Leaf Powered by Fossil Fuels Gets Equivalent of 28 MPG?

[jkirkebo]

Theoretically, my generator (Honda EU65iS) at my cabin will use 3.2 gallons of fuel to fully charge the Leaf. If I get 90 miles of range, that is 90/3.2=28mpg. However, the generator will only be used for the beginning of my return trip from my cabin (175 miles each way), in addition to three slow charges and two QCs for the whole trip. So the total will be 350/3.2=109mpg.

I will of course test this in practice as soon as I get my Leaf (hopefully in a month).

What kind of hookup will you use to charge the Leaf from your generator?? Similar remote location and want to explore backup electric options.

I'm in Europe so I'll use a regular 230V 16A CEE socket on the generator, connected to the Panasonic EVSE (upgraded to 16A).

 

[downeykp]

What about the energy used to pump the oil in the Persian Gulf. The oil used to ship it to the refinery. The energy used to refine the oil, the energy used to transport the gas to a station and the energy used to pump the gas from the gas station.
This does not even account for the trillion dollars we have spent in the last two wars to protect the oil.
These as#holes do not have a clue. Fuc@ them.

 

[surfingslovak]

I'm in Europe so I'll use a regular 230V 16A CEE socket on the generator, connected to the Panasonic EVSE (upgraded to 16A).

Neat! Wait, isn't it 4 am there? ;-)

 

[Nekota]

Regarding Tom Murphy's calculations he has overstated the energy content of gasoline by using the total heat with condensation while no ICE can capture the heat from water vapor. He should have used 34 KWHr/Gal instead of 36.6 KWHr/Gal. When the fuel additives are included (typically ethanol) a further reduction in energy content - I'll make the calculation later but I estimate it is another 3%.

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/fueltable.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[jkirkebo]

I'm in Europe so I'll use a regular 230V 16A CEE socket on the generator, connected to the Panasonic EVSE (upgraded to 16A).

Neat! Wait, isn't it 4 am there? ;-)

Yep, 03:41 at the time of my posting

(I often work nights)

 

[JPWhite]

Clearly there are costs associated with fueling, generating and delivering electric to the home in order to charge an EV. We can debate back and forth if this number is too high or this that or other factor wasn't considered ad infinitum.

An alternative is to install solar at the home, then all of those costs go away, and it consumes no fossil fuels in generating the power resulting in zero pollution. (if one discounts the energy used to manufacture, deliver and install the solar panels and systems).

To me solar is the answer to getting enough power generation to offset the extra demand on the grid and to also reduce fossil fuel consumption and pollution. In fact with enough solar generation, we can eliminate oil companies and their gas stations.

Am I missing something here?

Once we have lots of EV's powered by solar, then the challenge is to find enough rare earth raw materials to manufacture the batteries. The flaw I see in saying electric is the answer is that we switch from one non renewable resource (fossil fuels) to lithium which has a limited supply as well. The lithium can be recycled once a battery pack is worn out, but I have no idea if there is enough lithium to make batteries for every car in the world. Comments?

 

[ERG4ALL]

It seems as though solar PV and other renewables eliminate a lot of the electrical generation issue. If we spent a fraction of what we are spending militarily to protect the supply of oil we could be well on our way of powering all EVs with sunshine or wind or tides, etc. So far I've read three books that all bring up the fact of our military being used to stabilize the Mideast and its oil fields: Alan Greenspan's "Age of Turbulence", John Hofmeister's "Why We Hate the Oil Companies", and Kevin Philips "Bad Money".

 

[JPWhite]

If we spent a fraction of what we are spending militarily to protect the supply of oil we could be well on our way of powering all EVs with sunshine or wind or tides, etc.

Yes absolutely correct. But note also that if we can divert funds away from financing the regimes that want to kill us all by buying less of their oil. Then turn around and put that money into the hands of solar manufacturers and US based solar installers, we help those at home or abroad that are more aligned with our culture and ideals by providing them with more money and jobs. Less money flows out of our economy and more jobs are created domestically.

 

[ttweed]

Once we have lots of EV's powered by solar, then the challenge is to find enough rare earth raw materials to manufacture the batteries. The flaw I see in saying electric is the answer is that we switch from one non renewable resource (fossil fuels) to lithium which has a limited supply as well. The lithium can be recycled once a battery pack is worn out, but I have no idea if there is enough lithium to make batteries for every car in the world. Comments?

Lithium supplies are ample, and rising demand could raise prices which will lead to more exploration, discovery, and mining, but lithium is not the only chemistry or solution for BEVs. See this white paper at PIA.

TT

 

[electricfuture]

Well this thread deals in logic based in fact. The White Paper Tom attached clearly shows 1. There is no shortage of Li 2. It is available in the U.S. in large quantities and 3. Li batteries are not the only way to go. I also believe that other battery technologies will replace Li within 5-8 years.

The problem is that there are no congressional people learned in science and engineering, so they rely on the hearsay of their less educated constituents and follow that to get votes. I.e. we currently have a Republican front runner who does not believe Global Warming is human induced – has he ever heard of ice cores much less the true story they tell?

I too am very disappointed that a UCSD Professor would get it so wrong. I have been fortunate to have worked in energy on everything from nuclear power to wind farms in generation and in oil and gas production. The real numbers so favor EV’s that adoption of a national resolve to build 20 nuclear plants and a high voltage grid would completely change the future of the U.S. to the positive for the foreseeable future. They are very safe even considering Japan’s problem compared to coal/oil/gas environmental health and deaths in production and transportation. The U.S. has not had a single death in the 50 year history of commercial nuclear power. By the way our professor friend neglected to note that 20% of San Diego’s power is from a nuclear plant.

EVs charging at night would actually improve the efficiency of large power plants that cannot shut down as the “excess” power would be directly be put to use – without any grid upgrade required. All you have to do is mandate night charging for most of your needs which coincides with driving habits anyway.
Sun power direct to the vehicle is what I am looking for – but that is only practical in regions where there is at least 200 sunny days a year. The rest of the time you need reliable alternatives. Wind is not one of them.

Oh – more on the gas station issue, not only is there the fuel delivery issue, but the environmental issue with leaking underground tanks that must be constantly monitored, fire hazards, pump maintenance and all stations have an operator even if there is no food store.

 

[JPWhite]

Once we have lots of EV's powered by solar, then the challenge is to find enough rare earth raw materials to manufacture the batteries. The flaw I see in saying electric is the answer is that we switch from one non renewable resource (fossil fuels) to lithium which has a limited supply as well. The lithium can be recycled once a battery pack is worn out, but I have no idea if there is enough lithium to make batteries for every car in the world. Comments?

Lithium supplies are ample, and rising demand could raise prices which will lead to more exploration, discovery, and mining, but lithium is not the only chemistry or solution for BEVs. See this white paper at PIA.

TT

Thanks for the reference, that is most illuminating

To summarize we are OK at least until 2020 with supplies of Lithium, which BTW only accounts for 3% of battery total costs. By then we have to believe another chemistry becomes dominant or at the very least complementary. If the scientists can ever figure out how to get the lithium out of sea water (economically) then we have practically limitless supply.

I feel better about the move to battery power coupled with solar at least in the medium term. Long term it is nonsense for us to speculate anyhow.

 

[JPWhite]

Sun power direct to the vehicle is what I am looking for – but that is only practical in regions where there is at least 200 sunny days a year. The rest of the time you need reliable alternatives. Wind is not one of them.

I agree there is no one size that fits all. Here in Tennessee solar makes so much sense, we are south enough to get reasonably long days most of the year, and not to much in the way of cloud except in the dark winter months.

I'm not so pessimistic about wind as an alternative. The UK for instance is too far north to be able to rely on solar year round, but boy is it windy!! Each region has its opportunities and challenges.

 

[electricfuture]

Solar is only when the sun shines and wind is only when the wind blows (and not too little or too hard) that is why you need a nuclear base load power plants. Big Hydro is over in this country - I worked on the last one and tidal power has corrosion issues. The rest burn global warming non-renewable fossil fuels.

If the money spent obtaining oil fields in Iraq (4 companies split up the country without competitive bids and needed the military to stay until their infrastructure was complete) we could have built enough nuclear plants and ulta-HV transmission lines to eliminate the need for imported oil as we could shift to electric cars quickly. We could have been "nation building" in the US instead of Iraq and put many thousands of Americans back to work. And that is exactly why it didn't happen. Bush is an oil man down to his bones and so is Perry. Texas did OK – how about you?

Have you noticed how little press is being given to the Leaf compared to other vehicles that still burn fossil fuel? How about the increase in oil company TV ads showing how they help Americans stay employeed? Or that it took a Japanese company to build a practical electric car for the American market?

I always like to ask how is it that Americans can put electric vehicles on the moon (40 years ago) but not in our garages?

 

[Nekota]

electricfuture

+1 !!!

 

[planet4ever]

Solar is only when the sun shines and wind is only when the wind blows (and not too little or too hard) that is why you need a nuclear base load power plants. Big Hydro is over in this country - I worked on the last one and tidal power has corrosion issues. The rest burn global warming non-renewable fossil fuels.

You missed geothermal! (Actually, I have some long-term concerns about that one, too. I keep wondering if it might "encourage" earthquakes.)

Unlike many environmentalists I happen to agree with you on nuclear. We should be building nuclear plants as fast as we (safely) can to replace all coal plants. Then we should gradually phase out natural gas as we bring more solar and wind online and, most important, learn to live more efficiently. Big hydro is indeed "over" in terms of major expansion, but it will continue to be an important power source for many, many, years where it exists now.

Ray

 

[LEAFfan]

They are very safe even considering Japan’s problem compared to coal/oil/gas environmental health and deaths in production and transportation. The U.S. has not had a single death in the 50 year history of commercial nuclear power.

No deaths from nuke reactors in the U.S.? I guess you forgot about Three Mile Island's partial meltdown in 1979? It took until 1993 to clean it up.
Here are some quotes about the deaths: "The Radiation and Public Health Project cited calculations by Joseph Mangano—who has authored 19 medical journal articles and a book on Low Level Radiation and Immune Disease—that reported a spike in infant mortality in the downwind communities two years after the accident.[47][67] Anecdotal evidence also records effects on the region's wildlife.[47] For example, according to one anti-nuclear activist, Harvey Wasserman, the fallout caused "a plague of death and disease among the area's wild animals and farm livestock", including a sharp fall in the reproductive rate of the region's horses and cows, reflected in statistics from Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture, though the Department denies a link with TMI."
There were also some cancer deaths within 10 miles of the reactor that were from the radiation. There's probably no way to know how many cancer deaths were caused from the leaking reactor, but I know it wasn't zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[JPWhite]

Unlike many environmentalists I happen to agree with you on nuclear. We should be building nuclear plants as fast as we (safely) can to replace all coal plants.
Ray

I can't agree that nuclear is better than coal.

Let's use solar, wind etc etc to reduce the need for as many power stations. Then the coal burning plants will be fewer, reducing pollution and extending the amount of coal in reserves in terms of years till we run out. Coal has a long future even at today's rates of consumption. All coal consumed in the US comes from the US. It keeps jobs within the US.

Nuclear creates waste that is toxic for hundreds if not thousands of years. We can't predict or protect against a release of this into the environment in say two thousand years. If we create huge stockpiles of this waste, we can create a toxic world in several thousand years. Do we care? We should, but honestly we probably don't as much as we should.

To think we can store nuclear waste indefinitely without a single release is childish, and quite frankly like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. Do you think man can defeat the force of entropy around the globe? Anything we build will crumble.

 

[electricfuture]

Nuclear waste does not have to be stored for infinity. Almost all nuclear waste is low level and there are already technologies to reduce that to nothing in a short one week process - bet you never heard of that before - I wonder why. All the highly toxic nuclear waste from all the nuclear plants in the US can be stored in one 2000 square foot house. But why store it when you can ship it to France's Breeder Reactor (Phoenix) and recycle it like the Europeans do?

Coal plants not only result in annual mining and transportation deaths every year but are heavy polluters. Bag houses (particulates), water scrubbing (sulfur), and baking the coal ("clean coal") get a lot of the junk out - but at greatly reduced efficiency. Also a plant's coal pile gives off more radiation than a nuclear plant - bet you never heard of that before either - I wonder why. Add to this that coal is non-renewable resource producing greenhouse gases.

Wind power is great - but most places the wind dies down at sunset and wind turbines need at least 6 mph to operate and shut down at about 50 mph to protect themselves. Also, has anyone ever stood under a 2.5 MW wind turbine? 120 meters high monsters visualize 60 to 150 of them together - now go to Eastern Washington State and see them for yourself. There are hundreds there.

If the Fusion reactor wasn't being designed by (international) committee it may have been operational by now - water to energy. Like Lithium for batteries Tritium, which is needed is also readily available if you know where to look (upper atmosphere). Now if you can generate electric power from water which corporations benefit? None - wonder why the World isn't pushing Fusion full steam –hmmm.

 

[Smidge204]

Almost all nuclear waste is low level and there are already technologies to reduce that to nothing in a short one week process - bet you never heard of that before - I wonder why.

Because the only people who are serious proponents of accelerated radioactive decay are young earth creationists and conspiracy theorists?
=Smidge=

 

[JPWhite]

Almost all nuclear waste is low level and there are already technologies to reduce that to nothing in a short one week process - bet you never heard of that before - I wonder why.

Yeah one is left to wonder why the concrete vessel that was moved during the Virginia earthquake was created in the first place. I mean why would you encapsulate radioactivity in concrete, if it it possible to neutralize it in scant weeks. Yeah just like King Canute we can choose to either delay or accelerate entropy upon our own whims and desires. Just chant 'no radioactivity' and it's gone.