Chevy Volt and Gen III Prius discussion about: "green" energy, mileage, etc

Now pay for that investment on a national scale. I think it's a worthy investment, but you don't need to sell me on it, really.

Both seem very bad to me. Destroying the earth to gather either in order to burn one instead of the other seems like flawed logic to me in terms of the environment. No, I don't have anyone lobbying me, as far as I know.

Clean air standards don't regulate CO2, last I checked. Well, there are those crazy carbon credits and such lol.

Our gas in the USA costs a fraction of that in Europe. Are taxes are low in comparison, a few bucks in taxes would make them comparable. This really hasn't happened before my eyes even since Ross Perot campained for it decades ago. It's been even less popular in political terms since then. Even so, I think you are essentially debating the choir here?

 

The wind subsidies end this year if not renewed, but wind might not really need any subsides. The technology is there.

Its congress, lots of the house and the senate keep an uneven playing field in favor of coal. We need tighter environmental standards for coal, natural gas, and oil extraction. The weakest regulation is on coal, with the excuse that if we mined in a better environmental way it would cost jobs.

SO2, NOx, and particulates. As time expires to comply more coal plants are shut down. Since natural gas and wind produce less ghg, the tightening rules on these unhealthy pollutants also reduces ghg.

Natural gas is not easy to ship, it requires liquification facilities. These take time to build and won't be here until 2016. At that time, North America may become a big exporter and prices may rise. They are very high in asia right now as Japan is substituting coal, gas, and oil for nuclear.

Gasoline prices in Europe do have to do with taxes.

I'm not trying to debate, only sugesting with a level playing field, coal gets reduced rather quickly. If estimates of natural gas are wrong, it can be made from garbage, wood, or coal. Converting coal to methane is the first step in IGCC, which is much less poluting than traditional coal plants. This was done outside the power plants in the past, and can be pumped in pipelines.

 

... I would just observe your 30 MPG min. Volt equivs. probably assumes non-winter driving.
I probably calc it more closer 20 MPG equivs for Volt in cold winter weather.

 

I'm sorry, but do you have some scientific evidence to back that up, or did you just pull that out of the air?

 

FYI, I am taking some numbers from Consumer Reports last year saying Volt in winter with heat on more like 2/3-rds as good MPGe and I am applying to that your 30 MPG number from Union of Concened Scientists. My general critique of 100 MPGe is it makes no sense. I very much prefer Union of Concerned Scientists methodolgy, where they calculate as low as 30 MPG "fossil fuel equivalents" for EV, as you stated, and I am further saying they forgot to mention even lower MPG in winter/heat-on for cars like Volt. And even lower yet if you say 100% coal (which some EV advocates like to talk about that hypothetical case).

 

What is the basis for that observation? Can you explain your 'calc' that gives it closer to 20?

I live in the "worst" region of the country by the UCS report (in terms of GHG) so its indicative of the winters for such regions. My average in Jan was 31.3 kWh/100miles verses 25.2 kWh/100miles for June. So my measured variation is not as large as your suggesting. Note both of my numbers are below the EPA's 36 kWh/100miles so even if I had used the gird average I would have produced less GHG than a 30mpg car in January.

And its not about the worst case, its about the average so one would need to compute an average over the year. The Union of Concerned Scientists are a pretty solid group and understand that temps matter to EVs and to regular cars. And remember, a "30MPG" average car will get much worse milage in the winter as well.

Edit: see you are using Consumer-reports for your calc .. then you should also remember they rated the prius IV as 2011 Prius IV - 32 city, and so they drive very aggressively and maybe very "warm". But again the UCS probably is using a yearly average not a worst-case. Worst case in a regular ICE is really really bad (like single digits).

 

My Prius used to get about 42mpg in the winter, 52 in the summer.
The UOCS piece is quite comprehensive, but it also is using 2009 power grid numbers. We know from other sources that the grid has gotten cleaner since then.
I also suspect our oil sources are getting more energy intensive and therefore dirtier.

 

Ah yes the oil source question. Forgot to mention that in the "worst" regions of the country for EVs.. we also have the worst gas.. our gas in CO and wyoming (the worst electricity grid region) is mostly from Canadian Tar sands, which have about 15-25% higher GHG than average. The UOCS did not consider variations in gas source since there is not good source for it as a DB and in some regions like the east coast, it can vary seasonaly. The UOCS full report mentions the seasonal effects are too detailed to include.

 

I am just saying how I handicap the numbers, and you can give me your view.
Yes I know Drinnovation gets credit for pointing out first here that 2012 grid has cleaned up for now.
The EPA CO2 methodology (over on ENVIRO discussion) does debit gaso vehicles for upstream CO2.
But I do not think it debits EV mode for summer/winter air cond/heat MPGe losses.
So I am suggesting this is a fundamental weakness in the EPA CO2 comparison.

I know this is Volt thread, but this sub-thread is mixed views, and we are seeing where it takes us.

 

FYI I am reading Yergins Quest and don't quote me on this (becuase I have audio version) but I think his number for Tar Sands is 5-15% higher GHG.

 

Why do you think the EPA is not accounting for it?

From my reading For EVs, EPA currently uses the derived 5-cycle adjustment method described in 40 CFR 600.210-08(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2(ii), capped at a maximum adjustment of 30% (i.e. multiply unadjusted values by 0.7). This is the same procedure that used for many cars (though car can also use the full vehicle specific 5-cycle tests).
Because of the lack of history, the Volt was assessed the full 30% adjustment, which is to explicitly to adjust for real-world differences from EPA testing, including heating/AC. So in a way, you desire to multiple by 2/3 was already done by the EPA. It is not appropriate to do it twice.

 

Yep that would be a Peak-oil denyer's numbers as its the most positive report out there. Those are likely based on based the IHS CERA 2010 report “Oil Sands, Greenhouse Gases, and the U.S. Oil Supply” that reviews thirteen primary studies and estimates of GHG emissions from fuels produced from tar sands on a “well-to-wheels,” or lifecycle, basis.
However, in reviews conducted by the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) in 2008 and 2010, which reviewed the same primary studies, the results showed a much larger range of upto 37% higher emissions versus the U.S. average petroleum baseline. The CERA’s results have numerous flaws that have been subsequently pointed out in the academic literature due to the lack of information provided. See This NRDC report, for a discussion of some of the problems/errors in the CERA report. Buy Yergin's all about selling the vision of having plenty of oil/fossil fuel to burn.

 

I don't really think combating alarmism that we are going to run out of oil soon, makes one a "denier". This is nothing like Holocaust denial. As traditional oil supplies reduce, we simply substitute. Electricity is a great substitute for oil if you have the right car. We now know those predictions that we would run out of oil by now were grossly exaggerated.

Oil sand's do generate a great deal more ghg when turned into oil, but the bulk of emissions are when people burn the fuel.
Tar Sand Companies Aim to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Scientific American
I would estimate that gasoline from oil sands with produce about 10%-25% more ghg.

If you read that report it says 8%-37%. That 37 is really an outlier, and seems to come from a catastrophic fantasy. From your NRDC link

NRDC seems to have lost its grip on reality. It seems to think if california as low carbon fuel, it will reduce the carbon content of the world wide fuel system. We know that if california uses lower carbon fuel, the oil sands will simply be used elsewhere.

Bottom line is gasoline is getting more carbon intense. Oil is not about to run out. Electricity in the US is getting less carbon intense. In analyzing carbon foot print of a car, estimates on change in carbon intensity of fuels over its lifetime should be taken into account.

 

The EPA doesn't address summer/winter differences for non-EVs either. Even a hardcore hypermiler that sweats it out without AC or freezes without heat will see seasonal differences in fuel consumption. The EPA is only using an average of sources for their upstream CO2 number for gasoline and other fuels. Where as the regional numbers are given for electric production.

 

+1!

That was exactly my point. In my gas guzzling Prius, I got much lower mpg in the winter and about the same as the EPA numbers during the summer.
Actually, as Drinnovation commented, the EPA numbers may, in fact, correct for EVs and NOT for ICE vehicles.
Volt EPA electric range is 35miles. I am getting 50+ in the summer and I get 30 in the winter. I don't hypermile. Yet my average is still beating the EPA numbers by over 10%.

 

Well I still consider his arguments against peak oil denial, calling a plateau, is just sugar coating the issue. And the chapters on climate change just don't make a real suggestion of how to keep buring all that oil and manage the GHG.
(But yes its not as bad a a Holocaust denial, but I still consider it oil pimping and peak-oil denial). I agree with substitutes as being good first step -- but the book does not suggest electricity as a substitute, just other fossil examples are given.

Yes I know the estimate is 8-37.. I put it in the 20-25%.. many of the studies on the low end are equally as crazy as the 37%. But many of the upstream estimates (especially the low ones) ignore a bunch of items such as the production of the chemicals/energy used in the environmental processing and cleanup or they are blending tar-sands materials with others and then measuring the overall output as if it was tar sands. (If you want to pump it anywhere but in a truck, it needs to be mixed to be thinned). I've worked with someone that was working in alberta on that and they said the original estimates of the energy and cost for water/site cleanup were way off. There are now folks suggeting using new hydro-plants and/or nukes to provide the power for the processing (pre-treating as well as some of the cleanup) to make it more reasonable. But right now its all fossil fuels powering the processing.

Agree that oil is not about to run out in a few years.. but at current rates of use and growth of use, maybe this century. Yes our creativity and innovation will find a way to keep society running, but best to be working on those things now, not suggesting we can keep oil cheap and plentiful for a long time.


This all got started because I commented on my region, the worst for electricity GHG (34MPG equlivent for an EV) actually has much higher GHG. Even if we just use 20%.. then its a 40MPG equlivent of my local grid to my local gas. Still not as good as a prius, unless i shift off my local grid to renewable energy.


A volt is a good start -- as we can shift from oil to renewable and make it even cleaner. While I'm buying Wind for now, I'm also getting quotes on Solar (as part of a state program, if I qualify), next week Unfortunately my power provides zero incentives -- and really only disincentives. They will not even buy/broker the RECs for solar -- they keep saying their renewable contracts are exclusive and they cannot buy from individuals at a preferred rate. (I can connect to the grid, but they only buy at "bulk" rates (independent of time of day -- I'd only get $.048/kWh (and I pay more even off peak) so it will 15-20 year payback if we cannot also get REC credits for power sold). Its sad, I pay extra for renewables, but they don't So my most meaningful hope for affordable solar is getting into this state program that would by the RECs (or my other hope is a solar garden installed by my provider -- if I can get 30 other families in my region to sign up for a pre-paid install and if they can then get state permission for an expansion of their facility and the right to operate the garden as a individual-tied power production, but that is looking way to complex to happen in < 5years )

 

When you do an ad hominem attack, like calling someone a denier, you are suspect in my book. I understand we have a high government official that calls coal trains death trains and has gotten himself arrested to protest use of the oil sands. When you start leveling these accusations that people involved in oil sands are like nazis it really is going much too far. Its energy. Its going to get used, unless we find something less expensive. I had great grandparents and great aunts and uncles killed by nazis. I have a good friend that has burns all over his body from the hutu- tutsi genocide. The use of the term denier for this is offensive to me. It is casually used by those political animals trying to win an argument, and make themselves feel good. I hope you don't use this in the classes you teach. Do you think oil execs and nazis are the same type of creature.

I'm not sure what book you are referring to when you say electricity is not part of it. I'm thinking of an economics text book. Peak oil is a falicy as expressed by politicians like carter. That is why we have not run out. As it gets more scarce uncontroversial sources and substitutes are found. That is how you reach plateaus. Those nazi's you are fond of labeling oil sands proponents made synthetic fuel from coal. Electricity, ethanol, methanol, butanol, methane, all are fuels that can run transportation. When someone points this out, it means they understand economics.

We do have a choice though, we can transition to renewables faster. We can extract syn-oil from the oil sands in less carbon intense ways. Those really against the oil sands either want cars to stop running, or do not understand that other countries will use these resources.

 

Huh?? I never brought up nazi.. you brought up the holocaust first and nazi's now.

My comments were about Yergin's arguments denial that there is such a thing as "peak oil", arguing instead that its a plateau far in the furture. If you goggle Yergin and denial you'll see many places using that term to describe his views.

My point was that to anyone that is arguing that there no "peak oil", and running the organization that does the study, would be likely on the side that is biased to saying the supplies are good. Also preferes to relabel things as oil that were previously considered non-oil to make the points. We've be able to make synthetic fuels for a long time.. that does not change the outlook of "peak oil" being a time when we've used half the earths natural oil, with reserves declining after that point. I agree we can run transport on more things.. and I don't think peak oil is instant doom, but I also consider it a mathematical that will occur.

I'm not going to argue semantics in ths thread, so for now I'll just agree to disagree.

I'm not in either camp. I want a carbon tax on the oil-sands and required sequestration. (I want that on coal too.. we should be paying for the impact.. then let the economics sort it out.)

 

What do you think calling someone a denier means? It is now used by the warming alarmist, to blame the "denier" for the catasraf&*k that not believing causes. How else do you explain the terms for coal trains being death trains. The same term for nazi's sending people to the ovens.

Well then, those people you are linking are guilty of ad hominem attacks.
The first link is this tripe
Dan Yergin&#039;s Dilemma: Energy &#039;Reality&#039; Vs. Climate Reality | ThinkProgress

These are the first legitimate links I get are these, and they seem to be quite different than what the political romm seems to be saying. Romm doesn't say denier either, that is used by some in comments.
Daniel Yergin: What's Wrong With Peak Oil - WSJ.com

​

​

​

It seems fine that if you define peak oil that way, to say its not going to happen, beause.... its not going to happen.

Seems that he is talking about no peak because of substituting away from gasoline to electricity. I tend to agree.

The second link was this colbert interview where he talks about wind and solar electricity.
Daniel Yergin - The Colbert Report - 2011-21-09 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Perhaps you can point to an article where he sounds crazy, but all of this seems like he is a good economists. I really am not that familar with his work, but do not agree with peak oil alarmism. From your earlier reply, you don't seem to be an alarmist either, you are just using some of their language. I hope you drop the term denier.

Certainly he talks about substitute energy for oil as prices of oil go up. The economic idea is as oil gets expensive enough, we will use other resources. The oil sands are one of the easy uncontroversial oil fields. Changing cars to natural gas, ethanol, and plug-in are other ways to substitute. I don't see him talking about ghg at all, perhaps that is on other links.

Well I was pointing out why your use of the term "denier" is offensive to me. I hope you will not use it in the future. As to peak oil versus plateau, that is a world view. Will we substitute other sources of energy as oil gets expensive, or will our highways grind to a hault because we don't have the technological imagination. You have already taken a step to move away from oil as it gets more expensive with your phev. If enough people do that we won't run out.

That seems rather short sited. Say North America has a carbon tax on just oil-sands, which your own estimates, and mine say produce at most 25% more ghg than conventional sweet crude. If you don't tax all oil, then we will simply buy the sweet stuff, and ship the syn oil to foreign countries. No less oil will be burned. Now you may mean that we should tax all oil, and the natural gas that is used to create the syn oil from the sands. I would be in agreement there. It may speed substitution and actually reduce oil use. Europe has chosen door number one, which means they have simply shifted ghg to other countries. You can see this in the spread of oil prices.

Electricity may indeed benefit from a cap and trade system, but something very different than the house passed. That bill actually might have locked in more coal. Duke energy spends more on lobbying than any other utility. Most things passed by the congress favor coal and more ghg.

 

Noun

denier (plural deniers)

1. Person who denies something.

There's nothing about the word that ties it to genocide.

When I heard the term death train (it was in this thread) the only thing that popped into my mind was the air pollution coal causes and the resultant disease and death. It's the same thing as when people call cigarettes death sticks. IMHO you're reading a lot of meaning into words and phrases that isn't there.