One Tesla owner's confusion......

There are so many facets confusing the issue of electric cars. We are car people. We love our cars; they are fun to drive and play with. However, at their most basic function they are a transportation device. Our power grid sees two big spikes in demand; one in the morning about 6 a.m., and one in the evening about 6 p.m.. Everywhere else, especially at night, there is plenty of capacity. Using our power grid to commute instead of oil makes a lot of sense in that all the money we spend doing so stays within our borders. Doesn't matter where the electrons come from or how many unicorns farted to get it down the wire, that is the central issue in my mind.

Some interesting items regarding "renewable" energy: Photovoltaic cells produce barely more energy over their lifetime as it takes to make them in the first place. Nearly every energy source is solar, just different time frames. The main exception to this is geothermal, which uses heat from the earth's core; the result of radioactive decay within it. Coal plants have much more radioactive waste than nuclear, but it has a very short half-life. Both coal and nuclear need to stay at full throttle once they are running, while many others (gas turbines) can be throttled down. This means that those will be used extensively while charging at night. Dams (mainly in tropical regions) actually emit a substantial amount of greenhouse gases because of the turbidity, freeing gases trapped in the water. Even here in the northwest we get more energy from nuclear and coal then wind turbines (by far). Except Vancouver, which gets half of its energy from a single GE gas turbine. The amount of power available from the sun on a clear day at noon in the summer is 1000 watts per square meter. One horsepower is 746 watts. Throw in some losses due to efficiencies, cloudy days, the other three seasons (angle to sun poor) and nighttime being zero, you start to realize that photovoltaics may not be the end-all answer.

Sorry for the long post. J

ebonyandivory wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

ebonyandivory wrote: Yet windmills, nuclear power plants, solar panels and natural gas extraction cannot exist without hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuel being burned in their creation and/or transport. Ironic at best.

but the fossil fuels we use cannot be available without hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuel being burned in their creation and/or transport. Ironic?

Not ironic at all. I think we proponents of internal combution engines are fully aware of the downsides of fossil fuels. Unlike so many proponents of electric vehicles that seem to believe Mother Nature should be kissing their butts.

My point is that if you are bent out of shape about the fossil fuel costs of creating a windmill, you should be even more annoyed by the oil well that also requires fossil fuels not just to create, but then goes on to produce/use more.

BTW, I think that many of those people are far from believing that "Mother Nature should be kissing their butts"......instead, they are more likely to be wracked with guilt about their modern energy-intensive lifestyles.

No one here least of all me is bent out of shape about anything. My point is that it's by far more common to have the "I drive an electric car therefore I am one with nature and you are not" people pointing an ironic finger in the face of the rest if us that understand that the electric car will not save one single living organism from extinction or harm (and that includes the driver).

An example of irony in this holier than thou argument that some "green people" are swimming in:

"Nickel mining and smelting in the Sudbury, Ontario, region of Canada is associated with denudation of terrestrial vegetation and subsequent soil erosion (Adamo et al. 1996) and gradual ecological changes, including a decrease in the number and diversity of species and a reduction in community biomass of crustacean zooplankton (WHO 1991). At nickel-contaminated sites, plants accumulate nickel and growth is retarded in some species at high nickel concentrations (WHO 1991)"

Datsun1500 wrote: But is it a nice car?

Very nice IMO!

ebonyandivory wrote: My point is that it's by far more common to have the "I drive an electric car therefore I am one with nature and you are not" people pointing an ironic finger

Wow, you make it sound like MA is full of shiny happy people. Maybe FL just has fewer jerks than up north.

The few EV people I've met have been very cool. Of course, they were EV conversion guys, and thus car guys. If there was anything annoying, it was that they were a little too enthused about their topic.....sort of like a people walking around with religous literature, the ones who would LOVE to give you the information to start your own project.

[The same as GRMers who are known for encouraging each other to take on wild and crazy engine swaps, regardless of their practicality.]

ebonyandivory wrote: in the face of the rest if us that understand that the electric car will not save one single living organism from extinction or harm (and that includes the driver).

You have a lot more certainty about that than I do.

All valid points.

Tesla is marketing their cars on zero emissions and efficiency. http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#electricity

While their website does mention the use of coal to generate electricity, they sort of shove that off to the side by mentioning the car's efficiency. What they leave out of that equation is the efficiency of the generating and power transmission methods.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://netldev.netl.doe.gov/File%2520Library/Research/Energy%2520Analysis/Coal/ImpCFPPGHGRdctns_0410.pdf&sa=U&ei=WyKqUeypLo-w8QS1x4HwCg&ved=0CCkQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNEMOJPFpzig2WUvh98Kk1svV1ZPig

In 2008, the U.S. coal-fired power plant (CFPP) fleet had a generation-weighted average efficiency of 32.5% while the top ten percent of the fleet had an efficiency of 37.6%, five percentage points higher. The generating units in the top ten percent are diverse (they are not all new, large, super critical plants), indicating an opportunity for fleet-wide efficiency improvement. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) segmented the fleet into 13 groups based on characteristics that limit efficiency, and calculated the best-in-class efficiency within each group. Based on each group achieving an average efficiency equal to its 90th percentile, the overall CFPP fleet average efficiency would be 35.2%. NETL sets forth a vision of 36% based on retirements of low efficiency units, and improvements within the best-in-class. Under a scenario where generation from coal is constant at the 2008 level, increasing the average efficiency from 32.5% to 36% reduces U.S. GHG by 175 MMmt/yeari or 2.5% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2008.

If that's taken into account then the efficiency drops drastically, probably fairly close to that of an ICE.

JoeyM wrote: Wow, you make it sound like MA is full of shiny happy people. Maybe FL just has fewer jerks than up north. You have a lot more certainty about that than I do.

It's the loud minority that leaves a bad taste. I'm sure the majority is cool. But this is Massachusetts after all.

And my certainty comes from hours of research from non-biased sources. It's out there if you look hard enough.

Oh, I've looked....for years. I've heard both sides. I read Joseph Romm's book and it was talking about cradle-to-grave emissions calculations long before that became a facet of polarized political dialog. (imagine that an environmentalist who doesn't think hydrogen cars or EVs are the answer, and yes, coal fired plants were the reason) BTW, his solution for reducing CO2 - hybrids with turbodiesels on the ICE side - is something I'd like to see a company try.

I was unware of Tesla's marketing method, and yes, that's misleading. (...but not any more so than other marketing. Anyone trying to CONVINCE you to buy something is not to be trusted.)

JoeyM wrote: (imagine that an environmentalist who doesn't think hydrogen cars or EVs are the answer, and yes, coal fired plants were the reason)

Yep, that's the kind of stuff I'm referring to: someone with an agenda that comes up with a seemingly opposite solution to a problem is the type of guy I want to hear from!

ebonyandivory wrote:

JoeyM wrote: (imagine that an environmentalist who doesn't think hydrogen cars or EVs are the answer, and yes, coal fired plants were the reason)

Yep, that's the kind of stuff I'm referring to: someone with an agenda that comes up with a seemingly opposite solution to a problem is the type of guy I want to hear from!

Here's the book
http://www.amazon.com/Hype-About-Hydrogen-Fiction-Climate/dp/1559637048
The thing I like about him is that when he makes a calculation, he often explains what the underlying assumptions are, and why they may not be correct. In other words, he gives his best estimates, but doesn't try to create an air of certainty where it is not merited

That certainty is why I had a problem with this statement:

ebonyandivory wrote: the rest of us that understand that the electric car will not save one single living organism from extinction or harm (and that includes the driver).

Do I think that CO2 emissions could harm a species? Yes. Climate change aside, the ocean acidification issues are big, and some species are probably already being harmed. (..and some crustaceans may be doing better.) I don't claim absolute certainty, about this, though. Absolute certainty is not part of science. (awesome quote from NDT)

The situation is even less clear when you factor in regional differences in CO2 production. The situation in CA (where there are lots of combined cycle natural gas powerplants) is different than here in central FL (where my electricity comes from coal.) Here, an EV has much higher emissions than out in CA....not at the tailpipe, naturally, but at the plant.

Interesting comparison of power plant efficiency by fuel type:

http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm

Notice that from a heat conversion perspective that nuke is way down there, but that's not the whole picture. It's necessary to take into consideration the nearly negligible emissions and the much lower energy expenditure to get it ready as a fuel. That bumps the overall efficiency percentage back up compared to coal.

Hydro efficiency is way up there once the plant is built, but the energy expenditure to build the thing takes a big bite out of that. It and nuke share a common trait: once in place they can operate for years without any real energy input. They also do not produce CO2.

So if an electric car is recharged via one of these two methods energy efficiency rises dramatically making them much more 'green'. Till then any advertising to the contrary is just smoke, mirrors and bullE36 M3 to salve the consiences and egos of old hippies who want to make up for the years they spent raping the planet to become what they protested against.

Absolutely certain about the manufacturing of these "green" sources of power (ie creating a huge windmill from nothing). Absolutely certain they do not sprout from virgin soil or appear out of thin air. And absolutely certain that great amounts of fossil fuels are burned in the manufacture of "green technology". You CANNOT build a Prius, a windmill, a solar panel, hydro-electric plant or nuclear reactor without burning tons of fossil fuel and using tons of nasty chemicals.

And that's ALL I'm certain of, please don't get the impression I think I'm smart!

one thing people forget when they claim that electric cars need all this infastructure. So does the lowly internal combustion powered car. Except for the batteries, there is just as much needed to make a toyota corolla as there is a prius. in that respect, I consider it a wash

mad_machine wrote: one thing people forget when they claim that electric cars need all this infastructure. So does the lowly internal combustion powered car. Except for the batteries, there is just as much needed to make a toyota corolla as there is a prius. in that respect, I consider it a wash

I for one have not forgotten this fact. It's 50% of my point!!! ICE owners/drivers/proponents aren't the ones declaring ownership of the Savior of the Earth award on-line and in marketing and elsewhere when in reality they're no less polluters or destroyers of the Earth as anyone else.

I just hate hypocrisy that's all.

It's not hypocrisy. It's vastly cleaner to have one centrally regulated power supply station than a million individual UNregulated ones. The large central station is getting cleaner ever year it is in use due to regulations requiring it to be, and the million individual point sources (your cars) are getting dirtier every year they are in use. And those of you daily driving old used cars are the worst of all when it comes to pollution.

My Volt may have used the same materials to BUILD, but in OPERATION it uses almost none in comparison. It uses less goddamn electricity than my home computer to commute with and run errands (my monthly bill, from plugging it in every night and driving every day, has seen less than an $8 increase since I've had the car over the same periods the previous year)

Oh, and that article about the Hummer causing the same/less pollution than the Prius has been debunked many, many times.

http://rodgerswriting.blogspot.com/2012/06/hummer-versus-prius.html

http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth

http://forcechange.com/201/the-prius-vs-the-hummer-myth-dissected/

http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/T07-01_AssumptionsPriusHummer

ebonyandivory wrote:

mad_machine wrote: one thing people forget when they claim that electric cars need all this infastructure. So does the lowly internal combustion powered car. Except for the batteries, there is just as much needed to make a toyota corolla as there is a prius. in that respect, I consider it a wash

I for one have not forgotten this fact. It's 50% of my point!!! ICE owners/drivers/proponents aren't the ones declaring ownership of the Savior of the Earth award on-line and in marketing and elsewhere when in reality they're no less polluters or destroyers of the Earth as anyone else.

lose the straw man; no one here is saying that ownership of an EV nominates someone for a "Savior of the Earth award." No GRMer believes that powering an EV is a pollution-free process. Nobody here is saying that manufacturing EVs is a pollution-free process. (mad_machine even alluded to the extra pollution from the batteries.....and yes, nickle metal hydrides are nasty.) If you want to argue with people who believe that sort of stuff you will need to look elsewhere.

Like you, I dislike hypocrisy.

ebonyandivory wrote: the rest if us that understand that the electric car will not save one single living organism from extinction or harm

ebonyandivory wrote: my certainty comes from hours of research from non-biased sources. It's out there if you look hard enough.

ebonyandivory wrote: [ talk about pollution from EV manufacturing ] And that's ALL I'm certain of, please don't get the impression I think I'm smart!

Chris_V wrote: My Volt may have used the same materials to BUILD, but in OPERATION it uses almost none in comparison. It uses less goddamn electricity than my home computer to commute with and run errands (my monthly bill, from plugging it in every night and driving every day, has seen less than an $8 increase since I've had the car over the same periods the previous year)

Now there is a good thought. Chris, as you own a Volt. Kindly do us a favour and figure out your monthly expeniture in fuel and electricity and tell us how far you drive during that time. Lets see how much more efficent the Volt is compared to most ICE cars

In reply to JoeyM:

Still using that stawman term? I figured that went out with 2005?

Anyway... you win the award for completely missing the point!

I was pretty secure assuming that the fact that internal combustion engines that burn fossil fuels are polluting the earth around them in all kinds of ways. It was so obvious a fact that I didn't feel it needed mentioning on a site dedicated to... Fossil fuel burning vehicles powered by internal combustion engines.

And are you telling me that I said that people on this site are claiming the title of "Green Queen" or whatever I wrote? Because I remember typing something along the lines of "the Internet, and marketing and elsewhere" or something. Accusing members of GRM of THAT would be ludicrous and plainly did not happen.

So I ask this question: if you search the Internet, will you find more EV owners claiming they're helping to save the planet, or will you see more ICE owners make that claim?

See? That's the difference! We KNOW what our vehicles do to the environment and make no claims otherwise.

[I was still editing that when you replied. Sorry. I'll continue down here.]

Fair enough. There are EV owners who think their cars emit LESS CO2. (...and, to be fair, in some locations they may be correct. This place - central FL - is not one of them.) Anyone that thinks it completely eliminates emissions is either an idiot or woefully misinformed.

Here's something we can all agree on: Do you know how to avoid pollution due to manufacturing new cars? Keep your old one on the road (....or, in true GRM fashion, fabricate your new ride from scratch using previously manufactured parts for material. )

In reply to Chris_V

Didn't mean to get under your skin, sorry.

My point here is that none of us drive vehicles that make a bit of difference no matter how they derive their torque.

I haven't seen it here at all but there's been a lot of claims from some of the EV crowd to the contrary.

I saw the Hummer article debunked but I still stand by my assertions that building this green technology uses a whole lotta fossil fuels.

Just watching the heavy equipment used to erect these giant windmills around my area and knowing the amount of land that was clear cut to create the footprint and that I know for a fact that whitetail deer, turkeys, pheasants, owls, hawks, coyotes and everything in the food chain used to live there, I get a little itchy hearing from certain Renewable Resource proponents that they deserve a pat on the back for being so nature-conscious.

EDIT: I didn't think I needed to say this but yes, fossil fuel power sources cause pollution and damage wildlife populations as well.

....and yes, even though this is a car site, I think it would be nice to acknowledge that ICE cars also have manufacturing and fueling sources of pollution. It tends to make discussions less heated if you acknowledge both sides of an issue.

YMMV.

JoeyM wrote: Do I think that CO2 emissions could harm a species? Yes. Climate change aside, the ocean acidification issues are big, and some species are probably already being harmed. (..and some crustaceans may be doing better.)

It requires energy to produce any car, and it requires energy to power any car. The Tesla is a very nice car and it is more environmentally friendly than a BMW 7 series or Mercedes S-Class that it competes with. Even when its energy comes from burning coal, it's WAY more efficient than ICE's in cars. Think about how much gas is wasted idling, or running the engine at an RPM that is not the most efficient in it's powerband. The Tesla wastes very little energy and doesn't pollute the air itself.

It's made in America, by an American company. What's not to love here? People who buy them feel smug, so what? They are doing something to help the environment in their way, it's not perfect, but it's still very good, let them have their smug!

mad_machine wrote:

Chris_V wrote: My Volt may have used the same materials to BUILD, but in OPERATION it uses almost none in comparison. It uses less goddamn electricity than my home computer to commute with and run errands (my monthly bill, from plugging it in every night and driving every day, has seen less than an $8 increase since I've had the car over the same periods the previous year)

Now there is a good thought. Chris, as you own a Volt. Kindly do us a favour and figure out your monthly expeniture in fuel and electricity and tell us how far you drive during that time. Lets see how much more efficent the Volt is compared to most ICE cars

My monthly expenditure in fuel for commuting and running errands is zero. My monthly expenditure in electricity is about $8, so far as I can figure. I use 1.2 kWh to go to work each day. and another 1.2 to get home. That's about 22 cents at my present electricity rates. Multiply that by 20 days a month commuting and you get a monthly commuting figure. (about $4.40) add in the errand running and fun trips on the weekend and I'll double that for about $8 for a month. I spent about $100 per month in fuel in my Mustang and BMW to do the same running around.

Now, I also spend $30 less per month to insure the Volt then either the BMW or the Mustang, but, I pay another $50 per month for the car itself vs the Mustang ($350 vs $300). But for the sake of comparison, it's better to compare it to another new car similarly equipped, so an Accord or Camry with all the options (since my Volt is fully loaded other than backup camera). Either of those will cost about the same to own as the Volt, but will use fuel to do the commute. In my case, probably $50-75 in fuel to do the same running around every month.

As I said in the other thread about it, if you really want to save money, you buy a $1000 beater and drive it into the ground. But there are a lot of other reasons to buy a car.

Chris_V wrote: . It uses less goddamn electricity than my home computer to commute with and run errands (my monthly bill, from plugging it in every night and driving every day, has seen less than an $8 increase since I've had the car over the same periods the previous year)

not that it matters, but that's hardly a scientific method there. Your electricity bill is affected by various other things: 2 degrees in temperature outside can make your A/C usage be different. Did you use the TV/computer/lights/other electrical things the exact same amount in both periods? Are the rates the same? Too many variables to make a valid comparison based on what your bill was. It's a nice little story but.....

I think if we examined the actual amount of electricity used to fully charge a Volt on a daily basis, we'd probably find it to be considerably more than the amount used to power a computer. After all, the Volt itself has a powerful computer inside it that uses plenty of electricity, not including the actual drivetrain. I'm sure that information is available someplace (e.g. how much kwh does it take to fully charge the Volt battery, and how much does it take to run a computer for 8 hours per day.

Or it could be valid, but you're not telling us that you have a Cray Supercomputer at your house :)

In reply to irish44j:

My last post calculated out the electricity use. About $8 a month. My home computer is on 24/7 with a 600w power supply.

To fully charge the Volt battery from empty (a state it never gets to while I'm driving it) is 10 kWh, or about $1. I only use about 3 kWh per day, or 30 cents.

If one were to drive the full 50 miles on electricity per day, and charge overnight, at present rates it would cost about $20 in electricity per month to commute (5 days a week, for 4 weeks a month), plus whatever on weekends for running around.

The prime advantage to the Volt is that you are not limited to that 50 miles per day EV-only range.