# [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I'm looking for a recent, comprehensive, dirt to wheels comparison of EV's,
(including inputs used to get the fuel to generate the electricity and
resources and energy used to build the batteries and power train), and
ICE's, (also including inputs used to drill for oil and resources and energy
used to build motors, transmissions and exhaust systems). This is assuming
the current US grid mix of about 48% coal. I'm not aware if such a study
exists and it would seem daunting to take into account all the many possible
variables. The anti-EV lobby is "drilling down" even further, as they
should, trying to suggest that the entire EV chain is less efficient than
the ICE chain when battery pack construction inputs and fuel source
extraction inputs are included. This is of course ignoring the fact that
increased renewables in the future would skew things further in favor of
EV's.
-- 
View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Dirt-to-Wheels-analysis-tp3076445p3076445.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)
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----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

How do you choose to measure efficiency?

www.illinois.edu/goto/co2

The above graph is from the New York Times based on US EPA data (sorry,
haven't been able to source where the original EPA data comes from --
perhaps contact the NYT?). It takes into account all of the data you
ask for various fuel types but neglects to include energy consumed
protecting oil-rich regions (war) as well as direct deaths & trauma
caused by such actions as well as coal mining/mountain topping & holler
filling, buried alive/black lung (electricity).

>From a CO2 perspective, it's resoundingly in favor of EV's NOW and EV's
in the future, irrespective of the greenness of the grid -- it's
important to note in the graph, that the baseline IS ICE-based vehicles.

There's also this study here highlighted and discussed at a recent
Illinois EV Club meeting (we have a fair number of academics and
wanna-bes ;-):

"One of the items that we discussed briefly at tonight's September
meeting of the 
Illinois EV Club was a paper published by Dominic Notter et al.
that compared the 
environmental effects of battery-powered cars to those of
conventionally-fuelled 
automobiles when one takes into account the entire life cycle of
the batteries. 
A summary of the paper is given below. I'd like to thank Diana
Yates for posting 
this link to our club's Facebook page and Mercedes Mane for
bringing a copy of 
the journal article with her to the meeting, and initiating and
moderating the 
discussion."

- Dave Noreen

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/sflf-te083010.php

It is a detailed lifecycle assessment (LCA) comparison, and the upshot
is that for both ICE vehicles and electrics, it is much more a question
of power source rather than the power train and the resources used to
build the vehicle. The ICE was a "best in class" with a liter/100km
value "significantly lower than the European average". On the flipside,
they "fueled" the plug-in vehicle from the "standard European
electricity mix". So they took a best-in-class vehicle and compared it
to an average-to-middling EV (VW Golf sized & performance vehicle).

Their conclusion was "a petrol-engined car must consume between three
and four liters per 100 kilometers (or about 70 mpg) in order to be as
environmentally friendly as the e-car studied, powered with Li-ion
batteries and charged with a typical European electricity mix." Note
that their "best in class" vehicle did not attain 3-4 L/100km.

So in the second study you have strong research indicating that it is
the source of the power over the life cycle of the car that is the most
significant factor (the embodied energy of the vehicles being roughly
equal -- negating the Lithium-Ion batteries being worse than an ICE
controversy), and in the first study you have a fuel analysis that shows
that the dirty, coal-fired grid-based electricity will result in a 47%
CO2 reduction over gasoline. Today. 

And the critical piece to the puzzle is that the entire argument becomes
moot once you're able to charge on renewables. So if you drive an EV,
you really need to be out there beating the drum locally in support for
every ounce of renewable-generated electricity brought online. Because
then this argument disappears, almost like magic.

And then you're just left with fun ;-)

[email protected]



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of AMPhibian
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:23 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?


I'm looking for a recent, comprehensive, dirt to wheels comparison of
EV's,
(including inputs used to get the fuel to generate the electricity and
resources and energy used to build the batteries and power train), and
ICE's, (also including inputs used to drill for oil and resources and
energy
used to build motors, transmissions and exhaust systems). This is
assuming
the current US grid mix of about 48% coal. I'm not aware if such a
study
exists and it would seem daunting to take into account all the many
possible
variables. The anti-EV lobby is "drilling down" even further, as they
should, trying to suggest that the entire EV chain is less efficient
than
the ICE chain when battery pack construction inputs and fuel source
extraction inputs are included. This is of course ignoring the fact
that
increased renewables in the future would skew things further in favor of
EV's.
-- 
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Dirt-to-Whe
els-analysis-tp3076445p3076445.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Forgive me if I seem cynical, but after doing so for over 20 years, I mostly 
don't much bother with defending EVs against these attacks any more. 

As in politics and commerce, the attackers don't present any valid evidence 
to support their arguments. They don't need any. The claims are structured 
like advertising, to have the maximum emotional effect on the audience, and 
whether they're true or verifiable doesn't matter. The gullible American 
populace will apparently believe anything - especially if it tells them that 
everything will be fine and they don't need to change anything they're 
doing.

The news media are complicit in this. They dutifully report anti-EV claims 
without examining or verifying them, no matter how bizarre they may seem. 

Certainly there are exceptions, but most reporters (can't call 'em 
journalists any more) are ignorant of science, and have no interest in 
taking the time and effort to learn about or do research about the subjects 
on which they report. If the speaker or news release writer claims to be an 
"expert," why should they question him? 

Not that it matters: more and more Americans (and increasingly other 
nationalities) get their "news" from sources of opinion, on both sides of 
the political spectrum. They seldom bother to corroborate those views, but 
internalize them as facts, unexamined. For them, belief - implicit trust in 
the source - trumps knowledge.

For now, people with "green" tendencies will buy EVs. This is a relatively 
small number and the EVs they buy will mostly remain relatively expensive 
specialty vehicles for the near future.

When liquid fuel is no longer available without appreciable inconvenience 
and cost, nearly everyone will buy EVs. Manufacturers which are ready for 
that day with good, appealing EVs that they can crank out by the thousands 
will prosper. The rest will not. It'll be interesting to see whether the 
US automakers try to sell the EV equivalents of Vegas and Pintos.

EVs will dominate when and where there's no alternative. I'm increasingly 
skeptical that our talk and PR are going to much increase the pace of that 
change, though I guess it can't hurt other than wasting a bit of time. ;-)

The good news is that I've never seen as wide a selection of EV conversion 
components as is available today. Nor have there ever been as many ways to 
learn how to build an EV and absorb the experience of hundreds of EV 
pioneers.

Folks who think for themselves - that would be the EVDL membership, among 
others - and build, buy, and use EVs are, and will continue to be, the best 
and most public proof that EVs work and are a good idea. 

In other words, building an EV and driving it is the best way to counter the 
EV opponents. Just do it.

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not 
reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my 
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> This is assuming the current US grid mix of about 48% coal.

Actually, the 48% number is misleading. It includes industrial, commercial
and residential use. If you're just looking for residential or residential
plus commercial use (which EVs would tap into), then the number is more in
the 35% - 40% range--toward on the 35% end if you think most EV charging
will be done at home, or closer to the 40% end if you think a lot of it
will be done while people are at work. =


Interestingly, one of the biggest users of coal-fired electricity is the
oil refinement industry. =


Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft=AE Windows=AE and Linux web and applicati=
on
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting



_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I agree with both points but it has become something of a pastime to involve
myself in these arguments. I can't walk away from the misinformation that I
often come across. Certainly building and driving an EV is a good counter,
but at the same time many of our conversions have limited range and are not
the best representation of the potential for EV's, and they do nothing to
counter the long tailpipe arguments on their own. 
I've started a blog where I'm posting some of my EV thoughts, often inspired
by an argument I've had about EV practicality. It's non technical stuff
aimed at the general public that I hope to use as a reference in future
discussions and I'm always looking for more ammunition. 
http://ephase.blogspot.com/ 




> EVDL Administrator wrote:
> >
> > Forgive me if I seem cynical, but after doing so for over 20 years, I
> > mostly
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)
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----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> [email protected] wrote:
> 
> >> This is assuming the current US grid mix of about 48% coal.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> I need backup documentation if you can provide it.

Here's a start:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfilees1.pdf

See table ES1. In 2009, 44.5% of U.S. electricity was generated by coal. =

For total electricity consumption (not just from coal), here's the
breakdown by megawatt hours used:

Residential: 1,364,474
Commercial: 1,307,168
Industrial: 917,442

I'll have to dig a little deeper to find out the breakdown of that 917,442
industrial megawatt hours.

Bill


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com =96 What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint



_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Hi,

> Does the refining industry use a lot of coal power or does some/most
> of it come from petroleum/natural gas?

The refining stage of petroleum uses both electricity and natural gas directly. There is a lot of heating involved, and a fair bit of electricity as well -- Nissan has said about 7.5kWh / US gallon of gasoline. (What is not clear is whether this is *just* the refining, or all the way through the entire process?) A single large refinery uses power directly from the power station, and it uses about as much electricity as a city of 250,000 people. (From a "Fully Charged" podcast, from an interview with a manager of a large refinery.)

A detail that is often forgotten: different quality crude requires different amount of energy to refine. And you get significantly less gasoline from heavy sour crude, than you do from sweet light crude.

Another very important point is that refining is *not* the only stage with significant energy input -- extraction uses a lot of electricity. Transportation around the globe requires a lot of energy; be it supertankers or pipelines. Storage (at several stages along the way) also requires some energy input. And exploration and the initial drilling take a lot of energy; even things like the so-called "drilling mud" take a lot of energy intensive processing to make; similar to making concrete, or maybe even more so. Drilling mud is expensive for a reason. Large drilling rigs have to be "sailed" to locations, and they are constantly powered just to stay in place -- the BP rig that burned and sank had 6 or 8 engines, each in the 1,000's of horsepower range.

The current carbon output from EV's depends on the efficiency of the vehicle and where you get the power from -- they range from 40-100gm/km, source-to-wheels; including the mix of coal and other sources, disposal of coal ash, as well. All the electricity used all along the way to produce petroleum and make gasoline -- is "dirty" and that carbon must be added to the carbon produced by ICE vehicles. Ditto for the natural gas used along the way to producing gasoline. So, typical ICE vehicles produce 300-500gm/km; source-to-wheels.

Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Below is a reply from Stephan at EV which talks about the energy consumption
of extraction and refining of gasoline in California, but some of the links
no longer work:

.......................................................................................
[email protected] to me
show details 10/12/07





Hi Larry,

It was nice to meet you at the SEVA meeting. Here is the source for the
calculations about how much electricity and also natural gas energy is used
for extracting and refining oil in the state of California.

>From a California Energy Department website:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/iaw/industry/petro.html

The key numbers are below:

3,700GWh or 1.5% of all electricity consumed by the state is used for
Petroleum EXTRACTION

7,266 million KWh of electricity for Petroleum REFINING (1997)- 15% of
California's manufacturing sector (if 3700 is 1.5, then 7266=2.9%.
1.5+2.9=4.4%. That looks more like 1/20th of all Electric usage to me)

1,061 million Therms of natural gas Petroleum REFINING (1997)- 28% of
California's manufacturing sector
48% of energy from Petroleum is used in the transportation sector.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Below are the calculations of Mr. William Korthof (Bill is a nice guy and
owns a factory built Toyota Rav4EV which now has over 100,000 trouble free
miles on it!) http://evnut.com/rav_owner_100k.htm


Well, by my calculations,

the electricity used in CA to extract and refine oil for gasoline (11,000
Gwh) would be enough to power 4 million full function electric cars. 11000
million kWh / 0.25 kWh per mile /11000 miles per year per car = 4
million E cars

Adding the natural gas used to refine oil for gasoline, 1,061 million
therms, we could get
enough power to run another 5 million electric cars
1061 million therms * 30 Kwh per therm / 50% combined cycle power plant
efficiency
/ 11000 miles per year per car / 0.25 miles per kWh = 5 million electric
cars

Adding in the energy used to produce and ship imported oil (over 50% is
now), plus the
energy used to distribute and retail oil...

-wk-

William's calculations seem fairly accurate in my opinion, and 250whrs per
mile is a reasonable average for EVs of various sizes although some cars can
get even better.

For more specific information on the factory produced EVs including the GM
EV1, Chrysler Minivan and various others you can check out:

http://avt.inel.gov/fsev.shtml

Each smaller pdf contains detailed info on power consumption at various
speeds as well as battery type and weight. Lots of good stuff from the Idaho
National Labratories.

Talk to you later,
-Stephen Johnsen-

............................................................................................................................................................

According to Nissan, it takes 7.5 hours to refine a gallon of gasoline:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=820&start=70

-- Larry Gales



> AMPhibian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I'm looking for a recent, comprehensive, dirt to wheels comparison of EV's,
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> On 7 Dec 2010 at 13:37, Larry Gales wrote:
> 
> > the electricity used in CA to extract and refine oil for gasoline (11,000
> > Gwh) would be enough to power 4 million full function electric cars.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Bill,

Are you indicating different user categories 'get' energy produced by 
different fuels. If so that is not accurate except if the user is 
directly connected to the power plant.

Power goes into the grid from different sources, then its all the 
same. Even if your utility says they are importing hydro (or coal) , 
or that you are getting green energy, the energy you use to charge 
your EV comes from the same grid. You could argue your energy comes 
from the closest source given the path of least resistance property.

If you are talking about different times of day, then the mix of 
generation may change, but I would argue it is a stretch to make the 
connection between time of use and user category.





> [email protected] wrote:
> 
> >> This is assuming the current US grid mix of about 48% coal.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

>Are you indicating different user categories 'get' energy produced by
different fuels. If so that is
>not accurate except if the user is directly connected to the power plant.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Some manufacturing facilities generate
their on electricity on-site, from coal. There are also some Independent
Power Producers who generate goal-fired electricity that doesn't get fed
into the grid. When you count the electricity that's fed into the grid,
it's more in the 40% range than the 48% range from coal--though these
numbers are hard to come by. I'll see if I can find a more authoritative
reference than myself for the claim.

Bill 

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

OK that makes sense. How are you separating industrial from residential?

As for The Grid, I believe most utilities are required to inform customers of the generation mix of the energy they buy, and most of the country is covered by an RTO, ISO or other multiple-utility balancing authority that is likely to publish generation mix data.

For example
CAISO
MISO 
PJM Interconnection
ISO-NE
NYISO
Southwest Power Pool
Bonneville Power Authority


John



> "Bill Dennis" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >> Are you indicating different user categories 'get' energy produced by
> > different fuels. If so that is
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

If it's self generated and doesn't enter the grid is it still counted as part
of the grid mix? I wonder if the increased industrial coal usage comes from
the fact that much of industrial processes run 24/7 and take a greater
percentage of night time generation, which might be more base load coal. 
Also much of industry might be grouped in areas of high coal usage, Great
Lakes/Detroit area for example.




> Bill Dennis wrote:
> >
> >>Are you indicating different user categories 'get' energy produced by
> > different fuels. If so that is
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

The real problem with this type of analysis is that its real purpose is 
to shift the focus and prevent change. The auto companies and oil 
companies are masters of this game. They have used it successfully for 
decades to stall any and all changes and regulations.

Rather than say you disagree with someone, you instead say "You have a 
good idea, but how big a difference would it make? We'll have to study 
it first." Then the studies go on forever. As each one comes out, you 
find some fault with it, and so insist on a new one.

When you argue this way, you are playing their game. They have the "home 
team" advantage, and are almost certain to win.

The average driver doesn't care about dirt to wheels analysis. He 
doesn't know what his car costs him per mile, or how much pollution it 
makes. We don't want or need to sell EVs to the oil or auto companies or 
government -- we want to sell *consumers* on them! To do that, write 
your appeal to them!

- Cheaper to run: 10 cents/KWH versus $3.00/gallon
- Cleaner: No pollution
- Simpler: no oil, filters, belts, hoses, exhaust system, etc.
- Convenient; no more trips to the gas station, oil changes, etc.
- Fun! Exciting! New!
-- 
Lee A. Hart | Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave N | Forget the perfect offering
Sartell MN 56377	| There is a crack in everything
leeahart earthlink.net	| That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Perhaps, surprising is the high coal usage in Florida, but it less expensive
even with ocean going barge transport than the "Bunker Fuel" oil used in
many of the plants here also, Florida seems to use an eclectic mix of oil,
coal, and natural gas. Since the early 60's when a large gas pipeline was
run from Texas to Florida we have seen a large number of large industrial
sites using gas fueled co-generation (EG. Disney World, which helps power
Orlando and all of the Disney site with its twin turbine generator set, )
Then near my home the city of Lakeland owns the Electric Utility and has a
large coal fired plant with a peaking generator which is a gas fueled
turbine. They bring the coal in from the port at Jacksonville because the
Port of Tampa is set up for oil. But on the other side of Tampa bay Progress
Energy has a string of plants connected by a oil pipeline and all their
plants except one are oil fired, exception being a Nuclear plant which when
it is on line is the most economical to operate. I only report what they
told me as a customer here in Florida for the past 50 years. I recall
1998-1999 I lived in Springfield, Oregon, the city had a "Hydro" plant and
power was 1/2 the price the Florida utilities charge.
Regards,
Dennis Miles
=============================================


> AMPhibian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > If it's self generated and doesn't enter the grid is it still counted as
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Hello Lee,

One thing you might want to change on your Simpler list is that many EV's 
still use oil, A transmission uses up to 12 qts, a differential takes about 
10 qts, the power steering takes about 2 qts and the braking systems takes 
about 2 qts.

Still use filters, A transmission uses a filter, and even some use a 
external filter, there is also filters on the power steering fluid and 
brake fluid. There is A/C oil, fluids and antic freeze for a water cool 
controller and water heater system.

Belts, I have lots of belts, double belt for the inverter-alternator drive, 
one for the vacuum pump, one for the A/C and another double belt for speed 
reduction off the pilot shaft of the motor.

Hoses, I have so many hoses and tubes it worse then what the new cars have. 
The Zilla takes about 10 feet of cooling hoses that run from the Zilla to a 
fill tank to a pump down to the front of the A/C radiator and back up to the 
Zilla. The power steering takes another 10 feet of hoses, which runs from 
the power steering to the Hydro-Boost Braking system and then to the 
steering rack and back to the power steering pump. Then there all kinds of 
vacuum lines with vacuum canisters and check values. The A/C also has about 
10 feet of hoses.

Exhaust System: My battery box has a exhaust system which must be turn on 
first, or the AC power contactor will not apply power to the battery 
charger. When the battery box explosive proof acid proof fan comes on, it 
exhaust air from the battery box through a 2 inch PVC only 1/4 inch hose 
which pulls in air from the other end of the battery box through another pvc 
hose which has one of those 3-M air filters in the line. The hose that 
comes out of the exhaust fans, goes down and out like a exhaust pipe. If I 
charging in the garage, I can connect one of those service stations exhaust 
hoses to a port on the external wall.

A person that does the EV conversion there selves, may never have to go a 
service station, because what do they know about your EV.

Roland


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Hart" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]xx.xxx.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?


> The real problem with this type of analysis is that its real purpose is
> to shift the focus and prevent change. The auto companies and oil
> companies are masters of this game. They have used it successfully for
> decades to stall any and all changes and regulations.
>
> Rather than say you disagree with someone, you instead say "You have a
> good idea, but how big a difference would it make? We'll have to study
> it first." Then the studies go on forever. As each one comes out, you
> find some fault with it, and so insist on a new one.
>
> When you argue this way, you are playing their game. They have the "home
> team" advantage, and are almost certain to win.
>
> The average driver doesn't care about dirt to wheels analysis. He
> doesn't know what his car costs him per mile, or how much pollution it
> makes. We don't want or need to sell EVs to the oil or auto companies or
> government -- we want to sell *consumers* on them! To do that, write
> your appeal to them!
>
> - Cheaper to run: 10 cents/KWH versus $3.00/gallon
> - Cleaner: No pollution
> - Simpler: no oil, filters, belts, hoses, exhaust system, etc.
> - Convenient; no more trips to the gas station, oil changes, etc.
> - Fun! Exciting! New!
> -- 
> Lee A. Hart | Ring the bells that still can ring
> 814 8th Ave N | Forget the perfect offering
> Sartell MN 56377 | There is a crack in everything
> leeahart earthlink.net | That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
> 

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Plastics and lubricants are *not* gasoline being burned in an ICE.
EVs consume (explode, burn, incinerate) no oil to physically move.

BTW, you missed tires, on average I believe its 7 quarts of oil in every
tire.

If we want to go all out -

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm



> Roland Wiench <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Hello Lee,
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

You are so right! Lee,
And not to forget the Pride Side of the question:
_Your neighbors don't have one yet, you can be the First Electric on the
block.
_Electric is the "New" Technology and yet with a Strong History.
_Electric is known for Reliability and better Efficiency.
_Electric cars are "Serious" Racing Contenders on street and track
competition they Win, Win, Win!
_Gas prices are rising every week, but Electricity is "Regulated"
_You can choose to stop polluting, be the Good Example for neighbors.
_Drivers following you won't be breathing your pollution, there is none!
_Encourage your neighbors to drive "Pollution Free"
_If you get stuck in the snow, Electric heat will keep you warm without
poisoning you, there are no Exhaust Fumes from an Electric!
_How many people die from exhaust fumes in a closed garage, or a leaking
muffler or exhaust pipe? (None from an Electric!)
_Worried about recharging? Do you drive while you are asleep? You charge
your Cellphone,while you sleep, Right? and any outlet you can plug a
toaster into can recharge an Electric car.
(Sometimes with a small 'adapter' cord.)

Feel free to use the ones your comfortable with and skip the others, these
are all true. And that is more than I can say for the "Banter" I was taught
as a New Car Salesman a few years ago.
Regards,
Dennis Miles
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


> Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > The real problem with this type of analysis is that its real purpose is
> > to shift the focus and prevent change. The auto companies and oil
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Roland

You have a filter in your brake system? And your brakes take 2 quarts
of fluid? Wow, you do have quite a unique vehicle. :^)

DAC



> Roland Wiench <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hello Lee,
> >
> > One thing you might want to change on your Simpler list is that many EV's
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Indeed. One of the selling points of EV's should be their simplicity. A
factory EV will probably not have a transmission and all accessories can be
electrically driven instead of belt driven.




> Lee Hart wrote:
> >
> > On 12/8/2010 11:41 AM, Roland Wiench wrote:
> >> Hello Lee,
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Problem is that the average consumer hears soundbites from more sophisticated
EV detractors who tell them that batteries are toxic and use a lot of
resources, and that a grid powered EV is dirtier than a Hummer. They may
even point to some outdated or misinterpreted study to "prove" their point. 
That's why I like to have current, clear information to back up my claims. 
Solid facts with supporting evidence presented with conviction go a long way
to changing attitudes.




> Lee Hart wrote:
> >
> > The average driver doesn't care about dirt to wheels analysis. He
> > doesn't know what his car costs him per mile, or how much pollution it
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I tried to send an email offlist, but it bounced. Do you have another email? 
(offlist 


----- Original Message ----
From: AMPhibian <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 6:26:36 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?


Problem is that the average consumer hears soundbites from more sophisticated
EV detractors who tell them that batteries are toxic and use a lot of
resources, and that a grid powered EV is dirtier than a Hummer. They may
even point to some outdated or misinterpreted study to "prove" their point. 
That's why I like to have current, clear information to back up my claims. 
Solid facts with supporting evidence presented with conviction go a long way
to changing attitudes.




> Lee Hart wrote:
> >
> > The average driver doesn't care about dirt to wheels analysis. He
> > doesn't know what his car costs him per mile, or how much pollution it
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

"Problem is that the average consumer hears soundbites from more
sophisticated EV detractors who tell them that batteries are toxic and use a
lot of resources, and that a grid powered EV is dirtier than a Hummer." 

Yes, you are correct, though I am not sure how many listen. For example,
last week someone asked about my electric car in a grocery. A lady standing
nearby remarked that the problem with electric cars was most of our power
comes from coal. She was surprised, and I'm not sure convinced, when I told
her only about 45% or so of the nation's power is produced from coal, most
power in our state, NV, is produced by gas, most of the power in our town,
Reno, is produced by geothermal, my car is powered by solar panels on the
roof of the house, and several studies have shown an electric car power from
a coal power plant emits somewhat less CO2 than an equivalent gas powered
vehicle. But if you are trying to self-justify not purchasing an electric
car, it is easy to just ignore such disconfirming evidence and embrace any
evidence to the contrary no matter how tenuous. Numerous experiments in
cognitive psychology have shown we excel at that - far more than at rational
thought.
-- 
View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Dirt-to-Wheels-analysis-tp3076445p3079455.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I sent you an email off list, let me know if it doesn't show up.



> Rod Hower wrote:
> >
> > I tried to send an email offlist, but it bounced. Do you have another
> > email?
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I've had the same conversation, "It's still powered by coal." And like you
they are often surprised when I explain how that's not true. Certainly some
will hang onto their beliefs in the face of facts and reason but some are
actually receptive to new information.




> tomw wrote:
> >
> > Yes, you are correct, though I am not sure how many listen. For example,
> > last week someone asked about my electric car in a grocery. A lady
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Sorry Mark, <<<So I won't be able to kill myself by idling my
electric>>>
<<<car with the door closed?>>>>

That is only as effective as putting your head in the Electric Oven, or the
Microwave. It wont kill you easily unless you sever the neck first so you
can close the oven door.

With no sincerity! [8^>
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------


> Mark Grasser <[email protected]>wrote:
> 
> > So I won't be able to kill myself by idling my electric car with the door
> > closed?
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

CkFueSBsdWNrIGRpZ2dpbmcgZG93biBpbnRvIHBlcmNlbnRhZ2Ugb2YgY29hbCB1c2UgYnkgaW5k
dXN0cnkgdGhhdCBjb21lcyBmcm9tCnRoZSBncmlkPyAgVG8gbWFrZSB0aGluZ3MgZXZlbiBtb3Jl
IGRpZmZpY3VsdCwgdG8gd2hhdCBkZWdyZWUgZG9lcyBjb2FsCnVzYWdlIGluY3JlYXNlIGF0IG5p
Z2h0PyAgU2luY2UgbmlnaHQgY2hhcmdpbmcgaXMgZGVzaXJhYmxlIGZyb20gYSBsb2FkCnBlcnNw
ZWN0aXZlLCBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIGNvc3QsIGlmIGNvYWwgcGVyY2VudGFnZSBpbmNyZWFzZXMgYXQg
bmlnaHQgd2hlbgpwZWFraWVyIHBsYW50cyBzdWNoIGFzIE5HIHRocm90dGxlIGRvd24gdGhhdCBo
dXJ0cyB0aGUgZW1pc3Npb25zIHByb2ZpbGUgb2YKbmlnaHQgY2hhcmdlZCBFVidzLgoKU29tZXdo
YXQgcmVsYXRlZCB0aG91Z2h0LCB3aGF0J3MgdGhlIG1pbmltYWwgYW1vdW50IG9mIHNvbGFyIHBh
bmVscyB0aGF0CmNvdWxkIGJlIGluc3RhbGxlZCBvbiB0aGUgdmVoaWNsZSB0byBvZmZzZXQgZW1p
c3Npb25zIGVub3VnaCB0byBtYWtlIGEKZGlmZmVyZW5jZT8gIEV2ZW4gYSBmZXcgbWlsZXMgYSBk
YXkgb2YgemVybyBlbWlzc2lvbnMgY2hhcmdpbmcgbWlnaHQgYmUKZW5vdWdoIHRvIGNvbXBlbnNh
dGUgZm9yIGEgcHVyZSBjb2FsIGdyaWQuICBSZWFsaXppbmcgb2YgY291cnNlIHRoYXQgb2ZmCnZl
aGljbGUgcGFuZWxzIGFyZSBtb3JlIGVmZmljaWVudCwgYnV0IGlmIHRoZXkgYXJlbid0IGNoYXJn
aW5nIHlvdXIgY2FyCmR1cmluZyB0aGUgZGF5IHdoZW4geW91J3JlIGF0IHdvcmsgdGhleSBkb24n
dCByZWFsbHkgY291bnQsIHBsdXMgdGhleSBsZWF2ZQpvdXQgYXBhcnRtZW50IGR3ZWxsZXJzLgoK
CkJpbGwgRGVubmlzIHdyb3RlOgo+IAo+PiBJIG5lZWQgYmFja3VwIGRvY3VtZW50YXRpb24gaWYg
eW91IGNhbiBwcm92aWRlIGl0Lgo+IAo+IEhlcmUncyBhIHN0YXJ0Ogo+IAo+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu
ZWlhLmRvZS5nb3YvY25lYWYvZWxlY3RyaWNpdHkvZXBhL2VwYXhsZmlsZWVzMS5wZGYKPiAKPiBT
ZWUgdGFibGUgRVMxLiAgSW4gMjAwOSwgNDQuNSUgb2YgVS5TLiBlbGVjdHJpY2l0eSB3YXMgZ2Vu
ZXJhdGVkIGJ5IGNvYWwuIAo+IEZvciB0b3RhbCBlbGVjdHJpY2l0eSBjb25zdW1wdGlvbiAobm90
IGp1c3QgZnJvbSBjb2FsKSwgaGVyZSdzIHRoZQo+IGJyZWFrZG93biBieSBtZWdhd2F0dCBob3Vy
cyB1c2VkOgo+IAo+IFJlc2lkZW50aWFsOiAgMSwzNjQsNDc0Cj4gQ29tbWVyY2lhbDogICAxLDMw
NywxNjgKPiBJbmR1c3RyaWFsOiAgICAgOTE3LDQ0Mgo+IAo+IEknbGwgaGF2ZSB0byBkaWcgYSBs
aXR0bGUgZGVlcGVyIHRvIGZpbmQgb3V0IHRoZSBicmVha2Rvd24gb2YgdGhhdCA5MTcsNDQyCj4g
aW5kdXN0cmlhbCBtZWdhd2F0dCBob3Vycy4KPiAKPiBCaWxsCj4gCj4gCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t
LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0K
PiBtYWlsMndlYi5jb20gwpYgV2hhdCBjYW4gT24gRGVtYW5kIEJ1c2luZXNzIFNvbHV0aW9ucyBk
byBmb3IgeW91Pwo+IGh0dHA6Ly9saW5rLm1haWwyd2ViLmNvbS9CdXNpbmVzcy9TaGFyZVBvaW50
Cj4gCj4gCj4gCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
X18KPiB8IFJFUExZSU5HOiBhZGRyZXNzIHlvdXIgbWVzc2FnZSB0byBldkBsaXN0cy5zanN1LmVk
dSBvbmx5Lgo+IHwgTXVsdGlwbGUtYWRkcmVzcyBvciBDQ2VkIG1lc3NhZ2VzIG1heSBiZSByZWpl
Y3RlZC4KPiB8IFVOU1VCU0NSSUJFOiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmV2ZGwub3JnL2hlbHAvaW5kZXguaHRt
bCN1c3ViCj4gfCBPVEhFUiBIRUxQOiBodHRwOi8vZXZkbC5vcmcvaGVscC8KPiB8IE9QVElPTlM6
IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0cy5zanN1LmVkdS9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2V2Cj4gCj4gCgotLSAKVmll
dyB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgaW4gY29udGV4dDogaHR0cDovL2VsZWN0cmljLXZlaGljbGUtZGlzY3Vz
c2lvbi1saXN0LjQxMzUyOS5uNC5uYWJibGUuY29tL0RpcnQtdG8tV2hlZWxzLWFuYWx5c2lzLXRw
MzA3NjQ0NXAzMDk0NjgzLmh0bWwKU2VudCBmcm9tIHRoZSBFbGVjdHJpYyBWZWhpY2xlIERpc2N1
c3Npb24gTGlzdCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgYXJjaGl2ZSBhdCBOYWJibGUuY29tLgoKX19fX19fX19f
X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KfCBSRVBMWUlORzogYWRkcmVz
cyB5b3VyIG1lc3NhZ2UgdG8gZXZAbGlzdHMuc2pzdS5lZHUgb25seS4KfCBNdWx0aXBsZS1hZGRy
ZXNzIG9yIENDZWQgbWVzc2FnZXMgbWF5IGJlIHJlamVjdGVkLgp8IFVOU1VCU0NSSUJFOiBodHRw
Oi8vd3d3LmV2ZGwub3JnL2hlbHAvaW5kZXguaHRtbCN1c3ViCnwgT1RIRVIgSEVMUDogaHR0cDov
L2V2ZGwub3JnL2hlbHAvCnwgT1BUSU9OUzogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzLnNqc3UuZWR1L21haWxtYW4v
bGlzdGluZm8vZXYK


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I think it has been said before, but you can roll the argument
(and the data) in different directions....
Coal consumption does not increase at night.
Base load plants are just that - base load,
running the same at night as during the day.
So, coal consumption is equal (or maybe
lower for higher tech plants that can
throttle back) and part of the generated
power goes unused, which is something that
EVs can help with - load leveling and better
use of the (coal-)generated power instead of
the *same* amount of coal result in *less*
consumed power (ie total waste)...

Solar panels on cars are mainly for decorative
purpose, because the roof real estate is both
too small and too ill-shaped to be of much use,
besides the fact that you often have shading and
the direction of the roof is almost never optimal.
You may expect a maximum of about 200W during maybe
4 or 5 hours under ideal conditions, so say 1kWh
or (much) less, so this will amount to "up to" 4 miles
per day added.
Home-mounted solar is not a waste during the daytime
even if you are charging at night.
In fact, this is *both* reducing the excessive load
that power plants see during the sunlight hours as well
as helping to consume what may be otherwise wasted =

base-load power.
Whether you get paid for the solar power generated
and if you can accept that the solar charging of
your car is only on paper, not the actual excited
electrons during the day is another matter.
But as one green utility put their contribution to
the grid and the resulting mix:
"There are no green and gray electrons"
and with this they meant that if they inject 1kWh
of Renewable Energy then this offset 1kWh of fossil
fuel energy, no matter if the electrons come out
the wall outlet of the "green" consumer on whose
behalf they injected those 1kW of RE electrons.
They are consumed "somewhere" and they offset 1kWh
so the "green" consumer got what was promised to
him, even if not "their" electrons came out of "his"
wall and even if there is a time difference between
injection and consumption.
What counts is at the end of the month, now much is
generated (injected) and thereby offset?
That amount you can claim as "green" electricity
which was supplied to you...

Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behal=
f Of AMPhibian
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?


Any luck digging down into percentage of coal use by industry that comes fr=
om the grid? To make things even more difficult, to what degree does coal =
usage increase at night? Since night charging is desirable from a load per=
spective, as well as cost, if coal percentage increases at night when peaki=
er plants such as NG throttle down that hurts the emissions profile of nigh=
t charged EV's.

Somewhat related thought, what's the minimal amount of solar panels that co=
uld be installed on the vehicle to offset emissions enough to make a differ=
ence? Even a few miles a day of zero emissions charging might be enough to=
compensate for a pure coal grid. Realizing of course that off vehicle pan=
els are more efficient, but if they aren't charging your car during the day=
when you're at work they don't really count, plus they leave out apartment=
dwellers.




> Bill Dennis wrote:
> > =
> 
> >> I need backup documentation if you can provide it.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Cor, (and You-All,)
Hi, I was surprised to see how successful this fellow is; Larry Wexler.
of Orlando,FL. drives an EV with solar PV panels on the road and it goes
40mph on solar alone, that is all day. You can "Check it out" at:
WWW.XiR8SUN.com And currently he is attempting to start an EAA-EVA Chapter
in Orlando also. I realize it doesn't look as fancy as a Leaf, bit it is an
EV. (In Florida!)
Regards,
*Dennis Lee Miles* (Director) *E.V.T.I. inc*.
*www.E-V-T-I-Inc.COM <http://www.e-v-t-i-inc.com/> *(Adviser)*
EVTI-EVAEducation Chapter
*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The "Stone Age" didn't end because they ran out of Stones;
It ended because they started using their Brains !
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




> Cor van de Water <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I think it has been said before, but you can roll the argument
> > (and the data) in different directions....
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Hi Dennis,

That claim does not pass the sniff-test, as his vehicle
is not a solar racer with bicycle tires for rolling resistance.

I know it is possible to build something that will be both
more efficient that a usual car and have much more solar
surface.
One of the EAA Chapter members that demo'ed his scratch-built
three wheeled electric motorcycle used a large solar panel
canopy that he could even tilt to achieve max power when
he parked his bike. He mostly did not need to plug in, as
this canopy kept his batteries topped up except while riding.
He had somewhere around 5 square meters of solar panels,
at least as much as this vehicle.

In the case of the WWW.XLR8SUN.COM the panels are likely built
with 5" cells, judging from the relative size compared to the
wheel of the vehicle, so the surface are is about:
front: 4x 30x 5"x5"
back: 4x 36x 5"x5"
total is then about 4.1 square meters.
If the efficiency is 14% then they deliver just over 600Wp.
This means that in order to drive 40MPH continuously, the
consumption figure of this 3-wheeled car should be 15Wh/mi!!!

That does not jive with reality, I think this particular
vehicle may be able to stay under 100Wh/mi but that is an
order of magnitude difference!

I checked the website and there is a large difference
between the current vehicle and the claims for the
production version...

Regards,

Cor van de Water
Director HW & Systems Architecture Group
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
Email: [email protected] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [email protected]
Tel: +1 408 383 7626 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Tel: +91 (040)23117400 x203 XoIP: +31877841130

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Dennis Miles
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 1:09 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?

Cor, (and You-All,)
Hi, I was surprised to see how successful this fellow is; Larry
Wexler.
of Orlando,FL. drives an EV with solar PV panels on the road and it goes
40mph on solar alone, that is all day. You can "Check it out" at:
WWW.XiR8SUN.com And currently he is attempting to start an EAA-EVA
Chapter in Orlando also. I realize it doesn't look as fancy as a Leaf,
bit it is an EV. (In Florida!) Regards,
*Dennis Lee Miles* (Director) *E.V.T.I. inc*.
*www.E-V-T-I-Inc.COM <http://www.e-v-t-i-inc.com/> *(Adviser)*
EVTI-EVAEducation Chapter
*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The "Stone Age" didn't end because they ran out of Stones;
It ended because they started using their Brains !
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Cor van de Water <[email protected]>


> wrote:
> 
> > I think it has been said before, but you can roll the argument (and
> > the data) in different directions....
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

If you go to this site:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/

you can find the amount of solar energy for a given area and PV size and
for a given orientation. Now solar panels on a car would not be oriented in
the optimum direction, but would probably be largely horizontal. So I went
to the above site and picked an avergae site in the U.S. (Peoria Illinois)
and computed the KWH/year for a horizontal 1 KW PV panel, which comes to
1074 KWH/year. Perhaps the largest PV array you could easily put on a car
would be about 2 M^2, or about 0.3 KW at 15% efficiency, which yields about
360 KWH/year.

By my calculations (which disagree with the EPA figures but agree with
European calculations), a current technology EV should get 3.7 miles/KWH,
yielding a range of over 1300 miles/year based on the solar PV mounted on a
car. So it is a respectable amount.

-- Larry Gales



> AMPhibian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Any luck digging down into percentage of coal use by industry that comes
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

OK I think I get what you're saying. The base load coal plants chug along at
night regardless of load burning the same amount of coal. But what happens
to the excess power that's being generated when it's not used, burnt off
through resistors?


> Cor van de Water wrote:
> >
> > I think it has been said before, but you can roll the argument
> > (and the data) in different directions....
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

It is a respectable amount - 1300 miles/year, but as someone said earlier
it's even better to just put the panels on your house. Then you can orient
them properly and they produce energy even when your car is in a garage or
the shade! You don't even need a dump-charge pack to take advantage of
this - so what if the electricity generated by the panels goes to something
in the house or back to the grid. In the big picture...

Peri

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Larry Gales
Sent: 19 December, 2010 12:13 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?

If you go to this site:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/

you can find the amount of solar energy for a given area and PV size and
for a given orientation. Now solar panels on a car would not be oriented in
the optimum direction, but would probably be largely horizontal. So I went
to the above site and picked an avergae site in the U.S. (Peoria Illinois)
and computed the KWH/year for a horizontal 1 KW PV panel, which comes to
1074 KWH/year. Perhaps the largest PV array you could easily put on a car
would be about 2 M^2, or about 0.3 KW at 15% efficiency, which yields about
360 KWH/year.

By my calculations (which disagree with the EPA figures but agree with
European calculations), a current technology EV should get 3.7 miles/KWH,
yielding a range of over 1300 miles/year based on the solar PV mounted on a
car. So it is a respectable amount.

-- Larry Gales



> AMPhibian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Any luck digging down into percentage of coal use by industry that
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

>But what happens to the excess power that's being generated when it's not 
>used, burnt off
> through resistors?

Reactors usually, big inductors which anavoidably have real resistance.

Necessary to prevent the inherent capacitive nature of the transmission 
lines causing line voltage to go outside of spec.
ie, the transmission network also has a minimum loading to work properly.

what doesn't go to the electrical loads and line reactors is just dumped as 
steam.

That only happens when load falls faster than the powerstation can back off.

Matt


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AMPhibian" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?


>
> OK I think I get what you're saying. The base load coal plants chug along 
> at
> night regardless of load burning the same amount of coal. But what 
> happens
> to the excess power that's being generated when it's not used, burnt off
> through resistors?


> > Cor van de Water wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it has been said before, but you can roll the argument
> >> (and the data) in different directions....
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

>> OK I think I get what you're saying. The base load coal plants chug along
>> at
>> night regardless of load burning the same amount of coal. But what
>> happens
>> to the excess power that's being generated when it's not used, burnt off
>> through resistors?

I don't know where you get the idea that there is power generated that 
is not used. It does not work that way. Electricity consumed + 
transmission system losses ALWAYS equals electricity generated.

Now before someone says "what about storage systems (such as battery, 
pump storage, etc)?" As far as the Electrical system is concerned, a 
battery charger or pump for a pump storage system is still consumption. 
When that storage system is producing electricity, it is generation. If 
anyone REALLY wants a more detailed look at storage, I can do so, but it 
would be quite off-topic so I won't unless requested.

During off-peak conditions, non-baseload plants ramp down, but you are 
right that generally base-load plants do continue to operate at full 
load. Let me give a VERY simple example. Lets say you have a small 
isolated area that has a load that varies from 1000 to 2000 megawatts. 
In that area, there are 3 power plants. One is a 750MW plant that is 
designed for base load operation, and the the other 2 are both 750, but 
designed for non-baseload operation. For this example, daytime air 
conditioning drives the peak loads. In this simple example, the base 
load plant will chug along at 750MW all the time, and one or both of the 
other plants will vary generation to maintain frequency and voltage. In 
this example, very likely one of those plants might actually be shut 
down except for the few hours each day that the load exceeds about 
1400MW. That last point would be particularly true if one of the plants 
was designed as a peaking unit. OK I told you this was a VERY SIMPLE 
example. Like the point about storage, I can give a far longer answer 
about different types of generation and load regulation, but only if 
requested. My dad was in the power generation business for 30 years and 
I was for 25 so i might actually know a thing or two about it.

Jim Walls



_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I fully agree that PV panels on your house/garage are the way to provide the
great bulk of your power for an EV, but what the panels on you car do is
extend your range in hot weather and partly offset he load consumed by air
conditioning. If it extends your range by an average of 10% during the
year, it could extend your range by, say 20% in hot weather when the sun is
shining. 20% is quite a significant benefit.

-- Larry Gales



> Peri Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > It is a respectable amount - 1300 miles/year, but as someone said earlier
> > it's even better to just put the panels on your house. Then you can orient
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I second what Jim said. the power grids are amazing things instantanously matching loa



> Jim Walls <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> >>> OK I think I get what you're saying. The base load coal plants chug along
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

So when Matt said there is power being dumped, either through big inductors
or steam venting that is only for small fluctuations in demand:


Reactors usually, big inductors which anavoidably have real resistance.
> 
> Necessary to prevent the inherent capacitive nature of the transmission
> lines causing line voltage to go outside of spec.
> ie, the transmission network also has a minimum loading to work properly.
> 
> what doesn't go to the electrical loads and line reactors is just dumped
> as
> steam.
> 
> That only happens when load falls faster than the powerstation can back
> off. 
> 
This seems to make sense since even baseload plants must have some ability
to regulate other than starting up a peaker plant if someone decides to turn
on their oven in the middle of the night. So the coal plant is burning the
same amount of coal and either bypassing some steam or dumping into
inductors, but that is only minor load adjustment. But can the base load
coal plants back off buy burning less coal at night and if so to what
degree? If not and they are running at full then I guess any additional
night time load above base, such as millions of EV's, would be supplemented
by peaker plants, probably NG. Correct?



> Jim Walls-2 wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> OK I think I get what you're saying. The base load coal plants chug
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

"Realizing of course that off vehicle panels are more efficient, but if they
aren't charging your car during the day when you're at work they don't
really count, plus they leave out apartment dwellers."

I plan to eventually add a "dump pack" and expand my pv capacity, so I can
generate enough energy during the day to power the house at night and charge
the car (I already generate some excess on average). The dump pack may well
be the cells currently in my car when they are older, and lead acid for the
house night supply. As far as not leaving out apartment dwellers, why not? 
An incomplete solution is better than no action at all. Solutions will have
to be implemented in bits and pieces. If you wait for a grand unified plan,
you will never act. By the same logic we might say solar pv is no solution
since some houses or areas don't get enough sunlight due to shading in the
the former case, and cloud cover in the later. Implementing it where it
works means less load on the grid, and more power for those cloudy places if
the grid permits transmission. In fact I would argue those of us in sunny
places have an obligation to use it for that reason.

"But what happens to the excess power that's being generated when it's not
used, burnt off through resistors?" 
My understanding, from talking with an employee at the local utility
company, is that it is unusual to have excess power, as base load plants
with relatively inflexible output such as nuclear and coal are sized to have
output below the smallest loads. When there is excess generation the power
company sometimes pays industrial customers to take it (I expect such
agreements are worked out ahead of time, and at least semi-automatically
implemented). This has happened in areas that have installed a lot of wind
power capacity, and fairly inflexible other generation, due to the large
fluctuations in generation from wind. If the grid connections are there,
excess power can be sent to another area of the country, for very low cost
or free if necessary, where another utility has the ability to scale back
output from say natural gas or hydropower plants. That is one of the drivers
for extending/improving the grid, so plants can have more flexibility in
sending power to other areas of the country. But there are a lot of issues
involved with that as far as cooperation between different utilities, such
as cost sharing in building/maintaining the that grid structure. 
-- 
View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Dirt-to-Wheels-analysis-tp3076445p3095546.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I wasn't suggesting we should not use home based solar, indeed we should at
every opportunity. This was more of a theoretical discussion about what on
board solar could accomplish. Also, as I live in the woods solar is
unfortunately not an option so I would need to go with panels on the vehicle
to get some charge while at work. Maybe someday it won't be cost
prohibitive. 



> tomw wrote:
> >
> > "Realizing of course that off vehicle panels are more efficient, but if
> > they aren't charging your car during the day when you're at work they
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

"When there is excess generation the power
company sometimes pays industrial customers to take it (I expect such
agreements are worked out ahead of time, and at least semi-automatically
implemented)"

This happened a few July 4th's ago to us -- we're on a market rate
variable electricity plan, and for an hour or two during the wee hours
of the July 4th weekend, our hourly rate was negative -- ie, they were
paying US.

Now of course the problem is we had no way of knowing it (or caring, for
that matter -- it was like 2, 3 & 4 am) until the bill came (or I could
check a website). However having smart appliances that were aware of
the rate (such as an EV charging, clothes dryer, dish washer, A/C) and
noticed the price drop, it would be nice if they would "kick on" or
"into fast(er) charging" during low per-kilowatt hour times.

Further, having two-way communication (vehicle 2 grid) AND the market
price AND knowledge of what your travel plans were like for that day
would allow one to make a choice when you came home from work and
utility prices were high to use some of that low-price electricity
stored up overnight to power your home through the high cost periods.

The TW4XP in the X PRIZE had an LTI inverter, originally used for
windmills. It could charge off of any voltage source (so directly off
solar or wind) and also was V2G hardware-capable (ie, it just needed to
be programmed via software -- not necessary for the X PRIZE)

[email protected]

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> AMPhibian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I wasn't suggesting we should not use home based solar, indeed we should at
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

some markets/balancing authorities may have negative pricing (generators have to pay to put energy on the grid).

But this is not for small second to second fluctuations in supply demand balance. The are 'Regulation' resources that allow themselves to be dispatched up/or down to keep the system in balance, literally every 4 seconds.

The ISO or utility must instruct other load following generators every 5 to 20 minutes to match generation with expected demand close enough so that the regulation units can keep the system in balance without (including maintaining reserve capacity) without sucking or pushing power from/to neighboring areas.

I think the idea of excess power comes from excess generating capacity that can be turned on to produce energy.

it is this idle capacity during off peak hours that is referred to when people say current infrastructure can accommodate X million EVs,

Not I am not a transmission engineer, so there may well be parts that smooth out supply/demand at a finer resolution than regulation, and I believe using V2G that may be a providing that service .



> AMPhibian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > So when Matt said there is power being dumped, either through big inductors
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

A coal-fired plant operates a bit like a giant teakettle. You light the 
fire, and it takes a l-o-n-g t-i-m-e to start boiling water. And once 
it starts boiling, it takes a l-o-n-g t-i-m-e to cool down if you turn 
down the fire. You're talking about hours or even days to bring this 
kind of plant from 0 to full load, or full to 0 load. This type of plant 
is only suitable for base load generation, where it can run at 
essentially constant load continuously.

Other types of plants can responds much faster to load changes. 
Hydroelectric plants have huge valves they can turn, to use more or less 
water on a minute's notice. Natural gas or diesel fired generators can 
respond even faster; not quite as fast as the throttle in your car, but 
almost. So, these are the plants that have to handle the short term changes.

The big reactors mentioned are only for handling very short term 
variations; seconds, or even *within* an AC line cycle for example. 
Think of them as the electrical equivalent of the flywheel on an ICE.
-- 
Lee A. Hart | Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave N | Forget the perfect offering
Sartell MN 56377	| There is a crack in everything
leeahart earthlink.net	| That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Hi,

> A coal-fired plant operates a bit like a giant teakettle. You light the 
> fire, and it takes a l-o-n-g t-i-m-e to start boiling water. And once 
> it starts boiling, it takes a l-o-n-g t-i-m-e to cool down if you turn 
> down the fire. You're talking about hours or even days to bring this 
> kind of plant from 0 to full load, or full to 0 load. This type of plant 
> is only suitable for base load generation, where it can run at 
> essentially constant load continuously.

Ditto for a nuclear power plant -- it is a high tech teakettle.

> Other types of plants can responds much faster to load changes. 
> Hydroelectric plants have huge valves they can turn, to use more or less 
> water on a minute's notice. Natural gas or diesel fired generators can 
> respond even faster; not quite as fast as the throttle in your car, but 
> almost. So, these are the plants that have to handle the short term changes.
> 
> The big reactors mentioned are only for handling very short term 
> variations; seconds, or even *within* an AC line cycle for example. 

Gas plants are good peak load plants -- methane from digesters is a really good way to power these with renewable energy.

Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Another question then, if coal can't throttle what happens in areas with over
90% coal? How do they drop that much capacity at night, and what do they
use for peak loads, power from surrounding areas? Looking at this
interactive map and clicking "Sources of Power" and then "Coal" gives a nice
visual of heavy coal areas, moving the cursor over a state gives the full
percentage breakdown.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997398
For example North Dakota is 95% coal, 4% hydro, and surrounding states don't
seem to have any peaker capacity to send to them.




> Neil Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

"For example North Dakota is 95% coal, 4% hydro, and surrounding states don't
seem to have any peaker capacity to send to them." What about South Dakota
with 47% hydro? Look at all those transmission lines between the two.
-- 
View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Dirt-to-Wheels-analysis-tp3076445p3160006.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

FWIW they list the specs for the vehicle at:
http://www.xlr8sun.com/features.php

3 sq meters 492 watts

I concur, going 35 mph using only 492 watts seems a tad unrealistic.

> In the case of the WWW.XLR8SUN.COM the panels are likely built
> with 5" cells, judging from the relative size compared to the
> wheel of the vehicle, so the surface are is about:
> front: 4x 30x 5"x5"
> back: 4x 36x 5"x5"
> total is then about 4.1 square meters.
> If the efficiency is 14% then they deliver just over 600Wp.
> This means that in order to drive 40MPH continuously, the
> consumption figure of this 3-wheeled car should be 15Wh/mi!!!
>
> That does not jive with reality, I think this particular
> vehicle may be able to stay under 100Wh/mi but that is an
> order of magnitude difference!
>
> I checked the website and there is a large difference
> between the current vehicle and the claims for the
> production version...
>
> Regards,
>
> Cor van de Water
> Director HW & Systems Architecture Group
> Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
> Email: [email protected] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
> Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [email protected]
> Tel: +1 408 383 7626 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
> Tel: +91 (040)23117400 x203 XoIP: +31877841130
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Miles
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 1:09 AM
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Dirt to Wheels analysis?
>
> Cor, (and You-All,)
> Hi, I was surprised to see how successful this fellow is; Larry
> Wexler.
> of Orlando,FL. drives an EV with solar PV panels on the road and it goes
> 40mph on solar alone, that is all day. You can "Check it out" at:
> WWW.XiR8SUN.com And currently he is attempting to start an EAA-EVA
> Chapter in Orlando also. I realize it doesn't look as fancy as a Leaf,
> bit it is an EV. (In Florida!) Regards,
> *Dennis Lee Miles* (Director) *E.V.T.I. inc*.
> *www.E-V-T-I-Inc.COM <http://www.e-v-t-i-inc.com/> *(Adviser)*
> EVTI-EVAEducation Chapter
> *
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The "Stone Age" didn't end because they ran out of Stones;
> It ended because they started using their Brains !
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Cor van de Water <[email protected]>


> > wrote:
> >
> >> I think it has been said before, but you can roll the argument (and
> >> the data) in different directions....
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Now this study shows that coal plants do indeed cycle down at night, and that
night time charging will result in increased emissions since the coal plants
would ramp up to supply the load.
PDF: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014002/pdf/erl9_1_014002.pdf 
If true this puts a big hole in our night time charging argument.




> AMPhibian wrote:
> >
> > Another question then, if coal can't throttle what happens in areas with
> > over 90% coal? How do they drop that much capacity at night, and what do
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

A PDF I linked in another post shows that coal plants do throttle down at
night, and therefore night time EV charging would increase emissions as the
coal plants throttled back up to take the load.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014002/pdf/erl9_1_014002.pdf




> tomw wrote:
> >
> > "For example North Dakota is 95% coal, 4% hydro, and surrounding states
> > don't seem to have any peaker capacity to send to them." What about South
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Well, that's not what they really concluded. Here is what they said;

"Air quality modeling of the four state classic PJM area show
that substitution of PHEVs for just 20% of the mobile vehicle
fleet VMT would reduce ozone by up to 8 ppb in the most
densely populated areas in the PJM. The benefits would
increase if cleaner sources are used to charge the PHEVs or
if, subject to the availability of additional excess generation,
PHEVs are substituted for a larger percentage of the mobile
fleet. However, this work also indicates that while there
is the potential for improvements in ozone concentrations,
there is also the potential for localized worsening of ozone
concentrations as the spatial and temporal patterns of emissions
change. Further, the air quality impacts of PHEV use are not
limited to ozone. If, for example, coal-fired power plants are
used to generate electricity to power PHEVs, and local SO2
emissions increased, then more particulate sulfate would be
formed. On the other hand, reduced emissions from vehicle exhaust
would lower particulate matter concentrations."

2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 014002
(http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014002)




> AMPhibian <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Now this study shows that coal plants do indeed cycle down at night, and =
> that
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

"Now this study shows that coal plants do indeed cycle down at night, and
that night time charging will result in increased emissions since the coal
plants would ramp up to supply the load." So I guess the "teakettle" heats
and cools a bit faster than thought. The report also shows an increase in
ozone precursor emissions and ozone over wide areas from EGUs and a LARGER
decrease in emissions of precursors over those areas from vehicles, so net
reduction. Ozone is higher by 8 ppm only in some very localized areas. A
number of factors were chosen to make this a worst case scenario, such as
all power generation for PHEVs coming from coal, highest estimate of Wh/mile
for PHEVs, etc. So even in this worst case there seems to be a net reduction
of the examined emissions overall in wide areas. The study focused on ozone
and ozone precursor emissions, and did not examine CO2 emissions. To fully
understand the results you would have to be intimately familiar with the
model used and the assumptions used. Most models of complex phenomena have
weaknesses such as omitted effects, over/under weighting of effects, or
sensitivity to poorly understood assumptions. It is easy for someone in the
field to select a model and tweek the assumptions to optimize support for
the conclusions they want to draw. I'm not saying this is the case here,
only that the opportunity exists and is exploited by some. Because of this,
I think it is very difficult for someone not in the area of research (like
us) to make a well-informed judgment. That is the problem I see with wading
into this debate. To do a good job you need to take the time and effort to
study the field of research in detail.
-- 
View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Dirt-to-Wheels-analysis-tp3076445p3160777.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

it is very difficult to predict what type of fuel will be used to meet the next "block" of load at any given time for a specific region. it is even more difficult to generalize to the country.

further if/as wind power becomes a larger fraction of total generation any estimates made now about time of day emissions will be out the window.

coal fueled generators (especially any thing more than 10 years old, which probably accounts for north of 80% of installed coal) are usually steam boiler generators. they do have a dispatchable range they can operate within but as a rule can't "throttle" up or down very quickly.

they will also have minimum times the must run as well as minimum output levels they must maintain. often they are left on overnight because if they shut down they can not be brought on again for hours. I understand this is all to minimize metal fatigue.

Steam turbine plants (fueled by coal, natural gas, or oil are generally not going to be used as load following.

combustion turbine, combined cycle, hydro or internal combustion plants are better suited to that activity.



> AMPhibian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Now this study shows that coal plants do indeed cycle down at night, and that
> > night time charging will result in increased emissions since the coal plants
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I fully admit I'm under qualified in this area, but so are most of the people
I'm arguing with. I'm just trying to raise my game to a higher level and
have accurate information. The main thing I took from that paper is that
coal plants can substantially reduce output at night, which does change the
picture from what I had come to believe. The data referenced for night
time coal power came from 2002 so I don't know to what extent it is still
accurate.




> tomw wrote:
> > To fully understand the results you would have to be intimately familiar
> > with the model used and the assumptions used. Most models of complex
> > phenomena have weaknesses such as omitted effects, over/under weighting of
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Excellent detailed look at the current grid makeup and projections for the
near future. The link is to the single comment since the entire article and
comment section are quite long.
http://seekingalpha.com/user/395590/comment/1395804
All his comments:
http://seekingalpha.com/user/395590/comments
Original article for context:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/245145-plug-in-vehicles-and-their-dirty-little-secret





> AMPhibian wrote:
> >
> > I fully admit I'm under qualified in this area, but so are most of the
> > people I'm arguing with. I'm just trying to raise my game to a higher
> ...


----------

