CleanMPG Forums

CleanMPG Forums (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/index.php)
-   In the News (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100% (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44124)

ksstathead 06-13-2012 12:31 PM

Re: The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 50 mpg by 2012 (Post 347116)
A few years back I was interested in steam powered automobiles.

Guess what ... they get about 10 mpg ... of water.

And one needs a source of heat to make steam...

300TTto545 06-13-2012 12:52 PM

Re: The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%
 
No graphs but here are some numbers.

US consumption in 2007 - 20.6
US consumption in 2011 - 18.8

NA Production 2007 - 7.5
NA Production 2011 - 9

Now cherry pick that trend line and in 2019 (admittedly 7 years away) and consumption is 15 and production is 13.

So not quite after 7 years but the math was just easier. Now - some of the growth in production may actually increase as the Gulf continues to come back on line after the BP spill. But obviously this is cherry picking and the consumption probably won't fall that fast. But of course the CAFE numbers are even more aggressive.

Either way, in the lifetime of a Volt, the military impact of oil will be much less than today.

ksstathead 06-13-2012 02:55 PM

Re: The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%
 
One could argue the decline in consumption merely corresponds to a decline in economic activity...

Hopefully the economy finds a way to recover AND get more efficient, but the efficiencies tend to be gradual, especially in a drill, baby, drill environment.

herm 06-13-2012 06:05 PM

Re: The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 50 mpg by 2012 (Post 347116)
A few years back I was interested in steam powered automobiles.

Check the Cyclone web site, they are offering small steam engines suitable for cars and pickups.. about 120hp and a bazillion ft-lbs of torque, and you dont need a transmission. The trick is using steam at critical temperatures/pressures, the steam loses less energy to friction and is more efficient.. besides the benefit of not needing a transmission you also dont need the usual anti pollution equipment.

http://www.cyclonepower.com/

waltermlee 06-13-2012 06:23 PM

Re: The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedylC94 (Post 347074)
"Up to" is the critical phrase there. Those numbers are for the best engines, running steadily at their most efficient combination of speed and load. For average engines under all the varied conditions of normal driving, with normal drivers, a lot less.

The Prius' Atkinson cycle gasoline engine is reportedly 38% energy efficiency, i.e. 38% of the chemical energy found in gasoline is converted into mechanical energy. Whether an otto or atkinson cycle, gasoline engine are the least efficient for the first five or so minutes from a cold start with much of the lost energy spent on warming up the engine. An engine block heater can minimize the thermal lost from a warmup (at the expense of the energy used to heat up the engine block heater itself).

waltermlee 06-13-2012 06:48 PM

Re: The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 300TTto545 (Post 347067)
You know, there is an argument for carbon equivalence and that obviously varies. But if I have to charge my EV with electricity generated from coal and the analysis says that a fit EV runs me the carbon equivalence of a HCHII, I may not be willing to deal with range issues or spend $30k on a new car.

There are strong arguments against EVs from an environmental point of view. EVs in general seem to give you other things other than environmental benefits (ie Leaf is faster than Prius). Sure electricity is more versatile but coal is horrible.

The military argument against oil is probably 5 years away from being irrelevant. NA is very close to being self sufficient for oil. Sure the oil will always cross borders and the Middle East will have a lot of oil for some time. But throw in 5 years of high CAFE numbers and growing (even if just a little) production in the US and the tar sands, and the trend line is in our favor.

DOD already had working prototypes of a shale-oil and bio-oil blends for jet A fuels so in theory our military fuel supply should be able to weather out any oil crisis as long as the military logistics of oil distribution is flexible enough. Our civilian/commerical oil distribution network for North America is inflexible so while one region can drown in oil another region can have an oil shortage so just increasing oil production in Montana/North Dakota will not make all of NA's civilian/commercial markets immune to global shifts in oil supply and productions.


With respect to how big an electric car's carbon foot print is Scientific American published a study[1] which found that it depends on where you get your electricity and that often depends on where you live and recharge your vehicle..

With respect to distribution efficiency, in washington DC, my local utility charges 4 cents for energy to distribute/pump every 1 kwh of electricity (10 cents/1kwh of electricity). This equates roughly to an extra 0.4 kw/H to distribute 1.0 kw/H - that is to say the electric distribution efficacy in the DC area is about 71% (you get 1 kwh for every 1.4 kwh sent) which is way lower than the 90% efficency that Leveen had estimated. In addition, while electric deregulation allows me to buy my 1.0 kwh from Cleancurrent a wind turbine consolidator(which is carbon free), I still must buy 0.4 kwh of dirty electricity(*) from my local utility Pepco just to get it into my home. So when I buy 400 kwh of clean electricity I'm also buying 160 kwh of dirty electricity with it...


(*) 37% OF the electricity will be from coal burning plants

[1]
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...endly-vehicles

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lug-in-hybrids

ItsNotAboutTheMoney 06-13-2012 07:00 PM

Re: The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ksstathead (Post 347131)
One could argue the decline in consumption merely corresponds to a decline in economic activity...

Hopefully the economy finds a way to recover AND get more efficient, but the efficiencies tend to be gradual, especially in a drill, baby, drill environment.

I believe the peak of gasoline consumption (don't know about petroleum) was in 2006 and consumption has been falling steadily with the fleet gradually becoming more efficient.

The past year should be instructive to everybody: the price has reacted quickly and sharply to supply constraints and changes in economic growth in the larger consumers. Buy a guzzler in haste and repent at leisure.

300TTto545 06-13-2012 07:06 PM

Re: The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%
 
That SA article was the one I was thinking of.

If it is true, then buying a Leaf or Volt will not change my carbon footprint from my HCH-II.

Amazing the comments on that article - one would think Scientific American readers would have more sense than an average american.

Now the baseload argument is probably a good one. But you have to love the argument (comment from the article) that enough baseload is wasted to charge 3 times the total number of vehicles in the US if they were all EVs. Obviously not true.

ksstathead 06-14-2012 09:46 AM

Re: The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%
 
looking at the eia #'s here
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons...s_mbblpd_a.htm

it is hard for me to see a reduction apart from the crash of 2008/2009 from which we are still feeling the effects.

As was suggested, it is cherry picking to compare pre/post crash data over such a short period.

ksstathead 06-14-2012 09:50 AM

Re: The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%
 
And here is production history:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

We are on a fracking binge in a period of high crude prices, so it makes sense we would see an upward blip in production. It's not like we are returning to 1970 production levels. Ever.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2006 - 2013, Clean MPG LLC. All Rights Reserved.