Rebuttal to Forbe's article re: Mileage Fraud re: elc. vech

[jludwi2]

http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2010/11/24/the-epas-electric-vehicle-mileage-fraud/ by Warren Meyer

The main point of the article is the government shouldn't promote electric vehicle's because as the power system
is currently configured in the United States the LEAF doesn't offer significant fuel savings compared to ICE cars.
The author sites the LEAF's mileage at 36mpge (rather than 99 mpge) when taking in the loss of converting fossil fuels into electricity. In other words, the LEAF's energy use doesn't warrant government subsidy as it doesn't offer significant
savings in fossil fuels (and hence pollution, etc).

This is a fairly infantile argument, of course, that ignores the bigger picture.

Imagine you have a choice about having millions of polluting personal traveling machines plus thousands of dirty power stations OR millions of clean personal traveling machines with thousands of dirty power stations.
Of course, it's easier to clean a power station (even a thousand or ten thousand of them) rather than millions of cars.

Also, there are huge efforts in creating a local power source (probably fuel cell) but also solar, etc that will allow people to cleanly produce energy for their LEAF (or volt, focus ev, etc). Before that is done, most states are looking at investing Billions of dollars in clean energy and private companies like Google are helping as well.

Nobody would argue that the LEAF/FocusEv, etc are the answer. But they are a significant step in the right direction. While the enormous inefficient act of burning fossil fuels to generate power and then transmitting this power over vast distances isn't going to be totally accomplished with a single car, it will prompt many people (and companies!) to look into producing this electricity in a clean (and eventually local) way.

This is exciting. I want my red LEAF.

 

[TimeHorse]

+1 and I also want to give kudos to us Eastern Seaboard states which, with our advantage of long continental shelf are all looking toward massive wind power off the coast to rival Denmark and Germany and with an underwater transmission grid that will level out regional wind pressure imbalances.

But +1 again for reiterating my number 1 argument for EVs being cleaner: it's easier to change 1 power plant than it is to convince 1,000 people to switch. And add to that at least here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Dominion power has a Green program where by you can pay an extra 1.5 cents per kWh and Dominion agrees to generate at least as much power that you use with green sources. So you have the ability, at least here, to go totally green even with the current power infrastructure.

 

[Timaz]

This type of article drives me nuts. I am sure the author still thinks global warming is a hoax! Another interesting variation is that some of us will charge our cars using our clean energy produced by our solar arrays on our house. I suppose it would be argued that that some ozone was destroyed with the manufacturing of the panels! Where does the buck stop?

 

[Smidge204]

I was actually compelled to register and comment on the article a few days ago when I first saw it. It's almost comical how often the same arguments with the same flawed thinking are made time and time again - each time as if the author feels they are the first and only person on the planet to think of it.

He complains that electricity has to come from somewhere, and that the EPA testing does not account for that. My rebuttal is that gasoline also has to come from somewhere, and the EPA testing doesn't account for that either.

The so-called "Well to wheel" analysis (linked in my comment there but also here for you) shows EVs have about half the carbon footprint of gasoline vehicles even when you consider most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels. (And it's less now than it was when the study was done!)
=Smidge=

 

[Yodrak]

I'm an odd man out, I guess, because I agree with the technical arguements made in the Forbes article.

No comment on the political side, the reasons why the EPA methodology is what it is. For sure it's the simplest methodology to understand - fuel on board divided by miles driven - avoiding the difficult to understand and quantify complexities of a more appropriate comparison.

Back to the technical issues, I also agree with the point made here that it's easier - and cheaper per unit - to clean up hundreds of fixed-source fossil-fueled power plants than millions of mobile fossil-fueled internal combustion engines.

Drifting off again, clearly the author does accept, or at least acknowledge the point of view, that global warming exists. He does point out that in the coal-burning midwest generating electricity for automibile propulsion may produce more CO2 than burning gasoline in ICE automobiles. The only reason to consider CO2 to be a polutant is global warning.

Anyway, I'm not interested in an electric vehicle because it's cleaner. I'm interested 1st because electricity is cheaper than gasoline and 2nd because electricity is created using a higher percentage of domestic resources than gasoline. Purely selfish, practical reasons. Reasons that are easy to calculate, same as the EPAs mileage methodolgy.

I suspect that I am in a minority in this forum, but in a majority of the general population, with respect to my reasons for interest in EVs. With the caveat that a majority of the general population probably is not interested in EVs.

 

[Yodrak]

True, and the author admits as much. And the DOE methodology that the author puts up as an alternative does account for where both electricity and gasoline come from.

Pot, meet kettle.

He complains that electricity has to come from somewhere, and that the EPA testing does not account for that. My rebuttal is that gasoline also has to come from somewhere, and the EPA testing doesn't account for that either.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

we need an article that discusses how much energy is used to process gasoline. its not a good ratio. natural gas produced during the processing of gasoline is used to power refineries. many tend to forget that that natural gas could be used for other energy needs. when we factor the lost energy during the refining process; the carbon footprint of gasoline increases dramatically.

also, in my area of the country (common in the west) my electricity has a relatively small carbon footprint.

 

[TimeHorse]

I'm interested 1st because electricity is cheaper than gasoline

+1

2nd because electricity is created using a higher percentage of domestic resources than gasoline.

+1 and also for National Security: less power to Saudi Extremists and less starvation in Mexico due to Ethanol, which, as I've said earlier, is part of why there's such a huge drug violence problem on the border.

 

[ERG4ALL]

I would be interested to see the amount of us that will be charging our LEAFs with photovoltaics and wind generation or other non-polluting renewables. Perhaps we could get some sort of tally site set up that each of us can enter the amount of renewable generation we have. Maybe this could be the amount of kWh per month or year that our systems are generating. Then at a glance others can see the total that we represent. I also suspect that we as a group generate much more non-polluting electricity than a random cross section of the population. Another nice thing about generating electricity tied to the grid is that any excess that we produce does not travel miles and miles but gets consumed right next door at our neighbor's house. Thus, this electricity does not travel a significant distance with the attendant losses as power generated from a centralized source. Anyway, just a thought and maybe someone with the expertise can set up a tally site.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Sounds good. I will start.
58% of my peak power from 3-7 pm weekly is renewable. A combo of hydro and wind

95+% of off peak is renewable. They don't really specify so I would hope it be 100% occasionally

 

[Coffee_Slurry]

I was going to post a comment, but couldn't..

"I can power my EV from my own solar panels. Let me know when you can fuel up your car at home with renewable fuel."

 

[rnkepler]

Here's an old article from the 90s that addresses some of these issues: http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml

 

[charlie1300]

[But +1 again for reiterating my number 1 argument for EVs being cleaner: it's easier to change 1 power plant than it is to convince 1,000 people to switch. And add to that at least here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Dominion power has a Green program where by you can pay an extra 1.5 cents per kWh and Dominion agrees to generate at least as much power that you use with green sources. So you have the ability, at least here, to go totally green even with the current power infrastructure.[/quote]

We have the same option with the power company in upstate NY. I've been paying an extra 1.6 cents per KWH for years here for the green power program. It's not a cost I even notice. I find it hard to believe that anyone buying a Leaf here would not also sign up for that program. The cost is still a whole bunch less than gasoline, and I have a ready response to those who make the Forbe's article arguement.

 

[garygid]

Although e-fuel might not be less expensive than gas in some locations with some rate structures, our use of geo-oil is NOT sustainable.

Indeed, some other substances are/will be in too-short supply as the years pass.

At some eventual extreme, a big diamond might not "buy" you a jug of drinkable water. In the far future, what things have "real" value?

But, very few humans even pause to consider what is really required for truly SUSTAINABLE living on this small sphere.

The would achieves its VERY delicate balance and diversity over millions of years. Then, with human help, most of that can be wiped out in a few hundreds of years. Mankind, the virus, probably?

 

[garygid]

In CA, we get to pay an extra 4¢ just to get any power at all.

 

[rainnw]

1) This type of talk is highly subjective to the users location and power supply. Here in the northwest, a majority of our power is generated by hydroelectric. What if there's a nuclear power plant down the street? And if the owner already has a PV setup/etc, than it invalidates that argument. As power generation becomes cleaner, so do the cars.

2) its a well known fact that centralizing your power generation, even natural gas/coal/etc, provides significantly higher efficiency and less carbon footprint than individual gas piston engines. And thats assuming for a moment that your gas vehicle is in good shape.

 

[detlefo]

+1 These articles seldom consider the "true" environmental cost of gasoline. When you take into consideration the fuel expended in exploration, drilling, pumping, transporting, refining, transporting again, and then running the gas station and pumping again, it far exceeds the environmental cost of energy delivered as electricity. My LEAF will be powered by my 4.5 KW solar array here in sunny California.

 

[ERG4ALL]

rbkepler wrote: Here's an old article from the 90s that addresses some of these issues: http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml

EVs & Power Plants ICE & Fuel Refining
Processing 39% (Electricity Generation) 92% (Fuel Refining)
Transmission Lines 95% -
Charging 88% -
Vehicle Efficiency 88% 15%
Overall Efficiency 28% 14%

That's an interesting article especially if you have a PV setup. I guess that means that 88% (charging) x 88% vehicle efficiency yields a 77% overall efficiency compared to 14% for ICEs. Even though the PV panels may only be 14% efficient the sun is free and non-polluting.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The would achieves its VERY delicate balance and diversity over millions of years. Then, with human help, most of that can be wiped out in a few hundreds of years. Mankind, the virus, probably?

99.9 % of all species that have roamed the Earth are extinct. what makes you think we deserve or are destined to last more than a few dozen millennia?

i for one, do not think we will last. we have done a lot to change our environment to make ourselves more comfortable and as most have done in the past, we sacrifice long term survivability with short term creature comforts.

i do hope that we can continue to manipulate our environment but in a positive to extend our time here but it can only be extended. we will not be here forever

 

[Yodrak]

In the interest of trying to determine if the glass is half full or half empty, I would be interested in knowing how many who have photovoltaic systems installed them because they are buying an electric vehicle that needs to be charged. Or, did they or would they have installed the photovoltaic system even if EVs were not yet on the horizon.

If the former, and the vehicle is charged when the sun is shining, then I can agree that the EV is being charged by the photovoltaics. Otherwise, whatever environmental (and economic) benefit was being obtained with the initial installation of the PV system is being taken away by the charging requirements of the EV.

The environmental and economic benefits of running one's car with electricity rather than gasoline remain, which is good, but the icing is no longer on the cake - the goblins have eaten it.

I would be interested to see the amount of us that will be charging our LEAFs with photovoltaics and wind generation or other non-polluting renewables. Perhaps we could get some sort of tally site set up that each of us can enter the amount of renewable generation we have.