Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday May 4, 2016
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-06-2012, 11:59 AM   #76
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post
Shale sourced NG has life cycle co2 emissions on par with gasoline, iirc. Burning it is cleaner but getting it from the earth isn't.
This may be true, but I doubt it since gasoline is getting dirtier too. Tar sands etc.. I know the worst issue for CO2 emissions has nothing at all to do with that.

Rather it is that having a bajillion cars using CH4 means you will leak a lot of CH4. CH4 is 60x more potent than CO2 as a green house gas. Fail on climate issues.

From an energy security standpoint only CH4 in vehicles makes sense. From a climate change standpoint it is far better to burn it in homes, power plants, etc... and leave vehicles running on something else while hybridizing.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 08-06-2012, 01:53 PM   #77
Masterauto
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 198376
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Delaware
Vehicle:
STI E30 M3
Nissan GT-R 15

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post
Shale sourced NG has life cycle co2 emissions on par with gasoline, iirc. Burning it is cleaner but getting it from the earth isn't.
Same goes for Power Plant that make electricity. Many burn coal. A PZEV Subaru gas motor makes less pollution that electric when power generation pollution considered.
Masterauto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 02:14 PM   #78
Rootus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89821
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: A Series Of Toobs
Vehicle:
2015 STI LE

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterauto View Post
Same goes for Power Plant that make electricity. Many burn coal. A PZEV Subaru gas motor makes less pollution that electric when power generation pollution considered.
That's true for about half the population, and only when compared to a Prius. For a Subaru, a lot more than half the population would pollute less with an EV.
Rootus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 03:14 PM   #79
JC
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 692
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
2011 Grand Cherokee
Triumph Speed Triple R

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterauto View Post
Instead of making autos multi fuel like they successfully did in Brazil Obama decided we will all drive electric cars.A better idea would be to have autos use LNG or CNG as we now have abundant supply of clean burning gas. I wonder if he ever sat and waited for one to recharge? Not much has changed in 100 years battery technology. Too slow to recharge and not enough miles between charges.
Plenty of cars in the US can run on ethanol or gasoline. We just don't have a cheap sustainable source of ethanol like Brazil does (which is raping their rain forest to grow sugar cane BTW). Electricity makes by far the most sense. You can easily change the source of power based on what makes sense for the locality and better battery technology has wide reaching implications beyond automotive. LNG or CNG is just punting the problem down the road until those become scarce like gasoline. Electric cars are a far more future proof solution since they are energy source agnostic.
JC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 04:08 PM   #80
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterauto View Post
Same goes for Power Plant that make electricity. Many burn coal. A PZEV Subaru gas motor makes less pollution that electric when power generation pollution considered.
PZEV is a pretty useless metric, and doesn't consider upstream emissions. From the PZEV standpoint and EV is perfectly clean...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC View Post
Plenty of cars in the US can run on ethanol or gasoline. We just don't have a cheap sustainable source of ethanol like Brazil does (which is raping their rain forest to grow sugar cane BTW). Electricity makes by far the most sense. You can easily change the source of power based on what makes sense for the locality and better battery technology has wide reaching implications beyond automotive. LNG or CNG is just punting the problem down the road until those become scarce like gasoline. Electric cars are a far more future proof solution since they are energy source agnostic.
Exactly If we can get this working we can use wind, solar, nuclear, gas, coal, oil, whatever.... If we convert to NG we expend a huge amount of resources to get infrastructure ready and then what? We end up needing to deal with the same problem again.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 04:39 PM   #81
alphaomega0
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 147678
Join Date: Apr 2007
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: montreal
Vehicle:
07 wrx
obsidien black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ocellaris View Post
A lot of people buying EVs are well off and get them as third/forth vehicles. They will buy this as a tool to get groceries, or something to drive their 2.5 kids back and forth to private school every day. When anyone ask them about the car, they will tell them it is "SSSOOO NICE!"

Then those same people will hop in their V8 Yukon and get 12 MPG anytime they want to drive further than 15 miles from their house. But they won't care, because if you can drop $50K on a spare EV, you can afford to put gas in the Yukon.

Granted some people do buy EVs and use them as their only vehicle, however I think those are in the minority compared to people buying one as a lifestyle car.

i dont know a single person who owns a EV as a single and only motive of transportation. when i was in university , my capstone project was on wireless charging of EV cars, which is pretty much the future if this keeps going, on a side note its a 100+ years old technology from tesla so go figure. until the range gets into 300-400km its not worth it
alphaomega0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 06:48 PM   #82
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
'07 Land Cruiser
'12 RAV4 EV

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post
Shale sourced NG has life cycle co2 emissions on par with gasoline, iirc. Burning it is cleaner but getting it from the earth isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterauto View Post
Same goes for Power Plant that make electricity. Many burn coal. A PZEV Subaru gas motor makes less pollution that electric when power generation pollution considered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rootus View Post
That's true for about half the population, and only when compared to a Prius. For a Subaru, a lot more than half the population would pollute less with an EV.
Masterauto: Why are you rehashing busted arguments? You already posted in my earlier thread in which the UCS definitively rebuts your argument: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2339812



Indeed, as Rootus points out, the EV only "loses" to a Prius in a few select regions, and even in the "worst" region (CO, at 33 MPGghg) that 33 MPGghg is still cleaner than the 30 MPG combined that the cleanest Impreza is capable of: http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32532 .

(For the record, Long Island is an "unclean" region, too, at 39 MPGghg, so until we move back to Seattle in 10 months our Prius is truly the greener choice, as it were. Also note that any future EVs driven by my wife or me in Seattle on Green Up program electricity would have 0 per-mile CO2 emissions, infinitely better than any gasoline or even NGV.)
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 07:50 PM   #83
Indocti Discant
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 138000
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: et ament meminisse periti
Vehicle:
L Bo Hope you meet
the spirit in the sky

Default

it's masterauto. hes demonstrated rather silly behavior in the past.
Indocti Discant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 08:33 PM   #84
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post
(For the record, Long Island is an "unclean" region, too, at 39 MPGghg, so until we move back to Seattle in 10 months our Prius is truly the greener choice, as it were. Also note that any future EVs driven by my wife or me in Seattle on Green Up program electricity would have 0 per-mile CO2 emissions, infinitely better than any gasoline or even NGV.)
Remember what he said was a PZEV emits less than an EV when you include upstream emissions. That is still likely true if you are excluding upstream emissions for the PZEV vehicle Making batteries takes quite a bit of energy. In the use phase there is no doubt that an EV is better even burning coal than a regular vehicle. And CO2 is better than PZEV
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 04:47 PM   #85
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
'07 Land Cruiser
'12 RAV4 EV

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty
Remember what he said was a PZEV emits less than an EV when you include upstream emissions. That is still likely true if you are excluding upstream emissions for the PZEV vehicle Making batteries takes quite a bit of energy. In the use phase there is no doubt that an EV is better even burning coal than a regular vehicle. And CO2 is better than PZEV


Note significantly lower life cycle CO2 for the BEV, including manufacture (that's the "battery" and "vehicle" parts at the bottom of each column). Full assumptions in the 2012 paper, noting that older ones based off of NiMH chemistry aren't necessarily valid anymore:

http://www.environment.ucla.edu/medi...012-rh-ptd.pdf
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 08:18 PM   #86
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post


Note significantly lower life cycle CO2 for the BEV, including manufacture (that's the "battery" and "vehicle" parts at the bottom of each column). Full assumptions in the 2012 paper, noting that older ones based off of NiMH chemistry aren't necessarily valid anymore:

http://www.environment.ucla.edu/medi...012-rh-ptd.pdf
HAHAHAH thanks that is awesome. I wrote a paper and fought tooth and nail not to include the upstream stuff b/c it was based on NiMH instead of LiIon. This study is in CA though. CA electricity. I presume for manufacturing as well which kind of ruins its applicability since manufactures go where electricity is cheap.

It says the kg CO2 per mile goes from .18 to .29 if you change to US average mix instead of CA.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 09:44 PM   #87
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
'07 Land Cruiser
'12 RAV4 EV

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty
It says the kg CO2 per mile goes from .18 to .29 if you change to US average mix instead of CA.
All of the UCS-defined "best" regions from a few posts up should be comparable to Cali in CO2/mile, with specific states far better (WA/OR/ID/VT/etc.). On the other hand, it's of note that China's 79% coal power generation mix means their lungs will be black for generations, no matter the motive force for their cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty
This study is in CA though. CA electricity. I presume for manufacturing as well which kind of ruins its applicability since manufactures go where electricity is cheap.
Page 4: they assumed batteries made in China, car parts in Mexico, assembly in Detroit, and accounted for transport between these places, no less. Seems like a fair assumption, +/- Smryna, TN vs Detroit.

Last edited by shikataganai; 08-09-2012 at 09:59 AM.
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 11:08 AM   #88
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
'07 Land Cruiser
'12 RAV4 EV

Default

Here are a few fun factoids for future use, derived from page 18. On that page they state the conventional vehicle would need 63 MPG combined on today's gas to equal the life cycle emissions of a BEV with 1.5 battery replacements* over 180,000 miles.

Plug in their assumed 15% increase in well-to-pump carbon emissions for tar sands-derived gas in the future (page 6), convert figures to diesel (incl. higher energy density, etc.), and then one can see that a non-hybrid diesel vehicle would need to get 83 MPG combined to equal the life cycle emissions of a BEV driven off Caifornia's power grid. Needless to say, I don't think that's technically feasible for normal form factor vehicles as the subject of this paper: again, note again that this is for combined cycle mileage, not just the highway figure.

* Also on page 18 are how their numbers are affected by assuming 1, 1.5, or 2 batteries over the expected 180,000 lifetime of the BEV. 1.5 batteries (ie, new battery at 120,000 miles) is their base case assumption used in generating that chart a post or two up. Assuming the battery could last the whole 180,000 miles reduces life cycle emissions by 8.5%, while assuming it would need complete replacement at 90,000 miles would increase the same by 8.0%. In other words, battery replacement or lack thereof doesn't matter that much compared to energy use while running and charging the thing, marking the death knell of yet another anti-BEV talking point.

Last edited by shikataganai; 08-09-2012 at 09:58 AM.
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 07:43 PM   #89
DCCDPro
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 227549
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Default

3000km's and still lovin' the Volt!

We haven't even used 100ml of gasoline so the computer still says something like >2000mpg, lol.

Here is our link to our car on Volt Stats:
https://www.voltstats.net/Stats/Details/1181

We are using 3/4 of the battery range every day...and our electricity bill has gone up about $75 / 2 months. (However, it's hard to tell because we got it May 25 or so and then started using air cond in the house.)

Not that many people want to hear that though.
DCCDPro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 08:58 PM   #90
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
'07 Land Cruiser
'12 RAV4 EV

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCCDPro
3000km's and still lovin' the Volt!

We haven't even used 100ml of gasoline so the computer still says something like >2000mpg, lol.

Here is our link to our car on Volt Stats:
https://www.voltstats.net/Stats/Details/1181

We are using 3/4 of the battery range every day...and our electricity bill has gone up about $75 / 2 months. (However, it's hard to tell because we got it May 25 or so and then started using air cond in the house.)

Not that many people want to hear that though.
You could have gotten a BEV sans gas engine instead given this usage.

Anyway, 89 MPGe: nice. That's, what, 380 Wh/mi? Call it 1800 miles, 430 Wh/mi accounting for charging inefficiency, 10 cent/kWh electricity, and that's $77 for that distance. Spot on.
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 09:24 AM   #91
scott_gunn
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4203
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Vehicle:
2009 WRX 5spd hatch
Platinum Silver Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCCDPro View Post
3000km's and still lovin' the Volt!

We haven't even used 100ml of gasoline so the computer still says something like >2000mpg, lol.

Here is our link to our car on Volt Stats:
https://www.voltstats.net/Stats/Details/1181

We are using 3/4 of the battery range every day...and our electricity bill has gone up about $75 / 2 months. (However, it's hard to tell because we got it May 25 or so and then started using air cond in the house.)

Not that many people want to hear that though.
That's awesome!
scott_gunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 10:17 AM   #92
warpath
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 84622
Join Date: Apr 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: -=OT B-Lister=-
Vehicle:
2016 TR Golf R
1992 MKIII Supra

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indocti Discant View Post
it's masterauto. hes demonstrated rather silly behavior in the past.

warpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 10:30 AM   #93
DCCDPro
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 227549
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post
You could have gotten a BEV sans gas engine instead given this usage.

Anyway, 89 MPGe: nice. That's, what, 380 Wh/mi? Call it 1800 miles, 430 Wh/mi accounting for charging inefficiency, 10 cent/kWh electricity, and that's $77 for that distance. Spot on.
Well, I was on a waiting list for a year for a Leaf and was totally committed to the idea until an allocation popped up for a Volt (through a family member who is in charge of sales at one of the big dealerships here).

I'm actually glad I got the Volt for a few reasons.
1. The Leafs have no thermal battery management, and it seems like that was a bad decision...their range is dropping at an alarming rate after purchase.
2. They are built in the US, and several components are built by my customers up here in Canada. Support your local suppliers!
3. Electricity is only 6.5c per kwh here, and mostly generated by renewables.
4. The "what if" factor...I'm still not comfortable knowing I may run out of juice, or want to take a longer trip than usual. If I need to run some gas I can.

Btw, the little 6km gas use range we are showing on the Voltstats website is due to 3km put on by the dealer under prep, and 2 "maintenance mode" cycles that have to run once every 42 days or so.

That site is pretty cool, it links to our OnStar and gets all its info automatically....I can't enter data manually so its very accurate.
DCCDPro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 10:52 AM   #94
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
'07 Land Cruiser
'12 RAV4 EV

Default

The thermal issues seem to be limited, and only in really hot climates, much unlike your native Ontario. Fair enough with wanting to support local suppliers, though.

Perhaps you'll be cured of range anxiety after owning the Volt for a few years and consistently not getting into charge-sustaining mode mileage. Then you could step up to a BMW i3 or Infiniti LE...
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 10:53 AM   #95
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
'07 Land Cruiser
'12 RAV4 EV

Default

The thermal issues seem to be limited, and only in really hot climates, much unlike your native Ontario. Fair enough with wanting to support local suppliers, though.

Perhaps you'll be cured of range anxiety after owning the Volt for a few years and consistently not getting into charge-sustaining mode mileage. Then you could step up to a BMW i3 or Infiniti LE...
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 11:59 AM   #96
Indocti Discant
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 138000
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: et ament meminisse periti
Vehicle:
L Bo Hope you meet
the spirit in the sky

Default

how long can gas stay stable in a volt?
Indocti Discant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 01:37 PM   #97
DCCDPro
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 227549
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indocti Discant View Post
how long can gas stay stable in a volt?
I have no idea...I have a full tank that appears as though it may last a hundred years.
DCCDPro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 01:45 PM   #98
Indocti Discant
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 138000
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: et ament meminisse periti
Vehicle:
L Bo Hope you meet
the spirit in the sky

Default

there has to be something GM says about gas / the ICE not being used over a long period of time.
Indocti Discant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 02:19 PM   #99
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCCDPro View Post
I have no idea...I have a full tank that appears as though it may last a hundred years.
I think every 6 months or so it does maintenance mode and burns a bit of gas.

I found this
Quote:
If the engine hasn’t started after six weeks, the powertrain controller sends a message to the driver telling him the engine needs to run for maintenance to cycle the fuel and lubricate parts of the vehicle.
But I think you have already gone 6 weeks right?

Quote:
"We knew early on that it was a fast program," he said, and so GM began talking with other OEMs and CARB to figure out how to design a fuel system that would work with a plug-in vehicle, because a conventional system wouldn't work. The most important thing to figure out was how to handle evaporative emissions and prevent hydrocarbons from getting into the air.

Typically, in a standard vehicle, the fuel system captures errant hydrocarbons in a canister and, when the engine runs, it purges that canister. "This time," Stec said, "we don't have the engine running all the time, so what do you do? Do you put a gargantuan canister down there and hope that whatever hydrocarbons you're going to develop – typically because of temperature changes and fuel fill – will be caught? That's not very feasible."

So, with all of this close attention paid to the vapors, what happens if you put in regular gas? Not much, Stec said. The pressure system can handle different octane levels, and the premium fuel certification was mostly done to get an improved fuel economy rating. "Will the world end if you put in regular? No, but we recommend premium fuel," Stec said.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 04:04 PM   #100
shikataganai
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
'07 Land Cruiser
'12 RAV4 EV

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
But I think you have already gone 6 weeks right?
That's why he wrote:

Quote:
Btw, the little 6km gas use range we are showing on the Voltstats website is due to 3km put on by the dealer under prep, and 2 "maintenance mode" cycles that have to run once every 42 days or so.
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can you hear me now? *splash* rogue Off-Topic 17 11-02-2005 12:37 PM
Can you hear your stock STi BOV? Padge Newbies & FAQs 15 12-02-2004 12:03 AM
@ what RPM can you hear BOV??? IMPRZME Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain (EJ Series Factory 2.0L Turbo) 15 10-27-2004 11:38 AM
Can you hear a Exhaust leak?? Tailspinz General Community 8 09-07-2004 02:50 PM
Attn: WebKris, can you hear me? JGard New England Impreza Club Forum -- NESIC 1 10-07-2002 11:40 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2016 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2016, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.