2011 edition of EPA Fuel Economy Trends report shows several advanced powertrain technologies making significant gains
11 March 2012
|
|
| Light duty vehicle characteristics for seven model years. Data: EPA. Click to enlarge. |
The average fuel efficiency for new cars and light duty trucks has increased while the average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to decrease for the seventh consecutive year, according to the 2011 edition of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) annual report, “Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2011.”
The report highlights that several advanced powertrain technologies are making significant inroads into the mainstream market. In terms of market share, gasoline direct injection doubled in MY 2010 (from 4.2% to 8.3%) and is projected to triple from MY 2009-2011 (to 13.7%); turbocharging is projected to double in MY 2011 (from 3.5% to 7.4%); cylinder deactivation is projected to nearly double in MY 2011 (from 6.4% to 11.1%); and both 6-speed and 7-speed transmissions approximately doubled from MY 2009-2011 (from 24.7% to 52.4% and from 2.6% to 4.9%, respectively).
Conventional gasoline vehicles continue to account for more than 95% of all light-duty vehicles. While engine size has been decreasing slightly in recent years, overall engine horsepower has continued to increase, with the notable exception of MY 2009. Nearly all engines now have multiple valves (approximately 85%) and variable valve timing (projected to approach 95% in MY 2011).
Hybrids of all types are projected to grow slightly to 4.0% share for MY 2011, up from 3.8% for MY 2010, with almost a doubling from MY 2009 (2.3%). Fuel economy improvements for the hybrid vehicles vary considerably from 5-10% for the larger, luxury hybrid vehicles to more than 40%.
Light-duty diesel are seen dropping share slightly to 0.6% for MY2011, down from 0.7% in MY 2010, but up from 0.5% in MY 2009. Fuel economy improvements for diesels range from 15% to 30% relative to gasoline counterparts.
Final MY 2010 data in the report are are based on formal end-of-year CAFE reports submitted by automakers to EPA and will not change. The preliminary MY 2011 data in the report are based on confidential pre-model year production volume projections provided to EPA by automakers during MY 2010 for the fuel economy label program.
|
|
| Data: EPA. Click to enlarge. |
Other highlights in the report include:
MY 2010 had the lowest CO2 emission rate and highest fuel economy since the database began in 1975. While year-to-year changes often receive the most public attention, the report notes, the greatest value of the historical trends database is the identification and documentation of long-term trends.
Since 1975, overall new light-duty vehicle CO2 emissions have moved through four phases: 1) a rapid decrease from MY 1975 through MY 1981; 2) a slower decrease until reaching a valley in MY 1987; 3) a gradual increase until MY 2004; and 4) a decrease for the seven years beginning in MY 2005, with the largest decrease in MY 2009.
From MY 2004 to MY 2010, CO2 emissions decreased by 67 g/mi (15%), and fuel economy increased by 3.3 mpg (17%). Prior to MY 2009, the previous records for lowest CO2 emissions and highest fuel economy were in MY 1987. Compared to MY 1987, MY 2010 CO2 emissions were 11 g/mi (3%) lower, and fuel economy was 0.6 mpg (3%) higher.
MY 2010 adjusted composite CO2 emissions were 394 g/mi, a record low for the post-1975 database and a 3 g/mi decrease relative to MY 2009. MY 2010 adjusted composite fuel economy was 22.6 mpg (10.4 L/100 km), an all-time high since the database began in 1975, and 0.2 mpg higher than in MY 2009. Preliminary MY 2011 values are 391 g/mi CO2 emissions and 22.8 mpg (10.3 L/100 km) fuel economy, reflecting slight improvements over MY 2010.MY 2010 truck market share increased by 5% compared to MY 2009, but is at the second lowest level since 1996. EPA made two changes to the database this year that affect truck market share. Most small, 2 wheel drive SUVs from MY 1975-2011 have been reclassified from trucks to cars; this lowers the absolute truck share, particularly since the mid-1980s when SUV sales began to increase rapidly. EPA cautions that truck share values in the current report should not be compared to those in past versions of the report.
