Electricity cost vs gasoline and the 135 mpg myth

Perfect aswner! That really gets to the heart of it!

elicit ratified satan restrictions eugenics deductions suit tranche romanb religions wordpress

works for me

shell ran the high school science team contest to see who could design and build the car who could get the best miles per gallon. the 1st place car got over 2,000 miles per gallon, 2nd place came in around 1500 miles per gallon---its listed on the

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

@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.

@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.

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.

"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.

WOW

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.

@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.

@ 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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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...

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.

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;

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

@ 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?

@ 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.

@ 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.

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.

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

@ 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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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!

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

The writer is an idiot On the other hand I do, just love to pollute

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.

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.

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.

Plug hybrids are containers to store stale gasoline.

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?

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.

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!

Correction to the above: I meant to say "4.5 cents per mile", not "4.5 cents per gallon"

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.

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.

personal nuclear reactors..... take a hike fat neck. Literally.

personal nuclear reactors.... take a hike fat neck. Literally.

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...

To the author: please do your homework next time. Your glaring inaccuracies are an embarrassment to your profession.

Winter equinox? John you know better. Have a cup of coffee, and look forward to the winter solstice data collection next month.

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

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.

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.

Sorry, I meant KWH, not just KW. Joules would be fine too of course.

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.

spot on Rei! glad someone is paying attention.

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.