Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Isaiah" <isaiah@isaiah.org> wrote in
> news:h31af5$qg1$1@news.albasani.net:
>
>> "Leftie" <No@Thanks.net> wrote in message
>> news:ioU4m.10421$Il.4190@newsfe16.iad...
>>> Isaiah wrote:
>>>> "jolly" <freedatingsites@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4026449f-b8ec-49d0-a4cf-cf561ad13031@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.co
>>>> m...
>>>>> BMW Mini to Sell Electric Cars in U.S. From Summer 2009...
>>>>> http://www.techespot.com/2009/06/bmw...tric-cars-in-u
>>>>> s.html
>>>> Hmm...try recharging that thing in CT, where the KW per hour charge
>>>> is $0.23. I wonder which would have larger carbon footprint, a gas
>>>> powered vehicle or the fossil fuel needed to recharge an all
>>>> electric vehicle.....
>>> The gasoline powered vehicle. In fact, even where the electricity
>>> comes from coal, it still pollutes less using an EV than an IC
>>> vehicle. But don't let inconvenient reality intrude on your rant!
>
>> It's not a rant, it is quite the contrary. One was an observation,
>> the other is a viable question. Many proponents of electric cars talk
>> about no emissions, yet there are emissions from the power generation
>> that is required to charge the vehicle, but I never have looked into
>> it, and thought someone may have the information readily available, so
>> I guess I'll do a little digging for a few minutes to try and get some
>> facts to answer my own question.....
>>
>> http://www.gm-volt.com/index.php?s=r...-volt.com/inde
>> x.php?s=recharged
>>
>> At the bottom of this page from the above link, it it shows a rating
>> of 26-38 KWH per 100 miles, and an average of 32.5. At the electric
>> rates in CT, the cost would be about $7.47 to operate per 100 miles.
>> A gas vehicle that gets 35 MPG would take almost 3 gallons to to
>> operate, so even at the rate of electricity in CT, at the current cost
>> of fuel, this electric car would be an operational winner in that
>> respect.
>
> Ah,but when the Obama carbon "cap n trade" goes into effect,coal-generated
> electricity will SOAR in price(and US economy will take a nasty dive).
> Obama has said he wants to put the coal electrics out of business.
> That's >50% of US electric capacity.Obama will only allow nuclear plants
> when we have "safe storage",but is killing Yucca Mtn repository by cutting
> it's funding. Solar and wind cannot make up the difference.
> Also,we are aleady near full capacity;no room for additional electric
> loads.


I really wish that you were right in your worries. The fact is,
though, that Obama has already caved to the powerful coal industry in
his energy plans. So you can stop worrying about that and start worrying
about some other Right-wing Bogeyman. Obama isn't going to "kill" the
coal industry (more's the pity) or the economy.



>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...t/co2emiss.pdf
>> has some information on carbon footprint for for differing types of
>> power generation (for most recent year 2000).
>>
>> Type Lbs/KWH Grams/KWH
>> Coal 2.117 961
>> Petroleum 1.915 869
>> Gas 1.314 596
>>
>> According to http://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator/ a
>> Ford focus emits just about 318K grams per 1,000 miles driven (can't
>> validate the numbers, I just found it and used the Focus and reduced
>> what I got to a per 1k miles)
>>
>> Using electricity, an all electric vehicle like the one shown above in
>> the first link would need about 325 KWH to drive 1000 miles, coal CO2
>> emissions would be about 312K grams, while petroleum generation would
>> be 282k grams and gas generation would be 194k, and improvement of 2%,
>> 11,5%, and 39% respectively.
>>
>> So in this comparison, if your power generation is mainly coal, there
>> is marginal benefit, while the others get progressively better.
>> Unfortunately in the DOE document, it shows that about 50% of our
>> power generation is based on coal, so that will minimize the gains on
>> the CO2 emissions. For us to really take advantage of electric cars,
>> it seems what we really need to do is revamp how we produce
>> electricity (though in general, an average CO2 savings of somewhere
>> around 16%-18% if all vehicles were electric is nothing to sneeze at).
>>
>> I wonder how many KWH per 100 miles it would take for an all electric
>> Hummer?
>>
>> (a more up to date document would be more helpful, but I don't have
>> anymore time to invest in it right now).
>>
>> That seems to be a little more realistic.
>>
>>
>>
>
> People are not going to quickly replace their present gasoline autos with
> electrics;many cannot afford it.
> Also,electrics will not do everything gas-powered cars can.
> Businesses will not be able to use them,they take too long to recharge.


I appreciate your research, Isaih, but it only confirms what I
wrote (which wasn't a rant, just an assertion), and you are mistaken
about electrics 'taking too long to recharge.' Commercial vehicles will
have recharge times of about one hour to 80% and maybe four hours to
100%. Commercial plug-in hybrids will have no problem getting through
the day on a single charge.

>