RE: (ET) A Thread -- System-based Pollution Evaluation

["Elie, Larry (L.D.)" <lelie ford com>]

I don't like to sound contradictory, but it does depend on who you ask.

I have seen MANY of these for electric and hybrid vehicles.  Every year, 
SAE

reports contain several reports, and they are all public.  It even depends
on 
how recent the report, because the mix of electric generation changes, and 
efficiency changes.  It also makes a difference on what you call 'clean'
because 
when some of us were in school, it was thought that CO2 and H2O were clean,
now 
many see CO2 as a greenhouse gas and as bad.  For autos (not mowers) the
ordinal 
position of least polluting well head to wheel, not including fabrication
costs, 
including all losses such as pipeline/grid, and with automotive driving
cycles were 
as follows:

Liquefied Natural Gas Vehicles
Propane Vehicles
Battery Electric Vehicles
Hybrid Vehicles (mix of all 4 engine types)
Gas Vehicles
Diesel Vehicles (high NOx)
Coal burning (steam) Vehicles

The mix would be quite different if we didn't generate most of the
electricity in the 
US from coal.  I don't remember is it was just US or North America; Canada
may use 
less coal.  I was a bit surprised because the LNG vehicles included the
energy to 
compress natural gas to LNG and it still beat out the others.  The bottom
line on 
the LNG and LP vehicles is that we are talking a simple molecule, not a
complex chain, 
so it burns cleaner, except for the CO2.

No, electrics are not on top.  With autos, you also have to pay to
accelerate the battery 
pack around with you.  It would be different if we could all drive
slot-cars, but the 
infrastructure for that doesn't exist.

For mowers, the driving cycle is quite different.  The MOST efficient two
would be the 
push type reel mower (all human power) and the goat (all animal power), but
then one 
has to feed the human or goat, and believe it or not, world wide, animal
pollution is 
significant, even depending on what you feed the animal.

Larry Elie


-----Original Message-----
From: David Roden (Akron OH USA) [mailto:roden ald net]
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 4:27 PM
To: elec-trak cosmos5 phy tufts edu
Subject: Re: (ET) A Thread -- System-based Pollution Evaluation


This is the type of analysis which has to include so many calculations 
from so many different sources that not only is it a tremendous challenge 
to carry out, it's very difficult to get accurate, unbiased figures.  All 
along the way you encounter more marketing people than scientists, and 
many of the marketing people tend to be associated with oil companies.

The usual (intuitive) argument is that zero-emissions vehicles simply 
transfer the emissions to the powerplant.  There are two counters to this 
argument.  

The first is that electric drive systems are so much more efficient than 
gasoline drive systems (even allowing for losses in charging and power 
transmission) that the electric produces fewer pollutants regardless of 
the fuel used for generation.  And of course if the generation uses 
primairly renewable sources, the answer is obvious.

The second (in my mind a decisive nail in the coffin) is that charging 
electric vehicles at night uses otherwise idle power plant capacity and 
actually ~increases~ the plants' efficiency.

Here's a recent positive article about his issue:

Intertech Energy & Transportation Division Presents...  ENERGY &
TRANSPORTATION NEWS Volume 1 Issue 3 FUELS

[ http://www.intertechusa.com/energy/enews/3/news3.htm ]

Advanced Computer Simulation Shows That Battery Electric Vehicles
Produce Fewer Emissions Than Gasoline Internal Combustion Engine
Vehicles July 20, 2000 - Ottawa - The Electric Vehicle Association of
Canada (EVAC), under contract to Health Canada, recently completed a
computer simulation of the emissions associated with the charging and
operation of battery electric vehicles (BEV). The study demonstrates
clearly that the greenhouse gas (GHG) and toxic gas emissions of BEVs
are significantly lower that those of conventional gasoline internal
combustion engine vehicles (ICEV). Furthermore, the study provides the
first real proof that significant emission reductions will result even
in regions that rely on coal-generated electricity.

"We have always known that electric vehicles provided tremendous
environmental benefits in those provinces that benefit from
electricity produced by such sources as hydro, nuclear and natural
gas," said Tom Lewinson, Executive Director of EVAC. "What's exciting
about this new state-of-the-art computer modelling is it tells us
something we've long suspected but were unable to prove: That electric
vehicles can provide significant environmental benefits throughout
Canada, regardless of how a particular area may produce its
electricity."

"Based on this evidence, electric vehicles must be considered an
essential component of Canada's Climate Change Strategy," noted Doug
Heaton, EVAC Chair and Manager, Project Development for EPCOR
Utilities, the Edmonton-based utility.

The key findings of the analysis are summarized below:

BEVs operating in provinces that rely primarily on electricity
generated by hydro sources will produce between 98% and 99.9% fewer
GHG emissions (CO2 equivalent) than comparable ICEVs, and less than
0.1% of the total other (non-CO2) emissions of their gasoline-powered
equivalents.

BEVs operating in provinces that rely primarily on electricity
generated by natural gas systems will produce approximately 74% to 85%
fewer GHG emissions (CO2 equivalent) than comparable ICEVs, and
approximately 0.5% of the total other (non-CO2) emissions of their
gasoline-powered equivalents..

Depending on the specific type of coal used, BEVs operating in
provinces that rely primarily on electricity generated by coal-burning
plants will produce 55% to 59% fewer GHG emissions (CO2 equivalent)
than comparable ICEVs, and between 80% and 92% fewer total other
(non-CO2) emissions than conventional gasoline vehicles.

The operation of an electric vehicle will result in significant
reductions of non-renewable energy ranging from 100% to 55% reduction,
depending on the source of the electricity.

EVAC is a non-profit, corporate-based organisation whose mandate is to
aid in the commercialisation of electric vehicles in Canada. Based in
Ottawa, the Association counts some of Canada's most prominent
companies as members. In addition to producing consumer-education
products, EVAC is also responsible for tracking electric-vehicle
developments in Canada and around the world, acting as a liaison
between industry and all levels of government, developing electric
vehicle standards, and planning industry conferences and seminars.

Contact: Tom Lewinson, Executive Director Electric Vehicle Association
of Canada 2031 Merivale Rd.  Nepean, ON K2G 1G7 Canada PH:
613-723-3127 FX: 613-723-8275 Email: evac evac ca Website: www.evac.ca


David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
1991 Solectria Force 144vac
1991 Ford Escort Green/EV 128vdc
1979 General Engines ElectroPed 24vdc
1974 Honda Civic EV 96vdc
1970 GE Elec-trak E15 36vdc
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
NOTE: If you receive an email which exhorts you to "Send
this to everyone you know," you don't know me.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =