The Best Car Ever Tested?

[Harry P.]

And a LARGE number of PEAK-DEMAND natural-gas burning plants HAVE BEEN ADDED in the past few years.

But surely not because of the demand electric cars produce? Aren't there too few electric cars on the road to even move the needle on total electrical demand?

[Harry P.]

Until hydrocarbon-burning electricity generation is cleaned up, and until non-polluting sources like wind and solar power are fully online, the save-the-planet pollution reductions of the feel-good EV marketing are largely imaginary.

This is one of those "agree to disagree" things. Refining oil creates pollution. Generating electricity creates pollution.

But a gas-powered car creates pollution in addition to the pollution created by the process of providing that car with its fuel (gas).

An electric car does not create pollution in addition to the pollution created by the process of providing that car with its "fuel" (electricity).

[Ace-Garageguy]

This is one of those "agree to disagree" things. Refining oil creates pollution. Generating electricity creates pollution.

But a gas-powered car creates pollution in addition to the pollution created by the process of providing that car with its fuel (gas).

An electric car does not create pollution in addition to the pollution created by the process of providing that car with its "fuel" (electricity).

And YES, from the perspective of the energy cost associated with getting oil out of the ground and refining it into vehicle fuel, I agree with you to a certain extent. That IS an important part of the overall energy cost of a vehicle. BUT it also takes energy to mine and distribute coal, and to drill for, refine and distribute natural gas that will be burned to make electricity.

Once again, no free lunch.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Modelbuilder Mark]

Look at it this way:

IC car: energy consumed and pollution created to make the gas the car needs. Plus the car itself adds pollutants into the air throughout its life.

Electric car: energy consumed and pollution created to make the electricity the car needs, but the car itself adds no pollutants.

So in the overall "cradle to grave" sequence, the use of electric cars would cause less pollution overall.

Do not forget tho, there is the "disposal" question of all those new batteries that are being produced as their life comes to an end, so there is some upstream issues there. THat will be another future "issue" to deal with. Even with Solar fields, they are experiencing a lot of issues bcause of the polutants used to make the mirrors/electronics/cells and the related disposal of said hazardous byproducts.

I do not recall the artical, BUT....not too long ago, maybe 3 or 4 years, there was a study that measure the polutants of and EXISTING IC auto, to that of a NEW vehicle, regardless of being Electric, Hyrbind or fuel. Taking into account that the Existing vehicle is ALREADY HERE and would not require any new manufacturing or related polutants, it is still better for the environment to KEEP the eixisting car than to buy ANY new car, includnig hybrids.

BUT, people want new cars, so this was not given much interest. There is NO perfect solution in the creation of new cars.

[Quick GMC]

The components used to make the motors and batteries for electric and hybrids are precious metals. The equipment used to acquire this stuff is doing damage. Iridium platinum, etc. They already use platinum as a catalyst for catalytic converters, along with rhodium but if small amounts. I wonder what would happen to the earth's precious metal ore when electric cars are manufactured on a similar scale that gasoline powered cars are. Not to mention the machines used to extract and process the metals.

[Ace-Garageguy]

But surely not because of the demand electric cars produce? Aren't there too few electric cars on the road to even move the needle on total electrical demand?

The peak demand plants have been built to supply the increased demands of of the population BEFORE a significant EV fleet has entered the mix. MORE GENERATING CAPACITY WILL BE NEEDED to keep up with demand placed on the system by a large number of EVs recharging, if they ever reach significant numbers.

Still, no free lunch. The energy demands of the national vehicle fleet will have to be met by burning fuel in the vehicles themselves, or by burning fuel in generating plants to make up for the fuel NOT being burned IN electric cars.

Speaking of demand...have you ever been to a generating plant? Hoover Dam, a hydro-electric plant, uses falling water to turn turbines to turn generators to make electricity. There are several turbines at the dam, and water flow through them is gated on or off for each one to vary the plant's output with demand

Coal fired plants typically have huge boilers that supply steam to turn multiple turbines that turn generators. The coal feed to the boilers is varied to make more or less steam depending on how many turbine/generators are needed to keep up with demand at any given time.

