# [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

The referenced article is a rambling piece of mixed up statements and
quotes. You can't rebuff it because it has so much cruft and fud you
don't know where to start. Ignore it and explain that the EV program
has nothing to do with anything that article has to say, the program is
a training tool for young minds exploring a currently topical subject
and therefore potentially more interesting and stimulating than a simple
auto mechanics course would be. Any resulting EV would be exciting and
fun for the kids to drive and the drafting, welding and machining skills
they learned are valid in any context.

Lawrence

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of M. Barkley
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 12:08 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !

Help!, I have an individual who brought this article
today, to try and discourage the HighSchool EV program
I'm trying to get started here. 

If anyone has time, and would like to help debunk this
article please feel free to do so:

http://mb-soft.com/public/cars00.html

If it's off topic please give me your responses
offlist. I think it'll hit a nerve with most of you
guys though, it did me.








> --- Doug Weathers <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Will Beckett (becketts)
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> M. Barkley wrote:
> > If anyone has time, and would like to help debunk this
> > article please feel free to do so:
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

There is one statement that is not true: The writer says "ALL the energy 
that will get put into car batteries, come from fossil fuel or nuclear fuel 
sources.

I know that's is not true for my EV which is in the Electric City call Great 
Falls, where we re-cycle the water through five dams using gravity power of 
the water which came from oceans by use of our suns solar power.

I have now been running my EV 33 years on this energy.

Roland


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "M. Barkley" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:08 PM
Subject: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !


> Help!, I have an individual who brought this article
> today, to try and discourage the HighSchool EV program
> I'm trying to get started here.
>
> If anyone has time, and would like to help debunk this
> article please feel free to do so:
>
> http://mb-soft.com/public/cars00.html
>
> If it's off topic please give me your responses
> offlist. I think it'll hit a nerve with most of you
> guys though, it did me.
>
>
>
>
>
>


> > --- Doug Weathers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Will Beckett (becketts)
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:08:03 -0800 (PST), "M. Barkley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Help!, I have an individual who brought this article
> today, to try and discourage the HighSchool EV program
> I'm trying to get started here.
> 
> If anyone has time, and would like to help debunk this
> article please feel free to do so:
> 
> http://mb-soft.com/public/cars00.html
> 
> If it's off topic please give me your responses
> offlist. I think it'll hit a nerve with most of you
> guys though, it did me.
> 
> 


He states that the electrical grid has a 60% loss. The US average is 7.2%. All further formulations are thusly way off mark.

--
Stay Charged!
Hump
"If you don't "believe" you'll make a difference, than you probably never will!" -- Jim Husted


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

take one point, the tesla and kill it with that. don't dignify the 
nonsense by engaging it in detail.
he claims the tesla specs violates physics. other than astronomical 
price there is nothing outrageous about it.
you can show cars like white zombie for speed demonstrations.
you can hit it home with the documentary who killed the electric car. if 
the electric car really wasn't any good GM wouldn't be so afraid of it

forget about it



> M. Barkley wrote:
> > Help!, I have an individual who brought this article
> > today, to try and discourage the HighSchool EV program
> > I'm trying to get started here.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

The other 50% of the BS is in the assumption that coal plants are only 30% efficient; and that Gas plants are even less so. Its just not true as I have seen many reports stating large scale power production facilities powered by Coal or Natural Gas on the order of 80% to 92% efficient. You can affectively refute his whole paper just by showing traditional power plants are actually much more efficient than he states. With that out of the way his whole paper becomes pointless. And with a growing amount of alternative power being generated (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal etc) it makes his paper even more pointless.

And Chucks point about anything being taught in school is good if the kids can learn something is valid. I particularly like the School Play analogy 

If his golf cart takes that much energy to recharge then he has a very inefficient charger and he is way overcharging his batteries. I just can't argue with myself when my gas truck costs me $120 a month to go 500 miles and my electric truck costs me $30 a month in electricity. And thats from a 110V outlet running at nothing more than about 14 amps. 

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Homic <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, January 7, 2008 11:49 am
Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>



> > M. Barkley wrote:
> > > If anyone has time, and would like to help debunk this
> > > article please feel free to do so:
> > >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Yes, I was going to go through it fact by fact and analyze it, but
it's so amazingly bad that I don't really want to spend the time. His
arguments have been debunked many times on this list already.

I like how he tried to argue that it's physically impossible for the
Tesla (or any car?) to do 0-60 in 4 seconds too....

Z



> Tim Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

[No message]


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

"He states that the electrical grid has a 60% loss. The US average is
7.2%. All further formulations are thusly way off mark"

I'm sure that the 7.2% loss figure you mentioned is accurate. If it
was only 60% accurate, there would be tons of heat coming down from
power lines. So, out of curiosity, where did you find the 7.2% number?

On 1/7/08, Tim Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:08:03 -0800 (PST), "M. Barkley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Help!, I have an individual who brought this article
> > today, to try and discourage the HighSchool EV program
> > I'm trying to get started here.
> >
> > If anyone has time, and would like to help debunk this
> > article please feel free to do so:
> >
> > http://mb-soft.com/public/cars00.html
> >
> > If it's off topic please give me your responses
> > offlist. I think it'll hit a nerve with most of you
> > guys though, it did me.
> >
> >
>
>
> He states that the electrical grid has a 60% loss. The US average is 7.2%. All further formulations are thusly way off mark.
>
> --
> Stay Charged!
> Hump
> "If you don't "believe" you'll make a difference, than you probably never will!" -- Jim Husted
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I'm kind of violating my own writing guidelines here, but I have to say that 
it's hard to imagine anyone taking seriously such a piece. It's filled with 
sensational, tabloid-ish statements and exclamation points. Johnson 
includes a blizzard of irrelevant information ("Golf carts need special 
'deep-discharge' batteries because they tend to be so tapped out from such a 
round."), most of which seems to be intended solely for emotional impact.

I guess the point is that a thoughtful person would dismiss this piece out 
of hand, just based on its tone. It's far from being a rational, 
scientifically valid piece of reportage. I'd call it a screed. It seems to 
be a classical case of arguing toward a desired conclusion.

The writer claims to be a physicist, but I don't see much application of 
scientific method in this piece. It's certainly not the sort of article 
that a peer-reviewed journal would accept. Heck, this is the sort of 
writing one expects from the "free energy" nuts.

Case in point: his analysis of the golf car is worthless. He's failed to 
measure the energy that actually moved the car during its use, but rather 
has actually tried to compute it based on the HP rating of the motor, as if 
the motor produced its rated power 100% of the time, never more or less. 
It's hard to imagine any genuine physicist taking such an approach.

He dismisses the energy use of petroleum refining with a wave of the hand 
("I have never been able to get a reliable figure. But certainly well under 
840,000 Btu of refining energy is required to form the gallon (126,000 Btu) 
of gasoline.").

He writes about the factory pseudo-hybrid vehicles as if they were drawing 
power from the grid ("They totally ignore all that electricity needed to 
charge the batteries, but then use the charged batteries to help it get very 
high fuel-efficiency numbers!").

He contends that lighting is a substantial portion of the energy used in a 
vehicle ("I suspect that you will NEVER see any reference to a Tesla being 
driven at night [because all those light bulbs use up a LOT of electrical 
power ...]"). This is more hand-waving. As EVers know, the energy 
consumption of vehicle lighting is negligible compared to the propulsion 
use. If lights used a substantial percentage of a vehicle's energy, one 
would expect an ICEV to show greatly reduced MPG at night. Even with the 
40% efficient alternators used on factory ICEs, this isn't the case.

In the same paragraph, Johnson further dismisses the Tesla's claims in 
saying "Automotive air conditioning normally takes around 6 horsepower ..." 
An EV air-con operates with much less power than this, partly because it 
doesn't have to fight the heat output of the engine. A Solectria Force air-
con uses about 7 amps, or a bit more than a kilowatt.

The following page may help dispel some of the incorrect information :

http://www.herecomesmongo.com/ae/comptab.html

I hope others have good resources for analysis of the grid's efficiency.

All that said, it may be so that the combination of old, obsolete coal-fired 
power plants and the electrical grid isn't as efficient as we might like. 
Newer plants and cogeneration plants are much better, achieving efficiencies 
in the 80%+ range, but they aren't yet numerous. Also, that includes other 
outputs, not just the efficiency of electricity generation.

>From what I've read, coal powerplants are closer to 40% efficiency on 
average, and the grid itself is about 75% efficient. So the grid's total 
thermal efficiency in delivering energy from coal is around 30%, not 13%. 
Still not great, but appreciably better than Johnson claims.

It's also important to realize that coal fired powerplants aren't the only 
possible source of energy to fuel EVs. Besides natural gas, in the western 
US and Canada, much more of the electrical energy comes from hydropower. 
This is really solar energy, and uses no significant petroleum input that I 
know of (ameable to correction if you have more accurate data).

But the key to refuting these claims is that EVs have a substantial and 
automatic advantage over ICEs. You can manufacture your own fuel in your 
own back yard or on your roof, using fully renewable sources such as PV and 
wind. This eliminates fossil fuel usage altogether. This is pretty tough 
to do with an ICE.

Granted, ICEs can run on biofuels (odd that Johnson makes no mention of 
this). These are claimed to be renewable, but there are some problems. 

At the this point >I< have to engage in some handwaving because I've found 
inconsistent numbers for the net energy of biofuels. So again this is 
amenable to correction. However, crops used as biofuel feedstock are grown 
with considerable petroleum input, including fertilizers, pesticides, 
materials and finished crop transportation, farm operation, and farm 
machinery. More petroleum-derived energy is used in processing, refining, 
and transporting the refined biofuels. The net result is that the 
production of some biofuels (not all) actually consumes more petroleum 
energy than they release when used. Regrettably, politics seems to be 
aiming the US biofuels market, small as it is, toward these negative-net-
energy sources. (Somehow, I doubt that that's the reason Johnson didn't 
mention them. ;-)

Since most people's eyes glaze over when presented with this much detail, 
here's the sound-bite approach. Your best bet for countering this 
misinformation is probably to point out that an EV can be powered entirely 
and directly by the sun, using no petroleum at all, a fact which Johnson 
ignores, and which no ICE can claim. 

David Roden
EVDL Administrator
http://www.evdl.org/


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Your best bet for countering this
> misinformation is probably to point out that an EV can be powered entirely
> and directly by the sun, using no petroleum at all, a fact which Johnson
> ignores, and which no ICE can claim.
>

Actually, he does mention solar, but goofs that up as well... he
claims that it would cost $390,000 to recharge a Tesla... funny that's
about a factor of ten higher than what I figured -- not that I design
solar arrays for a living or anything...

Okay, enough wasting bandwidth on this. I'm done.

Z

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Help!, I have an individual who brought this article
> today, to try and discourage the HighSchool EV program
> I'm trying to get started here.
>
> If anyone has time, and would like to help debunk this
> article please feel free to do so:
>
> http://mb-soft.com/public/cars00.html

Wow, that article is so incredibly wrong that it's hard to figure out
where to start.

First off all, separate Hydrogen fool-cells, from EVs. Two completely
different animals. EVs are practical and fool-cells are not.

He might own a golf cart, but it's charge does NOT draw 9 amps for 8
hours. If might initially draw 9 amps, but then starts to taper down and
current at the end is probably far less than 1 amp (unless it's a really
crappy charger or his batteries are neary done in)

He must have been making up the numbers he posted. I'm not sure they ever
had a power plant that was only 30% efficient. Even the worse ones
running now are over 40%, with 50-60% being typical.

The power lines are much more efficeint that stated, better than 90% of
the electricity makes it to the home. As I recall the average is
somewhere around 94-97%.

The only thing he comes close to being accurate on is charging efficiency,
but the numbers are for batteries and chargers with low efficiency.

An of course he COMPLETELY ignores the energy put into refining gasoline. 
>From what I've read, the amount of electricity it takes to produce a
gallon of gasoline will propell an EV for 20-30 miles. Simply diverting
the electricity straight to the EV will result in a zero net increase in
coal consumption, actually it would probably reduce the coal consumption
do to off peak charging and the improvements this makes in power plant
efficiency.
An of course the majority of EVs in the USA are in places that get their
power predominantly from renewable resources (hydro, etc.)
-- 
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Oops, I should have said, "the electricity required to get a gallon of
gasoline to the vehicle" rather than "refining a gallon of gasoline"

Remember to get the gas to the car it has to be pumped from the ground,
generally stored on site, pumped or hauled to the refinery, refined,
stored, pumped or hauled to distribution points, pumped into storage,
pumped out of storage into truckes, hauled to the station, pumped intoo
storage, pumped out of storage into the vehicle.
Also recall that the trucks and boats that hual this run on fuel that ALSO
has to go through all of the above.
it might only use a little bit of electricity at each point, but it adds up.

I couldn't find anything that details how much electricity it takes to
produce a gallon of gas, but I did find this:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/california/june01article/carefinery.html
It states that the refineries in california require approx 1,000 Mega
Watts of electricity to operate.
Note Mega Watts, not Mega Watt Hours. So that is 1,000 Mega Watt Hours
for every hour that they operate.

So assuming an EV that averages 250 watt hours per mile, that means that
the electricity used by the refineries, in one hour, in California alone,
would power eneough EVs to cover 4,000 miles.
If we assume the plants only operate for 8 hours a day, that is 32,000
miles per day.
However, I believe they run round the clock, so that is 96,000 EV miles
per day.

On JUST the electricity used by the REFINERIES (in California). Not for
storage, not for hauling, not for dispensing, etc. etc. etc.

And we haven't even taken into account the oil/gas yet.

-- 
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

shrug, he's some random guy with a web page, as he admits here 
http://mb-soft.com/public/publicme.html

As others have said, the notion is completely full of holes. It's a 
rambling screed a mile long, so I didn't read it all... however a few 
places where his premise is based on things provably wrong:

- Believing a household power system cannot charge an EV, even with the 
modern 240V/100A service on those godawful modern sprawl homes.

- Believing all energy comes from fossil or nuke.

- Believing coal plants operate at 30% efficiency.

- Believing transmission losses are huge.

- Believing the BTU content of a tank of gas is even relevant.

- Believing a gas car engine is 21% efficient.

- Wildly mis-guessing the amount of energy a golf cart needs to move.

- Apparently, a) they don't make gas golf carts at all... and b) one 
would only need 1/3 gallon of gas to a round, theoretically. That man 
needs to BUY ONE so he can learn to miss his electric.

- Believes golf carts are efficient EVs.

- Thinks the only batteries in the world are lead-acid.

- Thinks coal-fired locomotives will ever exist again. As a rail 
expert, I can speak to that. Take a look at what a coal-hauling 
railroad powered their COAL TRAINS with in 1930. 
http://imagebase.lib.vt.edu/view_record.php?URN=ns1588
Why? In 1930, it was all about cost. Plain and simple. So much for 
all of the above arguments about transmission losses.


As for the grid not being able to handle it -- government says otherwise.

http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v40_2_07/2007_plug-in_paper.pdf

http://ev.inel.gov/pdf/phev/9_Pratt_grid_impacts.pdf






> M. Barkley wrote:
> > Help!, I have an individual who brought this article
> > today, to try and discourage the HighSchool EV program
> > I'm trying to get started here.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Well, the 30% range is right for an older coal plant- which many are, and will continue to be, the supplier of much of the electricity.

I saw numbers for newer coal designs getting close to 50%, and the record seems to be a natural gas turbine design reaching 60%.

When heat can be recovered for other purposes- cogeneration- then efficiency can be quite high. However, there aren't all that many opportunities to make prime use of it. Power plants are usually located far from homes that would be able to use the heat from a steam system. One must consider if the use is real or wasteful- for example, getting a 35% electricity output and using another 50% in waste heat to keep an empty sports arena warm just because you have nothing better to do with the steam doesn't really mean you've got a stellar 85% efficiency.

Danny



> ---- MIKE WILLMON <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The other 50% of the BS is in the assumption that coal plants are only 30% efficient; and that Gas plants are even less so. Its just not true as I have seen many reports stating large scale power production facilities powered by Coal or Natural Gas on the order of 80% to 92% efficient. You can affectively refute his whole paper just by showing traditional power plants are actually much more efficient than he states. With that out of the way his whole paper becomes pointless. And with a growing amount of alternative power being generated (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal etc) it makes his paper even more pointless.
> >
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Dan Frederiksen wrote:
> > you can hit it home with the documentary who killed the electric car. if
> > the electric car really wasn't any good GM wouldn't be so afraid of it
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

[No message]


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Oops again...
1,000 mega watts = 1,000,000 kilo watts, so my EV miles was off by a few
decimal points.

So it should have read 96,000,000 miles per day. Or assuming the average
person drives 30 miles per day, that is enough electricity to power
3,200,000 EVs per day.

Sorry about that.


>
> Oops, I should have said, "the electricity required to get a gallon of
> gasoline to the vehicle" rather than "refining a gallon of gasoline"
>
> Remember to get the gas to the car it has to be pumped from the ground,
> generally stored on site, pumped or hauled to the refinery, refined,
> stored, pumped or hauled to distribution points, pumped into storage,
> pumped out of storage into truckes, hauled to the station, pumped intoo
> storage, pumped out of storage into the vehicle.
> Also recall that the trucks and boats that hual this run on fuel that ALSO
> has to go through all of the above.
> it might only use a little bit of electricity at each point, but it adds
> up.
>
> I couldn't find anything that details how much electricity it takes to
> produce a gallon of gas, but I did find this:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/california/june01article/carefinery.html
> It states that the refineries in california require approx 1,000 Mega
> Watts of electricity to operate.
> Note Mega Watts, not Mega Watt Hours. So that is 1,000 Mega Watt Hours
> for every hour that they operate.
>
> So assuming an EV that averages 250 watt hours per mile, that means that
> the electricity used by the refineries, in one hour, in California alone,
> would power eneough EVs to cover 4,000 miles.
> If we assume the plants only operate for 8 hours a day, that is 32,000
> miles per day.
> However, I believe they run round the clock, so that is 96,000 EV miles
> per day.
>
> On JUST the electricity used by the REFINERIES (in California). Not for
> storage, not for hauling, not for dispensing, etc. etc. etc.
>
> And we haven't even taken into account the oil/gas yet.
>
> --
> If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
> junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
> wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
> legalistic signature is void.
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>


-- 
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> > He must have been making up the numbers he posted. I'm not sure they ever
> > had a power plant that was only 30% efficient. Even the worse ones
> > running now are over 40%, with 50-60% being typical.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I work in El Segundo and can vouch for the high power lines feeding into the refineries, but I had no idea it was so much electricity. Is this for real? This is really a huge phantom energy overhead. Imagine if electricity were no longer available and they had to run the refinery purely on only the incoming oil itself. The EROEI would go to hell. As it is now, the EROEI is being propped up by whatever generates the electricity.

----- Original Message ----

Oops again...
1,000 mega watts = 1,000,000 kilo watts, so my EV miles was off by a
few
decimal points.

So it should have read 96,000,000 miles per day. Or assuming the
average
person drives 30 miles per day, that is enough electricity to power
3,200,000 EVs per day.

Sorry about that.



_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Lots of well to wheel studies have been done comparing the two, GM did one awhile back....but half way through the EV was dropped of the list...contact me off list and I'll send you a couple
_____________________________________________________________
Stop foreclosure. Click here to stay in your home and rebuild credit.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4tZwG6jNHYjpCCrqYkftSb4excfYU1gV5mZCqm0ho4adzP3J/



_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> M. Barkley wrote:
> > Help!, I have an individual who brought this article
> > today, to try and discourage the HighSchool EV program
> > I'm trying to get started here.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Better yet. Make this article fodder for debate, Have half the class try
to debunk it and half the class try to prove it. Make the "wells to
wheels" analysis part of the course! Lewt the students decide.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Something to note, at night, if the electricity isn't used, it's wasted.
Most generators are not shut down at night, they keep running. So if nothing
stores the generated electricity, it's gone to waste.

At this one body of water that drains via a river, there's a hydro generator
used in California to generate electricity. At night, they use the excess
electricity from the grid to pump the water back into the higher elevation
body of water!!!!! Like a huge mechanical battery. 

- Tony



> Jeff Shanab <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Better yet. Make this article fodder for debate, Have half the class try
> > to debunk it and half the class try to prove it. Make the "wells to
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

[No message]


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I wrote a paper that counters some of what was mentioned in that 
thing. It's 12 years old though but has many references and was 
reviewed by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf

But geez, someone spent alot of time writing this missive attacking 
EVs. I couldn't even take the time to read through all that.

The more troubling issue is what is that person's ulterior motive (at 
the school) for wanting to submit this gibberish to try to kill a 
high school program?

Hopefully, the school administrators have forward thinking minds and 
will see this as an attempt to throw a wrench into the program.

Like some people including Lawrence said, there is more to it then 
building a EV. There's learning new skills and working as a team on a 
project.

As far as who wrote it that article, that URL shortcut icon says it 
all. Consider the source of who wrote it and who submitted it to the 
school.

Chip











> [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:08:03 -0800 (PST)
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Honestly, I'd advocate the following:

Find a two or three local EV owners and take them and their cars into 
your school. Get the doubters into the EVs and show them just what 
they're capable of. This doesn't have to be about facts and figures 
about pollution, efficiency etc. It can be about experience. As a 
teacher I try to concentrate on the outcomes. The excellent book, 
Electric Dreams, (http://tinyurl.com/3colu9) is a great way to get the 
message across that this project helps build confidence, teach kids a 
valid, useful skill-set and give them something good to believe in. 
Try to get a copy to loan to those who aren't that convinced about the 
project.

I wouldn't waste your time trying to debunk this article either. 
Instead, build a solid argument for doing the project, including the 
details of both everyday EVs and those boys and girls down at the 
dragstrip.

Good luck.

Nikki.






> M. Barkley wrote:
> 
> > Help!, I have an individual who brought this article
> > today, to try and discourage the HighSchool EV program
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> "Joseph T. " <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "He states that the electrical grid has a 60% loss. The US average is
> > 7.2%. All further formulations are thusly way off mark"
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> His comments that electric cars can't be driven at night because the
> lights take too much power is just plain absurd. Headlights don't even
> use 1% of the power needed for propulsion. 


Although I will admit that even I was worried about this. I knew the
headlights pull quiet a bit compared to other things. But after driving
the exact same route every day I can say with certainty that temperature
is the biggest effect on range (because I did poorly on my battery
installation) and the number of stoplights i have to stop at changes my
power usage more than running headlights,wipers and blower.

My next worry is how much a heater would take. Ironically I have only
found 1 day, in two years,in which I missed the heater. Usually the
charger itself keeps the interior of the car warm enough that it doesn't
ice up or have fogged windows when I get out there in the morning. You
can't tell it is warmer than the other cars until you look at one of
them or have to scrape the ice. I have managed to just use the blower to
combat the fogging from my breath. But...If the car sits in the parking
lot at work for 10 hours and it is cold and damp, then it is a real
safety concern getting the windows clear without a heater.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

>
> Something to note, at night, if the electricity isn't used, it's wasted.
> Most generators are not shut down at night, they keep running. So if nothing
> stores the generated electricity, it's gone to waste.
>
> At this one body of water that drains via a river, there's a hydro generator
> used in California to generate electricity. At night, they use the excess
> electricity from the grid to pump the water back into the higher elevation
> body of water!!!!! Like a huge mechanical battery.  

The Helms project. It is in the mountains above me. 
They have some pictures on the walls at the local university of the main
vertical shaft when it was dug with vehicles and equipment around it's
perimeter and it is really something. More impressive than the fake ones
in a recent movie. (They also filmed a movie in one of the big
underground control rooms, a bunch of us college students went to the
casting call)

50% of my power comes from solar on my roof and more than 50% of my grid
power comes from hydro and wind.
I am very lucky in that regard.

Actually the electricity isn't produced and wasted, the furnaces are
what can't be shut down and expected to come back up in reasonable time.
So fuel is burned to keep them at idle temp. Different kinds of plants
have different abilities to react to these load changes and this is out
of the scope of this discussion list so I will say much more other than
to point out that haveing a mix of types is one way they handle changing
load.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

when you say wasted you probably mean not generated or such. The gen 
authorities back off hydro or shut down coal plant. For example if you had 
a 500MW load and a 1000MW steam turbine and the load was 600MW youd shutdown 
(but bar) the 1000MW set and use hydro for the 100MW you still need or get 
it from your pumped storage set. Once the load approaches 1500MW youd have 
fired up your 1000MW. Simplified for illustration only.
David
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Hwang" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !


> Something to note, at night, if the electricity isn't used, it's wasted.
> Most generators are not shut down at night, they keep running. So if 
> nothing
> stores the generated electricity, it's gone to waste.
>
> At this one body of water that drains via a river, there's a hydro 
> generator
> used in California to generate electricity. At night, they use the excess
> electricity from the grid to pump the water back into the higher elevation
> body of water!!!!! Like a huge mechanical battery. 
>
> - Tony
>
>


> Jeff Shanab <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Better yet. Make this article fodder for debate, Have half the class try
> >> to debunk it and half the class try to prove it. Make the "wells to
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Jeff Shanab <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Better yet. Make this article fodder for debate, Have half the class try
> > to debunk it and half the class try to prove it. Make the "wells to
> > wheels" analysis part of the course! Let the students decide.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

On 1/8/08, Tim Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>


> "Joseph T. " <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "He states that the electrical grid has a 60% loss.
> 
> > http://climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The referenced article is a rambling piece of mixed up statements and
> > quotes. You can't rebuff it because it has so much cruft and fud you
> > don't know where to start. Ignore it...
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Have the edit that wrote the article attend the debate.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jeff Shanab
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !

Better yet. Make this article fodder for debate, Have half the class try
to debunk it and half the class try to prove it. Make the "wells to
wheels" analysis part of the course! Lewt the students decide.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

500MW load should read 500MW steam turbine, David
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Sharpe" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !


> when you say wasted you probably mean not generated or such. The gen
> authorities back off hydro or shut down coal plant. For example if you 
> had
> a 500MW load and a 1000MW steam turbine and the load was 600MW youd 
> shutdown
> (but bar) the 1000MW set and use hydro for the 100MW you still need or get
> it from your pumped storage set. Once the load approaches 1500MW youd have
> fired up your 1000MW. Simplified for illustration only.
> David
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tony Hwang" <[email protected]>
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !
>
>
>> Something to note, at night, if the electricity isn't used, it's wasted.
>> Most generators are not shut down at night, they keep running. So if
>> nothing
>> stores the generated electricity, it's gone to waste.
>>
>> At this one body of water that drains via a river, there's a hydro
>> generator
>> used in California to generate electricity. At night, they use the excess
>> electricity from the grid to pump the water back into the higher 
>> elevation
>> body of water!!!!! Like a huge mechanical battery. 
>>
>> - Tony
>>
>>


> Jeff Shanab <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Better yet. Make this article fodder for debate, Have half the class try
> >>> to debunk it and half the class try to prove it. Make the "wells to
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Jeff Shanab wrote:
> >> His comments that electric cars can't be driven at night because the
> >> lights take too much power is just plain absurd. Headlights don't even
> >> use 1% of the power needed for propulsion.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Backing off and/or stopping a plant depends on the type.
I believe that there are 3 types of plants:
- base load (never stopped except during maintenance)
- intermediate load
- peak load 
The hydro and diesel-generator style plants can be used for
all 3 types, but due to the cost (value) of their resources,
preferably they are designed and used for peak load, which 
is the type of electricity with the highest price tag.
Base load are for example nuclear plants, because they can't
easly be throttled or started/stopped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant
Also coal plants have long startup times before running
efficiently (and low emissions). The startup may cause the
plant to run will outside their specified emissions, but
since this is not the normal operation mode, this is often
not even regulated, but you can see that it is undesired to
start or stop frequently.

Here in Silicon Valley I have seen 40 ft container-sized Diesel
generators sitting in parking lots to continuously generate 
power for the office building, because the local grid could not 
be trusted to supply the power required by the business.
That is a very stupid way of using a peaking generator to
create base-load capacity, though it may be required in such
cases as where the grid capacity (I mean the transportation
capacity) is insufficient to satisfy the need of the server
parks and AirCo of machines and humans in a business area.
Still I would think that the generators should only run when
needed, during the afternoon power crunch.

There is a reason that my TOU meter has a Summer peak tariff
of almost $0.50 per kWh while the night tariff is below $0.06

Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
Email: [email protected] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [email protected]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Sharpe
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:30 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !

when you say wasted you probably mean not generated or such. The gen authorities back off hydro or shut down coal plant. For example if you had a 500MW load and a 1000MW steam turbine and the load was 600MW youd shutdown (but bar) the 1000MW set and use hydro for the 100MW you still need or get it from your pumped storage set. Once the load approaches 1500MW youd have fired up your 1000MW. Simplified for illustration only.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hwang" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !


> Something to note, at night, if the electricity isn't used, it's wasted.
> Most generators are not shut down at night, they keep running. So if 
> nothing stores the generated electricity, it's gone to waste.
>
> At this one body of water that drains via a river, there's a hydro 
> generator used in California to generate electricity. At night, they 
> use the excess electricity from the grid to pump the water back into 
> the higher elevation body of water!!!!! Like a huge mechanical 
> battery. 
>
> - Tony
>
>


> Jeff Shanab <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Better yet. Make this article fodder for debate, Have half the class
> >> try to debunk it and half the class try to prove it. Make the "wells
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Well as people said, "not quite". The coal-fired plants are slow to shut down, the gas-fired turbines can be shut down and restarted very fast. So I assume the grid tries to keep only as many coal and other slow-throttling plants online as it is expected to need and use the fast-changing plants to pick up the slack for shorter term differences in demand vs supply.

Of course this assumes the power company has control over when EVs charge! If the user charges when he gets home, at the same time as turning up the AC, TV, and microwave, well this benefit doesn't exist; charging only intensifies the worst-case scenario. 

People being the way they are many will insist that an EV charge ASAP when they get home. Some would have good reason- plan to go out for the evening and need that charge refreshed as much as possible in the hour or two of downtime- or some people just insist on immediate charging without a specific need, just like choosing a larger car than they will likely need.

Danny

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Hwang" <[email protected]>
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !
> 
> 
> > Something to note, at night, if the electricity isn't used, it's wasted.
> > Most generators are not shut down at night, they keep running. So if 
> > nothing stores the generated electricity, it's gone to waste.
> >
> > At this one body of water that drains via a river, there's a hydro 
> > generator used in California to generate electricity. At night, they 
> > use the excess electricity from the grid to pump the water back into 
> > the higher elevation body of water!!!!! Like a huge mechanical 
> > battery. 
> >
> > - Tony

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

He quotes that his golf cart charges for 8 hours at 9 amps 
from a 120V socket, drawing the conclusion that it is consuming 9kWh.
Unfortunately he is wrong because the Volts and Amps tell us 
absolutely *nothing* about how much real power is used to 
charge the batteries, because a device could draw 9 Amps from
a 120V outlet and yet only consume 5 Watts.
The critical issue is which power factor the device has.
Another factor is that no battery is charged with a constant
power or current, it typically starts high and tapers off.
Even more likely is that this Physicist did not measure anything
but simply looked at the charger, noticed the label saying that
the device is specified for 120V, 9 Amp and concluded that it
must consume 1080 Watts. However, the current specification on
a label typically tells us to what kind of service the device
must be connected because it specifies the peak current, it is
possible to have a 12V 1Amp power supply with a label that says
120V 0.5 Amp. Does that mean that the supply draws 60 Watts
and only supplies 12W, dissipating 48W? No, it means that the
power supply must be considered to draw a peak current of 0.5A
so you know that you should not connect more than 30 to a 15A
service even if they deliver only 360W and likely do not draw
more than about 400W if you were to measure with a real power
meter. But peak current could reach 15A.
Now there is the difference between reality and the oversimple
model: looking at the label does not tell you the truth, so
when the author extrapolates from his faulty assumptions and
incorrect model, he arrives at incorrect conclusions.

Let's go back to EV's and how to build them, because we KNOW
their benefits from *reliable* sources.

Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
Email: [email protected] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [email protected]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lee Hart
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:07 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !



> M. Barkley wrote:
> > Help!, I have an individual who brought this article today, to try
> > and discourage the HighSchool EV program
> > I'm trying to get started here.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Chip,

Good report, good supporting references, thanks! Even after 12 years, still valid info. Well done report and very refreshing after reading that other jibberish!

Thanks!

Dave
www.evalbum.com/1355


----- Original Message ----
From: Chip Gribben <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2008 7:54:50 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] EV's not the answer article !

I wrote a paper that counters some of what was mentioned in that 
thing. It's 12 years old though but has many references and was 
reviewed by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf

But geez, someone spent alot of time writing this missive attacking 
EVs. I couldn't even take the time to read through all that.

The more troubling issue is what is that person's ulterior motive (at 
the school) for wanting to submit this gibberish to try to kill a 
high school program?

Hopefully, the school administrators have forward thinking minds and 
will see this as an attempt to throw a wrench into the program.

Like some people including Lawrence said, there is more to it then 
building a EV. There's learning new skills and working as a team on a 
project.

As far as who wrote it that article, that URL shortcut icon says it 
all. Consider the source of who wrote it and who submitted it to the 
school.

Chip











> [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:08:03 -0800 (PST)
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

My stock answer to these types of misleading articles is

"Ask the person who drives one daily!"

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Joseph T. wrote:
> > Are you sure that you've seen power plants that are up to 92% efficient?
> 
> They do this with co-generation. *IF* you have a need for the waste
> ...


----------

