Nonsense spouted on NPR's "Science Friday"? - June 30

[M. Hamill]

I'm the gent who posted "Questions on electrical distribution system and
motor
efficiency" last weekend. Thanks for the responses.

The reason I posed my questions was to be able to better contest assertions
made by a guest on N.P.R.'s "Science Friday" on June 30. The host was
interviewing someone who's put together a movie, now showing in a few
cities, which supposedly documents how politicians, acting on behest of the
oil and automotive industries, quashed efforts to develop electric cars in
the mid and late 1990s. That is, these cars had batteries charged by
household power, and a battery-powered motor.

The guest said these cars were sought in California, for their supposed
advantage of eliminating tailpipe exhaust (for cleaner air). Some advantages
he cited are ones I concede, such as the car can be lighter, as a heavy
engine and transmission are not required. He said G.M. made these cars for a
while and leased them, and they were quite popular, but ultimately, G.M.
stopped leasing them, and destroyed them.

My reaction was that he was a non-technical person who didn't understand
what he was asserting, and had overstated the case for electric cars, also
convincing a lot of others who also aren't energy-savvy. He didn't seem to
be aware of the drawbacks of using electrically driven cars; nor did he
mention any.

Someone who knew about these electric cars called in, said they had very
limited range for driving - about 30 miles - between recharging, and that
was the main reason they fell out of favor.

I tried to reach Science Friday to challenge the guest, but the line was
busy.

Anyway, my reasons for skepticism about the guest's arguements include the
following:

-- Use of electric cars shifts the source of air pollution and CO2 to the
atmosphere from tailpipe exhaust to power plant exhaust (assuming a fossil
fuel is used for power generation, a safe assumption in the U.S.) Coal and
fuel oil produce lots of pollution and CO2.

-- A widespread switch from gasoline to electric powered cars would require
a huge investment in more generation capacity by electric utilities.

-- Although cars are known to have poor thermal efficiency (to my knowledge
about 20% of the useful energy in gasoline is converted to mechanical
power), similar inefficiencies abound in use of electric cars. Here is a
list of inefficiencies that apply, and I'm sure others in this group could
expand the list, or expound upon it:

- Fossil fuel plants have limited thermal efficiencies. I used to work at a
power
company, and about 1990 its best coal-fired plant had a thermal efficiency
of about 35% (thermal efficiency compares the thermal equivalent of
kilowatt-hours to the energy content of the fuel burned);
- Impedance of power lines, and related factors result in energy lost in
electric
power distribution;
- There are losses in each stage of each transformer to the homeowner's
120/240 VAC 3-wire connection to utility lines;
- The converter used to charge a car battery will have losses; it has to be
stepped down in voltage and rectified.
- In the car itself, not all of the energy the battery applies to the motor
will
result in mechanical power (hence my previous question about the efficiency
of DC motors.)

I'm very interested in responses from other posters. I intend to contact
"Science Friday" about this. I suspect this guy was spouting a lot of
nonsense.

M.H.

 

[ecarecar]

My reaction was that he was a non-technical person who didn't understand
what he was asserting, and had overstated the case for electric cars, also
convincing a lot of others who also aren't energy-savvy. He didn't seem to
be aware of the drawbacks of using electrically driven cars; nor did he
mention any.

You may be a a non-technical person who doesn't understand what you are
asserting.

Someone who knew about these electric cars called in, said they had very
limited range for driving - about 30 miles - between recharging, and that
was the main reason they fell out of favor.

I tried to reach Science Friday to challenge the guest, but the line was
busy.

They are avoiding you.

Anyway, my reasons for skepticism about the guest's arguements include the
following:

-- Use of electric cars shifts the source of air pollution and CO2 to the
atmosphere from tailpipe exhaust to power plant exhaust (assuming a fossil
fuel is used for power generation, a safe assumption in the U.S.) Coal and
fuel oil produce lots of pollution and CO2.

Large, fixed energy conversion devices are more efficient and cleaner
operating than mobile systems.

-- A widespread switch from gasoline to electric powered cars would require
a huge investment in more generation capacity by electric utilities.

Could be. It would be a great idea particularly if these systems were
non-polluting.

-- Although cars are known to have poor thermal efficiency (to my knowledge
about 20% of the useful energy in gasoline is converted to mechanical
power), similar inefficiencies abound in use of electric cars. Here is a
list of inefficiencies that apply, and I'm sure others in this group could
expand the list, or expound upon it:

- Fossil fuel plants have limited thermal efficiencies. I used to work at a
power
company, and about 1990 its best coal-fired plant had a thermal efficiency
of about 35% (thermal efficiency compares the thermal equivalent of
kilowatt-hours to the energy content of the fuel burned);

However, they are much more efficient than automobile diesel and Otto
cycle engines.

- Impedance of power lines, and related factors result in energy lost in
electric
power distribution;

Trivial in multiple KV power transmission systems.

- There are losses in each stage of each transformer to the homeowner's
120/240 VAC 3-wire connection to utility lines;

Do you obtain your power from a utility or, as would seem likely from
your post,
generate your own electricity?

- The converter used to charge a car battery will have losses; it has to be
stepped down in voltage and rectified.

The battery system can be designed so that rectified AC is usable at
117v. Losses in
rectification are effectively zero.

- In the car itself, not all of the energy the battery applies to the motor
will
result in mechanical power (hence my previous question about the efficiency
of DC motors.)

??

I'm very interested in responses from other posters. I intend to contact
"Science Friday" about this. I suspect this guy was spouting a lot of
nonsense.

M.H.

No. The individual on Science Friday was not spouting a lot of
nonsense. Others, however, . . . .

 

[TimPerry]

I'm the gent who posted "Questions on electrical distribution system
and motor
efficiency" last weekend. Thanks for the responses.

The reason I posed my questions was to be able to better contest
assertions made by a guest on N.P.R.'s "Science Friday" on June 30.
The host was interviewing someone who's put together a movie, now
showing in a few cities, which supposedly documents how politicians,
acting on behest of the oil and automotive industries, quashed
efforts to develop electric cars in the mid and late 1990s. That is,
these cars had batteries charged by household power, and a
battery-powered motor.

The guest said these cars were sought in California, for their
supposed advantage of eliminating tailpipe exhaust (for cleaner air).
Some advantages he cited are ones I concede, such as the car can be
lighter, as a heavy engine and transmission are not required. He said
G.M. made these cars for a while and leased them, and they were quite
popular, but ultimately, G.M. stopped leasing them, and destroyed
them.

My reaction was that he was a non-technical person who didn't
understand what he was asserting, and had overstated the case for
electric cars, also convincing a lot of others who also aren't
energy-savvy. He didn't seem to be aware of the drawbacks of using
electrically driven cars; nor did he mention any.

Someone who knew about these electric cars called in, said they had
very limited range for driving - about 30 miles - between recharging,
and that was the main reason they fell out of favor.

I tried to reach Science Friday to challenge the guest, but the line
was busy.

Anyway, my reasons for skepticism about the guest's arguements
include the following:

-- Use of electric cars shifts the source of air pollution and CO2 to
the atmosphere from tailpipe exhaust to power plant exhaust (assuming
a fossil fuel is used for power generation, a safe assumption in the
U.S.) Coal and fuel oil produce lots of pollution and CO2.

-- A widespread switch from gasoline to electric powered cars would
require a huge investment in more generation capacity by electric
utilities.

-- Although cars are known to have poor thermal efficiency (to my
knowledge about 20% of the useful energy in gasoline is converted to
mechanical power), similar inefficiencies abound in use of electric
cars. Here is a list of inefficiencies that apply, and I'm sure
others in this group could expand the list, or expound upon it:

- Fossil fuel plants have limited thermal efficiencies. I used to
work at a power
company, and about 1990 its best coal-fired plant had a thermal
efficiency of about 35% (thermal efficiency compares the thermal
equivalent of kilowatt-hours to the energy content of the fuel
burned); - Impedance of power lines, and related factors result in
energy lost in electric
power distribution;
- There are losses in each stage of each transformer to the
homeowner's 120/240 VAC 3-wire connection to utility lines;
- The converter used to charge a car battery will have losses; it has
to be stepped down in voltage and rectified.
- In the car itself, not all of the energy the battery applies to the
motor will
result in mechanical power (hence my previous question about the
efficiency of DC motors.)

