Pb & the electric car!
BILLC
this and other newsgroups. I'm not very impressed by the force of the
arguments in favor of switching pollution from urban to remote
locations. Why ruin a more pristine environment to satisfy the
selfishness of the urban masses. Anyway, I've never seen a study that
doesn't contradict my gut feeling that the inefficieny of generation,
transmission, and storage of the electricity will not mandate more air
pollution ; especially if a dirty fuel like coal in burned.
Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
Pb releases attendant on the smelting or recycling of sufficient Pb to
make the Pb/acid battery (the only economically feasible one at hand)
and the manufacture of the batteries.
I have no basis to challange this conclusion which vitiates much of the
policy rhetoric on urban air pollution. Another illustration of the
Law of Unintended Consequences?
Oh well! I guess we get the goverment we deserve. Policy IS made by
technical illeterates.
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş Old Chemists never die! They just reach Equilibrium.
Andy Holland
>I have been following the threads on the elec. car & air pollution on
>this and other newsgroups. I'm not very impressed by the force of the
>arguments in favor of switching pollution from urban to remote
>locations. Why ruin a more pristine environment to satisfy the
>selfishness of the urban masses. Anyway, I've never seen a study that
>doesn't contradict my gut feeling that the inefficieny of generation,
>transmission, and storage of the electricity will not mandate more air
The ICE is about 8-10% thermal efficient at best. A dirty old coal
plant is 40% efficient (your comparing an open cycle to a closed
cycle. Additionally, electrical transmission, work and distribution
are extremely efficient). Figuring a low 50% efficient for the rest;
it would be 20% efficient.
Furthermore, I think you would find that reflected in the dollars, when
you convert horse-power to Kw-Hr, and figure the cost of electricity in
your area. On the other-hand, the battery is currently very *expensive*.
However, the real issue is, that the US fought the last two *undeclared*
major wars over oil, and national policy is in large part dictated by it.
With coal and uranium, we have a supply that will last nearly forever
(2000 year coal reserves in Alaska, and 10,000 of years uranium at Oak Ridge).
In the long run, thats what will drive the entire energy engine, because
we are running out of oil fast.
Using electrical car generation, we would be energy independant; and
oil which is valuable for other things (polymers, plastics, lubricant),
would be conserved for future generations.
>Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
>Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
>to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
>comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
>Pb releases attendant on the smelting or recycling of sufficient Pb to
>make the Pb/acid battery (the only economically feasible one at hand)
>and the manufacture of the batteries.
So what. Lead is not the only pollutant. Better to release lead at a
factory, where it can be disposed of properly, than have to absorb it
in a Southeast Asian jungle.
Watching the Israelis give up the Golan heights, the only defensible border
position, watching the current foreign policy in the Balkans, and the having
to brown-nose governments who make torture a recreational sport, is not my
idea of a good thing. So long as we have to import foreign energy, we are
strategically and diplomatically vulnerable; and its funny how conveniently
things are portrayed when our "strategic interests" are involved.
>I have no basis to challange this conclusion which vitiates much of the
>policy rhetoric on urban air pollution. Another illustration of the
>Law of Unintended Consequences?
>
>Oh well! I guess we get the goverment we deserve. Policy IS made by
>technical illeterates.
************
Good joke :).
I think our policy makers, in pursuing electric cars are a bit better plugged
in (pardon the pun), than you think. I'll be darned if I let this government
take my kids away to fight a foreign b*llsh^t war because we don't want
the levy to go dry.
> ş SLMR 2.1a ş Old Chemists never die! They just reach Equilibrium.
andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
Opinions are My Own
A Service Organization
|> I have been following the threads on the elec. car & air pollution on
|> this and other newsgroups. I'm not very impressed by the force of the
|> arguments in favor of switching pollution from urban to remote
|> locations. Why ruin a more pristine environment to satisfy the
|> selfishness of the urban masses. Anyway, I've never seen a study that
|> doesn't contradict my gut feeling that the inefficieny of generation,
|> transmission, and storage of the electricity will not mandate more air
|>
|> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
|> Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
|> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
|> comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
|> Pb releases attendant on the smelting or recycling of sufficient Pb to
|> make the Pb/acid battery (the only economically feasible one at hand)
|> and the manufacture of the batteries.
|>
|> policy rhetoric on urban air pollution. Another illustration of the
|> Law of Unintended Consequences?
|>
|> Oh well! I guess we get the goverment we deserve. Policy IS made by
|> technical illeterates.
|> ş SLMR 2.1a ş Old Chemists never die! They just reach Equilibrium.
|>
Short answer here:
Electric car design (see http://zebu.uoregon.edu/phys162.html for a lot
of information in general about alternative energy - its a university
web course on the subject) and production will never move forward if
realiance on lead-acid batteries is required. The energy storage in
these batteries is just too low. Moving to more advanced batteries
(sodium-sulfate for instance) which have 3 times more energy storage
capacity is key. Believe it or not, your federal government is investing
reasonable money into advanced battery programs.
Hugh Lippincott
|> I have been following the threads on the elec. car & air pollution on
|> this and other newsgroups. I'm not very impressed by the force of the
|> arguments in favor of switching pollution from urban to remote
|> locations. Why ruin a more pristine environment to satisfy the
|> selfishness of the urban masses. Anyway, I've never seen a study that
|> doesn't contradict my gut feeling that the inefficieny of generation,
|> transmission, and storage of the electricity will not mandate more air
|> pollution ; especially if a dirty fuel like coal in burned.
The electric car is one way of separating a problem. The problem is
the pollution vs power plant required to generate power for transportation.
It separates the production from the consumption. With electric cars
ANY METHOD of generation can be used: wind, solar, coal, nuclear, hydro-,...
That method can be as clean or dirty as you are willing to pay for.
It does not just move the pollution from city to country. Ideally, it
reduces the total pollution while increasing our options.
|> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
|> Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
|> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
|> comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
|> Pb releases attendant on the smelting or recycling of sufficient Pb to
|> make the Pb/acid battery (the only economically feasible one at hand)
|> and the manufacture of the batteries.
|>
|> I have no basis to challange this conclusion which vitiates much of the
|> policy rhetoric on urban air pollution. Another illustration of the
|> Law of Unintended Consequences?
The Boston Globe published a review article ~monday (sci-section) 5/22?
That made clear that the authors compared
- lead from leaded gasoline: ~100% into the air
- with all the lead from the mining and smelting process that is discarded
using excellent data from the past 30 years (all before the current standards)
This includes lead left in the mine tailings, in the smelting "ash", ...
probably less than 1% ended up in the air.
NOTE: if the need for lead doubled then NEW plants that meet the NEW standards
would be built. The industry claims that even current plants beat the standard
by a factor of 2.
The study is clearly biased in its assumptions.
I invite comment by those who've read the publication.
--
Hugh Lippincott hu...@an.hp.com
Mike Riordan
>From: nu...@moo.uoregon.edu (A Service Organization)
>Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
>Date: 5 Jun 1995 16:29:33 GMT
>Electric car design (see http://zebu.uoregon.edu/phys162.html for a lot
>of information in general about alternative energy - its a university
>web course on the subject) and production will never move forward if
>realiance on lead-acid batteries is required. The energy storage in
>these batteries is just too low. Moving to more advanced batteries
>(sodium-sulfate for instance) which have 3 times more energy storage
>capacity is key. Believe it or not, your federal government is investing
>reasonable money into advanced battery programs.
1. There is emerging consensus that the use of lead batteries in ZEVs
poses disproportionate environmental consequences.
2. The use of other materials may hold promise, but as of today-only
lead is being considered for production to meet the 1998 California/
Northeast mandate.
Mike Riordan
>From: zcr...@vvernus.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
>Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
>The ICE is about 8-10% thermal efficient at best. A dirty old coal
>plant is 40% efficient (your comparing an open cycle to a closed
>cycle. Additionally, electrical transmission, work and distribution
>are extremely efficient). Figuring a low 50% efficient for the rest;
>it would be 20% efficient.
>Furthermore, I think you would find that reflected in the dollars, when
>you convert horse-power to Kw-Hr, and figure the cost of electricity in
>your area. On the other-hand, the battery is currently very *expensive*.
>However, the real issue is, that the US fought the last two *undeclared*
>major wars over oil, and national policy is in large part dictated by it.
>With coal and uranium, we have a supply that will last nearly forever
>(2000 year coal reserves in Alaska, and 10,000 of years uranium at Oak Ridge).
>In the long run, thats what will drive the entire energy engine, because
>we are running out of oil fast.
>Using electrical car generation, we would be energy independant; and
>oil which is valuable for other things (polymers, plastics, lubricant),
>would be conserved for future generations.
>So what. Lead is not the only pollutant. Better to release lead at a
>factory, where it can be disposed of properly, than have to absorb it
>in a Southeast Asian jungle.
1. The data from the Science article indicates that there are substantial
releases of lead and lead compounds into the air from on-site lead
processing facilities.
2. The point of the article is that use of ZEVs powered by lead batteries
substantially degrades air quality with a substance of far worse health
consequences than the current pollutants from vehicle emissions.
>Watching the Israelis give up the Golan heights, the only defensible border
>position, watching the current foreign policy in the Balkans, and the having
>to brown-nose governments who make torture a recreational sport, is not my
>idea of a good thing. So long as we have to import foreign energy, we are
>strategically and diplomatically vulnerable; and its funny how conveniently
>things are portrayed when our "strategic interests" are involved.
3. Does anyone else see any relevance in this paragraph?
>I think our policy makers, in pursuing electric cars are a bit better plugged
>in (pardon the pun), than you think. I'll be darned if I let this government
>take my kids away to fight a foreign b*llsh^t war because we don't want
>the levy to go dry.
4. It is difficult to understand why we should trust the environmental
bureaucrats, but not the foreign policy ones.
Clark Dorman
> Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
> comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
> Pb releases attendant on the smelting or recycling of sufficient Pb to
> make the Pb/acid battery (the only economically feasible one at hand)
> and the manufacture of the batteries.
>
> I have no basis to challange this conclusion which vitiates much of the
> policy rhetoric on urban air pollution. Another illustration of the
> Law of Unintended Consequences?
>
> technical illeterates.
> ---
> ş SLMR 2.1a ş Old Chemists never die! They just reach Equilibrium.
Those involved with the electric vehicle industry were rather surprised by the
report. Their review of it found a number of problems. Here's a summary that
was posted on the EV mailing list:
--
1. The study is inaccurate and sloppy. In their haste to
discredit the EV movement, the authors have published a seriously
flawed document, containing errors that would shame a high school
engineering student.
2. The study was done with an axe to grind. Far from being an
unbiased independent investigation, it was commissioned and
carried out to mislead the public and dishearten the proponents
of EVs.
3. Publicly available information shows that the study
recieved petroleum and auto industry money.
This document should have never been published in a reputable
journal such as Science, much less picked up and run on the front
page of the New York Times. That it was indicates that pressure
from established interests forced its publication.
Inaccuracy
The primary point and the one that should recieve the most
emphasis is the study's sheer inaccuracy.
In a letter to Science, David Goldstein of Program
Development Associates in Gaithersburg, Maryland examines and
rejects the study's arguments, pointing out where mistaken
assumptions and mathematical errors have caused mistaken
conclusions. The study's mistakes are numerous, fatally
undercutting its credibility.
a. It overstates the battery mass of an "Available
Technology" EV by a factor of three. The authors assume a
battery mass of 1378 kg (3,032 lb), ignoring the fact that the
entire weight of the GM Impact, including batteries, is 1350 kg
(2970 lb). Even the 17-year old EVT-1 has a total weight of only
1509 kg (3320 lbs).
Impact's battery pack (derived from the
capacity times energy density) is approximately 420 kg or 925 lb
b. It is wrong about the energy density of lead-acid
batteries. By confusing kilograms with pounds, the authors
mistakenly state that the value is 18 watt-hrs/kg. The correct
value is 40 wh/kg or 18.18 wh/lb.
c. It is wrong about the energy capacity of the Impact's
battery pack, deriving a capacity figure of 25kWh from the
incorrect battery mass times the incorrect energy density. The
Impact's battery pack is 16.8 kWhr.
d. It overstates the car's energy consumption as 310 wh/km
when the figure is closer to 100 whr/kg. If one takes the car's
average range of 80 km times x 310 whr/km, energy required would
be 24.8 kWh, greater than the capacity of the battery pack!
e. It uses data from the ETV-1, a 17-year old test vehicle
as an example of current technology. EV technology has moved far
beyond the ETV-1. As Goldstein states, "it is rather like
comparing a Model T Ford with a Chevrolet Corvette." ETV-1
aceleration performance was 0-30 mph in 9 seconds; Impact does
0-60 in 8.5.
f. It underestimates battery cycle life, using the 450 cycle
value from the 17 year-old ETV-1, ignoring the 500-600 cycle
lifetime of today's sealed lead-acids and the 900 cycle life of
the new Electrosource Horizon. Goldstein points out that "this
factor alone would cut the calculated lead "emissions" by half."
Bias
The authors seize upon factors that support their conclusion
and ignore those that don't. Clearly the conclusion was written
first and the data twisted to validate it. For example:
The authors use their own estimate of environmental lead
discharges, based on a Bureau of Mines study that happened before
environmental regulations were implemented. They use guesses to
make an estimate of current discharges instead of attempting to
obtain exact data. To quote Goldstein, "In view of the the
authors' careless mistakes throughout the study, one can hardly
view these guestimates with any degree of credibility."
"Even if we accept the authors highly questionable
percentages," says Goldstein, "the worst-case senario for
lead-based waste products would be no more than approximately 3
times (not "60 times") the amount of lead released from leaded
gasoline. However, most of this material would be in a
locally-controlled solid waste form - not the air emissions
associated with gasoline."
He then points out that it will take two decades for EVs
to reach 5 % of the total US vehicle population. Within 5 years
these EVs will use advanced battery technologies that offer
increased range and greater environmental advantages over ICEs.
Accornding to Goldstein, the study also:
Ignores the study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a
group with the highest reputation and responsibility. UCS found
that introducing EVs in northern states would reduces CO
emissions by 99.8 percent, VOCs by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent
and C02 by 60 percent. UCS also determined that EVs were
significantly cleaner than the even the proposed ULEV gasoline
vehicles.
Ignores the presence of hundreds of millions of automotive
lead batteries already IN the environment. Compared to that, the
number of EV batteries will be a negligible addition.
Furthermore, despite the increase in vehicle population, CDC data
show that blood lead levels in the US are declining.
Ignores the percentage of lead recycled in battery
manufacturing (97 percent for flooded lead-acids).
Ignores the changes in manufacturing facilites for sealed
lead acids (cleanroom versus factory floor)
Does not consider the environmental effect of displacing 10
million ICE cars with EVs over the next two decades.
Ignores the damage done by toxic oil spills in rivers, lakes
and oceans.
Does not discriminate between airborne lead emissions and
solid waste slag, which can be easily controlled at the origin
point.
Ignores sources of lead such as the heavy accumulation of old
paint on bridges (EPA cites this as a major source) and flaking
paint on old houses.
There are other points in addition to Goldstein's. Metallic
lead enters the environment through various paths. Lead sources
include:
Lead weights for tire and wheel balancing. How many tons of
these get thrown to the side of the road each year?
Lead shot and lead sinkers used by hunters and fishermen.
These are a significant enough source that some states have
outlawed their use.
Batteries in industrial trucks and golf carts, which
presently outnumber road-going EVs and will continue to do so for
decades.
Small disposable batteries from consumer electronics, toys,
etc. How many AA, C and D cells end up in landfill?
Although metallic lead is fairly inert, interaction with
acids or oxidizing agents turns it into water soluble toxic
compounds. This is the process called leaching. Lead ingested
by or shot into an organism encounters strong organic acids that
transform it. Birds will eat fine lead shot. The pH of their
stomachs is 1-2. The toxin kills the bird and is released to do
more damage when the carcass decays. Acid rain works more slowly
(but in much larger quantities) on discarded lead weights.
Source of Support
The Carnegie Mellon Science article footnote 19 acknowledges
two research grants for their study. These include National
Science Foundation grant EEC-8943164, from the Green Design
Consortium of the Carnegie-Mellon University Engineering Design
Research Center and NSF grant 9319731. It might be noted that
the amount of the first NSF grant is $13,571,655.
This information is publicly available from Carnegie Mellon
University. They describe the purpose of their Engineering Design
Resarch Center:
"The goal of the Engineering Design Research Center at
Carnegie Mellon University is to provide the research and
educational base for the development and integration of design
methodologies that will make US industry preeminent in design
practice."
This includes evaluating "marketability (or user
acceptability)".
The EDRC's directory lists industry affiliates. Among them
are BP America, Exxon Research and Engineering, Mobil R and D,
and Shell Development.
The Green Design Consortium of the ERDC "is open to
industrial partners interested in participating and guiding
consortium projects." Membership (on the order of $10-20K yearly)
benefits include:
"The opportunity to provide input on research direction and
suggest specific research programs"
"Access to: Carnegie Mellon University laboratories and
researchers, Green Design research data, working papers, and
government research grants through cooperative university
proposals."
NSF grant 9319731 totals $450,000. The instigator is Lester
B. Lave, for a Management of Technology program.
This grant discusses developing a system to measure the
environmental consequences of alternative products or designs.
It is to be implemented in the the design of printers for a large
computer company, but there is a statement that says "The Ford
Motor Company will work with us in transfering the research
results...to quite a different setting."
--
Clark Dorman
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/Dorman.html
Ernst G. Knolle
: I have been following the threads on the elec. car & air pollution on
: this and other newsgroups. I'm not very impressed by the force of the
: arguments in favor of switching pollution from urban to remote
: locations. Why ruin a more pristine environment to satisfy the
: selfishness of the urban masses. Anyway, I've never seen a study that
: doesn't contradict my gut feeling that the inefficieny of generation,
: pollution ; especially if a dirty fuel like coal in burned.
: Oh well! I guess we get the government we deserve. Policy IS made by
: technical illiterates.
The EVs thus far running, when compared on the basis of equal size,
performance and range, can be out-performed 10 to one in energy
consumption by little gas buggies with motorcycle engines that get 100
miles per gallon. Only when we import ten times as much oil can we switch
to EVs.
Here is how that is computed:
This analysis is based on actual EV test track performance data
Some 70 electric vehicles (EVs) participated in 1992-93 testing events at
the Phoenix 500, Atlanta Clean Air Grand Prix, American Tour de Sol and
the Ford HEV at Dearborn. Data was collected, and as one reporter stated,
"analyzing this data is very difficult". Results were not related to
non-EV vehicles, except they compared within their group the Zero
Emission Vehicles (ZEV) and the Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV). ZEVs are
propelled by batteries alone, and HEV have an internal combustion engine
(gasoline) as Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). One observer noted that in APU
operations mode, energy costs were about twice as high as when in pure
ZEV operations mode, and he concluded therefrom that "it is hard to
escape the fact that electricity makes sense".
Major things wrong with above conclusion
Pre-thermal-conversion gasoline was compared with post-thermal-conversion
electricity. Taxes were included in gasoline, but none for electricity.
The gasoline was measured at entry into the vehicle and the EVs' electric
energy was measured after where major on-board losses occur, i.e. just
before the motors. These inequities in favor of EVs amount to 75% for
thermal conversion (and transmission), 40% for taxes and 25% for
measurement location. To travel with two-passenger capacity powered by
something that delivers 20 to 30 Hp, an internal combustion engine (IC)
from a motorcycle would suffice. It would get about 100 miles per gallon
(mpg) at 60 miles per hour (mph). At 37 kWhs/gallon this comes to IC
(pre-thermal-conversion input) = 370 Watt-hours/mile . The EVs in the
tests used highly inflated special tires to reduce rolling resistance
(RR). A 4000 lbs EV would have an RR = 4000*0.02 = 80 lbs with normal
tires, but only RR = 4000*0.005 = 20 lbs with special tires, a difference
of 4 to one. Also, the EVs' average speed on open road was only about 35
mph. To compare at 60 mph, requires air drag (AD) energy increase in
proportion to square of speed. Conversion factors 5280 ft/mile and 2655
ft-lbs/Watt-hour. "Thermal-conversion" means burning fuel to obtain
mechanical energy.
Dearborn Proving Ground results properly compared
In Dearborn tests the worst EV used 270, the average 213, and the best
161 Watt-hours/mile (pre-motor). Let's use the average, multiply by motor
efficiency to bring it to energy at pavement (AD + RR), 213*0.9 = 192,
(assume weight 4000 lbs) less rolling energy 192 - 4000*0.005*5280/2,655
= 192 - 40 = 152 (AD energy at 35 mph), increase 152* 60^2/35^2 = 447 (AD
energy at 60 mph), add normal tire rolling energy 447 + 40*4 = 607
Watt-hours/mile output energy at road surface. To obtain input divide
output by efficiency factors, motors 0.9, batteries & charger 0.75, power
transmission & thermal conversion 0.25 for a total EV
(pre-thermal-conversion input) of 607/(0.9*0.75*0.25) ~ 3600
Watt-hours/mile. Divide by the above calculated IC amount, and the
conclusion is:
EVs use about 10 times as much energy as equivalent ICs
Calculations and conclusions are based on reported test results and on
equal size and equal performance comparison. Prepared by Ernst G. Knolle,
Mechanical Engineer, licensed in California and Europe, California
License No. 12372, member of the New York Academy of Sciences. Address:
Knolle Magnetrans, 2691 Sean Court, South San Francisco, CA 94080,
U.S.A., phone (415)871-9816, fax 871-0867, e-mail kno...@crl.com.
Revised December 10, 1994
Atomic Rod
batteries like those used to power space probes, satellites and remote
navigational buoys?
These batteries, though hugely expensive in limited production, offer some
amazing energy storage densities.
The Voyager probe, for example, operated for over a decade without
recharging.
This kind of battery could upset both the electric utility industry and
the oil and gas industry, a result that I would find very satisfying.
Rod Adams
Barry Merriman
> With coal and uranium, we have a supply that will last nearly forever
> (2000 year coal reserves in Alaska, and 10,000 of years uranium
> at Oak Ridge).
Hmm, where did you get these numbers from? I have never heard coal
reserves projected much beyond several hundred years, and I thought
fissile fuel grade uranium would last only ~60 years (assuming no
breeder reactors) (and maybe 500 years with breeder reactors). In
short, most projections I've seen would have all nonrenewable energy
reserves known to man consumed in roughly a 500 year period.
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmer...@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
A Service Organization
Agreed. If we reach 100% electrical energy generation via Nuclear power
we have 30 years of Uranium Ore deposits left. If we use Coal at the
rate we are using it now, its true that we have 1500 years worth of
reserves. But, just like our elected officials, the original poster has
forgotten about exponential growth. If the use of Coal were to grow at
the rate of 5% per year, that 1500 year lifetime would shrink to 87 years.
Tony Dean
|> In article <3qvbdd$p...@pith.uoregon.edu> nu...@moo.uoregon.edu (A Service Organization) writes:
|> >From: nu...@moo.uoregon.edu (A Service Organization)
|>
|> >Electric car design (see http://zebu.uoregon.edu/phys162.html for a lot
|> >of information in general about alternative energy - its a university
|> >web course on the subject) and production will never move forward if
|> >realiance on lead-acid batteries is required. The energy storage in
|> >these batteries is just too low. Moving to more advanced batteries
|> >(sodium-sulfate for instance) which have 3 times more energy storage
|> >capacity is key. Believe it or not, your federal government is investing
|> >reasonable money into advanced battery programs.
|>
|> 1. There is emerging consensus that the use of lead batteries in ZEVs
|> poses disproportionate environmental consequences.
How so? Lead from batteries is one of the most thouroughly recycled
materials in existance. If you look at the current practices in
Lead Acid Battery recycling you may be suprised how environment
friendly it is.
|> 2. The use of other materials may hold promise, but as of today-only
|> lead is being considered for production to meet the 1998 California/
|> Northeast mandate.
|>
True, the current technology for practical ZEV's is still lead acid. Many
newer technologies are on the horizon but nothing is there yet.
Regards
td
Ernst G. Knolle
: In article <8AAA3FC.0628...@execnet.com> bi...@execnet.com (BILLC)
: writes:
: > Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
: > Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
: > to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
: > comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
: Those involved with the electric vehicle industry were rather surprised by the
: report. Their review of it found a number of problems. Here's a summary that
: was posted on the EV mailing list:
: --
(Political babble omitted)
: Inaccuracy
On both sides?
: The primary point and the one that should recieve....
Get a spelling checker.
: a. It overstates the battery mass of an "Available
: Technology" EV by a factor of three. The authors assume a
: battery mass of 1378 kg (3,032 lb), ignoring the fact that the
: entire weight of the GM Impact, including batteries, is 1350 kg
: (2970 lb).
The needed battery mass depends on how far you want to drive. The 2970
lbs GM Impact included batteries to carry it 70 miles in city, and 90
miles in highway driving. For double the distance, you need double the
batteries. Here in California we would need at least a 200 mile
range. (Ref. IEEE Spectrum Nov 1992, p. 18-24, 93-101)
: b. By confusing kilograms with pounds, the author...
: d. It overstates the car's energy consumption as 310 wh/km
: when the figure is closer to 100 whr/kg. ......
And who is confused here? Is this going to be a contest as to whether BU
or CMU can be more confusing? Can't you guys employ some proof-readers?
The number originally given was 140wh/mile, but that is based on a lot of
deceiving little gimmicks. Like, having extremely hard tires, measuring
at the motor, and ignoring substantial other on-board losses. (Read my
other posting)
: e. It uses data from the ETV-1... As Goldstein states, "it is
: rather like : comparing a Model T Ford with a Chevrolet Corvette." ETV-1
: aceleration performance was 0-30 mph in 9 seconds; Impact does
: 0-60 in 8.5.
The GM Impact was produced by an under-employed Southern California
aerospace team. It is made of 100 times more expensive carbon fiber
material. It is a two-seater, has a 137 Hp motor intended as a high
performance sports car at a price tag of $120,000, batteries not
included (just a joke).
: the amount of the first NSF grant is $13,571,655.
To think that I do all this for nothing. Read my other posting in this
thread.
Ernst Knolle
Will Stewart
>
>Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu) wrote:
>: a. It overstates the battery mass of an "Available
>: Technology" EV by a factor of three. The authors assume a
>: battery mass of 1378 kg (3,032 lb), ignoring the fact that the
>: entire weight of the GM Impact, including batteries, is 1350 kg
>: (2970 lb).
>The needed battery mass depends on how far you want to drive. The 2970
>lbs GM Impact included batteries to carry it 70 miles in city, and 90
>miles in highway driving. For double the distance, you need double the
>batteries. Here in California we would need at least a 200 mile
>range. (Ref. IEEE Spectrum Nov 1992, p. 18-24, 93-101)
What percentage of Californians drive 200 miles one way to work? 100
miles one way? You avoided discussion of the error in the report.
Call Chevrolet and ask them the configuration of the Impact.
Regards,
Will Stewart
Josef Hasslberger
> 1. There is emerging consensus that the use of lead batteries in ZEVs
> poses disproportionate environmental consequences.
> 2. The use of other materials may hold promise, but as of today-only
> lead is being considered for production to meet the 1998 California/
> Northeast mandate.
Hi Mike,
it might be of interest that there are some alternatives out there. One I
recently read about:
New battery technology
(article in "Electrifying Times" of Spring/Midsummer 1995, pg 17, )
I have no further information than that contained in this post, but I
think it may be of interest as a possible future alternative to
conventional lead-acid batteries.
Summary of the article:
An entirely new battery technology comes from the I.N. Frantsevich
Institute for Problems of Materials Science, in Kiev, Ukraine. The battery
is commercialized for them by Emtech Ltd. of Mississauga, Ontario. 11
patents are pending.
The new battery can be used to power an electric vehicle and will provide
more power per space and weight and will recharge faster than conventional
lead-acid batteries. A battery set weighing about 200 lbs will provide a
range of up to 400 miles. The recharging cycle will be as short as 15 to
30 minutes and the output apparently maintains full voltage up to a point
of 94 per cent discharge. Operating temperature is in a range of -40 to
+60 deg Centigrade.
The materials used in the manufacture of the battery are environmentally
friendly, plentiful and inexpensive.
The charge is stored in the crystalline layers of a material in thin sheet
form, external appearance similar to mica. It seems that the crystalline
layers, of a thickness of as little as one molecule, are acting as a giant
capacitor.
The batteries are said to last hundreds of rapid charge cycles. Operation
does not seem to produce heat or waste products. Seems kind of an ideal
means to store power for EVs.
Josef
(Sorry not to be able to give more details on this tantalizing news item)
--
. . . Just always straight ahead . . .
. . . . . . . . S e p p . . . . . . .
Norman Yarvin
>The needed battery mass depends on how far you want to drive. The 2970
>lbs GM Impact included batteries to carry it 70 miles in city, and 90
>miles in highway driving. For double the distance, you need double the
>batteries.
Actually you need more than double the batteries :-). The batteries
make up a substantial fraction of the weight. If you double their
weight, the car becomes more difficult to propel, so you need to add
even more batteries, which weigh even more...
> Here in California we would need at least a 200 mile
>range. (Ref. IEEE Spectrum Nov 1992, p. 18-24, 93-101)
Gasoline cars have stabilized on a range of about 300 miles. Since an
electric car is harder to recharge, it would need even more range to
give the same level of convenience.
--
Norman Yarvin yar...@cs.yale.edu
"This message printed on 100% natural chrysotile fiber"
Andy Holland
>In article <3quueq$q...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zcr...@vvernus.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:
>>Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
>
>
>>I think our policy makers, in pursuing electric cars are a bit better plugged
>>in (pardon the pun), than you think. I'll be darned if I let this government
>>take my kids away to fight a foreign b*llsh^t war because we don't want
>>the levy to go dry.
>
>4. It is difficult to understand why we should trust the environmental
> bureaucrats, but not the foreign policy ones.
I don't.
Its a matter of both strategic interest, environmental interest and
even cost, that should drive research into electric vehicles. And that
research should not necessarily be publically funded.
*If* the overal cost can be made lower that that of ICE engines,
(it may be), and if the performance is satisfactory (questionable),
then that leaves other societal and hidden cost factors that need to be
explored.
Two identified were:
1. Pollution - which is less with electric vehicles - total and
local.
2. Strategic interests - which are very important to any nation.
Now one might argue that pollution is greater with electric vehicles, as
the previous poster had. However, given their efficiency benefit, that is
clearly not the case. The supposition that lead acid technology is the
only way to go is also false. There are other technologies which are
being explored.
Strategic interests are extemely important. National energy policies in
many countries are driven by strategic interests. For well over a century,
when coal replaced wind for Naval energy, securing of strategically located
bases was extremely important (it still is for the US, oil based surface
fleet). Remember the Phillipines, I mean the Maine?
If you don't believe that nations will "adjust" their moral positions for
economic and strategic position, you are greatly mistaken.
I would not support forcing electric vehicles on anyone, unless a local pollution
problem were great (like in LA). However, if electric vehicles come about
in mass, or look like they will, you can expect dis-information, at the very
least, and economic manipulation, by certain interested parties who have
used both in the past.
Paul Dietz
> Hmm, where did you get these numbers from? I have never heard coal
> reserves projected much beyond several hundred years, and I thought
> fissile fuel grade uranium would last only ~60 years (assuming no
> breeder reactors) (and maybe 500 years with breeder reactors). In
> short, most projections I've seen would have all nonrenewable energy
> reserves known to man consumed in roughly a 500 year period.
The 500 year number for breeders is absurd. Remember, breeder
reactors can afford to burn uranium even if it costs $10,000+/lb,
since they get so much more energy per mass of natural uranium. This
boosts the resource enormously. At this price, one could afford to
extract it from granite at close to the average crustal abundance, or
(better) from seawater. The oceans contain about 4 billion tons of
dissolved uranium extractable with current technology at considerably
less than $1,000/lb. This is enough for billions of GW(e)-years of
output.
Another poster's projection of exponential growth of energy
consumption indefinitely is also absurd (and, if this premise is
accepted, means that "renewable" sources are also inadequate).
Paul
Sean Klingler
: How so? Lead from batteries is one of the most thouroughly recycled
: Lead Acid Battery recycling you may be suprised how environment
: friendly it is.
I read an article in the _Orlando Sentinel_ over the weekend about how
many companies are sending their recyclables over to countries such as
India. This is done because environment laws are hardly enforced in
these countries. The article covered how workers are constantly
exposed to lead-acid from car batteries directly and use almost no
safety precautions in this practice. Also mentioned was how excess
fluids are simply dumped directly into their 'sewer' system.
I am pro-development of these new technologies and of recycling, but
would not call myself a fanatic about it. Still, it seems VERY
hypocritical for companies to claim to be helping the environment
by recycling, and then polluting some other portion of the world.
There's always this whine from business about how expensive it is to
comply with environmental regulations and to perform recycling. This
is America isn't it? Where's that good old Yankee ingenuity to
provide the new and innovative tools to make the job cheaper. Hell,
that's what's supposed to set us apart from the rest of the world;
new product development and new products designed specifically to
help business.
: |> 2. The use of other materials may hold promise, but as of today-only
: |> lead is being considered for production to meet the 1998 California/
: |> Northeast mandate.
: |>
: True, the current technology for practical ZEV's is still lead acid. Many
: newer technologies are on the horizon but nothing is there yet.
Can you tell me what materials or what some of the current projects in
battery tachnology are? I'd be interested to hear what's coming.
--
Sean D. Klingler (s...@ccd.harris.com) (407) 242-5109
Russ Schmidt
When Andy Holland (I think it was Andy) talked about 10,000 years of
reactor fuel at Oak Ridge, I believe he was refering to the large
inventory of depleted uranium (at 0.2% to 0.3% U-235) remaining at the
three US uranium enrichment plants: Oak Ridge, TN (now shut down),
Paducah, KY, and Portsmouth, OH. This depleted uranium would provide fuel
for breeder reactors for a long time.
--
Russ Schmidt <i...@ornl.gov>
Lockheed Martin Energy Systems
Oak Ridge, TN
Russ Brown
Will Stewart <will...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3r22is$b...@crl5.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>>
>>Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu) wrote:
>
>>: a. It overstates the battery mass of an "Available
>>: Technology" EV by a factor of three. The authors assume a
>>: battery mass of 1378 kg (3,032 lb), ignoring the fact that the
>>: entire weight of the GM Impact, including batteries, is 1350 kg
>>: (2970 lb).
>>lbs GM Impact included batteries to carry it 70 miles in city, and 90
>>miles in highway driving. For double the distance, you need double the
>
>miles one way? You avoided discussion of the error in the report.
>Call Chevrolet and ask them the configuration of the Impact.
>
Given the use of the Impact as some kind of standard of comparison:
1. What is the current status of the Impact vis a vis availability?
2. What is the projected cost of purchase?
3. What is the projected cost and frequency of battery replacement?
4. What has GM decided relative to the market for a vehicle of the
above-mentioned cost and battery replacement costs?
My recollection is that the Impact is a rather expensive prototype with
a prototype battery system.
Don't forget cold weather performance and the added financial burden of
having at least two cars.
russ
DaveHatunen
is, and what the need would be if a significant number of vehicles
began using lead based batteries. Is it even feasible to build a whole
buncha large lead batteries, or will the attempt drive up the market
price of lead sufficiently to seriously affect the cost calcualtions
for EV use? For that matter, is there enough lead available?
Also, when recycling battery lead, there must be quite a bit of lead
sulfate. Will the resulting sulfates from the recycling process be a
problem once large quantities are achieved?
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: almost San Francisco *
* but with parking and lower car insurance rates *
*******************************************************
Ernst G. Knolle
: In <3r22is$b...@crl5.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: >
: >Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu) wrote:
: >: a. It overstates the battery mass of an "Available
: >lbs GM Impact included batteries to carry it 70 miles in city, and 90
: >miles in highway driving. For double the distance, you need double the
: >batteries. Here in California we would need at least a 200 mile
: >range. (Ref. IEEE Spectrum Nov 1992, p. 18-24, 93-101)
: What percentage of Californians drive 200 miles one way to work? 100
: miles one way? You avoided discussion of the error in the report.
Will,
In our Crown Victoria the low fuel light comes when you can still drive
it safely another 80 miles, that is at my speed 90 minutes of freeway
driving. As soon my wife sees the big yellow light, she comes apart. She
start by reciting all the gas stations that we already passed before the
light even came on, and that she told me so to get first gas and that we
are surely going to run out of the damn stuff.
Now, Will, if we had an EV with only a 70 mile range, would I ever
even get it out of the garage?
Please, I am only just barely hanging on to my sanity.
Ernst
PS. Clark Dorman's error "d. ..100 whr/Kg .." Should correctly be 100
whr/mile.
Clark Dorman
In article <hatunenD...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
writes:
> I would be interested in knowing what the current world supply of lead
> is, and what the need would be if a significant number of vehicles
> began using lead based batteries. Is it even feasible to build a whole
> buncha large lead batteries, or will the attempt drive up the market
> price of lead sufficiently to seriously affect the cost calcualtions
> for EV use? For that matter, is there enough lead available?
According to "Small is Stupid" by Beckerman, the known reserves of lead (as
of 1989) is 125 metric million tons. As usual, take the caveats on what
"known reserves" means. Also, in 1970 the known reserves were 91 million
metric tons, but total consumption between 1970 and 1989 was 99 million
metric tons.
As the Impact is 1350 kg total weight, even if we assume (incorrectly) that
1000 kg of the weight is battery and that is all lead, then we can build
125 million Impacts with the known reserves.
> Also, when recycling battery lead, there must be quite a bit of lead
> sulfate. Will the resulting sulfates from the recycling process be a
> problem once large quantities are achieved?
No idea.
Ernst G. Knolle
: Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : In <3r22is$b...@crl5.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: : >
: : >Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu) wrote:
: : >: a. It overstates the battery mass of an "Available
: : >lbs GM Impact included batteries to carry it 70 miles in city, and 90
: Will,
: Now, Will, if we had an EV with only a 70 mile range, would I ever
: even get it out of the garage?
: Please, I am only just barely hanging on to my sanity.
: Ernst
: PS. Clark Dorman's error "d. ..100 whr/Kg .." Should correctly be 100
: whr/mile.
Second PS: The 1992 data of the GM Impact includes (1) energy use 140
whrs/mile, (2) 137 Hp motor and (3) 72 mph top speed.
Mindless Clark Dorman bandies around the 140 number, rounded off to 100.
So, let me do you a little calculation. Assuming that at top speed of 72 mph
the engine runs at full power of 137 Hp, then we have an energy use of
137x745.7/72 = 1420 whr/mile. That is 14 time greater than Dorman's
number.
I think Dorman should teach a course at Boston University on "How to lie
with Statistics".
Ernst
Clark Dorman
In article <3r5r52$3...@crl9.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
> Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
> : PS. Clark Dorman's error "d. ..100 whr/Kg .." Should correctly be 100
> : whr/mile.
I wrote :
" d. It overstates the car's energy consumption as 310 wh/km
when the figure is closer to 100 whr/kg. If one takes the car's
average range of 80 km times x 310 whr/km, energy required would
be 24.8 kWh, greater than the capacity of the battery pack!"
No, it should be 100 whr/km, and that should be fairly obvious from the
context. I switched a "g" for a "m". Sorry, mea culpa. The whole point is
that the authors of the study haphazardly mixed units, as you are apparently
doing as well. Yes, my post had a typo, but I think the number is correct,
and certainly much better than 310 whr/km.
> Second PS: The 1992 data of the GM Impact includes (1) energy use 140
> whrs/mile, (2) 137 Hp motor and (3) 72 mph top speed.
What is 100 whr/km in whr/mile? Actually, it's 161 whr/mile. Using your 140
whrs/mile, the Impact uses only 87 whr/km.
HERE'S THE POINT: THE AUTHORS OF THE REPORT USED 310 WH/KM. IT IS _WAY_ OFF.
Yes, I know I'm shouting, but you seem to be missing this point. Do you think
that the authors' number is accurate? If you want to, go ahead and recompute
the values in the report yourself.
> Mindless Clark Dorman bandies around the 140 number, rounded off to 100.
Mindless Ernst Knolle doesn't understand units.
> So, let me do you a little calculation. Assuming that at top speed of 72 mph
> the engine runs at full power of 137 Hp, then we have an energy use of
> 137x745.7/72 = 1420 whr/mile. That is 14 time greater than Dorman's
> number.
1. Assuming that the "engine" is putting out 137 Hp at 72 mph is incredibly
stupid. The limitation on the speed of the Impact was not the motor but the
controller, which artificially limited the speed to 72 mph. The present
record for non-track based EV's is 187 mph, set by the Impact with a new
controller in spring of 1994. Slightly higher than 72 mph, eh?
2. There is this thing called air resistance. Look into it. I'll use small
words so you'll understand. As you go faster, the drag on the car from the
air goes up. At 72 mph, the resistance is much higher than at 55 mph. The
resistance goes up much faster than linear.
3. In modern usage of the words, electic vehicles do not have engines; they
have motors.
> I think Dorman should teach a course at Boston University on "How to lie
> with Statistics".
>
> Ernst
And you are clearly unqualified to teach anything.
Clark Dorman
In article <1995Jun7.1...@pmafire.inel.gov> ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ
Brown) writes:
> Given the use of the Impact as some kind of standard of comparison:
>
> 1. What is the current status of the Impact vis a vis availability?
It is not available for purchase and won't be for a while.
To the best of my knowledge, they produced 12 engineering development cars.
They are also making/had made about 50 of them and are loaning them out to
public individuals for feedback. If they are going to make the 1998 deadline,
GM would need to make a decision fairly soon.
> 2. What is the projected cost of purchase?
Nobody outside of GM knows that.
> 3. What is the projected cost and frequency of battery replacement?
It has sealed lead-acid batteries. They are designed for about 550-600
cycles, and you get about 80 km per cycle, or 44000 km (27,500 miles) out
of them. Figure 2 years worth, depending on how you drive.
Cost is difficult to figure out. A common EV battery today is the Trojan
T125: 66 lbs, 6 volt, 175 Ah (based on a 3hr test), $52.50. Since each one
is slightly over 1 kwh and the impact has 16.8 kwh, you need 16 of them,
for a total cost of $840. At 66 lbs, the weight is 1056 lbs.
I don't know what make of battery the Impact has in it, but the weight is
less than 1056 lbs for the battery pack, and they are sealed, so the cost
is going to be higher at present day prices. In a couple of years, I don't
know what the price will be; noone does. The manufacture engineering
involved in making batteries is getting better all the time. The new
Horizon batteries have significantly better wh/kg, but are much more
expensive right now (like $500, if you can get them, which you probably
can't).
In comparison, if you go 27,500 miles in a 30 mpg-average car (ya, right),
you need 917 gallons of gas. At $1.10 per gallon, that is $1008. If we
use Ernst's number of 140 wh/mile, we need 3850 kwh. At $.10 per kwh,
that's $385.
The EV ($840 + $385 + whatever) costs more than the dino-burner ($1008 +
oil?) right now. Plus, you have to pay a lot at one time for the EV.
> 4. What has GM decided relative to the market for a vehicle of the
> above-mentioned cost and battery replacement costs?
You'll have to ask them.
> My recollection is that the Impact is a rather expensive prototype with
> a prototype battery system.
>
> Don't forget cold weather performance and the added financial burden of
> having at least two cars.
Maybe you'll need two cars. I don't. EV's aren't for everyone but I don't
see anyone claiming that they are.
DaveHatunen
>Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
[...]
>Second PS: The 1992 data of the GM Impact includes (1) energy use 140
>whrs/mile, (2) 137 Hp motor and (3) 72 mph top speed.
>
>Mindless Clark Dorman bandies around the 140 number, rounded off to 100.
>
>So, let me do you a little calculation. Assuming that at top speed of 72 mph
>the engine runs at full power of 137 Hp, then we have an energy use of
>137x745.7/72 = 1420 whr/mile. That is 14 time greater than Dorman's
>number.
Eh? 1420/140 = approx 10.
>I think Dorman should teach a course at Boston University on "How to lie
>with Statistics".
And you should take a course on automotive design. Motors (of any kind)
are rarely used at anything near rated capacity, and basing your
calculation on the use of a 137 HP motor is nonsense. Rolling tests
have been performed on small automobiles and only about 15 to 20 HP is
required for steady speed on level ground at 60 mph.
I am a bit surprised that the Impact would have a 137 HP motor. Nowhere
near that much is required even for good accelaration away from a
stoplight. Not only that, an electric motor can deliver power to the
wheels at a very high efficiency, especially compared to an ICE. Hell,
my 1964 Porsche 356C only had an 88 HP engine, and it did fine.
The figure of 140 wh per mile is analogous to the miles/gallon figure
cited in car specs (but inverse). Given the curve of wind resistance
with speed, it must be given for a particular speed; I wonder what
speed? But the figure of 140 seems reasonable. At the aforementioned 20
HP at 60 mph, electric consumption would be about
20 HP x 750 watts/HP = 15000 watts
15000 watts x 1/60 hr/min = 250 whr/min
and, of course, 60 miles/hr = 1 mile/minute, so at 60 mph we would have
a power consumption of 250 whr/mile. It's not much of a stretch to
think of the 140 figure as being the rating at, say, 45 mph.
One of the reasons for having an engine much larger than the the
required 15 to 20 HP is for hill-climbing and passing. Still, that old
Porsche did just fine with 88 HP. is GM going to take the Imapct out on
the drag strips to promote it?
Will Stewart
>Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <3r22is$b...@crl5.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle)
writes:
>: What percentage of Californians drive 200 miles one way to work?
100
>: miles one way? You avoided discussion of the error in the report.
>In our Crown Victoria the low fuel light comes when you can still
drive
>it safely another 80 miles, that is at my speed 90 minutes of freeway
>driving. As soon my wife sees the big yellow light, she comes apart.
She
>start by reciting all the gas stations that we already passed before
the
>light even came on, and that she told me so to get first gas and that
we
>are surely going to run out of the damn stuff.
>Now, Will, if we had an EV with only a 70 mile range, would I ever
>even get it out of the garage?
Marital difficulties of this nature is your response to energy
decisions?
Maybe you should use shock therapy and drive 80 miles through the
desert with your wife to the next gas station :-)
>Please, I am only just barely hanging on to my sanity.
This might provide the breakthrough cure....
Cheers,
Will Stewart
Will Stewart
Brown) writes:
That depends on a number of situations.
1. Are you married (or cohabitating)? If so, you probably need two
cars anyway. One could be an electric (unless you live > 80 miles from
work) and the other could be the gasoline powered family car.
2. If you live in an area that has sufficient access to alternate
transportation, then one car is all you really need. I live in the
Washington area, and can use the Metro Rail, Metro Bus, AMTRAK, etc.
for local and distant travel (which I do frequently). I have utilized
my bicycle for travel to work, sometimes as much a 4 times/week. Many
people in NY don't even own *one* car due to the hassle of parking
spots, theft, cost of storage, etc.
Regards,
Will Stewart
DaveHatunen
Clark Dorman <dor...@cochlea.bu.edu> wrote:
[...]
>In comparison, if you go 27,500 miles in a 30 mpg-average car (ya, right),
>you need 917 gallons of gas. At $1.10 per gallon, that is $1008. If we
>use Ernst's number of 140 wh/mile, we need 3850 kwh. At $.10 per kwh,
>that's $385.
The 140 wh/mile would be _from_ the battery. The true cost is the
watt-hours from the mains required to charge the battery. So what would
be a realistic mains --> charge --> discharge efficiency?
[...]
Ernst G. Knolle
: In article <3r5r52$3...@crl9.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: > Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
: > : PS. Clark Dorman's error "d. ..100 whr/Kg .." Should correctly be 100
: > : whr/mile.
: context. I switched a "g" for a "m". Sorry, mea culpa. The whole point is
: 1. Assuming that the "engine" is putting out 137 Hp at 72 mph is incredibly
: stupid. The limitation on the speed of the Impact was not the motor but the
: controller, which artificially limited the speed to 72 mph. The present
: record for non-track based EV's is 187 mph, set by the Impact with a new
: controller in spring of 1994. Slightly higher than 72 mph, eh?
: 2. There is this thing called air resistance. Look into it. I'll use small
: And you are clearly unqualified to teach anything.
Now, now, Clark,
Just because I lose my civility, doesn't mean you have to follow suit.
Your info now makes sense. Your teaching qualification are restored.
Let's work it backwards. At 187 mph (280 fps) we get air drag at sea
level = drag factor x sea level factor x frontal area x speed*2 = .19 x
.00116 x 20 x 280*2 = 347 lbs air drag, add to that rolling resistance of
extra hard tires = weight x RR factor = 3000 x .005 = 15 lbs for total
resistance to forward motion 347 + 15 = 362 lbs. At 280 fps and 550
fps/Hp it comes to 280 x 362/550 = 184 Hp, which is not too far off the
listing of 137 Hp in 1992. Keep in mind that motors can be routinely
overloaded by 50%. Also, the the Impact is a two-seater and my assumed
frontal area of 20 sq.ft. may be off. I also ignored motor-to-road
efficiency.
Clark, how am I doing thus far?
Now, at 60 mph (90 fps), same calculation, the air drag comes down to 36
lbs and the energy 4,560/550 = 8 Hp or 4560/(.737 x 60) = 103 whr/mile.
Clark, I never got an "A" for anything. How about giving me one now?
However, if people don't want to ride a truck disguised as an EV,
and if mom wants to take her three kids to school and not make three
trips, we need a normal sensible vehicle with soft tires and more than
just elbow room.
Then there are the simply enormous energy losses that EVs would cause. A
little motor cycle engine driven two-seater would beat this EV at a ratio
of about ten to one in energy use. See my previous postings. Of course, EV
fanatics don't want be confused by facts. (Sorry, Clark, I started up
determined to be nice to you, but I couldn't help slipping this in.)
Ernst
Andy Holland
>In article <3r0ksh$8...@soenews.ucsd.edu>, ba...@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>|> In article <3quueq$q...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zcr...@vvernus.pgh.wec.com (Andy
>|> Holland) writes:
>|>
>|> > (2000 year coal reserves in Alaska, and 10,000 of years uranium
>|> > at Oak Ridge).
>|>
>|> reserves projected much beyond several hundred years, and I thought
>|> fissile fuel grade uranium would last only ~60 years (assuming no
>|> breeder reactors) (and maybe 500 years with breeder reactors). In
>|> short, most projections I've seen would have all nonrenewable energy
>|> reserves known to man consumed in roughly a 500 year period.
>|> Barry Merriman
>
>Agreed. If we reach 100% electrical energy generation via Nuclear power
>we have 30 years of Uranium Ore deposits left.
With breeder reactors, the 30 year LWR stretches to over 2500 years. I have
heard estimates that the current inventory of tails (which is available
for fuel in breeders), is 10,000 years - though I do not know the
consumptive level of that estimate.
In a breeder program, that material would be converted to fuel, with Plutonium
as feed. As more fuel is produced than consumed, the supply is inexhaustible
as long as there is U238 around to be converted. It is more abundant than
silver.
If you don't have Uranium handy, use Thorium!
Additionally, I think your numbers are old. When Uranium prices soared, new sources
were found, like Phosphate mining etc, which are economical in their own rite
at $40/lb U3O8. Seawater seperation is also feasibile, eventually, because the
energy per Kg is tremendous (over 18,000,000 Kw/Kg U235). As you are not
enriching in a breeder program, you can load the natural uranium in the
blankets (or tails from years of isotopic seperation), immediately.
> If we use Coal at the
>rate we are using it now, its true that we have 1500 years worth of
>reserves. But, just like our elected officials, the original poster has
>forgotten about exponential growth. If the use of Coal were to grow at
>the rate of 5% per year, that 1500 year lifetime would shrink to 87 years.
Haven't seen exponential growth in energy consumption for some time. You
will have a factor of 2 increase when you fully convert from an oil based
transportation system to electrically based.
We will have to make the transition at some point, oil will not last forever.
After 1500 more years of development, I am sure the Fusion people will
finally get it right, and we can then burn Hydrogen (I know, Fusion is
always 1500 years away).
Kevin Fultz
A Service Organization <nu...@moo.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>In article <3r0ksh$8...@soenews.ucsd.edu>, ba...@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>|> In article <3quueq$q...@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zcr...@vvernus.pgh.wec.com (Andy
>|> Holland) writes:
>|>
>|> > With coal and uranium, we have a supply that will last nearly forever
>|> > (2000 year coal reserves in Alaska, and 10,000 of years uranium
>|> > at Oak Ridge).
>|>
>|> Hmm, where did you get these numbers from? I have never heard coal
>|> reserves projected much beyond several hundred years, and I thought
>|> fissile fuel grade uranium would last only ~60 years (assuming no
>|> breeder reactors) (and maybe 500 years with breeder reactors). In
>|> short, most projections I've seen would have all nonrenewable energy
>|> reserves known to man consumed in roughly a 500 year period.
>|>
>|>
>|>
>|>
>|>
>|> --
>|> Barry Merriman
>|> UCLA Dept. of Math
>|> bmer...@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>|>
>|>
>
>rate we are using it now, its true that we have 1500 years worth of
>reserves. But, just like our elected officials, the original poster has
>forgotten about exponential growth. If the use of Coal were to grow at
>the rate of 5% per year, that 1500 year lifetime would shrink to 87 years.
But uranium is extractable from seawater also. It is not done at this time
because cheaper sources are available. Since the fuel costs associated
with nuclear power generation represent a small portion of the overall cost,
we can afford to spend more on the fuel with little impact on the cost of
electricity. Also, it is possible to generate power using natural uranium
and from thorium as fuels.
The above calculations probably don't include the possibility of reprocessing
nuclear fuel rods.
BTW, why do you want to exclude breeder reactors? (Directed to Barry)
Other than the fact that it makes your numbers look better.
I don't think think we need to worry about running out of fissible (sp?)
materials for some time. Anyone have numbers taking into consideration
reprocessing, seawater extraction, or other sutiable materials?
Kevin Fultz kev...@sequent.com
Tony Dean
|> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
|> Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
|> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
|> comparable car burning leaded gasoline" Their argument is based on the
|> make the Pb/acid battery (the only economically feasible one at hand)
|> and the manufacture of the batteries.
This surprised me. I recently spent some time examining battery
technology and the numbers I read about seemed much lower than
this. I am curious about this. I'll have to track down some
references but I was of the impression that due to recent
EPA mandates, recycling in the US is extremely clean.
Can anyone trackdown anymore info regarding the root of the calculations?
Specifically, where they got their numbers. Was it current with
regard to battery reporcessing? Did it include world wide practices?
I'll also try to relocate my info and post it when I turn it up.
Regards
td
Tony Dean
|> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
|> >batteries.
|>
|> make up a substantial fraction of the weight. If you double their
|> weight, the car becomes more difficult to propel, so you need to add
|> even more batteries, which weigh even more...
Unfortunately at some point you reach a point of diminishing
returns. The additional weight starts to reduce the range and
acceleration. It seems that more than 20 deep cycle EV batteries
won't help much.
|> > Here in California we would need at least a 200 mile
|> >range. (Ref. IEEE Spectrum Nov 1992, p. 18-24, 93-101)
|>
|> Gasoline cars have stabilized on a range of about 300 miles. Since an
|> electric car is harder to recharge, it would need even more range to
|> give the same level of convenience.
This seems to be the crux of the problem, convenience. At least as
far as what people will accept and pay for. however most EV advocates
recomend using the EV as a basic town runabout with your other car as
an alternative. This, of course, assumes one has another car :-) Most
american families have several so having one as an EV is not competely
out of the question.
|> --
|> Norman Yarvin yar...@cs.yale.edu
|> "This message printed on 100% natural chrysotile fiber"
Regards
td
Will Stewart
>
>However, if people don't want to ride a truck disguised as an EV,
>and if mom wants to take her three kids to school and not make three
>trips, we need a normal sensible vehicle with soft tires and more than
>just elbow room.
If mom is driving 3 kids to 3 different schools, and the total is over
80 miles (future EV range to be considerably more), then she is nuts to
spend half her day as a chauffeur and not utilize the buses most school
districts provide. You're providing absurd requirements to pummel a
frail strawman.
>Then there are the simply enormous energy losses that EVs would cause.
A
>little motor cycle engine driven two-seater would beat this EV at a
ratio
>of about ten to one in energy use. See my previous postings.
You made similar mistakes in that post as well. You would need to
approach 75 mpg equivalent that many homegrown EVs are now getting, and
even then you would still be using petroleum that is in limited supply.
>Of course, EV
>fanatics don't want be confused by facts. (Sorry, Clark, I started up
>determined to be nice to you, but I couldn't help slipping this in.)
Flame bait, tsk, tsk.....
Will Stewart
Clark Dorman
> Just because I lose my civility, doesn't mean you have to follow suit.
> Your info now makes sense. Your teaching qualification are restored.
Ok then, peace. I've seen your posts before and I was surprised at your
tone. Usually they are decent even when I disagree with them (and I
frequently do).
> Let's work it backwards. At 187 mph (280 fps) we get air drag at sea
> level = drag factor x sea level factor x frontal area x speed*2 = .19 x
> .00116 x 20 x 280*2 = 347 lbs air drag, add to that rolling resistance of
> extra hard tires = weight x RR factor = 3000 x .005 = 15 lbs for total
> resistance to forward motion 347 + 15 = 362 lbs. At 280 fps and 550
> fps/Hp it comes to 280 x 362/550 = 184 Hp, which is not too far off the
> listing of 137 Hp in 1992. Keep in mind that motors can be routinely
> overloaded by 50%. Also, the the Impact is a two-seater and my assumed
> frontal area of 20 sq.ft. may be off. I also ignored motor-to-road
> efficiency.
>
> Clark, how am I doing thus far?
Great, and I would not be surprised if they were overloading the motor when
they were trying to get the speed record.
> Now, at 60 mph (90 fps), same calculation, the air drag comes down to 36
> lbs and the energy 4,560/550 = 8 Hp or 4560/(.737 x 60) = 103 whr/mile.
Which is, IMHO, more interesting than the above, since we agree that 140
whr/mile is more accurate.
> Clark, I never got an "A" for anything. How about giving me one now?
Somehow, I don't believe that you never got an "A", but ok.
> However, if people don't want to ride a truck disguised as an EV,
> and if mom wants to take her three kids to school and not make three
> trips, we need a normal sensible vehicle with soft tires and more than
> just elbow room.
There are all sorts of cars on the road today. Last week, I almost bought
a friend's '88 Porsche 911 that has been raced with (but it's going to need
a new transmission, so I passed. Anybody interested? Bitchin' cool car,
newly painted). It rides like a brick. My real estate agent drives a
Cadillac with a ride so soft it makes me nauseous.
There are also a variety of different EV's, and in a couple of years there
will be many more. Some have softer rides, some have harder rides, and
you can find out about some of them at:
http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/
http://lorien.qualcomm.com:80/users/sck/ev/
http://northshore.shore.net/~kester/
I would not give up my Dodge Caravan and have an Impact as my only car
right now since the wife, kid, and dog (and bikes etc.) wouldn't fit.
But, before I got married I would. As a second car, I would.
What's the point? There are lots of cars. There always will be. No one
car or car type is for everyone.
> Then there are the simply enormous energy losses that EVs would cause. A
> little motor cycle engine driven two-seater would beat this EV at a ratio
> of about ten to one in energy use. See my previous postings.
And here we part company. I think that your post is simply wrong. It
scales and converts and adds to make the EV look bad and ICE look good in
ways that are simply out of line with reason. I'll post my analysis of
your analysis in another message and we can work from there in hopefully a
civil tone. Hopefully we can at least clarify where we disagree.
> Of course, EV
> fanatics don't want be confused by facts. (Sorry, Clark, I started up
> determined to be nice to you, but I couldn't help slipping this in.)
>
> Ernst
Who's the fanatic here? (It's a rhetorical question.) You certainly don't
see me posting that EV's are the answer to everything. Those that oppose
EV's try to paint all that offer support of them in the same light. They
accuse them of being fanatical, unable to reason, and wanting to take over
the world to destroy all internal combustion engines. It is a common
practice to demonize your opponent in any battle. However, you and others
should realize that there are those of us who see EV's as a good element of
the mix of vehicles on the road, especially when they can significantly
reduce emissions. Which they do.
to...@144volts.com
> Second PS: The 1992 data of the GM Impact includes (1) energy use 140
> whrs/mile, (2) 137 Hp motor and (3) 72 mph top speed.
>
> Mindless Clark Dorman bandies around the 140 number, rounded off to 100.
>
> So, let me do you a little calculation. Assuming that at top speed of 72
mph
> the engine runs at full power of 137 Hp, then we have an energy use of
> 137x745.7/72 = 1420 whr/mile. That is 14 time greater than Dorman's
> number.
>
The GM Impact is computer controlled to not go over 72 mph.
The GM Impact has set the worlds EV speed record of 153 mph.
Granted, like any race car it is not your standard vehicle, but
GM says they only added in 4 extra batteries and of course the
standard safety equipment, but other than that it was a off the
showroom vehicle (just with the computer tweeked).
Paul Dietz
Compressed air should be much better. With an onboard heat source
(such as a bit of hydrogen) and near-isothermal expansion, you could
store perhaps 200 wh per kilogram of 3000 psia air. Even with the
mass of the tanks, it should have higher specific energy than lead
acid cells. It would work great up here in the dead of winter. The
tanks should last much longer than batteries. Power density should be
higher. No lead pollution. Self-discharge should be slower.
Monitoring "charge remaining" is trivial. And (best of all) it could
be refilled more quickly than a battery could be recharged, at filling
stations or at home.
Admittedly, the volumetric energy density isn't terribly good, but one
could work around that by making the pressure vessels double as
structural elements in the car.
Paul
Clark Dorman
In article <95060912...@unknown.zmail.host> Paul Dietz
<di...@comm.mot.com> writes:
> Compressed air should be much better. With an onboard heat source
> (such as a bit of hydrogen) and near-isothermal expansion, you could
> store perhaps 200 wh per kilogram of 3000 psia air.
[snip]
What is the conversion efficiency for the system? You need to get the air
compressed and that requires a fair amount of energy. My (limited)
understanding is that the efficiency of the compression process is not very
high to begin with, and much of the energy gets converted into heat which is
then dissipated. If you are not careful and compress it too highly too
quickly, it becomes hot enough to melt the fittings.
Kip Haggerty
just lead-acid. There are several computing chemical technologies as well
as flywheels. Additionally, the ZEV could turn out to be a hydrogen car.
However, the issue is not technology. The issue is the business problem.
Given that we could build an EV that has a range of 70-100 miles, what is
the market and at what price? The obvious market is as a second car for
commuting. I personally would buy an affordable EV as a second car.
Another application is electric powered busses. There actually is one
operating in Santa Barbara (IEEE Spectrum, July 93, p. 55). I suggest we
focus on discussing what is feasible given the technology and the
realities of the market - keeping in mind that a transformation of the
market will happen at some point because of fundamental energy
limitations.
There are also many issues besides just how much lead may end up where.
Fly wheel technology is a safety concern because the small composite
flywheels store energy by spinning at extremely high RPMs. What happens in
an accident? If they aren't contained, they could cause additional
property damage and loss of life. How about a tank of presurized hydrogen?
I don't want to be near one of those if it crashes. What about toxic
spills from battery based cars in accidents? The challenge is not in just
stating that problem X exists and discounting the whole technology. The
challenge is to develop successful commercial products from the technology
that avoid the potential pitfalls.
One problem facing us is that our auto industry appears to want to kill
the whole thing by developing sports cars (GM Impact) and stating that
they will cost $30,000 or more (IEEE Spectrum EV watch some time in last
couple of years - threw it out because I was disgusted). The sad thing is
that we have a 10-year lead on the Japenese and we are likely to squander
it quibbling over trivia. A colleague of mine suggested that the root
cause of all this is really Ralph Nader and the Covair incident. He
suggested that the Big 3 are afraid to do anything innovative for fear of
getting their pants sued off.
Incidently, I had the pleasure of seeing Dave Goldstein handle the rough
crowd at a panel discussion on EVs at Wescon last September. I was amazed
that there were several shabbily dressed old engineers really giving him a
hard time. A venture capatalist sitting near me remarked that they must be
hacks hired by the oil industry. I cannot figure out why the discussion
was so contentious.
--
Kip Haggerty
H&A System Engineering ha...@interramp.com (310) 679-2440
P.O. Box 727 k.hag...@ieee.org fax: (310) 679-9667
Lawndale, CA 90260 l.hag...@ieee.org
DaveHatunen
Will Stewart <will...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
>You made similar mistakes in that post as well. You would need to
>approach 75 mpg equivalent that many homegrown EVs are now getting, and
>even then you would still be using petroleum that is in limited supply.
There's an important point. If my 1986 Tercel, which gets 40 mpg now on
the freeway at 70 mph, were stripped down to the comfort and
convenience level of the typical homegrown EV, and driven only at the
speeds of the typical such EV, it could probably get 75 mpg, too.
But once you get the EV to the state where it could carry the Mom and
those three kids to piano lessons and soccer practice, in a warm car in
the winter or air conditioned in the summer, down the freeway to the
soccer field, with six bags of groceries in the rear, etc, then what
kind of mpg equivalent will you get?
Ernst G. Knolle
: In article <3r8297$a...@crl2.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: > Then there are the simply enormous energy losses that EVs would cause. A
: And here we part company. I think that your post is simply wrong. It
: ways that are simply out of line with reason. I'll post my analysis of
: your analysis in another message and we can work from there in hopefully a
: civil tone. Hopefully we can at least clarify where we disagree.
I am looking forward to that. - "My" analysis was produced with the help
of several others right here about five months ago. I would post my ideas
and someone would point out some fallacy in it, and I would make changes
until someone else raised another aspect. But my December '94 version is
where it all stopped.
Recently I had a go-around with the EPA and air resources people, where I
included the following list of what is and what is not yet fully covered
in my December 14, 1994 statement:
"Here is an itemized listing of my key elements compared with that of a
similar one prepared by Southern California Edison:
Item Knolle Edison Comments
1 Thermal conversion Btu/kWh 10,000 10,000 Only item in agreement
2 Power use at plants reflected? No No Was unavailable to K.
3 Edison's internal use reflected? No No Was unavailable to K.
4 Wheeling losses reflected? No No Was unavailable to K.
5 Transmission losses 16% 0% Conservative estimate by K.
6 Battery charging losses 25% 0% Gets worse as batteries age
7 Other than motor energy reflcd? No No Data unavailable
8 EV motor loss 10% 0% Conservative estimate by K.
9 EV rolling resistance (RR) .02 .005 Diff.due to type of tires
10 ICE rolling resistance (RR) .02 .02 Normal soft tires
11 EV energy at 25mph, kWh/mile .190 .210 RR plus air drag (AD)
12 Can Geo go 60mph? ICE yes EV no RR+AD requires .400 kWh/mile
13 Taxes in cost/mile estimate, ICE na 35% Edison unequal comparison
14 Taxes in cost/mile estimate, EV na 0 Edison unequal comparison
15 (Extinct) Geo mpg, highway 46 39 EPA 1992 46 mpg highway
16 Economy ICE mpg, highway 100 Several 1995 economy cars
17 Edison power cost, cents/kWh 10 LA has lower rates
18 Bay Area power cost, cents/kWh 14 SF has higher rates
Edison acknowledges that when one put 34,000 Btu into their power plants,
out comes 10,000 Btu. But then, bringing those Btus to the wall outlet,
where an EV might be plugged in, and on through the EV to the road
surface, where it provides propulsion, Edison shows no losses. In fact,
the total losses from power plant to road surface amount to at least
100{1-(1-.16)*(1-.25)*(1-.10)}=43.3% . This alone more than wipes out
Edison's claim to EV's 30% superiority."
This is just part of my letter to the bureaucrats. Anyway, you can see, the
more one thinks about it, the more complicated it gets. I am still hard
on the trail of these "wheeling" losses. Our power company is purchasing
substantial amounts of power out-of-state. In 1992 it amounted to over 30%.
In addition, it borrows power to meet peaking loads. Power comes in
during morning and evening peaks, and goes back in off-peak periods.
Where does it come from and go back to? Arizona, Oregon, Washington
State, etc, which is literally thousands of miles. And for each 1000
miles along the wire the loss is 15%.
As I said, Clark, I am looking forward to your review of my numbers.
Ernst
Andy Holland
[...]
>"Here is an itemized listing of my key elements compared with that of a
>similar one prepared by Southern California Edison:
>
> Item Knolle Edison Comments
>
>1 Thermal conversion Btu/kWh 10,000 10,000 Only item in agreement
>2 Power use at plants reflected? No No Was unavailable to K.
>3 Edison's internal use reflected? No No Was unavailable to K.
>4 Wheeling losses reflected? No No Was unavailable to K.
>5 Transmission losses 16% 0% Conservative estimate by K.
>6 Battery charging losses 25% 0% Gets worse as batteries age
>7 Other than motor energy reflcd? No No Data unavailable
>8 EV motor loss 10% 0% Conservative estimate by K.
>9 EV rolling resistance (RR) .02 .005 Diff.due to type of tires
>10 ICE rolling resistance (RR) .02 .02 Normal soft tires
>11 EV energy at 25mph, kWh/mile .190 .210 RR plus air drag (AD)
>12 Can Geo go 60mph? ICE yes EV no RR+AD requires .400 kWh/mile
>13 Taxes in cost/mile estimate, ICE na 35% Edison unequal comparison
>14 Taxes in cost/mile estimate, EV na 0 Edison unequal comparison
>15 (Extinct) Geo mpg, highway 46 39 EPA 1992 46 mpg highway
>16 Economy ICE mpg, highway 100 Several 1995 economy cars
>17 Edison power cost, cents/kWh 10 LA has lower rates
>18 Bay Area power cost, cents/kWh 14 SF has higher rates
>
>
>Edison acknowledges that when one put 34,000 Btu into their power plants,
>out comes 10,000 Btu.
I think you are about to add in transmission losses twice. Assuming a lousy
33% thermal efficiency (nuclear power plant, coals up to 40%), that would be
30,303 Btu for every 10000 Btu input. I think they are counting some transmission
losses in that 29% efficient number.
> But then, bringing those Btus to the wall outlet,
>where an EV might be plugged in, and on through the EV to the road
>surface, where it provides propulsion, Edison shows no losses. In fact,
>the total losses from power plant to road surface amount to at least
>100{1-(1-.16)*(1-.25)*(1-.10)}=43.3% . This alone more than wipes out
>Edison's claim to EV's 30% superiority.
The 16% is way high, but using it for a moment, let me look at these for a
second.
(1-.433) * 0.33 = 0.187. Whats the ICE thermal efficiency; maybe 10% at best.
Looks like the EV is 87% better, and that assumes you are burning Uranium. If
you are burning coal, where fossil polution is comparable, the efficiency
is 22.7%.
Remember, you are comparing a very efficient energy system (electrical), with
a closed cycle efficient thermal cycle driver (a large thermal power plant),
to a horrendous open cycle.
>This is just part of my letter to the bureaucrats. Anyway, you can see, the
>more one thinks about it, the more complicated it gets. I am still hard
>on the trail of these "wheeling" losses. Our power company is purchasing
>substantial amounts of power out-of-state. In 1992 it amounted to over 30%.
>In addition, it borrows power to meet peaking loads. Power comes in
>during morning and evening peaks, and goes back in off-peak periods.
>Where does it come from and go back to? Arizona, Oregon, Washington
>State, etc, which is literally thousands of miles. And for each 1000
>miles along the wire the loss is 15%.
Again you are somewhat mistaken. The energy doesn't travel over 1000 miles
anywhere. In the Wheeling process, the energy is transferred at the
surface from grid to grid. Thats alot different from transmitting electricity
directly over long distances. Transmission costs are factored in, but only to
the degree by which they apply.
You can thus buy electricity further away than you could transmit it directly.
>As I said, Clark, I am looking forward to your review of my numbers.
>
>Ernst
andy
Atomic Rod
or so?
I do not know a good number for a typical auto engine, but a marine diesel
can reach efficiencies of 40%. The fuel economy of these large diesels is
one of the major reasons that they have essentially replaced steam
turbines in ships. Please remember that ships are operated by companies
that do not have "fuel adjustment" clauses in a monopoly environment. For
shippers, fuel economy is far more important for the bottom line than it
is for utilities.
BTW, Andy, open cycle engines actually have a thermal efficiency advantage
over closed cycle engines. We can discuss this in a separate thread.
Ernst G. Knolle
: Where do people get the idea that an ICE has an energy efficiency of 10%
: or so?
: I do not know a good number for a typical auto engine, but a marine diesel
: can reach efficiencies of 40%. The fuel economy of these large diesels is
Some people are not very good at calculating, so here I volunteer to help
them out:
I have not enough info to give you "engine efficiency", but I can quickly
calculate overall ICE vehicle efficiency.
Let's take the newest small cars that can get 100 mile/gallon at 60
miles/hr. Their input energy is one gallon's amount of energy divided by
60 miles, hence 37,000 whr/60 = 370 whr/mile input.
Now, output consists of rolling resistance (RR) and air drag (AD). With
normal tires RR = weight x RR factor of .02 = 1400 lbs x .02 = 28 lbs.
The AD computes = air drag factor x elevation factor x frontal area x
square of speed = .2 x .00116 (sea level) x 20 x 90*2 = 37.6 lbs. Total
RR + AD = 65.6 lbs. To get horsepower = forward resistance x speed/550 =
65.6 x 90/550 = 10.4 Hp. Run this 10.4 Hp for one hour we obtain 10.4
Hp-hrs and travel 60 miles. Divide 10.4 Hp-hrs by 60 miles = .1733
Hp-hrs/mile, convert at one Hp-hr = 735.5 whrs, result 127 whr/mile output.
And the great end result efficiency is output/input = 127/370 = .3432 or
in more familiar terms 34.4%. The engine but itself would have a greater
efficiency.
Ernst
Ernst G. Knolle
: In article <3rb74p$3...@crl4.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: [...]
: >on the trail of these "wheeling" losses. Our power company is purchasing
: >In addition, it borrows power to meet peaking loads. Power comes in
: >during morning and evening peaks, and goes back in off-peak periods.
: >Where does it come from and go back to? Arizona, Oregon, Washington
: >State, etc, which is literally thousands of miles. And for each 1000
: >miles along the wire the loss is 15%.
: Again you are somewhat mistaken. The energy doesn't travel over 1000 miles
: anywhere. In the Wheeling process, the energy is transferred at the
: surface from grid to grid. Thats a lot different from transmitting
: electricity directly over long distances. Transmission costs are
: factored in, but only to the degree by which they apply.
Now, Andy, when Tennessee has surplus and sends it 500 miles to the next
grid, and someone there sends it 500 miles to a third grid, then a forth and
finally to California. My arithmetic says, the power traveled 2000 miles,
and you think it only went 500 miles? Wether power moves grid to grid or by
separate line makes no difference.
Ernst
DaveHatunen
Kip Haggerty <ha...@interramp.com> wrote:
>I think you all are discussing the wrong issues. Battery technology is not
>just lead-acid. There are several computing chemical technologies as well
>as flywheels. Additionally, the ZEV could turn out to be a hydrogen car.
>However, the issue is not technology. The issue is the business problem.
>Given that we could build an EV that has a range of 70-100 miles, what is
>the market and at what price? The obvious market is as a second car for
>commuting. I personally would buy an affordable EV as a second car.
>Another application is electric powered busses. There actually is one
>operating in Santa Barbara (IEEE Spectrum, July 93, p. 55).
San Francisco has lots of electric powered busses. Thy've been around
for a long time.
Or did you mean electric battery powered?
[...]
Junkyard Dodge
>(1-.433) * 0.33 = 0.187. Whats the ICE thermal efficiency; maybe 10% at best.
Closer to 30% at optimum speed/load. Average depends on the driving cycle.
The EV is immediately at a disadvantage in thermal efficiency if a coal-fired
steam plant is the reference.
>Remember, you are comparing a very efficient energy system (electrical), with
>a closed cycle efficient thermal cycle driver (a large thermal power plant),
>to a horrendous open cycle.
Gas turbines are "horrendous open cycles" but they yield 30-odd % in
single cycle and 50+% in combined-cycle operation. Want to reconsider
that adjective?
Unfortunately for the EV crowd, it is more efficient to put CNG tanks
on an ICE than it is to burn natural gas in a combined-cycle plant to
charge EV batteries. The CNG vehicle isn't quite as clean at the point
of use, but it is cheaper, has better range and cargo capacity, and can
refuel in minutes instead of hours.
--
That which does not bore me makes me stranger wr...@ic.net
Atomic Rod
/*
Unfortunately for the EV crowd, it is more efficient to put CNG tanks
on an ICE than it is to burn natural gas in a combined-cycle plant to
charge EV batteries. The CNG vehicle isn't quite as clean at the point
of use, but it is cheaper, has better range and cargo capacity, and can
refuel in minutes instead of hours.
Not to be argumentative, but CNG has some disadvantages that would prevent
me from wanting it as my power source in my family auto. One problem is
in the longevity of compressed gas tanks. Because the stress of charging
and discharging a tank to several hundred psi is far higher than filling
and emptying a liquid tank, the tanks need to be replaced every few years.
Secondly, even at elevated pressures, CNG takes up more physical space
than gasoline for the same energy storage. The designs that I have seen
for fleet autos contemplate giving up spare tires and a good bit of trunk
space.
Finally, with my catalytic converter and reformulated gasoline, my
emissions are essentially identical to those specified for CNG vehicles.
(I have to get the tailpipe emission level checked every year so I have a
pretty good record of what it is.)
Rod Adams
Norman Yarvin
>> Gasoline cars have stabilized on a range of about 300 miles. Since an
>> electric car is harder to recharge, it would need even more range to
>> give the same level of convenience.
>
>This seems to be the crux of the problem, convenience. At least as
>far as what people will accept and pay for. however most EV advocates
>recomend using the EV as a basic town runabout with your other car as
>an alternative. This, of course, assumes one has another car :-)
It also assumes that one decides in advance how far one is going to
travel, and then sticks to the plan one has decided on. Which in turn
assumes that one will never make any sudden changes of plan or
encounter any emergencies which require extra range from the car.
--
Norman Yarvin yar...@cs.yale.edu
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should
soon want for bread." -- Thomas Jefferson
Eric Gisin
> [deleted] ...
>Watt-hours/mile output energy at road surface. To obtain input divide
>output by efficiency factors, motors 0.9, batteries & charger 0.75, power
>transmission & thermal conversion 0.25 for a total EV
>(pre-thermal-conversion input) of 607/(0.9*0.75*0.25) ~ 3600
>Watt-hours/mile. Divide by the above calculated IC amount, and the
>conclusion is:
>EVs use about 10 times as much energy as equivalent ICs
I think your figure of 0.75 efficiency for batteries and charger is too
high. From what I've read, there are voltage losses of about 15%
(2.3V in for charging, 2.0V out for high-rate discharging).
A 220 AH cell requires 10% more (242 AH) to charge,
and at high rates of discharge only gives you 2/3 of the rated AH out.
This results in an efficiency of only 0.50.
On the "compressed air" thread, there is a small locomotive
in Banff Nat Park that was used in an old coal mine.
Instead of a boiler, it has a compressed air tank.
One point everyone has missed ...
If EVs were cost effective compared to internal combustion,
don't you think the Europeans would have invented them long ago
with their gasoline prices 2-4 times higher than North America's?
They do run electric trains instead of diesel, but batteries are not an
issue in this case.
Eric Gisin, er...@unixg.ubc.ca
Eric Gisin
Paul Dietz
>> Compressed air should be much better.
...
> What is the conversion efficiency for the system? You need to get the air
> compressed and that requires a fair amount of energy. My (limited)
> understanding is that the efficiency of the compression process is not very
> high to begin with, and much of the energy gets converted into heat which is
> then dissipated. If you are not careful and compress it too highly too
> quickly, it becomes hot enough to melt the fittings.
Efficiency wouldn't be terribly high, but then that's not the real
problem with electric cars (amortization of the battery is more costly
than the electricity used to charge it).
Excessive heating can be largely avoided by multistage compression
with intercooling (as is done in home compressors for CNG cars).
As long as one is abandoning high efficiency, here's another approach:
electrically heat a "thermal battery" on the car, and use its heat to
drive a heat engine (turbine or Stirling engine). Thermal storage can
have very high energy density. Lithium hydride, for example, heated
to melting, stores about 7 MJ/kg. Even if you lose 2/3 of this
in the heat engine, it's still more than an order of magnitude
lighter than lead-acid batteries.
Paul
Will Stewart
td...@makedust.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (Tony Dean) writes:
>
>In article <8AAA3FC.0628...@execnet.com>, bi...@execnet.com
(BILLC) writes:
>|> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
>|> Carniege-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is
estimated
>|> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
[...]
>Can anyone trackdown anymore info regarding the root of the
calculations?
>Specifically, where they got their numbers. Was it current with
>regard to battery reporcessing? Did it include world wide practices?
>I'll also try to relocate my info and post it when I turn it up.
One excellent source of information is;
http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard.html
Regards,
Will Stewart
Andy Holland
>Andy Holland (zcr...@vvernus.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
>Now, Andy, when Tennessee has surplus and sends it 500 miles to the next
>grid, and someone there sends it 500 miles to a third grid, then a forth and
>finally to California. My arithmetic says, the power traveled 2000 miles,
>and you think it only went 500 miles? Wether power moves grid to grid or by
>separate line makes no difference.
>
>Ernst
Now Ernst, that does not make too much sense does it. Think about it for a
moment. The power is transferred over 2000 miles from grid to grid, but
it is comsumed by different people along the way. If utility X provides
utility Y 100 MW-Hr on the "left hand side" of the grid, they can transfer
100 MW-Hr to the "right hand side", for utility Z. Get it? They aren't
counting electrons. There are sinks along the way. They do not have
to account for power line losses as high as a direct transfer, because
there are consumers along the way, and producers in utility Y's grid.
As for your 100 MPG example, I'll save that for later when I go through
the calcs for myself.
Bottom line is dollars. Right now those horribly inefficient EVs are
less expensive in terms of *energy dollars*. Of course convenience,
batteries etc... currently make them far less attractive. However, the
reason to switch to electrical vehicles, is largely he same as it was for
switching from Oil based generation of electrical energy to back to
coal (and nuclear). IF the bugs can be worked out (BIG IF), it will be
well worth it for a myraid of reasons.
Andy Holland
>td...@makedust.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (Tony Dean) writes:
>>> Gasoline cars have stabilized on a range of about 300 miles. Since an
>>> electric car is harder to recharge, it would need even more range to
>>> give the same level of convenience.
>>
>>This seems to be the crux of the problem, convenience. At least as
>>far as what people will accept and pay for. however most EV advocates
>>recomend using the EV as a basic town runabout with your other car as
>>an alternative. This, of course, assumes one has another car :-)
>
>It also assumes that one decides in advance how far one is going to
>travel, and then sticks to the plan one has decided on. Which in turn
>assumes that one will never make any sudden changes of plan or
>encounter any emergencies which require extra range from the car.
I for one, would buy a reasonably priced EV as my commuting car, which
is driven about 7000 miles a year. My current commuter car only has
a 200 mile maxmium range. With an EV, I would gas up at home overnite,
and not worry about the pump.
My mini-van - forget it. Until I could get 400+ mile range. In fact, I
think about 600 miles would be a practical *minimum* with over-nite charging.
>Norman Yarvin yar...@cs.yale.edu
andy.h...@nmd.pgh.wec.com
Opnions are My Own.
Andy Holland
[...]
>Some people are not very good at calculating, so here I volunteer to help
>them out:
>
>I have not enough info to give you "engine efficiency", but I can quickly
>calculate overall ICE vehicle efficiency.
>
>Let's take the newest small cars that can get 100 mile/gallon at 60
>miles/hr. Their input energy is one gallon's amount of energy divided by
>60 miles, hence 37,000 whr/60 = 370 whr/mile input.
Here is where we part company. You are using 37KwHr/Gal, and I figured
53 KwHr/Gal assuming gasoline didn't float. That was based on what
may be a poor number of 14 KwHr/Kg for gasoline.
>And the great end result efficiency is output/input = 127/370 = .3432 or
>in more familiar terms 34.4%. The engine but itself would have a greater
>efficiency.
With my number, I would have gotten 23.9% efficiency. Additionally, your
example was constant load, 100 MPG car etc, etc.
In practicality, the EV would have better usage efficiency in stop and
go traffic, which reduces the ICE efficiency quickly.
>Ernst
Andy Holland
[...]
>>Remember, you are comparing a very efficient energy system (electrical), with
>>a closed cycle efficient thermal cycle driver (a large thermal power plant),
>>to a horrendous open cycle.
>
>Gas turbines are "horrendous open cycles" but they yield 30-odd % in
>single cycle and 50+% in combined-cycle operation. Want to reconsider
>that adjective?
Talk about apples and oranges!
30-odd % is pretty lousy for a thermodynamic cycle. You'd do alot better
dumping to 1.7 psi than 14.7 psi. Low and behold - combined cycle, which isn't
open and gets 50+% efficiency. Of course, its large, and constant load....
>Unfortunately for the EV crowd, it is more efficient to put CNG tanks
>on an ICE than it is to burn natural gas in a combined-cycle plant to
>charge EV batteries. The CNG vehicle isn't quite as clean at the point
>of use, but it is cheaper, has better range and cargo capacity, and can
>refuel in minutes instead of hours.
Andy Holland
[...]
>BTW, Andy, open cycle engines actually have a thermal efficiency advantage
>over closed cycle engines. We can discuss this in a separate thread.
Wow. So I can dump to an environment at 14.7 psia back pressure, and not
do *better* dumping to 1.7 psia. Naw, unless I am dumping to outer space,
which is where that argument should be heading.
A combined cycle is not an open cycle. Its a combined cycle.
The thermal advantage an open cycle or combined cycle can achieve is in the energy
density of the fuel, contributing to higher temperatures at the front of the cycle,
hence leading to higher thermo-dynamic efficiency. Its also an added danger factor.
Additionally, you PAY more for higher energy density fuel. You can improve efficiency
using a *combined* cycle. But now we are talking power plants again.
Modern, small, car engines which must meet large load swings are a different
story. They don't have the luxary of size or combined cycles. However, gas
turbine cars were investigated. They got great gas mileage, but the required
air conditioning for passengers was seen to offset the advantage :).
Ernst G. Knolle
: In <3rdcat$d...@crl5.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
: >
: >Atomic Rod (atom...@aol.com) wrote:
: >: Where do people get the idea that an ICE has an energy efficiency of 10%
: >: or so?
: >: I do not know a good number for a typical auto engine, but a marine
: diesel
: >: can reach efficiencies of 40%. The fuel economy of these large
: diesels is
: >Some people are not very good at calculating, so here I volunteer to
: help
: >them out:
: >
: >I have not enough info to give you "engine efficiency", but I can
: quickly
: >calculate overall ICE vehicle efficiency.
: >
: >Let's take the newest small cars that can get 100 mile/gallon at 60
: >miles/hr. Their input energy is one gallon's amount of energy divided
: by
: >60 miles, hence 37,000 whr/60 = 370 whr/mile input.
: How many cars on the road get 100 miles per gallon??? This error
: ripples through the rest of your calculations, corrupting your final
: result.
: If you want to estimate the present mix of ICEs on the road, take into
: consideration wide variations in fuel economy and driving environments
: (city vs. highway).
Will, the reason for me picking the two or three little ICE cars that get
100 mph/gallon is to compare something close to a regular size EV. The EVs
are generally all only two-seaters with precious little room for anything
else. The so-called EV test results to compare with are from tests on
race tracks on level ground and without stops.
I can whip out the energy efficiency of big American cars in a jiffy.
That would, in my opinion, not be a fair comparison. If we want to fairly
compare the EV technology with ICE technology, then we can't have one
having hard tires with RR of .005 and the other soft tires with RR of
.02, one with two-passenger capacity and the other six-passenger
capacity, one driving uninterrupted and the other stop-and-go.
So, EV advocated who point out ICE efficiency of 10% and compare it to
electric motor efficiency of 90%, they are either extremely dumb or
wilfully trying to deceive the public. They should not even be in this
thread to discuss sci.energy.
Ernst
Will Stewart
>
>Atomic Rod (atom...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Where do people get the idea that an ICE has an energy efficiency of 10%
>: or so?
>: I do not know a good number for a typical auto engine, but a marine
diesel
>: can reach efficiencies of 40%. The fuel economy of these large
diesels is
>
>Some people are not very good at calculating, so here I volunteer to
help
>them out:
>
>I have not enough info to give you "engine efficiency", but I can
quickly
>calculate overall ICE vehicle efficiency.
>
>Let's take the newest small cars that can get 100 mile/gallon at 60
>miles/hr. Their input energy is one gallon's amount of energy divided
by
>60 miles, hence 37,000 whr/60 = 370 whr/mile input.
How many cars on the road get 100 miles per gallon??? This error
ripples through the rest of your calculations, corrupting your final
result.
If you want to estimate the present mix of ICEs on the road, take into
consideration wide variations in fuel economy and driving environments
(city vs. highway).
If an ICE were operating at peak efficiency under a steady demand (such
as marine diesels are designed for), then you would get a vehicle that
would have insignificant passing and hill-climbing capability. The
stop and go nature of city driving requires idling and acceleration,
which hamper the efficiency of ICEs.
Hybrids can improve on this greatly by running a much smaller engine at
peak efficiency, while charging batteries that can meet acceleration
demands. An EV uses insignificant amounts of power to idle.
Regards,
Will Stewart
Ernst G. Knolle
: In article <3rgdc2...@HOBBES.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yar...@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
: >td...@makedust.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (Tony Dean) writes:
: I for one, would buy a reasonably priced EV as my commuting car, which
: is driven about 7000 miles a year. My current commuter car only has
: and not worry about the pump.
A thought occurred to me recently when the battery in one of my cars
needed charging again and again, but then eventually I replaced it. The
danger warnings in handling, connecting, disconnecting and charging
battery stood out in real big print. Keep away from flame, use ample
ventilation, they can explode, for acid burn do this, rush to the
doctor.. and that was just for one battery.
What happens when you charge 20 EV batteries? Leave the garage door open
all night? Fire truck parked in front? Can the cat walk acoss the
batteries and not explode?
Perhaps, some EV expert can enlighten us on the subject.
Ernst
Norman Yarvin
>I for one, would buy a reasonably priced EV as my commuting car, which
>is driven about 7000 miles a year. My current commuter car only has
>and not worry about the pump.
You would also 1) lose the ability to use the commuter car for certain
other purposes, and 2) lose the ability to go somewhere directly after
work, if this required much driving. But maybe this doesn't matter to
you. As for reasonably priced, GM is offering the Impact at $40K. It
was printed in this newsgroup that they have a hard time getting the
trial customers to give back the cars, but when it's a choice between an
Impact and a new Mercedes, the story will be a bit different.
--
Norman Yarvin yar...@cs.yale.edu
"People say I am like Captain Bligh. I am disappointed. I considered
myself more like Attila the Hun." - H. G. Rickover
Clark Dorman
In article <3rid90$r...@crl2.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
> Will, the reason for me picking the two or three little ICE cars that get
> 100 mph/gallon is to compare something close to a regular size EV. The EVs
> are generally all only two-seaters with precious little room for anything
> else. The so-called EV test results to compare with are from tests on
> race tracks on level ground and without stops.
Ernst,
Could you please tell me where I can find out about the two or three
little ICE cars that get 100 mpg at 60 mph? The names of the manufacturers,
the makes, when we should be expecting to see them, etc.?
Will Stewart
>A thought occurred to me recently when the battery in one of my cars
>needed charging again and again, but then eventually I replaced it.
The
>danger warnings in handling, connecting, disconnecting and charging
>battery stood out in real big print. Keep away from flame, use ample
>ventilation, they can explode, for acid burn do this, rush to the
>doctor.. and that was just for one battery.
>
>What happens when you charge 20 EV batteries? Leave the garage door
open
>all night? Fire truck parked in front? Can the cat walk acoss the
>batteries and not explode?
Perhaps you should fear your handheld flashlight....
Do you think people are going to be putting jumper cables directly on
the batteries themselves?
Does gasoline have any potential for danger? Oh, I see.....
Will Stewart
Will Stewart
>
>Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: How many cars on the road get 100 miles per gallon??? This error
>: ripples through the rest of your calculations, corrupting your final
>: result.
>: If you want to estimate the present mix of ICEs on the road, take into
>: consideration wide variations in fuel economy and driving environments
>: (city vs. highway).
>
>Will, the reason for me picking the two or three little ICE cars that
get
>100 mph/gallon is to compare something close to a regular size EV. The
EVs
>are generally all only two-seaters with precious little room for
anything
>else. The so-called EV test results to compare with are from tests on
>race tracks on level ground and without stops.
There are a variety of conditions under which EVs are tested, just like
the EPA (or Consumer Reports) who utilize race track conditions for
some of their tests. If you want to compare the Impact against another
car, use a car of the same size and carrying capacity. Just throwing
out 100 mpg is deceptive and misleading.
>I can whip out the energy efficiency of big American cars in a jiffy.
>That would, in my opinion, not be a fair comparison. If we want to
fairly
>compare the EV technology with ICE technology, then we can't have one
>having hard tires with RR of .005 and the other soft tires with RR of
>.02, one with two-passenger capacity and the other six-passenger
>capacity, one driving uninterrupted and the other stop-and-go.
If ICE vehicles do not come equipped, for the most part, with hard
tires, then comparing them to vehicles that have them IS fair if one is
comparing vehicles.
If you are only comparing energy conversion devices (motors, engines),
then use comparable components.
>So, EV advocated who point out ICE efficiency of 10% and compare it to
>electric motor efficiency of 90%, they are either extremely dumb or
>wilfully trying to deceive the public. They should not even be in this
>thread to discuss sci.energy.
If one measures the energy delivered to the drive wheels, that
measurement is the best definition of the energy conversion efficiency.
You might be more considerate in the future about pronouncing deceptive
activities in others until you clean up your act.
Will Stewart
DaveHatunen
Clark Dorman <dor...@cochlea.bu.edu> wrote:
>
>In article <3rid90$r...@crl2.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>> Will, the reason for me picking the two or three little ICE cars that get
>> 100 mph/gallon is to compare something close to a regular size EV. The EVs
>> are generally all only two-seaters with precious little room for anything
>> else. The so-called EV test results to compare with are from tests on
>> race tracks on level ground and without stops.
>
> Could you please tell me where I can find out about the two or three
>little ICE cars that get 100 mpg at 60 mph? The names of the manufacturers,
>the makes, when we should be expecting to see them, etc.?
There have been a number of such vehicles in American history. The
pages of Popular Mechanics or Popular Science frequently featured them.
They were usually quite small, as stated, and sometimes three-wheeled
(allowing them to qualify for registration as motorcycles). They all
failed, mostly for the reasons frequently cited here: inconvenience,
safety, bad hill-climbing ability, etc. Not to mention having a high
price out of all proportion to their supposed economy, for the simple
reason that not enough purchasers were available.
Keep watching PM and PS. though; someone may come along with another
one of these days.
Remember what Santayana said.
DaveHatunen
Will Stewart <will...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3rieeo$r...@crl2.crl.com> kno...@crl.com (Ernst G. Knolle) writes:
>
>>A thought occurred to me recently when the battery in one of my cars
>>needed charging again and again, but then eventually I replaced it.
>The
>>danger warnings in handling, connecting, disconnecting and charging
>>battery stood out in real big print. Keep away from flame, use ample
>>ventilation, they can explode, for acid burn do this, rush to the
>>doctor.. and that was just for one battery.
>>
>>What happens when you charge 20 EV batteries? Leave the garage door
>open
>>all night? Fire truck parked in front? Can the cat walk acoss the
>>batteries and not explode?
>
>Perhaps you should fear your handheld flashlight....
>
>Do you think people are going to be putting jumper cables directly on
>the batteries themselves?
You're missing the point: lead/acid batteries produce hydrogen gas when
being charged. When charging a large number of batteries this must be
taken into account. One of the dangers is that the hydrogen accumulates
up in the rafters, unbeknownst to the owner.
The other problem is that charging such batteries requires a carefully
controlled charging cycle. Any failure of the recharging equipment
which might result in overcharging has the potential for creating a
steam flash in a cell or cells; depending on the exact charging
configuration, this could start a "chain reaction" of cells
overcharging and more or less exploding.
Electrical power plants use banks of lead acid batteries to supply
certain instrument and emergency power in the event of a station
failure. The batteries are generally kept in special concrete block
rooms supplied with appropriate safety devices for jsut these reasons.
I wonder: would the charging of such a vehicle invoke special
provisions of building and electrical codes not normally met in
residential construction?
Axel Berger
AR>Where do people get the idea that an ICE has an energy efficiency of
AR>10% or so?
Simple: Because it's true. A normal car needs about 10 kW to do 90 km/h
and 20 kW to do 120 km/h (both speeds above the limit in most of the
USA as far as I know). You will find it difficult to find a car powered
at less than 60 kW. Although good modern engines (Diesel and
petrol) achieve efficiencies of 240 g/kWh (35%) at their best point in
the map (Diesel direct injection 200 g/kWh = 42%), they all fall off
drastically at lower part loads. True average efficiency is extremely
low, more so for the more overpowered vehicles prevalent in the US. I'd
estimate 15 to 20 % for a low powered European car and 10% for US gas
guzzlers.
AR>but a marine diesel can reach efficiencies of 40%.
A marine Diesel has the advantage of scale, is a Diesel direct injector
(see above) *and can be run in the engine map's optimum point most of*
*the time.* The last factor being the most important.
Tschoe wa
Axel
Axel Berger
AH>Whats the ICE thermal efficiency; maybe 10% at best. Looks like the EV
AH>is 87% better,
No Andy, one of the basic assumptions of EV constuctors is, that
"normal" power car engines are only good for impressing your neighbours
and totally ridiculous from an engineering point of view. This argument
is of course quite true! So to be fair you have to throw a reasonably
powered ICE into the equation. Combustion engines can be below 300g/kWh
(above 28%) in a large part of their map. A reasonably sized engine can
be operated inside that area nearly all of the time. Look at actual
experimental EV: IMO they are very good sensible constructions that
could be hugely improved by inserting a good combustion engine of about
the same power rating as the electric. (About 150% to 200% of the rated
peak power to compensate for the electric's better torque curve).
Tschoe wa
Axel
Will Stewart
>
>In article <3rk652$q...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>Will Stewart <will...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[Ernste is concerned about batteries spontaneously combusting]
>>Do you think people are going to be putting jumper cables directly on
>>the batteries themselves?
>
>You're missing the point: lead/acid batteries produce hydrogen gas when
>being charged. When charging a large number of batteries this must be
>taken into account.
Again, there are fumes associated with gasoline as well. It's not as though
ICEs are inherently safer that an EV. If one wants to believe that, however,
they are entitled to their opinion. We could come up with megabytes of
scenarios which would support our positions, and frankly I don't believe its
worth the effort.
>One of the dangers is that the hydrogen accumulates
>up in the rafters, unbeknownst to the owner.
This sounds like a possibility, though contemporary construction has
been utilizing ridge vents for years, obviating the danger discussed in
this scenario.
>The other problem is that charging such batteries requires a carefully
>controlled charging cycle. Any failure of the recharging equipment
>which might result in overcharging has the potential for creating a
>steam flash in a cell or cells; depending on the exact charging
>configuration, this could start a "chain reaction" of cells
>overcharging and more or less exploding.
Millions of cars are on the road today that have charging systems and I
don't see the problem with battery explosions with them. Jump starts
are another story.
>I wonder: would the charging of such a vehicle invoke special
>provisions of building and electrical codes not normally met in
>residential construction?
Garages already have a number of code restrictions due to the explosive
nature of gasoline. The inclusion of ridge vents would make little if
any impact.
Regards,
Will Stewart
Clark Dorman
In article <hatunenD...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
writes:
> You're missing the point: lead/acid batteries produce hydrogen gas when
> being charged. When charging a large number of batteries this must be
> up in the rafters, unbeknownst to the owner.
Is this true of deep cycle, gel, or sealed lead-acid (a la Impact)
batteries?
> The other problem is that charging such batteries requires a carefully
> controlled charging cycle. Any failure of the recharging equipment
> which might result in overcharging has the potential for creating a
> steam flash in a cell or cells; depending on the exact charging
> configuration, this could start a "chain reaction" of cells
> overcharging and more or less exploding.
Do you think that this is likely, or even remotely realistic? I've been
following the EV discussion list for quite a while and nothing like this
has ever happened. Not that I would say that it could not, just that it
hasn't so we should examine the chances of various modes of failure while
taking their probability into account. Charging equipment can be
made very safe (but nothings perfect) with GFI, maximum charging amounts,
sensors, and fail-open mechanisms.
There is an interesting parallel here with the nuclear discussion. The
nuke opponents discuss all the terrible things that can happen as a reason
why not to use nuclear power. The proponents point out that the
probabilities are remote, but the opponents won't listen. In this case, I
don't think that there is evidence that either hydrogen buildup or steam
explosions are any more likely than a gasoline gas buildup or gas tank
explosion.
Certainly, having a bunch of batteries all lined up has its own dangers.
For example, there was an interesting story of what happened when someone
accidentally dropped a crescent wrench across the terminals of a deep cycle
battery (ooops... ~:-(, no injury though). Also, the Ford Ecostar
batteries once caught on fire, due to the fact that they are several
hundred degree sodium-sulfur.
> Electrical power plants use banks of lead acid batteries to supply
> certain instrument and emergency power in the event of a station
> failure. The batteries are generally kept in special concrete block
> rooms supplied with appropriate safety devices for jsut these reasons.
>
> I wonder: would the charging of such a vehicle invoke special
> provisions of building and electrical codes not normally met in
> residential construction?
Why would it, beyond those involved with other electrical devices (clothes
dryer, air conditioner), natural gas (stove, oven, heater), and gasoline
(lawn mower, automobile)?
DaveHatunen
>writes:
>> You're missing the point: lead/acid batteries produce hydrogen gas when
>> being charged. When charging a large number of batteries this must be
>> taken into account. One of the dangers is that the hydrogen accumulates
>> up in the rafters, unbeknownst to the owner.
>
>Is this true of deep cycle, gel, or sealed lead-acid (a la Impact)
>batteries?
I dunno. Obviously, the electrolytically generated hydrogen would have
to get free of the battery. What do they do about this with "sealed"
batteries, anyway?
>> The other problem is that charging such batteries requires a carefully
>> controlled charging cycle. Any failure of the recharging equipment
>> which might result in overcharging has the potential for creating a
>> steam flash in a cell or cells; depending on the exact charging
>> configuration, this could start a "chain reaction" of cells
>> overcharging and more or less exploding.
>
>Do you think that this is likely, or even remotely realistic?
These sorts of accidents do happen from time to time. At both
"professional" places (gas stations) and in homes. But homeowners
usually only have trickle chargers or low current charger, so this
isn't usually a problem. And home charging is usually just a single
dead 12v battery. Charging an EV battery in a reasonable length of time
could involve some fairly high charge rates, and I'm not sure about the
consequences of that. Also, the number of batteries would go up orders
of magnitude if EVs became common, so the incidence of accidents is
likely to also increas drastically.
>I've been
>following the EV discussion list for quite a while and nothing like this
>has ever happened.
OTOH, there's really not all that much battery charging going on
currently. But it's not true that "nothing" like this has "ever"
happened.
>Not that I would say that it could not, just that it
>hasn't so we should examine the chances of various modes of failure while
>taking their probability into account. Charging equipment can be
>made very safe (but nothings perfect) with GFI, maximum charging amounts,
>sensors, and fail-open mechanisms.
Of course. But it does have to be accounted for. And you can bet that
the code-makers will come up with all kinds of building and electrical
code provisions to cover it when it becomes commonplace. It will dreive
up the cost of the charging installation. And that becomes an
amortizable cost of owning an EV.
>There is an interesting parallel here with the nuclear discussion. The
>nuke opponents discuss all the terrible things that can happen as a reason
>why not to use nuclear power. The proponents point out that the
>probabilities are remote, but the opponents won't listen. In this case, I
>don't think that there is evidence that either hydrogen buildup or steam
>explosions are any more likely than a gasoline gas buildup or gas tank
>explosion.
Gasoline fume buildups in garages with resulting explosions/fires were
more common than you might think (but, obviously, not a commonplace);
that's the reason current building codes require that gas water heaters
and furnaces in installed in garages be elevated sufficiently to place
the flame above probable pooling of hevier-than-air gs fumes.
The parallel with nuclear is forced, though. It's the potential
enormity of a nuclear accident with respect to its risk that's the
problem in nucelar power. The nuclear owners must surely think it's a
realistic actuarial problem since they have had Congress limit their
liability drastically.
[...]
>> Electrical power plants use banks of lead acid batteries to supply
>> certain instrument and emergency power in the event of a station
>> failure. The batteries are generally kept in special concrete block
>> rooms supplied with appropriate safety devices for jsut these reasons.
>>
>> I wonder: would the charging of such a vehicle invoke special
>> provisions of building and electrical codes not normally met in
>> residential construction?
>
>Why would it, beyond those involved with other electrical devices (clothes
>dryer, air conditioner), natural gas (stove, oven, heater), and gasoline
>(lawn mower, automobile)?
And the wiring to all of them must meet code requirements. And the
appliances themselves normally meet Underwriters Lab requirements. There
were reasons for implementation of these codes. There are special
requirements for wiring such as electric furnaces, I believe.
I'll check the electrical code here in our office to see if battery
charging facilities are covered. Interesting question.
Ernst G. Knolle
: Ernst,
: Could you please tell me where I can find out about the two or three
: little ICE cars that get 100 mpg at 60 mph? The names of the manufacturers,
: the makes, when we should be expecting to see them, etc.?
: --
: Clark Dorman
: http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/Dorman.html
Clark,
General Motors brought out the Ultralite about three years ago
with a three-cylinder 1.5 liter two-stroke engine seating four.
Then I heard either on the news or saw it in the paper, that someone else
came out this year with cars that also get 100 miles per gallon.
Ernst
Junkyard Dodge
>You made similar mistakes in that post as well. You would need to
>approach 75 mpg equivalent that many homegrown EVs are now getting, and
>even then you would still be using petroleum that is in limited supply.
Volkswagen Golf Diesel with direct injection gets 90+ MPG in real
road use. Highway cruising and the whole bit. Even the Geo Metro,
at 53 MPG, gets far more *passenger* miles per gallon than the EV.
This could improve substantially in the near future. Caterpillar is
working on a diesel with insulated combustion chambers and a compounding
turbine. They expect 51% thermal efficiency from this baby. I can see
a 120 MPG Volkswagen in many people's futures.
>Flame bait, tsk, tsk.....
Look who's talking.
Junkyard Dodge
>Not to be argumentative, but CNG has some disadvantages that would prevent
>me from wanting it as my power source in my family auto. One problem is
>in the longevity of compressed gas tanks. Because the stress of charging
>and discharging a tank to several hundred psi is far higher than filling
>and emptying a liquid tank, the tanks need to be replaced every few years.
I understand that this is only a problem with metal tanks. Filament-wound
tanks are far lighter and do not have fatigue problems.
>Secondly, even at elevated pressures, CNG takes up more physical space
>than gasoline for the same energy storage.
One of the penalties of the retrofit. A car designed for CNG or
multi-fuel might have an "air mattress" floor pan which stores the
fuel and is also a structural member. It's always easier to engineer
these things in at the beginning, very hard/impractical at the end.
>Finally, with my catalytic converter and reformulated gasoline, my
>emissions are essentially identical to those specified for CNG vehicles.
The question is the cost required to achieve those emissions. I know
that a barely-tweaked CNG Taurus was well into the LEV range and was a
hair from reaching ULEV emissions specs, even without special tuning
of the oxygen sensor or the catalyst. This was in 1990. The drastic
reduction in cold-start emissions is another big factor in favor of
CNG for cities like Los Angeles and Denver.
Axel Berger
AH>Here is where we part company. You are using 37KwHr/Gal, and I figured
AH>53 KwHr/Gal assuming gasoline didn't float. That was based on what may
AH>be a poor number of 14 KwHr/Kg for gasoline.
Petrol and Diesel both have (nearly exactly) 42.5 MJ/kg. Petrol is
about 755 kg/m^3 and Diesel about 850 kg/m^3. Please feel free to
convert to your preferred quaint old units.
Tschoe wa
Axel
Axel Berger
AH>However, gas turbine cars were investigated. They got great gas
AH>mileage,
In the reports I read, the mileages were abominable. The reason being,
that turbines fall off in efficiency far more steeply than other
engines when not run in the best point of their map.
Tschoe wa
Axel
Atomic Rod
/*
I understand that this is only a problem with metal tanks. Filament-wound
tanks are far lighter and do not have fatigue problems.
Late last year, I attended a conference on marine propulsion systems. One
of the presenters discussed the filament-wound tanks used in a
demonstration ferry in Norfolk. A member of the audience from the
Southwest Research Institute questioned the use of this type of tank,
mainly because there have been several reported problems in fleet vehicle
trucks. Apparently, after a year or two of service, the liner of the tank
becomes separated from the filament wound shell and the systems start
leaking. I can find out more data if anyone is really interested since I
kept the card from the questioner.
Rod Adams
Atomic Rod
/*
Perhaps you should fear your handheld flashlight....
Do you think people are going to be putting jumper cables directly on
the batteries themselves?
Does gasoline have any potential for danger? Oh, I see.....
Will Stewart
*/
Will, your comment is not particularly appropriate. There is a
significant hazard in charging lead acid storage batteries. The large
size and the total amount of energy stored is SIGNIFICANTLY different from
a couple of NiCad "D" batteries.
On submarines, we have a huge battery bank that serves as a back-up power
supply. It is a 4000 AH battery with lead acid cells. Before we charge
that monster, we carefully ensure that there is adequate ventilation. It
takes about an hour and is checked by two independent individuals, with
one of them being a commissioned officer. We learned our lesson from
several battery fires with hydrogen explosions in the early years of
submarine operations.
I will grant you that an EV is not going to have a 4000 AH battery, but
then a garage is a smaller space than a submarine.
I am particularly concerned about the high speed charging systems that are
being proposed. The faster you try to charge a lead acid battery, the
hotter they get and the more H2 is generated by electrolysis of the water
in the sulfuric acid.
BTW, aren't you the guy who has tried to tell me that I should be afraid
of radioactive material from reactor plants which has not yet killed
anyone?
Your cavalier dismissal of actual hazards tells me that you are more
politically motivated than technically competent.
Rod Adams
Will Stewart
writes:
>
>1. There is emerging consensus that the use of lead batteries in ZEVs
> poses disproportionate environmental consequences.
Emerging consensus? There has been some flurry over a *draft*
Carnegie-Mellon report, but few reputable scientists/engineers have
supported this. Wait until the final report comes out, there are many
errors that have to be corrected.
>2. The use of other materials may hold promise, but as of today-only
> lead is being considered for production to meet the 1998
California/
I prefer to place my confidence with the various alternatives that are
even now under field test conditions (Horizon battery, zinc-air
battery, etc.). There will never be a silver bullet for energy
consumption, everything will entail some costs.
Will Stewart
DaveHatunen
Axel Berger <Axel_...@ac3.maus.de> wrote:
>*Atomic Rod* wrote on Sat, 95-06-10 21:50 in sci.energy:
>AR>Where do people get the idea that an ICE has an energy efficiency of
>AR>10% or so?
>
>Simple: Because it's true. A normal car needs about 10 kW to do 90 km/h
>and 20 kW to do 120 km/h (both speeds above the limit in most of the
>USA as far as I know). You will find it difficult to find a car powered
>at less than 60 kW.
The fact that a vehicle has an engine rated at 60 kw does not mean it
is being powered at 60 kw, except under conditions, such as
hill-climbing, where the extra capacity might be called on. I would
presume that an EV would have a motor rated higher than the 20 kw
required for 120 km/h travel on level ground, too.
One could argue, though, that power above and beyond the required 20 kw
is being consumed due to the airconditioner and the 100 watt stereo,
thereby reducing overall engine efficiency even more, but that wouldn't
be quite fair. Would EVs have air conditioning and 100 watt stereos?
[...]
Melvin Graf
>This could improve substantially in the near future. Caterpillar is
>working on a diesel with insulated combustion chambers and a compounding
>turbine. They expect 51% thermal efficiency from this baby. I can see
>a 120 MPG Volkswagen in many people's futures.
>
>That which does not bore me makes me stranger wr...@ic.net
I drove a diesel Rabbit for 10 years, from the dealer's lot to the junkyard.
Although I really liked the fuel efficiency, I hated the performance in the
winter. I live in Minnesota. Diesels are a real pain to start and
keep running in the winter. Unless something is done to improve them,
I'll never go back.
Volkswagen also really needs to do something about their quality control,
but thats another issue all together.
DaveHatunen
In the 1950s Chrysler experimented with turbine cars, making enough of
them to lend to their engineers for street use testing. For a while the
Chrysler regular styling not only had tail fins, but also large ersatz
turbine exhaust "openings", as if in anticipation of mass production of
turbine cars.
I believe the big problem was indeed the match of turbine speed to
wheel speed. Designing a transmission/clutch (or whatever) assembly
required for decent accelaration from a stop light proved difficult,
for instance.
Will Stewart
>Would EVs have air conditioning and 100 watt stereos?
Air conditioning is probable, and, in a limited sense, so is some form
of eutectic salt phase change storage.
100 Watt stereo? Unless you listen to 'metal', the 100 watt peak would
rarely be reached, and then only for a small percentage of a time.
Don't forget, there's no loud engine to overcome. :-)
Will Stewart
Will Stewart
>Will, your comment is not particularly appropriate. There is a
>significant hazard in charging lead acid storage batteries. [...]
>On submarines, we have a huge battery bank that serves as a back-up power
>supply. It is a 4000 AH battery with lead acid cells. Before we charge
>that monster, we carefully ensure that there is adequate ventilation.
The closed space of a submarine is a world apart from a garage with ridge
vents.
>I will grant you that an EV is not going to have a 4000 AH battery, but
>then a garage is a smaller space than a submarine.
A submarine does not have its air replaced by infiltration, as is the case in
a garage.
>I am particularly concerned about the high speed charging systems that are
>being proposed. The faster you try to charge a lead acid battery, the
>hotter they get and the more H2 is generated by electrolysis of the water
>in the sulfuric acid.
Then I agree that appropriate precautions should be taken.
>BTW, aren't you the guy who has tried to tell me that I should be
afraid
>of radioactive material from reactor plants which has not yet killed
>anyone?
Feel free to handle as much radioactive waste as pleases you.
>Your cavalier dismissal of actual hazards tells me that you are more
>politically motivated than technically competent.
Technically competent in what domain? I have already stated that I am
not a nuclear engineer. Solar engineering, power systems controls and
software are my domains, software being the one most recently
exercised. I fail to see that careful operation of EVs are going to be
more hazardous that nuclear power plants. Or was that your point?
For the record, please answer the following question;
Have there been any injuries or rise in cancer rates on the planet
attributed to nuclear power generation or the disposal of radioactive
wastes? Don't forget to include Chernobyl...
Regards,
Will Stewart
Will Stewart
>In the 1950s Chrysler experimented with turbine cars, making enough of
>them to lend to their engineers for street use testing. [...]
>I believe the big problem was indeed the match of turbine speed to
>wheel speed. Designing a transmission/clutch (or whatever) assembly
>required for decent accelaration from a stop light proved difficult,
>for instance.
Indeed, an idle speed of 22,000 RPM makes extreme demands on a clutch.
Will Stewart
Junkyard Dodge
Axel Berger <Axel_...@ac3.maus.de> wrote:
>*Atomic Rod* wrote on Sat, 95-06-10 21:50 in sci.energy:
>AR>Where do people get the idea that an ICE has an energy efficiency of
>AR>10% or so?
>
>Simple: Because it's true. A normal car needs about 10 kW to do 90 km/h
>and 20 kW to do 120 km/h (both speeds above the limit in most of the
>USA as far as I know).
Freeway speed limits in the USA are generally 55 MPH (88 KPH) in
incorporated areas, 65 MPH (105 KPH) in unincorporated areas. There
are some exceptions but not terribly many. Rural highways also tend
to be 55 MPH.
--
Ernst G. Knolle
: In <D9v2z6.Dy1@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
: td...@makedust.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (Tony Dean) writes:
: >
: >In article <8AAA3FC.0628...@execnet.com>, bi...@execnet.com
: (BILLC) writes:
: >|> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
: >|> Carnegie-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is
: estimated
: >|> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
: [...]
: >Can anyone trackdown anymore info regarding the root of the
: calculations?
: >Specifically, where they got their numbers. Was it current with
: >regard to battery reprocessing? Did it include world wide practices?
: >I'll also try to relocate my info and post it when I turn it up.
: One excellent source of information is;
: http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard.html
Only just now, someone e-mailed me the whole 19 May Carnegie Mellon
article. If Tony Dean has not found the article, here are the two
key paragraphs. If you divide the number 1340 in the first paragraph by
the number 22 in the second paragraph, you get the 60 number:
"Using 4% losses from virgin production, 2% losses
from recycling and reprocessing, and 1% losses from battery
manufacturing, we calculated the amount of lead discharged into
the environment for the two vehicle scenarios in Table 1. The
lead discharge ranges from 1340 mg of lead per kilometer (for
the existing technology battery that has the lowest energy
density and shortest lifetime distance and uses virgin lead) to
about 117 mg of lead per kilometer (for a goal technology
battery that has high energy density and long lifetime driving
distance and uses scrap lead). If a large number of electric
cars are produced, the demand for lead for batteries will
surge, requiring that more lead be mined (16).
In 1972, leaded gasoline sold in the United States
contained 2.1 g of lead per gallon. A vehicle of comparable
size and weight to those of an electric car, the Geo Metro,
gets about 19 km/liter (45 mpg) (17). Using leaded gasoline,
this vehicle would emit 22 mg of lead per kilometer (or 35 mg
per mile), with 25% of the lead retained in the engine and
exhaust of the car. Thus, an electric car using batteries with
newly mined lead releases 60 times the peak fraction released
by combustion of leaded gasoline. If use of recycled lead and
technology goal batteries is assumed, the lead releases are
only five times the TEL emissions per kilometer."
If anyone wants the whole article. Let me know. It takes only a few
button pushes to send it.
Ernst
Will Stewart
>[...]
>
>In Dearborn tests the worst EV used 270, the average 213, and the best
>161 Watt-hours/mile (pre-motor). Let's use the average,
Why not use the best? So you can cook the results...
>multiply by motor
>efficiency to bring it to energy at pavement (AD + RR), 213*0.9 =
192,
>(assume weight 4000 lbs)
Is this the weight of your 100 mpg ICE? Oh, I thought not..
>less rolling energy 192 - 4000*0.005*5280/2,655
>= 192 - 40 = 152 (AD energy at 35 mph), increase 152* 60^2/35^2 = 447
(AD
>energy at 60 mph), add normal tire rolling energy 447 + 40*4 = 607
>Watt-hours/mile output energy at road surface. To obtain input divide
>output by efficiency factors, motors 0.9, batteries & charger 0.75,
power
>transmission & thermal conversion 0.25
What references are you using for the above figures? What are their
sources?
>for a total EV
>(pre-thermal-conversion input) of 607/(0.9*0.75*0.25) ~ 3600
>Watt-hours/mile. Divide by the above calculated IC amount, and the
>conclusion is:
>
>EVs use about 10 times as much energy as equivalent ICs
If you cook the results. How many times have you had to rescind bogus
calculations like the above?
Where are these 100 mpg ICEs you keep referring to? Why aren't they on
the road?
Do they really weight 4000 pounds?
>Calculations and conclusions are based on reported test results and on
>equal size and equal performance comparison. Prepared by Ernst G.
Knolle,
>Mechanical Engineer, licensed in California and Europe, California
>License No. 12372, member of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Address:
>Knolle Magnetrans, 2691 Sean Court, South San Francisco, CA 94080,
>U.S.A., phone (415)871-9816, fax 871-0867, e-mail kno...@crl.com.
>Revised December 10, 1994
I hope your clients don't read this.
Will Stewart
Will Stewart
Besides mistakingly using 3032 pounds as the weight of the lead,
instead of the weight of the car, there were several other mistakes and
misleading comments throughout. For an analysis of this *draft*
article, connect to;
http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard.html
and compare the corrected information with the article Ernste can send
you.
Will Stewart
Mike Riordan
>From: will...@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart )
>Subject: Re: Pb & the electric car!
>Date: 14 Jun 1995 14:00:58 GMT
>>2. The use of other materials may hold promise, but as of today-only
>> lead is being considered for production to meet the 1998
>California/
>I prefer to place my confidence with the various alternatives that are
>even now under field test conditions (Horizon battery, zinc-air
>battery, etc.). There will never be a silver bullet for energy
>consumption, everything will entail some costs.
>Will Stewart
3. Today is the summer of 1995.
4. The ONLY type of battery being utilized by the auto manufacturers for
their 1998 production prototypes is lead-acid.
5. The various alternative batteries have not completed their test evaluation,
and will not be viable options until 3 years after the testing is complete
(due to the lead time required in auto design/manufacturing).
urba...@ct.picker.com
"If Indias and Chinas economic growth continues at an
estimated 6% per year, the two economies will be able to
consume the entire daily output of middle east light crude "
From an article explaining the significance of the Spratly
Islands expected to contain significant oil deposits
Any guesses as to what gas would cost if Arabian crude
disappeared ?
al
Clark Dorman
In article <mriordan.1...@umich.edu> mrio...@umich.edu (Mike Riordan)
writes:
> 4. The ONLY type of battery being utilized by the auto manufacturers for
> their 1998 production prototypes is lead-acid.
>
> 5. The various alternative batteries have not completed their test evaluation,
> and will not be viable options until 3 years after the testing is complete
> (due to the lead time required in auto design/manufacturing).
Isn't the Ford Ecostar based on sodium-sulfur batteries, and aren't they being
considered for 1998 production? I also thought that AFS thought that they
might be ready for 1998 production.
Clark
Hugh Lippincott
|> Will Stewart (will...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
|> : In <D9v2z6.Dy1@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
|> : td...@makedust.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (Tony Dean) writes:
|> : >
|> : >In article <8AAA3FC.0628...@execnet.com>, bi...@execnet.com
|> : (BILLC) writes:
|> : >|> Now the 19 May issue of SCIENCE has an article on p 992 from
|> : >|> Carnegie-Mellon that concludes:" A 1998 model electric car is estimated
|> : >|> to release 60 times more lead per kilometer of use relative to a
|> : [...]
|>
|> : >Can anyone trackdown anymore info regarding the root of the calculations?
|>
|>
|> : http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard.html
|>
|> Only just now, someone e-mailed me the whole 19 May Carnegie Mellon
|> article. If Tony Dean has not found the article, here are the two
|> key paragraphs. If you divide the number 1340 in the first paragraph by
|> the number 22 in the second paragraph, you get the 60 number:
However, you are using their assumptions:
ie. in production of the lead for batteries:
-> any lead not in the battery is "pollution" equivalent
to the lead in the exhaust of a car
but the lead in leaded gasoline appears by magic in the gasoline
and only that lead counts as pollution.
|> "Using 4% losses from virgin production, 2% losses
|> from recycling and reprocessing, and 1% losses from battery
|> manufacturing, we calculated the amount of lead discharged into
|> the environment for the two vehicle scenarios in Table 1. The
|> lead discharge ranges from 1340 mg of lead per kilometer (for
|> the existing technology battery that has the lowest energy
|> density and shortest lifetime distance and uses virgin lead) to
|> about 117 mg of lead per kilometer (for a goal technology
|> battery that has high energy density and long lifetime driving
|> distance and uses scrap lead). If a large number of electric
|> cars are produced, the demand for lead for batteries will
|> surge, requiring that more lead be mined (16).
|>
|> In 1972, leaded gasoline sold in the United States
|> contained 2.1 g of lead per gallon. A vehicle of comparable
|> size and weight to those of an electric car, the Geo Metro,
|> gets about 19 km/liter (45 mpg) (17). Using leaded gasoline,
|> this vehicle would emit 22 mg of lead per kilometer (or 35 mg
|> per mile), with 25% of the lead retained in the engine and
|> exhaust of the car. Thus, an electric car using batteries with
|> newly mined lead releases 60 times the peak fraction released
^^^^^^^^??? carefully chosen to mask the comparison
I(and others) contend that very little of that is "released" the
way it is by combustion in leaded gasoline.
|> by combustion of leaded gasoline. If use of recycled lead and
|> technology goal batteries is assumed, the lead releases are
|> only five times the TEL emissions per kilometer."
Besides the lead in leaded gasoline got there by the same mining, smelting
and then some chemical refining process, so those "releases" are the same.
[anyone knowing about the manufacture of tetra-ethyl lead jump in here]
|> If anyone wants the whole article. Let me know. It takes only a few
|> button pushes to send it.
Please send.
|> Ernst
--
Hugh Lippincott hu...@an.hp.com
Mike Jamison (ADF)
>In <mriordan.1...@umich.edu> mrio...@umich.edu (Mike Riordan)
>writes:
>>
>
>> poses disproportionate environmental consequences.
>
>Emerging consensus? There has been some flurry over a *draft*
>Carnegie-Mellon report, but few reputable scientists/engineers have
>supported this. Wait until the final report comes out, there are many
>errors that have to be corrected.
>
Seems like we all [pro and anti-nukes alike] have bones to pick with any
studies that contradict what we believe to be in everyone's best interest...
[snip]
>
>Will Stewart
Mike Jamison
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
Paul Dietz
>In <hatunenD...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
>writes:
...
>> I believe the big problem was indeed the match of turbine speed to
>> wheel speed.
> Indeed, an idle speed of 22,000 RPM makes extreme demands on a clutch.
The turbine cries out for use in a hybrid vehicle, though. At high
rpm air core generators are very light and efficient. The turbine can
be run at constant rpm, and can be sized to the average load (with an
electrically driven flywheel intermediate store, also turning at high
rpm).
Not surprisingly, this is the approach taken in Chryler's
Patriot racing car. I understand they're working on the Mk. II
version right now (the first had bad handling characteristics;
they've changed to a midengine design).
Paul
Axel Berger
AR>The faster you try to charge a lead acid battery, the hotter they get
AR>and the more H2 is generated by electrolysis of the water in the
AR>sulfuric acid.
On top of that it is not really the H2, is it? When the battery gases,
air above the cells is expelled and the space is filled with a
*stoichiometric H2-O2 mixture!* Thinking about it and about how
careless everybody - myself included - acts around these things it is
surprising how seldom anything happens. One thing is certain: When
there is a perceived (if happily theoretical) risc of this nature
anywhere in the vicinity of a nuclear plant, there will be mandatory
safety procedures dwarfing the submarine ones into insignificance.
Tschoe wa
Axel