Even wind-farms have feathering capability on the blades of the windmills, just like an airplane prop in reverse, to allow individual wind turbines to be taken into and out of generating mode according to demand.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I do not recall the artical, BUT....not too long ago, maybe 3 or 4 years, there was a study that measure the polutants of and EXISTING IC auto, to that of a NEW vehicle, regardless of being Electric, Hyrbind or fuel. Taking into account that the Existing vehicle is ALREADY HERE and would not require any new manufacturing or related polutants, it is still better for the environment to KEEP the eixisting car than to buy ANY new car, includnig hybrids.

YES YES YES. I'm SO glad you brought this up. This study has been done many times over many years and always returns the same results. THAT is why my 1993 Geo Metro, maintained in excellent mechanical condition and still getting 45mpg on the highway is MUCH BETTER for the environment and the future of the planet than a NEW electric or hybrid vehicle.

TOTAL LIFE CYCLE ENERGY COST is the key number, and it's often overlooked by 'experts' for some unknown reason.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

I've been in the Hoover Dam generating room. It's pretty amazing. The whole dam is amazing. Standing there at the top, on that road that makes up the top surface of the dam, and looking straight down the side of the dam... that's a view I'll never forget!

[Ace-Garageguy]

The components used to make the motors and batteries for electric and hybrids are precious metals. The equipment used to acquire this stuff is doing damage. Iridium platinum, etc. They already use platinum as a catalyst for catalytic converters, along with rhodium but if small amounts. I wonder what would happen to the earth's precious metal ore when electric cars are manufactured on a similar scale that gasoline powered cars are. Not to mention the machines used to extract and process the metals.

This is another VERY REAL concern, and I'm glad to see it brought up too. It's another of the critical issues that make the whole EV thing NOT the totally awesome answer that the feel-good, no-depth marketing would like to promote.

This discussion is also a fine illustration why scientific and technological literacy among the population (an understanding how the things we take for granted actually work) is necessary if we're going to vote for policies and programs that effect the future of mankind, and if we're going to make rational decisions as consumers and members of society.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

The real bottom line is that everything isn't going to get fixed by changing to electric cars. The EV technology will get better and cheaper, just like PCs have, over time, and the cars will require less and less energy for the same performance. Hopefully, recycling of the worn out vehicles will occupy a good bit of thought AS THE CARS ARE DESIGNED, to limit environmental damage from sourcing increasingly rare materials.

At the same time, advances need to be made and IMPLEMENTED in carbon sequestration at coal and natural-gas burning plants. AND, non-polluting, renewable energy sources need to be brought on line as rapidly as possible to supply the baseline, daylight electrical demand load, while the fossil-fuel plants can be brought on line during peak recharge periods.

One thing rarely addressed is the relatively minor advances that have been made in increasing the efficiency of the existing internal combustion engine. Only around 30% of the energy contained in gasoline makes the car go...the rest is dumped as waste heat by the cooling system and out the exhaust. Diesels harness about 45% of the energy in their fuel, but still, gasoline engines WASTE 70% of the energy they use, and diesels WASTE 55%. It doesn't have to be this way.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Modelbuilder Mark]

I've been in the Hoover Dam generating room. It's pretty amazing. The whole dam is amazing. Standing there at the top, on that road that makes up the top surface of the dam, and looking straight down the side of the dam... that's a view I'll never forget!

Take any Dam pictures?

BTW, just say this off Wall Street Journal wire

“We aren’t telling people they should go out and buy it,” said Jake Fisher, Consumer Reports’ director of auto tests.

Vehicles the magazine recommends to readers have to prove their long-term reliability and practicality, and it is too early to say whether the Tesla will stack up. After all, the Model S is not perfect and had a number of minor teething pains during the test period, the magazine said.

It also lost points – well , one point anyway – in part because its range is limited compared with typical gasoline-powered cars. “I can’t jump in the Tesla and drive it across the country like I could with a Toyota Corolla,” Fisher said.

[JM485]

Ace for president! But seriously, this is one of the best discussions I have seen on here and I think it is a very important topic for the future. I honestly was beginning to think there was nobody else out there who put considerations into the indirect effects electric cars would have on society. Everyone sees something "green", and immediately thinks it is all good with no after effects, but in reality that is not true at all. Ace you have made a lot of great points and I have to say I have learned a tone just from this thread.

[Harry P.]

One thing that I really don't understand is why we aren't pushing harder for wind and solar power generation on a mass scale. I don't mean Joe Hipster with his solar panels on the roof of his house, I mean using solar and wind (to whatever extent it can be used) to generate electricity for mass consumption in addition to the ways we already generate it.

The technology exists, solar and wind works. And I know that there are windmill farms scattered around the country, but not too many. But it seems we're hesitant as a country to go full speed ahead with these methods of power generation. For example... why wouldn't a big oil company, seeing that our dependence on oil won't last forever, get into solar or wind power generation in a big way? The feds own literally millions of acres of vacant land that's not being used for much of anything... wouldn't it make sense to lease some of that land to private companies to build wind farms on?

I know that the bottom line in all of this is $$$. But to me, solar and wind just seems so completely logical that I can't see why we're not pushing these methods much harder.

[JM485]

I think you are right that the real reason is money Harry. It costs a lot of money up front to build these things, and that would directly raise the price of energy. There really has not been any cheap, effective alternatives for fossil fuels and until there is I don't think there will be much energy coming from anything else. I think people see these things and believe it is a step in the right direction, but once again they do not cast a thought for cost before they make their judgements.

[Modelbuilder Mark]

One thing that I really don't understand is why we aren't pushing harder for wind and solar power generation on a mass scale. I don't mean Joe Hipster with his solar panels on the roof of his house, I mean using solar and wind (to whatever extent it can be used) to generate electricity for mass consumption in addition to the ways we already generate it.

The technology exists, solar and wind works. And I know that there are windmill farms scattered around the country, but not too many. But it seems we're hesitant as a country to go full speed ahead with these methods of power generation. For example... why wouldn't a big oil company, seeing that our dependence on oil won't last forever, get into solar or wind power generation in a big way? The feds own literally millions of acres of vacant land that's not being used for much of anything... wouldn't it make sense to lease some of that land to private companies to build wind farms on?

I know that the bottom line in all of this is $$$. But to me, solar and wind just seems so completely logical that I can't see why we're not pushing these methods much harder.

Solar fields are very much on the rise, there is one just out Boulder City, NV heading towards Needles, and it has doubled or even trippled since I first saw it around 3 years ago. As you drive up towards it, it just looks like a perfectly straight edged lake until you get close to it.

Some of the biggest issues facing Solar is:

High Initial Costs to set up, and Solar energy is still significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels (Solar power still remains around three times more expensive than coal and natural gas.)

limited panel life (15-20 years at this point),

Limited geographical applicability (gotta have the sun shinning!)

But for sure, it IS increasing, but still just over 1% of the overall US energy source.

[2002p51]

Exactly. Their methodology is sound.

I think their testing methods are solid and make perfect sense.

Seriously? I haven't read this entire thread because I got this far and almost choked!

I once read a report where CR intentionally threw a car completely out of control on the skidpad and then downgraded it because it didn't correct itself! Really, the car is supposed to correct itself? Is that a test that makes perfect sense?

They also once downgraded the Corvette based on it's almost total lack of trunk space. (?) Criticizing a Corvette for not enough trunk space is like criticizing Sofia Vergara because she hasn't got a jump shot!

No, when it comes to cars I'll go to the guys who do nothing but test cars. They weren't testing washing machines last week and peanut butter next week, but cars and nothing but cars.

Road & Track and Car & Driver not only test "enthusiast" cars but every day, consumer cars too.

I'll buy a copy of Consumer Reports next time I need to wrap up a fish or something like that.

[Harry P.]

The "car guy" magazines also gave the car very good reviews.

[Ace-Garageguy]

...........For example... why wouldn't a big oil company, seeing that our dependence on oil won't last forever, get into solar or wind power generation in a big way?

Another excellent question, and for the most part it comes down to corporate lethargy and fear. It's seems less risky to many companies to maintain the status quo and continue to ride the wave of "let's just keep doing things like we've always done them" for as long as possible, rather than redefine themselves as ENERGY companies, instead of just OIL companies.

There is hope however. T.Boone Pickens, who made his personal billions on oil, has been pushing hard for wind farm construction in the windy corridor of America's middle West.

And a company that hasn't yet become well known, SunEdison, is partnering with others to deliver cost-competitive solar solutions. One early proof-of-concept project installed PV arrays on the roof of a grocery store, and was able to sell the power generated to the store at costs competitive with grid-purchased power, and STILL turn a profit as the initial cost is being amortized. Successes like this require out-of-the-box management thinking, putting together new ways of doing business.

SunEdison is currently working with utility companies, scaling up the concept to provide cheap solar power on a massive scale.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

Well, all I can say is, if I was CEO of a big oil company I'd be using whatever power I have to get my company actively involved in solar and wind in a big way. You don't have to spend billions to "explore" for solar or wind, it's right there for the taking.

And yes, T. Boone Pickens has been a lonely voice for common-sense alternative energy. Too bad there aren't a lot more influential people pushing this. It seems ridiculous to me that the "most powerful" or "greatest" country in the world isn't embracing these energy sources more enthusiastically.

[Harry P.]

Take any Dam pictures?

Unfortunately, no. I could kick myself for not having my camera with me when I took the Hoover Dam tour. It's an absolutely awesome example of human ingenuity and engineering. I highly recommend seeing it in person. As awe-inspiring a natural wonder as the Grand Canyon is, the Hoover Dam is just as awe-inspiring as a man-made wonder.

[Ace-Garageguy]

......... and Solar energy is still significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels (Solar power still remains around three times more expensive than coal and natural gas.)

This is another one of the mis-conceptions that may be making its way into corporate boardrooms and delaying decisions to move forward with solar more aggressively. According to a March 13, 2013 article on the Energy Collective,

“Wait,” I hear you say, “Isn’t solar just too expensive?” There are so many ways to answer with that, but they all lead to “No, get with the times.” The perception that solar is too expensive is outdated. The current reality:

• The price of solar has been plummeting, to the tune of 30% in the past two years.

• New financing options have brought solar within reach of the average person, allowing more lower- and middle-income people to go solar.

• Schools, corporations, and government agencies wouldn’t be installing solar in droves if it didn’t make financial sense.

• Costs may go down even further if the DOE’s SunShot Initiative succeeds in lowering soft costs, such as permitting and financing. Lower soft costs have helped Germany top the U.S. in installations despite having much less sun.

• Many areas have already achieved grid parity, where unsubsidized solar power is on par with or cheaper than retail electricity prices. That’s expected to spread to many more regions in the coming decade:

Former Energy Secretary Steven Chu agrees -- in fact, he believes solar is close to being as cheap as any other power source: “This is not something that’s going to happen 20-30 years from today. This is going to happen 10 years from today. Maybe sooner.”

Currently, solar power is at cost parity with conventional grid-power in about 14% of the country.

Some utilities still aren’t convinced, and a major conflict is brewing with them. They’re saying that solar customers tied to the grid are driving up costs for everyone, because they buy much less power from the utilities than other customers and therefore pay less for the utility's fixed costs. In effect, they claim that non-solar customers are subsidizing solar.

However, it’s likely that the utilities are reacting out of fear of losing profits. Their math just doesn’t add up. In fact, two recent studies have shown that net metering not only benefits all electric customers but can also help a state’s economy. We haven’t heard the last of this hot topic -- the California Public Utilities Commission is due to weigh in with their own study in October 2013.

[Harry P.]

Have I mentioned how much I'm enjoying this thread? Lots of great commentary, good information, etc. Thanks to all involved. And Bill... if you don't knock it off, you run the risk of greatly impressing me!

[Ace-Garageguy]

Well, all I can say is, if I was CEO of a big oil company I'd be using whatever power I have to get my company actively involved in solar and wind in a big way. You don't have to spend billions to "explore" for solar or wind, it's right there for the taking.

And yes, T. Boone Pickens has been a lonely voice for common-sense alternative energy. Too bad there aren't a lot more influential people pushing this. It seems ridiculous to me that the "most powerful" or "greatest" country in the world isn't embracing these energy sources more enthusiastically.

100% agreed.

[2002p51]

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Given the track record of these companies, if I was in the oil business I'd stay in the oil business.

[Ace-Garageguy]

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Given the track record of these companies, if I was in the oil business I'd stay in the oil business.

So, how long is the "complete list" of green companies that AREN'T failing?