ETCgreen anti-EV FUD

[Dave EV]

etcgreen - can you properly quote your posts so that your posts are a bit more readable?

False. T&D for the grid is around 7%, of course the customer pays for it.

Having worked at the world's largest electric utility for several years in data analysis, I will beg to differ.

Well - if you have data showing different losses - please share them. Otherwise, I fail to see how anyone besides the customer pays for line losses - the utility co surely doesn't pay for them.

False. Of the thousands of EV's on the road not a single one has ever exploded, let alone even caught fire, in an accident. The Volt battery in NHSTA testing never exploded.

The NHTSA test resulted in the battery catching fire. I was a PI for a DoD UAV project - Lithium batteries catch fire, explode and their materials/fluids spray out. It is ugly.

The NHTSA test only resulted in a fire because they neglected to conduct proper protocol after the crash. Never mind that GM had addressed the cause of the fire (which was not directly related to the cells themselves, but a coolant leak causing a short in electronics). Never mind the ~200k automobile fires a year - they explode and materials/fluids spray out. It is ugly. There is a good reason the NHTSA does not crash cars with fuel in them.

Biodiesel is less toxic than table salt, is virtually non-flammable and is sustainable. EV's are not sustainable - unless you want to discuss the use of minerals from Mars. Have you researched what minerals and the amounts that are necessary to build EV's? Where do these minerals come from? Where are they mined? How many Chinese died to mine these minerals? EV's are far from Green.

You seem to be quite selective in your hearing as it's quite possible to build EVs without any special minerals compared to ICE vehicles as others have noted.

Allow me to share the following - the typical coal plant generates electricity at .024/KwH vs. NG at .52 vs. wind at .12/KwH vs. solar at .18KwH. You can believe what you want to believe - I am sharing the facts with you.

OK - so now we know what it costs to fuel an EV per kWh based on plant generation type. How much does your biofuel cost?

Correct, but since the emissions from a vehicle burning B100 from 2nd generation feedstock "cleans the air in metro areas while running" - this is a positive item. EV's do not clean the air.

Hah - I've never seen anything burn that clean unless one cherry picks a pollutant. Let's see total emissions, eh? It's well known that NOx emissions are generally higher in biodiesel burning cars than regular diesels.

Not even close. The energy conversion loss by your method is staggering. EV systems (not just the EV) are only about 45% efficient while the complete B100 from 2nd gen feedstock system is about 65% (with start/stop tech). You need to catch up - your arguments are out of date.

How about some actual numbers behind your percentages?

You seem to omit the fact that growing plants can only be done in the very low single digit efficiency range. We simply do not have enough land area to perform a large scale transition to biofuels. Only algae biofuels might be able to overcome this limitation - but these have been 5 years out from commercial operations for quite some time now.

In comparison electricity from solar PV is easily had TODAY with 15% efficiency and 20%+ if you're willing to pay a little bit more.

Biofuels will be a niche market for applications where a very energy dense energy carrier is required (long-haul trucking, airplanes).

 

[dpeilow]

"I did a cost comparison using the Ampera and a comparable top of the range diesel model from Vauxhall over average vehicle lifetime. Both cars are spec'ed the same and a similar size and performance. This was based on my 14000 miles pa commute."

I will suggest your test and evaluation was grossly inaccurate in its methodology and parameters.

Care to elaborate on that statement? Oh wait, you can't. It's a simple matter of purchase cost and running costs.

"Gives the lie to their claim"

Just the facts - you need to collect more information about EV's and how they are made, their life cycle, recycling, ...

Nice try. We are talking about costs, not pollution (as you were talking cost on your site). But if you want to talk pollution, I have plenty of information on EV whole life cycle. It's way lower than ICE.

We receive literally hundreds of messages per month from all over the world suggesting that we are backing 2nd generation feedstock sourced biodiesel because we produce and sell the product. Sincerely, we produce and sell 2nd generation feedstock sourced biodiesel simply because it is the only scalable, sustainable, environmentally friendly and economically viable replacement for petroleum available today. The fact that you are making these statements on this blog simply means that you folks have not done the math. The information you need is on the etcgreen.com website.

Perhaps you can add a biodiesel square to this map for us?

Let's start here Biodiesel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quantity of feedstocks required

Current worldwide production of vegetable oil and animal fat is not sufficient to replace liquid fossil fuel use. Furthermore, some object to the vast amount of farming and the resulting fertilization, pesticide use, and land use conversion that would be needed to produce the additional vegetable oil. The estimated transportation diesel fuel and home heating oil used in the United States is about 160 million tons (350 billion pounds) according to the Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy.[58] In the United States, estimated production of vegetable oil for all uses is about 11 million tons (24 billion pounds) and estimated production of animal fat is 5.3 million tonnes (12 billion pounds).[59]If the entire arable land area of the USA (470 million acres, or 1.9 million square kilometers) were devoted to biodiesel production from soy, this would just about provide the 160 million tonnes required (assuming an optimistic 98 US gal/acre of biodiesel).This land area could in principle be reduced significantly using algae, if the obstacles can be overcome. The US DOE estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (38,849 square kilometers), which is a few thousand square miles larger than Maryland, or 1.3 Belgiums,[60][61] assuming a yield of 140 tonnes/hectare (15,000 US gal/acre). Given a more realistic yield of 36 tonnes/hectare (3834 US gal/acre) the area required is about 152,000 square kilometers, or roughly equal to that of the state of Georgia or England and Wales. The advantages of algae are that it can be grown on non-arable land such as deserts or in marine environments, and the potential oil yields are much higher than from plants.

Georgia (U.S. state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Half a Georgia still looks pretty big compared to the PV square.


By the way, our anti-troll / anti-spam system worked on many of your posts. I released them so that other users can see the "fullness" of your arguments. People might want to check back up the thread.

 

[JRP3]

"False. T&D for the grid is around 7%, of course the customer pays for it."

Having worked at the world's largest electric utility for several years in data analysis, I will beg to differ.

Beg all you want, you're still wrong. DOE shows T&D losses around 7%. Of course the customer pays for it.

"False. Of the thousands of EV's on the road not a single one has ever exploded, let alone even caught fire, in an accident. The Volt battery in NHSTA testing never exploded."

The NHSTA test resulted in the battery catching fire. I was a PI for a DoD UAV project - Lithium batteries catch fire, explode and their materials/fluids spray out. It is ugly.

I don't know what they used in the project you worked on but not a single production EV pack has ever exploded, nor even caught fire in a real world accident. In the NHSTA test the pack caught fire after three weeks. Too bad gasoline vehicles don't wait three weeks to catch fire after an accident, instead they catch fire to the tune of over 200,000 of them last year.

"False. Lithium batteries have little to no free liquid in them."

You are correct with "little" (I have modified the statement to include materials). The materials of a Lithium Ion battery is still rated toxic which requires a HAZMAT cleanup.

Please list each toxic material in a lithium battery. Please take note that I know what is in a lithium battery.

"A Prius does not use lithium batteries but NiMH."

That is correct - not sure why you are making this statement - our article does not state that a Prius uses Lithium (yet).

You falsely tried to imply that Prius batteries, which do have toxic chemicals in them, are similar to lithium, which do not.

"No records exist of the thousands of Prius's in accidents spilling battery chemicals or causing hazardous spills."

How politically correct of you to state it this way. You must realize that chemicals from a Prius battery have, in fact, been leaked in an accident.

No, you are assuming such, with zero actual evidence. You made the claim, prove it.

"Lithium cells pose even less of a risk."

Biodiesel is less toxic than table salt, is virtually non-flammable and is sustainable. EV's are not sustainable - unless you want to discuss the use of minerals from Mars. Have you researched what minerals and the amounts that are necessary to build EV's? Where do these minerals come from? Where are they mined? How many Chinese died to mine these minerals? EV's are far from Green.

Exactly what rare minerals are you talking about? List them, and their uses in an EV, and their known reserves.

"False. Coal is only 45% of the US grid."

Allow me to share the following - the typical coal plant generates electricity at .024/KwH vs. NG at .52 vs. wind at .12/KwH vs. solar at .18KwH. You can believe what you want to believe - I am sharing the facts with you.

If only you had a single fact to share.

It's also much easier to capture emissions from a single generating plant than millions of ICE vehicles."

Correct, but since the emissions from a vehicle burning B100 from 2nd generation feedstock "cleans the air in metro areas while running" - this is a positive item. EV's do not clean the air.

Burning fuel does not clean the air. EV's can and do clean the air by not using fossil fuels when powered by hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear.

"Further, it is more efficient to simply burn biomass in a large generating plant to charge EV's than to process and refine it into fuel to burn in inefficient ICE vehicles."

Not even close. The energy conversion loss by your method is staggering. EV systems (not just the EV) are only about 45% efficient while the complete B100 from 2nd gen feedstock system is about 65% (with start/stop tech). You need to catch up - your arguments are out of date.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22628/

 

[dsm363]

etcgreen: Can you show me a map of the B100 fuel stations in Texas? Also a list of diesel cars in the US where using anything above B5 won't void the warranty would be nice. My Jetta TDI can't use either of the 2 B20 stations where I live since that would void the warranty.

I can drive an electric car today and have for the last year. I could even burn biodiesel generator in my backyard to power my electric car. Would that clean the air then?

 

[rolosrevenge]

etcgreen. 2nd generation biofuels have been deemed to be one of the ungreenest and inefficient technologies there are. You need more land then there is in the US to support transport through second generation biofuels technology. Biofuels Aren't Really Green - IEEE Spectrum Oh and if your analyses are so technically sound, they appear in peer reviewed journals yes?

 

[rolosrevenge]

.024/KwH

I assume here your trying to say kilowatt hour (kWh). The fact that you don't even know the proper abbreviation shows me you have zero experience with the electricity sector.

 

[etcgreen]

False. Night time charging can handle the fastest possible rollout of EV's.



False. For vehicles in a similar price range EV's are cheaper to operate.



False. EV's do not need large volumes of rare earths at all. Tesla uses no rare earths in their motors, and most lithium battery chemistries do not use rare earths.



False. LiFePO4 cells have no noticeable self discharge over month long time periods.

I could go on and on but you get the idea, the article is full of garbage.

I have served as an Analyst and Engineer for 30 years for the DoD, DoE, various universities and 4 Fortune 100 Corps. This discussion is pointless as your knowledge and perspective of technologies and economics are seriously skewed.

Here are the highlights to help you form a more accurate understanding of the world around you.

• Less than 20% of all new light fleet vehicles sold in the U.S. cost more than $35K in 2011 (mean of $28K). The average cost of a light fleet vehicle in the U.S. in 2011 was $11K. There has always been 3 tiers of vehicle ownership - new, 1 driver and other.
• Comparing a Telsa to a Mercedes S has little merit - it suggests that Tesla is a solution for a very small fraction of the population which is counter productive to your large scale roll-out arguments.
• When suggesting EV's as a solution, you need to include the power source and if you are including solar, then you need to include the materials necessary to build that solar - rare earths.
• Please do not suggest that solar energy is "free", rather, take the capital cost of the solar panels and divide by $4 and multiple by 40mpg for an advanced diesel vehicle. This is likely 30 years of fuel costs - paid as you go, not all up-front at once.
• The technical specifications of batteries you are quoting are based on new rather than the average over the projected life cycle. Please become more familiar with your subject matter.
• Vehicles need to operate for at least 300,000 miles to be considered Green due to manufacturing and recycling energy/materials. Have you run the cost model for a Tesla for 300,000 miles? We have.
• A Tesla, Leaf, etc., uses radically more heavy metals than an advanced diesel vehicle. Have you looked at known world reserves of these metals and run the numbers against 2 billion EV's? Please consider current volume usage.
• You are quoting utility numbers that are commonly published on EV supporting websites. You may want to research the real numbers so you have a better perspective of true costs and capacities.
  
• Again, EV's have little real-world potential for large scale roll-out. Our function is to help people properly evaluate options that match their budgets. Promoting $100K cars is not seen as a viable option. Please understand that $50K cars are not an option. Even the Leaf's $41K price is out of the range of the vast majority of U.S. consumers - economics are the principal motivation for selection.
• Please be respectful in your arguments - the goal is to help people understand their options in terms they understand.
• Don't take yourself too seriously - the total cost of ownership for a single Tesla today is more $$ than most U.S. citizens will spend on their vehicles over their entire lifetime. To quote a long term, high profile, Tesla owner, "I drive a clown car".

 

[Mycroft]

etc, you're not allowing for the vast economies of scale that current EV production is unable to take advantage of. With Bluestar and eventually the Leaf and others, it WILL come into play.

Leaf and Tesla use NO rare-earth metals.

Battery tech is evolving steadily. It's still early days.

 

[dpeilow]

Etcgreen: perhaps open up the comment system on your own blogs if you are that confident?

If you've served as an analyst in the DoE for 30 years maybe that explains a few things...

Never Argue With A Fool – They Will Drag You Down To Their Level, Then Beat You With Experience!

 

[Doug_G]

Here are the highlights to help you form a more accurate understanding of the world around you.

You do realize how arrogant that sounds, right?

How about listening for a change. Here's one example where people have repeatedly corrected you, to no effect:

A Tesla, Leaf, etc., uses radically more heavy metals than an advanced diesel vehicle.

Tesla vehicles use NO rare earths in their motors, at all. Do some elementary research before making statements like that. They use a 3-phase 4-pole AC induction motor, which has NO permanent magnets and therefore NO rare earths whatsoever.

The Li-Ion chemistry in their batteries uses some cobalt, but NO rare earths. Plus the batteries are very recyclable.

Please be respectful in your arguments - the goal is to help people understand their options in terms they understand.
Don't take yourself too seriously - the total cost of ownership for a single Tesla today is more $$ than most U.S. citizens will spend on their vehicles over their entire lifetime. To quote a long term, Tesla owner, "I drive a clown car".
[/LIST]

Respectful? Back at you.

Early electric vehicles are expensive, yes, but the costs are coming down and will continue to do so.

You accuse people here of not having their facts straight, while broadcasting slanted numbers yourself.

Don't assume we are all idiots here spewing propaganda from "EV supporting websites". Many of us are engineers. Robert.Boston in particular has extensive expertise in power generation.

 

[Dave EV]

I have served as an Analyst and Engineer for 30 years for the DoD, DoE, various universities and 4 Fortune 100 Corps. This discussion is pointless as your knowledge and perspective of technologies and economics are seriously skewed.

As a self-declared "expert" you still get many basics wrong.

When suggesting EV's as a solution, you need to include the power source and if you are including solar, then you need to include the materials necessary to build that solar - rare earths.

Solar PV does not use any rare earths at all. Perhaps a minimal amount in the inverter (as typical with most electronics), but there's probably more rare earths in your TV. No rare earths go into the PV panel itself, it's nearly all silicon, glass and a bit of copper. Never mind that most "rare" earths are not all that rare.

The technical specifications of batteries you are quoting are based on new rather than the average over the projected life cycle. Please become more familiar with your subject matter.

Even old automotive grade lithium batteries have low self discharge. I don't know why you continue to think this is an issue.

Vehicles need to operate for at least 300,000 miles to be considered Green due to manufacturing and recycling energy/materials. Have you run the cost model for a Tesla for 300,000 miles? We have.

Manufacturing is a very small part of your average car's lifetime's emissions. Now, I would not be surprised if a Tesla's manufacturing costs are much higher than typical, but we are discussing EVs in general, not the current crop of Tesla's.

You are quoting utility numbers that are commonly published on EV supporting websites. You may want to research the real numbers so you have a better perspective of true costs and capacities.

The numbers quoted are DOE numbers. If you have better references, please supply them.

Even the Leaf's $41K price is out of the range of the vast majority of U.S. consumers - economics are the principal motivation for selection.

The LEAF starts at $35k, not $41k. The Mitsubishi iMiEV is even less. And the price of EVs is projected to come down as production ramps up. 2013 will likely see a drop in the price of the Nissan LEAF as plants in Tennessee and the UK start up.

Please be respectful in your arguments - the goal is to help people understand their options in terms they understand.

Practice what you preach?

Leaf and Tesla use NO rare-earth metals.

LEAF has rare earth magnets in it's AC motor.

 

[qwk]

So you never answered the most important question. What vehicle can you use pure biodiesel in, and where can you buy it?

I'll help you out since you seem to avoid my questions. The answer is NONE, and NOWHERE.

 

[Dave EV]

So you never answered the most important question. What vehicle can you use pure biodiesel in, and where can you buy it?

Never mind figuring out where one is going to find enough arable land to farm enough plants for biofuels...

 

[dsm363]

Also, as was pointed out rare earth metals aren't rare, just currently mined mostly in China due to cost.
You're not trying to educate people, you obviously are trying to serve your client's or company's best interests.

 

[dsm363]

So you never answered the most important question. What vehicle can you use pure biodiesel in, and where can you buy it?

I'll help you out since you seem to avoid my questions. The answer is NONE, and NOWHERE.

Exactly. Biofuels serve a purpose probably in planes and maybe trucking someday but it doesn't have to be a 'only my technology works and yours is crap' approach. EVs serve a valuable purpose and alternative to many people and cost will come down much as mobile phones and other technologies have.

 

[qwk]

Never mind figuring out where one is going to find enough arable land to farm enough plants for biofuels...

Even B20 grows algae in it so fast it's not even funny. Back when it was first introduced, I cleaned(and wasted) hundreds of gallons of the stuff. I can't even imagine B100, if it was even available.

This guy only describes the positives, which are very few. If he listed all of the negatives, He would make himself sound looney for advocating it.

 

[dpeilow]

It should also be pointed out that later this year Renault will have a highway-capable EV with an entry price around £14k ($22k).

 

[Eberhard]

few years ago, all diesel cars from volkswagen/audi were ready to run on pure biodiesel (not pure rape oil or other cold pressed veg. oil). But when the oil-industrie fears to loose market share to the farmer, the EU put pressure to tax bio-diesel (and veg. oil) higher. Today biodiesel is priced higher then diesel which has up to 7% biodiesel added (to the welfare of the oil industry) (now they can dictate the price for biodiesel)

 

[vfx]

..
Here are the highlights to help you form a more accurate understanding of the world around you....

• You are quoting utility numbers that are commonly published on EV supporting websites. You may want to research the real numbers so you have a better perspective of true costs and capacities....

@ETC
You write multiple pages with your pro diesel assertions while at the same time discredit "EV supporting websites", you pan comments for using "old data" and say that we must figure in the cost of building electric cars and solar panels.

At the same time you have not given one link. No peer reviewed, reports from your DOE or DOD coworkers, No listing of your "dangerous materials" in motors or batteries and from your side, we have not seen a dirt to wheel studies on your precious biofuel or the cost to build the powertrain for the cars that burn it.

Without corroborated facts, you're just blowing hot gaseous air, etc...

 

[JRP3]

Without corroborated facts, you're just blowing hot gaseous air, etc...

But it's fueled from bio diesel, so it's all good :biggrin: