Comments on: California Approves Statewide ‘Electric Expressway’

By: AP

AP — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:33:41 +0000

Shines, in electric propulsion, only 20-25 percent of the fuel burned to produce it goes into powering the vehicle. The rest goes up the smokestack, out the cooling tower, heat from the transmission lines, and heat from the battery. About the same overall efficiency as an ICE. Even environmentalist books will say this.

The MPGe from the EPA is therefore exaggerated. It "pretends" that 1 kW-hr of electrical energy in a battery is equivalent to 1 kW-hr of heat in the fuel. But with electricity, you've already lost 2/3 to 3/4 of the energy in the generation process (as listed above). MPGe should be divided by about 3 to make physical sense.

By: Shines

Shines — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:16:54 +0000

Ah sorry to say LynnM and AP but dirty old internal combustions are. Of the amount of energy in a galon of gasoline – only 20 percent actually propels the vehicle, the rest is wasted heat and noise. That 92 mpge rating the EPA gives to electric vehicles means the energy equivalent of a gallon of gas goes 92 miles in the ev. You are right that there is a huge infrastructure already in place for ICEs but the electric infrastructure is already huge and in place in the form of power to every home. You are also right that the energy density of todays batteries does not match the density of equal weight of gasoline. However, let’s not forget the environmental damage from driving ICEs is immediate and more widespread than the coal fired electric generation plants in the US. Solar and Wind energy is replacing larger and larger percentages of our power and as batteries continue to improve so will the value of EVs. And don’t forget that battery hybrids are significantly more efficient than conventional ICEs, because they use batteries to assist the ICE and regenerative braking to recover energy that is wasted with standard brakes. So AP if you mean the hybrid ICE gets more efficient every year then I agree with you.

By: AP

AP — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:10:31 +0000

LynnM, thanks for a very concise statement of the technological advantages of the "dirty old" internal combustion engine!

I would only add the the ICE gets more efficient every year, so it will be increasingly hard to catch.

By: LynnM

LynnM — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:12:43 +0000

After reading some of these coments it becomes quite apparent how great gas powered vehicles really are. The ease of refueling/reenergising they are. How quick and easy it is to transfer that amount of energy. What a massive infrastucture we have in place to do this and what a massive undertaking it would be to build a new electric refueling system.
And don’t forget these “zero emission” electrics ultimately get about 70% of their energy from the burning of coal and natural gas and I might add at a reduced efficiency because every time you convert energy..burn- generate heat-spin generators- transmit-convert voltage- convert AC to DC you lose some. So for example the gallon of gas(just assume for the moment using gas to generate electricity) you burn at the electric power plant only finally converts to about a third of a gallon going into the car. CLEAN ????

By: Shines

Shines — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:09:35 +0000

Gork McSilly you say: “We don’t live in that world where we can rest, take our time, relax and read a book on our way to a destination.” I must say I feel sadness for your situation. Maybe if you got a little more sleep you would realize that if EVs did become as popular as we would hope for it would take a lot more time than 10 minutes for sliding 300 lb batteries in and out of various sized vehicles. Jimmy P’s point is valid about the sterile environment of a station which would need multiple bays for swapping all these batteries and a huge warehouse/recharging garage for all of them. I am sure in a few more years batteries will have enough density to travel more like 300 miles. And if you can’t take 15 – 30 minutes out of a 5 hour drive to let your batteries recharge – I would suggest that you rethink your priorities…

By: TRONZ

TRONZ — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:49:19 +0000

Can some of these above guys even read??? The $120,000,000 is a FINE being payed by NRG to California. Get it? Its money being paid TO California. The form of the currency is public EV charging infrastructure since NRG owns evGo who does this sort of thing anyways. It's actually a very smart move by both parties because CA will burn less gas (decreasing its price!) and NRG gets a big discount on their fine since they have wholesale access to all the hardware.

The real news is that with this deal, CA just launched ChadeMo to the forefront of quick charging standards for the USA. GM and SAE are now that much further behind.

By: Benjamin Hadd

Benjamin Hadd — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:52:56 +0000

Must have been difficult to find an electric car being charged at one of these stations, let alone 3. I mean really. Its awfully rare to find a vehicle getting charged at one of these charging stations. Now the state is dumping a $120 million into more chargers. This is fantasyland.

By: Gork McSilly

Gork McSilly — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 05:34:50 +0000

Shines and Jimmy…I don’t know what planet you two are from…but…We don’t live in that world where we can rest, take our time, relax and read a book on our way to a destination. I don’t know about you, but I have a job that takes up 50 hours of my week. If I am going to a destination, I want to get there quickly and enjoy myself, not have to stop and force myself to do other things I don’t necessarily want to do.

Popping a battery pack out like a VHS player can be quick and easy…you’d have to run a battery station like the old gas stations in the 60′s…with attendants that take the batteries out and put another in…that would take about 10 minutes with the right car design…Yes, car companies would have to redesign the access point of the batteries…but making it easy would change everything…taking a half hour to charge for 90-100 miles of driving tops is a pain in the Tookas and will forever impede sales…Now make it a 10 minute battery pack change….not so bad…

By: Jimmy P

Jimmy P — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 00:48:06 +0000

I could not agree more with “Shines”. You could just imagine a world where people rest every couple of hundred miles instead of pushing to go as far as you can until falling aspleep at the wheel. Instead of “stations” where it would be a sterile environment you coud simply pull up to an eatery, shoping mall, take a stroll in the park, shoot some hoops, etc. This would not only benefit businesses that cater to charging customers but also a boon to humanity by having a chance to relax, exercise, site-seeing or simply read a book while waiting for a charge.

By: Shines

Shines — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 00:05:31 +0000

Hey @Gork McSilly. I beg to differ. The slide out battery idea would require the goverment or the whole industry to agree on a specific battery size and shape (not likely). Batteries are very expensive having to stock them at a station and swap them in and out of cars would also be very expensive. Talk about waiting in line… to get your battery swapped at a station. It would be better driving up to a Denny’s or a McDonalds (or a Mom and Pop restaurant/site) (which you would know has an available charge station from your smart phone app (no driving around looking for one)). Take a break let your car charge and enjoy a nice lunch or a snack. Strip malls would want to have rows of parking with chargers knowing the folks stopping would likely browse their mall shops. City and state parks would want chargers so folks could take a walk, stretch, enjoy the scenery and take in the sites while their cars are charging. Sure you would need a lot of these chargers, but you wouldn’t need full service stations – just parking places. Seems like a nice way to travel. Drive for an hour or two and then take a 30 minute break at a place other than a “station”. And then continue on the journey to the next recharge site/rest stop until you reach your destination.