MAX Update No. 39: Who Smoked the Electric Car?


| 1/5/2010 5:26:54 PM


I’ve had people ask why I’m even bothering with an internal-combustion engine car, since electric cars are so much more efficient. There’s a heap of promo going on to sell the public on electric cars. I hate to say it — because electric cars may be the salvation of transportation someday — but much of that promotion is smoke and mirrors.

There are significant political and financial reasons to push electric cars right now, but their promoters don’t talk about them much. Instead, they talk about energy efficiency and greenhouse gasses and saving the planet by saving fuel, but many of them know better. Every time you see an advertisement with a plug-in electric car parked in front of a wind turbine farm, you’re getting smoked.

Electric BriquetteElectricity is not a fuel. We may think there’s a marketing and technological battle between internal-combustion engine cars and electric cars, but there’s not. The battle is between internal combustion and external combustion.

The most recent electric power report from the U.S. Department of Energy showed that a bit more than two-thirds (69 percent) of our nation’s electricity comes from burning fossil fuels: coal, natural gas and petroleum. About 10 percent comes from renewable resources (hydro, wind, solar, geothermal and biomass). The rest comes from nuclear energy. Yet we still read about electric cars as “zero emissions” and how converting to plug-in electric makes a car “equivalent” to 100 mpg or more.

When I was young, “air pollution” meant “smog,” and from a smog standpoint, electric cars are a wonderful thing. Electric cars get the pollutants out of the city, and out to the country where they belong. Besides, some pollutants (nitrogen oxide and unburned hydrocarbons) are more easily controlled in a few big power plants than in millions of car engines. Grid power wins over petroleum power for pollutants ... unless you consider carbon dioxide a pollutant. If you think manmade greenhouse gasses effect global warming, promoting electric cars takes some fancy footwork.

The Automotive X Prize competition has become a prime example. When it was announced, it was going to be a fuel efficiency competition. But as the rules developed, it became a Battle of the Batteries. Now the only fuel limit for grid-powered electric cars is they can’t exceed 200 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. Well, that’s 44 pounds of carbon dioxide per 100 miles — about 45 mpg if you compare it with gasoline’s carbon dioxide output. As the X Prize Foundation points out, that’s less carbon dioxide per mile than the national fleet average, but “better than average” isn’t setting the bar very high.

The other smoker is when fuel equivalency is determined by retail price. Go to the government’s fuel economy website to see how the EPA calculates mileage for electric cars. For example, look at the entry for the 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV (no longer manufactured), and you’ll see it is rated at 112 mpg. 

How did they figure that? That’s easy, the RAV4 EV went 100 miles on $2.40 worth of electricity when household electricity cost 8 cents a kilowatt-hour and gasoline cost $2.71 a gallon (including federal and state road taxes, which are free for electric cars). $2.71 divided by $2.40 equals 112. Ta-dah!, a 112-mpg SUV.

Electric cars can reduce our dependence on foreign fuels, and that would be a good thing. Electric cars also will help our economy, but I don’t see that they’re helping the planet right now — they won’t until their efficiency catches up with their hype.

To quote Jory Squibb, "Once our electricity grid becomes more Earth-friendly, this technology may surpass all others," but at present, the grid meets increases in demand by shoveling more fossil fuels on the fire. I'd hate to see electric cars go down the same primrose path the petroleum cars once trod, when cheap fuel justified inefficient design.

 


Photo: Can electric cars run on coal? Most of them already do. Photo by Jack McCornack. 



 

Jack McCornack
1/15/2010 3:10:20 PM

Wrote me to Paul Scott: >So let’s swap household power bills for 2008... (Blush) I meant 2009. Last year's power bills. Man that year went fast.


Jack McCornack
1/15/2010 2:43:05 PM

Hi Jason, Those are points of interest and a subject worth getting into, how about if I write MAX Update #41 (the one after next) around the subject? I answered your earlier question re how do I justfy building MAX etc because, as they say on Law And Order, It goes to the credibility of the witness (me). Your observations are intriguing--even challengin--and I’d enjoy an open discussion of them. Let’s do that soon; but for now, I’d like to stay on the subject of electric cars and their environmental impact relative to IC cars. Note you can use a stationary generator to charge an electric car, it’s even legal to manufacture a production car to be charged with a stationary engine and all you have to meet is the EPA stationary engine standards. Wrote Paul Scott, >I find it hard to believe that anyone claiming to be an environmentalist would be >making these claims against using an EV because of the supposed pollution from >generating electricity, yet blithely go about using that same dirty energy in his house. I suppose this too goes to the credibility of the witness, but I felt it was off topic and should be examined in another blog. >As an energy advisor, I get to see people's electricity bills all the time... As an environmental journalist, so do I. :-) So let’s swap household power bills for 2008 and see if my house (no PV but very conservative of electrical power) uses more or less grid electricity than you PV-equipped house does.


Jason Hinton
1/14/2010 5:37:15 PM

Jack, Max is legal at the state level but illegal at the federal level. You are in violation of the Federal Clean Air Act because you are using an engine that was EPA certified for stationary or agricultural (they are different)in an on-highway vehicle. You are also in violation of the Clean Air Act because in tuning your engine you have changed emission related components. It is illegal to modify an engine in any way or to replace any component unless that new component has been EPA certified with the specific engine you have. Your comparison of the EPA certification for your agricultural engine to an EPA certification for on-highway vehicles ignores the fact that the test cycles are completely different. The test cycle for a stationary engine consists of a cold start followed by intervals of running at steady loads. http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/iso8178.html There are multiple test cycles for on-highway engines consisting of a cold start followed by many variation in road speed and acceleration rates. http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/#us-ld No amount of tuning will make your agricultural diesel with manual injection and no emission controls meet current EPA on-highway emission standards. Diesel engines require common-rail EFI, EGR, NOx catalysts, and particulate filters to meet current EPA emissions.




Subscribe Today - Pay Now & Save 64% Off the Cover Price

Money-Saving Tips in Every Issue!

Mother Earth NewsAt MOTHER EARTH NEWS, we are dedicated to conserving our planet's natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. You'll find tips for slashing heating bills, growing fresh, natural produce at home, and more. That's why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $5 and get 6 issues of MOTHER EARTH NEWS for only $12.95 (USA only).

You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $17.95 for 6 issues.

Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
International Subscribers - Click Here
Canadian subscriptions: 1 year (includes postage & GST).


Facebook Pinterest Instagram YouTube Twitter flipboard

Free Product Information Classifieds Newsletters