GAO: Electric cars won’t reduce carbon emissions
posted at 9:22 pm on July 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The push for conversion to plug-in electric cars will do nothing to stop carbon emissions, a report by the GAO warns, throwing cold water on a push by Democrats to get more plug-ins on the road. In fact, the problem could be made worse as demand goes up at coal-fired electrical plants. Plus, the need for batteries may just have the US changing the dictators to which we’re chained, as IBD reports:
It’s a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.
“If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country’s electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?” asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: “Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy.”
The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely.
This misses another point as well, one I mentioned during the campaign. Obama wants the US to decrease its electrical demand over the next several years as a means of conservation as we switch away from coal and other fossil fuels as a source for power. Transferring cars from gasoline to electricity would vastly increase demand for power at the outlet, which would conflict with the decrease Obama wants to mandate. The result would be prices skyrocketing even higher, and people unable to use their vehicles from a lack of ability to pay for recharging them.
Of course, we have a source for electricity in abundance: nuclear power. IBD suggests that a program to rapidly expand our nuclear-power generation could fill the gap while generating zero carbon emissions. The Obama administration and the Democrats don’t want that, though. They shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility, which would have recycled used fuel rods into material for more nuclear power, giving us an almost-completely renewing resource for decades into the future.
The GAO also points out that electric cars would have the US trading one set of dictators for another in order to power our cars. The batteries for electric vehicles are lithium-ion, and for the experimental production levels in the US at this moment, we have enough lithium resources to keep pace. However, once we start building electric cars in mass numbers, we will quickly run through our proven stores of lithium. We would most likely have to do business with Hugo Chavez lackey Evo Morales of Bolivia, where half of the world’s proven stores of lithium reside. Even if we didn’t buy directly from the leftist leader, Morales has the ability to set the global price — just as Saudi Arabia and OPEC do with oil.
Plug-in electrics just trade one carbon source for another, one dictator for another, and deliver a lower-standard vehicle. It’s about as lose-lose as it gets, at least without nuclear power to fuel it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
For Dear Leader, that is a feature, not a bug.
rbj on July 10, 2009 at 12:16 PM
How you can question anyone else when you turn around and say something this incredibly stupid.
Why don’t you just get it over with and put a sign on your forehead declaring you don’t have clue.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Just genius, I’m still working on the promotion to super genius. Though thanks for noticing.
So at best you are in college, though more likely, you might be a senior in high school.
It’s also very obvious that whatever your field of study, it has nothing to do with the science or numbers.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:19 PM
From wiki (I know, I know)
With that, gentlemen, the lessons are over for today. I await the next post to continue the discussion. :)
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Wyznowski, I’m a 58 year old woman, and still hot like Sarah Palin…red high heel shoes are still a passion with me too!
luvstotango on July 10, 2009 at 12:20 PM
That stupid commercial that is used to promote the smart grid, I forget which company makes it, claims that the current grid is only 50% efficient.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:20 PM
looks like a death trap
Lisa on July 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM
no wait, like a ride at the CA. State Fair.
http://www.316Christianstore.biz
Lisa on July 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM
I remember an article from years ago, talked about electric buses. Seems that unless you accelerate really slowly, you lose a lot of efficiency. Once you saturate the inductors in the electric motor, adding more current doesn’t do you any good.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM
That makes sense. Considering that, I doubt they could be anywhere near 50% especially if you factor in all losses from source (generator) to load (drive motor) Doesn’t sound very cost effective to me no matter what the idiot government says. Think I’ll stick to my gasoline powered carbon dioxide spewing smog machine.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM
That’s it! You nailed it. It’s so idiotic I must have purged it from my hard drive.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Sounds low to me as well. But then, it’s been 20 years since the last time I researched it.
BTW, if the long distance distribution lines are using AC, how do they synchronize the signals?
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I will forgive you this time.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:27 PM
I don’t think you get what the picture in your link is saying.
You said “A gas engine is using energy when it idles – almost as much as when its going down the road.” That is 100% wrong, as I have shown.
