You are using the oil/coal. Sometimes maybe the natural gas. NEVER the wind or hyrdo. They don't make more wind or hydro power in a year because you used electricity...

Here in NW Colorado we have the choice of purchasing wind power (more expensive, but not that much) or coal fired/other sources.

I believe the more wind power that is purchased, the more wind power actually is produced.

As I said, I have no idea how that compares to gasoline.

Supposedly, even if coal is used, it's 60% lower (this is from a non environment site):

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009 ... sions.html

Of course until a bunch of plug in stations, most electric cars (other than the Tesla pointed out) wouldn't be practical around here. With the ones with a 100 mile range (such as the Leaf) you wouldn't get very far around here. Even with existing gas stations there are stretches of roads without even a gas station for close to or more than that distance. It seems they would work great for a city commuter (and cars such as the Nissan Leaf supposedly cost just over $25,000 which makes it within reach of most new car buyers), if you lived in the city.

Still, there would have to be more plug in stations for all these cars ever to become popular.

Scott wrote:

Supposedly, even if coal is used, it's 60% lower (this is from a non environment site):

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009 ... sions.html

The meat of this analysis is like this; even though an electric car uses fossil fuel at only 25% efficiency, gasoline is used at just 15% efficiency. This makes some sense, if you consider that a coal-fired plant can operate at much higher temperatures, thereby increasing the carnot efficiency (2nd law).

The trouble with such analyses is that they 1) compare a known efficiency against a hypothetical one (kind of like comparing real capitalism against ideal communism); and 2) they subtly assume that there will be no increased demand in all forms of electric energy production as more and more electric cars come on the market.

The efficiency of recharging an electric car is actually not that well known. Ideals are assumed for transmission losses, charging inefficiency, and energy loss associated with longevity of the batteries. Most of the numbers come from companies that make electric cars.

Electric cars tend to be a lot heavier, per watt produced, than gasoline cars, for a simple reason: gasoline has about 80x the energy density of the best rechargeable Li-ion batteries. The car may be producing the same wattage, but is lugging around a lot more mass. Thus numbers based on work (joules) can be quite misleading, since a lot of joules are wasted just moving the car.

Scott wrote:

You are using the oil/coal. Sometimes maybe the natural gas. NEVER the wind or hyrdo. They don't make more wind or hydro power in a year because you used electricity...

Here in NW Colorado we have the choice of purchasing wind power (more expensive, but not that much) or coal fired/other sources.

I get that, if you are paying more to use it from a specific source. But that is not what 1000Pks is proposing, or does to my knowledge.

Scott wrote:Supposedly, even if coal is used, it's 60% lower (this is from a non environment site):

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009 ... sions.html

Thanks for the link. But I'm not buying his calculations. He has some fuzzy math there, even if I take some of his assumptions for granted.

He claims each kWh gets 2-3 miles. Let's use 2.5. He says Americans would use 600 billion kWh/yr. So his assumption there is that Americans drive 1500 billion miles/yr.

He goes on to say we burn 3.3 billion barrels of gas a year which is 138.6 billion gallons. If so then 1500 billion miles per year /138.6 = 10.8 mpg.

He's assuming the AVERAGE car gets only 10.8 mpg! I don't believe that.

What if the average car is currently getting 18 mpg? Even they aren't, that is certainly a realistic fuel standard. 18 * 42 * 3.3 billion = 2,496 billion miles we can drive in a year. At 2.5 kWh/mi, we use 998 billion kWh/yr, 66% more than he claimed.

He said we would be producing 40% the CO2, but add 66% to that and it is 66.5% the CO2. Seems closer to a 33% reduction in emissions than a 60%, even if we went to 100% electric. It would be equivalent to a national average of 27 mpg.

So from what I can tell a good hybrid has fewer emissions than 100% electric.

He said 3.3 billion barrels of gas. Not gas and diesel.

And this website confirms the 3.3 billion barrels does NOT include vehicles that consume diesel.
http://americanfuels.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ption.html

1000Pks wrote:Disputing numbers is fine if any good basis.

There is a good basis. I laid it out. You challenged it by saying big rigs use gasoline.

