Very Cute Animation on the True Cost of Gas

I really like this. It's nothing earth shattering, but it could be really handy for getting the message through to some folks, especially younger ones.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhYY_4Wzls[/youtube]

They didn't include the costs of US tax payer money given to oil producing places, military actions in the name of oil, oil burnt by the delivery truck and ship, etc.

TonyWilliams said:

They didn't include the costs of US tax payer money given to oil producing places, military actions in the name of oil, oil burnt by the delivery truck and ship, etc.

Click to expand...

They specifically showed the tanker and the delivery truck. They included the tanker emissions, but didn't the delivery truck, although I suspect they did have them in the total.

To be fair, the same calculation should be made for electricity as well...The sad fact is, that e.g. in Germany,where a lot of power comes from Lignite ( a sort of low energy content coal) a LEAD would be actually dirtier (in terms of CO2/kWH) than a gasoline powered VW Golf or Jetta!
Here in the US it depends a lot on where you charge, e.g. in Washington, with lots of hydro power, there are truly zero emissions (or almost).
The same would be true for anyone with solar panels. But putting coal generated electricity into the LEAF will make it almost as dirty as
regular cars...

yep posted the video on my FB a few days ago. it should be entitled "what is the true cost of NIMBYism" because that is the reason why our energy program is so pathetic.

the problem is that we let the gas and coal companies get too rich where they can now literally afford to buy their way into a favorable economic climate fueled by a never ending procession of legislators who are paid off to provide "just one small favor"

klapauzius said:

To be fair, the same calculation should be made for electricity as well

Click to expand...

This is funny! To be fair we need to figure in the upstream pollution of electricity??? You're kidding right? EVERYBODY talks about the upstream issues of electricity, and sweeps the upstream issues of gasoline under the rug. How many times have I heard people compare the tailpipe emissions of a gas car to the upstream emissions of an EV? Too many, that's for sure.

We're just barely scratching the surface here. The fact is that gasoline is dirty. Every gallon of it. Electricity CAN be clean. Yes, coal sucks.. but we can work toward cleaning the grid which makes EVERY EV (and house and pool, and AC unit and freezer and....) cleaner. Gasoline gets dirtier as oil gets harder and harder to extract.

Thanks, davewill. Simple but it makes it easier to see the processes involved.

I did miss the pollution cost of shipping the crude to the US, though.

I shared it via Facebook.

By the way, yes some of these costs/impacts are shared by electrical plants, but not all of them.

klapauzius said:

...But putting coal generated electricity into the LEAF will make it almost as dirty as
regular cars...

Click to expand...

While there are a lot of issues with coal, and I think alternatives are, how shall I say, "coming up every morning", I doubt the above statement is true even with the state of the art, or lack there of, with coal burning power plants today vs the pollution from millions of ICE vehicles burning gas. It's my understanding that coal or any point source pollution stands to be cleaner than non-point source pollution (millions of cars), so if we did nothing to improve source point pollution, it would already be a cleaner source of electricity per capita energy use through EV's than pollution per capita from internal combustion engines typically driven today. One big tail pipe will always be better than millions of small ones, and that's if renewables were not on the horizon. Luckily, it appears that renewable energy production, on a mass scale, is within reach and that will make EV's vastly cleaner than gas driven cars and at a fraction of the cost per mile to fuel (I'm pay a fraction per mile to run the Leaf than a regular car).

Depending on where you live in the US, the potential of renewable energy is seen very differently, and I think some of that is simply social bias, as in renewable = liberal. I think that is about to change. While many still buy into and spread the doubt about renewable energy, renewable energy development is going through an explosive expansion in use, proving it's viability. Washington and California have made great strides in laying the ground work for renewable sourced electricity fulfilling the needs of a quickly expanding EV market at an affordable cost. What is happening now, was touted as impossible and is still even to this day by many, even as it's being proven wrong. I have high hopes that a new trend is beginning!

Several of the utility companies right here in WA state allow for 100% renewable sourced electricity which does not even include large hydro or nuclear. I've read that over 800 utilities across the US are now offering such programs. Who knows if the main stream EV driver is going to be as conscious of the source of their EV's electricity as the early adapters seem to be, but it's clear that clean electricity, at an affordable rate is within reach even without hydro or nuclear. EV's offer a way for those of us who wish, to divert our funding to Big Oil and help fuel a massive expansion in the renewable energy economy through one's utility company ("green up" style options), investment in home Solar, wind etc.

Gasoline will never have that potential, no matter how it's sourced, it's dirty, and of course full of carbon, from cradle to grave.

g

I certainly believe that clean energy is possible (I charge my LEAF from solar, which covers all the miles we drive + some significant proportion of our other consumption) and will eventually come into existence, but at the same time we have to be rational about our sources of energy. Remember the bio-fuel debate (bio-diesel/ ethanol), where it appears that the benefits are almost nil.

I doubt the above statement is true even with the state of the art, or lack there of, with coal burning power plants today vs the pollution from millions of ICE vehicles burning gas.

Click to expand...

Lets assume for simplicity sake that you get 4 Miles/kWH with the LEAF, i.e. 6.4 Km/kWH .

A kWH generated in the US produced 609 g of CO2 in 1999 ( http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf) on average (maybe a little less today one would hope). This means
that the LEAF produces 95 g CO2/Km.
A modern diesel engine can get as low as 109 g CO2/Km.

If all the electricity came from coal, the LEAF would actually be much dirtier as coal produces 961 g CO2/kWH. Consequently, the LEAF would produce 150 g CO2/ Km, much worse than say a diesel engine (which could run on Biodiesel(!) and would be nominally carbon-neutral).

That said, it is important to stress that we not only need electric cars, but also clean power generation as well!!!! Sadly, burning gasoline (or natural gas) is much cleaner than burning coal. The good news would be that, if we had the political will, we could probably switch to 100% renewable energy within the average lifetime of this forums members...

But you're not considering the resulting CO2 from the electricity and NG consumed to refine that diesel fuel in the first place.

klapauzius said:

A kWH generated in the US produced 609 g of CO2 in 1999 ( http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf) on average (maybe a little less today one would hope). This means
that the LEAF produces 95 g CO2/Km.
A modern diesel engine can get as low as 109 g CO2/Km.

If all the electricity came from coal, the LEAF would actually be much dirtier as coal produces 961 g CO2/kWH. Consequently, the LEAF would produce 150 g CO2/ Km, much worse than say a diesel engine (which could run on Biodiesel(!) and would be nominally carbon-neutral).

Click to expand...

But you're not considering the resulting CO2 from the electricity and NG consumed to refine that diesel fuel in the first place.

Click to expand...

that we could get from the video that started this thread.. Maybe it adds 10-15% to the total. Compared to coal-generated electricity, gasoline or diesel would still look pretty good.

klapauzius said:

But you're not considering the resulting CO2 from the electricity and NG consumed to refine that diesel fuel in the first place.

Click to expand...

that we could get from the video that started this thread.. Maybe it adds 10-15% to the total. Compared to coal-generated electricity, gasoline or diesel would still look pretty good.

Click to expand...

i agree with you 100% that the best option for diesel is ALMOST as clean as the worst option for EV's.

so lets NOT do the worst option then. is that ok with you?

DaveinOlyWA said:

klapauzius said:

i agree with you 100% that the best option for diesel is ALMOST as clean as the worst option for EV's.

so lets NOT do the worst option then. is that ok with you?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I would say that is the overall goal...dont get me wrong, I am not lobbying for oil and gas here, but only EVs without clean power are not a solution either. This might be obvious to us early adopters, but not to future "average" buyers of EVs...

The big picture would really not change much, if we dont power EVs from renewables (or nuclear).

I won't say this is "the" definitive study, but here is a presentation (look at slide 12) that suggests there may be no difference in carbon emissions: http://beyondli-ioniv.labworks.org/presentations/BeYond_Li_Kintner-Meyer_final.pdf
The emissions ratio (EV/gas vehicle) is estimated to be 1.01 for the MAPP grid which is 99% coal. All other grids show much lower EV emissions. This is for when 73% of the current US vehicle fleet is mathematically converted to EVs (including all of those extra large SUVs/Vans). Another amazing result of this study is that NO additional generation capacity is needed to reach this penetration! I haven't been able to read the full report(s), but you can search for them here: http://www.pnl.gov/publications/. I think PNNL-19165 might be a good example.

Reddy......and waiting for my new Leaf before the snow flies.

Thanks for posting this... I have been looking for some more detailed analysis.

I'm curious about a rundown for gas as well as diesel, since the link is about gas and claims a pretty massive carbon footprint per gallon for production and distribution which I'm guessing puts it up there with coal. In any case, there are lots of cleaner options to coal for generating electricity.

I'm not clear about the exact calculations of my TDI Jetta, but I can tell you that it's worst performance is where the Leaf shines and that is in around town driving, where most driving is done. The only way to get the high MPG out of my Jetta was to take it out in the middle of the night and run it at a constant speed on the highway. I found that in my real world driving, the engine would barely heat up by the time I got to my destination and the mileage dropped by 25-40% if I did a lot of stop and go and short trips. It was a work horse, good for certain applications but not so good for my day to day use. The newest generation of TDI's are impressive, very clean at constant speeds and having the acceleration of a regular gas car but to get that acceleration, they traded fuel economy unless at constant speeds.
g

klapauzius said:

I certainly believe that clean energy is possible (I charge my LEAF from solar, which covers all the miles we drive + some significant proportion of our other consumption) and will eventually come into existence, but at the same time we have to be rational about our sources of energy. Remember the bio-fuel debate (bio-diesel/ ethanol), where it appears that the benefits are almost nil.

I doubt the above statement is true even with the state of the art, or lack there of, with coal burning power plants today vs the pollution from millions of ICE vehicles burning gas.

Click to expand...

Lets assume for simplicity sake that you get 4 Miles/kWH with the LEAF, i.e. 6.4 Km/kWH .

A kWH generated in the US produced 609 g of CO2 in 1999 ( http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf) on average (maybe a little less today one would hope). This means
that the LEAF produces 95 g CO2/Km.
A modern diesel engine can get as low as 109 g CO2/Km.

If all the electricity came from coal, the LEAF would actually be much dirtier as coal produces 961 g CO2/kWH. Consequently, the LEAF would produce 150 g CO2/ Km, much worse than say a diesel engine (which could run on Biodiesel(!) and would be nominally carbon-neutral).

That said, it is important to stress that we not only need electric cars, but also clean power generation as well!!!! Sadly, burning gasoline (or natural gas) is much cleaner than burning coal. The good news would be that, if we had the political will, we could probably switch to 100% renewable energy within the average lifetime of this forums members...

Click to expand...

klapauzius said:

Thanks for posting this... I have been looking for some more detailed analysis.

Click to expand...

You're welcome! There is lots of conflicting information out there in the popular press. I try to go to more scientific sources. I've even been disappointed in some of the more popularized summaries that I have seen, even in scientific journals like Scientific American. What is "best" may not always be obvious. For example, in WA state there are incentives for installing PVs. We can get upwards of $0.54/KWH for WA-built components. While that may sound great to the individual (yup, am looking seriously at it), it doesn't really make sense for the region. Our highest solar production will likely be in June (it's hotter in July/Aug so the modules are less efficient) and our greatest consumption is typically January. Well guess what, right now the whole region is awash in electricity, the exporting power lines are full, they are spilling water, and turning off the wind/nuclear/coal/gas turbines. So why are there incentives for PV that would add more power when we don't need it? It would make more sense to have those PV incentives sent down to CA in return for more EV's in WA. How does that sound? Anyone want to trade? WA gets more EVs to consume more power thereby using the wind and water that is being wasted and CA gets more power in the summer when they need it the most. Oh, I forgot, you've got to give us those EVs I bet I won't convince anyone of that :lol: I guess I'll just have to ........wait

Reddy.......and still waiting

If you are interested in some numbers, I have 4 kW system up and running since last year March.

http://tichy.cs.washington.edu/solar/
I think about 50% of my production come from the summer months (May-August), but there is some production, even in Winter...

In the long run, beside the incentives (yes, mine is 100% made in Washington, so i get the full .54 $ /kWH), it will make sense,
a) if we get a smarter grid to sell excess power more efficiently to places where its needed
b) get more electric cars to charge

Also the excess in hydro power we have right now might not be around every year and then the region is probably still growing, so eventually we
will make use of that extra capacity (I would hope).

In combination with the LEAF the solar panels are great, because they keep me effectively in the lower .0496 c/kWH tier, making the car dead cheap to drive ~ 1.5 cents / mile or so. Compare that to $4 per gallon or ~ 20 c /mile for your average ICE.

Thanks. Yes, a smart grid will certainly help, but we will still be limited by export. We have some of the best options for moving power around due to all the distributed dams. However, we need better ways to ship the stuff to CA.

I just helped talk a friend into getting a 5 KW system. I'm still on the fence about getting one. I pay $0.07/KWH with no TOU option.

Reddy......

Reddy said:

.. Well guess what, right now the whole region is awash in electricity, the exporting power lines are full, they are spilling water, and turning off the wind/nuclear/coal/gas turbines. So why are there incentives for PV that would add more power when we don't need it?...

Click to expand...

Heaven help us if we have to many more winters with this much cold and rain, the worst in decades, we'll all be moving to CA pretty soon if things don't change! The excess is temporary. In any case our region is in very good shape for offering carbon neutral electricity to the growing population of EV owners in WA state, I don't know if it was part of the plan, but very nice!!!

I've been very intrigued by the PV incentives here and know folks who have paid off their panels and are still collecting that 50 cents a KW!

g