Chevy Volt

[GostHacked]

Good choice. Voted "Green car of the year" in 2008. A quick search tells me it gets 30 mpg in the city and 41 mpg on the highway. Price is about $23,000.

The cost of the current production of electricity tells me that rechargeable batteries are not the technology of the future for transportation. I'm betting hydrogen has a better future technologically. Millions of cars plugging into the grid is a little taxing. The biggest drawback to hydrogen is how to tax it - revenue opportunities and losses are even more important considerations than votes. Economics trumps virtue. If necessary a little propaganda can get votes - Like a documentary on inconvenient truths or something.

Hydrogen? That's very combustible. The reason it's no longer used in dirigibles.

[Wilber]

Good choice. Voted "Green car of the year" in 2008. A quick search tells me it gets 30 mpg in the city and 41 mpg on the highway. Price is about $23,000.

The cost of the current production of electricity tells me that rechargeable batteries are not the technology of the future for transportation. I'm betting hydrogen has a better future technologically. Millions of cars plugging into the grid is a little taxing. The biggest drawback to hydrogen is how to tax it - revenue opportunities and losses are even more important considerations than votes. Economics trumps virtue. If necessary a little propaganda can get votes - Like a documentary on inconvenient truths or something.

I also own a Jetta TDI and would likely buy another diesel at this point but I am certainly open to other technologies. Hydrogen would be wonderful but the problems with it are far greater than just taxation. The main source of hydrogen is through a process called steam reforming and it comes from hydrocarbons. In other words, oil and natural gas. Other processes such as electrolysis from water require large amounts of electricity. To maintain hydrogen in a liquid form requires storing it at extremely low temperatures (it boils at -253 degrees C)and just using it as a compressed gas wouldn't allow much more range than a pure electric car. The problems associated with using hydrogen make diesel, hybrids and electrics the only choices for the immediate future when it comes to more efficient vehicles.

The gasoline internal combustion engine has had the benefit of over 120 years of development. Rather than dumping on manufacturers like GM for producing cars like the Volt, we should be happy they are willing to stick their necks out and try these new technologies. That is the only way progress can be made.

[Bonam]

Hydrogen has extremely low energy density which makes it an extremely impractical fuel. The cost of creating and transporting the stuff to places where they can be used by cars is huge. It will take some significant technological breakthoughs to deal with this issue.

Actually it has a very high energy density, per unit mass. It's the volumetric energy density that is low, when stored as a pressurized gas at moderate pressures. There are multiple solutions to this issue, such as:

1) Storing it as a cryogenic liquid. This boosts the energy density to the needed range, but it must be kept at very low temperatures. It evaporates over time, 2 weeks to completely evaporate from any reasonable passive insulation system. Plugging your car in to run a built-in active cryocooler while your not driving, can, however, eliminate these fuel losses. Downside is the very high cost of cryogenic components. A roof-mounted solar panel powered cryocooler could eliminate hydrogen losses in appropriate climates.

2) Storing it in a chemical compound that has a much higher density of hydrogen, such as a hydrocarbon. For example, methane gas (CH4) has 2x the volumetric density of hydrogen as hydrogen gas (H2). Downside of course is that using a hydrocarbon as fuel will still release carbon compounds including CO2. Advantages are substantial, such as existing distribution infrastructure for hydrocarbon fuels, ease of storage, and the ability to prove the viability of fuel cell systems without first investing heavily in hydrogen infrastructure.

3) Storing it in a metal hydride throughout the car's structure, making use of much greater available space. A good solution, and metal hydrides have been developed and testes extensively with some prototype systems now using them, but still needs further R&D before it's ready for use.

4) Storing it as a pressurized gas at very high pressures. There is no (relevant) fundamental limit to the pressure you can store it at, but higher pressure tanks means they need to be thicker and more robust mechanically, thus they add mass and cost. Advances in materials and manufacturing techniques continue to make higher pressures more feasible over time. For example a carbon-nanotube reinforced aluminum-lithium alloy tank could be extremely light and hold several times higher pressure than conventional tanks of the same thickness. Another 5-10 years for nanotubes to be ready for such applications.

5) Far future technology: storing hydrogen in a metastable quantum solid state.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Bonam

[TimG]

Actually it has a very high energy density, per unit mass. It's the volumetric energy density that is low, when stored as a pressurized gas at moderate pressures.

I was implicitly including the weight of the container when I made the comment about density (i.e. higher pressures == heavier container, lighter container == less energy).

There are multiple solutions to this issue, such as:

None of which are economically feasible at this time. I think batteries are a much better approach because: 1) we do not need to build brand new supply network; 2) less energy consumed during transport; 3) much wider set of choices for producing energy.

Bottom line, its make more sense to use the energy consumed creating/transporting hydrogen to power cars directly via batteries. Do you have any reason to believe the energy density of solid containing hydrogen would be less than a lithium/polymer battery (a technology that exists today)? If not those solutions are not even worth looking at.

Edited November 26, 2010 by TimG

[Bonam]

Bottom line, its make more sense to use the energy consumed creating/transporting hydrogen to power cars directly via batteries. Do you have any reason to believe the energy density of solid containing hydrogen would be less than a lithium/polymer battery (a technology that exists today)? If not those solutions are not even worth looking at.

Yes, that's the whole point of hydrogen fuel cells, you can get better energy density per mass of fuel. Whether it will turn out to be practical for large scale use in the near-medium term remains to be seen. Lithium polymer batteries are very expensive, metal hydrides have the potential to be cheaper. Additionally, they do not suffer from energy degradation over time like batteries do.

I do know that usable vehicles with 400+ km range have been built using hydrogen powered fuel cells thus far, to about the same performance and price level as pure electrics. Compare for example a Honda Clarity (fuel cell) and other fuel cell powered prototypes to a Tesla Roadster (pure electric), both very expensive, both 400-500 km range, both have only been produced in several hundred units. Then there's also the BMW hydrogen internal combustion engine cars, again, very expensive, very limited production, comparable performance.

I'd say the technologies are both (fuel cell and electric) progressing and neither is a clear winner as yet. We'll probably know in 10 years which system wins out, or perhaps both will become viable and we'll have a wide range of choices in the power systems for our vehicles: gas, diesel, fuel cell, electric, hybrids of the various systems. Bottom line, both battery and fuel cell systems will improve hugely as technology continues to advance over the foreseeable future.

There is no reason many of these technologies will not end up being used in concert. For example, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle powered by cryogenic or compressed gas hydrogen has the disadvantage of the fuel dissipating over time, so it will of necessity have a large battery as well to provide power to drive if the vehicle has been parked for a long time and lost its hydrogen. Such a vehicle could benefit from being plugged into a wall to charge the battery. It could then also have an on-board electrolyzer and/or cryocooler to produce hydrogen from water or to prevent hydrogen from evaporating. The whole system could then work like a hybrid, with regenerative braking charging the battery during city driving and electrolyzing water if the battery is full, and the fuel cell kicking in to provide power over longer trips or when more power is needed.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Good choice. Voted "Green car of the year" in 2008. A quick search tells me it gets 30 mpg in the city and 41 mpg on the highway. Price is about $23,000.

The cost of the current production of electricity tells me that rechargeable batteries are not the technology of the future for transportation. I'm betting hydrogen has a better future technologically. Millions of cars plugging into the grid is a little taxing. The biggest drawback to hydrogen is how to tax it - revenue opportunities and losses are even more important considerations than votes. Economics trumps virtue. If necessary a little propaganda can get votes - Like a documentary on inconvenient truths or something.

30 mpg in the city and 41 mpg on the highway.

Yeah that seems about right. I meant to say kpg.

Millions of cars plugging into the grid is a little taxing.

Maybe, but on the other hand its a very elegant solution. It makes sense to just have one energy grid. Currently we have the electrical grid, and then we also have a network of hundreds of thousands of gas stations and hundreds of thousands of tanker trucks driving all over the world burning energy.

I also think the electric motor is a much better platform to build on than an internal combustion engine. Its infinately more simple... it really only needs to have one moving part. And it produces very usable output... good torque curve. It can also generate electricity to put back into its batteries while braking or going down hills.

The problem with hydrogen besides the storage issues mentioned by others (those could be overcome with technology) is that if you use steam reforming to produce the hydrogen then youre still using fossil fuels and releasing lots of CO2. If you use electrolysis then it takes a lot more electricity to produce the gas than the energy you get out of it. Significant breakthroughs in how we produce the gas would be required for a hydrogen economy to be much of option.

Edited November 26, 2010 by dre

[waldo]

My link

Most other cars use up a tank of gas going 299 miles. The Volt, to reiterate, used 2.36 gallons over 299 miles.

The official EPA MPG is 93 MPG equivalent for all electric and 37 mpg gas only. My link ETA 60 MPG is the official overall combined number.

In fact, the EPA has defined a standard way to do this calculation:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14446-filed.pdf

If you apply those calculations to the numbers provided by motor trend you end up with an efficiency of 33 MPG - a number that good but nothing to rave about. It is also less than many gas powered vehicles.

For my calculations I assumed 40mpg on 2.3 gal of gas and then 40 miles per 16KWh (the capacity of the Volt battery). The conversion factor is 12.3 KWh/gal.

299 - 2.4*40 = 203 miles

(203/40)*16 = 81 KWh

81/12.3 = 6.5 gals

299/(6.5 + 2.4) = 33.2 mpg

BTW - at $3/gal gas per 0.10/KWh the cost for the 299 miles is $15.20

A 33 mpg gas car would cost $27.0 so there is a benefit to be had until the enviros succeed is making our electricity supply much more costly.

There is also some political manipulation going on at the EPA. The "offical" numbers do not use the standard I provided and instead use the a direct conversion from KWh to gasoline that does not take into account the energy consumed creating and transmitting the electricity.

The DOE standard I linked does take this into account which is why it is more credible than the 'offical' numbers. It also takes into account the energy used refining and transporting gasoline to be fair. This means the EPA pure electric MPGe overstates reality by about 3x. The true MPGe is around 33 for all electric. Ironically, using the gas likely brings the MPGe efficiency up a bit.

That said, the DOE estimates are estimates that depend on how the electricity is produced. The number would look a lot better if a Volt was used in a grid with all Hydro electric. The assumption is that any incremental demand created by electric cars will have to be met with natural gas powered generators.

don't eat that Elmer... that there's bullshit! Do you actually think no one will check/challenge your nonsense? As much as you revel in any opportunity to deride the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), do you actually recognize the EPA as being at arms-length from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)? In this particular example, the EPA is, in fact, following the DOE's "Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation for Electric & Hybrid Vehicles"... you could have found that same DOE document you linked to on the EPA's web-site - here: so let's examine what you actually did in your above calculation, particularly in drawing reference to your linked DOE document. What you actually did is completely ignore what the DOE's Petroleum-Equivalency Factor (PEF) calculation is actually about... and then when TrueMetis links to the actual EPA MPGe you claim, "political manipulation going on at the EPA". Oh really? What should we call your particular manipulation?

what you really did is selectively pull one piece of the DOE PEF calculation... the "gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity = 12.307 KWh/gal", while conveniently omitting the rest of the PEF calculation, in particular, the Fuel Content Factor (the 6.67 multiplier). Let's be clear here... this is the DOE calculation... the DOE you played up and favoured, while throwing derision at the EPA (assuming the EPA had, as you stated, "politically manipulated").

- the DOE explanation of the Fuel Content Factor (the 6.67 multiplier - the 1/0.15 factor):

The Fuel Content Factor is included for these reasons:

(i) Consistency with existing regulatory and statutory procedures;

(ii) Provision of similar treatment to manufacturers of all types of alternative fuel vehicles; and

(iii) Simplicity and ease of use.

The efficiency of EVs varies widely as a function of motor and drivetrain efficiency, driving cycle, and the round-trip efficiency of the battery. The energy source which offers the greatest benefits depends on many factors, and the energy source that offers the greatest benefit to one set of users may not be the most beneficial for a different set of users or the general public. These benefits may vary by geography, fuel and generating method.

As noted in the NOPR, DOE invested considerable time and effort in attempting to develop a method that could rigorously account for the advantages to the Nation offered by electric vehicles compared to conventional vehicles, but was unable to identify a method that was sufficiently objective, robust, and consistent with established policy directions.

Thus, DOE stands by its proposal to provide electric vehicles the same reported-fuel-efficiency incentive (the 1/0.15 factor) that other alternative fuel vehicles currently enjoy.

even though your calculation makes no sense on it's own... you don't grasp what the DOE's Petroleum-Equivalency Factor (PEF) calculation actually is... or how to realize it... or how to extend upon it to realize an effective MPGe. I will, however, take the liberty of actually using your failed calculation attempt and apply the DOE's Fuel Content Factor (the 6.67 multiplier)... just to see what pops out - hey?

For my calculations I assumed 40mpg on 2.3 gal of gas and then 40 miles per 16KWh (the capacity of the Volt battery). The conversion factor is 12.3 KWh/gal.

299 - 2.4*40 = 203 miles

(203/40)*16 = 81 KWh

81/12.3

* 6.67

=

6.5

0.99 gals

299/(

6.5

0.99

+ 2.4) =

33.2

88

mpg

of course, the result (as combined) makes as much sense as your futile attempt - none... I just thought it prudent to include one of the many facets of the DOE's calculation you conveniently ignored; again, the DOE's Fuel Content Factor.

TrueMetis' earlier link provides the Volt's actual distinct MPGe and MPG numbers... as well as the combined overall number:

60 MPG is the official overall combined number (MPGe + MPG) of fuel economy behavior over lifetime of the vehicle.

It would be 93 if driving purely electric and

37 if you only drove using gas.

Edited November 26, 2010 by waldo

[TimG]

what you really did is selectively pull one piece of the DOE PEF calculation... the "gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity = 12.307 KWh/gal", while conveniently omitting the rest of the PEF calculation, in particular, the Fuel Content Factor (the 6.67 multiplier).

Here is what the DOE report says about the "Fuel Content Factor".

The 1/0.15 factor used in the equation is not intended to be a scarcity factor per se, but it does result in a very substantial adjustment to the raw calculated energy efficiency of electric vehicles. It is included to reward electric vehicles’ benefits to the Nation relative to petroleum-fueled vehicles, in a manner consistent with the regulatory treatment of other types of alternative fueled vehicles and the authorizing legislation

Translation: it is an arbitrary fudge factor designed to make EVs look better than they are because EVs are "politically desirable" vehicles.

IOW: The numbers I quote are the REAL MPGe. The EPA numbers are a fiction designed to achieve political objectives and even the DOE admits that clearly. You have to be pretty dense to take the EPA numbers as real measures of EV efficiency.

Edited November 26, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Millions of cars plugging into the grid is a little taxing.

[TimG]

Meanwhile, back in the real world where companies only care about making a profit:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/incentive-battles-push-trucks-to-top-of-market/article1815673/

Incentives at “stupefying” levels on pickup trucks and other models are causing such a transformation of the Canadian vehicle market that trucks are poised to outsell cars this year for the first time ever.

[msj]

Meanwhile, back in the real world where companies only care about making a profit:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/incentive-battles-push-trucks-to-top-of-market/article1815673/

I found this article much more interesting: Trucks are selling – but not as fast as auto makers claim

But then, I'm an accountant, so I find such asinine revenue recognition techniques to be interesting.

[kimmy]

Thanks for the video, that was very interesting. The idea that the electric car could actually help the electrical industry by balancing power consumption more evenly through the day is pretty amazing.

Power generating stations would be more efficient if they could store power during low demand periods to cover the requirements of peak demand hours. But having such a massive bank of batteries would be prohibitively expensive. Now there's this emerging technology that in the foreseeable future will create a massive pool of battery capacity out in the marketplace, and giving consumers the ability to rent some of their battery capacity to the power generating stations when they're not using it seems like an ideal solution.

-k

[TimG]

Thanks for the video, that was very interesting. The idea that the electric car could actually help the electrical industry by balancing power consumption more evenly through the day is pretty amazing.

The first thing we need are electrical cars that people will actually buy. There seems to be some progress but most projections for EVs sales are modest.

It is also worth noting that the model described above is only viable without fast charging. If fast charging becomes something that people demand then EVs will bring the grid to its knees.

I also wonder how many people would be willing to live with the risk that their battery may be depleted by the grid if they have an unexpected need to use their car.

Edited November 27, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

what you really did is selectively pull one piece of the DOE PEF calculation... the "gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity = 12.307 KWh/gal", while conveniently omitting the rest of the PEF calculation, in particular, the Fuel Content Factor (the 6.67 multiplier). Let's be clear here... this is the DOE calculation... the DOE you played up and favoured, while throwing derision at the EPA (assuming the EPA had, as you stated, "politically manipulated").

Here is what the DOE report says about the "Fuel Content Factor".

The 1/0.15 factor used in the equation is not intended to be a scarcity factor per se, but it does result in a very substantial adjustment to the raw calculated energy efficiency of electric vehicles. It is included to reward electric vehicles’ benefits to the Nation relative to petroleum-fueled vehicles, in a manner consistent with the regulatory treatment of other types of alternative fueled vehicles and the authorizing legislation

Translation: it is an arbitrary fudge factor designed to make EVs look better than they are because EVs are "politically desirable" vehicles.

IOW: The numbers I quote are the REAL MPGe. The EPA numbers are a fiction designed to achieve political objectives and even the DOE admits that clearly. You have to be pretty dense to take the EPA numbers as real measures of EV efficiency.

no – your self-serving, fossil-fuel shilling denseness will not prevail here. You gleefully helped yourself to a portion of your linked DOE document; again… the calculated subset of the overall PEF calculation; i.e., the "gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity = 12.307 KWh/gal"… and you proceeded to selectively use that in your TimG home-grown calculation on the state of the Chevy Volt MPGe. You really should have tried to understand how that, “12.307 KWh/gal - gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity” was calculated, and what it really means/implies. Go back and look again at the actual variable names within that calculation… e.g. “U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation efficiency”.

effectively, what you did in your TimG home-grown calculation is to negate the advantages of the Volt recharging with non-fossil fuel electricity sources (from hydro, solar, wind, nuclear)… or even from the more efficient combined cycle gas turbine power plants where the, “gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity” increases to 21.7 KWh/gal (from your selectively preferred 12.3 KWh/gal figure).

of course, one can’t easily determine the source(s) when anyone charges their hybrid/electric… hence… one of the rationale behind the application of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fuel Content Factor (the 6.67 multiplier)… what you fossil-fuel shillingly call the, “fudge factor”. Let me re-quote the DOE statement concerning the Fuel Content Factor:

- the DOE explanation of the Fuel Content Factor (the 6.67 multiplier - the 1/0.15 factor):

The Fuel Content Factor is included for these reasons:

(i) Consistency with existing regulatory and statutory procedures;

(ii) Provision of similar treatment to manufacturers of all types of alternative fuel vehicles; and

(iii) Simplicity and ease of use.

The efficiency of EVs varies widely as a function of motor and drive-train efficiency, driving cycle, and the round-trip efficiency of the battery. The energy source which offers the greatest benefits depends on many factors, and the energy source that offers the greatest benefit to one set of users may not be the most beneficial for a different set of users or the general public. These benefits may vary by geography, fuel and generating method.

As noted in the NOPR, DOE invested considerable time and effort in attempting to develop a method that could rigorously account for the advantages to the Nation offered by electric vehicles compared to conventional vehicles, but was unable to identify a method that was sufficiently objective, robust, and consistent with established policy directions.

Thus, DOE stands by its proposal to provide electric vehicles the same reported-fuel-efficiency incentive (the 1/0.15 factor) that other alternative fuel vehicles currently enjoy.

now, as much as you relish any/every opportunity to disparage the U.S. EPA, this, again, is the U.S. Department of Energy. If you continue your fossil-fuel shiller whine, I suggest you take it up with the U.S. government proper… what you call the “EPA fudge factor” is actually U.S. law.

