Car's carbon footprint a.k.a. Why I didn't buy a Prius

[daniel]

... In the C4C, dealers took in "clunkers" and were then required to have then destroyed, regardless of the value of that vehicle. A more well thought out program would have allowed folks could not afford a new car in the C4C program and had a real junker to exchange (for some fee?) that car for a better, higher MPG vehicle that came in through the program. That would have ended up removing a larger carbon footprint, helped more people, and people from a more varied economic backgrounds, and kept safer cars on the road.

As you well point out - it takes a lot of energy and resources to make a car. Why not try to keep the better of those on the road rather then mandating the trashing of perfectly good cars when there are still many cars on the road in need of major repair.

Because the whole point was to subsidize Detroit by taking cars off the road so the demand for new cars would increase. Bottom line, it was backdoor welfare for the auto companies.

 

[Yodrak]

I'm not seeing that movement developing.

What I am seeing is windfarm projects continuing to be proposed, only to be cancelled as the developers are unable to find financing or are unable to get their projects completed and into service before tax credits expire.

Meanwhile, what has been and is being built is going to run anyway (except perhaps for the immediate future in the northwest) without anyone having to pay extra for it. It may make the buyer feel good, but that premium they're paying is just a bit of extra cash going into someone else's pocket.

That may may give you a no-carbon footprint, but it doesn't change the overall carbon footprint of your region. The green resource that produces the electricity you buy isn't going to be turned off and let sit idle if you don't specify green - it will still run, same as otherwise, and the 'credit' for it will go somewhere else.

Only if looked at in the short term. In the long term, more and more demand for green power will cause more green infrastructure to be built. Almost nothing we do as an individual amounts to more than a drop in the bucket. You have to turn it into a movement for it to have a big impact.

 

[AndyH]

This old thread seems like a pretty good spot to mention a good TV show on transportation and oil. It's "e2," aired November 02, 2007 on PBS. It talks about weight; in an ICE car just 1% of the energy of gasoline is used to move the person while the rest is used to move the car itself and lost to inefficiencies. It talks about hydrogen fuel cells and about EVs. Given the broadcast date it's not surprising the only "electric" car it talks about is the Volt. But it's really quite good even so.

Free for Amazon Prime members, $1.99 otherwise.

http://www.amazon.com/Paving-the-Wa...=digital-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1305869393&sr=1-56

In America alone, nearly 70 percent of oil consumed is by the cars we drive. Can efficient automobile design mitigate the environmental damage caused by our beloved cars?

The PBS web site has podcasts (free) of a number of other interesting looking episodes. http://www.pbs.org/e2/

FOUND IT! I knew someone here recommended these! :lol:

Walter - THANK YOU for the info on this program! Netflix has been sending DVDs that have transformed my 'NordicTrack' time. Excellent series!

 

[TomT]

I'm going to have a VERY hard time recommending a PHEV with a range of only 13 miles. That's 6.5 miles each way. The vast majority of the ones here in Southern California will be driving around on gas most all the time and will be little different from the current Toyota Hybrids operation in the real world... Frankly, for 13 miles, if I owned one I doubt I'd ever bother to even plug the thing in...

Now, of course, I recommend the LEAF were it makes sense. Toyota's version of the Plug-In Prius comes out later this year, and I will be recommending it as well.

 

[DaveEV]

Frankly, for 13 miles, if I owned one I doubt I'd ever bother to even plug the thing in...

13 miles would get me to work - cutting my gas usage in half. If I could plug in at work, then it'd be good for 100% EV.

Other times trips are nearly always pretty short. If it will be longer, we'll be hopping on the freeway so tapping into the gas engine isn't such a bad thing.

Of course - more EV range is always better, but Toyota is aiming to keep things affordable.

 

[Chris30269]

I'm a college student and recently got a 66% raise at work and wisely used scholarships to avoid student loans, so I decided to get a Leaf. I go to Georgia Tech, and I'm finding a surprising amount of pushback from my friends about it. In particular, two of my friends, Chemical and Bimolecular Engineering majors, claim that electric cars in general are "bad for the environment." They were claiming the the lithium in the batteries is really bad and that a recycling process isn't very efficient and not worth the energy expenditure for what you would get back.

ANYWAY, I've been looking around and made this handy thing to explain the carbon emissions. Does it make sense? Is it clear? Does it need anything else?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3333403/GVU/playing/emissions.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[abasile]

They were claiming the the lithium in the batteries is really bad and that a recycling process isn't very efficient and not worth the energy expenditure for what you would get back.

They might be right. However, with a total battery pack lifetime likely measured in decades, I don't see this as a primary concern. Decades? Yes, after hopefully at least 8-10 years of service in the LEAF, a partially degraded pack will still have considerable value in stationary energy storage applications. Just think of the potential value to utility companies in mitigating peak power demand, or for off-grid applications.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

They were claiming the the lithium in the batteries is really bad and that a recycling process isn't very efficient and not worth the energy expenditure for what you would get back.

They might be right. However, with a total battery pack lifetime likely measured in decades, I don't see this as a primary concern. Decades? Yes, after hopefully at least 8-10 years of service in the LEAF, a partially degraded pack will still have considerable value in stationary energy storage applications. Just think of the potential value to utility companies in mitigating peak power demand, or for off-grid applications.

From my understanding the lithium is not recyclable, but it is also not toxic, so throw it in a landfill if you must, it is plentiful. There are some metals though, depending on the battery, like nickel and cobalt in particular that are valuable.

 

[sparky]

ANYWAY, I've been looking around and made this handy thing to explain the carbon emissions. Does it make sense? Is it clear? Does it need anything else?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3333403/GVU/playing/emissions.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two small suggestions:
1) drop the 3 digits to the right of the decimal, you don't have that level of accuracy. Even a stacked bar graph is sufficient to make your point.
2) 4.2 mi/kWh seems quite optimistic wall-to-wheel. I get about 3.2.
Congrats on your new LEAF (and the raise).

 

[cwerdna]

Two assumptions I might question:
- there is no carbon footprint for the electricity the EV uses. I guess that could be almost true if your utility uses only nuclear and renewables, but that is rare. This would tilt the calculation more toward the Prius.

(This isn't strictly about carbon emissions, but is something that I wanted to bring up, which I hadn't realized until a few months ago.)
I'm taking and almost done w/an energy efficiency in (commercial) building systems class and at the very beginning, we learned about some important concepts: site energy vs. source energy and primary vs. secondary energy.

Yep, for the OP, in WA state (I lived there for >9 years), per http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, that state's electricity is pretty clean w/48.4% coming from hydro.

Anyhow, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_benchmark_comm_bldgs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and has http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_performance/site_source.pdf?c381-f06b" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; discussion about source vs. site energy. Slides from my class at http://fgamedia.org/swic/pdfs/1B%20Building%20Energy%20Use.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Many people only are measuring site energy (measured at the meter). Unfortunately, for sources like coal, nuclear, burning natural gas, etc. there's a LOT of useless waste heat produced. Hence the (national average) source-site ratio for grid purchased electricity of 3.34.

The instructor mentioned a misguided campaign (in the 70s?) done on government buildings to remove natural gas water heaters and replacing them w/electricity resistance heaters since they were incorrectly only looking at site energy (at the meter). In fact, they were worse off in terms of actual energy efficiency because of the source-site ratio of electricity (and waste heat produced by its generation). The discussion around table 3 in the above PDF gives an example of that.

Also, from the class, I finally properly understood the charts at https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I didn't realize that so much of the energy from nuclear, coal, burning natural ended up as useless waste heat (26.78 quads out of 39.49 at https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/energy_flow_2010/LLNLUSEnergy2010.png;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 1 quad = 10^15 BTUs). The light bulb came on for me when I realized rejected energy = wasted energy, as heat.

 

[coqui]

The plug in prius sounds good except for the life of me I cannot figure out why only 13-14 mile range. The problem is getting employers to install a charger. Either (a) they don't care, or (b) won't install one because they are leasing the premises.

 

[cwerdna]

The plug in prius sounds good except for the life of me I cannot figure out why only 13-14 mile range.

I don't remember what Toyota has officially said, if any on this, but I'm guessing the reasons were for some/all of these:
- to keep the car's cost down and not have it be as expensive as a Volt
- make the car more accessible, open to a larger market due to the above
- to maintain the car's cargo and passenger versatility so it can still seat 5 (unlike the Volt) and is still classified as a midsized car vs. the compact VOlt
- to maintain good FE in HV mode (EPA rating of 50 mpg combined still vs. 37 mpg for the Volt in CS) by keeping weight gain down. Volt is much heavier.
- keep the charge times down so people don't feel the need to spend the $ for a 240 volt EVSE installed, get electrical work done, etc. It's only 3 hours at 120 volts.
- to keep battery replacement cost down
- to reduce the amount of engineering work needed vs. retrofitting the Prius for a more intrusive, larger battery
- possible duty cycle or lubrication needs of the power split device (this is a total guess). See http://priuschat.com/forums/toyota-prius-plug-in/103349-owners-manual-pip-out.html#post1468294" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I remember seeing notes about the PSD in the Gen 2 Prius only being splash lubricated. A mention at http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-14942.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, but this isn't where I saw it before. Where I'd seen it before had more details.

 

[Stoaty]

The plug in prius sounds good except for the life of me I cannot figure out why only 13-14 mile range. The problem is getting employers to install a charger. Either (a) they don't care, or (b) won't install one because they are leasing the premises.

I think the plug in prius is actually a great idea, Toyota will probably sell truckloads of them. The basic car is already proven; the 13-14 mile electric range is fine for the target audience. Those that have a 13 mile one way commute will drive to work on electricity, drive home on gas if no charging at work. That would still cut their fossil fuel use by 50% for a modest commute. Not the right car for me, but the more choices with a plug, the better.

 

[JeffN]

The plug in prius sounds good except for the life of me I cannot figure out why only 13-14 mile range.

I don't remember what Toyota has officially said, if any on this, but I'm guessing the reasons were for some/all of these:
- to keep the car's cost down and not have it be as expensive as a Volt
- make the car more accessible, open to a larger market due to the above

Yes and yes. The Prius Plugin is designed towards a less expensive price point in the potential product space. A Volt has 3.6 times the battery capacity so it is inherently more expensive and is aimed at a product space that has a single-charge range that covers a wider set of common driving patterns and can draw enough kW power from the larger pack so that it can operate as a full-power electric vehicle (EREV). The Prius Plugin, with a smaller and less capable pack, requires a blended gas/electric design.

- to maintain the car's cargo and passenger versatility so it can still seat 5 (unlike the Volt) and is still classified as a midsized car vs. the compact VOlt

Sure, 5 seats are nice although rarely used by many people. There are a number of cars and even small SUVs (Honda Element) that are 4 seaters.

The claim about mid-sized vs. compact Volt is weak. The Volt is the largest possible compact car by EPA category measurements.

- to maintain good FE in HV mode (EPA rating of 50 mpg combined still vs. 37 mpg for the Volt in CS) by keeping weight gain down. Volt is much heavier.

Weight is certainly part of it and is an inherent trade-off of having increased battery range which is useful for making many commutes all-battery vs. the Prius Plugin. However, there are other intangibles such as those which cause the Lexus CT 200h to only get 43/40 (EPA city/highway) even though it weighs only slightly more than the Prius, shares the same engine and hybrid transmission, and is a compact (nearly a sub-compact) instead of a mid-size.

Presumably a 2nd generation Volt can tweak things for improved gasoline mpg although at 40 mpg highway, where the gas engine is mostly used, it is fine for the limited use that it typically gets.

- keep the charge times down so people don't feel the need to spend the $ for a 240 volt EVSE installed, get electrical work done, etc. It's only 3 hours at 120 volts.

Sigh. Sorry, but I feel compelled to say that is a really dumb argument.

The Prius Plugin, Volt, and LEAF all charge at the same rate on both 120V and 240V. Filling up the Prius Plugin's battery faster is a disadvantage. It's another way of saying it has a smaller battery capacity and therefore smaller range.

Actually, the Prius Plugin's charge rate may be slower at 240V since the rate may slow down during the last few minutes as the battery reaches full charge while the Volt and LEAF continue charging at the full 16A rate since their batteries will still be less than half full.

- to keep battery replacement cost down
- to reduce the amount of engineering work needed vs. retrofitting the Prius for a more intrusive, larger battery

Yes and yes, although we won't know for many years what percentage of vehicles actually get their batteries replaced. The Prius Plugin and Volt have the gas engine as a backup and so may be able to get by on reduced battery power and range as they age if battery replacements aren't economical after their minimum 10-15 years and 150,000 miles of engineered use.

 

[lpickup]

- keep the charge times down so people don't feel the need to spend the $ for a 240 volt EVSE installed, get electrical work done, etc. It's only 3 hours at 120 volts.

Sigh. Sorry, but I feel compelled to say that is a really dumb argument.

Yeah, it may be dumb, but it's just what Joe Public wants to hear. If this was one of the deciding points, I'd say it was a brilliant strategy.

 

[TomT]

Or wanting to offer only just enough to game the various state and fed requirements...

I don't remember what Toyota has officially said, if any on this, but I'm guessing the reasons were for some/all of these:

 

[cwerdna]

- keep the charge times down so people don't feel the need to spend the $ for a 240 volt EVSE installed, get electrical work done, etc. It's only 3 hours at 120 volts.

Sigh. Sorry, but I feel compelled to say that is a really dumb argument.

Yeah, it may be dumb, but it's just what Joe Public wants to hear. If this was one of the deciding points, I'd say it was a brilliant strategy.

Yep, esp. given that it seems Nissan seems to highly discourage or not even make people aware that fact that installation/purchase of a 240 volt EVSE isn't actually required.

I think the relatively quick 120 volt charge time of the Volt is also a selling point over the Leaf, for those who don't know better.

Time will tell whether or not Toyota's strategy was correct, at least measured by sales. Hopefully Toyota will break out the PiP sales separately or someone is able to find out and post that data. They've been lumping together liftback and v sales. I suspect they will lump all of the Prius family (liftback, c, v and PiP) into one number for their monthly sales reports...

 

[cwerdna]

- to maintain the car's cargo and passenger versatility so it can still seat 5 (unlike the Volt) and is still classified as a midsized car vs. the compact VOlt

Sure, 5 seats are nice although rarely used by many people. There are a number of cars and even small SUVs (Honda Element) that are 4 seaters.

Yes, there are a number of 4 seater cars, but they aren't that common. The Element's dead.

Looking at the cars (let's exclude "light trucks") http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, I don't see a single car in the top 20 list that doesn't seat 5.