Green Car Congress: UCLA Study Identifies Synergy Between Diesel Particles and Cholesterol in Enhancing Heart Disease

« ZAP XEBRA Electric Truck Achieves 100-Mile Range with Li-Ion Batteries | Main | W2 Energy Working on Solar-Powered Plasma Reactor »

UCLA Study Identifies Synergy Between Diesel Particles and Cholesterol in Enhancing Heart Disease

26 July 2007

A new UCLA study identifies a synergistic interaction between fine particles found in diesel exhaust and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol that enhances vascular inflammation and atherosclerosis, significantly increasing the risk for heart attack and stroke.

Published in the 26 July edition of the online journal Genome Biology, the findings are the first to explain how fine particulate matter in air pollution works with artery-clogging fats to switch on the genes that cause blood vessel inflammation and lead to cardiovascular disease.

When you add one plus one, it normally totals two. But we found that adding diesel particles to cholesterol fats equals three. Their combination creates a dangerous synergy that wreaks cardiovascular havoc far beyond what’s caused by the diesel or cholesterol alone.

—Dr. André Nel, chief of nanomedicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

The researchers set up a scenario to investigate the interaction between diesel exhaust particles and the fatty acids found in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol—the “bad” type of cholesterol that leads to artery blockage.

In particular, the team was interested in how oxidation—cell and tissue damage resulting from exposure to molecules known as free radicals—contributes to inflammation and artery disease. Free radicals enter the body through small particles present in polluted air and are also byproducts of normal processes, such as the metabolic conversion of food into energy.

Diesel particles are coated in chemicals containing free radicals, and the fatty acids in LDL cholesterol generate free radicals during metabolism in the cells. We wanted to measure what happens when these two sources of oxidation come into contact.

—Ke Wei Gong, UCLA

The scientists combined the pollutants and oxidized fats and cultured them with cells from the inner lining of human blood vessels. A few hours later, the team extracted DNA from the cells for genetic analysis.

They found that the diesel particles and oxidized fats worked in tandem to activate the genes that promote cellular inflammation. The interaction left a genetic footprint that reveals how interaction between the particles and cholesterol accelerates the narrowing and blockage of the blood vessels, according to Dr. Jesus Araujo, UCLA assistant professor of medicine and director of environmental cardiology at the Geffen School of Medicine.

To duplicate these findings in living cells, the UCLA team exposed mice with high cholesterol to the diesel particles and saw activation of some of the same gene groups in the animals’ tissue.

Exactly how air pollutants cause cardiovascular injury is poorly understood. But we do know that these particles are coated with chemicals that damage tissue and cause inflammation of the nose and lungs. Vascular inflammation in turn leads to cholesterol deposits and clogged arteries, which can give rise to blood clots that trigger heart attack or stroke.

—Dr. André Nel

The researchers’ next step will be to convert the genes’ responses to the pollutant-cholesterol combination into a biomarker that will enable physicians to easily evaluate air pollution’s effect on health, especially cardiovascular disease.

The American Cancer Society has reported a 6% increase in heart- and lung-related deaths for every 10 micrograms per cubic meter rise in particulates.

The research team included investigators from the fields of nanomedicine, cardiology and human genetics and from the Southern California Particle Center. Other co-authors included Ning Li, Berenice Barajas and Aldons J. Lusis of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Wei Zhao and Steve Horvath of the UCLA School of Public Health; Michael Kleinman of the University of California, Irvine; and Constantinos Sioutas of USC.

Grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Heart, Blood and Lung Institute; the US Environmental Protection Agency; and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation supported the study.

Resources:

“Air pollutant chemicals and oxidized lipids exhibit genome wide synergistic effects on endothelial cells”; Ke Wei Gong, Wei Zhao, Ning Li, Berenice Barajas, Michael Kleinman, Constantinos Sioutas, Steve Horvath, Aldons J Lusis, Andre E Nel and Jesus A Araujo; Genome Biology 2007, 8:R149 doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-7-r149

July 26, 2007 in Emissions | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/20348742

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UCLA Study Identifies Synergy Between Diesel Particles and Cholesterol in Enhancing Heart Disease:

Comments

In othr words : Altairnano nanosafe is not just good for the environment but is also good for your health.
Eleconvert.com

Posted by: Altarian1 | Jul 26, 2007 9:52:18 AM

I'm hoping my grandkids will take their EV to go see ICE cars in a museum.

Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 26, 2007 10:39:02 AM

Amen, Neilpackrat. Depending on your age, I think you just may live to see it......

Posted by: Bud Johns | Jul 26, 2007 11:33:14 AM

Also, thank goodness the new emissions standards include Diesel Particulate filters.

Also, from what I understand Biodiesel, even at 2%, can decrease particulate emissions and help out with the aftertreament system efficiencies...

Posted by: Spokane Walt | Jul 26, 2007 11:39:43 AM

If Big Auto knew they could cure heart disease tomorrow by not bringing diesels to the U.S., do you think they would do that? Judging by what Big Cig did for years, by continuing to market cancer-causing cigarettes, I would say they would keep it a secret and continue on down the diesel and gasoline ICE trail, denying they knew, even in court, and counting the bodies along the way. Boy! the power of money is awesome at times; moves people in companies to rationalize away the truths.

This kind of information doesn't do anything except add to the list of health hazards caused by running huge numbers of ICEs. It's been known for decades that burning hydrocarbons of any kind, in the atmosphere is bad for health. And, it takes decades to do anything about it because of the slow evolutionary approach taken by the Oil and Auto companies; witness the recent announcement by Toyota for their rather anemic PHEV.

By the way, do the people in Europe ever read these blogs or do they just accept their faith as determined by the auto companies? They have been gassed for years by diesels.

Posted by: Lad | Jul 26, 2007 11:59:54 AM

Lad,

Yes we do. The reason why diesels are so popular in Europe is mostly explained by taxation policies. We cannot afford large engines, for example a 5.7 Litre V8 would pay in some EU states something like 71884$ just for registration tax, you must add the price of the car plus 21% VAT. Fuel prices are also very high, 7$ a gallon, most part is tax over oil products and then you have the annual circulation county taxes.

In the land of expensive motoring, a small and punchy diesel engine with 60mpg is a smart choice, it can easily halve your monthly fuel budget. Strangely, with the diesel market penetration we have here in Europe, smog is not being a major problem. It looks like we have another pollution mix than the US, different smog precursors. Maybe we're being brain washed and love to be gassed.

It's strange for us, Europeans, listening fellow Americans complaining about the premium price of a Diesel and/or Hybrid solution or even the 1200$ for UAW, that’s a drop in the ocean for us.

Anyway, these high taxation policies in Europe could be a golden opportunity for EV’s. With the current Euro/dollar exchange ratio and some political will (no taxes for EV's) maybe we can buy a Tesla in the price range of a BMW 330d cabrio.

Posted by: MH | Jul 26, 2007 2:01:14 PM

I wonder if the environmentalist wackos will give the Bush Administration credit for the United States having the toughest Diesel exhaust particulate requirements in the world. The Europeans will not have a requirement as difficult until after 2015.

Posted by: rca | Jul 26, 2007 2:59:27 PM

yes I am another european who is also worried about the rise of the diesel
car here europe .
A friend of mine who used to work here in europe as an air quality
scientist working directly for the EU enviromental research center spent four
years working on airbourne contaniments from road traffic , and whenever he
or his team came up with something that could in anyway appear to be detrimental
to the pursuits and profits of the car industry , a reason was always found why the paper could not be published .
Funny that ! but then you realise that practically every government in
europe gets a large proportion of its income from the tax on road fuel .

No government in europe will ever allow the widespread adoption of the
electric car , and I believe some will actively conspire with the large auto companies to keep the ICE going in one form or another , there is quite simply
too much at stake .

I think all of us that read and contribute to this site know full well that
the electric car is the only way into the future if we all want to keep our much loved mobility and not kill our planet doing it . I think that all of us know full well
that electric propusion is much more efficient than the ICE , likewise regen braking
is much better than filling our cities with particles of heavy metal from friction
linings . So are we more intelligent than the people that we chosen to lead our
countries , in some cases yes , but on the whole no .

So to my final point, why is it that our leaders are failing to protect the population when there is a viable alternative available now , it all comes down
to money , they all put economic growth and keeping those big old friendly
companies all plumped up with fat profits , above the health and well being
of the population .

And as far as I can see it is not about to end soon !

Posted by: andrichrose | Jul 26, 2007 3:33:31 PM

MH:
Thank you for the enlightening information; Now, I better understand why the diesels and why the premium on fuel. It seems Europe has the same problems we have only to a more expensive extent. But, you do have an advantage in that you have a better mass transit system. Our transportation system was set up many years ago to have the railroads deliver freight and leave personal transportation to buses, airlines and automobiles. Not many of our U.S. railroads could or would ever support 100 mph trains and we are just now slowly getting back into providing local rail mass transit alternatives. I think this is because of the jump in fuel costs and we are starting to understand that daily commuting on freeways is an expensive and time consuming process.

The U.S. auto and oil companies have made great profits over a period of a hundred years selling ICE cars; but, I hope this is now ending and that EVs are the next big thing. I hope the boardrooms at GM and Ford are filling up with EV designs and that they are busy planning how and when to enter them into the market. I think the first one in the mass market with a long range $25,000 PHEV or BEV will win the prize.

rca:
Not to take anything away from President Bush but wasn't it California that set the first ULSD standard?

Posted by: Lad | Jul 26, 2007 4:23:19 PM

It does not take a genius to tell you car and truck exhaust is bad for you health, The regular reports of lung cancer and asthma caused by air pollution all make sense (polluted air->lungs breath air->polluted lungs) but this one is new.

Posted by: Ben | Jul 26, 2007 5:06:31 PM

Diesel Particulate Filter will be able to clean up Diesel exhaust to the most stringent standard. HEV's like the Prius has its exhaust several folds (3-4x) cleaner than a comparable gasoline engine of same model year.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

HEV like the Prius has higher well-to-wheel efficiency in comparison to a BEV getting its electricity from coal-fired power plants, and is comparable in well-to-wheel efficiency to a BEV getting its power from combined-cycle gas-fired power plants.

Don't put too much stake on BEV or PHEV when coal fired power plants still provide the bulk of electricity here and elsewhere in the world. Utilities have been resisting regulations to clean up the smoke stack, especially under the Bush Adm. As the results, coal fired power plants contribute significantly to local air pollution in term of particulate matters, and toxic mercury, too! Wanna see more of those when PHEV's and BEV's will roam the streets?

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 26, 2007 5:47:18 PM

It's all hydroelectric here!

Posted by: DougH | Jul 26, 2007 5:53:04 PM

Lad
Whether California set the first sulfur requirement for Diesel fuel or not is irrelevant to the decision by the EPA to regulate Diesel exhaust particulates. To the best of my knowledge the most compelling study was one that showed that Diesel exhaust particulates could modify the immune response in the endothelial layer. This had implications relative to cancer and asthma. Besides, no Republican is his right mind would ask the Bush Administration to adopt a national standard based on California alone since their air pollution problem is somewhat unique and their politics so extreme.

Posted by: rca | Jul 26, 2007 7:21:05 PM

Roger: You were better off advocating hydrogen than petroleum ICE vehicles. The only way you're going to make even the Prius get well-to-wheels numbers even close to an EV is by taking the worst possible electrical generation and transmission and comparing it to the lightest sweetest crude you can find.

Prius - 55mpg combined (EPA) gives roughly .6km/MJ
EV1 - 102wh/km (US DOE) gives about 2km/MJ

Gasoline has roughly an 18% loss from production, refining and transportation. (Argonne labs numbers)

Electricity loses a similar amount from transmission and
battery chemistry. (Argonne labs numbers)

So, even with a crappy coal plant at 40% your still way ahead with an EV. Now start to use NG combined cycle at up to 60%(GE) and your not even close. Then switch to renewables or nuclear (lets see gasoline or diesel do that) and you're off fossil fuels completely ... Now we're talking about clean air! EVs don't have to pollute at all, petro cars do (I don't care how stringent the standards, they're still spewing pollution within arms length of my kids). If a coal plant is dirty ... clean it up! Or even better ... replace it.

Final kicker ... peak oil. No point in advocating for something (ICE on petroleum) that's dead in a few decades (or sooner) anyway.

Posted by: Neil | Jul 26, 2007 7:28:26 PM

UltraLowSulpherDiesel and DPFs have been the law here barely a year, off-road and marine and NE heating oil all are still HS, so how does this study determine which DP came from where?

Is it my imagination(NO)...since ULSD, bioD is harder to find at retail and where the H are Cetane stickers? that say anything but 40? Modern diesels need at least 48-50C...Im sure the neonazis at CARB are all over it.

Can you imagine no OCTANE stickers? WTH are the Dept of AGS? And NBB?

Posted by: fred | Jul 26, 2007 7:43:43 PM

Lad:

Stringent standards on diesel engines (heavy-duty trucks at first) were developed and introduced by CARB, put into federal standard during Clinton administration, and was relentlessly driven home during Bush administration. However, I would not credit any administration with this great leap forward. It was CARB and EPA just doing their job.

As for mistaken practice of diesel proliferation in Europe (before making diesel engines acceptably clean), one important lesson should be learned. It is useless to suppress initially polluting or not completely safe technologies, like ICE cars or nuclear power. It is way more productive to make them clean and safe, rather than just trying to swipe them under the carpet (making big tax bucks in the process). Modern diesel cars becoming progressively cleaner in Europe, but already huge legacy fleet will be here to pollute for years to come.

Roger:

You are right. Comparison of close well-to-wheel efficiency of HEV versus PHEV and BEV means one thing: no matter how much success will enjoy PHEV and BEV (I believe they will), there is and will be for a long time big niche for regular HEV. PHEV or BEV do not cancel HEV.

Posted by: Andrey | Jul 26, 2007 7:52:51 PM

rca:
LSD (Low Sulfur Diesel) was mandated by California at 500ppm two years ago and down to ULSD (15ppm) for all diesel use in 2006; The EPA is allowing a transition period in the other states until 2010. The reason this is all relevant is DPFs don't work with LSD because the sulfur contaminates the device. As an aside: the increase cost at the refiner is expected to be about 5 cents and over that amount at the pump to pay for the increase in distribution costs, etc.

Posted by: Lad | Jul 26, 2007 8:39:56 PM

My Washington State produces equivalent electric energy at 5% the pollution of ICE. Plus EVs use that power 4 times more efficiently than ICE. My state passed an initiative for higher cost renewable energy sources so pollution will be driven to even lower levels. With renewable electric energy sources other states will have our low pollution #'s to shoot at. May ICE die that life may live. Long live EVs.

Posted by: litesong | Jul 26, 2007 9:11:23 PM

Deep apologies for abusing this message thread, but could someone kindly direct me to as technically complex and in depth an overview of the engineering of a HEV as is publicly available. Much thanks.

Posted by: ac | Jul 26, 2007 9:52:09 PM

Neil,
Prius can travel 0.6km/MJ of gasoline in the tank, EV1 can travel 2km/MJ of electricity from the battery, OK?

However, to produce 1 MJ of electricity at 40% efficiency, then to transmit it thru the grid at 92% efficiency, then considering the efficiency via the charger and battery during charging at 90% (or lower!) efficiency, then your final efficiency will be .40 x .92 x .9 = 33%, you will need 1/.33=3MJ of heating value of coal at the plant. Dividing 2km/3MJ will give you 0.66km/MJ of coal energy! Wait! there are periods in which the power plant's turbine is operating at partial load, meaning that the overall electrical generation efficiency ain't gonna be 40% in real life! But, I'm generous and I'll give the benefit of the doubt! Ah, well, to be fair, not all Prius drivers will get 55mpg like me! More like 48 mpg as the average mpg.

So, Prius 0.6km/MJ of gasoline energy
EV1 0.66km/MJ of coal energy,
Gasoline needs refining from crude oil, and transportation, but coal will need to be mined and, chopped up and transported to the power plants as well. The heat from gasoline refining may not all be loss but can be recycled into useful work, as well.

Now, comes the real kicker: What is the payload rating of the Prius vs. that of the EV1? 850 lbs for the Prius vs. ~ 400-500 lbs for the EV? since the EV1 can only seat 2, while the Prius can seat 4 adults plus one child comfortably (4+1), with ~15 cubic feet of luggage space.
Based on this, I can now compare payload of HEV to payload of BEV, and one can see that even for higher-efficiency combined-cycle gas-fired power plants, which there aren't many around due to higher investment cost, the HEV and the BEV, payload to payload, source to wheel, would be comparable in efficiency!

Peak oil? Okay, synthesize fuels as H2 or synthetic hydrocarbon from waste biomass, coal, or renewable solar or wind energy. I've discussed in previous postings about the comparable efficiency of electrical generation vs synthesis of H2 or F-T products from solar or wind electricity via high-temp electrolysis process. Quantum energy system is delivering H2-Prii to Iceland and Norway for research.

I'm not against BEV nor PHEV. I just want to illustrate a balanced picture, that we have different viable options to invest in, and let's not put all our eggs in one basket! Let's give consumers choices among Green Car options.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 26, 2007 10:51:22 PM

If they can distinguish between "good" cholesteral (HDL) and "bad" cholesterol, you'd think they would be able to draw distinctions between different types of diesel particulates and give us more useful information. After all, the point of doing studies like this is to give us actionable intelligence against pollution. Changing the fuel or the aftertreatment may be more productive right away than just focusing on diesel particulate quantity and hoping it's the same stuff the study had you worrying about.

Biodiesel particulates are very different from petroleum ones, and are very similar to cooking fumes, which the human species has had millennia to adapt to. They contain a very small fraction of the carcinogenic stuff, for starters. Headway could be made by focusing our biodiesel supply on the most populated areas if we knew how much this mattered.

Also particulates from ULSD are different from those from older diesel, rendering most old studies suspect. And the fine particles that could get past a DPF/CRT must be different from the larger particles that would dominate if you don't have one. E-diesel (ethanol spiked) particulates are less but also surely different.

It's an important moral issue here in the US, because while diesel engines are difficult to achieve stellar emissions from and the number of tons of vehicle Americans haul all over creation is high so pollution density has to be fought hard, if we eschew the diesel out of FUD we are burning almost 50% more petroleum. Thus contributing to greenhouse problems and islamofacist problems. It's sacrificing global health for local health--really to try and save cost in the short term even though we pay in the end for all the fuel.

Also when PHEVs are brought on stream, that cuts in half the particulates involved, and also cuts the size of the engine in half so more, bulkier aftertreatment is affordable, and special fuels like biodiesel go farther and are twice as affordable too.

Diesels aren't the ultimate solution, but they offer the most progress in the short term on GHG's and oil dependence, of things that are politically achievable. Of course it shouldn't be an excuse to impede the other solutions.

Posted by: P Schager | Jul 26, 2007 11:39:32 PM

I wonder if the environmentalist wackos will give the Bush Administration credit for the United States having the toughest Diesel exhaust particulate requirements in the world.

Give Bush credit for Clinton's idea? The idea that Bush delayed?

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/caa90/15.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4250/is_200102/ai_n13215512

Posted by: jack | Jul 26, 2007 11:53:53 PM

Roger: You continue to use the worst possible numbers for electricity from the dirtiest possible sources in your attack on EVs. You included the cost of transmission for the EV but not for the gasoline. The efficiency number for the EV1 includes battery overhead.

Let's redo the coal numbers:
1/.4=2.5MJ at the plant. 2km/2.5MJ=.8km/MJ ... 30% better than the .6 Prius.

Now lets recalculate with NG (which is way more efficient to produce and transport than petroleum, but I won't even include that, I don't have to):
1/.6=1.67MJ 2km/1.67MJ=1.19km/MJ ... petroleum ice is left in the dust.

Now lets recalculate with renewables. ... Wait ... we don't have to because the petro-ICE can't run off them so it's irrelevant. EV wins by a landslide.

We've been comparing a modern Prius (the very best of petroleum ice) with an old EV1 (90s technology) ... So how about we compare the same cars.

The Prius is 55mpg ... CalCars' PHEV Prius is 100+mpg

I certainly don't wish to badmouth the Prius, It's a great and important step towards cleaner EVs. I can't help it that Roger chose it to champion petro-ice.

Yes there are other alternatives to BEVs. If you can run an H2 ICE from clean energy be my guest, good on you. (Don't ask me to pay for the infrastructure)

The bottom line is that petroleum ICE cars pollute and always will pollute. EVs don't have to pollute. I'm getting mighty tired of hearing the "pollution elsewhere, long tailpipe" crap from people that can't even imagine life without a gas station. They're the kind of catch-phrases that the petroleum industry will use to try and discredit alternatives not supplied by them.

Posted by: Neil | Jul 27, 2007 12:42:16 AM

Well, finally I can comment on something at GCC from directly within my own field!

I am a researcher in the field of cardiovascular disease, oxidised LDL and inflammation.

This study is utterly flawed, as it relies on assumptions made decades ago that have been shown to be incorrect in their assumption of what is "atherogenic". Papers still get published today using these assumptions (that oxidative stress causes inflammation and heart disease), but there is little we can do about it.

Posted by: clett | Jul 27, 2007 2:24:26 AM

P Schager-Thanx

Who gives a FF about a 55mpg Prius. Yeah we should be all over it but...the ship, the train, the UPS and USPS truck ran on DIESEL. The computer you look at, the food in your fridge???didnt get there because of/in a Fing Prius.

Move closer to work, ride your bicycle, get a place downtown, get the crazy b you live with to stop driving to mall 3 times a day(are there any women that read this S(Im sorry)...is anybody actually trying to SAVE money?

Posted by: fred | Jul 27, 2007 2:31:28 AM

In my opinion, these studies should look at the total gamut of ICE emissions and their net effect on health, not only to a specific component like this one on PM. I don’t pretend to diminish the work behind this study, but as many other things we read or ear on media, it could be interpreted as scare tactics. “Oh my God, the diesels are coming it will be soot doom”, no word about gasoline evaporative emissions or benzene. We need the total picture not only cherry picked studies.

Posted by: MH | Jul 27, 2007 6:57:48 AM

MH, there are plenty of studies on benzene already.

Go to pubmed and look them up...they are not new and thus, not currently in the news.

Posted by: Patrick | Jul 27, 2007 8:19:46 AM

Fred: ROFLMAO, sorry I got off topic. WRT saving money ... you'll have to swear of women ... can't seem to myself ... now I'm shelling out for kids. Bring on the EV delivery trucks!

Posted by: Neil | Jul 27, 2007 9:42:16 AM

EVs don't have to pollute.

And diesels can use biodiesel and flexfuel vehicles can use E85.

Whether they actually WILL is a crucial question that needs an answer. People who push for widespread BEV and PHEV adoption, yet don't simultaneously enable major transformations in the fuel mix of the power grid towards clean renewables (among many other things), are just swapping one set of problems for another.

Posted by: jack | Jul 27, 2007 9:47:45 AM

"just swapping one set of problems for another" ... true enough Jack. But some problems are easier to solve than others and some problems are bigger than others.

BEVs solve the car pollution end of things. That moves to onus to cleanup to the grid (not an issue where I live) which, at a limited number of fixed installations, is much easier to do than dealing will millions of moving vehicles.

While Biodiesel may be carbon neutral I'm not sure it entirely solves the pollution problem (I understand that it will greatly reduce the number of aromatics). Someone else with more knowledge of vehicle emissions will have to fill in the blanks for me on how much biodiesel is an improvement over fossil diesel.

Posted by: Neil | Jul 27, 2007 10:41:20 AM

I think what Neil is saying is that even if we burn ethanol and biodiesel we are still going to be pumping NOx and particulates into the air (even if CO2 emission are neutral), and that EV are technically more energy efficent from well-to-wheel then even hybrids.

Posted by: Ben | Jul 27, 2007 11:12:08 AM

"just swapping one set of problems for another" ... true enough Jack. But some problems are easier to solve than others and some problems are bigger than others.

Solving one problem only to create one or many more isn't actually solving a problem.

That's the boilerplate response, but it still doesn't have anything to do with whether that WILL happen.

And you'll be putting more NOx into the air with a BEV than with an ultra-low emission ICE or HEV using US grid average emissions. It's swapping less CO2 for more NOx.

As for well-to-wheel, there's still a lot of dispute as to what is better than what. There's a lot of ambiguity in ascertaining what would be a complete accounting of well-to-powerplant for electricity (as well as what one assumes the fuel mix is that one is drawing from, which has massive regional and personal variations). There's an equal amount of ambiguity in the well-to-tank portion for vehicles powered by gasoline or diesel, including HEVs.

Posted by: jack | Jul 27, 2007 12:02:21 PM

jack: You CAN sit there and do nothing. Some of us WILL and HAVE done something. I run a BEV from hydro ... no pollution. If you don't like the fact that your power comes from coal get some PV panels or pay a little extra for wind power. What's your plan?

Posted by: Neil | Jul 27, 2007 12:23:42 PM

See - why does it always go this way? One second we're discussing the idea, the next minute someone starts getting personal. Why do you presume I'm "sitting here doing nothing"? Because I question your position with respect to some ideas? There's no logical connection that would lead to such a statement.

This isn't about what you personally are doing, or what I personally am doing, it's about the merits and drawbacks of certain technologies and how changes to one part beg consideration of how that one part is embedded in a larger system, and what and how things should change so that we're not simply rearranging deck chairs, so to speak.

And why do you presume that I get my electricity from coal? How did you come to that conclusion, too? Or how did you come to the conclusion that I'm unaware of how electricity can be produced cleanly and renewably?

Again, if we could discuss the ideas instead of getting personal, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by: jack | Jul 27, 2007 2:35:39 PM

Neil, what would you consider comparable numbers for a Prius as a hybrid versus Prius in all-electric mode? Does 47.6 mpg and 250 Wh/mile sound right? What do you think are fair numbers?

I just want to plug in those two to compare energy efficiency, CO2, and NOx.

Posted by: jack | Jul 27, 2007 2:54:57 PM

Nothing personal jack ... I said "you CAN" (as in generic people) rather than "YOU can" (which would be specific). I mentioned what I've been doing because I can't argue for what I think should be done unless I'm prepared to do it myself.

I don't have numbers for the Prius. From a previous article here the larger battery in the PHEV prius was 2.6kwh with a range of 13 km which would calculate out to a worst case of 200wh/km. I suggest you get more accurate numbers from CalCar. I do know that the Tesla (110 wh/km) is in the same ballpark as the EV1 (102). I don't believe that the drag coefficient of the Tesla is as good as the Prius, but it doesn't weigh as much either.

What's been getting me ticked off is that people keep comparing the very best of petro-ICE (Prius which is part EV already) with the very worst of electricity (coal). Not a very useful way of looking at the world. There may be lots of coal fired capacity in the world but there are lots of SUVs in the world too and I don't think anyone would be in doubt about how that comparison would work out. If you want to run the numbers for pollution and efficiency in a fair manner, how about comparing BEVs to petro-ICE run on CTL?

I advocate EVs as the first step on the fastest and easiest route to a clean and sustainable transportation system: EVs run on renewable electricity. The technology exists now. The infrastructure exists now. Sometimes you have to move a chair to make room for a table.

Roger can advocate H2-ICE if he wishes. I'm ok with that if it can be made to fly. It's just not the easiest route to take.

Bio-fuels are a step up from fossil, there just can't possibly be enough of it.

I suspect that NG vehicles would have some very good efficiency numbers, and their pollution numbers are an improvement over gas or diesel. Sustainability would be a problem (especially here in North America where NG production has peaked).

PetroICE is not an option. No matter how much you tinker with it, it will always create air pollution and it will never be sustainable.

This report (unless Clett is right, and I hope he is) is just one more accusatory finger pointed at problems with oil-burners as polluters.

So I repeat: Jack, have you got another alternative? Seriously I'm listening, because even the EV route is too slow for my liking.

Posted by: Neil | Jul 27, 2007 4:10:45 PM

Hm. For the Prius, that would come to 325 wh/mile, which seems really high. That's around what the RAV4 EV was getting 6-7 years ago. I asked because I've seen 250 wh/mile batted around as an appropriate number. I know that Tesla is claiming around 205 wh/mile at the outlet for theirs. Let's split the difference between the low Prius estimate and the Tesla and say around 225 wh/mile. Sound OK?

For the gas mileage, is 47.6 mpg OK? Those are greenhybrid-dot-com numbers.

The way I've got it, the hybrid will use 2,395 BTU per mile of gasoline and the electric-mode will consume 2,430 BTU per mile in primary energy. That accounts for overall conversion efficiency of the US grid at 31% and 114,000 BTU per gallon of gasoline. So, energy-wise, it's even.

For CO2, I'm getting 0.41 pounds per mile for gasoline, 0.31 pounds per mile for all-electric.

For NOx, the regular Prius meets Bin 2 levels of 2.0 grams per mile. The electric hits a much higher 22.0 grams per mile.

So, energy is even, CO2 is higher for the gas, NOx substantially lower for the gas. I don't really have the time to dig into all the other pollutants, and I don't even know how far I could get with it. Suffice to say, there's different chemicals coming out of a tailpipe than a smokestack and it's about which poison you want to choose - which is pretty subjective.

Yes, people do that, but I'm just trying to see what the trade-off is by keeping as much constant as possible and assuming that it's an average person who can choose between a hybrid that they can get a dealer, versus an electric the could get a dealer and just plug in. Naturally, there's individual variability, but unless one assumes changes to the electric grid (per my prior comments), then it's appropriate to assume grid averages.

I also don't think it's either/or, meaning there's room for multiple technologies, but I think it's very fair to take the edge of available technology and compare it to whatever is similar, yet with a different type of engine/motor and energy source.

This comparison with the two Prius models seems to validate what I was saying about trading one problem for another and that it's not necessarily true that a pure EV is more efficient than a hybrid. Again, this isn't full well-to-wheel, but anything past the power plant and the gas pump is speculative at best and thus open to wide ranges of values.

So I repeat: Jack, have you got another alternative? Seriously I'm listening, because even the EV route is too slow for my liking.

I'm actually happy with the progress of hybrids and EVs. It really looks like we're hitting strides with them now and it won't be too far off that they'll be far more common. It mostly hinges on storage density, economics, and recharge times, all of which are trending favorably at a good clip.

Long-term, I'm not really banking on personal road vehicles, though, so it's not the greatest concern to me. It seems to have run its course as a technology, relative to other things we're capable of deploying in the near future.

Posted by: jack | Jul 27, 2007 4:52:31 PM

Hi Neil,
Your (and mine) passion in advocating Green Automotive is what society needs now more than anything. Your partiality toward BEV is understandable since you're receiving electricity from hydro source. But, keep in mind that Hydro-electricity has little room for future expansion beyond what it is now.
I'm getting my electricity from mostly coal-burning plants at a ripoff price of 15 cents/kwh, and there are local outcries where I live regarding air pollution from these local coal-burning power plants.

I'd like to make a motion that we (the world) should make a transition away from petroleum-based transportation, and toward renewable energy sources. WE now have the technology to synthesize transportation fuels efficiently from renewable energy sources, in order to back up unreliable solar and wind output AND also to power our transportation.
However, we can still continue to count on the [cleaner and leaner] ICE as our powerful ally even in this respect. The recent news about Ford and DB being close to bringing to the market HCCI-capable engines with 20-40% improvement in efficiency is even more encouraging for the continued contribution of the ICE in our future transportation.

When fuel cell technology will make FCV-HEV practical economically, then even more power to Green Automotive. Ditto for nanotech battery technology. But, let's not count the chicken until the egg is hatched. Peace.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 27, 2007 5:09:11 PM

We all know that AWD BEVs is by far the best solution and ICE vehicles are one of the worse. ICE will have to go the same way as tobacco smoking went. The argument of diesel versus gas/ethanol ICE is irrelevant, much the same as 'filter' cigarettes versus 'non-filter' was. They both have to go.

The logical transition, for personnal transportation, may very well be via HEVs and PHEVs but sooner or latter BEVs will win. A very light weight BEV covered with 50% efficient solar cells could cruise around at an acceptable speed (on sunny days) without using much of the on-board battery energy.

Electric passenger trains have proven the most efficient and often the best way to move people around quickly, safely and cleanly. European countries have adopted that solution while North America has not. We will wake up sooner or latter.

Electric (daytime) flights are also coming and will be common place 15 or 20 years from now. Battery or Fuel Cell range extenders or both could be used for night time (and cloudy days) flights.

Posted by: | Jul 28, 2007 9:47:03 AM

Electric flights??

Posted by: jack | Jul 28, 2007 4:02:02 PM

Jack:

Primitive (early days) limited range and payload electric flights are a reality. Check with Boing R & D.

Posted by: | Jul 30, 2007 3:52:52 PM