For example, for MY 2010 data in the 2011 report, nearly 1.1 million vehicles are reclassified from trucks to cars, representing a 10% absolute change in both the car and truck production share. The second change is that, for the first time, the preliminary data for MY 2011 include MDPVs (medium-duty personal vehicles). EPA does not have data for MDPVs for MY 1975-2010, so there is a small discontinuity in the database beginning in MY 2011.
With those adjustments, light trucks, which include SUVs, minivans/vans, and pickup trucks, accounted for 36% of all light-duty vehicle sales in MY 2010. This represents a 5% increase over MY 2009, but MY 2009 truck share was 8% lower than MY 2008. Truck market share is now at the second lowest level since MY 1996 and 9% lower than the peak in MY 2004. The MY 2011 light truck market share is projected to be 38%, based on pre-model year production projections by automakers.
MY 2010 weight and power increased from MY 2009, but decreased relative to MY 2008. MY 2010 vehicle weight averaged 4,002 pounds (1,815 kg), an increase of 85 pounds (38.6 kg) compared to MY 2009, but the second lowest average weight since MY 2004. The average car and truck weight both increased by about 25 pounds (11.3 kg) each, and the remaining difference was due to higher truck market share.
In MY 2010, the average vehicle power was 214 horsepower, an increase of 6 horsepower since MY 2009, but lower than in MY 2007-2008. Car power increased slightly and truck power was unchanged, so the primary factor in increasing the overall power level was higher truck market share. Estimated MY 2010 0-to-60 acceleration time decreased slightly to 9.6 seconds.
Most manufacturers increased fuel economy in MY 2010, resulting in lower CO2 emission rates. In MY 2010, the last year for which EPA has final production data, Hyundai had the lowest fleet-wide adjusted composite CO2 emissions performance, followed very closely by Kia and then Toyota. Hyundai and Kia tied for the highest fleet-wide adjusted composite fuel economy value.
Daimler had the highest CO2 emissions (and lowest fuel economy), followed by Chrysler and Ford. Kia had the biggest improvement in adjusted CO2 (and fuel economy) performance from MY 2009 to MY 2010, with a 37 g/mi reduction in fleet-wide CO2 emissions (and 2.8 mpg fuel economy improvement), followed by Hyundai (26 g/mi reduction in CO2 emissions) and Mazda (19 g/mi reduction in CO2 emissions).
Preliminary MY 2011 values suggest that 11 of the 13 manufacturers will improve further in MY 2011, though these projections are uncertain and EPA will not have final data until next year’s report.
Resources
This is great terrific news. From 1987 to 2011 (24 years) we went from 22 mpg to 22.8 mpg, a net gain of 0.8 mpg or about 3.6%.
At that same accelerated rate we will go another (0.8 x 4) = 3.2 mpg better or (22.8 + 3.2) = 26 mpg in the next 96 years or by 2107.
Those have been amazing 24 years. We should be very proud. We will make crude oil go a very long way. The same could be said of emissions from our great vehicles.
Posted by: HarveyD | 11 March 2012 at 10:58 AM
My overall feeling about these advances in ICEs is they are becoming more and more complex. Adding more parts, parts which will wear out a break.
Chasing the last bits of efficiency out of fuel motors may only make them more expensive to manufacture and maintain thus hastening the "hi/bye" crossover point where the market switches from oil to electricity.
Going to be a very interesting next five years....
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 11 March 2012 at 02:45 PM
Bob, what's the old engineering saying? The 80/20 rule? For 20% of the effort you get 80% of the benefit but to get the last 20% of performance costs you 80% of the effort.
Posted by: ai_vin | 11 March 2012 at 03:04 PM
@HarveyD,
More good news when you look at the second table on this article.
---In 1987, the average weight was 3221 lbs, 0-60 time was 13.1 seconds, hp was 113, and mpg was 22.
---In 2011, the average weight was 4084 lbs, 0-60 time
was 9.4 seconds, hp was 228 and mpg was 22.8.
So, even the vehicles are much heavier in 2011 and accelerate much faster, mpg somehow increased by 0.8.
And please remember that in 2008, the EPA has applied different method of estimating MPG, leading to significantly lower number than previous years, meaning that to adjust the 22.8 mpg figure for 2011 to pre-2008 EPA standard you would have a significantly higher mpg number of perhaps 15-20% higher, perhaps 25-26 mpg for MY 2011.