[bush_cheney2004]

...now, as much as you relish any/every opportunity to disparage the U.S. EPA, this, again, is the U.S. Department of Energy. If you continue your fossil-fuel shiller whine, I suggest you take it up with the U.S. government proper… what you call the “EPA fudge factor” is actually U.S. law.

Wow! A new "patriotic" high for American alphabet soup. Salute!

[TimG]

effectively, what you did in your TimG home-grown calculation is to negate the advantages of the Volt recharging with non-fossil fuel electricity sources (from hydro, solar, wind, nuclear)… or even from the more efficient combined cycle gas turbine power plants where the, gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity increases to 21.7 KWh/gal (from your selectively preferred 12.3 KWh/gal figure).

I my orginal post I stated explicitly that the volt would look a lot better if it was running in a grid with non-fossil fuel sources.

Let me re-quote the DOE statement concerning the Fuel Content Factor:

Yawn. Read it yourself. It is all about adjusting for intangible benefits. a.k.a. political manipulation of the numbers. I am only interested in the actual energy efficiency and I did acknowledge that it depends on the sources of electric power but the 12.4 number is the estimate given the current mix of electricity in the US.

what you call the EPA fudge factor is a US law

And US laws are usually driven by political considerations which simply re-enforces my point that the EPA fudge factor is an arbitrary adjustment added for political purposes. Edited November 27, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Thanks for the video, that was very interesting. The idea that the electric car could actually help the electrical industry by balancing power consumption more evenly through the day is pretty amazing.

Power generating stations would be more efficient if they could store power during low demand periods to cover the requirements of peak demand hours. But having such a massive bank of batteries would be prohibitively expensive. Now there's this emerging technology that in the foreseeable future will create a massive pool of battery capacity out in the marketplace, and giving consumers the ability to rent some of their battery capacity to the power generating stations when they're not using it seems like an ideal solution.

-k

Watch some of the other video's by this guy and he outlines some other possible solutions.

[ironstone]

Motor Trend giving the Volt a COTY award is sort of meaningless,as they don't factor in the predicted reliability.It could be very pricey to charge this car,especially here in Ontario where Dalton is planning huge hikes in electricity rates.If they could sell this car under $25000 that would be a breakthrough,but $40000 plus doesn't seem like good value for money.I can think of many more desirable cars that I would buy for 40 grand.

[waldo]

no – your self-serving, fossil-fuel shilling denseness will not prevail here. You gleefully helped yourself to a portion of your linked DOE document; again… the calculated subset of the overall PEF calculation; i.e., the "gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity = 12.307 KWh/gal"… and you proceeded to selectively use that in your TimG home-grown calculation on the state of the Chevy Volt MPGe. You really should have tried to understand how that, “12.307 KWh/gal - gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity” was calculated, and what it really means/implies. Go back and look again at the actual variable names within that calculation… e.g. “U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation efficiency”.

effectively, what you did in your TimG home-grown calculation is to negate the advantages of the Volt recharging with non-fossil fuel electricity sources (from hydro, solar, wind, nuclear)… or even from the more efficient combined cycle gas turbine power plants where the, “gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity” increases to 21.7 KWh/gal (from your selectively preferred 12.3 KWh/gal figure).

of course, one can’t easily determine the source(s) when anyone charges their hybrid/electric… hence… one of the rationale behind the application of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fuel Content Factor (the 6.67 multiplier)… what you fossil-fuel shillingly call the, “fudge factor”. Let me re-quote the DOE statement concerning the Fuel Content Factor:

now, as much as you relish any/every opportunity to disparage the U.S. EPA, this, again, is the U.S. Department of Energy. If you continue your fossil-fuel shiller whine, I suggest you take it up with the U.S. government proper… what you call the “EPA fudge factor” is actually U.S. law.

In my original post I stated explicitly that the volt would look a lot better if it was running in a grid with non-fossil fuel sources.

of course it would... and yet, and still... you choose to use the fossil-fuel centric conversion factor, the “12.307 KWh/gal - gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity”. As I said, your TimG "fudge factor" allows you to, "negate the advantages of the Volt recharging with non-fossil fuel electricity sources (from hydro, solar, wind, nuclear)… or even from the more efficient combined cycle gas turbine power plants where the, “gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity” increases to 21.7 KWh/gal (from your selectively preferred... and low-balled... 12.3 KWh/gal figure)". With this, your statement, as quoted, you at least acknowledge the advantage... but you won't apply that advantage within your TimG home-grown calculation - of course, you won't!

It is all about adjusting for intangible benefits. a.k.a. political manipulation of the numbers. I am only interested in the actual energy efficiency and I did acknowledge that it depends on the sources of electric power but the 12.4 number is the estimate given the current mix of electricity in the US.

actual energy efficiency??? No, the 12.3 KWh/gal figure is not, as you claim, "the estimate given the mix of electricity in the U.S." As I said, it's the fossil-fuel centric efficiency... do I need to quote the full complete calculation for you? I already highlighted one variable within the calculation; i.e., one of the calculation variables is, "U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation efficiency"... not wind, not solar, not hydro, not nuclear... and not even the result that associates with the more efficient combined cycle gas turbine power plants where the, “gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity” = 21.7 KWh/gal. Read that last sentence again... the conversion factor would jump to 21.7 KWh/gal if one could isolate the Volt charging to that more efficient power plant. But of course, it's not practical... and not typically possible to isolate one's personal source of electricity. Hence... the U.S. Department of Energy settling upon the Fuel Content Factor (the 6.67 multiplier), to allow a "generalized" recognition of the advantage/ability of hybrid/electrics to source their electricity from other than strictly "fossil-fuels". But, of course, in your twisted, self-serving, fossil-fuel shilling manner, you simply can't accept, acknowledge... and apply, the obvious advantage hybrid/electric vehicles have in recharging with non-fossil fuel electricity sources.

And US laws are usually driven by political considerations which simply re-enforces my point that the EPA fudge factor is an arbitrary adjustment added for political purposes.

plain and simple, you're an ass-hole... I've repeatedly pointed out that the multiplier originates from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as a part of it's rule-making mandate. The EPA is simply enforcing what the DOE has supplied... and yet, you repeatedly slag the EPA over this. Do you have a problem with honesty and applying your failed attacks toward the appropriate target(s)?

[TimG]

-

Edited November 28, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

-

Oops!

[August1991]

What? You clearly have not been following this field even slightly. Battery technology has advanced immensely in the last 50 years. For one, lithium ion and lithium polymer batteries did not exist 50 years ago, and they have much higher energy densities, power densities, and recharge speeds than others. And, the technology continues to advance. Batteries are a technology that still has huge room for improvement. And, beyond conventional batteries, advances in nanotechnology and quantum features present huge further potential for improved energy density in batteries.

I do follow this and the changes in battery technology are remarkable when compared with changes in, say, computers or even jet engines. Cathode ray tubes will soon disappear but the basic dry cell is still around. Why? Battery technology has not fundamentally changed.

No one has yet figured out how to store electricity cheaply and well. It's a major technological problem. Whatever the technology, charging batteries leads to energy loss through heat or chemical changes in the battery itself. Many different chemical combinations and charging techniques have been tried. (As I noted, computer-controlled charging/discharging has proven to be the best improvement in conversion efficiency.)

Current batteries are also heavy.

All that of course also ignores the fuel cell, which is just another type of battery, where the reactants are stored outside the battery in separate tanks instead of being integrated into the battery.

I too once thought that fuel cells would be a solution. (I think Toshiba experimented with fuel cells and laptop computers.) Fuel cells pose all kinds of other problems.

... plain and simple, you're an ass-hole... I've repeatedly pointed out that the multiplier originates from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as a part of it's rule-making mandate. The EPA is simply enforcing what the DOE has supplied...

Waldo, would you please drop the name-calling? And your stridency (lack of objectivity) undermines your case. In short, you sound like a fan boy who is supporting your team, and not seeking truth.

Waldo, a quick glance at the history of innovation will show that genuine, better change is adopted without subsidy - although it sometimes take time. No one subsidized the printing press or air conditioning. Sailors adopted the schooner once they saw and understood it. Double-entry bookkeeping required no government subsidy.

Flat screen TVs? There may have been government funded research at first but the Canadian government did not subsidize my purchase of one.

Good technology does not require subsidy. People will voluntarily adopt it.

----

Everyone should remember that General Motors' success is now riding in part on the success of the Volt. Many, many people have an interest in making this car succeed. IMV, it is sad to see a great country reduced to this.

Progressives such as John Kenneth Galbraith once derided Charles Wilson when he said: "What's good for General Motors is good for America." Well, progressives now wish the success of General Motors.

Edited November 28, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

Meanwhile, back in the real world where companies only care about making a profit:

Incentives at stupefying levels on pickup trucks and other models are causing such a transformation of the Canadian vehicle market that trucks are poised to outsell cars this year for the first time ever.

G&M

Tim, part of the sad reason for this is that government bureaucrats/politicians have regulated fleet mpg standards. Since trucks are classified differently, manufacturers promote trucks since this is a way to avoid fleet gasoline consumption standards.

The regulations on hybrid/electricity vehicles will no doubt cause similar unintended consequences. I think you have already noted potential anomalies above.

Edited November 28, 2010 by August1991

[waldo]

Waldo, would you please drop the name-calling? And your stridency (lack of objectivity) undermines your case. In short, you sound like a fan boy who is supporting your team, and not seeking truth.

I really could care less what you personally think - if it makes you feel 'board-superior' to keep up the "fan-boy" mantra... have at er! In this particular case, the target of my expressed affection holds a special hate-on for the U.S. EPA (there is a history here, not just within this thread and this latest discussion). In this particular latest discussion, I repeatedly corrected the misplaced (and improper) derision. Everything being discussed stems from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)... the EPA is simply implementing the rules mandated by the DOE... for freaking out-loud, the guy originally even links to the DOE document! So, yes, in the face of repeated (and ignored) correction and purposeful repeated slagging of misplaced (and improper) derision, I offered a 'term of endearment'. Here's a personalization, one just for you... your now famously tired act of 'coming down from the mount' and offering your believed pertinent observations and summation, means diddly squat. Get over yourself - hey?

Waldo, a quick glance at the history of innovation will show that genuine, better change is adopted without subsidy - although it sometimes take time. No one subsidized the printing press or air conditioning. Sailors adopted the schooner once they saw and understood it. Double-entry bookkeeping required no government subsidy.

Flat screen TVs? There may have been government funded research at first but the Canadian government did not subsidize my purchase of one.

Good technology does not require subsidy. People will voluntarily adopt it.

aside from your misinterpretation of applied subsidy, do you have anything (other than ridiculous analogies)?

Progressives such as John Kenneth Galbraith once derided Charles Wilson when he said: "What's good for General Motors is good for America." Well, progressives now wish the success of General Motors.

context... anyone... anyone? I personally don't know what context your believed/interpreted Galbraith derision was made/offered. Who are your "progressives"... those you state are, "now wishing the success of General Motors". Has there been some shift in what your "progressives" now, as you say, "wish"... what's caused that shift? Is there some point you're trying to impress, one that might have particular relevance to the economy/regulation of today versus... uhhh... say, the economy/regulation of that 1953 day when Wilson uttered that quote you referenced?

[capricorn]

Richard Gilbert has a series of interesting articles on EMs and ICEs in the Economy Lab portion of the Globe.

Why electricity is the best alternative transport fuel

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/why-electricity-is-the-best-alternative-transport-fuel/article1793008/

Batteries v. gas - so far, it's no contest

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/batteries-v-gas---so-far-its-no-contest/article1814735/

In his next contribution Gilbert will discuss hybrid vehicles.

A good read, written in layman's terms even I can understand.