I'm very interested in responses from other posters. I intend to
contact "Science Friday" about this. I suspect this guy was spouting
a lot of nonsense.

M.H.

in areas where it gets cold in the winter heat is needed to comfort the
occupants and clear the windshields. doing this from batteries seems
problematic. maybe with fuel cells the electricity could provide motive
force and the hydrogen the heat.... (or maybe the other way round)

what kind of brakes do roadworthy electric vehicles have? what happens when
the batteries go dead?

when you run out of "juice" on the road, how do you get recharged?

ask any golf course owner or manager about range, use, and maintenance of
electric powered vehicles.

the problem with secret conspiracy theories is that it is well known that 2
or more people cannot keep a secret.

 

[ecarecar]

M. Hamill wrote:



in areas where it gets cold in the winter heat is needed to comfort the
occupants and clear the windshields. doing this from batteries seems
problematic. maybe with fuel cells the electricity could provide motive
force and the hydrogen the heat.... (or maybe the other way round)

what kind of brakes do roadworthy electric vehicles have? what happens when
the batteries go dead?

when you run out of "juice" on the road, how do you get recharged?

Ha!!! That's easy. Back around 1990 I "manufactured" an electric car
with a power-train of my own
design. In the early "shake-down" days I ran out of electricity several
times.

What you do is you get your pampered rear-end out and push. There is NO
better cardiovascular workout
than pushing a grossly overweight damn car several miles.

 

[TimPerry]

Ha!!! That's easy. Back around 1990 I "manufactured" an electric
car with a power-train of my own
design. In the early "shake-down" days I ran out of electricity
several times.

What you do is you get your pampered rear-end out and push. There is
NO better cardiovascular workout
than pushing a grossly overweight damn car several miles.

ah, i see. the carbon based life form backup propulsion system.

 

[M. Hamill]

You may be a a non-technical person who doesn't understand what you are
asserting.

Not quite. I'm a licensed P.E., although my background is Mechanical, not
Electrical Engineering. I sought to learn about the inefficiencies (or lack
thereof) associated with electricity distribution, and E/M energy conversion
in DC motors.

They are avoiding you.

Who can say how many other callers there were.

Large, fixed energy conversion devices are more efficient and cleaner
operating than mobile systems.
Agreed.

Could be. It would be a great idea particularly if these systems were
non-polluting.

And right now, that's a huge if. Quickly reviewing existing options for
large-scale power generation:
1. Coal: Worst fossil fuel source in terms of generating CO2 (although there
are plans for a test plant to store CO2 from coal-fired power plant exhaust
below ground.) Bulky, dirty, voluminous waste. If scrubbers are needed to
remove SO2, reduces plant efficiency by about 15%.
2. Oil. Expensive. Fuel oil is dirty stuff, too.
3. Natural gas: expensive, though easy to burn, doesn't leave a lot of waste
like coal.
4. Nuclear power: Expensive to build and so financially risky for investors
that the only way to get investors interested currently is with gov't loan
guarantees. Also, plutonium waste generated is very hazardous and has a
half-life of 24K years.
5. Solar power: currently, expensive capital cost compared to alternatives.
Also, sunshine is not reliable in most areas.
6. Hydroelectric power: virtually all tapped out.
7. Wind power: it's a stretch to say wind power can generate power on a very
large scale. We all wish it could.

Hopefully, technological innovations will be developed that will allow
economical power extraction from ocean waves, or other natural, renewable
sources. That would be great.

However, they are much more efficient than automobile diesel and Otto
cycle engines.

Trivial in multiple KV power transmission systems.

Do you obtain your power from a utility or, as would seem likely from your
post,
generate your own electricity?

The battery system can be designed so that rectified AC is usable at 117v.
Losses in
rectification are effectively zero.

I'll take your word on that.

No. The individual on Science Friday was not spouting a lot of nonsense.
Others, however, . . . .

Well, just because someone makes assertions about the efficiency and
effectiveness of electric cars doesn't mean that such claims shouldn't be
checked. And as I understand it, present limitations on battery technology
severely limit how much energy can be stored in a car's battery, although
some are working hard to develop batteries with much higher storage
capacities.

For now, knowing some simple laws of physics will enable interested drivers
to extract as many miles per gallon of gas as is physically possible. Where
I live, in the Midwest, we have a large % of drivers who don't seem to care
in the least about the cost of gas or the CO2 their large vehicles exhaust.

M.H.

 

[daestrom]

I'm the gent who posted "Questions on electrical distribution system and
motor
efficiency" last weekend. Thanks for the responses.

The reason I posed my questions was to be able to better contest
assertions made by a guest on N.P.R.'s "Science Friday" on June 30. The
host was interviewing someone who's put together a movie, now showing in a
few
cities, which supposedly documents how politicians, acting on behest of
the oil and automotive industries, quashed efforts to develop electric
cars in the mid and late 1990s. That is, these cars had batteries charged
by household power, and a battery-powered motor.

The guest said these cars were sought in California, for their supposed
advantage of eliminating tailpipe exhaust (for cleaner air). Some
advantages he cited are ones I concede, such as the car can be lighter, as
a heavy engine and transmission are not required. He said G.M. made these
cars for a while and leased them, and they were quite popular, but
ultimately, G.M. stopped leasing them, and destroyed them.

GM's supposed reason was they were not selling all that well. One thread a
while back listed a few people's direct experiences with the EV-1. It was
offered by rental car companies in the LA area. One experience went
something like, 1) Picked up car at airport, drove downtown, nice 2)
downtown hotel and 'charging' stations broke/outofservice. 3)contacted
rental company about getting recharged, 4)they towed it and left a gasoline
powered car.

EV's can be useful as in delivery fleets, much like propane-powered cars.
But so far, the recharge time limits their usefulness to a radius < 1/2
their range.

Anyway, my reasons for skepticism about the guest's arguements include the
following:

-- Use of electric cars shifts the source of air pollution and CO2 to the
atmosphere from tailpipe exhaust to power plant exhaust (assuming a fossil
fuel is used for power generation, a safe assumption in the U.S.) Coal and
fuel oil produce lots of pollution and CO2.

True, but their efficiencies are better. They also can have the extra
equipment to remove/prevent some of the other 'nasties' like NOx and CO. So
there *could* be a slight improvement over the thousands of cars idling in
traffic.

-- A widespread switch from gasoline to electric powered cars would
require a huge investment in more generation capacity by electric
utilities.

That would depend on the time of charging. If delayed until the wee hours
of the morning, it would mean that some regulating/peaking units just run
longer into the night. Not more generation capacity, but more expensive
fuel costs.

-- Although cars are known to have poor thermal efficiency (to my
knowledge about 20% of the useful energy in gasoline is converted to
mechanical power), similar inefficiencies abound in use of electric cars.
Here is a list of inefficiencies that apply, and I'm sure others in this
group could expand the list, or expound upon it:

- Fossil fuel plants have limited thermal efficiencies. I used to work at
a power
company, and about 1990 its best coal-fired plant had a thermal efficiency
of about 35% (thermal efficiency compares the thermal equivalent of
kilowatt-hours to the energy content of the fuel burned);

Yes, but EV opens up the possibility to use a much wider range of 'fuels'
besides just petroleum.

- Impedance of power lines, and related factors result in energy lost in
electric
power distribution;

Well, power lines have 'impedance' and 'resistance'. The impedance is much
larger and causes problems with voltage stability and the maximum amount of
power than can be transferred. But it isn't an energy loss. The resistance
represents the energy losses and is usually pretty small, on the order of
less than 5% of the total power flowing.

- There are losses in each stage of each transformer to the homeowner's
120/240 VAC 3-wire connection to utility lines;

Substation sized transformers run >97% efficient. Even 'pole-pigs' can run

93%

- The converter used to charge a car battery will have losses; it has to
be stepped down in voltage and rectified.
- In the car itself, not all of the energy the battery applies to the
motor will
result in mechanical power (hence my previous question about the
efficiency of DC motors.)

Very true. But in some types of driving, the use of regenerative braking
can save a substantial amount. And EV's lend themselves very well to such a
setup (just modify the control algorithms). But only in certain driving
situations (stop/go urban driving)

I'm very interested in responses from other posters. I intend to contact
"Science Friday" about this. I suspect this guy was spouting a lot of
nonsense.

There is a lot of 'conspiracy theorists' about the disappointing life of
GM's EV-1. But if GM (or any other car manufacturer) could make a car that
was attractive to the public and cost only a fraction to operate of a gas
car, I don't think GM would shelve it for their 'big oil buddies'. Rather,
they would be producing (and selling) them as fast as they could. But the
EV-1 was *not* attractive to the public. The 'public' voted with their
pocketbooks. Gas was still cheap, the EV-1 was limited range, hours to
re-charge, cost more, and was less versatile than an SUV. So the SUV's won,
GM couldn't sell the EV, and pulled it from the market.

Some say it was pulled because of liability issues if the battery was
damaged in a crash. But I think the simple truth is, people didn't like
having to worry about where to plug it in all the time (i.e. lack of
supporting infrastructure). It's not like you can pull into a parking
garage and plug it in while at work/shopping. And as someone else
mentioned, I don't know how well it would work in 'snow country'.

Who wants a second car that can only go about 30 miles away from home and
back? Or can only be used in the summer? Definitely some downside.

With rising gas prices, and more 'public awareness', an electric vehicle
*might* make a comeback. But GM's experience with the EV-1 probably left a
'bad taste' in their corporate R&D mouth, so things would have to change
more than they already have before they'll try that again.

daestrom

 

[ecarecar]

Well, just because someone makes assertions about the efficiency and
effectiveness of electric cars doesn't mean that such claims shouldn't be
checked. And as I understand it, present limitations on battery technology
severely limit how much energy can be stored in a car's battery, although
some are working hard to develop batteries with much higher storage
capacities.

For now, knowing some simple laws of physics will enable interested drivers
to extract as many miles per gallon of gas as is physically possible. Where
I live, in the Midwest, we have a large % of drivers who don't seem to care
in the least about the cost of gas or the CO2 their large vehicles exhaust.

M.H.

In my opinion, everything else in this thread but for your last paragraph
is irrelevant fluff. The last paragraph is everything.

The average American puts every idea, policy, program, etc. through
a rigorous, two-prong test:

1 Does it feel good?
B Does it feel good now?

If the answers to those two questions are yes, nothing else matters.
Even if the planet were to vaporize tomorrow, I am not sure it would matter.

So, I guess it might be a good to have a law banning vehicles that get
over 10 miles per gallon. Let's get it overwith. Let's (quickly) put
the atmosphere
in such a condition that no one can deny that either there is global
warming
that should have been stopped or that there is no global warming and
humans can burn everything on the planet that will burn.

I suspicion that to take the planet carbon neutral would require policies
that would create the greatest economic depression yet seen.

But, take heart. Hurricane season is coming.

 

[ecarecar]

In my opinion, everything else in this thread but for your last paragraph
is irrelevant fluff. The last paragraph is everything.

The average American puts every idea, policy, program, etc. through
a rigorous, two-prong test:

1 Does it feel good?
B Does it feel good now?

If the answers to those two questions are yes, nothing else matters.
Even if the planet were to vaporize tomorrow, I am not sure it would
matter.

So, I guess it might be a good to have a law banning vehicles that get
over 10 miles per gallon. Let's get it overwith. Let's (quickly) put
the atmosphere
in such a condition that no one can deny that either there is global
warming
that should have been stopped or that there is no global warming and
humans can burn everything on the planet that will burn.

I suspicion that to take the planet carbon neutral would require policies
that would create the greatest economic depression yet seen.

But, take heart. Hurricane season is coming.

Fossil fuels said to damage ocean life

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer / 15 minutes ago/

WASHINGTON - Corals and other marine creatures are threatened by
chemical changes in the ocean caused by the carbon dioxide from burning
fossil fuels, a panel of scientists warned Wednesday.