Furthermore, when you downsize the vehicles in 2011 to 3221 lbs and downsize the engines to 113 hp, the real mpg figure would have jumped to ~33 mpg. You can even downsize the engines even further, thanks to more efficient transmissions of today, to produce the same 0-60 times of 13.1 seconds as of 1987 with even less engine hp, and I'd bet that the mpg can even climb up to 35 mpg. We have the technology to meet the CAFE requirement of 2025 even TODAY!!!
In conclusion, auto engineers and Mfg's have done tremendous amount of technological advancements in the past 25 years or so! It is our lust for speed and weight that has kept the auto mpg from advancing as much as it could have.
"We have met the enemy and it is us!"
Posted by: Roger Pham | 11 March 2012 at 03:59 PM
@Bob, if you look at what BMW and Volkswagen are doing, you can see that there is a lot of headroom in ICEs yet.
They seem to be doing everything the can to avoid hybridisation, while still driving up the efficiency of the vehicles.
I think that once people realise that high Gas prices are here to stay, they will take efficient cars seriously.
In my opinion, high has prices are here to stay because of the enormous demand in the developing countries (Chine, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia etc.)
These are huge countries - China is almost twice as large as Europe and the USA together, and as they become richer, they will soak up all the oil the world can produce.
Even if the west goes into a deep recession, oil prices will stay up due to this demand.
So you better start building cars that use less fuel.
Europe has pre-empted this using a green ruse to get cars with an average CO2/Km of about 130 gms.
Japan has done something similar.
All the USA has to do is to pick what they like from the solutions already demonstrated by Europe and Japan.
Posted by: mahonj | 11 March 2012 at 04:15 PM
@Roger:
I agree with your overall point (efficiency advances have been consumed by increased performance & vehicle weight.) However, you make an error in the following:
And please remember that in 2008, the EPA has applied different method of estimating MPG, leading to significantly lower number than previous years, meaning that to adjust the 22.8 mpg figure for 2011 to pre-2008 EPA standard you would have a significantly higher mpg number of perhaps 15-20% higher, perhaps 25-26 mpg for MY 2011.
The MPG numbers in the report are meant to be 'real world' and are comparable from 1975 to 2011. From the executive summary:
Except when noted, CO2 emissions and fuel economy values in this report have been adjusted to reflect "real world" consumer performance and therefore are not comparable to CO2 emissions and fuel economy standards.
Posted by: Nick Lyons | 11 March 2012 at 04:25 PM
Thanks, Nick, for pointing the information in the Executive Summary of the EPA report. I only read this article in GCC which does not mention this info, and therefore not aware of that the adjusted MPG numbers are already done by the EPA.
My personal observation is that even the EPA mpg ratings pre-2008 are conservative, and I have usually exceeded both the highway and city EPA rating for many car models even before 2008. Of course, "your mpg may vary," especially for lead-footed drivers, who perhaps seem to have appeared in higher and higher numbers when gasoline became cheaper and cheaper, forcing the EPA to revise their EPA rating methods to reflect the "real world," upon the appearance of higher numbers of lead-footed drivers driving increasingly more and more powerful and heavier vehicles.
There is nothing that can ensure fuel conservation better than higher and higher gasoline prices. For that reason, there is no better way to ensure fuel conservation and preventing "gasoline shock" than instituting (and announcing way ahead of time) a steady minimum rise in the retail prices of fuel yearly at around 7%. The extra fund collected by the government can be set aside as a fuel price adjustment fund to help lower the retail prices of fuel in the case of sudden and steep rise in fuel prices in order to prevent economic collapse like in 2008 and in previous gasoline shocks. This will therefore be labeled as "Revenue Neutral Act" and avoid being labeled as a tax increase.
People will be shopping for more fuel-efficient vehicles when they know ahead of time how much more fuel will cost 5-10 years from now. Businesses will make appropriate adjustment and planning in order to prevent major lost of profits during times of acute "gasoline shock."
Posted by: Roger Pham | 12 March 2012 at 12:12 AM
The US data are interesting but making the same data for EU or Japan would be even more interesting as EU and Japan are far ahead in terms of fuel efficiency. The average EU CO2 per kilometer is about 135 g/km in 2011 and the US is 244g/km (391/1.6). EU does it primarily by heavy use of diesel engines that EU automakers lead the development of and Japan does it increasingly by hybrid technology that now is over 20% of new cars sold and 50% of Toyotas new sales in Japan. Toyota will sell over 1 million hybrids globally this year (over 10% of their sales) and that will make it much easier for Toyota to price their hybrids so that they can compete directly with Europe’s diesel technology.
I think the future lowest cost efficiency technology will become hybridization and Toyota will prove it by the pricing of their hybrids in the coming few years. I am looking forward to see the pricing of their Yaris hybrid as this car also comes with gasoline and diesel engines that can be directly compared with the pricing of the hybrid version. The hybrid Yaris gets 28.6 kilometers per liter of gasoline versus 25.6 kilometers per liter of diesel for the diesel Yaris. If Toyota can price the Yaris hybrid below their diesel version (and also below the price of VW’s Polo blue motion diesel) they have the first hybrid winner in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACEA_agreement
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/hybrids-top-japan%E2%80%99s-best-selling-car-list-42354.html
Posted by: Account Deleted | 12 March 2012 at 12:18 AM
Japan has another way to have a higher average efficiency - they drive much smaller cars. There is even a class of vehicle called "Kei"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
that has a maximum size limit: According to regulations, Kei Cars must be less than 3.4 metres long and 1.48 metres wide. This is shorter than a new Mini, and not as wide as a Toyota Echo hatchback. Their engines are also regulated to be less than 660cc with no more than 64 horsepower.
Posted by: ai_vin | 12 March 2012 at 03:58 AM
HarveyD: You were being sarcastic, were you not? I much enjoy your posts.
Roper Pham: Right, the great American lust for size, power, dominance and acceleration has done us in, again!
Henrik: Yes, the Europeans are being incredibly more sensible than the Americans, by a factor of almost 2X in efficiency (mpg) right at this minute.
And I don't care if the usual rednecks will say that it doesn't matter because the Europeans are a bunch of pinko commie socialists. Whatever the rednecks say, Europeans and Japanese know how to build efficient cars. The problem is the mindset of the American consumer, and the fact that our corporate government has no will to do do the right thing.
In general: Let us not wait for year 2107 to get to 28mpg. We could all get to an average of 50mpg in 10 years by requiring TODAY that all new cars get 50MPG right NOW. It is completely doable, just make them all diesel hybrids, and tax the hell out of anything larger than a 4-cyl passat or a camry. What is lacking is will and urgency.
The urgency will come with oil shortages, The problem is that by then we will have burned and wasted massive amounts of oil that we should have left in the ground for later use.
Bob Wallace: As long as electric cars run on coal-fired electricity, the well to wheel efficiency of an electric fleet will remain well below 30%, and there is squat you do about it without a massive nuclear buildout. The MPGe reating is a fraud. It compares electricity delivered at your doorstep with oil, and does not account for the near 70% generating losses of a coal fired electricity plant. And then ther is 7% transmission losses in the grid.
Until the nuke plantsare online, hybrid diesels and 50+MPG is a MUCH better solution than electric cars. The efficiency can reach over 30% and we can get 50+MPG right NOW, with known technology.
It makes much bigger difference to total energy (oil, coal, natural gas ) consumption to get 10% of the cars to 50MPG than to get 0.1% of the cars (yo, Tesla, Leaf and others) to 100+ "MPGe", with MPGe being just a fraudulent metric anyway.
Thanks for listening. This blog has a higher ratio of sensible and science-minded people than any other energy blog I read, and I really respect that.
Posted by: Jus7tme | 12 March 2012 at 05:55 AM
Jus7...I was stating facts. Almost 100% of the ICEVs efficiency gains in the last 24 years went in smoke with vehicle weight gains...and that's without counting the huge driver and passengers weight gain.
Had we calculated the average vehicle with 4 people on board, the net results could have been a NET reduction in fuel economy.
We should be very proud of our vehicles growth (in weight) and ours.
Posted by: HarveyD | 12 March 2012 at 09:58 AM
Harvey, I'm with you, as usual. Stating facts is indeed very powerful.
Posted by: Jus7tme | 12 March 2012 at 10:44 AM
Well then, here's a fact for you. When you say "As long as electric cars run on coal-fired electricity, the well to wheel efficiency of an electric fleet will remain well below 30%, and there is squat you do about it without a massive nuclear buildout." You're missing the fact that less than half (48%) of the electricity now generated in America comes from coal.
What you used is the much abused “long tailpipe” critique and you only have to google that to get the "facts."
http://www.casteyanqui.com/ev/longtailpipe/
Posted by: ai_vin | 12 March 2012 at 12:29 PM
This just in: Electricity supplied by coal now down to 39%;
http://inhabitat.com/coal-accounts-for-less-than-40-of-u-s-electricity-production-in-2011-lowest-level-in-over-30-years/
Posted by: ai_vin | 12 March 2012 at 03:12 PM
mahonj - I totally believe that we're only one good battery away from the end of liquid fuel cars. All we need is 2.5x the range of a Nissan Leaf and a $25k price tag.
If Envia is telling the truth and can bring their batteries to market at the price they quote and if their batteries have decent cycle numbers, then it's likely game over for gasmobiles.
Their battery holds 3x the juice of now-used EV batteries. That means we could pack 175 miles into a Leaf without making it heavier, even a bit lighter.
Now, having watched the eeStore story unfold I'm not saying we're there. But in this case the people making the claim have a battery and its been tested by an independent lab. Additionally GM has bought into their company.
--
Jus7 - ai pretty much told you what you needed to hear.
Except for the fact that a "massive nuclear buildout" is unlikely where we're headed. Wind is just too danged cheap and EVs work extremely well with wind, soaking up off-peak supplies and permitting more turbine installation for peak-hour supply.
Solar is already cheaper than new nuclear. Nuclear has been priced off the table.
Dispatchable load, which EVs bring to the mix, do wonders for incorporating renewables.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 12 March 2012 at 08:30 PM
You guys are still comparing apples to oranges.
THe EPA rating is a arbitrary mileage index subject to change at a whim, as was done in 2007-2008. The CAFE rating is a legal definition and the test uses constant and unchanged criteria, since 1975 and is based on a real test drive around Los Angeles.
Despite the dicotomy between ratings, the trend for both is clear. The automobile has grown more efficient and much cleaner since 1975 as toxic emissions declined and fuel economy has increased.
The USA consumes less and less OIL every year since the 21st century began. This is despite the population increase, and the legal mandates to create safer and more crash worthy autos that have forced the weight of cars way up.
With respect to the 2020 legislated fuel economy mandate, that was arbitrarily modified by the EPA bureaucrats agreeing amongst themselves, to be met in 2016, there is genuine good news.
What the EPA reports as 22.8 mpg, is in CAFE terms was a CAFE rating of over 33 mpg. Only few miles/gallon from the future legal CAFE target.
In Model year 2010 the cars produced in that year achieved a CAFE rating of 34.6 mpg as reported by the DOE's RITA. That was less than 1 mile per gallon from reaching the 2020 CAFE target which was changed to a 2016 target.
In Model year 2011, just completed, with data as yet unavailable, the "Model Year Achieved 2011 CAFE" rating may have been 35+ mpg by the CAFE rating tests, and hence the 2016 legal targets maybe and probably are already being met.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 13 March 2012 at 01:44 AM
@Bob
we are about 800 Million good batteries away from the end of liquid fuelled cars.
I still believe PHEvs are the way to go.
People point out (correctly) that 2 engines is a lot of complexity, but the payback is that you can size your battery for 60-80% of your trips, rather than all of them. This means a much smaller battery and no range problems at all.
The other benefit is the speed of refuelling.
Even if you have a 75 KwH battery, it will take ~10 hours to charge it on an 8Kw charger, if you can find one, and > 1 day to charge at 3 Kw.
IMHO You would be better off having 10 7.5 KwH PHEvs, each capable of a 30 mile E drive than 1 75 KwH BEV.
Remember, a standard gasoline pump can "recharge" an ICE at approximately 22 MW, not 3-8 Kw.
That is why I favour PHEVs.
Posted by: mahonj | 13 March 2012 at 03:00 AM
It does not take a visionary to see the HEV leading to the PHEV leading to the EV, it is in plain sight.
People are realizing what personal transportation really is. It gets you to work and back, the kids to school, you to shopping and so on.
Now they need to decide if the car has to travel 400 miles, tow a boat or handle 6 kids. What most would say is no, it does not.
Posted by: SJC | 13 March 2012 at 08:14 AM
Ai-vin, I would like to respond to your comment. Let me start out by saying that I have read many of your posts before, I respect your many contributions and if memory serves me right I cannot think of a single time I disagreed with you before.
But back to the facts.
Let us be generous and assume that we can generate enough electricity for electric cars using the same fuel mix (coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc) as we are using now, and as described at the page linked (everyone please follow the link ttp://www.casteyanqui.com/ev/longtailpipe/ and read it). I will use the numbers from that
page to prove my point.
According to the link, burning gasoline creates 24.50 pounds of GHG per
gallon, well-to-tailpipe. Hence a 30mpg gasoline car produces 81.67
(=100/30*24.50) lbs(CO2)/100miles, as they say using the 30mpg gasoline
Nissan Versa as an example. By straight calculation, a Prius at 50mpg
similarly produces 49.00 (=100/50*24.50) lbs(CO2)/100 miles.
Now compare the Prius to the Nissan Leaf (100% electric) example. The
webpage calculates that the Leaf (BTW a smaller car than the Prius)
produces 50.72 lbs(CO2)/100miles, using our current electricity
generation mix.
Look at that number again: 50.672 lbs/100mi is greater than the 49.00
lbs/100mi number of the Prius !! !! !!
So with current off-the-shelf technology, a Prius is already slightly
more CO2-efficient than a Nissan Leaf fully electric car (and very
liklely also slightly more energy-efficent, one would have to do the
calculation, but CO2-efficency is a good proxy for energy-effieciency).
Now, a DIESEL hybrid of prius size will easily get 60-70mpg and maybe
70-80mpg. Look to Peugot, VW, Citroen for exsistence proof. Or do a
back-of-the-envelope calcualtion based on a Leaf-sized 50mpg European
diesel car.
I'll repeat the conclusion: A Prius plain gasoline hybrid (no plugin)
is already more CO2-efficient than a Nissan Leaf. A diesel-electric
hybrid is *significantly* more efficeent than a Nissan Leaf.
Purely electric cars only make sense if we can generate all the
electricty we need without burning coal, which we cannot for a long
time. We can do BETTER than electric cars by switching to hybrid diesels NOW.
Posted by: Jus7tme | 13 March 2012 at 10:42 AM
@SJC
"People are realizing what personal transportation really is. It gets you to work and back, the kids to school, you to shopping and so on."
I agree.
For practical people like that, car sharing/renting is the way to go. You own the car you need most of the time, you rent / share larger / longer range cars at other times.
Lets say you own a Focus, and need to tow a boat or an 8x4 sheet of plywood - that day, you get a truck or SUV.
If you have p2p sharing, you drop in your car, and take the other guy's car. The cost should not be very high. If the insurance is all worked out in advance, it will be easy too.
Similarly, if you have a Leaf, and need to go on a long run, you swap it for a Focus (or a Prius) (or whatever) and do the long run.
The governments should force the insurance companies to allow this kind of car swapping so that it costs almost nothing extra. Say the insurance on the SUV was more then the Focus, you should be able to pay the difference on a per day basis.
This would allow people to get the cars they need for daily use, rather than occasional, or speculative use.
This would work for rational people.
However, many people use cars as wealth display mechanisms, and for them, it is about bling, rather than rational transport selection.
(Check out any music video for examples!)
Posted by: mahonj | 13 March 2012 at 11:05 AM
@mahonj
"we are about 800 Million good batteries away from the end of liquid fuelled cars."
No, we are one good battery away from the market switching. There's a difference between market switching and exhausting existing inventory.
"I still believe PHEvs are the way to go.
People point out (correctly) that 2 engines is a lot of complexity, but the payback is that you can size your battery for 60-80% of your trips, rather than all of them. This means a much smaller battery and no range problems at all."
A separate ICE is how we will likely go for a portion of our vehicles, but if batteries develop as expected that portion will be very small. Electricity is just too cheap and the maintenance issues of ICEs goes away.
"The other benefit is the speed of refuelling.
Even if you have a 75 KwH battery, it will take ~10 hours to charge it on an 8Kw charger, if you can find one, and > 1 day to charge at 3 Kw."
Level 3 chargers (there's already over a thousand available around the world) provide 50kw to 60kW charging. If we need bigger pipes someone will develop them.
--
Jus7 - How much CO2 does a Leaf running on solar and wind produced electricity produce?
Since both wind and solar produce transportation "fuel" cheaper than oil don't you think we would increase our rate of wind/solar installation to keep up with EV demand?
EVs and wind are such a great help to each other than a large number of EVs coming on line would greatly increase turbine installation.
EVs love cheap electricity. Wind farms love a place to sell their off-peak power.
It's a love-fest.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 13 March 2012 at 02:15 PM
Bob, I hope we can agree that my numbers above are correct.
With respect to adding power generation capacity from wind and solar, what the numbers are saying is the following:
Instead of running Nissan Leafs on new wind or solar, we will get better overall CO2-efficiency (and energy-efficiency) by retiring coal-powered plants like-for-like (kW-for-kW average) when new solar/wind generators come online, rather than using the imaginary "surplus" to power Nissan Leafs. Instead we should drive diesel-electric hybrids and retire coal-fired power plants.
Once we we have reached a considerably lower dependence on coal, we can start thinking about transferring some of our electrical power generating capacity to automobile use, but not until then. The break-even point can be calculated, but will also to some extent be a moving target because hybrid-diesel technology will continue to improve.
I hope everyone understands what my motivation is:
I want maximal overall bang/CO2 and bang/Joule (from well,mine,whatever), and I want to leave as much fossile fuel in the ground as possible for use by future generations.
Off peak power from wind is not a valid argument. It can be used for the 24hr base load, and coal (and natgas) powered plants can turned off at night, reducing CO2 correspondingly.
Posted by: Jus7tme | 13 March 2012 at 08:46 PM
Jus7tme: A very effective way to clean up USA's e-energy production would be to:
1. Increase Wind and Solar production power plants and use 100% of their output by using them as primary power sources.
2. Convert, as many as required, old coal fired power plants to NG-SG and use them as Secondary or Back-up power sources only. Close all other coal fired power plants.
Note: It is rather easy to forecast Solar and Wind power plants production hours and start as many NG power plants as required to meet demand. If 1) and 2) above is done, BEVs would quickly become the cleanest vehicles.
Posted by: HarveyD | 14 March 2012 at 09:07 AM
Jus7 - I don't think it's a good idea to hold back new tech. Let's develop and implement renewable energy and electric vehicles at the same time.
While we might get a bit more CO2 reduction your way we will at the same time be wasting a lot of money on imported oil.
"Off peak power from wind is not a valid argument. It can be used for the 24hr base load, and coal (and natgas) powered plants can turned off at night, reducing CO2 correspondingly."
I don't think you're correct here. Coal plants can be dialed back to some extent, but cycling off/on each day is pretty wasteful.
In addition, we're reaching a point in some wind-producing areas at which wind exceeds supply when fossil fuels are cut to a minimum. Adding EVs will soak up that curtailed power and create an off-peak profit stream for building more wind farms which will provide peak hour power. And that will cut back on peak hour fossil fuel use.
More wind on the peak grid means lower peak electricity prices (in free market areas). More EVs means less imported gas. Both free up money that can be used to pay for increased renewable installations.
I think there are factors in play which you aren't taking into consideration.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 14 March 2012 at 09:43 AM
Jus7 - let me add, while I understand your point (and don't agree with it) it seems to be moot.
Just about every car manufacturer is bringing some type of electric to market. And multiple new electric-only companies have emerged.
There's no way to stop EVs even if there was a huge advantage to taking the route you suggest.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 14 March 2012 at 09:54 AM