Chevy Volt

[TimG]

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

You have a habit of focusing on completely irrelevent points which makes responding to you extremely tedious. In this case, I can't believe anyone cares why the EPA publishes politically manipulated MPG numbers. The point that is worth discussing is the politically manipulated MPG numbers - not whether the EPA, the DOE or Congress ultimately deserves the blame.

[waldo]

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'.

You have a habit of focusing on completely irrelevent points which makes responding to you extremely tedious. In this case, I can't believe anyone cares why the EPA publishes politically manipulated MPG numbers. The point that is worth discussing is the politically manipulated MPG numbers - not whether the EPA, the DOE or Congress ultimately deserves the blame.

notwithstanding your historical MLW displayed hate-on for the U.S. EPA, pointing out and responding to this, your latest example of completely misplaced derision, was hardly the focus of this latest discussion point, relevant or otherwise. You still haven't answered the questioning of your honesty... in the face of repeated corrections, why you continued to purposely, and improperly, assign your derision toward the EPA, rather than the origination point of the actual rules the EPA simply implements/enforces (i.e., the U.S. DOE).

btw, I acknowledge your unstated acceptance that you "misunderstood" your selective use of only a part of the DOE calculation (from the DOE document that you originally linked to). I also acknowledge your unstated acceptance that you failed to apply the right/full aspects of the DOE calculation to your "TimG home-grown calculation"... even though your home-grown calculation makes no sense in the context of properly calculating an effective MPGe (as rule-defined by the U.S. DOE). I also acknowledge your unstated acceptance that the effective MPGe rating of the Chevy Volt is as stated (referencing back to the original linked quotes offered by MLW member TrueMetis).

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.

[TimG]

though your home-grown calculation makes no sense in the context of properly calculating an effective MPGe (as rule-defined by the U.S. DOE).

I don't care what laws drafted for political reasons say. What I care about is accurately reporting the MPGe of EVs. The numbers I used (with the caveat that difference sources of electricity would make those numbers look better) are an accurate representation of the MPGe of EVs based on the DOE analysis. In fact, the DOE divides it calculations up to separate the real numbers from the fudge factors because that helps people who look into it to better understand that the full DOE calculations do not produce a MPGe that has any physical meaning. IOW: the calculation I used is the same as the DOE if one is interested in real efficiency numbers. Edited November 29, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

notwithstanding your historical MLW displayed hate-on for the U.S. EPA, pointing out and responding to this, your latest example of completely misplaced derision, was hardly the focus of this latest discussion point, relevant or otherwise. You still haven't answered the questioning of your honesty... in the face of repeated corrections, why you continued to purposely, and improperly, assign your derision toward the EPA, rather than the origination point of the actual rules the EPA simply implements/enforces (i.e., the U.S. DOE).

btw, I acknowledge your unstated acceptance that you "misunderstood" your selective use of only a part of the DOE calculation (from the DOE document that you originally linked to). I also acknowledge your unstated acceptance that you failed to apply the right/full aspects of the DOE calculation to your "TimG home-grown calculation"... even though your home-grown calculation makes no sense in the context of properly calculating an effective MPGe (as rule-defined by the U.S. DOE). I also acknowledge your unstated acceptance that the effective MPGe rating of the Chevy Volt is as stated (referencing back to the original linked quotes offered by MLW member TrueMetis).

I don't care what laws drafted for political reasons say. What I care about is accurately reporting the MPGe of EVs. The numbers I used (with the caveat that difference sources of electricity would make those numbers look better) are an accurate representation of the MPGe of EVs based on the DOE analysis. In fact, the DOE divides it calculations up to separate the real numbers from the fudge factors because that helps people who look into it to better understand that the full DOE calculations do not produce a MPGe that has any physical meaning. IOW: the calculation I used is the same as the DOE if one is interested in real efficiency numbers.

caveat!!! As in a way to apply a TimG "fudge-factor" to your own home-grown calculation - hey? You acknowledge the ability/advantage that hybrids/electrics have... but you won't actually apply that ability/advantage in determining an effective MPGe. Why would that be? (/snarc)

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.

[TimG]

As in a way to apply a TimG "fudge-factor" to your own home-grown calculation - hey?

My calculation is straight out the DOE document. You just don't like it because I left out the non-physical fudge factors they throw in to meet their political mandate. Edited November 29, 2010 by TimG

[kimmy]

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.

Modest for this year. Modest for the next few years. But it seems inevitable that electric vehicles become the mainstream, and the only question is how long that will take.

By the time the "smart grid" is a reality, there will probably be a significant number of electric vehicles in daily use.

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.

Not at all. It only requires that fast charging not happen all at once.

If everybody insists on charging their car as soon as they get home from work at 5pm, then yeah, that would be a problem. So how to deal with that? Free market style. If there's a high demand for electricity at 5pm on weekdays, then raise the price accordingly. Give people the incentive to sell electricity at 5pm instead of buying it at 5pm.

It would just require that the price differential between high-demand hours and low-demand hours be sufficient for the consumer to benefit from buying and selling at the right time.

It could be done by simple automation:

"Start charging car if price drops below $.02/kWh."

"Start charging the storage battery in the basement if price drops below $.01/kWh."

"Start selling to grid when price rises above $.05/kWh."

"Stop selling from car battery if car battery drops below 50% capacity."

It would give consumers with storage batteries and smart-grid equipment the chance to be little entrepreneurs by managing their power buying and selling in a way that could substantially reduce their electricity bill. If enough people were doing this, it would help the power companies reduce costs by improving efficiency during off-demand hours, reducing the need for auxiliary generators during peak demand, and maybe even delaying the need to build new generating stations.

-k

[waldo]

My calculation is straight out the DOE document. You just don't like it because I left out the non-physical fudge factors they throw in to meet their political mandate.

nonsense... the only thing straight out of the DOE document is the selective subset piece of a calculation you chose to isolate upon. You're simply foregoing an actual application of your own stated "caveat". Instead, you choose to use the fossil-fuel centric conversion factor - one that would assume a complete fossil-fuel source of charging for the Chevy Volt. Your charade has been shown for it's patent dishonesty... unless you'd like to apply another caveat, one more pointed/particular - one that states categorically that, uhhh... for example:

"

even though I, TimG, know that electricity drawn from the grid has been created from a variant of sources, (i.e., coal, nuclear, wind, natural gas, solar, hydro, etc.,), in my home-grown TimG calculation for MPGe, I choose to negate/ignore the ability & advantage of hybrids/electrics to charge from any sources other than those related directly to fossil-fuels.

"

[TimG]

The real issue is reducing the overall amount of fossil fuels used and their emissions.

Depends on who you talk to. For many people the issue is reducing our dependency on foreign oil so increasing coal use is no big deal.

it stands to reason that the higher the proportion of electrics to ICE's on the roads, the less fossil fuels will be consumed.

Only if the non-fossil fuel sources are widely available. So far, hydro has already been exploited to the max. Nuclear is blocked by regulatory barriers. Wind and solar are bit players. That leaves fossil fuels as the only source available to meet the demand for EVs. Edited November 29, 2010 by TimG

[Wilber]

You guys are making my head hurt.

If you just want to compare electric to ICE efficiency you would have to use only electricity produced by fossil fuel plants as a comparison but that isn't really the issue. The real issue is reducing the overall amount of fossil fuels used and their emissions. Because electrics use electricity from many other sources that do not use fossil fuels, it stands to reason that the higher the proportion of electrics to ICE's on the roads, the less fossil fuels will be consumed. That is the object of the exercise is it not.

[Wilber]

Double post.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Depends on who you talk to. For many people the issue is reducing our dependency on foreign oil so increasing coal use is no big deal.

Only if the non-fossil fuel sources are widely available. So far, hydro has already been exploited to the max. Nuclear is blocked by regulatory barriers. Wind and solar are bit players. That leaves fossil fuels as the only source available to meet the demand for EVs.

Wind and solar will become bigger players. Regulations will change when they need to change. When the choice becomes freeze in the dark or nukes, there will be nukes. Coal is a real alternative if one is not concerned about CO2 emissions. ICE's are at best 30% efficient, they waste a tremendous amount of non renewable energy. Thermal plants are up to 60% efficient and charging systems are up to 95% efficient. Electric motors range from 80% to over 90% efficient. At worst it would be a wash between ICE's and electrics using thermal sourced electricity. Transporting fuel to a few power plants and distributing the generated energy through the grid would be far more efficient than hauling it to hundreds of thousands of gas stations scattered across the continent.

Oil is a finite resource that is used for things that are much more important than just burning it inefficiently. It is also a one off as a fuel. There is nothing else in the foreseeable future that is so easily portable and contains as much energy per unit weight as petroleum. I don't believe there will be one miracle successor to petroleum so we better get our asses in gear and explore as many alternatives as possible or we will have no future.

[dre]

Nuclear is blocked by regulatory barriers.

This is just flat out not true. Governments have literally bent over backwards to help the nuclear industry. It has gotten more than 60% of the entire energy subsidy dollars over the last 50 years. The government pays for the fuel cycle, the government did the pure research, and the government built and tested the first plants.

The problem is theres just not damn reason for a utility to build nuclear plants over coal plants. END OF STORY. If we had no coal... we would probably build more nuclear plants. But we have LOTS of coal.

Not to mention nuclear energy is increasing in price rather quickly, and the new plant designs will cost even more than the old one.

Edited November 30, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

At worst it would be a wash between ICE's and electrics using thermal sourced electricity. Transporting fuel to a few power plants and distributing the generated energy through the grid would be far more efficient than hauling it to hundreds of thousands of gas stations scattered across the continent.

On that level yes. There are many intangibles that make EVs a better option. The barrier right now is battery cost and capacity. My only quibble is we should make the distinction between the real efficiency of EVs (along with how that efficiency is affected by the available eletrical power sources) and their intangible benefits. Trying to combine the two into a single MPGe number like the EPA/DOE does is confusing.

[TimG]

The problem is theres just not damn reason for a utility to build nuclear plants over coal plants. END OF STORY.

Sure there is depending on how far the utility is from a source of coal (transporting coal is not cheap). I hav read that price parity between nuclear power and coal occurs at $85/ton or $3.40/million BTU delivered. That makes nuclear viable in many US states. That is why nukes are being build in South Carolina.

But that is comparing an modern hi-tech coal plant to a nuclear plant.

The trouble is regulatory barriers make keeping old plants running a lot cheaper than building new plants.

Edited November 30, 2010 by TimG

[Wilber]

This is just flat out not true. Governments have literally bent over backwards to help the nuclear industry. It has gotten more than 60% of the entire energy subsidy dollars over the last 50 years. The government pays for the fuel cycle, the government did the pure research, and the government built and tested the first plants.

The problem is theres just not damn reason for a utility to build nuclear plants over coal plants. END OF STORY. If we had no coal... we would probably build more nuclear plants. But we have LOTS of coal.

Not to mention nuclear energy is increasing in price rather quickly, and the new plant designs will cost even more than the old one.

Only if CO2 emissions don't enter the equation.

[Wilber]

On that level yes. There are many intangibles that make EVs a better option. The barrier right now is battery cost and capacity. My only quibble is we should make the distinction between the real efficiency of EVs (along with how that efficiency is affected by the available eletrical power sources) and their intangible benefits. Trying to combine the two into a single MPGe number like the EPA/DOE does is confusing.

Depends on how you look at it. If the number given is used as a measure of relative efficiency and emissions produced it gets quite complicated. It's real use is to compare cost of operation and in this respect it is not confusing at all. It's not that difficult to say that given X being the cost of electricity and Y being the cost of gasoline, this EV will cost the same to run as an ICE that gets Z MPG.

[dre]

Only if CO2 emissions don't enter the equation.

Even if they do, we can turn coal into electricy without high CO2 emissions. Theres been sigficant research in how to use coal in a cleaner way over the last decade because of all the CO2 concerns. You can strip most of the CO2 from exhaust and either sequestor it or use it for other industrial purposes. Its definately something to look at.

[Wilber]

Even if they do, we can turn coal into electricy without high CO2 emissions. Theres been sigficant research in how to use coal in a cleaner way over the last decade because of all the CO2 concerns. You can strip most of the CO2 from exhaust and either sequestor it or use it for other industrial purposes. Its definately something to look at.

Agreed, everything should be looked at.

[waldo]

There are many intangibles that make EVs a better option. The barrier right now is battery cost and capacity. My only quibble is we should make the distinction between the real efficiency of EVs (along with how that efficiency is affected by the available electrical power sources) and their intangible benefits. Trying to combine the two into a single MPGe number like the EPA/DOE does is confusing.

confusing? No, it's not confusing at all. In a purely electric mode one could quite easily convert a watt hours per mile (Wh/mi) rating assigned to the Volt to arrive at an effective MPGe. Of course, this is complicated when the part time internal combustion engine is engaged to extend upon the Volt's EV range. Again, as it's not practical (or possible in some/most cases) to realize primary sources, the U.S. DOE relied upon it's GREET model to ascertain effective 'well-to-wheel' implications of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) vehicles... like the Volt. Specifically:

Relative to an internal combustion engine vehicle using gasoline, PHEV's using an all-electric range (AER) between 10 and 40 miles and using:

-

petroleum fuels (gasoline and diesel) offer a 40–60% reduction in petroleum energy use and a 30–60% reduction in GHG emissions

;

- a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (E85) offer a 70–90% reduction in petroleum energy use and a 40–80% reduction in GHG emissions;

- and hydrogen offer over 90% reduction in petroleum energy use and a 10–100% reduction in GHG emissions.

More petroleum energy savings are realized as the electric range increases, except when the marginal grid mix is dominated by oil-fired electricity.

of course, this parallels our earlier discussions concerning the DOE rationale/methodology in formulating the rules behind the Volt's ratings:

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.

[The_Squid]

If you don't like the car, don't buy it. If it is too expensive, don't buy it... If electric cars are against your political philosophy , then don't buy it.

Is it a leap forward in technology? THe first practical electric vehicle... Yes, that's worth celebrating. It isn't purely electric, but if you limit your mileage to what the battery can deliver and then plug it in, it won't need any fuel. Great for commuting in a city.

Will I buy one? No. It wouldn't work for me... I ride my bike to work, so don't need a commuter vehicle... I need a vehicle that will tow a boat... and I have a vehicle that goes 0-60 fast enough to push my eyeballs further into their sockets just for fun....

But the fact that it doesn't work for me isn't a strike against it. It's a leap forward... Three cheers for GMC!!

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/20/2011-chevrolet-volt-first-drive-review/

[TimG]

If electric cars are against your political philosophy , then don't buy it.

Good advice - except the Ontario government is giving 10K to anyone who buys these things. I bet you would love it if the government decided that the boat owner lifestyle deserved promoting and gave 10K to people who bought trucks with boat trailers. And people who do not share your passion would have a right to complain.

[The_Squid]

Good advice - except the Ontario government is giving 10K to anyone who buys these things. I bet you would love it if the government decided that the boat owner lifestyle deserved promoting and gave 10K to people who bought trucks with boat trailers. And people who do not share your passion would have a right to complain.

Nope, I wouldn't love it if boat owners received a tax rebate. It would be bad policy.

Rebates for those who buy more efficient vehicles to help reduce polution, especially in cities, seems like good public policy.

Public money for more bike lanes for safer cycling to cut down on pollution and car use is good public policy too...

Free transit is also good public policy. I vacationed in Seattle and Portland in the summer where they have free transit within the cities.

I think that a national carbon tax to fund these sorts of projects and policies is a good idea... and my fuel-guzzling habits using a truck and boat should be taxed appropriately to pay for these "green" public policies.