1000Pks wrote:If they all say electric is better

Still waiting for someone to say it who knows what they are talking about.

1000Pks wrote:Cheaper, better, faster, cleaner. Sounds great to me!

And what I'm saying, cheaper, better, faster, and cleaner... so far it looks like a hybrid wins in all four categories.

1000Pks wrote:assuming you are absolutely correct, it appears still better for electric.

No. It doesn't.

MoapaPk wrote:I'm in! That is, IFF you can guarantee that the electricity used to recharge the car came from totally renewable sources. No plants the use burning of hydrocarbons to make electricity, no nuclear plants (zero-emission but poopy-poopy bad). Come to think of it, I don't want hydroelectric either, since the dams are so bad for the environment.

And windmills are an eyesore, so what have you left?

I'm not against electric vehicles Pete; I just want to see more numbers run and reviewed independently. We're at a tipping point for technologies (fuel cells, hydrogen, hybrid); some are unknown. I just won't be an early adopter.

The things I've liked about the electric cars I've driven: instant torque, and no warm-up period. A lot of gas is wasted just when people fire up the car to drive down to the 7-11.

1000Pks wrote:

I just won't be an early adopter.

Me neither, the way it's going here.

Maybe I'll up my offer. But riders will have to pay more than the .03 per mile charging. I can't be subsidizing mountaineering for much longer.

Remember as a Nevadan, I can't join!

Perhaps the best way to save the earth, conserve, etc., with the simplest technologies and no complication, is to go with lots of friends, even in a gas hog. To me, that's one of the greatest uses of mountaineering clubs, especially out here where the last 10 miles of the trip may be on roads that would tear the crap out of the Tesla. Your individual, effective mpg will be quite high, and you are more likely to have a burly, comfortable vehicle that can hold a lot of gear, and doesn't have a terrible mpg tail-off when you ride over rolling hills on an interstate posted at 75 mph.

We used to take a Yukon on a lot of trips, when we knew the last miles were rough (for example, Troy Peak NV or Morey, NV). We could seat 4 people (with all gear in back) comfortably. Even though the car averaged just 15 mpg, our individual rate was 60 mpg. I have a lighter outback that will handle much of the same terrain, but with no more than one passenger -- so even if I'm getting 28 mpg in that car, I still lose.

Baby steps.

...with a new adventure dictated by the then chair of the peak section. You'd pay your money and follow to do as told.

Sorry Friend, that is not the way I roll...

Mea Culpa for giving more life to this thread.

When I read the starting post, I couldn't figure out who would hold title to this car, and who would lay out the initial costs, and where the car would be garaged. You said you didn't have the money, so I began to think you might be trying to get other people to buy 4/5 of the vehicle up-front. If you are trying to recoup costs just by charging the passengers $0.50/(mile*(# passengers)), you have a very shaky scheme for making the payments on time.

It is extremely hard for me to get the same 5 people together for 10 trips/year, even 5 in-shape retired people with sweet personalities. Synchronizing schedules is very hard. Let's say you just get x of those people together for 20 trips of 500 miles each year, and just arrange so the total payment per mile adds up to $0.50. You get $5000 from the per-mile payments each year (including you). That doesn't seem like it would be the way to finance this car.

And where will you meet? Unless you all live on the same block, it is likely people will have to drive gas-powered cars to the meeting point.

I'm still confused as to how you make it 500 miles in a car that has a range of 240, and according to the website takes 4 hours to charge.

Nevermind that well all know that the greenhouse gas emissions aren't any lower, probably even much higher. Destruction of the planet, subsidized by the coal industry, and all for the enjoyment of the local enviro club. Say what you will, not the way to go by me!

Pete, I'm afraid you could offer completely free rides and have no takers.
It's not because people don't care about the planet.
It's not because no one cares to climb or peakbag anymore.
It's not because you are asian.
It's not because you live in Sacramento.
It's not because you are getting older and slower.

At some point you're going to have to own up to some personality quirks that drive people away. Work on fixing those and you'll find that you can enjoy a great many outdoor adventures with others. Look inward, not outward for the root causes.

I think (as shown here), life is a bear, and then you die ...

What about bicycle power ... Isn't IT a clean form of energy ??? ??