Kuuuurija
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Emissions measurement - a non-hippy view

Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:00 pm

In 2011 the oil shale powerplants emitted 18200000 tonnes of CO2, and produced total 10894585000 kWh (84,50% of total 12893000000 kWh produced in 2011; source: https://valitsus.ee/UserFiles/valitsus/ ... 202011.pdf).
This makes 1.670554684 kg of CO2 per kWh produced.

Ca 10% of produced electricity goes to self consumption of the power plant. Another 10% is lost in transmission in the grid. Battery charger has ca 90% efficiency. Charging process has some losses too (also around 10%). Self discharging happens if EV stands unused. Warming up of the battery and the car from mains in wintertime consumes electricity. We have here long winter season. The average distance per charging of iMiev here in Estonia is ca 70 km.

Put those figures together and you will get ca 50 kg of CO2 per 100 km.

NeilBlanchard
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:26 am
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Contact: Website

Re: Emissions measurement - a non-hippy view

Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:21 am

Does gasoline appear out of thin air?

It takes about 7.5-8.5kWh of electricity to produce a gallon of gasoline. It also takes a lot of natural gas to produce a gallon of gasoline. And it takes a lot of water to frack oil and gas, and a lot of electricity to get the water, too.

This "long tailpipe" argument needs to be applied equally to all energy sources. What's fair is fair - and fossil fuels are far dirtier than anything else, and yes these are used for electricity, but power plants are far more efficient than car engines, and gasoline represents far more energy than electricity at the plug.

It takes more electricity to run a gasoline car than it does to run an electric car.
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Kuuuurija
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Emissions measurement - a non-hippy view

Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:13 am

I even did not took into account any CO2 that is emitted during mining, processing (enrichment) and transportation of the oil shale. Also dumping ashes. Most of oil shale is produced by underground mining, that is definitely tens of times more energy consuming than pumping out oil.
This 50 kg of CO2 per 100 km is only for pure fuel to delivered useful energy cycle.
And production of the batteries for EV-s are also extremely energy consuming.
It is for shure, that at least in Esttonia ICE cars have smaller CO2 footprint than EV-s. I am pretty sure, that this is true also for most of countries. At leat for those, where big share of electricity is produced in coal plants.

It takes more electricity to run a gasoline car than it does to run an electric car.

Any proofing sources, please?

Estonian oil shale power plants have 30% efficiency (fuel to produced energy) in old blocks and 40% efficiency in the new block. ICE cars are not so much different from this.

aarond12
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Emissions measurement - a non-hippy view

Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:59 am

If I was going to argue with anyone on this board, it would NOT be Neil Blanchard. ;) He knows what he's talking about.
2015 Nissan LEAF S

HParkEV
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:14 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: Emissions measurement - a non-hippy view

Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:30 pm

Kuuuurija wrote:...
Most of oil shale is produced by underground mining, that is definitely tens of times more energy consuming than pumping out oil. ...


Better check where your crude oil comes from for refining into gasoline or diesel. If any of it comes from Canada, I can tell you about 30% of our oil is consumed during the mining and production of synthetic crude from the tar sands bitumen, although I think all of it is used in the US and Canada.

I can definitely sleep easy here with my choice of EV vs. ICE, knowing that in the population-dense provinces of Ontario, Quebec and BC most of the electrical energy comes from hydro and nuclear, while most of Canada's oil production comes from incredibly inefficient tar sands. Canada's case for EV's is probably one of the clearest in the world, too bad so very few people see it that way. Most people I engage in this type of discussion with come up with arguments like yours, because that's what they like to read in the media. Its more convenient for them I guess.
Last month (June 2013), 11 i-MiEV sales and 13 Leaf sales - the only pure EV's available here. This is out of over 170k ICE sales for the month. :(
2012 Ocean Blue SE (premium) Canada-spec
02/2012 production, 06/2013 delivery
Upgraded EVSE

Kuuuurija
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Emissions measurement - a non-hippy view

Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:43 pm

To: aarond12
I like facts, numbers. Not bluff.
If production of gasoline consumes so much electricity, that ICE cars use more electricity than EV-s, then I wonder how it is cheaper to use ICE car than EV for driving from Tallinn to Tartu? How big share of gasoline price is from electricity consumed for production of the gasoline?
I think 7.5-8.5kWh energy is much more than it is needed to completely evaporate a gallon. Underground mining means 24/7 running huge vents and pumps, big areas of underground artificial lightning, etc.
I think our fast charging stations waste more energy for their standby mode than it is used for fast charging EV-s. I see 5-7 fast charging stations every day, but never saw that anybody is charging there. See map! (blue = standby, orange = charging, red = under construction) Total waste!


To: HParkEV
As far as I know, here in Estonia gasoline comes from Russian crude oil.
Canada has pretty low avrage cost for extracting crude oil, if this EIA info is correct

aarond12
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Emissions measurement - a non-hippy view

Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:18 pm

Kuuuurija wrote:I like facts, numbers. Not bluff.

Agreed. :lol: However, I've never found Neil's facts to be in err whether it is on this site or other sites that we both visit.
2015 Nissan LEAF S

Don
Site Moderator
Posts: 2508
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 3:55 pm
Location: Biloxi MS

Re: Emissions measurement - a non-hippy view

Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:02 pm

Kuuuurija wrote:I like facts, numbers. Not bluff.
Don't we all, but 'facts' (especially on this subject) seem quite conflicting - No matter which side of the argument you wish to present, 15 minutes on Google will get you all the 'facts' you need

Here's an interesting article - http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls. ... -cars.html
As you can see, "According to the World Resources Institute, electric powered cars recharging from coal-fired plants will reduce CO2 emissions by at least 17 to 22 percent."

Since we use coal to generate about 50% of our electric power here in the USA, those figures should be considerably better than the quoted 17 to 22 percent

Since 'facts' are so hard to come by, I'd opt for a little common sense - Efficiency usually relates pretty well to scale. It makes lots of sense (at least to me) that most any large power producing plant would be more efficient at converting one form of energy to another than any fossil fuel burning car. I've read many times that an ICE powered vehicle only converts 15 to 20 percent of the energy in it's gasoline fuel into motion. Most of it is wasted as heat, not to mention all of the energy it's wasting when sitting still or moving very slowly. Power plants, no matter what form of energy they use, recover and reuse much of that wasted heat. Also, all of the kinetic energy an ICE powered car wastes when slowing and stopping, only to expend all over again when getting back up to speed. This is one reason why hybrid vehicles get better fuel economy than similar all gasoline vehicles . . . . they can recover much of that wasted energy

If you drive an ICE powered car and your 'facts' prove to you that you're generating less carbon than the average EV'er, I'm happy for you - I'm sure it helps you to sleep well at night and that's the important thing

Don
2012 iMiEV SE Premium, White
2012 iMiEV SE, White
2014 Ford Transit Connect XLT SWB wagon, 14,000 miles
1994 Miata 60K miles - Soon to be sold
1979 Honda CBX six into six

Kuuuurija
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Emissions measurement - a non-hippy view

Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:46 am

There was no facts in the referred article. Just a bluff from a passioned EV fan.
Person, who claims, that ICE cars consume more electricity for propulsion than EV-s, should know how mutch kWhs both consume. I'm afraid, that such comparisions by the EV fans are made based on wrong assumptions. They compare EVs battery to propulsion ratio with ICE cars oil well to propulsion ratio.

Here in Estonia we have one fast charging station per every 3 EVs. A fast charging station consumes at least some 100 W when standing idle. Plus those stations are lighted at nighttime. Only occasionally someone charges there his EV. But every hour tens of kwh-s are wasted only by those fast charging stations at standby. And so 365 days a year, 24 h a day!

In our climate the heat generated by the ICE is not wasted most of the time. It is used for heating and drying the cars interior.

danpatgal
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:21 am
Location: Ephrata, PA

Re: Emissions measurement - a non-hippy view

Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:25 am

I think the figure of 5-7kwh of wasted energy for refining a gallon of gasoline is in the realm of the reasonable. It is not, however, electricity from the grid as implied but mostly co-generation (by-production burning of the non-useful byproducts to run the refining).

I made a claim that EVs can travel on the electricity to refine gasoline ... just as far as the used gasoline could take you. Well, I discovered with some digging that the facts are more complicated. Here's a bit of the thread from the EVDL site from a couple years ago with some government/industry statistics on oil refining:

http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list ... 62460.html

But, EVs are still way more efficient, cheaper (it's still equivalent to between 1-2$/gal of gasoline even with battery replacement costs), and lower polluting. Just not miraculous. Miraculous would be the CarBen5 with pedal power! Neil - when will you offer that - or sell the design to Tesla for their Model "E" to come out in 2020?

Return to “General Technical Discussions”