Fresh And Easy scores a near miss...

[Ingineer]

Again, this is not taking into account the full emissions cost of petroleum use. I refer you to the study JRP linked, which is well done, proper science, and well cited.

-Phil

fueleconomy.gov includes upstream emissions in their CO2 emissions (data from GREET) where one can see that upstream gasoline CO2 emissions are about 25% the tailpipe emissions.

 

[DaveEV]

fueleconomy.gov includes upstream emissions in their CO2 emissions (data from GREET) where one can see that upstream gasoline CO2 emissions are about 25% the tailpipe emissions.

Again, this is not taking into account the full emissions cost of petroleum use. I refer you to the study JRP linked, which is well done, proper science, and well cited.

Phil, GREET explicitly takes into account full lifecycle emissions. The study JRP linked to hardly discussions CO2 emissions but in passing.

The studies referred to in the article discuss CO2 emissions of EVs on the grid as an average which I do not disagree with. My (and JRP3's) point which you seem to disagree with are simply these 2 items:

1. You completely overstated the amount of energy that goes upstream into a gallon of gasoline by claiming one could drive an EV 40 miles on the upstream CO2 emissions when in reality it's a tiny fraction of that number.

2. That EVs on coal power are substantially cleaner than gasoline cars when in fact they are similar and when compared to the Prius might even be worse.

Painting a rosy picture of EVs and ignoring ugly realities doesn't get us anywhere. Obviously I agree that EVs are the way to go (even in coal country primarily because EVs significantly reduce neighborhood emissions) - but at the same time a substantial portion of the rest of our grid has a long ways to go as well.

 

[JRP3]

Painting a rosy picture of EVs and ignoring ugly realities doesn't get us anywhere. Obviously I agree that EVs are the way to go (even in coal country primarily because EVs significantly reduce neighborhood emissions) - but at the same time a substantial portion of the rest of our grid has a long ways to go as well.

Exactly this. Holding on to misconceptions about EV's serves no purpose. It's amusing how Phil attacks me for being narrow minded when in fact I once held similar misconceptions as he and others but through research and debate have found different information. We deride people who ignorantly bash EV's based on their preconceptions, especially when they are unable to take in new information. Using inaccurate numbers in support of EV's is no better. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who has spent more time than I have arguing for EV's, in that long history of debate I've learned that arguing with inaccurate information does nothing to advance the cause. I don't tolerate it from the other side, I don't see why we should tolerate it from our own.

 

[JRP3]

Also, This study was on PHEV's, not EV's, which have higher efficiencies, and zero emissions output themselves.

The study also did not make the comparison to HEV's, which is what we are talking about. I never once said that EV's were not cleaner than ICE's.

By the way, on page 5 they never show that coal plants are scaled, they just show the total outputs from each type. This likely means the coal operators sold their excess capacity to another operator on the grid.

Except on page 2 they specifically stated the following:
"Unutilized, base-load nighttime electricity generating capacity is assumed to charge PHEVs that would subsequently be used during urban commutes."
The term "Unutilized" capacity does not mean power sent to other locales.

The study is actually very interesting and notes many other Pro-EV facts:

A study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) found that the existing electrical infrastructure and capacity could support a switch to PHEV by 84% of US cars, pickup trucks and sports utility vehicles assuming nighttime charging.

Another study, conducted for California, concluded that existing capacity has the capability of supporting PHEV nighttime charging.

All true, and all irrelevant to the point that I've been making.

Now please go away. I suggest you actually READ once in a while, especially from sources you quote from!

-Phil

I suggest you do the same if your mind is so closed you can't take in new information.

 

[Ingineer]

Phil, GREET explicitly takes into account full lifecycle emissions. The study JRP linked to hardly discussions CO2 emissions but in passing.

I'll say it again; Show me the studies! As I mentioned earlier, the Petroleum "well to wheels" energy path is so complex it's almost impossible to do an accurate recount, so often the studies do a "best case" or "worst case". The ones I have been involved with concern mainly with domestic sources, such as North slope Alaska, as we keep more accurate accounting and it's somewhat believable, whereas the numbers from the middle-east are not well accounted and seldom accurate.

The studies referred to in the article discuss CO2 emissions of EVs on the grid as an average which I do not disagree with. My (and JRP3's) point which you seem to disagree with are simply these 2 items:

1. You completely overstated the amount of energy that goes upstream into a gallon of gasoline by claiming one could drive an EV 40 miles on the upstream CO2 emissions when in reality it's a tiny fraction of that number.

2. That EVs on coal power are substantially cleaner than gasoline cars when in fact they are similar and when compared to the Prius might even be worse.

EV's and PHEV's are 2 different animals, especially since most of the work is based on the Hymotion Prius PHEV that ANL did extensive quantification of, and since they all burn some amount of petroleum, and have CO2 emissions, even when in "electric" mode, it is NOT the same as an EV! This warping of information is precisely why I will vehemently ask for hard numbers, which you will never be able to produce as "good science". I never quoted anything about upstream CO2 emissions driving an EV 40 miles. I stated that the amount of extra energy (not directly derived from the actual petroleum itself) needed to drill it, transport it, refine it, distribute it, and dispense it at least 10kWh per gallon of unleaded gasoline (not Diesel). My driving patterns in my Leaf mean 10kWh is about 40 miles.

Now I'm well aware that a lot of that 10kWh comes from byproducts of the petroleum operations, such as flare gas, natural gas, etc. Still, if we stopped using the gasoline, that energy would still likely be available for electricity production to the grid, even if that's not sustainable.

Painting a rosy picture of EVs and ignoring ugly realities doesn't get us anywhere. Obviously I agree that EVs are the way to go (even in coal country primarily because EVs significantly reduce neighborhood emissions) - but at the same time a substantial portion of the rest of our grid has a long ways to go as well.

I don't think this paints a rosy picture at all. I'm worried that this is all too little, too late, and that we are doomed. But wrongly making the "long tailpipe" front and center does no good whatsoever, because this isn't about CO2, it's about sustaining our economy and keeping people alive. Sadly, Despite my own ideas, The planet has always comes after these concerns, and probably will for a long time to come.

Dirty Coal is a temporary argument, just like Dirty Oil. It's non-renewable, and we are using it up like gangbusters, so it will not ultimately matter. Personally I think we should be building more advanced nuclear, such as pebble bed, as a stop-gap, but so much NIMBYism over nukes will likely make that impossible. We can't even put in wind turbines without people boycotting them for the "ugly eyesore" factor, or almost unbelievably; "killing the birds!"

We need to grow our science budget instead of cutting it, so advanced future energy research, such as what is happening at LLNL's NIF (National Ignition Facility) can expand. If we do, we may look back on this time and laugh, as there is enough heavy water (Deuterium) in the ocean to power our EV's almost until the sun goes nova.

-Phil

 

[aqn]

"WELL-TO-WHEELS EMISSIONS DATA FOR PLUG-IN HYBRIDS
AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES: AN OVERVIEW"
is a paper by Sherry Boschert, author of "Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America". The paper draws conclusions from 24 studies/sources.

The summary (on page 2) claims:
"Overall:
NOx – Compared with ICEs, PHEVs decrease NOx by as much as 67% or
increase it up to 83%; EVs decrease it by 32%-99%. Compared with HEVs, PHEVs
may decrease NOx by 100% or increase it up to 108%; EVs increase it 384%.

PM [ Particulate Matter ] – Compared with ICEs, PHEVs increase it by 2%; EVs may decrease PM
by as much as 97% or increase it up to 122%. Compared with HEVs, PHEVs increase it
130% and EVs increase it 483%.

SOx – Compared with ICEs, PHEVs increase it by 53%; EVs increase it by
17%-296%. Compared with HEVs, PHEVs may increase SOx by 283% and EVs by
1120%."

 

[coolfilmaker]

In this case, they took over another market (How's) that went out of business a couple of years ago but, yes, there did not seem to be a lot of planning or neighborhood involvement on their part...

I don't know anything about Fresh and Easy and have never been in one but for some reason they just piss me off. I think it has something to do with them seeming like they were just plopped down without any planning. I guess this confirms it.

Maybe in your area. Most of the ones in my area have been installed in places where there weren't supermarkets before. Some of the buildings just don't seem appropriate for a supermarket. There is one on Pacific Coast highway that used to be a furniture restoration business.

 

[DaveEV]

Phil, GREET explicitly takes into account full lifecycle emissions. The study JRP linked to hardly discussions CO2 emissions but in passing.

I'll say it again; Show me the studies! As I mentioned earlier, the Petroleum "well to wheels" energy path is so complex it's almost impossible to do an accurate recount, so often the studies do a "best case" or "worst case".

Quote from the GREET:

To fully evaluate energy and emission impacts of advanced vehicle technologies and new transportation fuels, the fuel cycle from wells to wheels and the vehicle cycle through material recovery and vehicle disposal need to be considered. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Argonne has developed a full life-cycle model called GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation). It allows researchers and analysts to evaluate various vehicle and fuel combinations on a full fuel-cycle/vehicle-cycle basis.

GREET is the result of a continuous study of inputs/outputs into our energy systems. If the scientists who build GREET aren't doing their job and are missing inputs to their pathways, please tell them and they'll include it in their next update. Otherwise - GREET is the model that many researchers use for their studies!

Now I'm well aware that a lot of that 10kWh comes from byproducts of the petroleum operations, such as flare gas, natural gas, etc. Still, if we stopped using the gasoline, that energy would still likely be available for electricity production to the grid, even if that's not sustainable.

Implying that one can drive their EV 40 miles on 10 kWh worth of byproduct-input-energy isn't quite the same as having 10 kWh of electricity, is it? Then why say that?

I don't think this paints a rosy picture at all. I'm worried that this is all too little, too late, and that we are doomed. But wrongly making the "long tailpipe" front and center does no good whatsoever, because this isn't about CO2, it's about sustaining our economy and keeping people alive.

I completely agree - but then again, I've already been convinced. But if you go and tell someone on the other side of the fence (you know, someone who think's it's their God given right to burn and pollute as much as they please) that you can drive your EV 40 miles on the upstream inputs of a gallon of gas and they later find out that it's really more like 4 miles - many are going to have a hard time believing whatever else you're saying.

Dirty Coal is a temporary argument, just like Dirty Oil. It's non-renewable, and we are using it up like gangbusters, so it will not ultimately matter. Personally I think we should be building more advanced nuclear, such as pebble bed, as a stop-gap, but so much NIMBYism over nukes will likely make that impossible. We can't even put in wind turbines without people boycotting them for the "ugly eyesore" factor, or almost unbelievably; "killing the birds!"

Completely agree here - BTW - did you see that 2 AP1000 nukes just got approval in Georgia? Not advanced nukes, but better than nothing. A good retort of "killing the birds" is to let them know how many birds die from simply crashing into buildings - the number is staggering.

 

[Nekota]

I recall a discussion about 6 months ago on "electricity" use in refineries and part of the flawed analysis was equating BTU values when fuel to electricity requires a heat engine which is roughly a 33% efficient process. So 2/3 of those 40 miles end up as thermodynamically unusable heat. And when I see those gas flares I wish they were hooked into a Capstone turbine to recover electrical energy.

The load following comments are driven by economics just as drees pointed out. Load following can be done by most power plants it's just not instant. Nuclear PWR's follow load by adjusting boric acid (boron neutron absorption) while BWR's follow load with change in the void (steam) fraction as the turbine loads change the pressure. Much like a negative feedback system.

For an overview of grid, electric generation, demand following check out the ANSI articles at http://ansidotorg.blogspot.com/2011/11/generating-electricity.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. They give a good overview of the power grid, electric generation and load demand following. One of the issues with decentralized power generation is frequency regulation and control and this is where ANSI specifications will help control the grid. For example our EVs with cell communication makes for smart demand control to help utilities with load management.

 

[c1987]

Mostly suburbans and full-size trucks park in the F&E hybrid only spaces near me. I use them when they are open. Last time I was there, a suburban was parked in one with it's engine running and the driver was in the store shopping. I was tempted to move it myself.

I asked the corporate office if they could add EV spaces and charge stations. They didn't seem interested.

 

[JRP3]

I completely agree - but then again, I've already been convinced. But if you go and tell someone on the other side of the fence (you know, someone who think's it's their God given right to burn and pollute as much as they please) that you can drive your EV 40 miles on the upstream inputs of a gallon of gas and they later find out that it's really more like 4 miles - many are going to have a hard time believing whatever else you're saying.

This is my main point. We cannot go around using unrealistic numbers to make our case, and we don't need to. If you are in a debate with someone who knows his material and try to claim 10 kwh/gallon energy input they are going to take you apart. Waving your hands around talking about flare gas and pipeline power usage, which has already been factored in as Drees points out, won't help anything.

 

[patrick0101]

Could you provide link to the data this is based on?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf

"How much pollution a car produces per mile – accounting for all emissions, starting from the source gas or oil well where the source fuel is extracted, all the way to the final consumption of electricity by the car’s motor. When we work through the numbers, we find that the electric car is significantly more efficient and pollutes less than all alternatives."

 

[fooljoe]

GREET is the result of a continuous study of inputs/outputs into our energy systems. If the scientists who build GREET aren't doing their job and are missing inputs to their pathways, please tell them and they'll include it in their next update. Otherwise - GREET is the model that many researchers use for their studies!

I found this nicely-done piece a few days ago and was skeptical about the plot showing CO2 emissions only slightly lower for an EV than a hybrid. Digging through the sources led me to GREET, which I downloaded and started to dig through. It's important to note that GREET is just a big spreadsheet model, it is NOT a source! As with any model, GREET is susceptible to the "garbage in, garbage out" maxim.

That said, I'm sure its developers made a good effort to find the best numbers available to input, but the problem, as Phil pointed out, is that petroleum pathways are so complex it's likely an impossible task to come up with accurate numbers for the WTT (well-to-tank) energy cost of gasoline. And even if you can get a reasonably accurate picture of the total cost of drilling, transporting, refining, and transporting again, as GREET might approach, you still can't capture the cost of externalities like the massive military presence to ensure the flow of oil.

Anyway, even the GREET numbers use something like 25% of TTW (tank-to-wheels) emissions for the WTT CO2 emissions of gasoline, as drees pointed out. If we assume that CO2 emissions correlate well with energy content, and we realize that a gallon of gasoline contains 36.6kwh, then we get 9.15kwh upstream energy used to produce a gallon of gas. Phil's 10kwh ballpark figure doesn't seem extreme at all.

However, it's right to remember that the 10kwh is energy, not necessarily electricity. So if we want to figure how far a Leaf could drive on it we should tone down our estimate a bit to account for generation losses, etc. When I make this argument, I generally will state something like "an EV can drive as far as an average ICE car drives on a gallon of gas on just the energy needed to produce that gallon." I don't doubt that in actuality it could be more like twice as far, but my statement is hard enough for the average person to swallow as is.

And whenever someone starts talking about the mythical 100% coal-powered EV, I'd say good, the power will probably be 1/10th the cost per mile as gas, and none of the money spent on coal is getting exported to the likes of Saudi Arabia. The way I see it, CO2 emissions reduction is the least important benefit of EVs, anyway. It's pretty clear at this point that we're never going to muster the political will to stop AGW, if we haven't already passed the point of no return.

 

[JRP3]

Anyway, even the GREET numbers use something like 25% of TTW (tank-to-wheels) emissions for the WTT CO2 emissions of gasoline, as drees pointed out. If we assume that CO2 emissions correlate well with energy content, and we realize that a gallon of gasoline contains 36.6kwh, then we get 9.15kwh upstream energy used to produce a gallon of gas. Phil's 10kwh ballpark figure doesn't seem extreme at all.

I normally see, and use, a lower number for gasoline of 33kwh/gallon, which changes the equation further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

 

[JRP3]

I'm also not sure the 100% coal powered EV is entirely mythical. In coal heavy areas any additional night time load has to come from stoking the coal fires since it's the cheapest source. This is a useful map to get an idea of generating sources in the US. Click on "sources of power" and then click the drop down menu on the left for coal.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997398
I do agree that domestic coal is better than foreign oil.

 

[fooljoe]

Interesting, I got mine from wikipedia as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content_.28high_and_low_heating_value.29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, same ballpark. I usually round to 35.

EDIT: Looks like the difference is whether you use the lower heating value or higher heating value of gasoline. HHV seems more accurate a measure of "energy content", while LHV is more like "usable energy".

 

[wsbca]

... or neighborhood involvement on their part...

The one in our neighborhood regularly coordinates with the local financially strapped elementary school and parents to do fundraiser nights at which they redirect a generous portion of proceeds to maintain/restore otherwise doomed programs and activities.

They've also added an on-site Il Fornaio bakery which is pretty handy for halfway decent fresh bread. The produce isn't outstanding, but the location is much closer to us than any other market, and way closer than anyplace with anything much better. I also like the house brand honey wheat pretzels, and they sell do staples like Fat Tire and Ben & Jerry's at reasonable prices.

I appreciate the clean vehicle spots near the front door - not that I need to save the extra steps, but I think it's worth making a point that such vehicles exist and have value. I have no problem interpreting the hybrid spot as being EV eligible. It is annoying when they are ICE'd but then I just take an eye for an eye by parking in the adjacent expectant mothers spot ;-)

 

[Ingineer]

GREET is the result of a continuous study of inputs/outputs into our energy systems. If the scientists who build GREET aren't doing their job and are missing inputs to their pathways, please tell them and they'll include it in their next update. Otherwise - GREET is the model that many researchers use for their studies!

I found this nicely-done piece a few days ago and was skeptical about the plot showing CO2 emissions only slightly lower for an EV than a hybrid. Digging through the sources led me to GREET, which I downloaded and started to dig through. It's important to note that GREET is just a big spreadsheet model, it is NOT a source! As with any model, GREET is susceptible to the "garbage in, garbage out" maxim.

I haven't had time yet to fully go over GREET, but my summary conclusion is that of Fooljoes; It's not authoritative enough, and there are many holes.

I still stand my by numbers, as I've spent huge amounts of time researching this to my own satisfaction. If anyone doesn't agree, I will agree to disagree, and to each his own. I simply cannot find any evidence to support that EV's are not a win-win long term. Any fact nitpicking along they ultimately doesn't matter.

It's patently obvious to me that petroleum is a dirty business and if we continue to do nothing to change our consumption post-haste, we are headed for a fall of the likes has never been imagined!

-Phil

 

[JRP3]

It's patently obvious to me that petroleum is a dirty business and if we continue to do nothing to change our consumption post-haste, we are headed for a fall of the likes has never been imagined!

-Phil

I don't think a single person here has ever argued otherwise.

 

[Ingineer]

Another Data point:

The Ludicrous “Long Tailpipe” - CO2 comparison between a Leaf and a Versa

-Phil