> Ford spokeswoman Francine Romine said the
> auto maker shares the trade group�s position that regulating
> carbon-dioxide emissions is akin to regulating fuel economy,
> a power reserved for the federal government under U.S. law.
This article reminds me that we really should try to get through to Gov.
Davis. The manufacturers are arguing that regulating CO2 is regulating fuel
economy. This is a very narrow minded and assumes that cars must run
gasoline. In a letter I wrote to a prospective investor who wanted to know
what end-to-end effect the Tango would have on CO2, I demonstrated that in
Seattle there would be a 94% reduction of CO2 per mile with the Tango and
73% reduction in California. This certainly outweighs the effects of the
current regulations many fold and would start to clean up traffic congestion
as well. I think that Gov. Davis should at least know about the Tango for a
defense against the lawsuit, if nothing else. I sent him a letter many
months ago with news clippings etc. but got no response. I doubt it ever got
to him.
Here is the letter. Please let me know if you know of other references that
would help demonstrate the benefit. More up-to-date references would also be
helpful. The figures for power mix in California are quite dated for
example.
"
Dear ...
...
> Specifically also, if you have an end-to-end carbon analysis ("Why Tango
> uses less CO2 thank an ICE end-to-end"), that would be great.
An end to end carbon analysis is completely dependent on the source of power
used to recharge the Tango.
In Seattle, according to Dan Williams at Seattle City Light, 206/615-0978,
the sources of electricity for 2001 are as follows:
Hydro 82% 0% CO2
Coal 8%
Natural gas 5%
Nuclear 4% 0% CO2
Other, i.e. renewable 1% 0% CO2
Non-CO2 producing 87%
He said that this year there is an increase in hydro and a decrease in coal.
California had the following mix according to:
California Air Resources Board, Draft Technical Document for the
Low-Emission Vehicle and Zero-Emission Vehicle Workshop on March 25, 1994,
Zero-Emission Vehicle Update, (1994), Table C-6, p. 61.:
Natural Gas 33%
Hydroelectric 20% 0% CO2
Coal 16%
Nuclear 15% 0% CO2
Solar and Wind 6% 0% CO2
Geothermal 6% 0% CO2
Not listed in chart 4%
Non-CO2 producing 47%
This suggests that charging an electric vehicle in Seattle would result in
an 87% lower production of CO2 than the equivalent use of ICE vehicle on a
mile per mile basis because of the source of power alone. In California
there would be at least a 47% reduction.
In addition there are many other factors.
1. Fossil-fueled power plants are approximately 28% efficient from power
generation through battery charger according to the attached report. When
co-generating heat they can be as much as 70% efficient. This includes
transmission line and charging losses. Compared to car engines which are
approximately 14% efficient it follows that even a 50% reduction in CO2 due
to mix of hydro and fossil fuel would wind up being a 75% benefit when the
efficiency is factored in. This is because power plants run near peak
efficiency as opposed to ICEs in cars because of varying speeds and
requiring oversized engines to meet peak acceleration demand. Electric
motors are usually over 90% efficient and don't become much less efficient
at lower loads because of being powerful enough to handle peak acceleration.
Waste energy can be measured in waste heat production which is plentiful in
an ICE and very minimal in an electric motor.
2. Electric cars don't idle. When they are stopped there is no energy usage.
Conversely, gasoline cars are burning fuel at stop signs and traffic jams.
According to "The 2002 Urban Mobility Report" by Texas A&M, there are over 5
billion gallons of fuel wasted per year in the U.S. simply because of
congestion.
Although the following points have little to do with CO2, they are major
factors for other pollutants.
3. Natural gas is used extensively in California which burns much cleaner
than gasoline. In fact, it is used relatively safely indoors for fork lifts
where gasoline would be unacceptable because of its CO production.
4. Power plant emission control is far superior to that of individual cars.
5. Even when fossil-fueled power plants are used, they are most likely away
from the cities where pollution is the greatest problem.
6. Even though individual car engines are relatively clean at a certain
speed and temperature, the situation changes with acceleration, temperature
change, and as the emission control system deteriorates.
If large numbers of EVs replace ICEs, the environmental impacts could be
immediate and dramatic. In Seattle, based on the above figures, there is an
immediate 94% reduction in CO2 for each electric car that replaces and ICE
car. In California, it is over 73%.
By changing the mix of electric power generation over the next few decades
until we are able to use completely green sources, there will be
proportionately more benefit to the environment by using electric cars.
Geo-thermal and tidal sources have hardly been tapped here in the U.S.,
however, Iceland is almost completely self sufficient because of its massive
geo-thermal electricity production. See:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/4459
An article: "Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks"
can be found on the Princeton University website:
http://www.princeton.edu/~bcjones/transportation/ev/myths.html
It has many good references and some that may be considered self serving.
Although I would like to have found an extremely scholarly work with no
partiality, I feel this is a generally good analysis. It at least points out
the issues to be considered. If you need something more in depth, please let
me know.
I'm sure that there are studies that are biased toward petroleum burning as
well. I was shocked once to see an SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
brochure promoting the book
Emissions and Air Quality
by Hanz Peter Lenz and Christian Cozzarini,
(director of the Institute for Internal Combustion Engines and Automotive
Engineering at the Technical University of Vienna and his assistant
respectively).
>From a blurb on the SAE website promoting the book:
Lenz and Cozzarini present statistics such as: Worldwide passenger car and
commercial vehicle traffic contribute 0.5% to total carbon dioxide
emissions; Methane emissions from road traffic are so marginal that their
contribution to the greenhouse effect can be disregarded; Passenger car and
heavy-duty vehicle traffic each contribute 1.6% to the total anthropogenic
emissions of nitrous oxide; and Road traffic contributes only about 1% to
non-methane hydrocarbon emissions.
I wish I could just find a sure source for the truth. I guess it usually
lies somewhere in between the opposing views. It's hard for me to imagine
such a gap between the two extremes as I'm finding regarding CO2.
The quick analysis that I provided above would be hard to dispute regarding
the difference between ICEs and EVs for CO2 production. As to what effect
CO2 really has on our environment, or what percentage is caused by
automotive emissions, is totally beyond me.
I have included an article from the "Chronicle of Higher Education" that
seems unbiased and points out some of the reasons for the controversy. I
enjoyed reading it. I hope you will too.
[EV listees: As attachments are not allowed, please let me know if you would
like a copy of this article. I can email it to you as a PDF or post it on
our public website.]
Please let me know if the above is useful, or if I'm on the right track. I'd
be happy to do more exhaustive research if you'd like.
Best wishes,
Rick
"
Rick Woodbury Phone: (509) 624-0762
President, Commuter Cars Corporation Toll-free: (800) 468-0944
Doubling the capacity of freeways Fax: (509) 624-1466
Quadrupling the capacity of parking Cellular: (509) 979-1815
Zero to 60 in under 4 seconds
715 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 114 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Spokane, WA 99202 Web: http://www.commutercars.com
