Actually, it could be amusing if it weren't such a serious issue. Automobile manufacturers worldwide are attempting to excell beyond their very limits in a futile attempt to keep fossil fuel guzzlers alive. What they could have - and should have done some thirty years ago,
now they're wrenching their shoulders to keep the dinos in business. Far too late as I see it. EVs are definitely on the surge and this time to stay.

Yoatmon,

There are many EV (electrical vehicle) fans that are completely overlooking the most important and fundamental problem:

With the current US electricity generation mix, an EV such as Nissan Leaf produces more CO2/distance than a 50mpg Gas/Hybrid car!!
And the Peugot 508 at 65mpg (US) absolutely crushes the Leaf in CO2 performance, even though the Peugot 508 is a bug and roomy car!

I'm attaching the analysis that I have posted before. It was originally in this thread:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/03/epa-20120311.html

=========================================

Let us be generous and assume that we can generate enough electricity
for electric cars using the same fuel mix (coal, natural gas, nuclear,
etc) as we are using now, and as described at the page linked (everyone
please follow the link http://www.casteyanqui.com/ev/longtailpipe/ and
read it). I will use the numbers from that page to prove my point.

According to the link, burning gasoline creates 24.50 pounds of GHG per
gallon, well-to-tailpipe. Hence a 30mpg gasoline car produces 81.67
(=100/30*24.50) lbs(CO2)/100miles, as they say using the 30mpg gasoline
Nissan Versa as an example. By straight calculation, a Prius at 50mpg
similarly produces 49.00 (=100/50*24.50) lbs(CO2)/100 miles.

Now compare the Prius to the Nissan Leaf (100% electric) example. The
webpage calculates that the Leaf (BTW a smaller car than the Prius)
produces 50.72 lbs(CO2)/100miles, using our current electricity
generation mix.

Look at that number again: 50.672 lbs/100mi is greater than the 49.00
lbs/100mi number of the Prius !! !! !!

So with current off-the-shelf technology, a Prius is already slightly
more CO2-efficient than a Nissan Leaf fully electric car (and very
liklely also slightly more energy-efficent, one would have to do the
calculation, but CO2-efficency is a good proxy for energy-effieciency).

Now, a DIESEL hybrid of prius size will easily get 60-70mpg and maybe
70-80mpg. Look to Peugot, VW, Citroen for exsistence proof. Or do a
back-of-the-envelope calculation based on a Leaf-sized 50mpg European
diesel car.

I'll repeat the conclusion: A Prius plain gasoline hybrid (no plugin)
is already more CO2-efficient than a Nissan Leaf. A diesel-electric
hybrid is *significantly* more efficeent than a Nissan Leaf.

Purely electric cars only make sense if we can generate all the
electricty we need without burning coal, which we cannot for a long
time. We can do BETTER than electric cars by switching to hybrid diesels NOW.

I'm not necessarily in the EV camp, but even if I were, I certainly don't consider more electricity coming from nuclear and natural gas to be good news.

Given the tiny scale and limited consequences of nuclear upsets (Fukushima is much smaller than Chernobyl, required a quake and tsunami to produce, and could not have happened at plants even slightly newer—which we know because it didn't)...

...why anyone would lament a shift from coal to nuclear is a mystery to me.

Engineer-Poet.

>Fortunately for the EV camp, the US generation mix is shifting rapidly toward natural gas.

Rapidly?? Not true. You do not provide any data to support this claim.

There is some data in this report:

http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-12-15.pdf

I do not see evidence that what claim is true.

My claim stands: Electric cars are WORSE for the environment than a 50mpg+ car.

>>and right now and for the next 20 years at least, that is a diesel electric hybrid.

I probably should have said:

For the next 20 years at least, that is NOT an electric car. And right now the best technology is diesel electric hybrid.

Engineer-Poet,

Your arguments are dishonest and full of smoke (CO2?) and mirrors.

>>That's asserted but not supported. EVs can be used as active elements of the electrical grid (dynamic charging, V2G), replacing the existing providers of these functions which currently burn fuel. For instance, a quarter-million EVs on 6.6 kW V2G-capable grid connections could replace 1.5 GW of spinning reserve. Fast-starting gas turbines take 10-15 minutes to come up from cold, which the EV fleet could handle; leaving the reserve generators cold reduces carbon emissions.

What does this have to do with anything? You don't seriously think that discharging EVs back into the grid is going to save carbon? The better model is not to charge EVs in the first place. Thinking that you are somehow going to replace peak capacity with EV discharge, and that this will save carbon, is just nonsense. This kind of argument is just EV freaks grasping at straws because they realize that the whole EV model is deeply flawed.

>>There's also the fact that an EV charged by a CCGT burning natural gas at 60% efficiency has no ICEV peer for carbon emissions.

Well, duh, the grid mix does not have anywhere near 60% thermal efficiency, and it will not for the next 20 years AT LEAST. So this remark is just a complete strawman.

Your arguments are dishonest and full of smoke (CO2?) and mirrors.

You don't seriously think that discharging EVs back into the grid is going to save carbon?

This saves carbon because it replaces reserves which actively burn fuel when available with one which does not.  The "spinning" systems could be replaced by generators started only when needed, saving the fuel to keep them hot and on-line.  It also provides more opportunity for penetration of RE.  Germany has major headaches with the peaky nature of PV solar, but using EV chargers to absorb the peaks would help a great deal; that would allow more PV capacity.  Voila, more carbon-free energy in the system.

the grid mix does not have anywhere near 60% thermal efficiency

The Energy Information Administration reported that Jan-Feb 2012 US generation from coal was down 21.5% over 2011, and natural gas was up 30.1% over the same period.  The carbon intensity of US electricity dropped substantially in 1 year. (continued)

@Engineer-Poet,

1. It is is dishonest to try and segregate the grid mix per state or region. It is all one big North American transmission network, and what they do in Iowa does not matter EXCEPT as part of the TOTAL grid mix. TOTAL GRID MIX for North America is the ONLY grid-mix number that matters. Electrons are fungible!!

2. Your claims about Natgas is up 30.1% and Coal down 21.5% over 2011 are almost meaningless. Anyone can look at the original data source at

http://205.254.135.7/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6550

and look at the curves for how the total grid mix and total generation have developed recently. As anyone can see, there are huge swings in both coal and natgas generation depending on, as they say in the article, mild/cold winters, seasonal effects and price swings.

What one can see is that the grid mix does not move very much. and because of increased electricity demand it WILL NOT move much in the next 20-30 years until some serious nuclear generation capability comes online (hopefully).

In summary, all your calculations are based on some imaginary grid mix that does not exist and will not exist in the next 20 years, and hence wildly dishonest.

The problem with so many EV fans is that they refuse to account for the reality of where electric power comes from, where it will come from in the next 20 (and more) years, and all the losses and carbon-burning incurred before the power shows up at the electrical outlet in your home.

Sticking your head in the sand is not going to help the environment. Please all join me in doing what is BEST, which right now is diesel-electric hybrids.

s/tinning in/running on/

Oh, so now you refuse to look at the references because the address does not suit your taste? I guess you are afraid what you will see?

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6550

equals

http://205.254.135.7/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6550

That's a lousy excuse for ignoring the facts.

@Engineer-Poet,

You are digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with all your attempts at misdirecting away from the basic facts.

>>I stay away from any site which might host malware.

Duh. Since when did LOOKING at a website infect anyone with malware? Get a clue.

>>(a) obviously not original sources,

Most of what you read in a newspaper or whatever is not "original source". Since when is eia.gov not a good enough source? Why cannot any web site be a good source.? Your basically just saying "I'm going to ignore any data that does not agree with what I think is true".

>>(b) the person citing them hasn't given any hint of what they say and why they're relevant.

Not true. I said the site contained the original data that you yourself had been referring to about Jan-Feb 2012. How can that be not relevant? You brought it up yourself! The data source was the same, but your selective interpretation was wrong.

>>Says the guy who cannot (a) deny that North America is divided into no less than 3 major electrical grids, (b) those grids are far from perfectly connected, and (c) as a consequence the local load characteristics can and do influence the local generation mix.

Whaaat? It is you that claim that Iowa is a little island of especially clean electrical power, and therefore their electrons are more pristine
than the rest of the eastern grid. But the whole eastern grid is interconnected quite nicely, thank you. The grid mix for the whole Eastern grid is not affected enough by a little wind power from Iowa to make it any significantly different in terms of carbon/kWh than the total of the nation. So what you are saying here is just bullshit.
By the way, if eastern grid was somehow a little better than the national average, then either western or texas would have to be worse, so would you then argue for EV usage only in Eastern region or what?

And by the way, Eastern, Western and Texas grid will soon be tied together with 2GW links, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Amigas_SuperStation

At that point all the 3 frequency domains (eastern, western, texas) will be completely interconnected, and I think not even you can argue against a completely national grid mix.

>>You're so afraid of this, you had to immediately change the subject.

I'm "afraid"? I'm changing the subject? I pointed out that your CO2/kWh number was wastly wrong, and you respond with some blather that you are afraid to look at my references, and that Iowa power is cleaner than the total grid mix. Who is changing the subject exactly?

>> I win.

That's exactly the problem with you. You think this discussion is about "winning". I, on the other hand, think it is about establishing the facts, and that is what I have done. If you would just accept the facts, that would indeed be a victory for everyone.

@Engineer-POet,

>> Singapore now AVERAGES 450 gCO2/kWh, less than what you claim for NG CCGT. I find numerous cites for GE CCGTs producing 0.655 lbCO2/kWH (297 gCO2/kWh),

Set all the smokescreen jabberwocky you write aside, the above is at the core of of your errant ways. The number I have used and referred to was and is 597 g(CO2)/kwH for US GRID MIX. Repeat: FOR US GRID MIX. How many times do I have to say that?

But you keep lying. I'm not talking about some hypothetical grid powered by NatGas only, still you say I do. I'm talking about real-life US GRID MIX. So why do you keep bringing up purely Natural Gas and Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. That is NOT what the US grid mix consists of.

So if you'd stop lying about that we'd have a start. In the meantime I'll ignore all your other smokescreens and jabberwocky. Others would be well advised to do the same.