×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

News from California
11

News from California

News from California

(OP)
California passes new auto emission rules

This article is AMAZING.  The regulators in California have mandated that 1.4 million electric cars be on the roads of the state by 2025.  I tried to count the number of times electric cars were called "zero emissions" in the article and got to 8 before I lost count.  One of the comments after the the article hit the nail on the head by saying "Electricity comes from coal and natural gas, why don't they call these cars 'coal fired vehicles'?".

Why do regulators insist on pretending that they can ignore the laws of nature?

David

RE: News from California

Perhaps, but California also produces a aignificant amount of electricity from Wind (4,000 MW capacity), Geothermal (2,000 MW capacity), Solar (1,400 MW capacity) <could not find a figure for Hydroelectric>.  Altogether, something over 25% of all electricity produced in California is from 'renewable' sources and I suspect that by 2025 this number will be significantly higher.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

How do you mandate that 1.4 million vehicles will be electric?
Despite the number of models available and apart from the lovies love affair with Prius, actual sales aren't exactly something to write home about.

Of course, what they could do is give away a G wiz with every Hummer Sold.

There must be something that will be found that will enable owners to exploit some sort of residence in other states. Or special leasing deals. For example, Rental car companies buy so many cars that they are able to negotiate very low factory prices. They then rent them for a brief period and then sell them. The resale price of the used cars is below the low factory price they paid for them.
There must be some sort of out of state deal that would deliver the same. Possibly a car owners club operated by the car rental firms. You simply own the vehicle registered out of state until your time runs out.
California's politicians are no brighter than anyone else's. You have to wonder what the unintended consequences will be.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

(OP)
Looking at the last data available The EIA shows that as of year-end 2009, California's Solar capacity was 450 MW, Wind was 2,650 MW, and Geothermal was 2,004 MW.  That is capacity.  It assumes that a solar panel works fine at night and there are no calm days.  On the other side of the coin is consumption.  That is reported in MW-hr so if I divide the reported number by 24 hours in a day and 365.25 days in a year those numbers drop to 73.8 MW, 662 MW and 1,466 MW respectively.  Solar is 0.7% of the capacity and 0.3% of the consumption.  Wind is 4% of the state's reported capacity, but only 2.9% of consumption.  Geothermal is 3% of capacity and 6.3% of consumption.

Renewables are 26% of the state's consumption, but hydro and geothermal combined are 76% of that number (19.9% of total consumption).  They aren't building any more dams, hell the Greenies want to tear the existing ones down.  Large-scale geothermal seems to be built out, so somehow you have to parlay 6% of consumption into a resource that can supply "motor fuel equivalent" for 1.4 million vehicles.  Not happening.  

40 of 66 MW of capacity allocated to California comes from natural gas-fired power plants.  This is due to a law that prohibits electricity from Coal plants from being used in the state--the law didn't cause a single coal-fired plant to close, it just caused apparent sources of power to move around.  NIMBY says that the increase in conventional power generation that this bone-headed law requires will happen outside of California.  My guess is that it will take longer to get water rights for cooling towers and EPA permits than is available to the people of the great state of California.  

I just can't wait until a REALLY hot summer (the earth is warming, remember?) when everyone wants their AC on full blast and the police ban electric cars from the roads because their power consumption is increasing the shortage of power and the brownouts have become blackouts.  I figure that will happen in 2012, 2013, or 2014.  The 2025 goals are going to be tough to achieve in the face of that.

David

RE: News from California

So what's the "punishment" if they don't meet their target?  How enforceable is this?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

Note that I was quoting what appears to be more recent numbers.

For example, in the case of Wind Power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_California

For Solar Power (a figure which included both photovoltaic and photothermal capacity):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_California

However, on checking it appears that the Geothermal number was a bit out-of-date, being from 2000 so that figure could be higher today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy_in_the_United_States

And in my reinvestigation I found data on Hydroelectric production, and as you see, the generation capacity in California is not insignificant, being greater for example than the 8 so-called mountain states combined.  Only one other state produces more hydroelectric power and that's Washington state with their extensive series of Columbia River dams.

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/hydroelec/hydroelec.html

So again, I make the point that by 2025, the total amount of renewable energy being produced in California could be very significant indeed.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

(OP)
I like Wikipedia a lot, but when it comes to energy numbers in the U.S. (and to a lesser extent in the rest of the world), if the numbers didn't come from EIA, then somebody made them up.  Energy numbers (actual readings) are reported to the states, but the states do a spotty job of making them available to non-government users (California is actually especially bad both in accesibility and update frequency).  Federal regulations require the states to report the numbers to EIA.  EIA compiles them and publishes them for all the world to use.  The process is not terribly fast, but it is as reliable as any aggregation of mandated data ever is.

Non-EIA sources of energy data are made up of guesses, partial understanding of trends, and extrapolations.  I work with energy data as a central part of my job.  I look at a lot of it.  It frustrates me that I have to wait 2 years to get data, but that is a fact of life.  I've trolled the web and built some of those "guesses, partial understanding of trends, and extrapolations" data sets and when I got verifiable data I was never very close.

California does have significant hydro (13.6% of total consumption n 2009), a large part of that comes from their allocation of power from Hoover Dam (55.9% of 2,080 MW) and Glen Canyon Dam (power allocations not readily available), but they do have a large number of smaller dams in the Sierra Nevada's.  When was the last time you heard about a new one being built?  Wikipedia has a list of 24 major projects under construction and not a single one is in the U.S. let alone in California.  I think you have to call hydro "base load".

David

RE: News from California

I guess we should refer to the Smart Meters thread.
Do we assume that one of the actions they will be able to take is to shut down the car charging circuit?
Or will owners of electric cars be exempted from intervention?
What about those who don't own a car (assuming such individuals do exist in CA - I know it is usually the cue to ring 911 whenever anyone confesses to not owning a car or not being able to drive or who wants to pay cash for something, but there must still be some in CA who are not homeless people)? How do they establish their green credentials to the power companies and Al Gore?
Do they have to have car charging circuits installed and hook up stuff to charge so as to fool the smart meter system?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

Perhaps, but Hydro does NOT depend on 'coal' nor other fossil fuels, so even if it's relative contribution diminishes over time, as other power sources come on-line, it will still be listed in the category of 'zero-emmisons'.  And while it may be true to there are no new local hydro projects, there are many Wind, Photovoltic, Solarthermo and Geothermal projects underway in California as well as other Western and Southwestern States, with the first two technologies having the advantage of being able to bring capacity on-line in incremental stages without having to wait 10 to 15 years, or more, that a major dam construction project can take before the first KW of power is pumped into the 'grid'.  And even the latter two technologies offers more flexibility and incremental opporunities then do singular generation operations such as hydroelectric dams, coal and gas fired power plants, nuclear power plants, etc.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

Please link me to this 'smart meters' thread.  They just installed one on my house, and I admit I was curious how 'smart' a meter really needed to be.

 

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

One is here.
I'm pretty sure there was another earlier thread but the Eng-tips search won't find it for me.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

If I do a full site search I find this thread but I'm sure there is another in my forums.
Doing a full site search with Smart or smart plus as search terms will find you several different threads.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

As a commuter I'm looking forward to owning an electric car.  In Ontario, electricity generation is 60% from nuclear and renewables and only 40% from fossil fuels, with that proportion getting even more favourable during the off-peak period when I would be charging my car.

As far as what regulators can demand, they can't demand that people buy one thing versus another.  They can, however, prohibid the sale of things which don't meet the regulations, and they can put pricing pressure in the market to shift behavior in the direction they want it to go.  Given that what they're after is a reduction in the emissions, including the CO2 emissions, from fossil fuel combustion for transport, the best way to give people the market feedback signal they need to make proper decisions would be a fossil fuel tax.  That would make fossil fuels themselves more expensive, as well as making fossil-derived electricity more expensive as well.

RE: News from California

Ontario sounds the place to be when Europe, with its obsession with renewables, runs into an energy crisis, the UK worst of all. Thanks Molten.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

(OP)
MM,
You are dead right about that one.  The European governments don't seem to do much that makes sense to me, but ramping fuel taxes up since the mid-1970's was an energy policy that has pretty much worked (people complain bitterly about it, but they have altered their energy consumption because the price was high enough to matter).  

If Jimmy Carter's response to the Oil Embargo had been a dime tax on a gallon of fuel (that could increase every year), back when imports were under 10% of U.S. consumption, imports never would have gotten to 75%.  We wouldn't currently be exporting a half billion dollars a day to purchase foreign oil.  Cars would be smaller, and smarter.  Long-haul trucks would from 50 years ago would not still be on the road because they couldn't compete with the effeciency of today's diesels.  Instead our lovely govenrment put restriction after restriction (some of them even made sense) on the U.S. Oil & Gas industry and 3/4 of our motor fuel comes from imports.  Fix that and the economy fixes itself.

David

RE: News from California

OK, answer me this; what do you think of America's larget EXPORT right now being refined fuels?  Or that the Keystone pipeline, if it's built, will not increase the domestic supply of refined fuels by one gallon since 100% of it's crude is destined for Gulf Coast refineries whose production is earmarked for shipment overseas to Europe and Asia?

BTW, there's a reason for BOTH of these situations; AMERICAN oil companies get an EXTRA tax break when they refine foreign crude and then ship it back out to a foreign buyer (remember, the oil coming out of a Keystone pipeline would be Canadian in origin).  For federal tax purposes, the refining of the crude in this case can be carried on the books as if it occured OUTSIDE the US and therefore exempt from federal taxes.  And yet the Right continues to complain about subsidies for companies in the renewable energy business.

After all, it's been over a hundred years now.  Don't you think that American oil companies should be able to compete without having to depend on taxpayer money?

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

Quote:

If Jimmy Carter's response to the Oil Embargo had been a dime tax on a gallon of fuel (that could increase every year), back when imports were under 10% of U.S. consumption, imports never would have gotten to 75%.
Oh come on now.  Even if Jimmy had done that, Reagan would have undone it a couple years later.

One of the bad things about a 4 year election cycle is you can't plan more then 4 years ahead or you lose.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

Quote (beej67):


Oh come on now.  Even if Jimmy had done that, Reagan would have undone it a couple years later.

Don't forget, after entering office Reagan immediately started to dismantle Carter's energy initiatives including going so far as to order that the solar panels, which Carter had installed at the White House, be removed AND DESTROYED.  However, since they were technically government property some GSA official had them declared as 'surplus' and put in a warehouse instead.  Years later they ended up at a college in New England where some of them are still in use to this day.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

Just went out and got the Sunday edition of the Orange Co Register and on the front page was an article about Cal State Fullerton installing several electric car recharging stations in one of their parking garages, powered by a solar panel installation on the roof.

One of my classmates from engineering school just retired as head of the Financial Giving foundation for one of the community colleges up in Silicon Valley and one of his last programs he was responsible for was finding donations to help fund installing solar panels on virtually all the available roof area of the colleges buildings.

It's these sorts of siutations where technology like photovoltaics is ideal as it can be done in an incremental manner, as resources are available and it promotes energy production at the point of usage which in the end increases the overall efficiently of the proposition.  There are virtually thousands of opportunities like this around the country where this approach could be leveraged.  What we need is something like Germany's 'Million Solar Roofs' initiative which could a long way to reducing the dependency on fossil fuels and would increase the overall efficiency of the 'grid' since production will be geographically better integrated with where the energy is actually being used.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

Interesting thread.
As far as I know the only "pure" electric vehicle on sale now is the Chevy Volt. (correct me if I'm wrong).
I personally know one of the engineers that developed the battery management system. He mentioned it's life between 4-5 years max, with a substantial drop in life if the temperature varied even a degree south. There are multiple heat exchangers on the car just to cool the battery packs.
Battery technology will continue to be a bottle neck for electric cars. Unless of course we only keep our vehicles for 2-3 years and don't drive more then 300km on a trip.
The industry has to do a lot better then that if 1.4 million are foreseen as daily drivers. That's IMO.  

peace
Fe (IronX32)

RE: News from California

Unless of course there is a breakthrough with fuel cells. Or BMW keeps developing it's Hydrogen 5 Series smile

peace
Fe (IronX32)

RE: News from California

Nissan Leaf is also 100% electric.

I think electric cars are great, regardless of the whole CO2 thing.  If you can get some of the energy from renewable sources (or nuclear) then all the better, but if you can't, they're still worthwhile for two big reasons:  

1)  Air quality,
2)  Foreign oil dependence.  

The more we in the US can disassociate our economy with the fluctuating prices of crude oil, the better we can weather a dollar-crash scenario.

The only thing I don't get about the Fruits and Nuts initiative, is how they plan on enforcing it.  The devil is in that detail.   

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

(OP)
41% of the electricity in the U.S. comes from coal (not California, they've distorted their supply mix with regulation which didn't get rid of any coal-fired capacity, it just shifted the non-coal generation to California at a premium price).  No one sees that mix changing dramatically over the next 20 years (certainly not over the next 13 years).  

Gasoline contains around 114,000 BTU/gallon.  Electric cars are heavy and you would expect a small sedan of the same weight to get around 20 mile/gallon so 5700 BTU/mile.  At 50 miles/hour that would be 342,000 BTU/hr.  That is 100.2 kW each hour.  My last home electric bill showed home power in my area to be $0.12/kW-hr, so at today's prices an electric car would cost me $12/gallon-equivalent distance.

On the other hand is the zero-emissions assertion.  Most electric cars will be plugged into home electric circuits.  That power is generated somewhere (with a thermodynamic effeciency just slightly better than today's internal combustion engine).  Then it is transported over wires with a non-trivial transmission loss.  Then the voltage is stepped down in several steps, each of which convert some amount of the electricity to heat.  Finally something like 50% of the power generated gets to the plug.  Central power plants are more effecient both in terms of usable power out per unit of input energy and in terms of mass of pollutants per unit of input energy, but not twice as good.  Net result of electric cars is significantly more pollution per mile driven than with a gasoline vehicle of the same size and weight driven similar distances.  

Not quite the "zero emissions" that the lawmakers are looking for.

David

RE: News from California

Ontario's electricity situation arose partially out of good luck (having Niagara Falls in your backyard doesn't hurt).  Some of it cost us a lot of capital (all those Candu nuclear plants, most of which are either nearing or beyond their design life with no plans for replacement).  So it's no picnic.  As far as replacing transport fuels with electricity, in this locale there is no doubt that it will yield environmental benefit.

The Leaf is the ONLY fully electric production car on the North American market.  The Volt is an extended range hybrid, which operates the gas engine at highway speed as a means of energy management.  The best I could hope for on my commute, which is part highway part city, is about 1.5 L/100 km with the Volt.  Unfortunately, the Leaf is VERY expensive, even with signficant government subsidy to help fund the purchase.  And with only a 4-5 yr life for the battery packs (I'm figuring 1000 full charge/discharge cycles being the most you're likely to get, no different than a laptop battery), battery pack replacement rather than electricity becomes the major operating cost.  But improvements are inevitable over time.

RE: News from California

As for the 4-5 year battery life on these current electric vehicles, The Nissan Leafs' battery can only be leased, for around 200$/mo. Even when buying the vehicle the battery itself is never purchased. So at the end of the three year lease agreement it is assumed a new lease agreement is written for a new battery. Chevy market research found that people viewed this model unfavorably and would rather pay one upfront price. This inevitably will result in many unhappy volt customers 4-5 years after purchase facing a 4000$-7000$ battery replacement bill but such is the wisdom of marketing.

Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations

RE: News from California

Carter didn't need to put a dime on gas as I recall, and though this wasn't the 60s, the decade many people cannot remember and when they destroyed lots of their own brain cells, age is creeping up which will do much the same thing for your entire life and I could be wrong, but I seem to remember near civil war when the US deregulated gas prices.
As the then largest consumer they were able to regulate what they paid for imported gasoline much as supermarkets can dictate prices to their suppliers.
This kept the price at the pumps low.
Deregulation meant a hike in prices as they finally paid the market value - though it then became a seller's market with OPEC as practically the only legal "ring" allowed to "fix" prices.

But did this happen or do I misremember it?  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

If I remember correctly, Goverment Motors is no longer making the Hummer, and the land of Fruits and Nuts tried something like this a few years ago with Hydrogen cars.

I also believe there are restrictions on oil drilling, which would, if allowed, reduce our current import of oil.

But if we are exporting oil products, and importing oil, isen't there some pass through that may not be reported or accounted for correctly? It would seem to me that if we are exporting oil products, then we really are not consuming all that we are importing.

 

RE: News from California

The so-called restrictions on oil drilling is much over-hyped.  Actually the problem could be solved if the oil companies would simply start to drill using the domestic leases which they already have.  Something like 40% of the off-shore and 60% of the land-based leases (these numbers could be reversed) are currently sitting idle.  The oil companies which 'own' these leases are not going to exercise them until they feel the price of oil reaches the point where they can make the return that want.  Besides, as soon as they start to drill, the 'rent' on the leases goes up so as long as they sit on them it's costing them almost nothing.  A proposal was recently made to put a time limit on how long that a lease could be left undeveloped before it would have to be returned to the government making it available for someone else to purchase and develop but as you would expect the 'friends of the oil companies' in Congress defeated this bill as they are perfectly happy with the status quo.  So while this idea of opening up more land for oil leases sounds like a good idea, and trust me the oil companies would love that to happen as that would allow them to lock-up even MORE land so that someone else can't drill on it, I suspect that even if we leased 100% of the land where we know oil to exist, I doubt it would really change all that much in terms of the price at the pump, or for that matter, the amount oil coming from foreign sources, which BTW is already at historical lows.

Besides, if one wanted to take a pure Machiavellian view of this, perhaps we should STOP ALL domestic oil production, using ONLY foreign crude so that once the world passes the point of 'peak oil', which some say may have already occurred, that the US could then eventually become the 'cartel' which controls to whom and for how much will oil be sold.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

(OP)
John,
I don't know where to start.

Average return on capital in the Oil & Gas industry is around 5%.  Yeah, companies occasionally make a LOT of money, but it takes a LOT of capital to do it.  It is not uncommon for a deep offshore well to take $20 billion dollars and 15 years to get from engineering design to first delivery.  Quite a drain on the bottom line for a really long time.  If a movie company (for example) ever got as low as 5% return on capital top management would be fired the day the numbers were published.  Similar risk profiles, but very different expectations.

The much reported export of gasoline is proof that complicated concepts should not be reduced to sound bytes.  Crude moves to excess refining capacity.  U.S. refineries are REALLY old and no one really knows how much longer they can last, but while they last they are quite effecient at turning certain crude oils into marketable products.  There are refineries in the world that do a better job for certain kinds of crude, so that kind of crude is exported to those refineries.  Other kinds of crude fits the capabilities of U.S. refineries and it is shipped here (shows up as an import) refined (shows up in the GDP), and shipped home (shows up as an export).  The refinery gets a processing fee.  These values are netted out on the U.S. import/export balance and the net is 75% of U.S. consumption is imported.  All of these movements are efforts to make the global supply/demand balance as effective as possible.

Undrilled acreage is another concept that shouldn't be reduced to a sound byte.  I live in the San Juan Basin of Northern New Mexico.  In this basin there are nearly 40,000 wells.  Some formations are fully drilled.  Some aren't.  One formation that has huge drilling potential (in terms of number of undrilled blocks) is called the "Dakota".  The Dakota formation is very resistant to flow (we call that "tight") and a good Dakota well will make 100 MCF/day--the wells cost $1-1.5 million to drill and equip.  If gas is $2/MCF (which is where the EIA says prices are heading) then it will take 13 years for that well to pay off.  Most companies see that kind of a return as unacceptable and don't drill them.  If the government expired those leases it would be unlikely that they would sell again.  That is the reality.  There is not a queue lined up to get Dakota leases.  

You make the insinuation that the industry is somehow evil for taking advantage of legal tax loop holes.  Congress writes the tax code.  One example of a "loop hole" is the Section 179 tax credits.  This program was created in 1988 and said that since unconventional gas production contained a very high risk (because no one knew how to operate it), it was not economic to drill it at $0.80/MCF prices currently in effect.  The tax credit said that if the industry would take the risk, then we could deduct an amount about equal to current sales price from our taxes.  Heck of a good deal.  It caused companies to reconsider drilling CBM, and tight gas.  By the time the tax credits expired in 1998, we had learned enough about these tough plays that we could start looking at Shale Gas with a reasonable expectation of success.  Today unconventional gas makes up over 50% of U.S. natural gas supply.  Without the Section 179 tax credit we would not have learned how to develop these resources (with the tax credit we had to start over about 4 times after going down dead-end paths, without the tax credit most of us would have stopped at the second or third failed attempt).

Congress writes the tax code to manipulate the economy into directions that Congress desires.  If people follow the tax code how the hell do they become villains.  If Congress is so weak spirited (and they are) that they are susceptible to influence, then why do we hate the people who legally try to educate them instead of the Congressmen themselves?  I think the villains in Washington are the people we've elected.

David    

RE: News from California

Perhaps, but at the moment Congress appears to be "manipulating the economy into directions" that the lobbyist and campaign contributors would like it to go rather than the people who actually voted for the members of Congress.  People seem to forget, that while it is true that candidates need money to be elected/reelected, all the money in the world means nothing if you don't get the most votes, so perhaps they should start to consider exactly WHO really put them into office and who's paying their salary, and NOT those who paid for the 60 second adverts or their campaign website.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

Does everyone believe that the people by virtue of voting bestow ultimate knowledge of the inner workings of the economy and any industry upon the elected? That the elected merely ignore this perfectly clear, concise mandate of the people in the interest of campaign contributions?
Elected officials are human, as such they are imperfect, with limited knowledge. Lobbyists serve to bring the views of a group to the attention of a policy maker with all of the deeper understanding that group has on an issue. Are lobbyists always truthful?, always give the unadulterated facts?, No. Yet they still play an important role in our governance.

Anyone running for office who says they have all the answers, doesn't.

Back to the OP, America's lifestyle, in particular, is unlikely to change before our fuel options do. What is wrong with some government intervention spurring electric vehicle adoption? It creates a market for the infrastructure that needs to be built, speeds up advances in the technology, softens the losses early developers of the technology will likely suffer. It sounds eerily similar to your defense of O&G tax breaks.
 

Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations

RE: News from California

When I heard this on the radio all I could think was 'ijits'.

Ca has been down this road before of specifying how many battery powered vehicles had to be allowed but as I understand it technology didn't keep up with the dreams of the fruits and nuts.  I guess true believers can't even learn from their mistakes.

Why all this talk of battery power and hydrogen cells.

Perhaps if they'd focused on encouraging NG use in vehicles they'd have done more to actually improve the air quality.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: News from California

(OP)
It is clearly appropriate government policy to encourage actions that they consider beneficial (using whatever criteria makes sense) and to not encourage actions that they consider harmful.  That is what the tax credits I mentioned above did in spades.  But companies that didn't feel that unconventional gas could be a reasonable proposition even with the tax credit (i.e., nearly 90% of the companies in the industry) didn't have to play, and they didn't play.  The ones that had lease positions in unconventional gas areas that didn't want to play, sold their leases.  This government policy was a really good example of a carrot and carrot cake.

The regulation that started this thread is saying that 1.4 million electric vehicles WILL be on the road by the deadline.  If the people of California don't want to purchase that many electric vehicles then auto manufacturers will be fined.  This looks like an example of a stick and a bigger stick.

As to Congressmen becoming all-knowing by virtue of a beauty contest, that is just nonsense.  Voters have no reason to expect omniscience.  They do have a right to expect that the Congresscritter will attempt to represent the will of his constituents and will vote that way.  Folks in DC say "my district is divided on the subject so "I'm voting my conscience".  

My representative did that.  On one major piece of legislation, four different polls said that around 72% of his constituents were against it.  His mail was running 4 to 1 against so the polls were pretty well matched with his mail--a clear mandate to vote "NO".  The leader of the Democrat party was pushing for the bill.  My invertebrate congressman voted "yes".  And then he got reelected.  Since reelection he has not voted in line with his constituents a single time--why should he?  There is no recourse for ignoring us, and going along with the party is soooo easy.

David

RE: News from California

Quote (KENAT):


Perhaps if they'd focused on encouraging NG use in vehicles they'd have done more to actually improve the air quality.

Do you actually live in California?  If not, do you visit here often?

I ask because with your last comment you seem to think that we haven't been doing anything to "improve the air quality".  My wife and I have been here nearly 32 years and I can assure you that the air quailty, at least here in SoCal (LA and Orange Co), is MUCH better today than it was 32 years ago.  Back then it was not uncommon to have 3 or 4 'Smog Alerts' during the Summer and into the Fall.  Right now I can't recall the last time we had one (it's got to have been 10 years or so).  When we first moved here, it was 6 months before we realized that there was ANOTHER mountain range BEHIND the one we could actually see from our house.  The smog had obscured it.  Now I would say if you went a week without being able to see the mountains it would be considered unusual and probably only happens now if it's cloud cover from a lingering weather system and not the air quality itself which would prevent us from seeing the mountains for longer than a few days at a time.

As for NG powered vehicles, they are all over the place.  Virtually every municipal bus, garbage truck, airport shuttle, public utility owned vehicle, etc are already running on Natural Gas (or in the case of the electric company, many of their vehicles are either plug-in hybrids or pure electric).  There are NG refueling stations located in several places around the area and more and more private vehicles are seen on the road with an 'NG Powered' decal on the rear fascia.

While we can do a lot more to improve the air quality here in SoCal, it would be wrong to think that we haven't already taking steps to do so or that we've not made significant progress based on those steps already taken.  In fact, it may be the progress that HAS been made in the last 30 year or so which is motivating public officials to propose even bigger and more controversial steps since we now know that even over a short period of time, policies change can and do have an effect.   

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

Yes I live in CA thanks John.

Sure things have improved, but a day trip to Bakersfield can still have my wife coughing and wheezing for a few days.

(Yes I know there's more than vehicle pollution to that.)

However, my point about NG stands.  From a CO2 point of view it's not a big big winner.  However, for other pollutants given you can burn it in the kitchen I'm guessing it must have advantages.

My point wasn't NG V everything they've done, it was NG v their obsession with 'zero emission vehicles'.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: News from California

(OP)
John,
I was born in Long Beach 59 years ago.  Moved out when I was 13.  Moved back with the Navy in 1973.  Left again in 1977.  Now I visit 3-4 times a year.  The difference in the air quality between the mid-60's and mid-70's was a pretty marked deterioriation.  The difference between the mid-70's and now is a huge improvement.  It still shocks me to come out of San Bernadino and drive into the muck, but the muck is much thinner than 1973.  

There definately have been good results.  Any idea what actions had the biggest impact?  Is it the allowable particulates in diesel?  Getting rid of lead in gasoline?  Banning coal-fired power plants (I don't think there were any in the LA Basin, but maybe)?  Mass transit?  Carpooling (it looks to me like virtually every car on the freeway has one occupant, but I know that isn't true)?  Something else?

David

RE: News from California

So yeah.

What happens if they miss their target?  Nothing?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

Quote (zdas04):


Something else?

One thing that can't be discounted is the number cars that have been taken off the road in the past 32 years which were equipped with little or no emissions controls.  Even though the number of vehicles on the road has increased in those same 32 years, the AVERAGE emissions per mile driven has got to be down by an order of magnitude, if not multiple orders.  This fact alone has got to have had a significant impact on the overall air quality.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

(OP)
My mom bought a 1957 Cadillac in 1963 and had to do an emissions test on it before she could license it.  That was the first year that you couldn't sell a new car in California that didn't have a catylitic converter (or seat belts, but that is a different discussion)--49 years ago.  The standards for used cars were pretty tough and it was an annual test.  Not sure that retiring the aging fleet is really the answer because that process had been underway for 10 years when I returned to the muck that I saw in 1973.

David

RE: News from California

Was that 57 'Caddie' originally purchased in California as a new car or was it 'imported' from another state?

While all cars, once you've owned them for more than 5 years, must be smog-checked every 2 years, if the car was originally sold in California and it has not been 'tampered' with then as long as you can continue to pass the normal tests you're OK (BTW, the pass/fail standard for that test is set based on what was required at the time the vehicle was sold as new, not what a car sold today would have to pass).  Only when a car reaches a certain age, it used to be 25 years old but it could be longer now, you had the option to register it as an 'antique' or 'classic car' and it would either be exempt or moved to a lower standard.

Also, if you could find figures on the rate at which the emissions were being reduced based on the cars being taken off the roads, I suspect that this would not be a linear curve, but perhaps something more exponential, at least for the period from the late 70's and well into the 90's.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

(OP)
I was 10 years old.  I know it was pink.  I know my mom was angry about having to pay to put in seat belts and have the emissions tested.

David

RE: News from California

meanwhile, for people who are putting their own money where their mouths are, here is an investor's viewpoint. I don't necessarily agree with it, but he raises some interesting points.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/323301-10-reasons-why-electric-drive-is-stranded-on-the-bleeding-edge-of-transportation-technology?source=yahoo

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: News from California

(OP)
Greg,
That is not a bad assessment.  I especially like the quote

Quote:

Saving a $100 barrel of oil with an electric vehicle that costs $200 is a deal that can only appeal to the philosophically committed and mathematically challenged.

and

Quote:

Nobody wants to suffer for the sake of saving the planet and the most fervent EVangelicals are those who think that buying a high-performance EV from Tesla is a capital idea. These are not useful products for adults, they're high-end toys for the self-absorbed who care nothing for the economy, the environment or common sense as long as they can spend somebody else's money on eco-extravagance. They don't understand the difference between buying a $200 Optimus Prime toy from Hasbro and buying a $70,000 Sub-optimus Prime toy from Tesla.

and finally

Quote:

Will Rogers once observed, "There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." If Will were alive today, he'd have a field day with electric drive.

I did a materials analysis on electric cars as my senior project in college in 1980.  The assumption back then was that electric vehicles would have a bank of lead-acid batteries (we were not allowed to assume breakthrough technology which LiIon batteries would have been back then).  We looked at techniques to maximize battery life and decided that two battery packs per vehicle was the only alternative that provided adequate battery life (the analysis showed that charge rate had a significant impact on battery life so if you could take 24 hours for a normal charge the batteries would last 4-5 times more charges so the pair of batteries would last 10 years instead of a single pack lasting one year).  We were told to list, but ignore, minor issues like where the heck someone would set the second battery pack while charging and how we were going to prevent houses from burning down due to hydrogen off gassing.  We looked at the number of new batteries that were needed and the components of the batteries.  We found that there were two trace elements (antimony and another that I can't remember) that were vital, but that were only available from places with very unstable governments.  Our findings were that lead-acid batteries were untenable power supply for an 1 million + EV Fleet.

David

RE: News from California

Interesting breakdown of the Li quantities required and efficiencies  involved in production and operation of Li-Ion batteries, for those interested.

http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/How_Much_Lithium_Per_Battery.pdf

Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations

RE: News from California

OK, I take it all back!

I agree with David:  California IS the land of fruits and nuts...Well intentioned initiatives taken to such a ridiculous extreme that it is now a parody of itself.

Take a look at this warning I found on a piece of plywood I received as a piece of packaging material.  Californial Prop 65 requires this labelling.  This is so mind-numbingly stupid I can't get over it!

RE: News from California

(OP)
What I find funniest about it is blaming the product for "generating" the wood dust, I thought the saw or sandpaper did that.  

I was born in California.  I lived there three different times as an adult.  I visit frequently.  I like the place.  There is a lot of crazy in the laws.  There is a lot of crazy in the choices the electorate makes.  

The state did give us Ronald Regan.  The family that I still have there is just about as conservative as I am.  The public face of California is pretty wacky, but the majority seems to be just folks.

David    

RE: News from California

Re. the wood dust warning. If the cancer don't get you the unconfined vapour cloud explosion will.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: News from California

Electric cars will have many unintended consequences. Quote from Two and Half Men: "I was doing OK until her husband pulled into the driveway in his freakin Prius".

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: News from California

Reagan was from Tampico, Illinois.  He moved to California.

RE: News from California

I read that "10 Reasons Why Electric Drive is Stranded.." article, and I disagree with many of his points.  In particular this one:

Quote:

It makes no difference whether the energy comes from a gallon of gasoline or a lump of coal.

In terms of air quality, it makes quite a bit of difference.  Coal is cleaner per unit of energy than gasoline is, and coal effluent goes up a smokestack and gets spread very thinly, while gasoline goes out a tailpipe and into my face.

It also makes quite a bit of difference where the energy originates, for future scenarios where the dollar may tank.  If the dollar tanks, all oil (even domestic oil) is going to be stupendously expensive, because it's all sold on a global market.  But the cost of electricity generated here will scale with our ability to buy it, since it's made here and can't be exported.  

His points about rare metals may have some merit - I'm not particularly knowledgeable about those things.  Then again, he's a Swiss lawyer, so I'm not sure how much he knows about them either.  

His points about the ROI are correct and obvious, until the price of oil changes.  Electric cars are a hedge bet against oil staying this cheap.  

 

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

A minor point, but coal is being exported from the US to China.

But you also made a good point about coal being cleaner than gasoline.

If the dollar tanks, there are other alternitives that an auto cycle engine can consume. While not popular, or desirable, they are available (coal is one of them. Remember town gas).

The shame is all the money they spend on mass transit and they still can't get people out of there cars. There is some issue that is not being addressed, which we seem to be over looking.

RE: News from California

Note that the California 'Prop 65' warning has become so ubiquitous, being that they are posted at the door of virtually every business in the state, that most people couldn't even tell you if they saw the sign or not.  But the business owner covered his butt...

But in retrospect, it might have been nice if something like this had been posted back when asbestos could be found most anywhere simply flaking from the ceilings of schools, shopping malls, factories or even in your own home, particularly if you had hot water or steam heat.  Or like when I was working in Michigan back in the 70's when my boss's son got a job working in the shop one summer while in college and he was handed a can of solvent and a wire brush was told to crawl inside a large casting and clean out all the rust and other crude before they moved it to the paint shop.  When they broke for lunch someone started to look for him since he always joined them, they found him dead, overcome by the fumes from the unmarked can of solvent.

And while you might laugh at some of the laws and rules enacted here first (or at least get blamed for being first) sometimes things work out OK.  I think 'Right-Turn on Red' was first legal in the 'Land of Fruits & Nuts', as was the first seatbeat laws, car pool lanes, handicap access rules, smoke free workplaces including bars and restaurants (after all, they're also 'workplaces'), etc.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

2
Well, you know what the car guys say about electrics, "It's the car of the future, and it has been for a hundred years."

Regards,

Mike  

RE: News from California

Well, you didn't break an arm staring them...

RE: News from California

...or STARTING them either..

RE: News from California

JohnRBaker:  too much of a good thing is actually quite a bad thing.

Putting warnings on pieces of wood is much, much worse than merely ineffective:  it trivializes the real hazards that are there.  Too many false alarms and warnings and you start to ignore them all.  People will likely die needlessly as a result.

I'm confident that this piece of plywood would be harmful if taken internally too, but I'd like to test it to be sure.  We can't test on animals any more- that would be cruel.  I suggest that we test this on the jackasses that trivialized the entire notion of protective health and safety by applying this kind of warning to a piece of wood, rather than to the pieces of machinery which actually generate respirable wood dust in large quantity!

The "respirable crystalline silica" warnings weren't enough, obviously.  The largest source of that particular hazard in our facility, by several orders of magnitude, is sweeping our concrete floor, but you can't battle the perception these warnings generate in people's heads with mere reason.

RE: News from California

Isen't a sign on a piece of wood an offence to people who believe in darwin awards?

RE: News from California

2
(OP)
One of the funniest things about the sign is that if you wanted to use the section of plywood with the stencil on it for a finished product, you would have to sand the stencil out, actually increasing the amount of dust generated--I see is as a safety warning that not only trivializes the concept but actually increases the risk.

David

RE: News from California

Quote (beej67):


In terms of air quality, it makes quite a bit of difference.  Coal is cleaner per unit of energy than gasoline is, and coal effluent goes up a smokestack and gets spread very thinly, while gasoline goes out a tailpipe and into my face.

Really?  Coal is cleaner than gasoline?  Are you sure that an EV charged 100% by a coal fired power plant will be cleaner than a modern Tier2 Bin5 compliant vehicle?

Quote (EPA):


The average emission rates in the United States from coal-fired generation are: 2,249 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 13 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 6 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/coal.html

If we estimate that an EV requires 0.25 kW/mile, and ignoring all transmission and charging losses, I figure this is roughly 0.68g/mile of NOx alone.  This would not come nowhere near passing the FTP standards. (0.07g/mile)

Does it really matter if it comes out the tailpipe or a smokestack when it comes to generating smog?  Should we also ignore the heavy metal pollution that is emitted by coal fired power plants?

RE: News from California

I realized the reason why we engineers argue about many things on this forum and in person is because of lack of hard data. If there were hard data available for this topic on coal vs. gas etc, I don't think anyone would go against the data. Hard data meaning something that can't be disputed like wiki.

cheers

 

peace
Fe (IronX32)

RE: News from California

Quote (FeX32):


...I don't think anyone would go against the data.

I see that you've never participated in a discussion about global climate change winky smile

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

There is always data, "hard data" is a funny term because the data is always subject to interpretation(manipulation). I don't dispute GMI's "hard facts" from the epa I'm sure they are correct. However he makes one important assumption in regards to this discussion. That once EV become a significant portion of the automotive fleet we will still be using the existing coal fired power plants, which thereby increases our pollution output per mile. Regulations for new plants are set at 1.6lbs of NOx /MWh and some are already operating at 0.7lbs/MWh which would bring it inline with the pollution levels of current automotive standards.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/cctdp/project_briefs/tampa/tampaedemo.html

So does this mean we should only allow EV in areas supplied by powerplants that would meet automotive standards?

"Facts" in complex issues are always open to interpretation.
 

Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations

RE: News from California

LOL Mr. Baker smile

Good points CastMetal.  

peace
Fe (IronX32)

RE: News from California

CastMetal:  GMIracing also misses the point that broadcast emissions of NOx from a tall stack on a coal power plant are very different than emissions from tailpipes at ground level in urban centres.  Equal concentrations emitted at these two locations result in VERY different concentrations at the "point of impingement", i.e. my mouth and nose as I breathe them in.  Not that "dilution is the solution to pollution", but POI concentrations are what matter to people.  Continuous emission control and monitoring on the coal plant stack is also possible, whereas the best you can do with the vehicle tailpipe is to monitor about every 2 years.

It would be interesting to compare the natural gas--> electricity--> EV cycle to natural gas -->  LNG --> IC hybrid in terms of both bulk fuel economy and total emissions.  In that comparison I'm not sure the EV would win, but it would probably be close.  Any use of renewables or nuclear in the grid supply, particularly renewables which are generated off-peak when they are currently more of a nuisance than truly useful, would tip the balance in favour of the EV.  The use of coal would tip the balance back in the other direction to some degree.

RE: News from California

In point of fact anthropogenic NOX is negligible. It is indeed the proximity to source that is an issue.
However, when attempting to assess particulates and such like as a factor in morbidity studies there is a lot of data missing.
One factor is that a lot of the data is historical and they have yet to figure out how modern living standards affect the data.
Back when Britian's air was dirty (most people tend to assume pollution is getting worse all the time but in fact the first major change came from smokeless fuels then the shift to gas from coal as a domestic fuel).
Interesting for example is the fact that before we had ring roads and everyone had cars industry was located in the towns where the workers lived.
Cars and ring roads meant factories moved to the peripheries. A move in most cases of a very few miles but despite the extra pollution form more cars, the net effect was a substantial lowering of local pollution in the towns with a significant reduction in life time exposure rates and such that, in the UK, it is only in  a very few areas, at peak times and only at certain times in the year does anyone experience pollution levels in excess of the safe level and not for long enough to make a major morbidity impact.

Now the new factor.
In many parts people increasingly live in sealed homes and work in air conditioned sealed offices.
Air conditioning and central heating means people no longer experience as much outside polluted air as they once did.
Most people now drive in closed cars or buses and closed trains.
What they recognise they must collect data on is the comparative pollution levels in the home and workplace, shops etc and how much time they spend there now as compared to the past.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

But living and working in 'sealed' buildings, depending on the materials used to construct them, could also result in elevated levels of Radon gas, which can be nasty stuff if its allowed to build-up in the air.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

Don't cars have air intakes just a foot or so higher than the exaust pipe of the car before them?

Also how can the NOX concertrations from a central power plant be much different from a car? After all the NOX generation is dependit on the burn tempeture, and any removal process that the power plant may have. So in a central power plant the burn tempeture is controlled to reduce the NOX, and it may have a system to remove them.
What do cars do to reduce NOX? I know they use an air compressor to inject air into the exaust, but that just delutes the NOX, not reduce it. The air also adds oxygen so the converter can reduce the unburned hydrocarbons.
Something isen't making since.

RE: News from California

Nox reduction can be reduced by water injections or water atomisation systems.
Water reduces the temperatures which limits NOX production.
This is being done with some marine engines.
The thing about NOX and other particulates is that from a health perspective the further you are from the source the better.
And not much further at that.
The few miles some industry moved made a big difference.
peak pollution levels occur adjacent to busy roads at rush hour.
NOX itself is predominantly natural but not in your face.
  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

Very very few cars have water injection, unless they buy gas down the street from here. So what other reasons would someone think the NOX output from and auto be less than from a central power plant?

Agreed that the NOX conceration from an auto is deluted from the air injected into the exaust. But that dosen't reduce the amount.

RE: News from California

Quote:

If we estimate that an EV requires 0.25 kW/mile, and ignoring all transmission and charging losses, I figure this is roughly 0.68g/mile of NOx alone.  This would not come nowhere near passing the FTP standards. (0.07g/mile)

Does it really matter if it comes out the tailpipe or a smokestack when it comes to generating smog?  Should we also ignore the heavy metal pollution that is emitted by coal fired power plants?

That's some fascinating stuff, GMIracing.  Thanks for sharing it.  

Do you happen to know how much effluent is produced by the process of refining crude into gasoline?  If we're talking about total pollutant load from powering cars with alternative sources, that certainly has to go into the equation as well.

 

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

Same as the costs of special steels batteries etc has to go into EV evaluations.
They are not zero emissions on an ashes to ashes accounting. Though the figures are disputed the early Prius came 60th in a list of lifetime pollutants and near the top came some kind of 4x4.... standard steels and they run a couple of times round the clock before they die and often as not they are kept running.
Battery disposal is also an issue.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

Quote:

Same as the costs of special steels batteries etc has to go into EV evaluations.

Well pollution from the creation of the car itself is yet a whole other can of beans.  We can open that can too if you like, but at some point you have to draw a line, or you end up drawing some pretty grim conclusions.  How much pollution is created by the car owner, not just throughout the car's life, but throughout the owner's life?  If you move the goalposts far enough back, the best thing to do for the environment is shoot yourself.

But lets say we decide to draw the line at car manufacture and that's it.  We'd also have to look at durability and expected life of the car, as well as the pollution that went into each of the car's maintenance items.  Batteries are a thing, but so's engine oil, transmission fluid, etc.  And the longer the car itself lasts before you have to junk it, the more its pollution due to manufacture is spread out per mile.

Anyone know where I can buy a horse?

 

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

Isn't the effluent from a horse considered pollution these days?
B.E.

The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them.  Old professor

RE: News from California

I'd call it compost, myself.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

Quote:

cranky108 (Electrical) 3 Feb 12 9:42  
Very very few cars have water injection, unless they buy gas down the street from here. So what other reasons would someone think the NOX output from and auto be less than from a central power plant?

Agreed that the NOX conceration from an auto is deluted from the air injected into the exaust. But that dosen't reduce the amount.  
 

flashback to 1978...  
It doesn't seem unreasonable that a modern car would have lower tailpipe NOx emissions than the power plant down the street.  Comparing emissions standards, the power plant may have an NSPS limit of 1.6 pounds of NOx per MWh = 725.7 g / MWh = 0.7257 g/kW-hr.  Looking at a 2004 ULEV vehicle: NOx limit is 0.07 g/mi, so about 2.1 g/gallon fuel @ 30mpg.  The energy content of the fuel is about 36.6 kWh/US gal, which would give 0.06 g/kW-hr, if you based it on the energy in the fuel.  Based on flywheel power output, you have more like 10 kW-hr mechanical per gallon, giving about 0.2 g /kW-hr.  

How can tailpipe emissions be so low from a car, without water injection?  Around here the device is called a three-way catalyst, and every gasoline vehicle has one.  Can't recall seeing air injection into the exhaust since about 1985...




 

RE: News from California

Quote (CastMetal):


There is always data, "hard data" is a funny term because the data is always subject to interpretation(manipulation). I don't dispute GMI's "hard facts" from the epa I'm sure they are correct. However he makes one important assumption in regards to this discussion. That once EV become a significant portion of the automotive fleet we will still be using the existing coal fired power plants, which thereby increases our pollution output per mile. Regulations for new plants are set at 1.6lbs of NOx /MWh and some are already operating at 0.7lbs/MWh which would bring it inline with the pollution levels of current automotive standards.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/cctdp/project_briefs/tampa/tampaedemo.html

That is a really promising study CastMetal, thanks for sharing.  It looks like coal does have much potential for being a clean way to meet our future energy needs.  It is also a good point that my assumption was using our current average emission rates, and I do expect that these will improve, just as the traditional ICEs will improve with the next generation of standards also.  I just wanted to show that the "zero emissions vehicle" label is a bit misleading, and that currently coal generated power isn't really a green method to charge EVs.


Quote (moltenmetal):

    
GMIracing also misses the point that broadcast emissions of NOx from a tall stack on a coal power plant are very different than emissions from tailpipes at ground level in urban centres.  Equal concentrations emitted at these two locations result in VERY different concentrations at the "point of impingement", i.e. my mouth and nose as I breathe them in.  Not that "dilution is the solution to pollution", but POI concentrations are what matter to people.  Continuous emission control and monitoring on the coal plant stack is also possible, whereas the best you can do with the vehicle tailpipe is to monitor about every 2 years.

Also a very good point you have moltenmetal, and I am not that familiar with the dynamics of emission gasses.  I guess the idea I was trying to present is, that by replacing traditional Tier2Bin5 ICEs for the newest EVs, we would be moving 500,000 sources of "micro" pollution that is spread over a rather large city, to a single source point and at possibly increased quantities.  Maybe it is better for the city, but what about inhabitants near the area of generation?  Does releasing pollutants out a stack mean that someone downwind won't have to breathe them in significantly higher concentrations?  As for monitoring, all federal compliance must be demonstrated by the OEMs to meet the standard for a lifetime of 150k miles.  Outside of those that tamper with the equipment and violate the laws, monitoring isn't necessary.


Quote (beej67):


Do you happen to know how much effluent is produced by the process of refining crude into gasoline?  If we're talking about total pollutant load from powering cars with alternative sources, that certainly has to go into the equation as well.

Quite right, I've drove by enough refineries to know with my nose that everything coming out of them isn't all rainbows and butterflies, but I don't know the details without researching it.  I simplified my boundary conditions for the calculation, because the equation grows rather complex when looking at it in a "raw material-to-driven mile" complete cycle analysis for both traditional and alternative sources.  Finding, shipping, refining, shipping, and finally burning petroleum for transportation is an energy intensive and possibly quite dirty process.  But EVs are not saints either.  Lithium for the batteries is mined, creating a possible source of pollution.  The increased electrical demand will also have to be generated somehow.  Coal and gas are likely going to provide a majority of these increasing demands, at least for the short term, and they have to find their way out of the earth in huge operations and then be transported to the source of use.  I wonder how much pollution is produced by the typical coal mining operation?


To get back to the original post:  I wonder if California has any idea how their infrastructure will meet their "mandate" of 1.4 million cars.  More back of the napkin calculations, 1.400.000 x 5kW-h nightly (20 miles at 250W/mile) = additional 7,000MW-h of energy per day, or = ~2500GW-h per year  Will they be able to ramp up additional renewable energy in the same 2025 timeline?

I realize that California has a historical problem with smog and pollution, but I fail to see how this "mandate" does anything to really improve their current situation?  The mandate will force the manufactures to insure that they are compliant at whatever means necessary, and they will then transfer the cost onto the consumer.  This will most likely increase all new car costs across the board, which will then cause the less affluent to hold on to their older polluting cars even longer.  Wouldn't it be a quicker improvement in air quality by offering incentives to update the true problematic older vehicles today instead of forcing the well off to buy a new EV (with a generous $7500 Fed kickback of course) and then wait for another 10-15 years for them to trickle down to the owners of the current dirty cars?  Another question, will these EVs even last 10-15 years?

RE: News from California

I like the revamp idea.
A twenty year old 4x4 could do nicely if fitted with another large lump but a more modern lump with improved efficiency and better smog compliance.

 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

The energy content of the fuel is about 36.6 kWh/US gal, which would give 0.06 g/kW-hr, if you based it on the energy in the fuel.

Is this energy content at carnot limits, or actual efficency?

RE: News from California

I didnt convert the units myself, but that should be the figure you get when you convert the LHV of gasoline from kJ/kg to kWh/gal.  Using efficiency was in the next sentence.

Nox limits for power plants used to be based on fuel heat released (like LHV) but I think NSPS has changed that (more familiar with NSPS for gas compression engines where its based on bkW of the engine.

RE: News from California

GMIracing's point about California's electricity infrastructure is a pretty awesome one, considering all the trouble they got themselves into with deregulation and brownouts.   

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

JMW said:

"Same as the costs of special steels batteries etc has to go into EV evaluations.
They are not zero emissions on an ashes to ashes accounting. Though the figures are disputed the early Prius came 60th in a list of lifetime pollutants and near the top came some kind of 4x4.... standard steels and they run a couple of times round the clock before they die and often as not they are kept running.
Battery disposal is also an issue."

Embodied energy is trotted out often in this sort of discussion to "prove" one thing is more virtuous than the other. Unless the auto manufacturers are paying a great deal less for their energy than I'm paying for mine, given the prices being charged for the vehicles, simple economics indicates that there's no way that the embodied energy in a vehicle comes close to the amount of energy it consumes during its lifetime.  

The Prius has only 20 kg of nickel in its batteries.  True, there's more energy in making a kg of nickel than in making a kg of steel, but probably not by more than an order of magnitude- say about the same as the cost of an extra 200 kg of steel. That's roughly the weight difference between most SUVs and the Prius, i.e. the embodied energy of the batteries is moot.

Battery disposal for the Prius is also no problem, as nickel metal hydride batteries are very different in the toxicology department when compared to nickel cadmium batteries or even the ubiquitous lead/acid batteries.  Recovering the nickel from these batteries is far easier than recovering it from the ore.  Lithium ion batteries are not used in the Prius, but are also not a particular toxicological problem.  Lithium supply might be a problem once we have millions of EVs, but that's more a price issue than anything else.  

So yes, "the figures are disputed" in that study.    

What's put in and what's taken out of the analysis and what assumptions are made can entirely determine the outcome of studies like this.  What I'd like to see instead is a carbon tax at the source on all the fuels, regardless whether those fuels are used to make electricity or car parts or to drive the vehicles themselves.  Then all you'd need to know is the purchase price and some estimate of what your fuel and maintenance costs will be to determine what makes the most sense to buy.
 

RE: News from California

With the new electric recharging stations, what do they charge($) to recharge an electric?
If it's free, then it might be worth looking at an electric car. However, if it's not, what is the cost compairson of fuel?

They just made a big deal of installing one of those charging stations here. Although I haven't made the time to see it for myself. If the usage is big, I can't believe it would be free (on the other hand they give away those funny light bulbs for free).

RE: News from California

I doubt it'll be free, but I suspect it'll have little or no tax on it, compared with diesel/gasoline.

We have a charging point outside our main entrance and it's always plugged into a vehicle. A bit like having an electric patio heater permanently on.

- Steve
 

RE: News from California

Noteing that electric taxes go to a different part of the same tax pot, than gasoline taxes. What future projects will or will not get funded with the proposed number of EV's?

Maybe some road repairs won't get done, that other wise would. Could be the same with natural gas vehicles.

RE: News from California

I think one problem with EV is charging.
Where will you charge?
There are a lot of car owners who do not have off road parking but must on street park where they can find a space.
Unless charging points are installed on street, with meters, then a lot of people just won't be bale to operate an EV.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

Yes, EVs are not practical for a lot of people.  Anyone having to depend entirely on charging stations away from their own home would be better served with public transit by a long shot.

MSRP for a Leaf in Canada is about $39,000 + tax.  Government subsidy is about $7,500 off that.  If that's $39,000 plus tax minus $7,500 PLUS a $200/month battery lease, this isn't a car- it's a rich man's toy.  Forget about the cost of electricity- $200/month is more than I pay for gasoline for my Prius, and I'm a long distance commuter.  Until those numbers get a lot more favourable, even a die-hard EV fan such as myself won't be buying one.

I'm betting the EV doesn't take off until the Chinese begin mass-producing them.  And they will.

 

RE: News from California

Oh dear.
The prospect of the Chinese "Rover" factory producing EVs isn't exactly enthralling.

Rover was part of British Leyland.
What happens when you apply "quality fade", for which Chinese Manufacture is famous, to a Rover....? It doesn't bear thinking about.

Besides, whose design will they copy?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

The cost comparisons for EVs are valid, but you're forgetting that oil price fluctuates.  EVs are a hedge bet against the future cost of oil, not a viable alternative to the current cost of oil.

Hidden in the cost of petroleum based transportation is that the US is stealing from future generations to wage a semi-permanent global police state action to drive the price of oil down to the margins we see today.  As that falls apart in the next decade, our costs for gasoline are going to go way up, and the same comparisons in this thread that seem unfavorable for EV are going to suddenly look very favorable.   All y'all laughing at the Chevy Volt owner are going to be begging him to borrow his car when gas goes to $20 a gallon.

I don't know about you guys, but I simply don't see how spending a trillion dollars a year in global police state actions is sustainable.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: News from California

Good point, beej, but I think your numbers are a little off.  The US defense budget in 2010 including Iraq and Afghanistan was around $750 billion.  Some of this money would have to be spent on national defense even without funding a global police state.
Pulling a number out of the air, but we'd probably need at least $250 billion to be comfortably safe.  So our savings are half a trillion dollars.  Also, it will take some time to wind everything down even if the political will existed and there would be an issue with employment.
Regardless, the US budget including defense is unsustainable as you pointed out with our current level of taxation.  Guns or butter, as the old saying goes.  We have suicidally chosen as a society to spend money on two wars, expand the social safety net, and cut taxes.  I don't think even two of these items would be economically feasible, let alone all three.

RE: News from California

It isn't fossil fuel cost that is the killer but government taxation, bad enough at most times but now made worse by the discovery of the new "it's for your own good" environmental tax.
The higher price per barrel is what unlocks shale oil etc.
The ongoing demand is what enables genuine cost increases which makes new recovery methods feasible.
The growing size of the market and the higher prices are a necessary part of our path toward energy sufficiency such as fusion power. Fossil fuels are the investment capital that along with population growth (market growth) makes the end goal realisable.
I have serious doubts that we will be able to fund the future if we are forced down side roads and forced, as with coal, to leave the greater part of our fossil fuel capital in the ground.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

The "it's for your own good" environmental tax works the opposite way for EVs. Current government thinking (at least in the UK) is that EVs are so green that they should be subsidised (negative tax). Even though they are (in most part) ultimately fossil fuel powered and at a lower efficiency than IC-powered vehicles.

God knows why they are excluded from the "congestion charge" in London, more tax exemption, although they still cause as much congestion as all other cars.

- Steve
 

RE: News from California

Red ken is talking about extending the contagion zone (no that's the word I want to use) and introducing his big 4x4 tax. I guess he hates Chelsea Tractors and all those who drive them. (There is a small question in my mind as to why so many Chelsea Mums need the biggest 4x4 they can get to take the kids to school. I guess the kerbs are bummer in a G-Wiz, especially if you want to pavement park in front of Harrods).
He thinks this is how to get rid of Boris.
Worryingly, he is ahead at the moment.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

(OP)
Notice the title of the thread changed?  I wasn't consulted.  I wish whoever got upset with the original title had just stopped opening the thread.  I hate that they left my handle as the thread's originator, that is not the thread I started.

David

RE: News from California

I think you have seen the heavy hand of David.
B.E.

The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them.  Old professor

RE: News from California

One of the comments on that article that zdas04 posted was:

Quote:

DO the fruits and nuts in Kalifornia really believe that EV's are low emission? Where to they think electricity comes from? The electric fairy? Most comes from coal fired power plants. So in effect, EVs run on coal.

So I assumed the term was well established.

 

- Steve
 

RE: News from California

(OP)
I don't think that anyone mis-understood the reference.  I've always felt that if you have communication you should stop while you're ahead.

David

RE: News from California

How can anyone be upset about the thread title?
How could they flag it to management?
Why should management fall over?
There are many good reasons for a red flag process but one of the biggest problems in society (not necessarily here, I could not possibly comment on the Eng-Tips policy) is the abuse of such systems where a minority of one can have the power over millions.
'Nuff said.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

I expect somebody's self esteem was negatively affected. Not permitted these days..

RE: News from California

I don't want to derail an interesting conversation but I have a couple of points with regards to the title change:

(1) I actually thought, if the double meaning was intended, the title was pretty witty and very tongue in cheek. I don't think it was meant to be mean spirited in any way...
(2) ...but it is understandable why it was changed as I'm sure the moderators have rules on certain terms not being used.
(3) As to who would be offended, maybe the same group that California decided would destroy the "sanctity" of marriage if they allowed them to marry? I'm not offended by it but if you put yourselves in their shoes, it would be understandable.

As to the actual topic, I think there are a lot of good points with regards to a lack of foresight in a lot of these decisions. I work for a utility and we (unofficially of course) dread mass EV's on the road in a short period of time because the grid is not designed to accommodate them.

There will be a huge, spread out, increase in demand which will cause the utility to scramble to find a way to satisfy the demand. The solution is usually by the cheapest (dirtiest) power from a neighbour...for an inflated cost of course.

However, if the policy makers work hand-in-hand with utilities to help aid in the transition to heavy EV use, then it could work out. I just don't know if that is happening in California.

The problem is that these decisions have technological, political, economic, sociologic and environmental elements to them. One person (yes, even us omnipotent engineers...but especially politicians) cannot fully understand all of them; you need cross-discipline input.
 

RE: News from California

One small correction. You say:

Quote:

One person (yes, even us omnipotent engineers...but especially politicians) cannot fully understand all of them; you need cross-discipline input.
which is very generous to politicians.I am not sure they ever even partially understand anything.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

(OP)
rconnor,
I've been providing gas to public utilities and power plants my whole career, and I've heard some of the same concerns that you mention, but rarely with numbers.  I'd love to hear anything you are willing to share about what your industry thinks the sequence of events will be.  I see two possible scenarios

(1) upgrade generating capacity; (2) upgrade the distribution network; (3) increase the number of EV.  

Or: (1) increase the number of EV; (2) decrease the reliability of the power grid; (3) blame the utilities; (4) increase the number of EV more; (5) start the permitting process for new plants; (6) increase the number of EV even more; (7) build the new plants; (8) increase the number of EV; (8) decrease the reliability of the grid further; (9) start permitting upgrades to the power grid; and finally (10) increase the number of EV).

My gut feeling is that we'll do the second.

David

RE: News from California

jmw,

haha, yes, I stand corrected.

zdas04,

The two major concerns are how fast EV's gain in popularity and how people charge them.

We are expecting to see about 80,000 EV's by 2030, resulting in 195 GWh increase. This is not an issue for generation because that increase is spread out over 20 years. Another study showed that a 10% switch over from light-duty vehicles to EV's could increase the load by 4.7%. So, if you had a sudden, mass injection of EV's (such as that described in the article) then, yes, it could be a problem for generation capacity. However, the bigger issue is probably distribution and localized brown outs.

The more complicated (and maybe more important) problem is how people will charge them, namely uncontrolled versus smart charging.

Uncontrolled charging means people can plug in whenever they want, into any suitable outlet. Here people will most likely come home after work and plug in their car, during peak hours. This will cause an even greater spike to occur during this time, magnifying the possibility for brown outs. It may also force utilities to turn on higher cost forms (or dirty forms) of generation to meet the spikes. An utility wants nice flat demand profiles so that you can have generating stations running and near optimum levels for the majority of the time. The greater the peaks and valleys, the less efficient your generation is.

On the other hand, smart charging means that charging is regulated to smooth out the demand. This allows utilities to keep plants running at near optimum efficiency and also means that non-controllable renewables, such as wind/solar, can be used to curtail the increase caused by EV's. The result is lower cost to the utility (on a per kW basis) and lower total emissions. However, implementation is much more difficult/costly here.

A study on a fictional utility, with only small amounts of renewable generation, found that the uncontrolled charging strategy would increase the cost of generation (per kW) by 24% while increasing emissions per miles to 284 g/mile. While smart charging would reduce the cost of generation (per kW) by 19% and decrease the emissions per mile of EV's to 220 g/mile. Note an average light-duty vehicle has emits about 412 g/mile and a prius is about 176 g/mile. If the study was changed to a utility with 100% natural gas CCGT plants, the emissions from the EV would be 144 g/mile, and much lower for nuclear, wind, hydro or solar.

However, these numbers would be much different depending on the base load profile for the utility and the method of generation. The true benefit is different location to location; this is an important concept for people to think about when talking about EV's, that often gets overlooked.

For example, the utility I work for is:
- primarily hydro power
- publically owned (low domestic cost/kWh, higher incentive to be a corporate citizen)
- a big exporter of power, which is a huge contributor to our revenues.
So with that in mind, EV's in our area:
- Greatly reduce overall emissions
- Are attractive to local clients due to very low domestic electricity costs (but cold weather climate is a hindrance to EV's)
- Increases are local demand which reduces are exports = reduced revenues, for the same generation (however, with the US economy in the toilet, the cost of electricity has dropped which effects the severity of this reduction and possibly provides more stable revenues)
 

RE: News from California

On the plus side, most people will be using their EVs during the day when loads are greatest and charging them overnight when capacity is greatest....
Until something upsets the mix.
Superbowl night could be one....  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

RE: News from California

100+ summer days could be another.

RE: News from California

Ok what about the smart charging equasion where Power could be drawn on a short term basis, from the EV's and fed back into the grid to stabilize the load. This was touted a couple of years ago and now has gone strangely quiet.
B.E.

The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them.  Old professor

RE: News from California

(OP)
rconnor,
Thank you for a clear descriptoin of the waterfront.  What is g/mile, I'm not familiar with those units?

I actually expect that smart chargers will be the norm, maybe something like when you plug the EV in the charger asks you when you need the car again and then talks to the grid to minimize its contribution to spikes within that window.  That technology is not far fetched at all, and seems to have a larger impact than most of the really Buck Rogers stuff people are talking about.  Utiliites have been talking about the benefits of level-loading and off-peak demand for at least all of my life.

David

RE: News from California

g/mile is grams of CO2 emissions produced per mile driven. For EV's the CO2 emissions are those produced by the power plant(s) (weighted average if multiple types of generation are used) providing electricity for the EV, for ICE vehicles the CO2 emissions come directly from the vehicles tailpipe.

I know that the negative effect of CO2 is a point of contention but the numbers, relative to eachother, also corrolate to mile/gallon. In otherwords, it paints a good comparative picture of consumption per unit of useful output.

My knowledge of the actually specifics behind the implimentation of smart charging is limited (I work in generation) but I know there is work along the lines of what you said. Maybe implementation is easier than I think.

Either way, if you put the cart (EV's) before the horse (charging system, grid modernization, clean generation) then you could actually have a negative impact on the $/kW (first to generate then later, as a result, to consume), system reliability and environmental impact. With the horse before the cart, the opposite can be true. The extent, as stated before, is very dependent on the local utilities situation.

If you are concerned with the environment and you live in an area powered by renewables, then EV's can make sense. If you live in an area powered by coal, then buy a Prius.

RE: News from California

(OP)
rconnor,
It makes me sad that you have to say

Quote:

I know that the negative effect of CO2 is a point of contention but the numbers, relative to each other, also correlate to mile/gallon. In other words, it paints a good comparative picture of consumption per unit of useful output.
I know why you have to say it, but why can't we engineers just accept an objective measurement as objective without all the damn baggage.  Mass of CO2 per mile driven is absolutely a number that can be usefully correlated to relative energy effeciency and there is nothing inherently evil about it--complete combustion results in water, CO2 and heat, why do we keep forgetting that?.  That shouldn't be controversial, but the discussion has gotten so strident that we're backing off from talking about CO2 in any context but AGW.  That is sad.

David

RE: News from California

?"g/mile is grams of CO2 emissions produced per mile driven"? This depends on the fuel, if it is carbon rich, or carbon poor. Coal will emmit more CO2 than natural gas, because of the amount of carbon in the fuel, not because of the efficency. You can change the fuel mix in a car and improve the CO2 emmitted, but that dosen't make it more efficent. It probally means more water/steam is in the exaust.

If we were concerned at all about CO2, then we must also consiter the CO2 emitted in the manufacture of the steel. In which case driving an old car is more efficent than a new car.

RE: News from California

And let's not forget Hydrogen 'fuel-cell' technologies where the 'product of combustion' is ONLY water.  Or even hydrogen powered ICE vehicles.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

(OP)
cranky108,
I think that is the point, to get to a common denominator.  The g/mile number is dependent on fuel chosen, but it is also dependent on vehicle design and driving style.  Seems like a more effective measure than $/mile (since the cost of fuel is so variable across the globe) or mpg (since converting that number to apply to an EV is so contaminated with political BS).  So if you look at the CO2 exhausted by the power plants (per kW-hr), get the weighted average g/kW from the mix of power plants serving an area then you get a direct (disregarding line losses) comparison of kW used per mile times g/kW to get g/mile.

Going into the CO2 used in steel manufacture seems like it would be about a wash between ICE and EV.  CO2 generated in transporting fuel to the end user may or may not be a wash (in some markets virtually all the gasoline and diesel is pipelined to distribution stations that are reasonably close to end-user fueling stations; coal comes in on trains generally--including a transportation component might be useful in differentiating, but I'm not certain of that).

Seems reasonable to me.

David

RE: News from California

May I suggest kJ as a measure. A kJ/mile is a good measure of efficency. FYI. one kWH=3.6 MJ

And why is $/mile a bad way to compare, other than it changes? If you use the price of fuel on the futures market, at the time frame you are interested in, the values should be good.

 

RE: News from California

(OP)
I suppose you can suggest anything you want, I don't know if anyone here is in a position to influence the change.

$/mile doesn't work very well because the cost of fuel and power is so heavily manipulated from place to place.  In most of Europe fuel taxes make motor fuel at least twice the average U.S. price while in places like Indonesia government policy puts motor fuel prices at a fraction of U.S. prices.  Even within a country local prices can vary substantially both from place to place and with time.

David

RE: News from California

You mean like when I was in Utah last week and paid only $3.11 on Friday for regular while here in SoCal this morning it was $3.96.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: News from California

zdas04,
I completely agree with you; I actually added the comment to avoid it turning into a discussion on the effects of CO2. But in hindsight, all it may have done is bring attention to it.

I intended on saying that no matter whether your primary concern is emissions, the economics or basic efficiency, the unit will, comparatively, tell the same story.

cranky,
emissions/mile, $/mile or kJ/mile are relatively porportionate and shouldn't change the overall conclusion. It's interesting that those three units match up nicely with the three "primary concerns" I said above.

RE: News from California

$/mile or kJ/mile should line up as long as the taxes are level with the fuels. Note if you were to use wood as a fuel your $/mile should be cheeper for wood because of the lack of taxes.

emissions/mile depend on what you consiter emissions. If you neglect water/steam as emmissions, then carbon fuels have a disadvantage. Not because of the carbon, but because of the method.

One, or two, valid emmissions/mile comparison that would be interesting is SO2 or NOx per mile. Not because of anything other than these may not be related to the fuel, but the fuel source.

I really don't think carbon is a global problem, but inefficency is.

Question: what are the efficencies of different cars at say 5 MPH?

RE: News from California

(OP)
I happen to be looking at part-load fuel consumption for gensets right now, and I think that the answer to the 5 mph question is "Horrible".     

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources