BMW Mini to Sell Electric Cars in U.S. From Summer 2009

BMW Mini to Sell Electric Cars in U.S. From Summer 2009...
http://www.techespot.com/2009/06/bmw-mini-to-sell-electric-cars-in-us.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=rechargedhttp://www.gm-volt.com/index.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.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/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.

 

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.

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.

 

IOW, any financial gain will be negated, which will reduce the amount
of EV sold. Maybe if we let them place up to 3 spent fuel rods under
each new home built.....

I realize this. I just wanted a clearer picture of what is meant by
reduced carbon footprint claims.....

That may or may not be true, depending on how they are used. In
general, we are probably a good 20 years off from being able to change
ove en-masse IMO.

 

Pickens has let off his wind farm pitch and now proposes re-powering
long-haul trucking and municipal transport with LNG, and investing in
storage and delivery/"gas station" facilities.

 

The larger your powerplant, the more efficient it is. So that IC
engine is going to have less thermal efficiency that a 12,000 MW (or
however much) oil/gas/coal plant.

My f-i-l was a pwer EE and talked about some plants with turbines
exhausting at temperatures within 50 degrees of ambient. Now, today
the high was ony 105, so that might give "them" more leeway.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

"Jimmy, I'm sorry your girlfriend turned out
to be a cylon."
-Special Agent Tim McGee, "NCIS"

 

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.

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.

 

I'd imagine that this could be rather easily overcome by getting the
car companies to standardize the batteries, and have them be quickly
and easily replaced. Then, filling stations could stock the batteries
fully charged, and swap them on-the-go, putting the used ones on the
chargers.

Of course, that's nothing like it is now...

 

What if the station runs out of the charged packs?
It takes FAR longer to recharge them,they would have to maintain a huge
stock of packs,at great expense.Multiply that by the number of stations
needed for all the vehicles on the roads.

and "standardizing" the packs doesn't allow for the variations in
vehicles;some small and needing less capacity(and weight) and larger
vehicles needing bigger,heavier,higher capacity packs.
It would be like having an econobox with a 100 gallon fuel tank;the
weight(and size) negates any gain in efficiency.
You can see this is not practical.

And who knows in what condition your power source is then....how old it is
or if it's been abused or not.
Not to mention that the battery packs are large,heavy,and hazardous due to
the high energy stored in them.

Oh,and "easily replaced" is also "easily STOLEN".

 

That would be a pretty heavy swap out. As far as standards, they
can't even standardize cell phone charger hookups....

 

Hmm, a whole new black market opportunity. Capitalism at it's
best....

 

What if a station runs out of gas? You move on to the next station.
The stations that want to do better will start stocking more.

I can see that you are opposed to thinking outside of the current box.
Rather than providing possible improvements in any suggestions, all
you generally do is try to poke holes. But that's OK, there's always
one...

Standard maintenance. Fuel systems require it, too.

And getting smaller every day. Hell, I can run my laptop now for
twice as long as my old one, and the battery is half the size.

Some people like to use locks. Gas ain't so hard to steal, either...

 

Sure they can. They have chosen not to in the past, but more and more
are now using a USB port. Cars have had standard fuel fillers for a
very long time. This is just a different fuel.

As for heavy, right now it is, but battery technologies are moving
pretty quickly these days. What is not doable today is not
necessarily impossible...

 

the costs to stock numerous battery packs(of more than one type,too) would
be prohibitive.they are not inexpensive.

Oh,don't give me that chicle crap.
I'm pointing out PRACTICAL considerations.

Then there's the Utopian dreamers who fail to consider REALITY....

Nothing like a battery pack that's been drawn down too far,or sat too
long(self-discharge),or been overheated,or has some weak cells.

A lot different than a motor vehicle battery.
But PC owners have had batteries short,overheat,faulty construction,etc.

But the value stolen is far less,and far easier to replace.

 

I'm not a fan of this swapping out batteries idea, but you are doing
a poor job of criticizing it. If they run out of charged packs, they
will have more in a couple of hours. And you don't need a spare pack for
every vehicle on the road, only for those vehicles that are traveling
long distances, or are owned by people who can't be bothered to recharge
them.

Oh ye of little imagination! Just as gasoline is sold in gallons,
battery banks can use standardized battery modules: say four for an
econobox, and 8-10 for a van.

Unless the cars are built in America, they will probably have
intelligent power management, and will stop running before the batteries
are damaged. If made in the US they will probably lots of cupholders,
instead. As for being dangerous, have you heard about that bizarre
"gasoline" stuff that's fueling so many vehicles now? Yikes!

Yes, all the thieves would need would be mobile service station bays.

 

How long have cell phones been around, and still it is only at the point
where "more and more" are using a standard, and not all?

Not just a different fuel, a new technology, with no set standards except
for the 120v cord to recharge it...

I agree, we don't know what the future will bring. Anything is possible,
but it will take time and many iterations before any standards will be in
place.