Green energy is already being encouraged by massive tax subsidies. This fee aspect is road maintenance. Different thing in my eyes.

5/31/2013 10:53:17 AM

Quote :

"Not gonna happen in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime. As superior technology is developed the world will rely less on fossil fuels. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if we never run out, as demand diminishes for it over time."

while i understand your point, think you're missing the fact that we don't have to run OUT for it to be a big deal (see the 1973 oil crisis)

additionally, the early adopters of technology pay a premium that decreases with each iteration as the technology is refined and becomes more prevalent...how does it make sense to penalize the early adopters?

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM. Reason : page 3!]

5/31/2013 10:56:52 AM

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 11:15 AM. Reason : i'm not sure how that double post happened]

5/31/2013 11:12:25 AM

Quote :

"while i understand your point, think you're missing the fact that we don't have to run OUT for it to be a big deal (see the 1973 oil crisis)"

Yes, that's a good point. The oil market can be unstable at times. Why isn't anyone making a strong case for selling LNG vehicles? The US is about to be a net exporter of natural gas and the only company that sells a car that runs on the stuff is Honda.

Given that the tax credits & incentives as well as commuter perks (HOV lanes and whatnot) FAR outweigh a $50 or $100 fee, I would say they're still being heavily encouraged, not discouraged. I don't understand why someone could view that otherwise.

5/31/2013 11:13:52 AM

I'm just going point out that the demand for pretty much every commodity has increased over time. The idea that the demand for gasoline will decrease is definately flawed.

5/31/2013 11:20:48 AM

Well if it does then everyone will flock to EVs, just as you want. So what's the problem?

5/31/2013 11:21:54 AM

Only about half of that petroleum is used to make gasoline, and a percentage of that is used in cars, I would bet that worldwide that other half's usage would make up for the adoption of electric cars, especially seeing as how slow you want that adoption to go.



[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 11:31 AM. Reason : ]

5/31/2013 11:29:40 AM

Quote :

" especially seeing as how slow you want that adoption to go."

Not sure where in this thread I said I want anything to go slow.

5/31/2013 11:36:05 AM

Quote :

"Why isn't anyone making a strong case for selling LNG vehicles?"

if i had to guess, it's the cost of developing the infrastructure

hybrids and EVs use what's already there - fueling stations providing gasoline and your home (or work) is hooked up to a power supply (whether it's the grid, solar panels, etc)

i don't know much about CNG/LNG in autos, but i assume it's cost prohibitive (for the amount you'd need to drive an NG vehicle the way you drive a gasoline-powered one) to have it delivered to one's home...so you're left with relying on a network of refueling stations to be put into place, and without the demand, no one's going to build them (or add it to their existing station)

it can work for fleets (government vehicles, public transportation in the form of buses, etc), but that's about it

5/31/2013 12:59:45 PM

Quote :

"Not sure where in this thread I said I want anything to go slow."

What do you think charging an EV tax would do?

5/31/2013 2:38:20 PM

I don't have the picture now, but I remember in some oil company presentation they showed a picture of a CNG 18-wheeler truck.

Basically, you take the cab and double the size. Yes, that's how big the problem of fuel energy density is. Even if you do that, it won't have the same range. If you engineer to full range, then you're eating up a large fraction of the space for the cargo.

It's not as big of a deal with cars because the gas tank isn't that huge by comparison. This isn't an argument against all transportation applications of NG. The fuel is cheaper, this is true. But the Picken's Plan had this huge gaping hole in it and it wasn't often mentioned.

EDIT: but some people are working on super high compression of NG. this would make the tanks smaller.

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2013 2:45:14 PM

Quote :

"if i had to guess, it's the cost of developing the infrastructure"

This is pretty much the issue. A lot of feet vehicles and transit buses have in fact switched to LNG as you mentioned. There is some potential for trucking companies to make the switch since their routes are more planned out so that they could hit fueling stations along the way.

There just aren't many LNG stations in the country, and there hasn't been much incentive for them to be constructed. Meanwhile, ethanol is growing and electric is exploding.



The issue with electric cars of course is that the electricity has to come from somewhere, so if you're plugging your car in to get electricity off the grid from a coal fired plant, is might not be doing much good.

5/31/2013 2:49:37 PM

Quote :

"The issue with electric cars of course is that the electricity has to come from somewhere, so if you're plugging your car in to get electricity off the grid from a coal fired plant, is might not be doing much good."

it was my understanding that burning coal/petroleum in high volume (ie. in power plants) is more efficient and pollutes less than automobile engines producing the same amount of power...so an electric car is still more efficient

i could be wrong

[Edited on May 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/31/2013 3:12:43 PM

Oh no doubt, I wasn't intending to make a case against electric cars, but that aspect of it is often forgotten by people.

5/31/2013 3:16:13 PM

My understanding is that most of the efficiency benefit of electric cars come from the fact that they don't have to burn energy at all times.

So, the net conversion efficiency for an ICE may be 20%, but that's only under the best conditions of continuous driving. So the gap between gasoline and electric is greatest for city driving, and hybrids can bridge some of this.

5/31/2013 3:50:47 PM

It's also an infrastructure advantage. We don't know where the next generation in energy production will come, but whether it's solar, nuclear, or whatever, the electric car will work with it.

5/31/2013 3:52:18 PM

I drove a van for Raleigh Parks and Rec to pick up kids for the after school program a decade ago that ran on Natural Gas. That shit took like 15 minutes to refuel and the range was terrible.

5/31/2013 4:03:40 PM

^ these are the precise reasons it's nigh impossible to beat gasoline. It's outstanding for convenience, you'll never beat it. You need a big price differential to make up for that.

5/31/2013 4:24:18 PM

Quote :

""The issue with electric cars of course is that the electricity has to come from somewhere, so if you're plugging your car in to get electricity off the grid from a coal fired plant, is might not be doing much good.""

So just doing back of the hand calculations and making some general assumptions its hard to see how burning coal at a power plant is and running electric vehicles is more efficient. I may be wrong but just try to follow this logic.

Assume that every time we convert energy from one form to another we have losses that result in waste heat.

Coal plant/electric car
Burn coal to heat water. Chemical to Thermal energy
Steam turns turbine. Thermal energy to mechanical
turbine turns generator. Mechanical energy to electrical energy
Charge car batteries. electrical energy to chemical energy
discharge batteries. chemical energy to electrical energy
electricity turns motor. electrical to mechanical energy

Gasoline engine
Burn gasoline in engine. Chemical to mechanical energy
Done.

6/17/2013 9:14:31 PM

it depends on how you define efficiency. is it CO2/SO2/particulate/Hg emitted per mile driven? is it the amount of mechanical work done divided by the total amount of energy in the gasoline and coal? what sort of emissions controls is our hypothetical coal-fired power plant equipped with? or maybe we charged on-peak and the power company was running peaker combustion turbines. or maybe they have a lot of combined cycle generation. are the CC units equipped with selective catalytic reduction equipment? we also forgot to factor in transportation of gasoline via transfer truck and coal via rail and gas via pipeline.

it's not nearly as simple as you made it out to be. try putting some damn numbers in there.

6/17/2013 10:04:09 PM

^^ furthermore, you have to look at the actual efficiency values of mass production energy versus small production

i'm not an engineer, so i won't pretend to know what those values are, but it has always been my understanding that energy production in large quantities (ie. power plants) is considerably more efficient than production in small (ie. car engines)...you might have more opportunities for energy loss in the former, but the latter is less efficient overall

you also have to take into account the source of the energy (coal, nuclear, oil, etc)...if you use more domestic product, you use less energy shipping the fuel from its source to the plant

there are so many things that go into calculating "efficiency" it that it's a bit disingenuous to break it down to loss from heat transfer

6/18/2013 8:37:57 AM

^everything I've read on this subject agrees with you Quag; that the power creation at the plant is more efficient.

Quote :

"Coal plant/electric car Burn coal to heat water. Chemical to Thermal energy Steam turns turbine. Thermal energy to mechanical turbine turns generator. Mechanical energy to electrical energy Charge car batteries. electrical energy to chemical energy discharge batteries. chemical energy to electrical energy electricity turns motor. electrical to mechanical energy Gasoline engine Burn gasoline in engine. Chemical to mechanical energy Done."

I feel like leaving out the oil refining process from this comparison is disingenuous.

[Edited on June 18, 2013 at 8:51 AM. Reason : f]

6/18/2013 8:50:12 AM

yeah the efficiency of large-scale power production is much better than the efficiency of gas powered vehicles. and yes, there are a LOT of things to factor into overall efficiency.

6/18/2013 9:00:28 AM

Plus that is assuming a worse case scenario for CO2 output via a coal plant. There is obviously a mix of different power production in play at any time. As of 2011, NC generated half of its power from coal burning. So if you live in NC, you would have to cut in half the CO2 output from coal production, as half of the power that charges your electric vehicle is from nuclear, hydro, or another source that produces little or no CO2 emissions.

6/18/2013 9:29:54 AM

I avoid this rabbit hole whenever possible when I discuss electric vehicles. I hate hate hate having to defend the green nature of these cars. Its just an endless debate.

6/18/2013 10:24:03 AM

^^I'm not sure why you're focusing on CO2 here.

Reasons for an EV:
-lower commuting costs
-reduces dependence on foreign energy sources
-"latest and greatest" / early adopter
-eliminates end user tailpipe pollution :SOx, NOx, CO
-reduces CO2 footprint (questionable)

6/18/2013 12:35:50 PM

Well there are three ways to look at it. How much power has to be generated to charge a battery to travel x miles down the road, versus using an efficient gasoline engine to drive said vehicle x miles down the road. Secondly, if you are more concerned with greenhouse emissions, how much CO2 comes out of the tailpipe for said trip, versus how much is emitted from the very power sources that generate the electricity used to charge that battery. Finally you could go for the price of gas versus price of power.

[Edited on June 18, 2013 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

6/18/2013 1:48:17 PM

residential electric energy from duke energy progress is currently at $0.0956/kWh

a gallon of gasoline generates 115k BTUs (34 kWh) and costs, say, $3.50/gallon (so $0.103/kWh)

so even if everything else were equal (namely the amount of pollution generated per kWh used), you still have to take into account that an electric car is roughly 3 times as efficient (it can go 3 times the distance per kWh) as an efficient passenger car

as i said earlier, i'm not an engineer, nor do i have any sources that definitively say that power plants pollute less per kWh produced...i'm fairly certain that's true, but i'll entertain any evidence to the contrary

as i see it, EV/hybrid cars are inarguably more efficient...sure, they cost more up front, they weigh more than their petrol counterparts, and EVs are downright useless for anything outside of a short daily commute...they're not for everyone for any number of reasons, but if you compare apples to apples, they come out ahead

6/18/2013 3:02:47 PM

Quote :

"So just doing back of the hand calculations and making some general assumptions its hard to see how burning coal at a power plant is and running electric vehicles is more efficient. I may be wrong but just try to follow this logic. Assume that every time we convert energy from one form to another we have losses that result in waste heat. Coal plant/electric car Burn coal to heat water. Chemical to Thermal energy Steam turns turbine. Thermal energy to mechanical turbine turns generator. Mechanical energy to electrical energy Charge car batteries. electrical energy to chemical energy discharge batteries. chemical energy to electrical energy electricity turns motor. electrical to mechanical energy Gasoline engine Burn gasoline in engine. Chemical to mechanical energy Done."

where are your hand calculations? because you seem to be basing your conclusion on listing things and counting... and that's a pretty dumb way to figure it out.

6/18/2013 3:39:28 PM

Quote :

"as i see it, EV/hybrid cars are inarguably more efficient...sure, they cost more up front, they weigh more than their petrol counterparts, and EVs are downright useless for anything outside of a short daily commute...they're not for everyone for any number of reasons, but if you compare apples to apples, they come out ahead"

If you're looking at it purely as a way to save money, it takes a lot of driving to break even over a similar vehicle with a conventional powertrain.

6/18/2013 4:39:18 PM

These are off the cuff calculations. I spent about 20min putting this together, it is by no means definitive and doesn’t prove anything. Its just my rationalization that electric cars really aren’t much better at saving fossil fuels. Perhaps if the majority of American energy came from nuclear then things would be different.

Assume the energy used to harvest/transport/refine coal and gas are the similar. I know that they are not the same, but this simplifies the comparison tremendously.

Coal plant ~ 35% Efficiency
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-compare-the-efficiency-of-different-power-plants/

Power line transmission ~95% Efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

Charge/discharge of Li-ion batteries ~ 85% Efficiency
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/sun1/

Electric Motor ~90% Efficiency
http://www.energywise.govt.nz/your-vehicle/new-technologies/electric-vehicles

Assume 1 unit of coal
1 * 35% * 85% * 95% * 90% = 25%


Gasoline Engine ~ 27% Efficiency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

Assume 1 unit of Gasoline
1 * 27% = 27%

6/18/2013 9:59:03 PM

Hoff, you actually make the case that electric cars ARE more efficient. Since power grids are diverse, and coal is a mixture, EV efficiency only goes up from your number. What is the power generation efficiency of nuclear and natural gas?

In any event, efficiency isn't a huge factor. We want diversification away from oil, and given that electric cars can take power from any generated source, it fixes the problems with being tied to a single source fuel.

[Edited on June 18, 2013 at 10:50 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2013 10:43:12 PM

Looking at NC, our energy generation mix is about 60% fossil fuels (coal & natural gas) and 40% renewable.
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NC#tabs-4

Taking this into account, it does look like electric vehicles are better for the environment. I didn't realize our energy mix was as heavy on renewables. I stand corrected.

6/18/2013 11:24:35 PM

good info in here

6/19/2013 12:45:29 PM

You are counting nuclear reactors as renewable?

6/19/2013 12:55:00 PM

I'd lean more towards the renewable side with that than the fossil fuel side

6/19/2013 1:10:58 PM

Quote :

"Not gonna happen in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime. As superior technology is developed the world will rely less on fossil fuels. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if we never run out, as demand diminishes for it over time."

Oh, so it we won't run out of energy that took a few millions years to accumulate for at least another hundred years. There is nothing to worry about, you guys! We will be long dead and gone when massive energy crisis finally comes! And look, our efficiency is increasing, so there will certainly be enough oil and gas for everyone to use as they see fit, including another 3 or 4 billion people that are going to join the existing 7 billion within our lifetimes!

6/19/2013 1:41:04 PM

Quote :

"including another 3 or 4 billion people that are going to join the existing 7 billion within our lifetimes!"

this is the real problem

6/19/2013 3:31:32 PM

Quote :

"Oh, so it we won't run out of energy that took a few millions years to accumulate for at least another hundred years. There is nothing to worry about, you guys! We will be long dead and gone when massive energy crisis finally comes! And look, our efficiency is increasing, so there will certainly be enough oil and gas for everyone to use as they see fit, including another 3 or 4 billion people that are going to join the existing 7 billion within our lifetimes!"

Know what happens every time some intellectual states that "in so and so many years we're gonna run out of ________ (fill in oil, water, food) and we're going to have a crisis"? Nothing happens. That date comes and goes with little or no fanfare. And why? Because humans are smart and resourceful.

I'm in favor of options, as CarZin has stated. But this chicken little crap is just history repeating itself. You might think things are different in 2013, but they're not.

6/19/2013 4:32:08 PM