Comments on: Column: On the Road http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=column-on-the-road-4 it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 By: Mike D. http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/comment-page-1/#comment-30244 Mike D. Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:57:25 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=26236#comment-30244 Rob, thanks for walking through the numbers. As you note, GM’s figure doesn’t seem to make sense, but I think the EPA is leaning toward counting a kWh as less than its literal energy equivalent in gasoline, thus making the gasoline mpg numbers much higher than what you came up with (and closer to GM’s). Maybe the feeling is that, because electricity could be wind or solar generated, the energy used from electricity counts less than gasoline. It’s all speculation, though. There is no “draft standard” from the EPA yet, so GM is just making things up so far, unless they know something that hasn’t been made public yet by the EPA. Whatever the number, the Volt is an amazing achievement.

One small correction: in one of your comments, you imply that the Volt’s gasoline engine can’t keep the batteries charged enough to run indefinitely when you say, “Sooner or later, depending on how you drive, the gasoline motor won’t be able to keep up with the electric motor demands, and you’ll run out of juice.” According to Frank Weber at GM (the Volt’s head engineer and exec), the Volt will run as long as you keep refilling its gas tank. The gas engine is strong enough to power the car and keep the battery at 30% or so. You couldn’t accelerate with a full 160 hp continuously forever, but in practice, it’s virtually impossible to use all of a car’s horsepower–or anything close to it–unless you’re at a test track. If you floor it, the battery will dip slightly below 30% to give enough juice to deliver bursts of reasonable acceleration, according to Weber. Even in the theoretical world, if you were trying to, say, drive at top speed up a steep hill for many minutes continuously, and you needed all 160 hp, the worst thing that would happen is that you’d get less power temporarily and it would be as slow as a Prius.

On another note, I ate at Grange for the first time last night and was impressed by the food. The farm-to-table concept carried through in the salmon; it had a pared down, fresh personality. The artwork on the walls doesn’t work with the restaurant’s theme, though. It looks mass produced and not particularly elegant.

]]>
By: Bob Martel http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/comment-page-1/#comment-29805 Bob Martel Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:42:29 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=26236#comment-29805 While it’s nice for all of us to think about getting our own home-scale windmills and solar panels, I believe that when you look at the big picture, the economics of scale are the same with these clean technologies as they are with the carbon based ones. For example, I have a propane back-up generator to cover us when the power goes out at our home in Lima Township and that costs me in dollars about five to ten times as much as DTE to generate electricity. I assume that there are equivalent inefficiencies in carbon emissions as well between my generator and a large scale coal plant. I think that we need to push and focus the utilities to install and use commercial-scale clean technologies and leave the home-scale technologies to the hobbyists and early adopters.

]]>
By: Rob Cleveland http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/comment-page-1/#comment-29753 Rob Cleveland Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:22:18 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=26236#comment-29753 Steve, it sounds good in principle, having people create their own microstations, but if that was going to happen it probably would have already. Sadly the cost of electricity still is cheaper coming from the power company, but that could change if electricity companies have to compensate for the CO2 output they create. Those kind of legislative efforts would go a long way in making it more cost effective to put a few solar panels in your backyard.

As far as the cost to produce gasoline versus electricity, the numbers in the calculations above are the end of the line cost to the consumer. But you are right, there is a huge infrastructure cost in getting the electricity to us. There also is a huge cost in getting a gallon of gasoline to the pump, and sometimes those costs aren’t reflected in the price, but rather in the cost to our foreign policy, our national debt and the stability of our future.

]]>
By: STeve Andre' http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/comment-page-1/#comment-29747 STeve Andre' Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:43:23 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=26236#comment-29747 The utilities might be underused at night, but that still doesn’t mean that enough cars feeding at once isn’t going to be an impact, and pollute more.

I hope that people start making their own charging stations at home with solar panels. Not cheap, but a 220W panel is under $1000 so a couple of them during suny days could give you some number of miles each day.

As far as the zero effect goes, I don’t know the numbers to figure out how you pit a gallon of gas against the energy needed to create the electricity, ship it and then charge a battery. And of course, how you create that electricity is important as well.

–STeve Andre’
andres@msu.edu

]]>
By: Rob Cleveland http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/comment-page-1/#comment-29743 Rob Cleveland Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:30:10 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=26236#comment-29743 Spencer. You’re exactly right here. Detractors will tell you that a shift to electricity will only exacerbate the CO2 output from the coal-fired powerplants creating a net zero effect. But charging your vehicle at night is the optimum time to source underutilized capacity. What’s more, just optimizing the electricity grid alone would make the whole affair more efficient. In the end, it’s harder to regulate millions of tailpipes than it is thousands of smokestacks.

]]>
By: Spencer Thomas http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/comment-page-1/#comment-29741 Spencer Thomas Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:39:42 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=26236#comment-29741 What about the charging energy? My (amateur) take is that it CAN come from less-polluting sources. Also, the electric grid is underutilized at night. We’ll never power a car with wind but we can power it with wind or hydro or solar generated electricity.

]]>
By: STeve Andre' http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/comment-page-1/#comment-29734 STeve Andre' Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:53:52 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=26236#comment-29734 Bob, interesting analysis. I certainly agree that the 230
figure reeks of kool-aid, but still its a great idea and we
need to get away from our addiction to oil.

One thing you didn’t take into account however, is the
efficiency rate of charging the batteries. It is not 100%,
so the claims about how far you get with NN kWH from the
wall socket is going to be skewed. How much I can’t say,
but if you’ve ever felt a battery getting warm when its
time to feed it, that heat is wasted energy. Different
battery technologies exhibit different characteristics,
so maybe this isn’t a huge problem, but there is some loss
during the charge.

We’ll see how well these do overall. My other concern is
how much extra pollution we’re going to create if 5,000,000+
cars are suckling on the nations power grid each night. In
terms of carbon, how much goes a gallon of gas create, vs.
how much that electric equivalent of a gallon creates?
(I know this doesn’t take into account the fact that we’d
be more free from oil, but carbon is carbon).

–STeve Andre’
andres@msu.edu

]]>
By: Rob Cleveland http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/comment-page-1/#comment-29733 Rob Cleveland Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:31:19 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=26236#comment-29733 Good point. The tax credits will certainly help mitigate the overall cost. Hopefully the end buyer will see it that way too. Sadly tax credits don’t drive as much demand as say the cash for clunkers program. Now that kind of incentive would help a great deal.

]]>
By: cmadler http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/comment-page-1/#comment-29732 cmadler Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:27:07 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=26236#comment-29732 The day this announcement came out, I only needed to hear two numbers to call “bullshit” on this claim.

1. “Volt gets 230 mpg”
2. “Volt goes 300 miles on a tank of gas”

If both these claims were strictly true, that would imply a tiny 1.3 gallon tank. I think my (non-riding) lawnmower holds more than that!

]]>
By: rumpole! http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/08/16/column-on-the-road-4/comment-page-1/#comment-29728 rumpole! Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:29:01 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=26236#comment-29728 “GM has floated that the Volt will come out around $40,000. Just by comparison, a 2010 Mercedes Benz C-Class, roughly the same size as the Volt, comes in just over $35,000 nicely loaded.”

Yes, but buying a Mercedes doesn’t get you a $7500 tax break, which puts the net price of a Volt at $32,500.

See: link

]]>