TheFaithfulStone Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Hey apeweek - could you provide citations for those efficiency numbers you cited? ThanksTFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Hey apeweek - could you provide citations for those efficiency numbers you cited? ThanksTFS Not sure if this is where apeweek got the numbers, however you can find similar numbers with footnotes at:http://www.teslamotors.com/media/white_papers/The21stCenturyElectricCar.pdf Or a more 'readable' version (sans footnotes) at http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=8#more-8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apeweek Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Hey apeweek - could you provide citations for those efficiency numbers you cited?ThanksTFS Sure. I have tried to provide at least two sources, and used government sources whenever possible. If I've glossed over anything, let me know, I'll provide it. This system won't let me post links; I haven't been a member long enough. I am 'dumbing' the links so they get through. You may need to add the 'www' to the front. -----------------------------------------------------Gas engine efficiency-----------------------------------------------------Everything2.Comeverything2.com/index.pl?node=internal%20combustion%20engine Argonne national laboratoryanl.gov/Media_Center/News/2006/news060622.html ---------------------------------------Transmission line efficiency---------------------------------------Paper: 'Economic and engineering constraints on the restructuring of the electric power industry'public.lanl.gov/u106527/ELISIMS/Econ_paper.pdf(points out that the industry standard is 95% efficiency) From greenhouse to green housemng.org.uk/green_house/renewable_energy/csp_sections/csp_transport.htm(figure given is 3% transmission loss per 1000 km.) News story about utility overcharging. Figure given is 3% transmission loss (97% efficient)pur.com/pubs/790.cfm climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdfSays transmission losses in 1995 were 7.2% (92.8 efficient) ----------------------------------------------------Electricity is used to refine gasoline----------------------------------------------------science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining4.htm(some of the steps require temperatures as high as 1500 degrees) Book, 'Energy and Transportation: challenges for the Chemical sciences in the 21st century'darwin.nap.edu/books/0309087414/html/23.htmllook for 'OCR for page 25', it says "the energy efficiency of a typical refinery is between 87 and 92 percent." Mechanical Engineering Magazinememagazine.org/backissues/oct99/features/upping/upping.html"Petroleum refineries are prime candidates for improvement in energy efficiency; roughly 40 percent of their operating cost is incurred by energy demands. Chevron, one of the largest petroleum refiners in the United States, operates six gasoline-producing refineries, including one in Richmond, Calif. This facility typically processes 240,000 barrels of crude oil per day, producing diesel fuel, gasoline, jet fuel, and lubrication oil. Its annual electricity costs are just over $25 million."($.285/barrel) --------------------------Battery efficiency--------------------------Lithium-Ion Batteries:Linear Technologynational.com/appinfo/power/files/swcap_eet.pdfPaper says 88% efficient (over the usable charge-discharge range) Lead-Acid and NI-CD Batteries:Arizona Wind and Sunwindsun.com/Batteries/Battery_FAQ.htm"Typical efficiency in a lead-acid battery is 85-95% " -----------------------------------Electric motor efficiency-----------------------------------Washington State Universityenergyexperts.org/energy_solutions/res_details.cfm?resourceID=3823&;keyword=cheap§or=All"A 250 hp standard efficiency motor has a pretty good efficiency on the order of 94.2%. A typical or generic NEMA Premium Efficiency motor would have an efficiency of 96.3%" Public Service of New Hampshirepsnh.com/Business/SmallBusiness/Motor.aspChart showing that 25+ horsepower electric motors have efficiencies between 90 and 96% -----------------------------------Fuel Cell Efficiency----------------------------------- Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell"The efficiency of a fuel is very dependent on the current through the fuel cell: as a general rule, the more current drawn, the lower the efficiency. A cell running at 0.6V has an efficiency of about 50%, meaning that 50% of the available energy content of the hydrogen is converted into electrical energy; the remaining 50% will be converted into heat." Zythryn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 nm:doh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 awesomeness excellent. now i want to see this movie. tfs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 The cost of the 1100 cars produced came to $900,000 each when the R&D costs exclusive to that vehicle were included.It would be interesting to see a more detailed breakdown of EV1 financials. The Wikipedia article “EV1” states that 1100 EV1s were manufactured, that “GM stated that they spent over $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1” (emphasis mine), and that “One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about $80,000, including research and development costs”. This suggests that over 90% of the cost of the EV1 was “marketing” – a not unreasonable, but potentially eye-opening statisticTo have sold the cars to the public would have required GM to maintain spare parts for these engineering abortions for ten years. Even if the actual cost of manufacturing each vehicle was only estimated at $80,000 each, keeping a network of parts, supplying training, and the other things that are required by the federal, CA and AZ governments would have cost GM millions more to make a hundred or so customers stay happy. They did the smart thing and cut their losses.Absent terming them “engineering abortions”, this is the argument commonly presented to explain GM’s refusal to sell individual EV1s following the termination of their lease program. There are, I believe, flaws in it: “Keeping a network of parts, supplying training, and the other things that are required by the federal, CA and AZ governments would have cost GM millions.”As described in an open letter to then and present GM CEO Richard Wagoner, some buyers were willing to enter into sworn releases of responsibility for parts and service, and purchases EV1s at GM’s stated residual value of $24,761.60 each. “They did the smart thing and cut their losses.”If GM’s sole motivation for destroying rather than selling the EV1s was financial loss-avoidance, why would they not accept offer such as those made by EV1 enthusiast and collectors? Even assuming a very adverse tax accounting scenario, I can’t see that income of up to $19,000,000 – though a small item for a $190,000,000,000/year revenue company like GM - would have been financially less desirable than a stated loss of the same amount, even assuming a worst case tax accounting scenario. I’m not an expert in the pertinent law, but the argument TBD offers seems to depend on the implication that it’s legally impossible to release a manufacturer from responsibility for parts and service. I don’t believe this to be the case. Rather, I believe that GM’s destruction of their EV1 fleet was made for other reasons, the most likely, IMHO, being to reduce the likelihood of California’s Zero Emission Vehicle Program create a disfavorable market for them and other manufacturers. In short, I believe that GM was “playing to lose”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang292 Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Solar powered cars are what we need to work on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Hmmm, Toyota's Rav4 EVs are still available (only car I know of that goes up in value each year:)). Anyone know a Rav4 EV owner? Perhaps they signed an agreement with Toyota such as the hypothetical one mentioned by Craig? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Solar powered cars are what we need to work on.Why not go to another eschalon of research, skip cars, and focus all this huge sum of money into teleportation research? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Hmmm, Toyota's Rav4 EVs are still available (only car I know of that goes up in value each year:)). Anyone know a Rav4 EV owner? Perhaps they signed an agreement with Toyota such as the hypothetical one mentioned by Craig?This doesn’t appear to be the case. According to Toyota’s RAV4EV website, ”Please be assured, Toyota will continue to ensure that dealers capable of servicing RAV4 EVs are located in each major metropolitan area in California throughout the 5-year powertrain warranty period of your vehicle.” Like GM, Toyota discontinued their EV in 2003. Unlike GM, they sold, not leased, them. Both the EV1 and the RAV4EV were popular with their user/owners, an unusual fraction of whom formed clubs to share their enthusiasm about these vehicles. Since, unlike the EV1, the RAV4EV uses mostly standard RAV4 parts, it’s unlikely that parts will be an issue for existing RAV4EVs. Historically, the electric parts, excluding batteries, are usually more reliable and longer lasting than the non-electric parts of a vehicle. I’m inclined to think that the differences in the manner that GM and Toyota conducted and discontinued these similar products reveals a profound difference in their approach to customer relations, and that this difference is partially responsible for why GM lost US$10,000,000,000 on revenues of $192,000,000,000, while Toyota gained $14,000,000,000 on revenues of $157,000,000,000 (FY 2005 figures). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Solar powered cars are what we need to work on.Any electric vehicles is solar powered if the electricity used to charge it is solar generated. On of the attractive qualities of EVs, or any “rechargeable” vehicle, “zero-emission” or not, including battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell electric, hydrogen burning, synthetic alcohol burning (or, in principle, even rubber band driven! :hihi:), is that it can be “charged” (or its fuel manufactured) using a variety of sources of generated energy. Assuming that energy utility companies are properly managed and not subjected to unfair government or private business interference, this promises to allow such vehicles to be dramatically less expensive to the consumer than current gas and diesel fueled vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Efficiency is the EV's strongest point.Very true, however, but you need to remember that much of the electricity produced in this country is done so by burning fossil fuels. Soooo, I ask you then; Why compound the efficiency loss by first burning the fossil fuel at the station and then adding to it the transmission over the grid? It's gasoline that loses most of its efficiency, not electricity. The electric grid is 95% efficient. Very true, but I reiterate; Why compound the losses thru transmission? Battery storage is 88% efficient. Electric traction motors are 95% efficient, and transmissionless EVs get most of that power right to the road. Don't forget the weight involved in building these vehicles. The heavier these vehicles are, the more energy they will need to function! Until we can produce the greater portion of our electricity needs thru some source other than fossil fuels, it really makes little sense to burn the hydrocarbons at the station and then transport the electricity generated over the grid to ultimately be stored in batteries placed in our cars....................................Infy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Infamous, It might also be argued that the power stations, whose specialty it is to generate power, may be so efficient in their method that the losses from transmission would cancel out. Since the vehicles primary speciality is transportation, it may be a less efficient converter of fossil fuel to power than the energy station, and it could still be more efficient to transport from the station to the electric car... Just a thought. I haven't done any research on this to support the idea. Cheers. :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apeweek Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Very true, however, but you need to remember that much of the electricity produced in this country is done so by burning fossil fuels. Soooo, I ask you then; Why compound the efficiency loss by first burning the fossil fuel at the station and then adding to it the transmission over the grid? ....................................Infy You have to remember that fossil fuel burns much more efficiently at a big powerplant than it does in a little auto engine. Then it's just a matter of multiplying out the efficiency numbers I provided. Greater efficiency means less energy is needed to move a vehicle the same distance, and therefore less pollution is generated. We will compare efficiencies as they relate to the production of pollution: ---------------------------------------------Efficiency of an internal combustion vehicle:---------------------------------------------Efficiency of gasoline: -After electricity used for refining: ~90%-Reduction in efficiency for transportation costs: average about 20 cents/gallon,from ratio of this to cost of gas, about ~92%-Efficiency of internal combustion engine: ~25%*Result: ~20.7% efficient (Today we won't even consider the losses in the vehicle's transmission, which an EV doesn't need.)*----------------------------------------------Efficiency of an electric vehicle:---------------------------------------------- -Approximate combined fossil fuel efficiency of various power sources on the electric grid:50% from coal and oil at 37% -- 8% from natural gas at 48% -- 42% from from nuclear/hydro/wind/ at 100% (100 because no fossil fuel used)= average 64%-Efficiency of electric power transmission grid: ~95%-Efficiency of battery power input and output: ~88%-Efficiency of electric traction motor: ~93%-Efficiency adjustment for energy reclaimed from regenerative braking: ~ 110% (increase result upward by 10 %)Result: ~55% efficient*That's at least 2.7 times more efficient, with a corresponding reduction in pollution. I'm being conservative here. The EV advantage is almost certainly greater than this. infamous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 You have to remember that fossil fuel burns much more efficiently at a big powerplant than it does in a little auto engine. Then it's just a matter of multiplying out the efficiency numbers I provided. Greater efficiency means less energy is needed to move a vehicle the same distance, and therefore less pollution is generated. We will compare efficiencies as they relate to the production of pollution: ---------------------------------------------Efficiency of an internal combustion vehicle:---------------------------------------------Efficiency of gasoline: -After electricity used for refining: ~90%-Reduction in efficiency for transportation costs: average about 20 cents/gallon,from ratio of this to cost of gas, about ~92%-Efficiency of internal combustion engine: ~25%*Result: ~20.7% efficient (Today we won't even consider the losses in the vehicle's transmission, which an EV doesn't need.)*----------------------------------------------Efficiency of an electric vehicle:---------------------------------------------- -Approximate combined fossil fuel efficiency of various power sources on the electric grid:50% from coal and oil at 37% -- 8% from natural gas at 48% -- 42% from from nuclear/hydro/wind/ at 100% (100 because no fossil fuel used)= average 64%-Efficiency of electric power transmission grid: ~95%-Efficiency of battery power input and output: ~88%-Efficiency of electric traction motor: ~93%-Efficiency adjustment for energy reclaimed from regenerative braking: ~ 110% (increase result upward by 10 %)Result: ~55% efficient*That's at least 2.7 times more efficient, with a corresponding reduction in pollution. I'm being conservative here. The EV advantage is almost certainly greater than this.Assuming your figures are correct, they do make a good argument for this conversion. However, as I've already stated, until we learn to generate electricity from another source, I believe making this transition to electric powered automobiles is premature. Another factor to consider is the cost of manufacturing these vehicles. At the present, it's still too expensive. And that doesn't take maintenance into the equation either. At best, I think it's a toss-up, too many unanswered questions like, what are we going to do with the pollution caused from the disposal of these spent batteries and the nasty stuff contained within them?..........Just my two cents........................Infy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Is there a place where we can verify those numbers, apeweek? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apeweek Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Is there a place where we can verify those numbers, apeweek? Yes, of course. I provided references to most of those numbers in my earlier post. Here are the rest. Again, if anyone feels I've glossed over something important, let me know. Also, just like before, this system won't let me post links yet, so I have removed the WWW to get the links through. Just add to the front of the links to reconstitute. ---------------------------------------------------------------Percent of coal and other energy sources used to make power---------------------------------------------------------------Virginia energy patterns and trendsenergy.vt.edu/vept/electric/index.aspChart at energy.vt.edu/vept/electric/netgeneration.aspor energy.vt.edu/vept/electric/netgeneration_year.asp?yr=2004(says coal plus oil percent = about 50%) ----------------------------------------------------Efficiency of coal and gas plants:----------------------------------------------------ieej.or.jp/aperc/pdf/GRID_COMBINED_DRAFT.pdf(page 36, footnote 50, coal plants are 37% efficient)(gas plants are 48% efficient) National renewable energy Laboratoryhealthgoods.com/Education/Energy_Information/General_Energy_Information/fossil_fuel%20coal.htmsays average coal plant (back in 1992) is 33% efficient - but new technology plants are up to 85% efficient. ---------------------EV Regen braking benefits----------------------onechip.co.uk/simon/electric/regen.htmlSays 5 to 10% increase in range from EV regen braking. ihpva.org/pipermail/velomobile/2000-March/000016.htmlClaims 22% increase in range (using a trike, a very efficient electric vehicle) rmi.org/sitepages/pid433.phpsays 30% of energy is typically lost to braking en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brakingsays regen braking has 31.3% efficiency; combined with above figure for 30% energy loss to braking, implies 9.4% increase in energy efficiency. ------------------------------------------------------------Cost of trucking, shipping, piping gasoline------------------------------------------------------------San Francisco Chronicle news articlesfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/08/28/BU220409.DTL&;type=business"We get our gasoline barged up to us at a cost of 3 cents a gallon versus the 10 cents a gallon cost of trucking" (this was from 2001, may be higher now.) Federal trade Commissionftc.gov/bc/gasconf/comments2/jacobsstevee.pdf"Cost of Transporting Gasoline 1000 miles. Cents/Gallon. Pipeline. 1.5 - 2.5. Barge. 4 - 5. Truck. 30 - 40."(this was from 2002, may be higher now.) pgrmdave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.