-1 was quoted at 0.47 KWH per mile. My Avalon gets 26 MPG on the freeway. If the 0.47 KWH per mile is a good number for an electric car (I have seen numbers from 0.3 to 0.5), then a gallon of gasoline = 26 x 0.47 = 12.22 KWH per gallon.

If they are assuming a 100% efficiency forthe internal combustion engine (instead of 20%), then you multiply this by a factor of 1/20% = 5 => 61 KWH per gallon, which is somewhat closer to their 82 KWH. If the electric car is *less* efficient and the KWh/mile number is larger, this number will also get larger.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.



at 11/20/2008 3:34:34 AM, Tigertom said:
I hate to add confusion to an already difficult debate, but how long does the battery in a hybrid last, and how much does it cost to replace?

Many years ago I was responsible for a fleet of fork lift trucks, which included some with internal combustion engines running on propane, and some electric trucks which were recharged every night. The propane trucks were more powerful and faster, and were preferred by the operators where there was a choice. Certainly they cost more in fuel consumption, and in day to day servicing. But every few years we had to replace the batteries in the electric trucks at significant cost, and it turned out the overall cost of ownership of the electrics was, if anything, higher than the internal combustion trucks.



at 11/20/2008 5:27:10 AM, newbe said:
In theory the new batteries in an electric car like a Volt last 30 years. People are thinking of reclaiming the batteries after the car has lived it’s roughly 10 year life to be used as battery farms for solar and wind power.
I am not sure if the hybrid bateries are the same as the batteries in something like the Volt.



at 11/20/2008 6:58:56 AM, Bellhop said:
How is the average consumer to sort through all of these "facts" when engineers cannot agree? It should be pointed out though, that energy sources "track" each other cost-wise. When the cost of one source goes way up, demand shifts to another, which then goes up. Electric rates are artificially low now, but that will change very soon as regulation is phased out. If too many consumers are charging vehicles from the grid, then we are looking at upgrades to the entire electric grid infrastructure - very expensive. I would have to upgrade my own electric service in order to charge electric vehicles. What worries me the most is that in the rush to adapt new technologies we may choose those technologies that actually consume even more energy "cradle to grave".
www.tinaja.com has some interesting calculations under "Energy Fundamentals". [I am in no way affiliated with that web site.]



at 11/20/2008 7:39:27 AM, CrunchMaster said:
Allright all you hybrid-electric cool-aid drinkers, if hybrid/electric vehicles are so wonderful, why doesn't everyone use them? Why hasn't the worlds auto makers produced a plethora of products to leverage this wonderful, miracle technology to increase their profits? Why hasn't battery technology been developed to the point of allowing this pipe-dream to happen now? Because it is beyond our present technological capability to produce such a product that humans will want to use, be able to pay for, allow for some level of perceived safety, and have infrastructure to support it. It will happen, but not any time soon. Judging from history and the past propensity for government intrusion into the private sector, I would estimate approximatly 20-30 years before we will see any significant entry of hybrid or electric vehicle technology into the market. Oh, there will be the fad vehicles (golf carts), but real vehicles in sufficient numbers are still a little ways off. Much, Much more oil, please! ICE rules, hybrid-electric drools!



at 11/20/2008 8:58:14 AM, But officer . . . said:
I was only trying to be "green" by operating my engine at its most efficient point of operation.



at 11/20/2008 9:04:22 AM, Re: Newbe 30 years said:
30 year battery life?????? Wow, where did you get that number? Life cycles on most secondary cells are more in the 500 to 1000 charge-discharge cycles at best before the capacity drops below 50% of the new battery. I predict in the next few years, there will be many unhappy, disillusioned hybrid and EV owners. Soon the novelty will wear off and the consumer will understand the total life cycle cost of owning this type of vehicle.



at 11/20/2008 9:14:33 AM, Shrinking gas tank said:
Continuing on the battery issue. Would you be happy if your gas tank shrank by 10% every year? That is the reality of battery capacity for something that will be recharged every one or two days.



at 11/20/2008 1:24:09 PM, Zero X Owner said:
@ Paul
I still like your method of cost per mile. Yes, John, as prices change, your cost changes - you notice price differences at different gas stations, so this allows you to a meaningful economic choices when you consider a new vehicles'' fuel eficciency (on cost). Where you live and what you use for fuel matters.
My daily driver electric vehicle fuel cost per mile is 0.1 cents per mile. I''ve done the math several hundred times now. The worst I can get it the cost go, under any ridiculous assumptions about my power use or electric rates, is 0.6 cents per mile. That feels pretty darn insubstantial to me.

That some day when CA gas is 5 dollars a gallon and PG&E off peak cost is 7 cents per kWh already happened - this past summer. In fact, off peak rates go all the way down to 5 cents per kWh, according to PG&E.
(www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/pge/cleanair/ev4pt2.pdf
and
www.pge.com/tariffs/doc/E-9.doc)

The rest of you are hopelessly off-topic. There is no debate. The question at hand is can you directly compare gas to electric, using cost as your efficiency measure. The answer is yes. As Paul is showing us - a) electric is always much cheaper that gasoline per mile and b) how much cheaper depends very much on where and when you live. Gasoline is at very low prices now, due to a free falling economy, so expect electric to only get much, much cheaper relative to gasoline, as is was over the last two years, and still is.






at 11/20/2008 1:31:18 PM, False Premise said:
@ CrunchMaster
They are. The Prius is among the top 10 best selling cars in the US. The only major production numbers vehicle that posted both month over month and year over year sales increases last month was the hybrid Highlander. Market penetration takes time. Automobile lifecycles are about 20 years and full market penetration takes about 100 years (unless you still use a horse, you holdout). It's only 3% now for hybrids after the first 10 years. That's huge penetration. That'll keep growing, regardless, once people can get car loans again.



at 11/20/2008 1:42:57 PM, Zero X owner said:
Re: Power pack life.
ya, whatever. I've done all the math, over and over and over, and seen how my power packs perform in the real world. Even if I changed my power pack out every three years, my electric vehicle still costs less than the gasoline equivalent in every way calculable that I've thought of (dust to dust, vehcile life, up front, maintenenace and depreactiation, resale vale, fuel costs, operating costs, etc., etc.). In addition, each time I swap the pack, in seconds, I get a performance improvement (more range) as part of the deal. Just another benefit that doesn't exist with gassers that I can add to my win-win list.
Remember the FUD about power pack life in Priuses when they first came out? There are hundreds of Vancouver based Prius taxis with well over 100,000 miles on them, years and years later, with no power pack issues. Also, the novelty of beating a Maserati off the line never wears thin.



at 11/20/2008 2:05:39 PM, Zero X owner said:
@ Bellhop
As we substitute away from gas drive to electric drive, demand for electricity goes up mostly in the night time, when most electric vehicle owners charge their vehicles as they sleep (at least I do - how about you with yours?), when there is spare capacity. As there is spare capacity at that time, there''s no effect on prices. With vehicle to grid (a cheap inverter - I got mine at a big box store) electric vehicles owners can sell some of their extra juice during peak demand during the day between their commutes, when they are not using their vehicle (I like that money that I get for that). Since the vehicle is supplying electricity during peak demand, the price of electricity goes down.

How about that - electric vehicles cause electric prices to go down from their power demand smoothing capabilities, which means less inefficient instant system on-peak investment required from utilities in the future. Ask power utility researchers, such as EPRI, if you don''t believe me.
I thought my earlier blog references to off peak rates would have made this clear, but apparently not, so I''m spelling it out more here.
This is too much like shooting fish in a barrel. Next.



at 11/20/2008 2:30:34 PM, Why aren''t the utilities doing it? said:
If it makes money to buy off-peak power and store it in a battery and then sell it back to the utility at peak rates, why doesn''t the utilities do this?




at 11/20/2008 2:35:56 PM, Zero X Owner said:
@ Paul
I applied your peculiar situation of 22 cents a kWh and $2.25 a gallon gas (wildly high on electric and wildly low on gasoline compared to my situation) to my electric vehicle. The resulting electric costs per mile are still less than half the gasoline costs for an equivalent gasser, using only your situation. You can be pretty confident all you want, but you''re wrong if you consider a real world, existing electric vehicle, such as mine. My real world electric vehicle, in your situation, is way cheaper to run on electricity than a comporable gasser is and way, way, way cheaper to run on electricity in my situation.

Your choice to use some yet to be (if it all) manufactured vehicle, no earlier than 2011, with today''s unusually low gasoline costs (rather than at least a one year average with a five year trend applied out three years) strikes me as at least as dishonest as GM''s attempt to game the concept of mpg.





at 11/20/2008 2:53:37 PM, Zero X owner said:
Why aren't the utilities doing it?

They are.

Your question was a joke, right?

There's no if. I'm making money doing it. Right this second.

Some utilities are doing it , without batteries, by asking consumers to not use on peak power and use off peak power instead. Other utilites have been doing exactly what you've described, using batteries, for some time, only its called cost saving, not profit, when a company interacts with itself. Welcome to last century. Maybe by 2100, folks on this blog will know what industry has been doing in the last generation.

It takes two to tango. This a better dance when you have at least one comuer (with an electric vehicle) and one utility. A utility would be willing to pay me less than peak rates for electric vehicle's power as it could make money from it by charging peak rates. I'm willing to sell it at less than peak rates as I got it at off peak rates. Get it now?


The logical fallacy employed by the original questioner is called suppression of alternatives or a leading question. The textbook example is "When did you stop beating your wife?." Is someone here practicing to become a paralegal or are really that willfully uninformed?



at 11/20/2008 3:35:51 PM, Zero X Owner said:
I've been basing my comments on the appearance of this site in general, that it is populated by folks knowlegable about and interested in modern eletronics and electrical industry innnovation and development in specific areas. Perhaps that appearance is incorrect in this part of the site, at least related to electric drive transportation and electrical utilities?



at 11/20/2008 6:32:18 PM, Response to Zero said:
No, it's not a joke. Believe me I know all about pumping ponds and other energy storage schemes. Who is using batteries right now on a utility scale for peak shaving? How about some links to a utility doing this? If this were truly lucrative, we'd see it everywhere.



at 11/20/2008 6:53:21 PM, Hello, Zero X ?? said:
I'm waiting with baited breath for your all-knowledgable, comprehensive, insightful, answer. We all bow to your superior intellect and anxiously await your response.



at 11/20/2008 7:28:02 PM, Flint said:
New tech in Europe the storage H.V.B.S. Peak shaving thing.

The issue for them(utilities) will be having the localized sustainable capacity once mass produced or converted EV'S start rolling. They-utilities (due to CEO-bean counter no-brainer)are behind it due to increased sales....

But they only know what their distribution ammeters, crompton or some other kind of feeder ammeter tells them. Most do not have anything more than a peak target? Pure peak chaotic impedance heat thrombosis...lol



at 11/20/2008 9:26:52 PM, Zero X Owner said:
I'm just reporting what I (one consumer) am doing in the real world with a real world electric vehicle. I don't know why everyone wouldn't want to do that. Since you folks are the real utility experts perhaps you tell me why all utilities don't do what I can do all the time, when I'm not even an expert. Maybe they hate money? Your logic is a little weird - since I can do it, all huge commercial establishments everywhere must do it, 100%, instantly or you attack the whole concept? That's not how technology innovation happens. Total market penetration takes decades to centuries, such as it did with gas engines, which is nice for gradual adjustments. We're just getting to the point when lots Joe Shmoes like me can make no-brainers like electric drive work for themselves. We'll drag the supply chain faster and faster after with our demand, given time, no worries.

Once again, the comments here seem to have gone wildly off topic.



at 11/21/2008 7:22:58 AM, Bellhop said:
I am glad that Zero X Owner has found a solution that works for him. I am still looking for solutions. So far, I have saved substantially through route planning and timing. Yes, I make a lot of "off peak" use of roadways. As soon as I find something that makes sense for MY situation, I apply it!



at 11/21/2008 8:12:29 AM, Zero X owner said:
@ Bellhop
Yay. I have to agree with you that minor self directed behavior modification is easier and cheaper than buying a fun, new vehicle. I was just concerned that most folks don''t know what all the options are, there are so many new ones coming on line every year. We get into habits and then don''t think about them or notice what''s new. I''ve been recently noticing how much oil is spread all over and ground into the roads (mostly, those darker areas you see towards the lane center) (not cosidering what gets washed off by rain into our watersheds). I never would have given it a second thought if I didn''t now have a vehicle where I know it''s not me that''s dripping oil all over.
I have a military friend who just bought a new, small hybrid SUV (32 mpg real world average). I''m happy, because he bought an appropriate vehicle that he actually uses to make and save money, such as for going in the mountains hunting for his winter meat, as opposed to the giant, never been off road, 65K, 10 mpg average, E85 gasser SUVs I see in the city with only one person in them, towing air. My friend''s job helps improve military fuel efficiency through electronics. If the big domestic automakers won''t step up to the plate more and faster, maybe we''ll have to get our electric vehicles in the future from Army Surplus stores.
Last, using Paul''s reported understanding of the goverment methods, my electric vehicle gets 4,100 mpg. Cool. I get between 600 and 822 mpge using a cost method like Paul does. I like Paul''s method, but no matter how you slice it, 21st century real world production electric vehicles win big on fuel costs, national, one year average.



at 11/21/2008 1:25:09 PM, Latest from Bush/Cheney's DOE said:
From the latest November Short Term Energy Outlook:

"Electricity -

Prices. The recent drop in power generation fuel costs has caused some utilities to reconsider the steep price increases announced this past summer."

Electricity prices continue to be far more stable than liquid fuel prices. Want to get off the upchuck up-down-up yo-yo of gasoline prices and funding the middle east to give us imported oil? Move to electric drive and diversify fuel sources for transportation. It doesn't have to be all electric, nor everyone, nor instantly, but every person who moves to at least part electric makes a positive difference. Move to electric and make a Hummer more affordable (for a little while). Using less gasoline keeps gasoline prices lower than they would be otherwise, and electric allows us to do that with without any sacrifice. Quite the opposite - we save money and gain performance. Paul - will your next electric vehicle conversion be a Hummer?



at 12/2/2008 1:40:22 PM, Dave W said:
A little engineering. Driving a hybrid that can charge from the electric grid overnight saves hydrocarbons and oil. Electricity comes from hydro, nuclear, natural gas and coal, with a small percentage from burning fuel oil. The electric plants strive for 50% efficiency or better, so they get ~2.5x the efficiency of a gasoline engine (20%0 and ~1.5 the efficiency of a diesel (35%) in terms of KWh per lb of fuel burned. More important, cars that run even partially on grid electricity directly reduce the amount of oil used for transportation, the major user of oil. So, bring on the pluggable hybrids as a simple, direct method of reducing dependency on foreign oil. The nice part is that it is already in progress. If I remember correctly, Toyota has sold more than 800,000 Prius autos to date.



at 12/2/2008 1:52:10 PM, Unrefined Engineer said:
I will gladly drive my 8-year-old gas-guzzling, greenhouse gas-belching, 16mpg Chevy truck, thank you. It''s paid for, and no matter how you manipulate the math, the overall cost of ownership (including what I paid) is far less than any new electric vehicle that won''t haul my family or my trailer or a load of wood or...



at 12/2/2008 4:23:47 PM, Magnet said:
In general, I agree with what Paul has said - "135mpg FANTASY". It is a fantasy to ignore the cost, value, or energy of electricity and just count the gasoline used for mpg, and that is what most of the adds and articals I''ve seen have alluded to.

I''ve own a hybrid and I''ve saved on gasoline the cost of a new battery pack in only two years (compared to the 28mpg car I drove before). This is a REAL savings, I''ve kept track of every .01 gallon I''ve ever put in it. And I don''t expect to have to replace the batter for a long, long time to come (California requires the manufacturer to warrantee the battery for 10 years or 150,000 miles, not prorated, either). So a hybrid makes good sense to me.

Lastly, many electric companies "time shift" with pumped water storage (specifically, Grand Coulee dam in Washington and Diamond lake in California). Who says you need batteries to do this? Water doesn''t weare out!



at 12/2/2008 5:22:16 PM, fgf said:
The "why don''t utilities store energy in batteries" discussion gets into a chicken-and-egg issue.

Amory Lovins of the the Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) has been discussing a "Smart Garage" concept which circumvents this problem.

The basic concept is that an increasing number of electric vehicles creates a distributed energy storage system. If the vehicle can be charged "off peak", very little more is needed to allow it to be slightly discharged during peak hours. In effect the vehicle owner can choose to sell back some of his off-peak energy.

This wouldn''t make much sens for owners who are routinely exceeding their electric-only range, but could be quite attractive for the many who don''t.

What I find the most intriguing is that this approach provides a pathway to the eventual widespread use of load averaging without requiring the up-front investment in huge battery farms.

Think about the aggregate storage capacity of millions of EVs...



at 12/2/2008 6:24:08 PM, Curt said:
You are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Tesla Motors, for example, reports that it gets 9km per kWh of input electricity, or 5.5mi/kWh. This is basically consistent with the claims of 40 miles on half of the Volt''s 16kWh battery capacity (and there is agreement that the Volt goes off pure electric well before the pack is fully discharged



at 12/2/2008 6:25:54 PM, Curt said:
Arrgh -- it swallowed 90% of my comment, and I don't have time to do it over now..



at 12/2/2008 8:37:01 PM, Curt said:
Let's try this again. Tesla Motors reports test results that its Roadster gets 9km per kWh of input electricity, or 5.5mi/kWh, for a car far more powerful than a Volt or a Metro. The claim that the Volt gets 40 miles on 8kWh, half its total battery capacity of 16 kWh, is more conservative than this. You report that the Volt turns on its gas engine well before the pack is fully discharged, combined with the fact that charging would stop before fully charged, to permit regen at any time, certainly makes the use of only half of the capacity for pure-electric operation plausible.

In cost terms, at the typical US price of $0.10 per kWh, this comes out to 55 miles per dollar. (Your $0.22 per kWh is an aberration due to panic signing of long-term, high-cost contracts during the power crisis several years ago.) With a gas price of $2.50 per gallon (lower than the average over the past several years), a car would need to get over 135 mpg to match this fuel cost.

In energy terms, a gallon of regular gas contains about 130 MJ per US gallon, or 36 kWh/gal. So a Geo Metro getting 36mpg is getting 1.0 miles/kWh of fuel input. It takes about 1.25J in raw crude to provide 1.0J in refined, delivered gasoline, so it is getting net 0.8 miles/kWh in "well to wheel" analysis.

It takes about 2J of raw feedstock energy to produce 1J of delivered electrical energy, so the electric vehicle is getting 2.75 miles/kWh net. The equivalent mpg is therefore 36*(2.75/0.8) = 124 mpg.

Of course, the numbers can change around significantly depending on the assumptions, but claims of equivalent mileage of well over 100mpg are plausible on reasonable assumptions. Whether this justifies the additional cost of the car is a different question entirely.



at 12/2/2008 8:53:49 PM, Stevie Blunder said:
Has everyone forgotten the principle advantage of electric vehicles? It''s understood that if you are not constantly stopping and starting, climbing hills and rolling down the other side, then the simpest most direct power system is best. But electric vehicles regenerate "fuel" when stopping or rolling down hill. This is something an ICE can not do.



at 12/3/2008 5:50:58 AM, Mr. Smith said:
Here's a question: Everyone knows locomotives are the original hybrids. Why don't we see hybrid tractor trailers? Diesel seems pretty expensive. You can count on the fact that trucking companies are very good at assessing costs per mile, including fuel, maintenance, etc. Yet diesel electric trucks aren't even on the map. How come?



at 12/3/2008 7:18:42 AM, Curt said:
Mr. Smith:

The real reason that locomotives for trains are (serial) hybrids is that mechanical transmissions are not feasible for trains, given their huge mass. The "shifting" function is handled by varying the field strength of the drive motor.

18-wheel trucks, with their 18-speed mechanical transmissions, push that technology probably about as far as it can go (I haven't checked lately), but it's still obviously feasible.

Locomotives don't (presently) have any significant battery storage, but GE seems to have announced that they are working on it. (It's a bit confusing, because the announcement I heard said they were working on hybrid locomotives, which of course have existed for a long time.)



at 12/3/2008 11:31:00 AM, Brian said:
Commercial trucks don''t use a hybrid system because of weight.
Trains are not limited to 80,000 lb so the extra weight is not a detriment to usable load. That is the main reason that commercial trucks are not made with hybrid electric drive systems. But there are several companies working on hydraulic hybrid commercial vehicles.




at 12/5/2008 3:46:30 PM, Slider1 said:
Honestly, couldn't you understand the equivelency of two energies without a lesson?

If I go x miles on a gallon f gas and I go the same distance on x batery energy...are they not equivelent? You are really stretching it looking for topics to write. Maybe this blog thang is a wast of your time.



at 12/6/2008 6:36:09 AM, Slowmotion said:
Some have noted that if various electricity/hybrid related technologies are so much better than some older technologies, why haven''t all commercial companies already switched to new tech...

Because in business, new products or installations or services or whatever all have startup costs



at 12/6/2008 6:45:16 AM, Slowmotion said:
Sigh, apparently my long message got also cut short, very short..



at 12/6/2008 6:47:07 AM, Slowmotion said:
Retry:

Some have noted that if various electricity/hybrid related technologies are so much better than some older technologies, why haven't all commercial companies already switched to new tech...

Because in business, new products or installations or services or whatever all have startup costs; designing and testing the product, planning, etc. Every new thing is a risk and a cost; the best "new" product is one that requires little (or even no) initial cost. In practice, change the wrapping of candy, few small changes to a car, and they have a "new" product to advertise and sell. Businesses hang on the their old designs as long as possible, and sometimes even a bit longer, to get as much profits from the initial costs they once made.

For gasoline using cars, this means that car companies stick to their old designs and technologies as long as possible, i.e. as long as people keep buying them in large enough volumes.

Another reason is stupidity or lack of knowledge. People may claim that multi-million/billion businesses don't make silly mistakes and do use experts to get right information. BS. You can read examples of large scale mistakes monthly, if not almost weekly. Banks having nasty IT security holes (one would assume that with their multi-billion businesses they could afford to use good experts and plenty of testing.. but nooo..), train transportation control systems breaking almost nation-wide simply because one single network card was not backed up by duplication...

Or, if they end up using experts, they have a chance to receive incorrect/incomplete/one-sided information from paid "experts". Or end up reading texts from (perhaps good-willing) non-experts (like Paul) puking out convincing looking but, politely put, questionable "facts". Or if they by pure luck get it all, they also read about both sides and thus don't know which side is right, and stick to the old 100% working money making they already have.

In car/electricity business decision makers are "Money", "Money" & "Money". I think at least americans should already know how stupid and ignorant that triplet is.

In short, do not use big business as any kind of example of progress. Look into the small carage companies, educated hobbyists, or, in the rare case, places where there is no current/old technology at all or the old tech is very expensive (applies mostly to difficult things like deep ocean, deep drilling, space, ...)



at 12/9/2008 11:13:11 AM, ADK said:
True efficiencies in motive power.. Talking Fuel BTUs to Horsepower hitting the road...

ICE = 23%

Hybrid = maybe 28%

Electric = 6% to 12%..

Where does all that energy go tree huggers?.... If you know the answer to this question you would be qualified to have an opinion, but then your opinion about the eco-impact of an electric car would be shattered.

The electric car scam is a bubble waiting for pin-pricks of reality to pop.

I am proud to be one of those "pricks".



at 12/12/2008 8:46:36 AM, Zero X Owner said:
@ADK
I don't know where you get your numbers, but they are wildly wrong for my electric vehicle. What you choose for your original source of power for electricity apparently matters in your calcultaions. For the best apples to apples, compared efficiency at the vehicle level, which is what consumers care about. Electric wins, but feel free to hang onto your obsolete pure gasser as long as the fools keep churning them put. I'll smile as I pass you on the road.
Another V2G project went on line this month, so I guess utilities are starting to do it everywhere. Several more utility are starting to develop V2G plans and programs to catch up to the electric vehicle owners already doing it. Or do you not want the alt energy economy to grow? We gotta make jobs somewhere. They're sure not in building pure gasoline vehicles.



at 12/13/2008 8:55:26 PM, Mr. 0 X Man said:
I suppose one small advantage for those of us that have stupid gassers is the ability to drive more than 50 miles without having to stop and recharge. When I take a 1000 mile trip, I stop for gas twice. It doesn''t matter if it''s 2 PM or 2 AM. Gas is always available and I stop for ten minutes and then I''m on my way. How long would it take your miracle mobile to trek 1000 miles? It''s great that you''re saving massive amounts of money on your choice of transportation, but there are severe limitations compared to the gassers. And buying one vehicle for trips and one for commuting isn''t economically feasible. By the way, ICEs have undergone tremendous progress in the last decade. Low emissions, 300 HP and 30 MPG aren''t mutually exclusive anymore. By the way, what is this magical car you own? Your numbers seem wildly optimistic compared to my short experience with a Prius. Your comment from 11/20 , "My daily driver electric vehicle fuel cost per mile is 0.1 cents per mile.", equates to 1000 miles for $1. That just doesn''t compute for me.



at 5/1/2009 2:39:00 PM, joyepak said:
Hmmm... I want you to respond well to my silly evaluation I have a fresh joke for you) What does a dog get when it finishes obedience school? A pet degree.

Post a comment



Display Name

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


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites