Discussion in 'Ford Hybrids' started by ggood, Aug 16, 2012.
Sent from my SGH-I717R using Tapatalk 2
My statements were based on my measurements vs data reported on myvolt.com (I've not checked the montly email reports against kill-a-watt but did check against my spreadsheets and seems about right).
Its pretty easy to tell the myvolt.com version includes losses since there are days that used 12+ kWh. The screen display is truncated but the downloadable CSV is good to tenths.
You are probably mixing up the onstar reporting with the car's reporting. The 2012 cars report kWh used, on an internal display, that definitely does NOT include charger losses. The report there is, or so I'm told, 9.8 -10.2 kWh for a full range usage. Its possible (likely given what data I see at voltstats.net) that onstar is based on change in battery SOC, and then they can use a formula to estimate the total including charging losses.
I can post some more detailed data if you like.
Keep in mind the Volvo is all wheel drive drive full size wagon.
Saw one of the new Ford superduties on the road, and the emblems were claiming 20% biodiesel. That's sort of on topic.
The issue is really with the regeneration system chosen for the filter. If the fuel is sprayed into the filter directly from a dedicated injector, then there is no problem. Most manufacturers have chosen to inject the fuel for regen through the engine on the exhaust stroke. Which does the job for less cost. Except with biodiesel, which doesn't volatilize as readily as diesel. So too much of it leads to it gumming up on the inside of the engine, and/or washing oil of the cylinder walls and working its way into the motor oil.
I'm not sure what Ford has done with their diesels. A seperate injector should allow B100. Unless there are other possible issues with the fuel pump and higher pressures, or simple CYA over biodiesel quality issues. With it so easily homebrewed, the quality issue all the manufacturers considered when setting biodiesel limits.
Or perhaps Ford has reduced the reguired regen cylces to the point they feel the higher biodiesel content can be handled.
Yea, that's pretty much a prerequisite. Out of the box, Volt would increase carbon footprint -- even more than the much larger 47 MPG C-MAX hybrid (236 g/mi).
Always nice to hear someone else enjoying the custom PIDs. It really is a rewarding feeling every time.
The cells may be the same but my point was how they would be managed. Prius PHV is using BMU from Denso. If Ford is using an in-house BMU, reliability could be different.
Since ford has a large number of patents in this area, I would assume the software would be different. I assume both ford and toyota would be implementing Panasonic's recomendation for maximum discharge and SOC management of the cells. Ford was using different management software in the first gen ford fusion, than Toyota. The whole is different than the parts. Neither ford or toyota have much of a track record with these cells in production vehicles, but at least from a technical perspective lithium should be as reliable as nimh.
In california, out of the box, its a lower carbon foot print. In texas anyone that cares about using less fossil fuels can cheaply buy wind. Even those that don't care about ghg often buy wind here, which means out of the box in texas, less oil and no coal goes into plug in vehicles if the owner cares. Things might be different in different parts of the country, but as more plug-ins get added the percentage of coal will drop. Its a beautiful thing.
I thought this thread was about ford's hybrid and plug in offerings. Anyone wanting to buy a plug-in in texas knows its going pollute less than a prius
You're ignoring the reality that I posted earlier that the 2013 Volt is effectively the same as the C-MAX hybrid estimate of 236g per mile when it runs on default Texas grid power using the same EPA estimates and calculations but adjusted to account for the new version of EPA's eGRID emissions database and charging at 240V.
I also pointed out that even the newer eGRID2012 is almost certainly overstating the current and future Texas grid emissions since it is based on underlying 2009 emissions records. Newly released data shows that coal use in the national grid has continued to rapidly shrink to the lowest level in 40 years (now 34% of the fuel mix as of March 2012). It seems likely that the Texas grid reduced its use of coal as well as increasing its use of wind even further.
Texas grid fuel mix percentages
Coal NG Wind Nuclear
eGRID2010 34.39 49.48 02.37 11.98
eGRID2012 32.98 47.83 05.33 12.31
Adjust downward further if you charge at 240V which uses less kWh from the wall socket than the official EPA estimate which seems be at least partially based on charging at 120V. Adjust further downward as you use more than the 64% estimated battery versus gasoline power source ratio. Adjust drastically downward if you pay a little extra for a renewable (wind) power option.
A 2013 Volt driver charging at 240V and driving 75-80% percent of the time on regular Texas grid power will have the same or lower carbon emissions than a Prius at 50 mpg even under the eGRID2012 (2009) emissions data.
Texas grid fuel mix percentages
Coal NG Wind Nuclear
eGRID2010 34.39 49.48 02.37 11.98
eGRID2012 32.98 47.83 05.33 12.31
Just an FYI, on the texas grid. Anyone in ercot, the grid that covers most of texas can choose wind. Plug-in drivers don't need to guess, they can get a utility to build more wind for them. Now there are 11 GW of wind generation on the grid
In the short term, more coal is being added to ERCOT than is being removed. One of the new coal plants is igcc with ccs, and other coal plants will get shut down in the future. For the next few years though the ERCOT grid will be getting a little more coal intense, before decreasing. In 2011
0.5% other renewable
The renewable portfolio standard for wind has been met, which means any new wind purchased will be added to the grid. The rps for non-wind of 500 MW is still being added. The grid is now expanding though, so massive amounts of new wind may wait 5 years. Wind at first offsets natural gas, then when enough is added coal gets shut down. There are now coal plants operating only in the summer. With my utility, when you buy wind, you lock in your utility rate for 5 years, which reduces risk of electricity prices going up with an ev. The local austin grid will be 55% fossil fuel free in 2020, and many of us believe we can be coal free by that date also.
No one in texas needs to buy coal power for a plug-in.
Statistic said 64% on EV. Real-world data from GM said 61% on average.
Out of the box standard charge is 120V. 240V charger costs extra. Cleaner electricity cost more. Those are the prerequisites for the Volt to be as clean as 50 MPG Prius? They are not even the same size class.
I think C-MAX hybrid and the Energi model would put the Volt to shame in term of low carbon footprint, MSRP, vehicle size and functionality.
What is the out of the box carbon footprint for states like IN, KY, WV and WY? 92-96% of their electricity is from Coal.
In those states, Prius PHV is the only plugin (either PHV or EV) that is rated lower (220 g/mi) carbon footprint than the regular 50 MPG Prius (222 g/mi). I applause Toyota engineer for designing a plugin that provides a clean out of the box experience, no matter which state you live in.
We'll have to wait and see if the C-MAX Energi does the same vs. the C-MAX hybrid model.
Lots of wind potential in all of them. The grid needs to get cleaned up for the users of utilities. It is not as if those drivers are going to really be choosing a energi versus a prius. They are likely comparing it to anouther car. Not many prii sold there. IF they buy any phev, they are doing much better in terms of oil use and tail pipe polutions than the alternative. Your argument is fodder, since plug-ins pollute might as well just buy a gas SUV. Hell if people bought prii there, they would be using a lot less gas too.
lol. I don't live in lots of states. If you can deliver plug-ins that deliver well in texas and california you are doing well. I'm not dissing the prius phv, but most people in California don't really give half a s&*t that their car would do worse if they lived in another state. Can you even buy a prius phv in any of those states you listed? Not that it matters much, toyota would not sell many if they did get them to dealers.
I'm not too concerned. Most that are going to buy this car won't really worry if they are putting out a few more molecules of CO2. Did you know that if you eat meat your carbon foot print goes up
My point was to see the bigger picture. Greenhouse gas is a global issue. Is Volt a CARB compliance car if it is as green as Prius PHV in California? What about in the rest of the country or the world?
I believe Prius PHV will be rolled out to rest of the states in 2013.
A few molecules of CO2 can cross the line between making a step forward or backward. It appears Toyota made a clear goal of not increasing carbon footprint with the introduction of Prius PHV.
No they started in non-CARB states unlike the prius phv. GM had lots of left over credits from the EV1.
Volt is about substituting electricity for gasoline, like most phevs. GHG is not typically high on buyers lists. But you brought up where these are being sold, or ghg, or whatever. I thought this was a thread about the ford energis and hybrids.
Would you count states its not sold in for its fuel footprint? Ford, gm, and nissan all seem to be showing texas some plug-in love. I think toyota, having a plant here, should have at least made the phv available, but they seem to be playing carb politics.
I don't understand what you are harping about. The c-max energi is a new vehicle it should gets 47/47 and 20 miles at 95mpge in charge depletion. The Fusion energy is up in the air but similar. Since very few people buy phev, I don't see how it can be as step backward. IMHO having 20miles@95mpge is a step forward compared to 11miles@95mpge. But people will likely choose because of other items about the cars. I really think a esotaric discussion of carbon footprint will not come up. If it does, the drivers is better off worrying about his/her footprint where they actually will charge the car, not if they happen to charge it in indiana or hawaii. That just seems like a dumb comparison.
Yes I believe that all things being equal a person would rather get 20 miles ev, than 11 ev, even f they might get a higher carbon footprint if they move to another state. Are you planning to move to indiana? Are you saying substituting domestic electricity for gas is a bad thing for the country if your grid is bellow average. I would say that is the wrong focus. If your grid is bellow average that is a problem in itself, but using less gas is good for the country. If you have a bellow average grid, spend the money on renewable if you have it. Or don't and use it for something you feel is more important.
What defines a green car is it's carbon footprint (total greenhouse gas emission), not the MPGe. CO2 is what it came down to, for fossil fuel emission.
For 2012 Green Car of the Year award, I really think the carbon footprint should be the major criteria. Would the C-MAX hybrid or the Energiy model win it? Will Prius PHV win? We'll have to wait and find out. One thing I am still puzzled is, how the Volt won the 2011 award with 260 g/mi national average CO2 emission.
It depends on one's priority -- energy security or GHG emission. I think it should be a balancing act and we cannot assume running a plugin with electricity automatically means it is green. The danger with using electricity is that the triple digits MPGe could easily mislead a regular Joe.
The real focus should be the global GHG emission. To have maximum impact, we need a plugin car that can be sold around the world and lower the carbon footprint (on average). Prius PHV is such a car. The question is would Ford be able to do the same with the Energi model by increasing the battery size. Or would it be counter productive. That's what I am interested.
Sure, it doesn't hurt to have a plugin hybrid ideal for California and Alaska. What about it's impact for the total 50 states united? How about the global impact?
That is short sighted. The original Insight has a lower carbon emission than the current Prius. Its other emissions put it at ULEV for year 2000.
Of course, the greenest car will not translate to the best seller. There are other attributes associated to it. Cost and size are the big ones.
Wow. I said that I don't think people are going to care if there car generated more ghg in anouther state, and you put forth this zinger. Green doesn't mean green washed to only consider 1 thing
Not that that award means much, but why would you do that as its only criteria. What about my bicycle. No car is good for the environment.
So, the 2000 Insight is a greener car than the Prius, of any year, because it emits less CO2. Despite emitting more NOx, CO, hydrocarbons and other pollutants. Is that correct?
Separate names with a comma.