Your image says that of the energy a gas engine creates roughly 17% of that energy is consumed by idling and roughly 18% of that energy goes into moving the car forward.
Do you see how those are two completely different sets of data? Probably not, I’m guessing.
strictnein on July 10, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 12:16 PM
You have to remember, a sales pamphlet always beats actaul real world experience.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM
The grid is all tied together. It’s in synch. Do you mean how do you synchronize when bringing a unit online?
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I mean that if electricity can travel two different paths to get from point A to point B. If one path is longer than the other, if the signal being sent is AC, then the signal that takes the longer path, will lag the signal that takes the shorter path.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM
It’s recently been learned that a group of scientists at EPA did a study. This study contradicted the EPA’s findings that CO2 is a major problem.
The head of the EPA ordered that the study be deep sixed and ordered that the scientists involved not talk to anyone about the study.
–
Of course we can trust any document that comes from the EPA. wink, wink
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I see what you’re saying but it’s not an issue. As long as everything is tied together frequency stays in synch. All the generators in the system are in synch. Doesn’t really matter how long or short the lines. Units in California are in synch with units on the East coast.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Ed, while its true that the Dim-o-crats shut down Yucca Mountain its purpose was long-term storage, not a fuel reprocessing center which not only makes sense and is something Japan, England, France et al do but that we don’t because of an executive order Jimmy “I love terrorists” Carter signed. Democrats: stupidity knows no bounds.
skanter on July 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I have someone I’d like you to meet. Blantantblue, are you around?
DarkCurrent on July 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM
The day will come when you need to replace your fancy El-mobile. Where are we supposed to dispose of millions of lithium batteries? Are these batteries really that environmentally friendly?
Maybe we instead should invent a car that has a steam engine running a generator charging a battery driving electromotors driving the wheels….
gullxn on July 10, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I thought Republicans were all for reducing dependence on foreign oil? Wouldn’t it be a good thing even if Democrats think it’s a good thing for another reason? (A win/win!)
The GOP party line seems to be that global warming is a scam, so what do you care if you think electric cars will increase pollution? (They won’t, but it shouldn’t matter.)
If you want to replace internal combustion cars with electric cars, you’re going to need a lot more electrical power. It’s going to be hard to expand hydroelectric power without creating a few more rivers. In the real world, with available technology, that means coal/oil/natural gas-burning power plants, that do emit CO2.
Bottom line: spend a huge amount of money for a negligible impact.
Now, if we were to start building nuclear power plants, the equation would change drastically. How many have we built in the last 30 years? Any signs of political change that will allow new ones to be built?
Until you add nuclear power to the equation, this is just a foolish fantasy for liberals. Now, I don’t mind liberals having their fantasies, but the rest of us shouldn’t have to pay for them.
Add nuclear power plants, though, and I’d be all in favor of the idea.
tom on July 10, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Has the Car Salesman In Chief considered that the power grid cannot handle the load?
I’m busy floating a book concept around… 101 Things To Do With A Dead Electric Car.
shaken on July 10, 2009 at 1:02 PM
The carbon BS is just that, lies. But I do like the idea of being energy self sufficient. Our main goal should be getting away from sending boat loads of money to foreign shores, but instead having it sent to our own producers.
SGinNC on July 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Kind of interesting… I’ve been trying to find somthing about battery (lith Ion) efficiency… ie… how much does it take to charge vs. how much power you get out…
Can’t seem to find anything. Lots of stuff on discharge over time characteristics… lots of stuff on Temp vs discharge… nothing really on how efficient a storage medium they actualy are.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I remember an article from years ago, talked about electric buses. Seems that unless you accelerate really slowly, you lose a lot of efficiency. Once you saturate the inductors in the electric motor, adding more current doesn’t do you any good.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM
This will come in handy trying to get onto I-95 at 5:00pm.
Jed_Eckert on July 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM
That’s a good one! You’re giving Jeff from WI a run for his money.
luvstotango on July 10, 2009 at 1:16 PM
LOL… try I-70 going East, just before Eisenhour tunnel…
Thats when I REALLY luv my Supercharged Durango RT (super was aftermarket).
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 1:19 PM
How badly does temperature affect their storeage capacity?
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I think corn ethanol is as lose lose as it gets, high pollution ‘greenhouse gases’ and it rapes the poor with high food costs from the diversion of foodstuffs to motor vehicles.
This comes a close second. Moreover the GAO doesn’t note that the used car batteries would also be an environmental hazard which would last for many hundreds of years. Once again libtard democrap ’solutions’ are much worse than the problem.
eaglewingz08 on July 10, 2009 at 1:26 PM
DarkCurrent, that’s the best offer I’ve had all day. Blantandblue not so much. I REALLY have the hots for a 3-way with Bishop, Dr.Cwac.Cwac and Limerick, or is that a 4-way?
luvstotango on July 10, 2009 at 1:28 PM
lorien is going to be really disappointed if you leave him out :-)
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 1:36 PM
For Lith Ion not really significantly in normal human type ranges. With temps in the -20F Range one manufacturer was talking about a 20% or so loss… significant but not a deal breaker IMO.
Real problem with Lith Ion is the Charge time… people are working on that problem, and some say they have solved it… in the lab… will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next couple of years.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I see physics class wasn’t a requirement for most of you. Electric motors versus internal combustion engines aren’t even close in terms of efficiency. Efficiency being the amount of work performed divided by the amount of energy put in. Internal combustion engines lose lots more heat energy than electric motors. In fact internal combustion engines produce more heat than they do power!
Couldn’t be farther from the truth, both electricity and gasoline include losses that need to be accounted for. After you do so electricity still comes out on top.
Here’s a good summary of the math:
http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml
The whole thing is worth a read, but specifically check out the The Efficiency Advantage of EVs and Power Plants section.
They do that math as BTUs and while you’re right there are huge losses to get the electricity to you, an electric car can go *much* farther will less energy because of the high efficiency of the electric motor.
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Another person who thinks a sales brochure beats real world data.
How utterly pathetic. But to be expected from a true believer.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 1:44 PM
You’ll note that you quoted me saying I think we can all agree that nuclear should expand. But why do you care if coal expands too? It’s domestic and the GOP doesn’t believe we can change the climate. Personally I’d rather do away with coal, but if it’s between domestic coal or foreign oil I’ll take the coal any day.
Building new nuclear plants can’t happen over night (hell, just getting the parts can take years), but I think should be a top priority. Now that would be some stimulus–a couple dozen new nuclear power plants!
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 1:44 PM
So your real world data defeats physics? What’s this data you speak of? The article I linked actually uses real world data too–an actual electric car versus an actual internal combustion car.
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM
If they made a decent electric car that wouldn’t get me killed in an accident and could go more than 30 miles (per hour) without needing recharged I would still be all for driving it.
*whisper* In case there’s any question as to why (yikes), it’s because the environment was never a factor with these toys. I just want to save money on gas.
Hippies are funny. And don’t understand the world they claim to love.
loganthompson on July 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM
I don’t see any physics in that pamphlet you provided. Just pulled out the a$$ numbers that run counter to every study I have ever seen.
ICE engines are way more efficient than 18% have have been for decades.
Charge and discharge efficiencies of batteries are much, much less than 88%.
You can claim that your little pamphlet is a reflection of reality all you want, but it’s still little more than an inaccurate piece of propaganda.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 1:48 PM
lorien can watch!
luvstotango on July 10, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Hey now. He’s super cereal.
loganthompson on July 10, 2009 at 1:51 PM
And yet in the real world electric cars are more efficient than ICE cars. You quite literally spend less to put in less energy and go farther. How can this be?
For example, the Tesla Roadster is an electric sports car. Yet it is more efficient than the Toyota Prius. As for battery efficiency, it gets battery to wheel efficiency of 92% on average.
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Since when do made up numbers extracted from a sales brochure equate to the real world.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM
The engine losses are because no engine can operate 100% efficiency unless it is rejecting the heat to absolute zero temperatures. Gasoline engines are about 40% efficient compared to the ideal heat engine. And I would point out that your electric car will have all the other losses in that drawing associated with it as well because those are drive train and acceleration losses. You will still need to use 40-50% more electricity than the energy you use in gasoline to move your electric car the same distance down the road due to energy transmission and conversion losses happening from coal to steam to electricity (less line losses, charger losses, and battery charge losses) to battery.
I note with pride that lots of old nukes around here (Romeo13 and OldNuke) have a much better grasp of energy facts than the electric car aficionados. (I guess nuclear power isn’t rocket science, but it does require a bit more knowledge of facts than your average day care provider) That is because power consumption was our life. Electric car aficionados care only about what happens to their fun bags when the car battery sends electrons to the motor. All very good engineering fun, but it ignores the real cost of the raw energy and the losses associated with getting that energy to the place where it has to do work.
If the Volt and Tesla and Prius were so damned efficient and cost effective, you can bet millions of poor people would have one by now. But they don’t because they are not cost effective. And until God changes the laws of Physics or gasoline becomes more expensive to use than whiskey is to drink ($20/ a fifth, folks), they never will.
Subsunk
Subsunk on July 10, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Thats effieciency is OUT of the battery, to the wheel… so thats the conversion to AC, then losses from the Electric motor and gear assembly (driveshafts and such).
I can’t find anything on their site about how much energy it takes to charge the battery, in comparison to how much they get out of the battery. Thats one piece missing from the energy equation.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Here is the kicker, just reported.
A Montana supplier of metal just had the contract revoked…while GM is keeping the contract with Russia and South Africa.
More of our people put out of business, while propping up someone else’s economy.
You would think with a failing stimulus plan, a failing economy, failing employment, and owning 60% of GM, the gov would state “BUY AMERICAN”.
right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 2:08 PM
They don’t factor in the amount of added energy to produce the battery’s, and then what to do with the exhausted cells once they go bad.
I would bet, almost any amount of money, that car costs more (energy) to produce, run, and then “junk”, then the average newer car on the road today.
right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM
I know what I said, MarkTheGreat is under the impression that batteries these days are less efficient than they are. After accounting for all losses, electric cars are still more efficient than ICE cars. Not by a huge margin, but it’s noticeable. From “pump” (or plug) to wheel it’s drastic–note that the Tesla Roadster is more efficient in that aspect than even the Prius. Not to mention that electricity can be generated cleanly and much more cheaply than fossil fuels.
Regardless, this is *all* domestic energy. You can’t ship in power from the middle east. Isn’t a good thing to be less reliant on foreign oil? I know I know, “drill drill drill”, but what happens when that runs out? We’re going to be back to where we are now. Let’s do both, now.
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 2:12 PM
They took a Prius, and a BMW M3, ran them around a course, with the Prius leading, and the BMW M3 (V-8) had better gas mileage.
It isn’t the car, it is the driver
right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 2:13 PM
65-01 Mare Island. A1W when Yogi Kaufman was CO. Thus Oldnuke.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM
You mean like the Prius?
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM
That was as BS a test as you could design. The Prius isn’t made for a race track (sort of like the M3 not really being designed for every day driving). They maxed out a four-cylinder engine and complained that it didn’t work well.
The Prius (51/48) is a very efficient car driven on the street like everyone drives while the M3 is very inefficient (14/20).
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM
So where do we get the huge, and I mean huge, amount of added electricity to power these EV’s?
I would bet, on a summer day, we can’t take 10% added increase, now add probably 30% increase in power usage…where does say California get the electricity?
No rivers, no dams, no more nuclear power plants, no more coal plants…solar? wind? The cost of building those “farms” fare exceed the return.
right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Facts plese? Stats please? not statements?
Problem with your last statement is that ICE PRODUCE their own energy.
Batteries do not.
So, an internal combustion car all the losses inherent in the energy production to out the wheel equation are all in the same car.
Your Tesla moves more than HALF of that equation outside the vehicle.
What I’m trying to see is if you take the losses from Natural Gas, though its conversion to electricity in a plant, to losses getting it to the car, to losses in Charge/discharge of a battery, to efficiency out the wheel…
Is that really superior to an Internal Combustion engine running off of CNG?
You’ve made statements that it is… I’m trying to get the non Spin facts of each part, to put it together.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Pal, my daughter-in-law has a Prius, she has never ever gotten 48 in town…not even close.
Talk about BS, you just showed your colors.
Now you can answer my other challenge, where would you get the added electricity?
right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Yes, electric motors are more efficient than ICEs. Fossil plants are more efficient than nukes. A well run nuke plant will make power cheaper than the more efficient fossil plant. If a nuke plant can’t compete dollar wise with the fossil plants in it’s own system then what would be the point. The bottom line is how many dollars per mile does it cost you to drive a vehicle. Will the Tesla or any other electric car actually be able to compete dollar per mile with a comparable gasoline or diesel car?
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I certainly don’t mind if we expand coal, but I believe the topic is a study that shows that electric cars won’t reduce carbon emissions. Burning coal certainly won’t reduce carbon emissions. Burning gas or oil won’t either.
I’m all for nuclear power in principle. But there’s been no practice in about a generation. Apparently, we’re never building another nuclear power plant.
Without that, not much point in converting to electric cars to reduce carbon emissions.
If you’re concerned about the use of foreign oil, we could drill more for domestic oil. Much easier fix.
tom on July 10, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Nuclear power plants. Always been for it and unless something changes always will.
ICE don’t produce energy, they change the form of energy. If an engine created energy it would solve all of the world’s energy needs and we wouldn’t be debating this anymore. This conversion isn’t perfect though, they do so rather inefficiently (all that heat!). But all of the losses in energy to not happen in the car (not that it would matter, who cares where energy is lost as long as it’s lost)–oil has to be pumped, shipped, refined and shipped again. It’s also highly volatile in price.
I’m simply claiming that the math works that it is more efficient–counting all losses–to use electricity versus gas. Using electricity also allows it to be done cleanly. In terms of purchasing that energy it’s vastly cheaper to use electricity. Batteries are still expensive, so that’s the reason why everyone’s not driving electric cars at the moment.
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Another way to think about it–if ICE are so efficient versus the electricity grid, why not just buy a diesel generator and make your own electricity? This would be a great experiment as it can easily be done and you’ll quickly find out that using gas is really expensive versus the electricity grid.
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Well seeing as how energy cannot be created nor destroyed, except in some theories around black holes… its been common verbiage for years to talk about the RELEASE of chemical energy inherent in oil or gas, as energy PRODUCTION.
But if you wish to pick verbal nits… feel free.
You’re claiming that the math is on your side, without producing the math. Your making STATEMENTS that you know what is correct without producing the math to back it up…
I’m looking for the math.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 2:34 PM
But Remember Obama and Biden BOTH STATEDthey wanted to BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY!!
The environmental wakos also dont want Nuclear power.
The environmental wakos and Democrats dont want Windmills(Remeber kennedy said it blocks his yacht’s view) and the windmills kill birds.
The democrats and environmentalists also dont want SOLAR!!It seems that STEALING the Sunlight robs some poor earthworm of his warmth.
So you LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MORONIC IDIOTS
Where will you get the electricity
to power your plug in cars !!!!
http://www.veteranoutrage.com
MORONS
veteranoutrage on July 10, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Funny you should mention that number. That was the sort of mandated guideline for required reserves. We always tried to have at least ten percent of our total generating capacity in reserve to come on line. I’ve seen days when we had zero and couldn’t get commitments from other utilities because they were in the same shape. They’re called Summer/Winter peaks. That was a few years ago and I’m not sure what the required reserves are now.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 2:36 PM
False experiment because the price of diesal is highly controled by the govenrment though the requirments they place on it, and the taxes in it.
Heck, we make diesel cars in America TODAY that get 35+ miles to the gallon, but our own goverment won’t let them be sold here because they do not meet EPA standards… so we ship em overseas to sell.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 2:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Energy_efficiency
You can slice it and dice it bunches of different ways, but the same amount of electricity will get you farther than the same amount of gas (speaking in BTUs). The electricity will also be several times cheaper. If you count from the source to the wheel the electric car still wins. If you really want to be a hippy you can become the source and have maximum efficiency, try that with your ICE.
Electric cars aren’t perfect (the cross country trip is still a major hurdle), but I sure would love to have one.
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM
For crying out loud, do you specialize in inane comparisons?
You are aware that efficiencies change with scale?
You are aware that power plants don’t use diesel engines for a reason? (Hint, they use steam powered turbines. The difference between the various types is how the steam gets generated.)
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Oh I wouldn’t say that. They’re supposed to break ground on a new plant in Virginia next year. I think Texas has already started one. Nothing means that once started they’ll be completed but the wheels are in motion. Just for reference the plant in Virginia had a minor setback earlier when GE abruptly canceled the contracts for the large components that they were to supply. They had to go off in pursuit of unicorns and fairy dust. I think the utility is now going to Japan to get them.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Quite obviously, that’s my point. It would be more efficient to take advantage of the economies of scale for electricity production than to run millions of little power plants running off fossil fuels. It’s a quite apt comparison–what are cars but mobile generators?
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Nukes are being dismantled, not manufactured. The ones being built was under President Bush…you won’t see any under this congress.
So that is not an answer…you have no answer.
What energy plants are there around.
There is a glut of oil, but congress won’t authorize anymore conversion plants.
right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Funny you mention that, several years ago in California when they had a severe energy shortage and prices spiked, we tried to rent a generator.
The generator, and the diesel to run it was cheaper then the electricity.
Our plant needed continuous power, and were were suffering black outs (havoc on electronic systems).
The state and feds jumped in and said “NO”, because it was cheaper, we were (and hundreds of others) were going off line and produce our own.
So the answer is this…yes it is cheaper to produce your own, the the government has restrictions on how many hours a week (or day) you can use the generation power.
The only time they allow it is if you are using “energy” saving, not cost saving technology.
So we are back to….where do you get the energy for all these “fantastic” battery cars?
right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 2:55 PM
I think I might buy an electric lawnmower so I don’t have to futz with gas. I don’t have much lawn. It could work.
But a car? Keep in mind we’ve got to fix these things when (not if) they break. That could get expensive quick, no?
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Others will jump in, but production and trasnportation of energy is very inefficient.
Some one will tell us the loss of power over the power grid…what is produced, and what actually is netted at the place of use is huge, I would bet around 35% loss.
So the efficiency of your EV is immediately 65% of ICE.
right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Interesting link, but once more it leaves much out of the total energy equation.
They use a Tesla test to state they will go so far per Kilowatt hour… thats an interesting assertion. How fast are they going? Are they accelerating? How fast? How much weight in the car? Looks like most of the data is test bench which leaves out wind resistance and such…
Interesting tidbit found on Wiki… “Approximately 20% of this power consumption is due to inefficiencies in charging the batteries”… not sure how accurate it is as there was not a citation for it…. still looking…
Once again, I’m seeing PART of the math… but not all the math of the entire cycle…
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Do it for the lawnmower, my parents did that years ago and it has saved them lots of money/time. It’s worth it just for the peace and quiet.
As for the cars, first gen anything is going to be sub-optimal, but electric cars are much more simple (in theory!) so I think maintenance should be reasonable. The battery is where the worry is, but battery research has been advancing at quite a nice pace. I’d love to see America become the leader in it–silicon valley the new auto-mecca.
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM
The EPA estimates work for me, but you can also talk to an owner–they use less energy (measured how you’d like, the easiest is dollars) and have tons of fun doing it. Obviously we’re not all going to be tooling around in $100k sports cars (I wish!), but it’s a sign on the future. Plug-in hybrids are going to be more popular/realistic until we can get fast electric recharging, but for my car use I’d almost never have to use gasoline.
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 3:04 PM
I’m surprised to see this much progress. I’ll be shocked if they finish these and put them in production.
But I have this strong suspicion that most of those pushing for electric cars to reduce carbon emissions have no intention of supporting the nuclear power required to actually make that work.
I’ll take jonknee at his word that he’s an exception.
tom on July 10, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Yes, because we are SOOOO gonna sell electric cars to countries like… Nigeria… where they have no real electric Grid!
Hmmmm…. hadn’t even taken that into the total cost of electric cars nationwide… how much more of a transmission grid will we need? Some could be done offpeak… but for business transportation and such, you would need to do at least some recharging during peak type hours…
I know Boone Pickens is cancelling his big Texas wind farm idea because the lines were not going to be constructed prior to when he would need them…
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Uh, would that be the same EPA who has politiced the Global Warming Science?
Dude, I can PROOVE to you that CO2 will not increase global temps… so I should trust their numbers here?
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Refresh my memory, didn’t you tell me you were an ET(R)?
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 3:13 PM
And we’re selling a lot of ICE vehicles to Nigeria? What I meant about becoming the leader is that it’s much better to build and refine these things here than have to start buying them from Asia. They beat us to the punch on hybrids and that still stings.
You can prove no such thing. I know it’s off topic, but just to sate my curiosity, what are your thoughts on evolution?
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Started out to be an ET Reactor Operator… but flunked out of nuke school about 4 weeks before grad… so got most of the book education but never really dealt with reactors themselves… Still got a T-shirt from class 8006 in Orlando that my friends had SCRAM’D stenciled across the school logo…
Then worked on everything from High Powered Air Search Radars, to Sat Coms, to Crypto, to… things best not mentioned… LOL..
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Your right, probably cannot proove it to you… but to anyone with a bit of physics backgroud?
Here…. bit long, but try to follow it…
CO2 and climate change… the PHYSICS do not work.
First, the theory of Greenhouse Gases.
All energy comes to, and leaves the Earth as Radiation.
Radiation comes from the Sun, in a specific spectrum (including light), and is then either Reflected back to space, absorbed by the Atmosphere, or absorbed by the earth’s surface.
Energy is also Radiated by all matter (called Black Body Radiation) in specific wavelengths dependent primarily on the Temperature of the mass.
Matter also will absorb radiation, but different molecules absorb different frequencies of radiation energy… known as the absorption spectrum. This energy will raise the energy state of the molecule, which it will then either reradiate (as blackbody radiation), or loose energy through conduction.
The theory behind a greenhouse gas is that the Gas will absorb incoming radiation from the sun, and through conduction, heat the rest of the air around it. It will also absorb IR radiation radiated by the Earth itself (black body radiation again), and use conduction to spread it to the rest of the atmosphere.
So, is CO2 a Greenhouse Gas? YES, it is, but only up to a point.
CO2 ONLY absorbs IR energy in well known, and clearly defined frequencies, which comprise about 8% of the IR Spectrum. This IR can come from the Sun, the Blackbody radiation of the Earth, or the Blackbody Radiation of the atmosphere itself.
The problem is that ALL of the IR radiation in the Earth’s biosphere, within those frequency ranges IS ALREADY BEING ABSORBED!
http://www.nov55.com/atmo.html
The above chart is a visual representation of the Energy absorption spectrums of the atmosphere, and the %’s of those spectrums being absorbed. If you look at the CO2 absorption frequencies, you will see that they are already at 100% absorption…
or, to put it simply, there is no more energy to absorb, thus there can be no Temperature increase by adding more CO2!
So, in conclusion, is CO2 a Greenhouse Gas? YES! But its already reached its maximum Greenhouse effect, adding more will not do anything.
Therefore, the Cap and Trade legislation will not do anything except bankrupt us.
As to offsubject Evolution? I’m not a Christian… but whose to say that Evolution was not directed… that the rules were not put in place to where we were the logical end result?
Evolution or Directed Evolution? Not mutualy exclusive beliefs. But for me the Jury is still out on the question.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM
It would be, if you could find someway to magically get the electricity produced at the power plant to your electric motor.
Since magic doesn’t exist, you have to do it through a mechanism that has a huge amount of loss.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 3:25 PM
I might add that hydro-electric plants are also being retired. Usually at the insistence of the same enviro-wackos who won’t permit nukes to be built.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 3:26 PM
His excuse…it just isn’t efficient.
Nuclear is better, and would be great but for the multitude of gov. regulations (some absolutely necessary, but most as a way to slow or stop nuclear progress).
Wind farms are ridiculous, ever see the cost of those turbines, the short life span? Imagine one hurricane at 150mph what would happen?
Gas engines, fuel engines are very efficient, cost little to produce, run, and are recyclable.
We have all the fuel we could ever need, but are not allowed to retrieve it, or refine it.
Now if they could conquer the problem of fusion, then all bets are off, we use electricity.
You think losing out the autos to Japan was bad?
Here
China is building 32 nuclear power plants in the next 10 years…and predicts as many as 300 by mid-century.
Meanwhile we will be charging our car batteries by riding a bicycle to generate energy…
right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I’ve read several papers that sought to show that the only thing that happens as you add more CO2 to the atmosphere is that the distance that it takes for an average IR photon to get reabsorbed decreases by a small amount.
The critical thing is that for the frequencies that absorbed by CO2, it is virtually impossible for a photon to travel from the surface to space without being absorbed at least once.
According to the papers, once that point is reached, extra CO2 has no affect.
I didn’t have the time or inclenation to reverse engineer the math, so I can’t vouchsafe for it. However, a lot of other people have, and do.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Oh, believe me, I’m not a proponent of wind farms… I’ve driven too many times through Tehachapi Pass outside of Bakersfeile CA, and seen those turbines not moving…
I was trying to make the point about the transmission grid… that is it NOT being expanded enough to support Boones “project”.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 3:36 PM
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
I’ve posted this before, and undoubtedly will do again.
Radiation Transmitted by the Atmosphere
Shows all of the major greenhouse gasses.
Between CO2 and water vapor, all of the frequencies absorbed by CO2 are already saturated.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 3:38 PM
and funny part? I’ve had this exact discusion with a number of supposedly smart CO2 warmers… and the only thing they can come up with is “its too complicated for me to explain it to you”…
Always makes me chuckle.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 3:38 PM
That my friend I guaran-damn-tee you that you won’t do! Lance Armstrong couldn’t do that. At our visitors center we have a bike hooked up to a generator powering a single 100 watt light bulb. We delight in having people jump on it and start to pedal furiously they think they are doing so well then we close the switch. The look on their faces is priceless. You might be able to recharge your Ipod if you were in really good shape.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 3:38 PM
C’mon now give credit where it’s due. Jonknee did better than most. At least he provided some substance. Most just devolve to “You’re dumb shut up.”
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM
I’ll take that as my prize and buckle down and finish up work for the week!
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Yep, what I’ve found on many of these Science meets politics issues is that folks argue from about HALF the facts… and don’t look at the whole Macro situation.
For me, Jury is still out on Electric cars for short range transportation… I want evidence from both sides to see if they make sense… but the Electric car advocates only want to look at the efficiency of the car itself, and not what it takes to get the electicity TO the car.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 3:46 PM
So, did I proove my assertion about CO2?
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Hey, you either knew what efficiency was or you had enough sense to go out and look it up. Either way it proved to me that you were not the run of the mill empty headed greenie. Although you and I will probably never agree on electric cars at least we can talk about it. That crack about no physics education aside. All that said I still haven’t made up my mind whether or not you’re an extraordinary empty headed greenie :-)
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Exactly! If it works fine and lasts a long time and it’s economical to operate without a lot of hassle then I’m for it. If not get your unicorn crap off of my lawn I don’t care what your advertisement says.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Doesn’t matter. Next time the subject comes up, he’ll claim that you didn’t.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »