Nissan to double US sales of electric Leaf: Ghosn

[smkettner]

Using the national average of 230 grams/mile, however, the Prius actually produces 1.71 lbs. less than the Leaf per 100 miles. I'll be curious to hear what the difference is in your area.

Prius 49
Leaf 27

So it is close to my original prediction of about half

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

For example, in my area, the EPA estimates 150 grams GHG/mile for the Leaf. This means that charging it from the grid "upstream" would produce 33.07 lbs. of GHG per 100 miles driven. The Prius, in comparison, produces 49.00 lbs. of GHG per 100 miles from the tailpipe + "upstream."

I'm wondering if your upstream calculations are accurate. Oil needs to be refined, but coal does not. Oil is generally transported further and at greater energy costs.

And finally, I'm guessing that you're missing a big chunk of the upstream cost.

If you calculate the energy costs of producing a nice steak, do you take a discount for the energy costs of producing leather? In other words is the energy cost of producing both steak and leather the same as either? If what truly drives oil production is the demand for gasoline, then why do you get a GHG credit for byproducts like asphalt and plastics that also add CO2 to the biosphere?

if i were you, i would do some fact checking on that. as far as "throwing some soap" on an oil spill. we have to realize that the chemical makeup of the oil is not changed.

it only allows the oil to form into teeny tiny balls so it is ummm, let me guess?

not toxic? wrong...about the only thing it does is allows it to be eaten by entities much lower on the food chain.

now, this is only done to make ourselves feel better about the pathetic way we treat our home and nothing more...not even a little bit more.

ya see, not that microorganisms are eating the oil right now as we speak, it will take years for the effects to hit us in reduced seafood, algae growth, altered bird migration and nesting patterns...ya, it will affect us for years, but it will be a long gradual process that we have become very adept at ignoring.


but the alternative would be to see ducks coated in oil. now that is too "in your face" and too disturbing, but its really too bad because killing 10,000 Ducks would have done much less damage than filtering all that oil up thru the food chain for the next decade

 

[Electric4Me]

which is the ENTIRE point here. you have the opportunity to get your Leaf Juice nearly emission free. there is nothing even close in liquid fuels.

I would have to disagree. Hydrogren, while not economically viable at this point and technically a gas and not a liquid, could be just about as clean. Also there have been experiments in using liquid nitrogen and using the expansion as it changes phases from liquid to gas in order to move a car. That would technically be a liquid fuel and zero emission. Well, at least a net-zero emission since you would be removing nitrogen from the atmosphere, then releasing it back.

Hydrogen is not an energy source (on planet Earth), it is just a type of battery. We use energy from some other source to produce the hydrogen to pump into a hydrogen car, instead of charging a standard battery in a conventional EV. And it is less efficient to route the energy through a hydrogen pathway.

 

[BRBarian]

For example, in my area, the EPA estimates 150 grams GHG/mile for the Leaf. This means that charging it from the grid "upstream" would produce 33.07 lbs. of GHG per 100 miles driven. The Prius, in comparison, produces 49.00 lbs. of GHG per 100 miles from the tailpipe + "upstream."

I'm wondering if your upstream calculations are accurate. Oil needs to be refined, but coal does not. Oil is generally transported further and at greater energy costs.

And finally, I'm guessing that you're missing a big chunk of the upstream cost.

If you calculate the energy costs of producing a nice steak, do you take a discount for the energy costs of producing leather? In other words is the energy cost of producing both steak and leather the same as either? If what truly drives oil production is the demand for gasoline, then why do you get a GHG credit for byproducts like asphalt and plastics that also add CO2 to the biosphere?

if i were you, i would do some fact checking on that. as far as "throwing some soap" on an oil spill. we have to realize that the chemical makeup of the oil is not changed.

it only allows the oil to form into teeny tiny balls so it is ummm, let me guess?

not toxic? wrong...about the only thing it does is allows it to be eaten by entities much lower on the food chain.

now, this is only done to make ourselves feel better about the pathetic way we treat our home and nothing more...not even a little bit more.

ya see, not that microorganisms are eating the oil right now as we speak, it will take years for the effects to hit us in reduced seafood, algae growth, altered bird migration and nesting patterns...ya, it will affect us for years, but it will be a long gradual process that we have become very adept at ignoring.


but the alternative would be to see ducks coated in oil. now that is too "in your face" and too disturbing, but its really too bad because killing 10,000 Ducks would have done much less damage than filtering all that oil up thru the food chain for the next decade

...talk about non sequitur responses!

I don't think you understood my post in the least. I was arguing that the upstream GWG costs of making gasoline FROM OIL are higher than the upstream costs for making electricity from coal. I wasn't talking about oil spills, nor ducks, nor teenie tiny balls.

 

[Yodrak]

Whether hydrogen is a gas or a liquid depends on the temperature and pressure it is experiencing at any point in time. "technically", hydrogen could also be a solid at low enough temperature and high enough pressure.

Hydrogren, while not economically viable at this point and technically a gas and not a liquid, could be just about as clean.

Why is liquid hydrogen "technically" a gas but liquid nitrogen is "technically" a liquid? In any case, don't ignore the fact that to remove nitrogen from the atmosphere and liquify it is energy intensive, so using nitrogen to propel a car would not be zero emission unless the energy comes from a source that is zero emission.

Also there have been experiments in using liquid nitrogen and using the expansion as it changes phases from liquid to gas in order to move a car. That would technically be a liquid fuel and zero emission. Well, at least a net-zero emission since you would be removing nitrogen from the atmosphere, then releasing it back.

 

[copdoc]

This was really fun. Thanks for giving me another half hour of not working! In my area the GHG was 200 g/mile upstream for the leaf.

I would think with a 99 mpge rating, Leaf equivelent emissions would be half that of a Prius and maybe 20% of the typical automobile.

Not really, depending upon the type of power plant. You might want to try using my program to determine the difference in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for your area of the country:

Utility to Compare "Tailpipes"


For example, in my area, the EPA estimates 150 grams GHG/mile for the Leaf. This means that charging it from the grid "upstream" would produce 33.07 lbs. of GHG per 100 miles driven. The Prius, in comparison, produces 49.00 lbs. of GHG per 100 miles from the tailpipe + "upstream."

Using the national average of 230 grams/mile, however, the Prius actually produces 1.71 lbs. less than the Leaf per 100 miles. I'll be curious to hear what the difference is in your area.

In reality, however, in my case there is no contest, because I produce zero emissions with my solar array.

 

[copdoc]

Even that is not true. The manufacture, transport, sale, installation, etc. of the devices necessary for solar and wind energy production use resources and create emissions and environmental issues. Plus, many of the sites that are used for commercial large solar or wind projects are very sensitive to such installations and they are are possibly significant, on-going, negative ramifications from such installations.

Not that any of this is on-topic for this thread of course...

Nothing in this world is zero sum except solar and wind power.

+1

 

[adric22]

Hydrogen is not an energy source (on planet Earth), it is just a type of battery. We use energy from some other source to produce the hydrogen to pump into a hydrogen car, instead of charging a standard battery in a conventional EV. And it is less efficient to route the energy through a hydrogen pathway.

I don't see it being any different from gasoline. Hydrocarbons are basically stored energy from years of sunlight and other chemical reactions. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, we can create hydrocarbon fuels synthetically. It just isn't cost efficient compared to pulling it out of the ground. So the hydrocarbons are just a type of battery too.

 

[Nubo]

I don't see it being any different from gasoline. Hydrocarbons are basically stored energy from years of sunlight and other chemical reactions. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, we can create hydrocarbon fuels synthetically. It just isn't cost efficient compared to pulling it out of the ground. So the hydrocarbons are just a type of battery too.

The only problem is that we're burning through many years of "charge" per day, and putting those many years worth of sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere -- per day. This is why we will face shortages in the first instance, and climate change in the second.

 

[Smidge204]

Hydrogen is not an energy source (on planet Earth), it is just a type of battery. We use energy from some other source to produce the hydrogen to pump into a hydrogen car, instead of charging a standard battery in a conventional EV. And it is less efficient to route the energy through a hydrogen pathway.

I don't see it being any different from gasoline. Hydrocarbons are basically stored energy from years of sunlight and other chemical reactions. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, we can create hydrocarbon fuels synthetically. It just isn't cost efficient compared to pulling it out of the ground. So the hydrocarbons are just a type of battery too.

The difference is we didn't have to invest anything to produce the petroleum. Nature did it for us over tens of thousands of years... that ancient plant life paid the entropy fees on our behalf.

There are really no natural processes that result in raw hydrogen gas. If we want H2 we'll have to make it ourselves and pay the entropy fee on top of it. We can avoid paying some of the entropy fees by using the energy more directly.

=Smidge=

 

[Electric4Me]

There are really no natural processes that result in raw hydrogen gas. If we want H2 we'll have to make it ourselves and pay the entropy fee on top of it. We can avoid paying some of the entropy fees by using the energy more directly.

=Smidge=

Nice graphic. I can't speak to the efficiency percentages there, but they look reasonable. Except for the fuel cell @ 50%. Are they really that bad these days?

Also, one nit is that the "Fuel Cell Vehicle" could/should just read "Electric Vehicle with regen. braking" since that's what they are.

 

[richard]

..
There are really no natural processes that result in raw hydrogen gas.
..

The Big Bang not natural enough for you?

 

[DaveEV]

Nice graphic. I can't speak to the efficiency percentages there, but they look reasonable. Except for the fuel cell @ 50%. Are they really that bad these days?

50% efficient fuel cells are pretty typical these days. Don't think they get much better than that, though I'm sure people are working on it.

 

[Nubo]

..
There are really no natural processes that result in raw hydrogen gas.
..

The Big Bang not natural enough for you?

All we need to do is run a hose to one of the outer planets. You want CH4, or H2? :mrgreen: