Retirement

Well the 1996 Civic LX EV was retired this week. After 7,000+ miles of EV service, the 8VGC batteries came to their end and it was time to move on. I was able to strip all the EV parts and sell off the shell a day later, for $500! I only paid $600 for the car 5 years ago so it did me well.


But my EV journey isn't over, it's just starting! All the EV parts are being reused into a 2001 Civic EX Coupe! I purchased a nice, running 2001 Civic EX Coupe for converting back in August and in a few months that will be converted, with a lot of improvements. I will be starting another blog shortly with that EV and posting all my adventures and new features it will have.

UPDATE: Link to new EV blog http://2001-civic-ev.blogspot.com/
 

52 Pickup Roundup

Welcome to the first roundup that sounds ridiculous when you say it out loud...52 Pickup Roundup. The challenge stated that we either build any 52 pickup, or better yet, something having to do with cards and card games. You know how the game goes...I played it once when I was a kid. You ask a friend if they want to play 52 Pickup, they say hell yeah, then you drop the cards all over the floor and tell them to pick them up. Then came a series of events I had to repress until I was 30. Stupid childhood demons! Anyway, lets just brew some Three-Peckered Billy Goat coffee, kick back, and see how this hand was dealt, shall we? See what I did there? Card games...hand was dealt. Hah, I'm so clever!

Clearly Gilcelio still had Batman on the brain from the last challenge with this Joker-Mobile. The bombs look pretty cool and with a turn of a gear the boxing glove up front slowly telescopes out. Nah, go ahead, stand right there. I'll punch you with my oversized boxing glove, this'll take a few minutes. Anyway, all joking aside, this haunting ride is just fitting for the psychopathic clown prince of crime.



You could say Lino Martins had Batman on the brain too with this Two-Face looking lead sled, but actually I didn't. Named for the King of Hearts, the king who holds a knife to his own back, this Suicide King is a chopped and lowered '50 Merc with chromed out bits, suicide doors, and a striking bilateral color scheme. Black, white, and red are the primary colors of playing cards and this whole radical ride takes design cues from classic hot rodding. This is what we live for, people...um...Suicide King.



Tires on the road cause friction and friction slows you down. This is why in racing, you want the least amount of rubber on the road as possible to get you across the finish line before anyone else. This is why this eight wheeled, eight carbs, and eight pipes having formula 1 racer built by Oldeconoline is so damned crazy. Naturally, this wild orange and blue get up is called Crazy 8's. And to think, he started this project as a Model T with 8 seats and ended it like this. Pretty crazy, right?



You know who's crazy? Jonathan Derksen. Probably. All I can say is I met the kid, and behind all that boyish youthful charm is a no pants wearing, bus riding, mouth breathing lunatic waiting to happen. But enough about me. Lets just enjoy this 1952 Austin A40 pickup. Not only does it follow the alternate non-card related clause of the challenge, but it is also an alternate build of the official VW Bus set. Pretty alternative, right? Makes me want to wear guyliner and listen to Siouxsie and the Banshees.



I think I built my VW Bus while wearing a cape made of human skin. That has nothing at all to do with being creepy or weird...its just the LEGO room was cold and I just happen to have it handy. They say, when life hands you lemons, make lemonade and when life hands you yards and yards of human skin, you make a cape out of it. And possibly a lamp shade. Oh and Tim Inman built this very slick 1960 Cadillac Coupe deVille called Spite and Malice. Its one of my all time faves by Tim. The engine looks sort of like a Venus Flytrap.



Ever heard of the card game Rummy 500? I never did, but this 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 Country Wagon built by Christopbrill may be just the thing to cure what ails ya. I love wagons so it certainly works for me. Ask your doctor if the 1969 Galaxie 500 Country Wagon is right for you. Side effects may include profuse sweating, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, heartburn, stank breath and fallen arches. Consult your doctor if you experience heart palpitations or erections lasting more than four hours.



What do you call it when you cram a modified VW Microbus chock full of technic Porsche Martini racing team dudes? A full house. Just ask Malte Dorowski. He knows. He also knows the square root of pi, probably. I don't know the square root of pi. I left that information on the bus a long time ago...along with my pants. But I do know this is a pretty cool creation.


You know what else is cool? If The Joker drove the Deathproof Nova you'd get something like this next creation as built by Raphy. The skull ornament, the racing stripes, the dark green hood scoop, the little hint of yellow in the rims, all neat touches...but I like best the forced perspective photography featuring the Joker card. It makes everything seem all moody and sinister. But Raphy...clean your lens, sonnyboy! You've got schmutz all over it.




Speaking of moody and sinister, check out this murdered out all black F1 racer built by DeTomasso77. It is simply called The Player and it looks like it is becoming self aware and could quietly follow you down a dark ally in the dead of night. If Christine was a F1 racer, it would look like this. If that sinister truck in the movie Duel were a F1 racer it would look like this. If the car in that movie...um...The Car were a F1 racer it would look like this.




L@go plays the hand he was dealt and comes up all Aces with this thugged out little rat rod called Ace of Spades. In this case the jokes just write themselves. Let me simply copy/paste what L@go wrote: Meet Jack, called Ace by his friends. You've probably already spotted all the shovels he's got stored in that crate. He's a shovel salesman - which is how he got the nickname 'Ace of Spades' (insert drum roll and hi-hat crash)...



Well, it was short and sweet, but there you have it, the 52 Pickup Roundup. Yep, its still just as silly when spelled out a second time. In case we have any readers out there who are FBI agents I didn't build my VW Bus while wearing a cape of humanskin. I think I was in black pants and some sort of t-shirt. Both woven from cotton, not skin. I built it on the kitchen table with my girlfriend. I also keep my pants firmly on while riding the bus. I'm not even drinking Three-Peckered Billy Goat coffee...its trader Joe's French Roast. Sounds downright boring, truth be told. Sorry to disappoint. Can you find it in your hearts to forgive me? While you're mulling that over stay tuned for next month's challenge called Love For The Bug...all about the cute little VW Beetle. Whether it be bog standard or wildly customized...whether it be classic, the 1999 redesign or even the sportier new 2012, the sky is the limit with this challenge. Ted Bundy owned a VW Beetle. Talk about creepy and sinister!

Pollution of Democracy (warning: rant level orange)

I've written a lot about the problems caused by oil--global warming, wars for oil, polluted air from burning gas and polluted lands and waters from drilling and mining, etc.  But there is one additional form of pollution that I have missed, and it is one that is just as serious as all of these.  That is the pollution of our democratic process.

It's not just that oil buys votes for subsidies and permits to drill/mine/transport/refine and sell oil.  That is pretty much business as usual for our political system.  The real problem is that the oil industry is incompatible with a livable planet.  This means that their supporters have to take leave of their human senses and advocate suicide for the planet.  The result is pollution of our entire system of government, not just the usual bribes and pay-offs. 

Let me explain.

Normally most of us move through life with a prudent degree of caution.  We don't drive recklessly, we don't take dangerous drugs, we repair a leaky roof, we try to eat somewhat nutritious meals, etc.    We live by the "cautionary principle"--i.e. if something is likely, or even possible to cause us harm, we do what we need to do to avoid that thing.  Most people brush their teeth because the likely consequences of not doing so make it worth the time it takes.

So when it comes to climate change, the cautionary principle tells us to stop using fossil fuels, since 98% of climate scientists predict dire consequences of continued use of fossil fuels.  Even if there is a slight chance that they are wrong, rational human behavior would be to stop using fossil fuels.  This is not even that difficult to do since good alternatives exist that will end up saving money and providing good jobs (e.g. solar power and electric cars). 

But where do these alternatives leave the oil industry?  Out of business.  So for them, as corporations, this is a death sentence.  Of course, if corporations were really people, they would see that their self interest in survival outweighs their short term job prospects.  But they aren't people.  They have no feelings at all about human suffering.  So they use their billions to buy candidates who not only give them their usual perks, but who actively deny reality. 

What kind of people are these?  Religious zealots who think we're in the last days before the rapture.   People who are sure that humans can't change the earth because that's not God's plan.  Some of these people are skilled demagogues who know how to appeal to ignorance and make fun of science.  They are people who scapegoat immigrants, minorities, public employees, all government programs, gays/lesbians/bisexsual/transgender people, and just about anyone except the fossil fuel companies that are causing the problem.  In office they are the equivalent of drunk drivers who are careening around the highway with no regard to their own safety or the safety of others.   These are the people that now control the Republican party and the U.S. House of Representatives.  They are dismantling our government through incompetence and outright hostility--the post office, social security, the national parks, public schools, the clean air and clean water acts, . . . Tea Party elected candidates all have one thing in common--they all deny global warming.  All of the other parts of their agenda are irrelevant to the oil companies that fund them. 

This is oil pollution just as serious all the CO2 that is destroying the climate.

Sorry about the rant.

Tom Tomorrow on Global Warming

Good news for EVs from the White House

I was very happy to see the press release from the White House on March 7 promoting electric vehicles
See press release.

The key points that caught my eye were:

• Increasing the credit for EV buyers from $7,500, making it scalable up to $10,000;
• Reforming the credit to make it available at the point-of-sale by making it transferable to the dealer or financier, allowing consumers to benefit when they purchase a vehicle rather than when they file their taxes; and
• Removing the cap on the number of vehicles per manufacturer eligible for the credit and, instead, ramping down and eventually eliminating the credit at the end of the decade.

In addition, the "EV Everywhere" program includes $650 million in the 2013 budget to invest in breakthrough R&D for advanced batteries, electric drivetrain technologies, lightweight vehicle structures, and fast charging technology.

I didn't like the way the White House is promoting natural gas, since that is no way to solve global warming.  But on the whole, it's a good program.  It's light years away from the Republican presidential candidates who, incredibly, are stepping all over each other to see who can be the most backward on global warming, reducing oil imports, and cleaning the air.  Mitt Romney once said, "The Volt is an idea who's time has not come."  I think of him as being like the people who derided the first automobiles by saying, "Get a horse" or those who laughed at the first steamboat, calling it "Fulton's folly."  At least we have a President who understands that we need to move into the future.

How Clean are Electric Cars?--Revised

OK, I admit it--my numbers in my previous posts on this topic dated November 20, 2011 were not quite right and need some revision (see: "How Clean Are Electric Cars"  and "How Dirty are the Tar Sands" from 11/21/11)

Since that time, I've learned a few things.  The basic argument that electric cars are a lot cleaner than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles still holds, but the numbers are changed enough to require revisiting.  I think facts are critical, and I see a lot of estimates and guesswork on the internet, so I'm working hard to get this right.  It's not all that simple, but I'll try to explain it as clearly as I can. The main corrections have to do with how much carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced by utilities in the generation of electricity (a little more than I had counted before because the previous numbers did not include the full life cycle of the process) and how much CO2 is generated in extracting and refining oil (a little less than I had counted before, as I'll explain below).   The main effect of these corrections is that I can no longer say that an electric car is cleaner than a car getting 40 miles per gallon of gas if the electricity is generated solely by coal.  So here is Take Two:

One criticism of electric cars is that they require fossil fuels to generate the electricity. Of course this is true, and that is why I support solar panels and renewable energy as a way to try to zero out the carbon footprint of our cars.  However, my contention is that we don’t have to wait for our electric grid to be more renewable, or for our homes all to have solar panels, for electric cars to be superior to internal combustion engine (ICE) cars with respect to greenhouse gases (and in other ways as well).

Here are the updated figures:

For an average utility with a mix of coal, natural gas, nuclear power, hydroelectric, and some renewables, switching to an electric car would reduce CO2 emissions by 45% for an average car.  This is less than the 69% I had estimated in my previous post, but it is still significant.  Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, where PG&E uses almost no coal to generate electricity, the savings would be 70%. Even if your utility burns only coal to generate electricity, the reduction would be 12%. (See Table III, below, for further discussion about dirty oil--tar sands.)

Even compared to a car that gets 40 mpg, electric vehicles reduce CO2, unless the electricity is generated 100% by coal. The numbers here are:

Average power plant—electric car reduces CO2 by 12%

PG&E, non coal utility—electric car reduces CO2 by 52%

Utility using only coal—electric car increases CO2 by 40% (ouch!--see discussion below)

Calculations and the data (all numbers are subject to change, so please correct me if I’m wrong!):

Computing how much CO2 is created by both ICE vehicles and for electric cars is a bit of an adventure.  The key numbers that are revised in this post are shown in Table I below.  For the adventurous, I'll include how these numbers were calculated later in this very long post (I hope you enjoy numbers!).

 

Table I:  Key data items for computing CO2 produced by electric vs. ICE cars

Data items that have changed	Current number	Previous (11/20/11) Number
Pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline	23.5	27.5
Grams of CO2 per mile for average ICE car	501	583
Average mileage of ICE car (miles per gallon)	23.4	21.5
Grams of CO2 per mile for car getting 40 miles per gallon	314	312
Grams of CO2 per kwh for an average U.S. utility	700	587
Grams of CO2 per kwh for a hypothetical all-coal power plant	1200	1044
Grams of CO2 per kwh for PG&E (Northern California Utility where I live):	310	238
Miles per kwh for our Chevy Volt	3.08	3.3

 You may notice that these numbers, although changed only modestly, all tend to reduce the comparative advantage of electric cars compared to ICE cars when using the standard utility grid.  Of course, the central argument of this blog is that we need not only electric cars, but also renewable energy to power those cars.  Still, the point remains:  Electric cars are generally cleaner than ICE cars, and they can become much cleaner if the electricity is renewable.  I urge readers to buy electric cars since the chances of cleaning the grid, and buying solar panels for your house, are much greater than the chances that gasoline will ever become carbon neutral.

Here are calculations showing where the numbers in the table above come from:

Pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline:

Carbon dioxide emissions from burning a gallon of gas include:

Feedstocks/Extraction— 1 pound of CO2*

Refining-- 3.1 pounds CO2*
Burning-- 19.4 pounds per gallon (see for example: ehow.com)

Total-- 23.5 pounds of CO2 per gallon.

Note that the 23.5 pounds figure does not include deforestation, oil spills, or other sources of CO2, but I don’t know how to quantify those in terms of CO2.

*.  The Argonne National Laboratories Greenhouse gases Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) program provides a spsreadsheet that allows dozens of assumptions to be input--e.g. fuel mixes, composition of electricity generation sources, fuel economy, etc.  GREET assumes an average fuel economy of 23.4 miles per gallon (mpg).  Table II, below, shows the results of running the GREET model for a standard ICE car with their default assumptions.   Note that 20 g/mile(highlighted in table) for feedstock x 23.4 mi/gal = 468 grams/mile = 1 pound/mile.  Likewise  60 g/mile x 23.4 mi/gal = 1404 g/gallon = 3.1 pounds/gal.  Also note that the total is 457 g CO2/mile.  According to GREET the CO2 equivalent, which includes other greenhouse gases, is  478 g/mile.  However, I'm using the CO2 figure to keep it simple.

Table II: GREET Results For Conventional Gasoline Car

	Btu/mile or grams/mile
Item	Feedstock	Fuel	Vehicle Operation
Total Energy	320	816	4,908
Fossil Fuels	313	722	4,806
Coal	35	47	0
Natural Gas	209	387	0
Petroleum	69	288	4,806
CO2 (w/ C in VOC & CO)	20	60	377
CH4	0.444	0.207	0.015
N2O	0.000	0.005	0.012
GHGs	31	67	381
VOC: Total	0.018	0.117	0.180
CO: Total	0.029	0.033	3.745
NOx: Total	0.135	0.099	0.141
PM10: Total	0.013	0.024	0.029
PM2.5: Total	0.008	0.011	0.015
SOx: Total	0.056	0.068	0.006
VOC: Urban	0.003	0.073	0.112
CO: Urban	0.001	0.013	2.329
NOx: Urban	0.006	0.033	0.088
PM10: Urban	0.000	0.007	0.018
PM2.5: Urban	0.000	0.004	0.009
SOx: Urban	0.004	0.027	0.004

If the oil comes from tar sands, it adds 4.5 pounds CO2 per gallon.  This estimate comes from: Department of Energy figures.  Table 2.4 on page 12 of the DOE report says that a barrel of conventional crude oil produces 24.5 kg CO2 while Figure 2.4 on page 13 shows that a barrel of Canadian oil sands oil produces 111 kg CO2 for tar sands.  This ratio of 111/24.5 = 4.5, multiplied by 1 pound per gallon for extraction of conventional oil, gives 4.5 pounds per gallon for tar sands oil. [update 3/15/2012:  A better figure is 5.3 pounds per gallon equivalent CO2 since there is also methane released in the production of tar sands.  Source:  GREET)  Table III below uses the 5.3 pounds figure as of 3/15/2012]

Grams of CO2 per mile for internal combustion engine (ICE) cars:

As noted above, and conveniently for arithmetic, the average mileage in the U.S. is now 23.4 miles per gallon according to GREET.  This means that 23.5 pounds of CO2/gallon divided by 23.4 miles/gallon = 1 pound per mile =  454 grams CO2/mile.  Add to this 47 g/mile for the production of the car. (National Academies study page 440).  According to the National Academies study, the manufacture of an electric car produces 3 grams per mile more than an ICE car--i.e. 50 g/mile--presumably because producing the materials in the electric car--e.g. batteries-- produce more CO2 than the materials in an ICE car.  Adding 454 g/mile for operation + 47 g/mile for the car's production gives a total CO2 for an ICE car of 501 grams/mile.

                                                                                                                                             
If a car gets 40 mpg, it produces 23.5 pounds per gallon/40 miles/gallon = 0.588 pounds of CO2/mile = 267 grams/mile.  Adding 47 grams for production of the car gives 314 grams per mile.

If the oil is 100% tar sands, then there are 28.8 pounds of CO2 equivalent per gallon/23.4 mpg = 1.23 pounds per mile = 559 g/mile.  Adding 47 gives 606 g/mile.

For a 40 mpg car with tar sands oil, there are 28.8/40 = 0.72 lbs/mile = 327 g/mile + 47 = 374 grams/mile.

As shown in the table below, if gasoline comes from tar sands, the reduction in CO2 is greater than for conventional oil.  However, an electric car running on electricity from 100% coal, still produces 18% more CO2 than a car that gets 40 mpg, even if that car runs on tar sands oil.

Today (3/15/2012) I just read that tar sands also have a net amount of CO2 added since the land cannot be restored to the way it was before mining.  The peat bogs where the tar sands are located are good carbon sinks, but the land they are replaced with (hopefully  replaced, that is) are not as effective. Thus there is an additional net increase due to tar sands mining.  I'm not sure how much it would be, but it is substantial.  See: Global Edmonton

Table III:  Reduction in CO2 Comparing Tar Sands and Conventional Oil

	Tar Sands	Conventional Oil
Volt vs avg. ICE; std grid	-54%	-45%
Volt vs avg. ICE; pg&e	-75%	-70%
Volt vs avg. ICE; coal	-27%	-12%
Volt vs 40mpg; std grid	-26%	-12%
Volt vs 40 mpg; pg&e	-60%	-52%
Volt vs 40mpg; coal	+18%	+40%

 Tar Sands Mining in Canada

Grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour

According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), electricity production created 2,389 million metric tons of CO2 in 2010.  The EIA also reports that there were 4,120 billion kilowatt hours of electricity produced (you need to scroll to the right in Table 8.2a below to find the 4120 number).  Dividing these numbers gives 580 grams per kwh. (2,389 x 10¹² grams of CO2 ÷ 4.12 x 10¹²kwh).  The EPA reports an average of 545 grams per kwh for 2009, but I'm using the higher number to be conservative.  580 g/kwh does not include the cost of feedstock/extraction and transmission losses.  The GREET program estimates that for the standard mix of coal/natural gas/nuclear/hydro/renewables, there is an additional 11% CO2 created in the feedstock process and there are 8% losses in transmission. Multiplying 580 g/kwh x 1.11 ÷ .92 = 700 g/kwh.

Below are tables and links used to provide these numbers (highlighted):

Energy Information Agency Electricity Net Generation:

Table 8.2a Electricity Net Generation: Total (All Sectors), 1949-2010
(Sum of Tables 8.2b and 8.2d; Billion Kilowatthours) (scroll right for totals)

Year

Fossil Fuels

Nuclear Electric Power

Hydro- electric Pumped Storage 5

Renewable Energy

Other 10

Total

Coal 1

Petroleum 2

Natural Gas 3

Other Gases 4

Total

Conventional Hydroelectric Power 6

Biomass

Geo- thermal

Solar/PV 9

Wind

Total

Wood

2009

R 1,755.9

R 38.9

R 921.0

R 10.6

R 2,726.5

R 798.9

R -4.6

R 273.4

R 36.1

R 18.4

R 15.0

R .9

R 73.9

R 417.7

R 11.9

R 3,950.3

2010P

1,850.7

36.9

981.8

11.2

2,880.7

807.0

-4.1

257.1

38.0

18.6

15.7

1.3

94.6

425.2

11.3

4,120.0

The following table is from Energy Information Agency Electric Power Annual 2010:

Electric Power Annual 2010
Released: November 2011
Next Update: November 2012
Table 3.9. Emissions from Energy Consumption at Conventional Power Plants and Combined-Heat-and-Power Plants, 1999 through 2010
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Emission	2010	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001	2000	1999
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	2,388,596	2,269,508	2,484,012	2,547,032	2,488,918	2,543,838	2,486,982	2,445,094	2,423,963	2,418,607	2,470,834	2,366,302
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)	5,401	5,970	7,830	9,042	9,524	10,340	10,309	10,646	10,881	11,174	11,963	12,843
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)	2,491	2,395	3,330	3,650	3,799	3,961	4,143	4,532	5,194	5,290	5,638	5,955

How much CO2/kwh is produced by coal power plants?

From Table 8.2 shown above there were 1756billion kwh of electricity produced by coal in 2009.  From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "Emissions from Energy" (page 3-8) there were 1,747.6 trillion grams of CO2 emissions from coal.  This gives 995 grams per kwh.  Multiplying that by 1.11 for extraction/feedstock CO2 and dividing by 0.92 for transmission losses, gives 1200 grams/kwh CO2 for 100% coal plants. 
 I had previously used the figure 2.3 pounds per kwh (1044 g/kwh) as provided by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis center.   I'm not sure why their figure is lower than the 1200 g/kwh calculated above, but I'll use the higher number to be conservative.

Note also that older, dirtier coal power plants are being closed on a regular basis, so the coal numbers are coming down.  The break even point for electric cars vs. 40 mpg cars comes when a power plant produces 822 g/kwh. 

How much CO2/kwh is produced by PG&E (non-coal utility)?

I previously used the figure 238 g/kwh as reported by  Pacific Gas & Electric(PG&E).

However, as mentioned, this does not include feedstocks and transmission losses.  Unfortunately natural gas has significant methane leakage in production (see the film Gasland). GREET estimates 20% additional CO2 equivalent for this methane loss in their California mix, so I'll use this same estimate for PG&E.  I've seen news reports that the methane leakage is greater than previously assumed, so stay tuned for updates.

The current assumptions give an estimate for PG&E of 238 x 1.2 ÷ .92 = 310 g/kwh

How much CO2/kwh is produced by solar panels?

Since solar panels do not create any CO2 while operating, this question has to do with the manufacture and recycling of used solar panels.  According to the National Academies Study, solar panels result in 20 - 60 g of CO2 per kwh (Page 143).  To be conservative I'll use 60 g/kwh.

How much CO2/mile does the Volt create? 

That depends on how much CO2 is created in generating the electricity.  Our Volt goes an average of 3.08 miles per kwh (at least that's what we got for the first year).  This means that the Volt creates 700 g /kwh ÷ 3.08miles/kwh = 227 g/mile with the standard U.S. mix of energ sources.  Add to this 50 g/mi for the production of the vehicle  National Academies Study, page 440, gives 277 g/mile.

For PG&E with 310 g/kwh ÷ 3.08 = 101 g/mile + 50 g/mile for production = 151 g/mi.

For coal with 1200 g/kwh ÷ 3.08 = 390 g/mile + 50 g/mile for production = 440 g/mi.

For solar with 60 g/kwh÷ 3.08 = 19 g/mile + 50 g/mile for production = 69 g/mi.

Calculation of CO2 reduction of Volt vs. ICE car.

The ICE car generates 501 g of CO2 per mile, so the savings of the Volt compared to an ICE car is 501-277/501 = 45% for a standard grid.

If the ICE car runs on tar sands oil, it generates 590 g/mi, so the savings would be 590-277/590 = 53% as shown in Table III.

For PG&E, with 310g/kwh ÷ 3.08 mi/kwh = 101 g/mile.  Add 50 g/mi for production of the car = 151 g/mi.  Reduction = 501-151/501 = 70%

If only coal is used to generate power, it creates 1200 g CO2/kwh.  For this a Chevy Volt would generate 1200/3.08 = 390 g CO2/mile.  Add 50 g/mil for production of the car = 440 g/mi.  This is 501-440/501 = 12% less CO2.

For electricity generated by solar the savings is 501-69/501 = 86%.

Comparison of Volt vs. 40 mpg car

As discussed above, If a car gets 40 miles per gallon, then it produces 314 g/mile.  Compared to this 40mpg car the Volt saves 314-277/314 = 12%

Compared to PG&E electricity, the Volt saves 314-151/314 = 52%

However for a 40 mpg car in an all-coal area, the electric car creates 440-314/314 = 40% more CO2!

A 40 mpg car running on tar sands oil generates 365 g/mile.  The Volt saves 365-277/365 = 24% given a standard grid.

For electricity generated by solar the reduction is 314-69/315 = 78%

Do solar and electric cars provide the answer to stopping global warming? 

As noted above, if all the electricity for a car is generated by solar, the savings is 86%.  However, as I've argued in previous posts and in the paper I co-wrote in 2010, "What Will it Take to Stop Global Warming--The Case for Electric Cars", we need to cut CO2 down to one ton per person.  If current usage in the U.S. is 18 tons per person, that means we need to cut CO2 by 17/18 = 94%.  So solar panels and electric cars are getting there, but not quite.  I think that if all the electricity to manufacture cars and solar panels is also generated by solar/wind and other renewables, and if all the mining is done with trucks and machinery running on low carbon biofuels, then we would achieve the 94%.  So this is do-able, but we have a lot of work to do.  Also, if we allow urban sprawl to continue, we will need ever more cars and solar panels, which will produce more CO2, so we need to work on city planning that does not increase vehicle miles traveled.

And, of course, the Volt uses gasoline after 36 miles--e.g. on road trips.  So we still need a gasoline substitute or much stronger batteries to get away from fossil fuels.

Another correction--confusion about energy and electricity

In my previous post on the topic of how clean are electric cars, I argued that an electric car can go about as far on the electricity used to refine a gallon of gas as an ICE car can go on that gas.  This argument was based on the fact that about 6 kwh of energy are lost during refining, and about 2 kwh during extraction/feedstock production.  If this energy were electricity, that would be enough to go about 8 x 3.08 = 25 miles, i.e. more than an average car goes on a gallon.  However, the 8 kwh are mostly not electricity.  To produce 8 kwh of electricity would require about 20 or more kwh of energy.  So it is not true that we can drive our electric cars as far on the electricity used to refine a gallon of gas as an ICE car can go on that gallon.  I think a closer estimate is that we can drive about half as far on the electricity used to refine a gallon of gas--say about 10 miles, as a car can go on that gallon.  That's still significant, but not as dramatic as my previous claim. 

This same confusion between energy and electricity led me to overestimate how much CO2 is produced in extraction and refining of gasoline.  If there were 6 kwh of electricity used to refine a gallon of gas, my estimate would have been OK.  However, this 6 kwh figure is for all energy used in refining, not just electricity.  Electricity creates more CO2 per kwh than natural gas, oil and hydrogen which are also used in refining oil, so the calculation was too high.  I had estimated 6 pounds CO2 per gallon for refining; the updated estimate is 4.1 pounds per gallon as discussed previously.

National Academies Study/GREET Data   The 2009 National Academies study has a lot of useful information.  I used its estimate for how much CO2 is produced by solar panels

page=143.

I also used its finding that an ICE car produces 47 g/mile due to its production and an electric car produces 50 g/mile.Page 440.

However, I found that the report, which relies on GREET data from 2009, overestimates emissions by electric vehicles because it uses older numbers for emissions by average utilities (628 g/kwh vs. 580 g/kwh, which I used), and it uses 2.4 miles/kwh for electric vehicle compared to the 3.08 mi/kwh actually measured for my Volt.   Note that the GREET model is currently using 2.8 miles/kwh because they feel that this is appropriate for a mid-size electric car. Personally I think the Volt meets most of the needs of people who buy mid-size cars--smooth and comfortable ride, safety in crashes, and attractive appearance.  It doesn't have room in the back for three people, however, so it will be interesting to see what true mid-size electric cars get in terms of miles per kwh.  In this regard, I'm encouraged by recent reports that the energy density of batteries (how many kwh per pound) is likely to improve dramatically in the next few years. See for example:  Oakland Tribune Report

What About Other Pollution from Coal?

There have been recent reports (e.g. TIME) arguing that electric cars put out more pollution than ICE cars in China, which relies heavily on coal.  As discussed extensively above, this is true of CO2 for cars that get 40 miles per gallon.   The real focus here, however, is all the additional pollution that coal plants create.  I agree that this is a serious health problem for China, and for the U.S., and wherever coal plants exist.  Fortunately in the U.S. coal plants are finally being regulated under the Clean Air Act.  The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that "by 2016, the new standards will lower power plant emissions of mercury 90 percent and acid gases 88 percent".  (Spring 2012 Earthwise newsletter)  Hopefully China will follow suit and start cleaning up their coal plants.  Even more important, however, is to close coal plants asap since they create so much more CO2 than natural gas.  Natural gas is no ultimate solution either since it is still a fossil fuel.   

Conclusions

I have two basic conclusions:

1.  Electric cars are cleaner than most internal combustion engine cars, especially when the grid is powered by 50% or less coal.  Electric cars are dramatically cleaner when powered by solar panels.

2.  To even have a chance to stop the rise in CO2 that is causing global warming it will be necessary to switch to 100% electric cars powered by 100% renewable energy.

Whew!  If you made it this far, you deserve a break.  For a change of pace check out my song about global warming and CO2:   "We Don't Want To Set the World on Fire"