# Electric cars and CO2 emissions



## Lake Girl (Mar 30, 2015)

Recent article from CBC news ... green effect of electric cars depends on where/how your electricity is produced.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...they-really-more-polluting-than-gas-1.3012929


----------



## Dune (Mar 30, 2015)

This is the latest propaganda, the second article from CBS in two weeks to spout this nonsense.
The "study" is not a study at all but rather an opinion piece. 
In my attempts to contact the author (unsuccessful) I learned that the University of Toronto is unaware of his existence as a Professor at their school.

The paper itself provides no mathematics whatsoever to support this absurd claim.

Furthermore, I question (assuming the author is who he says he is) whether a civil engineer is qualified to perform this study in the first place. To me it falls under the realm of mechanical engineering not civil. 

Those preliminaries aside I will address the concept since there are no statistics presented by the author to check (someone else may have better luck finding a more complete paper than I did)

Indisputable facts;
1. The average ICE (internal combustion engine) is just 20% efficient meaning that 20% of the energy released by the burning gasoline is converted to motion, the rest wasted as heat. 

2. The average diesel ICE is just 30% efficient. (a whopping improvement yet still very wasteful)

3. The average electric motor over 100 HP is over 92% efficient. 

4. The average coal fired electric power plant is 40% efficient with average transmission line losses of 7%. 

5. In the US in just the last 15 years alone our use of coal for electricity generation has dropped from 50% to 39% and continues to drop as older dirtier coal plants are 
shut down and renewables come on line. 

6. The study is about Canada, a country far less suited to electric cars than the US. 

From the above one can readily conclude that an electric car is uses significantly less energy than a gasoline ICE car and somewhat less energy than a diesel ICE car. 

Furthermore, were one to use electricity from a clean source such as nuclear, solar, wind, hydro or tidal current the reduction in carbon emissions is vast.

Also not mentioned yet mention worthy is the fact that an electric car helps reduce our trade deficit and increases national security by reducing reliance upon imported oil.

Finally all electric cars charged by the grid make the grid smarter by acting as capacitors and some (such as the very popular Prius) also can act as distributed power 

generators, further enhancing the grid. 

The final nail in the coffin of this ridiculous concept is that by charging at night (during the period of least demand). grid operators  can more readily balance plant output enabling some generators to generate at night rather than the current wasteful process of idling at night (burning less but still some fuel to keep steam temp and pressure up while providing zero output.


----------



## Lake Girl (Mar 30, 2015)

Didn't mean to cause such angst.  Not sure of the validity of any claims... just found it interesting.  It is from CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)... not CBS.  Here's the one from CBS:  
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/think-electric-cars-are-truly-green-not-if-their-power-comes-from-coal/

The UofM prof's info on ethanol is interesting too...  Canada has mandated ethanol content.

As to Dr. Kennedy... I would argue that he is a real prof.
http://www.civil.engineering.utoronto.ca/staff/professors/kennedy.htm
http://tedx.utoronto.ca/?post_type=portfolio&p=130
http://www.news.utoronto.ca/going-g...d-do-more-harm-good-it-depends-where-you-live


----------



## Ashful (Mar 30, 2015)

Dune said:


> I question (assuming the author is who he says he is) whether a civil engineer is qualified to perform this study in the first place. To me it falls under the realm of mechanical engineering not civil.


What am I missing?  First image in the article is subtitled, "Lucas Swan, a professor of *mechanical *engineering at Dalhousie University..."



Dune said:


> The final nail in the coffin of this ridiculous concept is that by charging at night (during the period of least demand). grid operators  can more readily balance plant output...


How's that ridiculous?



Lake Girl said:


> Didn't mean to cause such angst.


----------



## Lake Girl (Mar 30, 2015)

Joful said:


> What am I missing? First image in the article is subtitled, "Lucas Swan, a professor of mechanical engineering at Dalhousie University..."


He's driving his electric car in Nova Scotia ... one of the provinces that still has coal generated electricity sources (not sure of percentage of total generation).  Dune is referring to the UofT prof, Chris Kennedy, a civil engineer who was an author of the study mentioned in the article.

Just found the article thought provoking in that I never really pondered the source of electricity as I'm in an area surrounded by hydroelectric dams.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 30, 2015)

Lots of coal power, here.  My FIL was plant manager of what was, at that time, the largest coal-fired generation plant in the world.  They're still running that plant on coal today, although it's been scaled down and now burns waste coal.

Current usage for that plant is 4,000,000 tons per year, charging quite a few Priuses and Teslas!


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 30, 2015)

Biggest killer of electric cars here is the price per kwh.  Almost 23 cents per kwh makes it a hard pill to swallow.


----------



## Dune (Mar 30, 2015)

No angst at all Ms. Lake, I have been refuting this argument for almost 20 years. Now it is coming from universities not just fossil fuel shills. 
I hope you didn't take my sentiments personally, it certainly wasn't directed at you. 
I find it best to get out ahead of these types of things as quickly as possible, which is why I attempted to talk to the Professor.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Mar 30, 2015)

Dune said:


> 5. In the US in just the last 15 years alone our use of coal for electricity generation has dropped from 50% to 39% and continues to drop as older dirtier coal plants are
> shut down and renewables come on line.



Just a nitpick, but the main source picking up that 11 percentage point drop in coal is natural gas, and that's in part because low gas prices are leading coal operators to run plants that are still licensed less. If gas prices go back up, coal production is expected to tick slightly upwards again.

The total of all renewable sources except hydropower in the US is 6.9%:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1



Dune said:


> Furthermore, I question (assuming the author is who he says he is) whether a civil engineer is qualified to perform this study in the first place. To me it falls under the realm of mechanical engineering not civil.



Environmental engineering is generally more closely tied to civil engineering. Regardless, both disciplines are capable of this type of calculation, especially since there's readily available data now on CO2 intensity of various generation methods, saving them the chemistry most engineers of both disciplines have forgotten since they took it sophomore year.

As for electric cars, I've checked the math myself, although I didn't save the napkin, so from memory I can only offer rough comparisons. It looked like the worst case for models currently on the market is a 100% coal-powered electric car has only a very slight edge in CO2 emissions compared to an average car, and a slight disadvantage compared to a good hybrid. Of course, 100% coal powered isn't a real case, and even switching to natural gas changes the picture significantly. In areas with lots of hydro, wind, or nuclear power, it gets a lot cleaner, fast. And if you're comparing a Tesla to an equivalent ICE car like a Porsche Panamera, rated at 19 mpg, the CO2 reduction is even more significant


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 31, 2015)

A nice, thorough (free access) peer reviewed paper here:  http://www.pnas.org/content/111/52/18490.full.pdf

They separately analyze and compare the air pollution (PM2.5, O3), climate impacts (CO2) and mining costs associated with all alternative fueled light vehicles.

Bottom line: Compared to gasoline in a conventional ICE engine, ethanol in an ICE or an EV running on 'grid average' US power both reduce total CO2 slightly, but have net positive damage to the environment.  Both are better re the future climate (since CO2 sticks around for centuries), but worse for kids with asthma (O3) or that guy with the bad ticker (PM2.5) in 2015. 

The increases for EVs are almost entirely driven by coal mining and plant emissions.  EV do better on both metrics than gasoline on a gas-fired grid, on a nuke grid (presumably, not considered), or with wind water or solar (WWS) powered grids.

RE the batteries: these authors state that earlier researchers had sited all battery material mining emissions at the auto manufacturing plant (with dense population) rather than the actual mining site (in a remote area) and thus significantly over-estimated the effect on human health.  Where the pollution is emitted matters.

Some stats:
-- 40% of EV owners have their own PV installed. (for a Hearth example, Begreen and his Volt EV)
-- >60% of US EVs are on the west coast, with very low carbon electricity (gas, hydro, wind and solar) that are great for EVs
-- The US grid is getting cleaner (both PM2.5 and CO2) faster than gasoline mpg is inceasing, and has much more potential to do that in the future.
-- US balance of trade is also a benefit...EVs use US-produced power, reducing US imports of petroleum.  

Myself, I find that my local grid is somewhat cleaner than the US grid average (due to PA nukes), but buy wind power for the very reasons in this thread.  The debatable factor is that I count CO2 as worse than PM2.5, so I would still choose an EV if wind was not available.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 31, 2015)

Part of the reason for adding 5.4kw PV to my existing 6.5kw is to provide very clean fuel for my future electric car. I also have space to add more PV in the future.


----------



## peakbagger (Mar 31, 2015)

Generally on peak and off peak generation is not included in these studies. Most utilities have to keep a large amount of generation idling over night in anticipation of the morning power demand. The power can be bought for cheap as the alternative is shutting down the plants. In Texas with a very high contribution from wind, wholesale power rates can and do go negative where the generator has t  pay to get rid of power. If an electric car is charged during these off peak periods, the environmental cost for the generation is minimal as the generation is running anyhow. If on the other hand the vehicle is charged during peak power demand where the utility is on running peakers to keep up with the load, then there is potential for high emission's. As the power mix varies region by region any study has to make assumptions that negate the validity of the study. If someone used the Tesla concept of driving long distances with frequent recharges during peak periods, the emission profile is going to be different than someone who charges their car off of their PV with surplus power or off peak purchased power and avoids on peak charging.


----------



## Dune (Mar 31, 2015)

iamlucky13 said:


> Just a nitpick, but the main source picking up that 11 percentage point drop in coal is natural gas, and that's in part because low gas prices are leading coal operators to run plants that are still licensed less. If gas prices go back up, coal production is expected to tick slightly upwards again.
> 
> The total of all renewable sources except hydropower in the US is 6.9%:
> http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1


New wind solar and other alternatives come online every day.

(the amount of renewables have more than  doubled in the last 15 years)

The next big push (in reality a very small push but everything helps) is the revitalization of existing but unused hydro sources at old abandoned industrial sites. 
This will eventually add a few more points of the very best kind of baseline power. Additionally we are finally on the cusp of harnessing ocean power. Once that dam breaks the floodgates of clean power will be smashed open. 

No new coal plants will be coming on line. 

There are also new nukes supposedly under construction or at least licensing. 

The message of the study is misleading at best. 

I don't know whether that is Prof. Kennedy's intention or not but IMHO he provided more rhetoric for the fossil fuel camp's propaganda mill. I have little doubt that Forbes and the Wall Street Journal will feature this study with inflammatory self serving deceptive headlines giving millions of people "real" reasons to shun electric cars.


----------



## Dune (Mar 31, 2015)

peakbagger said:


> Generally on peak and off peak generation is not included in these studies. Most utilities have to keep a large amount of generation idling over night in anticipation of the morning power demand. The power can be bought for cheap as the alternative is shutting down the plants. In Texas with a very high contribution from wind, wholesale power rates can and do go negative where the generator has t  pay to get rid of power. If an electric car is charged during these off peak periods, the environmental cost for the generation is minimal as the generation is running anyhow. If on the other hand the vehicle is charged during peak power demand where the utility is on running peakers to keep up with the load, then there is potential for high emission's. As the power mix varies region by region any study has to make assumptions that negate the validity of the study. If someone used the Tesla concept of driving long distances with frequent recharges during peak periods, the emission profile is going to be different than someone who charges their car off of their PV with surplus power or off peak purchased power and avoids on peak charging.



This is more than a little issue. It is clear that the vast majority of grid charging is done overnight since the Tesla model is the least common.
By displacing the wasted fuel of an idling turbine plant the carbon offset is immense.


----------



## brad wilton (Mar 31, 2015)

in quebec our rates have gone up 10% in 2 yrs. why because government is having hydro quebec buy from private turbine companys at higher rate they don't even need the power can't even sell it,  where talking millions of dollars .it's not as black and white as everybody thinks


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 31, 2015)

I charge my EV 2-5AM during the warm weather (to extend battery life), and during the day in freezing weather (because of shorter range).


----------



## peakbagger (Mar 31, 2015)

In theory, some aggregator would aggregate electric car owners and sell blocks of charging load to power plants. When the power plant needs load during the night, the aggregator would negotiate a low rate and if there is sudden uptick in demand, the aggregator would automatically shut down the chargers until the power demand dropped. There was a failed attempt in CA to use EV batteries connected on chargers as short term (5 minute grid support. I think the first attempt failed but expect Tesla is planning to generate revenue for selling short term grid support from their leased batteries installed in homes. All sorts of financial engineering once someone combines the internet and distributed batteries.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 31, 2015)

peakbagger said:


> In theory, some aggregator would aggregate electric car owners and sell blocks of charging load to power plants. When the power plant needs load during the night, the aggregator would negotiate a low rate and if there is sudden uptick in demand, the aggregator would automatically shut down the chargers until the power demand dropped. There was a failed attempt in CA to use EV batteries connected on chargers as short term (5 minute grid support. I think the first attempt failed but expect Tesla is planning to generate revenue for selling short term grid support from their leased batteries installed in homes. All sorts of financial engineering once someone combines the internet and distributed batteries.



There have been other expts like this...I have a friend who ran one of these at U Del.  I think the scale is not there yet, at least on the East Coast.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Mar 31, 2015)

peakbagger said:


> In theory, some aggregator would aggregate electric car owners and sell blocks of charging load to power plants. When the power plant needs load during the night, the aggregator would negotiate a low rate and if there is sudden uptick in demand, the aggregator would automatically shut down the chargers until the power demand dropped. There was a failed attempt in CA to use EV batteries connected on chargers as short term (5 minute grid support. I think the first attempt failed but expect Tesla is planning to generate revenue for selling short term grid support from their leased batteries installed in homes. All sorts of financial engineering once someone combines the internet and distributed batteries.



Smart chargers would be one way to achieve this. The utility would need  a server that the smart charger could connect to and ask if it's a good time to charge.

A reasonable logic for this is to let the owner to choose options like "charge now" or "charge when the time-of-use rate is below X / kWh or charge is below 50%."

However, there is not yet any standard for sharing this kind of data, and existing time-of-use billing schemes are relatively rudimentary.



brad wilton said:


> in quebec our rates have gone up 10% in 2 yrs. why because government is having hydro quebec buy from private turbine companys at higher rate they don't even need the power can't even sell it,  where talking millions of dollars .it's not as black and white as everybody thinks



This is happening in Washington and Oregon, too. It's a political mess that comes down to a court decision that a set of publicly owned powerlines in the region must be operated for the benefit of the investors who own the wind turbines, not the taxpayers who own the powerlines.

Adding the controllable demand of electric car smart chargers could potentially help a little bit by soaking up excess supply, but it's a highly seasonal issue. The region already had more power than it could use in the spring before the wind turbines were built. Unfortunately, the wind turbine output in these parts is heavily biased towards the springtime, just like the hydropower is. The winds are calm in this area in the late fall when we could could actually use the power.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 31, 2015)

You guys might like this form of energy storage.

http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/blengil.htm


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 31, 2015)

Sadly there is not enough pumped storage, or enough real estate to build enough new.  I'll go for cheap grid batteries.

Most of this stuff was built decades ago to cope with the opposite of wind/solar intermittency....nukes don't like to throttle down.  So they built a lot of these with nuke subsidy money to store excess power at night.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Mar 31, 2015)

Not just nukes, but any steam plant, including most coal and some oil plants. Pumped storage also works for storing wind or solar energy, but as you rightly point out, there's limited places to build it.

Unfortunately, batteries aren't cheaper. The best large scale batteries are just approaching the cost of pumped hydro storage.


----------



## Ashful (Mar 31, 2015)

iamlucky13 said:


> Not just nukes, but any steam plant, including most coal and some oil plants.


I know very little about power generation, but as an EE, I did have to take the usual coursework in controls theory.  Seems to me, even with the long time constants of steam turbines, a sophisticated control system could critically throttle steam generation from coal and oil fired boilers, to meet forecast demand.  Heck, even a BSEE with solid understanding of second-order systems and PID controls should be able to get pretty darn close.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Mar 31, 2015)

Yes, and they do demand forecasting and supply scheduling, but there is a margin of error both on the demand and supply side (a plant requiring an unplanned shutdown, or an un-forecast calm hitting a windfarm can cause a major disruption if some additional reserve is not kept ready to ramp up on very short notice) there is still an overall loss of efficiency from running below the optimal point and during the ramps up and down. Perhaps even more significantly, having the capacity to meet the peak daytime demand means you have a huge excess at night. Storing power is expensive, but not necessarily as expensive as building giant power plants that only run a few hours a day. The daytime peak is usually around half the nighttime minimum, and the highest peaks are relatively short.

This is part of a series of related concepts including peak shaving, load leveling, and spinning reserves:
http://new.abb.com/substations/energy-storage-applications

In a discussion with another engineer a while back, he suggested that we will probably soon start to see a slight preference for installing solar panels in a southwest orientation, because even though due south produces the greatest number of kWh, southwest best aligns with the typical peak demand in warm climates, and power generated during that time can have a high enough extra value under time-of-use schemes to more than make up for the slightly reduced output. Some also might favor southeast orientation to help deal with the typically smaller morning jump in demand.


----------



## semipro (Apr 3, 2015)

Joful said:


> I know very little about power generation, but as an EE, I did have to take the usual coursework in controls theory.  Seems to me, even with the long time constants of steam turbines, a sophisticated control system could critically throttle steam generation from coal and oil fired boilers, to meet forecast demand.  Heck, even a BSEE with solid understanding of second-order systems and PID controls should be able to get pretty darn close.


Mechanical and electro-mechanical systems generally work better and last longer under steady state conditions. Fluctuations during operation and hysteresis create many of the stresses that decrease efficiency and cause failures.


----------



## peakbagger (Apr 3, 2015)

Most large mechanical equipment like turbines come with a guarantee that is only good for so many starts and stops. Once the plant hits that number, they are eating all repairs and they can be expensive. The equipment can run far longer but to keep it running reliably in cycling operation requires a lot more maintenance.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 4, 2015)

We're getting OT, but a lot of the pumped storage was built for Nukes, not other thermal plants.

I think they want to run the nuke plants on a 100% diurnal cycle to help fund their upfront costs, to avoid complexities with the nuclear fuel cycle induced by long-duration throttling (and painful to model/monitor by plant operators) and to stick to a refueling/maintenance schedule that matches periods of low seasonal demand.


----------



## Dune (Apr 4, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> We're getting OT, but a lot of the pumped storage was built for Nukes, not other thermal plants.
> 
> I think they want to run the nuke plants on a 100% diurnal cycle to help fund their upfront costs, to avoid complexities with the nuclear fuel cycle induced by long-duration throttling (and painful to model/monitor by plant operators) and to stick to a refueling/maintenance schedule that matches periods of low seasonal demand.


I disagree; I think it is central to the failure of the study to present a realistic picture. Turbines want to spin or sit, they don't like transitioning. Plants are more efficient continuously at throttle, not idling. Electric cars are a good way to balance the grid and eliminate standby situations for some plants.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 4, 2015)

We're cross-talking Dune.  We agree that EVs can be useful for grid balancing by having special charge at night EV rates (as currently in CA) or demand shedding (in the near future).  I am more skeptical of their use for future RE energy storage generally, as I think (utility owned) grid batteries will be the cheapest in the end, and most folks won't want to 'waste' their battery cycles in their precious autos and would need to be paid a pretty penny to do so.

The real take-away from the study is that current fleet coal generation (and to a lesser extent large scale agriculture) is so damaging to human health that anything we do to increase either leads to net harm.  The conclusions of the study....minimize both....build out RE asap, ditch coal and EtOH biofuel and fund agri-research to improve yields while minimizing impacts.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 4, 2015)

what no one is addressing is the environmental impact of building an EV car and battery disposal. very negative compared to gasoline.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 4, 2015)

ironpony said:


> what no one is addressing is the environmental impact of building an EV car and battery disposal. very negative compared to gasoline.



not true.  the study I linked above includes that in the analysis, and says the 'cost' associated with mining is not larger than that of gasoline production.  the materials, mostly Ni and Co, are highly recyclable.  Li and 'rare earths' are produced from brines at alkali flats that are not amenable to life to begin with.

In the end, the 600 lb battery in my EV contains a lot of water and carbon, as well as tens of _pounds_ of Ni, Co and even less Li.  The Ni, Co and Li will be recycled at the end of the batteries' life.  If the battery lasts 60,000 miles it will avoid the direct release of 20 _tons_ of CO2, as well as a lot of smog producing compounds and hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 4, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> not true.  the study I linked above includes that in the analysis, and says the 'cost' associated with mining is not larger than that of gasoline production.  the materials, mostly Ni and Co, are highly recyclable.  Li and 'rare earths' are produced from brines at alkali flats that are not amenable to life to begin with.
> 
> In the end, the 600 lb battery in my EV contains a lot of water and carbon, as well as tens of _pounds_ of Ni, Co and even less Li.  The Ni, Co and Li will be recycled at the end of the batteries' life.  If the battery lasts 60,000 miles it will avoid the direct release of 20 _tons_ of CO2, as well as a lot of smog producing compounds and hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.






do not care about the cost, look at the environmental damage mining does. nothing grows for miles around the mines from the contamination.
you may feel good about saving co2 but at what cost to the environment? ]
there are fine lines and balances to what needs to be accomplished. Building a 4 door diesel truck and driving it for the same life span does less environmental damage.
that does not line the right pockets though, so it is swept under the rug.
recyclable at what cost? and what are the unwanted by products?
kind of like recycling paper, save a tree use a bunch of extra water. which is more important?


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 4, 2015)

My EV has 100 lbs more Ni and Co and 200 lbs less Fe than your diesel, otherwise very similar raw material usage.  Ni, Co and Fe are all recycled.  The lifetime fossil energy footprint (including embodied, usage and recycling energy) is more than 10x higher for the diesel vehicle than the EV.  Are you claiming that Ni, Co, or Li is so 1000x more damaging to the environment, per pound, than making and burning diesel fuel, but making Fe is not?

Can't do this by fiat or anecdote.  I gave you my study that tries to compute all the relative costs in human lives and $$, and it does not appear to support your claim.  It does describe how earlier studies significantly overestimated the mining impacts.  Where is your study?

And I don't 'feel good' about saving CO2.  My family still makes ~50% as much CO2 overall as the average american family of 4.  Too much.


----------



## semipro (Apr 5, 2015)

ironpony said:


> do not care about the cost, look at the environmental damage mining does. nothing grows for miles around the mines from the contamination.
> you may feel good about saving co2 but at what cost to the environment? ]
> there are fine lines and balances to what needs to be accomplished. *Building a 4 door diesel truck and driving it for the same life span does less environmental damage*.
> that does not line the right pockets though, so it is swept under the rug.
> ...


Those concerned about the kind of life cycle costs you're describing are distancing themselves from diesel now.  https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads...ergy-efficiency-upgrades.141505/#post-1906375
I agree totally that the bigger picture should be considered but question your assertion above. 
One thing to consider on this issue is that a vehicle powered by fossil fuel tends to burn dirtier with age.   EVs, on the other hand, will operate more cleanly as RE contributes more to our grid.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 5, 2015)

What kind of age are we talking about here?  If the average new car is bought and kept for 6 or 7 years, is either vehicle going to have degraded to the point of being "dirtier"?  Diesel engines are known for running long after the body has oxidized back into the earth.  Battery technology is still improving.  I'm hoping that someday we will be able to see a 20 or 30 year old electric car on its original battery.  I can tell you they aren't putting that good of a battery in cordless drills yet...


----------



## begreen (Apr 5, 2015)

ironpony said:


> what no one is addressing is the environmental impact of building an EV car and battery disposal. very negative compared to gasoline.


Some good points, but also beware of some intense disinformation on the topic. EV batteries are recycled, not disposed. Because they are so conservatively rated many battery packs go into secondary service after being pulled from the car. Agreed that the building an EV can be less environmentally friendly, mostly due to the battery. However, building transmissions and ICEs and filling them with fossil oils is not exactly nice to the planet. As soon as the vehicle hits the road the equation changes, especially where the power is renewable. One fact that has been ignored is that EVs emit much less waste heat. Something to think about when there are millions of vehicles on the road. 
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/25...sly-thought-research-uncovers-hidden-benefit/
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...at-a-disadvantage-towards-one-wit/15013#15013
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22001356


----------



## begreen (Apr 5, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> What kind of age are we talking about here?  If the average new car is bought and kept for 6 or 7 years, is either vehicle going to have degraded to the point of being "dirtier"?  Diesel engines are known for running long after the body has oxidized back into the earth.  Battery technology is still improving.  I'm hoping that someday we will be able to see a 20 or 30 year old electric car on its original battery.  I can tell you they aren't putting that good of a battery in cordless drills yet...



Car batteries are very conservatively rated at about 8 years. I can say that our Prius battery showed no signs of aging at 7 years. Taxi cabs locally love them even though they are running 24/7 year after year. 

FWIW, my Makita Li-Ion drill batteries have been fantastic. I have built a couple small buildings with them and really given them a workout. They still have great life, recharge in 45 minutes and I can drill out locksets in solid doors with my 1/2" drill.


----------



## btuser (Apr 5, 2015)

I vote for lots of nuke plants running at 100% capacity and electric cars charging at night and used as a buffer during peak periods.  I've got a big ol' diesel truck and unless you're towing it's not worth the expense.  WVO is awesome as long as no one else gets the idea, and that's not happening anymore.  

Numbers are like people:  They will tell you anything you want if you torture them long enough.  No way electric cars are worse overall than gas/diesel.  I have yet to see a study that takes into account the environmental impact of two wars and an army to support our need ensure petroleum for our "allies".


----------



## iamlucky13 (Apr 6, 2015)

ironpony said:


> do not care about the cost, look at the environmental damage mining does. nothing grows for miles around the mines from the contamination.



I have seen this claim many times. I don't blame people for repeating it, because the source presented itself as a scientific paper comparing the environmental effects of a Toyota Prius and and a GM Hummer, and quite a few media outlets have repeated its claims even long after it was thoroughly debunked. The claim has taken on a life of its own, and even gets falsely generalized to the form you just repeated.

It's also complete BS. Without diving into every claim the paper made, the battery mining nonsense was the worst of it. It was as close as you can come to a blatant lie without actually lying. The paper discussed the mess of nickel production (in reference to the nickel-based batteries of the Prius, not the lithium-based batteries of most full-electric cars) by describing a specific smelter in Canada, so badly polluted that that "nothing grew for miles around it," and it was so desolate that supposedly NASA used it to train astronauts for the moon. Some articles include with that discussion a picture like this one:
https://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/52251733.jpg

That last claim should raise a few question marks. When did NASA go to the moon? In 1969. When were most of the major environmental protection laws passed? In the 1970's and beyond. When did the Prius enter production? 1997. Your warning bells should be sounding when somebody tries to blame a mess from the 1960's on something that didn't happen until 1997.

The fact is, the authors of the paper that started this myth circulating around the internet picked one of the dirtiest (possibly the dirtiest) smelting operations in the western world, described it's condition decades before the Prius entered production, and insinuated all of the damage that resulted from its careless operation was a result of the Prius. In fact, the area around that smelter is still a mess, but it is recovering.

If you care to, you can look up recent imagery of the smelter from Google Maps, although I noticed there's a couple image sets used taken at different times of year. The area immediately around the plant, even outside the areas they use for coal and ore storage, are a mess. But you also don't have to go far to find areas far along in their recovery:
http://goo.gl/maps/1Ix5H

Here's more info on their recovery:
http://activehistory.ca/2013/06/11360/
http://www3.laurentian.ca/livingwithlakes/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Gunn-et-al-1995-WASP.pdf

Plus a decent article on the Prius-vs-Hummer paper:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth

And lastly, an actual life cycle analysis of hybrid vehicles:
http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/pubs/el00-003.pdf


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Apr 6, 2015)

Might be China but they own most our USA rare earths. Mining is a messy business and most have to restore the areas in the USA these days. I guess not so much in China.http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story?id=30122911 just another reminder of who we are dealing with.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 6, 2015)

AS an addition, Li-ion batteries in the LEAF have more Ni and Co than Li by weight.


----------



## btuser (Apr 6, 2015)

Doug MacIVER said:


> Might be China but they own most our USA rare earths. Mining is a messy business and most have to restore the areas in the USA these days. I guess not so much in China.http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story?id=30122911 just another reminder of who we are dealing with.


There's a couple places in the Ecuadorian rainforest that resemble that mess. Along with a lot of other places.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Apr 6, 2015)

Doug MacIVER said:


> Might be China but they own most our USA rare earths. Mining is a messy business and most have to restore the areas in the USA these days. I guess not so much in China.http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story?id=30122911 just another reminder of who we are dealing with.



Yes, and oil is a messy business and often requires extensive restoration, too, as are most other mineral industries.

But no, we don't mine or process in the same way anymore, or as they do in China, which, by the way, accounts for less than 5% of the world's nickel. The story of the Sudbury smelter above is a textbook example of why, and how things have changed in western industry, and are slowly starting to change in industrial use in the developing world.

A further point that I didn't bring up before is that 46% of nickel is used for structural purposes (mostly stainless steels), 14% for corrosion protection, and 34% exotic alloys like those used in jet engine hot sections. That leaves 6% for all other uses, including not just batteries, but also as industrial catalysts, sacrificial anodes, jewelry, and electronics.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/nickel/mcs-2012-nicke.pdf

So we're talking about a small fraction of the worldwide nickel production, itself a very small fraction of all global mining, yet I don't see anyone complaining about how Boeing creates even greater devastation by their demand for nickel.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 6, 2015)

We should go back to horses and cows.  But cows that don't have gas.  Because that contributes to greenhouse gasses.


----------



## DBoon (Apr 7, 2015)

Likely the biggest contribution of electrified vehicle propulsion is the incredible focus on efficiency of these drivetrains.  An internal combustion engine is historically ~20% efficient, whereas an electric drivetrain is 90%+ efficient.  The efficiency knowledge gained in developing the electrified drivetrains and ancillary systems is now carrying over into more conventional vehicles.


----------



## Grisu (Apr 8, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> We should go back to horses and cows.  But cows that don't have gas.  Because that contributes to greenhouse gasses.



False choice. No one said we should go back to horse carriages. Instead we can stop making investments in fossil fuel infrastructure and start working on transportation solutions for the 21st century and beyond. We could easily expand public transport, have only electric cars powered by renewable energy, and build bicycle highways like in the Netherlands within the next 20 to 30 years if the public will would be there.


----------



## Snagdaddy (Apr 8, 2015)

Just take an honest look at the fukushima nuke plant.  All melted down....such a shame and a forever mess.  Tons of nuke waste stored on site.  It's a heck of a way to boil water, some famous scientist once said.  There aren't any credible solutions in sight either.  Now realize that many of our nuke plants are just as old and decrepit.  There aren't any credible plans to phase these facilities out or to build new nuke plants.  Now what?

When the sun goes down, the solar panels stop generating electricity.  No one is going to charge their car without stacks of nuclear waste somewhere.   Somewhere a power plant is kept idling in preparation to replace that solar power.  What kind of plant is it?  Chances are it is a fossil fuel plant.  Thank goodness the lights will stay on.

There aren't enough rare earth elements to produce an electric car for everyone.  

Take a closer look at who benefits from the carbon trading scheme the power structure is trying to jam down our throats through executive action and unlimited "research" money.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 8, 2015)

Snagdaddy said:


> Take a closer look at who benefits from the carbon trading scheme the power structure is trying to jam down our throats through executive action and unlimited "research" money.


I don't have the time to chase your conspiracy theory.  Please spell it out for me.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 8, 2015)

Snagdaddy said:


> When the sun goes down, the solar panels stop generating electricity.  No one is going to charge their car without stacks of nuclear waste somewhere.   Somewhere a power plant is kept idling in preparation to replace that solar power.  What kind of plant is it?  Chances are it is a fossil fuel plant.  Thank goodness the lights will stay on.



Solution: grid batteries.  Multiple systems in development, costs falling rapidly.



Snagdaddy said:


> There aren't enough rare earth elements to produce an electric car for everyone.



Most rare earth elements are not rare:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
The name signifies not that they are rare, but that they are not found in conventional metal ores.

My EV battery does not contain that any REEs that I know of, just Ni, Co, Mn, Li, C and H2O.  The motor has some I think, but REE-free AC motors can be designed.  I think the Tesla motor is REE-free.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 8, 2015)

Grisu said:


> False choice. No one said we should go back to horse carriages. Instead we can stop making investments in fossil fuel infrastructure and start working on transportation solutions for the 21st century and beyond. We could easily expand public transport, have only electric cars powered by renewable energy, and build bicycle highways like in the Netherlands within the next 20 to 30 years if the public will would be there.



Who said anything about carriages?  

Have you been on public transportation recently?  When I worked for the state I took the bus downtown.  The mornings were fine as everybody was going to work.  I was unusual as I watched and listened to people instead of listening to music. On the way home it was a completely different story and I'd overhear conversations about how they would like to get a job, but don't want to get off meth.  For my own sanity I decided to try to find parking downtown and walk a mile to the Dept. Of Env. conservation.  No, public transportation is only a solution to those who have no other choice or those who want to torture themselves in the land of gold plated cell phones that we all probably pay for.

Frankly, stopping all investments in fossil fuel infrastructure is unrealistic.  It will never happen. 

Conservation is the answer before large piles of taxpayer dollars should be dropped on solar.  If the tax credits for solar was applied to insulation you would see the amount of energy used to heat and cool homes plummet.   Throw something like green roofs into the picture and waste water runoff is controlled, air is cleaned, cities are naturally cooled, and roofs start lasting 50+years.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 9, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Frankly, stopping all investments in fossil fuel infrastructure is unrealistic.  It will never happen.



Clearly the word 'all' there is problematic.  But the current thinking is that people don't want to invest their money in projects that won't pay back.  A lot of FF infrastructure like coal mines and coal power plants used to look like it they were totally safe, low risk, high return investments.  Build a plant, start a utility and sell stock to a bunch of grannies and pay a good dividend for 30 years.

Now that the costs of RE have fallen so far, and the technology has improved, the major costs (to society, not the RE owner) are in displacement.  The coal industry is failing.  Some coal plants are being scrapped before the end of their design life, and some stock holders are seeing a cost.  People who have spent their lives in the industry are losing their jobs. 

So, a key strategy going forward is to minimize such problems by all of us and companies being forward looking....not sinking billions into projects that will not pay back before they need to be scrapped for environmental reasons (not necessarily regulation either...this could manifest trough market forces as people demand cleaner electricity, products without embodied fossil energy, etc.).



EatenByLimestone said:


> Conservation is the answer before large piles of taxpayer dollars should be dropped on solar.  If the tax credits for solar was applied to insulation you would see the amount of energy used to heat and cool homes plummet.   Throw something like green roofs into the picture and waste water runoff is controlled, air is cleaned, cities are naturally cooled, and roofs start lasting 50+years.



IMO this thinking is a little out of date.  We can all do things to reduce fossil energy use, and they all have a cost per unit of energy (or CO2) saved.  Of course we should do them in order of cost, low hanging fruit first.  Until recently, PV was at the top of the tree.  Now it isn't.

Example: I had some pros retrofit my 1960 house (after I had done what I could DIY).  The net effect is they saved me about 3500 kWh per year on HVAC, or $500/yr at current prices.  The same program offered me a 0% 10 year loan to pay for it (US DOE pays the interest).  Project cost was $5k.  Simple payback is 10 years.  I would not have done it without the 0% loan, because of the lousy payback.  Of course, my house is a lot more comfortable too, I guess I got the comfort 'for free'.

From others experiences here, it looks like solar PV can have a similar or better payback in many markets.  Why is it not a better investment?

And realistically, both conservation and PV pay a reasonable ROI...we will want to do BOTH.

I have neighbors who looked at green rooves, and all of them abandoned it after looking at costs versus savings.  Seems to be a fad.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 9, 2015)

I'll have to admit I wasn't thinking coal plants when I was writing about FF infrastructure.  I was thinking more on the lines of NG.  I'm a bit torn on coal.  Many communities are supported by it and if coal goes, they've got nothing.   I see the results of an economy that was supported by a single mill, mine, etc in a lot of Adirondack towns and when it goes out, it's not pretty.  It's tough when you see people who desperately want to work but can't.  Then see people who can but won't in an area a couple hours drive away.  

I did some work with green roofs when I went back to school.  They aren't new, they've been around for thousands of years.  I don't think they are right for every structure either.  But for a flat roofed structure that can support the weight, I think the benefits can be huge.  An urban setting such as New York City could really benefit from the reduced storm water and heat.  

It's the low hanging fruit you speak of that I see insulation (and air sealing) being.  Cellulose isn't expensive.  Either is blown in fiberglass.  Actually, when cost of cleanup for blown in fiberglass is added in, I think it might actually be cheaper to install.  There really isn't any cleanup.  90% of the houses in my area are from before the 50s.  Insulating the attic alone could significantly drop the amount of energy needed to heat and cool them.  That's money that doesn't support coal, fracking, Arabs, etc.  Money saved by not paying a utility can be put to other uses... More energy efficient upgrades, kids college, more reliable vehicle, etc.   it's just not as sexy as a new PV system.  I understand that press releases on insulation aren't as cool sounding as a new solar project.

If people are stuck on solar, than it just makes sense to make each dollar spent on it go as far as possible.  Cutting a home's energy usage in half seems like a good way to make that happen.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 9, 2015)

Yar.  But of course even simple conservation has negative impacts too.  Less revenue for the elec utility and the gas/oil/propane man.  We can always find losers in any change, and someone will get up in arms.

Now that folks are vilifying those who get solar as being 'free riders' on the grid, and those with EVs as 'free riders' on the roads (no gas tax), why can't we be fair and vilify those who have airsealed and insulated their houses as 'free riders' on the gas/oil/propane distribution system?

The oil man's kids gotta eat too, right?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 9, 2015)

Cant please every one, no sense trying. I see nothing but good things coming out of electric cars and the electrification of transportation. The oil companies have sorely needed some competition for a long time now. That helps keep the lid on prices as much as the current oversupply.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 9, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> Yar.  But of course even simple conservation has negative impacts too.  Less revenue for the elec utility and the gas/oil/propane man.  We can always find losers in any change, and someone will get up in arms.
> 
> Now that folks are vilifying those who get solar as being 'free riders' on the grid, and those with EVs as 'free riders' on the roads (no gas tax), why can't we be fair and vilify those who have airsealed and insulated their houses as 'free riders' on the gas/oil/propane distribution system?
> 
> The oil man's kids gotta eat too, right?




I suppose there will always be a loser, but I really can't fault somebody for legally getting around a fee or tax.  I trust if it becomes an issue, the politicians will impose a tax on tires or something, and also raise the gas tax for good measure!  As far as revenue from the sales of electricity go, I think the average home is up to 900 kWh per month in usage.  It'll probably increase as more appliances are added to houses.  My house originally had 2 circuits!  I don't see homes going back to that level of usage anytime soon.  Overall I'd say the utilities will have steady revenue for decades.  Their pension plans might become underfunded though.  I suppose that's a topic for a different thread.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 9, 2015)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Cant please every one, no sense trying. I see nothing but good things coming out of electric cars and the electrification of transportation. The oil companies have sorely needed some competition for a long time now. That helps keep the lid on prices as much as the current oversupply.



I don't think competition is ever bad.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 9, 2015)

Re the EV gas tax issue....a number of states are just charging an annual surcharge at registration.  Fine by me if it matches what a similar-sized ICE would have paid in gas tax.  

But in GA, they are talking about $200/yr, roughly equivalent to the gas tax paid by the average Hummer owner.  

http://insideevs.com/georgia-kill-5000-electric-car-credit-will-impose-200-annual-road-use-fee-evs/


----------



## Ashful (Apr 9, 2015)

Hey, woodgeek... that coal stove of yours has been 30 yo for a number of years, now.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 9, 2015)

Fixed.  Thanks.


----------



## OhioBurner© (Apr 15, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> Re the EV gas tax issue....a number of states are just charging an annual surcharge at registration.  Fine by me if it matches what a similar-sized ICE would have paid in gas tax.
> 
> But in GA, they are talking about $200/yr, roughly equivalent to the gas tax paid by the average Hummer owner.
> 
> http://insideevs.com/georgia-kill-5000-electric-car-credit-will-impose-200-annual-road-use-fee-evs/


That's crazy, what if you only put 1,000 miles a year on your car! I'd really like to get an all electric car but they are still too much money. I'm keeping my truck so this would be an extra vehicle just for commuting. And when you have to buy and maintain another vehicle it usually doesn't pay back ever, or if it does it takes many years, even when compared to a big gas guzzling truck.


----------



## btuser (Apr 15, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I don't think competition is ever bad.


Competition is overrated.  The deregulation of the electrical market is a disaster for the end user.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 15, 2015)

btuser said:


> Competition is overrated.  The deregulation of the electrical market is a disaster for the end user.



You're treading into politics here, but I would not call our system of "deregulation" true capitalist competition, by any measure.


----------



## velvetfoot (Apr 15, 2015)

An article on TV just said that electric car prices are coming down.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 16, 2015)

btuser said:


> Competition is overrated.  The deregulation of the electrical market is a disaster for the end user.


Im paying .069 KWH for over a year because of competition in the electric generating market . Id say it works for me.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 16, 2015)

OhioBurner© said:


> That's crazy, what if you only put 1,000 miles a year on your car! I'd really like to get an all electric car but they are still too much money. I'm keeping my truck so this would be an extra vehicle just for commuting. And when you have to buy and maintain another vehicle it usually doesn't pay back ever, or if it does it takes many years, even when compared to a big gas guzzling truck.


I found that out the hard way.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 16, 2015)

OhioBurner© said:


> That's crazy, what if you only put 1,000 miles a year on your car! I'd really like to get an all electric car but they are still too much money. I'm keeping my truck so this would be an extra vehicle just for commuting. And when you have to buy and maintain another vehicle it usually doesn't pay back ever, or if it does it takes many years, even when compared to a big gas guzzling truck.



There are still some decent lease deals out there for first generation LEAFs, i.e. $200-ish a month.  If you can do 12000 miles/year commuting, the gas savings, even at current prices are half of that, depending on what you driving now.

If you need even fewer miles, there are some cheeep used LEAFs on the market now.  If a 60 mile range from a degraded battery works for you, its a cheap set of wheels.  Might make a good 'teen car'.  Dunno.  My oldest is still 14.


----------



## OhioBurner© (Apr 16, 2015)

Ashful said:


> I know very little about power generation, but as an EE, I did have to take the usual coursework in controls theory.  Seems to me, even with the long time constants of steam turbines, a sophisticated control system could critically throttle steam generation from coal and oil fired boilers, to meet forecast demand.  Heck, even a BSEE with solid understanding of second-order systems and PID controls should be able to get pretty darn close.


The plants (and their control systems) do not really control their own output. There are so many things going on the grid that dispatchers and their computers generally make those decisions or regional entities like RTOs and ISOs etc. Lots of things happening on the grid that at the power plant level they have no idea. They are just following an instruction, be it verbal or electronic. 





iamlucky13 said:


> Not just nukes, but any steam plant, including most coal and some oil plants. Pumped storage also works for storing wind or solar energy, but as you rightly point out, there's limited places to build it.


Pump storage is usually operated from a purely economic standpoint (at least the ones I'm familiar with). They do not 'store' surplus energy from any particular place though of course that happens since all power plants are all electrically connected to each other within the same interconnection (3 in the US). So when a hydro pumps, they are likely storing a portion of energy from hundreds or thousands of generators that are online, be it wind, coal, other hydros, etc. Sometimes they even need to pump or generate uneconomically for environmental reasons (excessive inflow or rainfall taking forebay levels too high), or yearly residential dock maintenance or other recreational activities, etc.


----------



## OhioBurner© (Apr 16, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> There are still some decent lease deals out there for first generation LEAFs, i.e. $200-ish a month.  If you can do 12000 miles/year commuting, the gas savings, even at current prices are half of that, depending on what you driving now.
> 
> If you need even fewer miles, there are some cheeep used LEAFs on the market now.  If a 60 mile range from a degraded battery works for you, its a cheap set of wheels.  Might make a good 'teen car'.  Dunno.  My oldest is still 14.


Not bad, I've never looked at the 'LEAF'. My commute is 80mi not including the occasional stop for groceries or other errands and recreation. Currently I split driving duty between my V10 F350 and a V6 F150. Surprisingly the much much smaller and less capable truck only gets ~2mpg better. Averaging the two, taking into account winter vs summer, I'd ballpark 15mpg average. I was rather unwilling to give up either, but if I were to it'd be the F150. Unfortunately it has little resale (a big reason I've kept it) so it won't be offsetting much of the purchase of new vehicle.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 16, 2015)

OhioBurner[emoji767] said:


> The plants (and their control systems) do not really control their own output. There are so many things going on the grid that dispatchers and their computers generally make those decisions or regional entities like RTOs and ISOs etc. Lots of things happening on the grid that at the power plant level they have no idea. They are just following an instruction, be it verbal or electronic.


Unfortunately, this is something I do know a bit about.  You are correct, it is increadibly archaic.  The distribution operators are working off code books, many years old, of predicted scenarios and reactions, in grid management.  They can handle up to three errors in the system at any time, in terms of routing power around outages, handling a generator failure, etc.

Improved systems have been proposed, and following the great Northeast blackout of 2003, even received some congressional support.  Unfortunately, the critical vendor involved (Lockheed) was unable to provide the final proposal prior to the inauguration of a new congress, and the deal fell flat on new ears in the following session.  The proposal involved adapting the Aegis warfar system to real-time grid simulation and failure abatement, which would have also provided generation plants the means to predict and throttle generation according to forecast.  

It always comes back to money... or lack thereof.


----------



## OhioBurner© (Apr 16, 2015)

I'd also point out that load forecasting can often be very innacurate. I would never trust this to be automated, but as you say some of the methods used are pretty archaic currently. Think about how inaccurate weather forecasts can be... And realize weather forecast is a huge component of load forecast.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 16, 2015)

OhioBurner© said:


> That's crazy, what if you only put 1,000 miles a year on your car! I'd really like to get an all electric car but they are still too much money. .


ID go for a good deal on a used VOLT  especially when the 2016s come out and everyone has to have the latest, greatest thing. No  range anxiety with volt.  I cant see myself buying an 70 mile electric car an stressing over the range all the time. The leaf batteries are inferior to the volts and proven unable to take the heat. IMO


----------



## begreen (Apr 18, 2015)

Just did a 1000+ mile trip in the Volt. No range anxiety and it proved to be a very nice car to take. Handled like a champ through mountain passes and lots of switchbacks.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 19, 2015)

Interesting that some would put their teen in some of these small cars.  They might save on gas, but are so light weight they are effectively a hockey puck on wheels.  I know somebody is going to bring up crash ratings, but put up against my truck, which I'm sure has a lower rating, I'll pick the truck and use the volt/leaf to help slow me down.

The other thing that comes to mind is auto maintenance.  These newer cars really won't have any.  But I guess none of them really do now.  Kids aren't going to learn how to do any work on their own vehicle.  It was years for me before the time/money balance swung to the side where I wanted free time more than do maintenance on a vehicle.  I like working on them, but would rather play with the kid, etc.  I'll have to change back when she gets a bit older so she'll feel confident if she needs to do the maintenance herself on her car.  It really rubs me the wrong way when the oil change places do scare tactics on my wife.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 19, 2015)

Its a fair point.  But, for the record, the LEAF is a mid-size hatchback, with about the same interior space as a Camry.  It also weighs in at 3500 lbs, more than nearly all mid-size sedans including the Camry.

One emerging consensus is that newer cars are a lot safer than older cars, due to a combination of (minor but important) structural changes made after improved crash testing over the last 10 years AND things like dynamic traction control (which can avoid an accident) and having 8 airbags versus 2.  So the case for buying a large, old beater of a vehicle for a teen is arguable.

PRO:
The Leaf has front/side curtain airbags, dynamic traction control, and does well in frontal and side crash tests
The numbers suggest a teen would be safer in a 2012 leaf than 95% of cars more than 10 years old.

CON:
That said, the latest crash test developed, the partial offset frontal collision, failed the LEAF, along with 50% of other existing cars models.  All the makers are now tweaking their car structures to address this test specifically.  Near future models should do well.  Those worried about this test should note that most common injury is to the legs, as opposed to the head/torso.

With teens, the big things seem to be working on attention issues (texting), DUI, and not having other teen peers in the car.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 19, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> The other thing that comes to mind is auto maintenance.  These newer cars really won't have any.  But I guess none of them really do now.  Kids aren't going to learn how to do any work on their own vehicle.  It was years for me before the time/money balance swung to the side where I wanted free time more than do maintenance on a vehicle.  I like working on them, but would rather play with the kid, etc.  I'll have to change back when she gets a bit older so she'll feel confident if she needs to do the maintenance herself on her car.  It really rubs me the wrong way when the oil change places do scare tactics on my wife.



Some of this IS generational.  For the first pass over-generalization, Boomers liked to play with their cars, but the Gen-X kids just drove 'em, without thinking about whats under the hood.  Gen-X folks liked to play with their computers, but the millennial kids just use them, without thinking about whats inside. What do the Millenial kids play with?  I dunno....


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 19, 2015)

The head on collisions are tough on any vehicle.  Assuming both are going the same speed, it's hitting a wall at double your speed.

Airbags are a big game changer.  They started going into cars in the early/mid 90s?  I know it was an option on my 92 Dakota, but I didn't have one.  My wife's 98 Camry had them.  I bet you would really have to look for a vehicle without them now due to regular vehicle rust out in the northern states.  I still mourn selling that Dakota, but it wouldn't fit a car seat in the back.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 19, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> Some of this IS generational.  For the first pass over-generalization, Boomers liked to play with their cars, but the Gen-X kids just drove 'em, without thinking about whats under the hood.  Gen-X folks liked to play with their computers, but the millennial kids just use them, without thinking about whats inside. What do the Millenial kids play with?  I dunno....




Very true.  A few months ago the wife dragged me to the movies.  The cost was insane!  I have no idea how a kid working a minimum wage dishwashing job could afford to take a girl to one.  We all started there and figured it out somehow though.  Paying $100/hr for a mechanic to change my spark plugs/water pump/ belts(I guess it's only 1 now) wasn't going to help ends meet though.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 19, 2015)

But there is also a difference between the first generation 'front' airbags (for frontal collisions) and those nowadays, that envelop the driver and passengers, and work to protect the head/torso in many more complex crash scenarios.  Newer cars have the (old) 'front' airbags, but also 'side' airbags that prevent people from sliding off the side of the front airbag in many scenarios, and side curtain airbags to protect the head in 'T-bone' type side collsions.

No cars from the 90s that I know of have those.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 19, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Very true.  A few months ago the wife dragged me to the movies.  The cost was insane!  I have no idea how a kid working a minimum wage dishwashing job could afford to take a girl to one.  We all started there and figured it out somehow though.  Paying $100/hr for a mechanic to change my spark plugs/water pump/ belts(I guess it's only 1 now) wasn't going to help ends meet though.



The kids don't either.  Teen employment is way down, and I would assume that college prep and parents' allowance paying for date night are both way up.


----------



## jebatty (Apr 19, 2015)

The "my club is bigger than your club" argument for safety always strikes me as being somewhat passive aggressive, or maybe active aggressive.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 19, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Kids aren't going to learn how to do any work on their own vehicle.  It was years for me before the time/money balance swung to the side where I wanted free time more than do maintenance on a vehicle.  I like working on them, but would rather play with the kid, etc.


Im one who spent most of age 16-25 under cars, building hot rods, etc.  so, I'm talking out the side of my mouth when I say this:  get your kid a superior education in a lucrative field, and they'll never have to worry about maintaining their own car.  As much as I like knowing how to do this stuff, I'd be much happier watching my grown son drive his new Mercedes to sailing regattas or golf tournaments on his days off from work, than doing his own maintenance on his old Dodge.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 19, 2015)

Researchers doing a road-kill study a few years ago put stuffed animals in the road near the side and set up a camera to see what would happen.  They found that a significant number of drivers (~10% IIRC) swerved _toward_ the animal, intentionally aiming to hit it.  Fun stat...all of the people swerving toward the animal were driving SUVs.

Not all SUV drivers are jerks, but all jerks drive SUVs.


----------



## begreen (Apr 19, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Interesting that some would put their teen in some of these small cars.  They might save on gas, but are so light weight they are effectively a hockey puck on wheels.  I know somebody is going to bring up crash ratings, but put up against my truck, which I'm sure has a lower rating, I'll pick the truck and use the volt/leaf to help slow me down.


The thread is about electric cars which are not typically lightweight. The Leaf weighs in at 3,300lbs.. and the Volt weighs in at a hefty 3800lbs.. The Toyota Prius is the lightweight with a smaller battery but weighs in at 3072lbs.. Compare this to the weights of small cars 30 yrs ago like the Ford Escort (2300lbs.) or the popular Honda Civic (2000 lbs.).


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 19, 2015)

begreen said:


> The thread is about electric cars which are not typically lightweight. The Leaf weighs in at 3,300lbs.. and the Volt weighs in at a hefty 3800lbs.. The Toyota Prius is the lightweight with a smaller battery but weighs in at 3072lbs.. Compare this to the weights of small cars 30 yrs ago like the Ford Escort (2300lbs.) or the popular Honda Civic (2000 lbs.).




Yes, they weigh more than escorts, and still are half the weight (and maybe more important, under the bumper) of the full sized 4x trucks that are very popular.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 19, 2015)

Ashful said:


> Im one who spent most of age 16-25 under cars, building hot rods, etc.  so, I'm talking out the side of my mouth when I say this:  get your kid a superior education in a lucrative field, and they'll never have to worry about maintaining their own car.  As much as I like knowing how to do this stuff, I'd be much happier watching my grown son drive his new Mercedes to sailing regattas or golf tournaments on his days off from work, than doing his own maintenance on his old Dodge.




+1

It still isn't a pleasant experience to be taken advantage of because you can afford it.


----------



## begreen (Apr 19, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Yes, they weigh more than escorts, and still are half the weight (and maybe more important, under the bumper) of the full sized 4x trucks that are very popular.


Getting off topic here, but mass is not everything. I much prefer a car that handles and stops well. Pickup trucks may be popular, but they are not the safest vehicles on the road though they are getting better now with car type safety improvements. 
http://www.cars.com/go/features/2004overview/pickups/safety.jsp


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 19, 2015)

jebatty said:


> The "my club is bigger than your club" argument for safety always strikes me as being somewhat passive aggressive, or maybe active aggressive.



Call it what you will, I won't argue that the vehicle you choose for your child is wrong.  I'm just making observations.  I know when I was a teen I would have been happy with anything that resembled having 4 wheels.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 19, 2015)

A few years ago i hit a large deer at 50 MPH with my GM Ext cab 4X4 Silverado . The deer was pulverized with Zero damage to my truck other than blood on the bumper and tire. Had the deer walked out in front of my son following me at the time in a Geo metro the outcome probably have been very different. The low wedge shaped hood of the Geo would have scooped up the deer and sent it through his windshield at 50 MPH. NO way would i want a 150lb deer hitting me in the face at 50 MPH. Iv seen several fatalities in my area like that.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 19, 2015)

I'll mark you guys down for the full-sized EV pickups when they become available.  

Mmmm....carbon free scrounging.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 19, 2015)

A somewhat more up to date analysis on the pickups versus cars debate, also from cars.com:

http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGu...kupSafe2012&subject=stories&referer=&year=New

They point out that pickups, due to poorer stability, are involved in many 'single vehicle' accidents, and that those accidents are also common to new/teen drivers (who might be less aware of different road conditions requiring different speeds, etc).

-------------------------------------------------------------

*Young Drivers and Pickups*
_Having become image vehicles, pickup trucks have taken on the role that muscle cars held when many of today's parents were teen drivers. In terms of safety, this isn't much of an improvement. Yes, the trucks are heavier and higher, but they're less controllable and more prone to "single-vehicle" accidents, which mean the vehicle crashes without coming into contact with another vehicle. A loss of control, leaving the road and rolling over all qualify.

Drivers younger than 25 have the highest death rate of any group, and the crashes in which the youngest and least-experienced drivers are involved are disproportionately single vehicle. In 2009, 64 percent of all pickup-truck fatalities and 64 percent of SUV fatalities resulted from single-vehicle accidents. (Only 46 percent of car deaths resulted from single-vehicle accidents.) Put these HLDI statistics together with a lack of experience and the youthful delusion of immortality, and you have a recipe for disaster. Sorry, teens. You'll be safer in a Camry. _


----------



## semipro (Apr 19, 2015)

I'll take good engineering any day over mass.
I'd rather be in the newer vehicle.


----------



## semipro (Apr 19, 2015)

One of my teenage sons drove like he was invincible in my nearly 3 ton Yukon.
This ultimately ended badly for him, the SUV, and it could have ended even worse for others had they been in the wrong place.

My wish for learning drivers is that they have some hubris knocked out of them in crash that hurts no one (worked for me anyway)


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 19, 2015)

Me too... 2 weeks into driving I put the front end of my firebird under the bumper of a F150.  Scared the *self edited* out of me.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 20, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> I'll mark you guys down for the full-sized EV pickups when they become available.
> 
> Mmmm....carbon free scrounging.


Iv been wanting on of those for years. Im a big fan of conversions. If tyou take the cost of a new vehicle out of the equation it becomes very affordable. Also why electrify vehicle s that already get 40 + MPG ,its the guzzlers that use all the gas.


----------



## begreen (Apr 20, 2015)

I would love to have the currently available VIA truck conversion.
http://www.viamotors.com/powertrain/
http://www.viamotors.com/powertrain/


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 20, 2015)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Iv been wanting on of those for years. Im a big fan of conversions. If tyou take the cost of a new vehicle out of the equation it becomes very affordable. Also why electrify vehicle s that already get 40 + MPG ,its the guzzlers that use all the gas.



Agreed, we just need to build a bunch of smaller battery == cheaper sedans to drive the learning curve on battery costs, then we can have cars and pickups.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 20, 2015)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Iv been wanting on of those for years. Im a big fan of conversions. If tyou take the cost of a new vehicle out of the equation it becomes very affordable. Also why electrify vehicle s that already get 40 + MPG ,its the guzzlers that use all the gas.


I do less than 5k miles per year on my Dodge 1500.  No way I'll ever recoup the expense of going Hybrid/EV on my pickup purchase.  Any time I need to cover some miles, I take the Volvo wagon, which does 30 mpg highway.  I suspect many p/u owners are the same, so I'm happy with a cheap gas guzzler for my pickup truck, thank you very much.


----------



## begreen (Apr 20, 2015)

Yes, that is the way for our pickup, but what if it got 40 mpg and could run 50 miles on electric only like the VIA truck conversion? Essentially it is a Chevy Volt design with extra battery capacity. FWIW, as someone looking at used pickups I can tell you there are hundreds locally under 10 yrs old with 100-200K out there. Lots of people put lots of miles on their pickups, especially as an only vehicle. In that circumstance getting a VIA should pay for itself, especially if gas price is close to $4.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 20, 2015)

I like the VIA too but there again you have a new truck to pay for besides the electric part. I only put about 200 miles a month on my work truck but it takes 20 gallons of gas to do that. id probably use it more often if it didnt get such horrible MPG.


----------



## begreen (Apr 20, 2015)

Agreed, the VIA is more ideal for someone that needs a daily driver, not an occasional use truck. Of course when it gets good mileage and can do trips into town on electric alone, it could become one's daily driver.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 20, 2015)

What I wonder is, how many of those folks putting 100k - 200k miles on their truck in 10 years would really go EV for their truck, if it were available.  Too many I see treat their truck as a style symbol, and probably fear their manly unit might shrink an inch, if their pickup weren't loud enough.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 20, 2015)

I suspect the EV pickups will come with downloadable engine noises.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 22, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> I suspect the EV pickups will come with downloadable engine noises.


ID be fine with a completely silent pickup except you might have people walking out in front of you.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 22, 2015)

At low speeds, its the dogs that get freaked out.  I think they hear regular cars coming at 100 yds, and they are often 'startled' when they turn to see what the VPN noise is, and its a car.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 22, 2015)

They freak me out in parking lots.  I usually hear a gas powered vehicle running.  I've had a few hybrids lurch out without warning when walking by.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 22, 2015)

I'm no danger in parking lots.  Mine has a 'backing up alarm' whenever its in reverse, and a 'burbling' VPN noise whenever it is going forward between 5 and 30 mph.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 23, 2015)

I wonder what their reasons are?  Needing more range?  More room?

I'm not sure I'd buy the gas price argument.  I think most realize gas will eventually go back up in price.  Most likely sooner than later.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/21/record-numbers-of-drivers-trading-in-electric-cars-for-suvs/


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 23, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I wonder what their reasons are?  Needing more range?  More room?
> 
> I'm not sure I'd buy the gas price argument.  I think most realize gas will eventually go back up in price.  Most likely sooner than later.
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/21/record-numbers-of-drivers-trading-in-electric-cars-for-suvs/



The article is junk.  Sales of _traditional hybrids_ (like the Prius) have flattened out over the last couple years (before gas prices fell), and some commentators have been lumping EVs (both battery and plug-in hybrid) with those numbers and saying the 'entire category is down'.  The whole Obama angle is a bit of a tell for the article agenda, IMO.

Actual sales numbers show that EV sales have been rising 20-30% per year since introduction (only in December 2010, just 4.5 years ago), including last year.  In 2014 EV sales in the US were 1.4% of all new cars (all EV models are cars), or 0.7% of all light vehicles (including SUVs and pickups).  This is a more rapid growth curve than seen in traditional hybrids (10 years earlier), despite the logistical issues of having to install a charger in your home or apt building, limiting public charging infrastructure, etc.

EV sales growth is slowing, most likely due to the fact that the big selling models are getting due for an update....some folks are waiting for the 2016 Volt, the Tesla Model X (delayed), the Gen 2 Leaf or Tesla Model 3 (both 2017?), etc.  The used EV market is still in its infancy (given the tiny sales volume in 2011-2012) but exists and used EVs are selling.

I can certainly believe that regular hybrid sales are flat or down, perhaps the market for efficient cars was saturated, folks only got them for the mileage (not the fun driving experience), EVs might eat into their sales from the green end (I would never get a Prius), etc.  I can beleive those are sensitive to gas prices, and folks were adapting to gas prices even before the prices collapsed.

In contrast, most folks that get EVs say they 'will never go back', and love the electric driving experience and the low maintenance, etc.  Folks that are less happy with their EVs still love the segment, and tend to switch to EVs from different makers.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 23, 2015)

I think the O angle was bogus also.  I was wondering what the if definition of SUV was. Are we talking truck frame like a Suburban or a small one like a RAV4? 

Are those sensitive to gas prices really buying an EV?  It seems like if gas price was that big of an issue they would be going for a lower priced car or used model.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 23, 2015)

The original presser was from Edmunds.

Discussion here: http://insideevs.com/edmunds-electric-cars-struggle-to-maintain-owner-loyalty/

Also picked up by Rushbo today....so its making the rounds.


----------



## begreen (Apr 23, 2015)

I have every reason to hate our Volt. It's been into the shop for warranty repairs more than any car I've owned. Chevy decided to substitute cheaper parts in a few areas in our model year and each one has had to be replaced. Add to this a sloppy dealer service dept. and I should hate the car, but I don't. I like it more than any new car I've owned in spite of its flaws and crappy service. Why? Because it is a joy to drive. I love driving silently on electric power. But more than that I love the way the car handles and feels. And I love the flexibility to go all electric for local driving but not be range restrained for trip driving. We recently did a round trip to Cailfornia, down I5 at 70 mph, then crossing through the incredibly windy switchbacks in the redwoods, and out onto the coast. The car was a pleasure to drive, no, it was actual fun to drive. Regen braking is a delight for negotiating tricky downhill curves. And the car had plenty of guts for keeping up with traffic through mountain passes. Trucks, high crosswinds, barely budged the car. This is the combo that should sell electric cars. They should be a great driver as well as a wonderful combination of efficiency and flexibility.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Apr 24, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Interesting that some would put their teen in some of these small cars.  They might save on gas, but are so light weight they are effectively a hockey puck on wheels.  I know somebody is going to bring up crash ratings, but put up against my truck, which I'm sure has a lower rating, I'll pick the truck and use the volt/leaf to help slow me down.
> 
> The other thing that comes to mind is auto maintenance.  These newer cars really won't have any.  But I guess none of them really do now.  Kids aren't going to learn how to do any work on their own vehicle.  It was years for me before the time/money balance swung to the side where I wanted free time more than do maintenance on a vehicle.  I like working on them, but would rather play with the kid, etc.  I'll have to change back when she gets a bit older so she'll feel confident if she needs to do the maintenance herself on her car.  It really rubs me the wrong way when the oil change places do scare tactics on my wife.



I drove a small car as a teen. I drive a small car now. I'd have no qualms about putting a responsible teen in one. The far biggest factor in safety is the driver, not the car. In my opinion, if the teen isn't safe enough to trust in a small car, they definitely aren't safe enough to put in a big car, where they can still harm themselves and can increase the risk of harming others. Any kids of mine are also going to be paying their own insurance at a minimum, so they have a clear stake in keeping their record clean, in addition to knowing that driving is a privilege they can lose, not a right.

And looking past that, yes, I'll bring up the numbers - not to knock your truck, but just because I'm a numbers guy. If you look up the actual IIHS data on vehicle safety, while it does indeed show a higher risk of death in smaller cars than larger ones, there's as much variation within size categories as between them. Bet you didn't know, for example, the Ford Expedition has a higher occupant fatality rate than the Toyota Corolla (36 deaths per million vehicle years vs 32).

As for maintenance, I'm definitely going to teach my kids how to do the basics - oil, oil and air filters, spark plugs, tires, and inspecting brakes, as well as identify all the major items under the hood and what they do. That way, even if they take their car to the shop after they're on their own, they understand what they're being told and stand a decent chance of identifying bologna.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 24, 2015)

begreen said:


> I have every reason to hate our Volt. It's been into the shop for warranty repairs more than any car I've owned. Chevy decided to substitute cheaper parts in a few areas in our model year and each one has had to be replaced. Add to this a sloppy dealer service dept. and I should hate the car, but I don't. I like it more than any new car I've owned in spite of its flaws and crappy service. Why? Because it is a joy to drive. I love driving silently on electric power. But more than that I love the way the car handles and feels. And I love the flexibility to go all electric for local driving but not be range restrained for trip driving. We recently did a round trip to Cailfornia, down I5 at 70 mph, then crossing through the incredibly windy switchbacks in the redwoods, and out onto the coast. The car was a pleasure to drive, no, it was actual fun to drive. Regen braking is a delight for negotiating tricky downhill curves. And the car had plenty of guts for keeping up with traffic through mountain passes. Trucks, high crosswinds, barely budged the car. This is the combo that should sell electric cars. They should be a great driver as well as a wonderful combination of efficiency and flexibility.




I bet they can place the battery down low for a wonderful center of gravity.


----------



## begreen (Apr 26, 2015)

Yes, exactly. Coupled with a good suspension it makes for a nice ride and tight handling. It doesn't hurt that it looks sharp too.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 7, 2015)

Here's a different variable for vehicle safety...

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/how-the-size-of-your-wallet-protects-you-in-a-car-123390976917.html


----------



## jebatty (Jul 7, 2015)

So I guess a very expensive all-electric small car is much more safe than a cheap, high mass, big car or truck? My take is that safety is more related to engineering and physics than the size of a person's wallet, unless the wallet is equipped with air bags. That's not to say that engineering and physics has nothing to do with price.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 7, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Here's a different variable for vehicle safety...
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/autos/how-the-size-of-your-wallet-protects-you-in-a-car-123390976917.html


What if you prefer small expensive cars?  

Note that Volvo, despite having sales numbers so horrendously bad they had slated plans to pull out of the USA two years ago, holds three positions on that list of lowest claims frequency.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 7, 2015)

Well, I guess fewest cars sold would give you low claims frequency!


----------



## Ashful (Jul 7, 2015)

I assume it's a "per units sold" metric.


----------



## Lake Girl (Jul 8, 2015)

iamlucky13 said:


> stand a decent chance of identifying bologna.


Except when it comes to the computer and those diagnostics  2013 Spark has lost the radio which means hands free phone etc.  The dealer wants $450 for a new one and that doesn't necessarily guarantee it's not in wiring ...  Radio started dropping the phone while on warranty but finally quit over the magic number.


----------

