Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs

Expand Messages
  • Yodda Pierce
    I think beyond the regen. braking we know that going an average speed of 60 MPH highway is double the city driving average speed (at least where I live) of 30
    Message 1 of 41 , Jan 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I think beyond the regen. braking we know that going an average speed of 60 MPH highway is double the city driving average speed (at least where I live) of 30 MPH.   The force against the car is not just double but the square of the speed.   So at 60 MPH the force is 4 times that of 30 MPH.  So it is easy to see why the fuel economy is therefore less for the EV at highway speeds.   In the past the ICE cars got worse fuel economy in the city because they idled continuously at stopping periods burning a similar amount of fuel to driving speed.  The EV doesn't have this issue, plus the regen brakes that you mentioned.

      --- On Sat, 1/8/11, Arcologic@... <Arcologic@...> wrote:


      From: Arcologic@... <Arcologic@...>
      Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
      To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, January 8, 2011, 1:36 PM


       




      Hello, Murdoch,

      You said--
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Hi: Please see below:

      [Default] On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:22:09 -0500 (EST), Arcologic@...
      wrote:

      [...]
      >And, here I can easily see that the electric mode does
      >better in the city while the gas mode is better on the
      >highway. (Why is that, anyway?)
      [...]

      I think it's because in some (but not all) electrified vehicles, the
      regen braking is strong enough, and well-implemented enough, such that
      the stop-start of city driving helps the overall mileage, as compared
      to highway, where the brakes are rarely applied.

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Your answer was just fine if referring to a regular IC car compared to an EV /PHEV. But, in this case for the Volt, the two sets of EPA figures were for the same car! I can't see how the hiway vs city trend can reverse in the same car with the same regen capability. You aren't expected to explain this, I think it is inexplicable.

      Ernie Rogers

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Oliver Perry
      Thanks a million.. you are the first person to give me some advice. I don t feel like chucking out a dehumidifier if it can be fixed in an hour so so by me..
      Message 41 of 41 , Jan 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks a million.. you are the first person to give me some advice. I don't feel like chucking out a dehumidifier if it can be fixed in an hour so so by me.. or can be repaired in a shop for $100. They cost me over 200 dollars each and the last two have not lasted more than several years.

        Time is my main concern.. too many projects going and I can't afford to get caught up in time wasters. I need to discover a quick way to diagnose the problem. I have zero experience with these things and a hostile attitude toward manufacturers who make throw away items locked in plastic.

        Ollie
        On Jan 18, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Yodda Pierce wrote:

        > Oliver,
        >
        > Well, it might not be the coolant loss in your dehumidifiers. It could be a stuck check valve or capillary tube, perhaps even a malfunctioning expansion valve. If it is the coolant, many smaller dehumidifies do not come with access valves to add coolant. Therefore the unit would have to be purged of coolant and the access valves added. Could be expensive like $100-150 . But it depends what you paid for the unit.
        >
        > Yodda
        >
        >
        >
        > --- On Sat, 1/15/11, Oliver Perry <perrydap@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > From: Oliver Perry <perrydap@...>
        > Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Heat pump Theory
        > To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Saturday, January 15, 2011, 12:01 PM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Thanks for your in depth explanation. It makes sense.
        >
        > On a side note... I have several de-humidifiers that just stopped taking moisture out of the air. I assume the operating fluid within them was lost and that they are not worth fixing. Do you have any experience with these... they are essentially heat pumps.
        >
        > Ollie
        > On Jan 15, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Yodda Pierce wrote:
        >
        >> Well let's first review our principles of thermodynamics which are important in the operation of a heat pump:
        >>
        >> 1. Energy can be neither created or destroyed
        >>
        >> 2. Heat always flows from hotter to colder areas or objects
        >>
        >> I just want to make sure we understand each other in that when a liquid changes to gas a tremendous amount of energy is required to change states. For the liquid to exist at the gaseous state it would reduce the temperature of the gas unless outside energy source is used. With regard to the heat pump this is how the heat pump cools inside air of a building. A compressed hot liquid is transferred from the outside coil to the inside coil and expansion valves allow the hot liquid to expand to a gas. As this happens a tremendous of heat is required during the latent heat of vaporization . The compressed liquid freon which might be 90 F -100 F then changes to a cool gas as it passes through the expansion valve. The freon is then changed to a gas that might be around 35- 45F depending on the expansion and metering valves in the heat pump. The metering valve assures a precise flow of coolant through the coil to maintain a precise
        >> temperature of the coil. The temperature is determined based on the temperature of the incoming warm pressurized liquid coolant coming from the outside coil. After the gaseous coolant has absorbed a significant amount of heat from the inside air, the coolant is now transferred to the the compressor as a room temperature say 60-70 F gas. The compressor then compresses it to a very high temperature liquid. in the outside coil. The warm air from a 90-100 F day would cool this high pressure coolant. This is the way the heat pump can effectively reverse the flow of heat in principle 2. Because the coolant is actually much hotter than the outside air, It might be maybe 150 F for example, so the cool 100 F air reduces its temperature. The heat pump mode is simple the reverse with the compressor transferring hot liquid coolant to the inside air handler. When the pressure is reduced after moving to the outside air handling the gas
        >> might be -20- 40 F depending on the system. The gas absorbs heat from the air on a cold winter day of 30 F. The heat pump at this temperature can still operate reasonably efficiently and have a COP of around 2.5 (2.5 times the heat of a space heater) See the table I posted in the files area for an example. Of course one complication in these COP values would be the development of frost on the outside coil. This can interfere with the heat exchange process. The heat must be melted by "reverse cycling) where the heat pump switches to cooling mode. During these periods (typical relative humidity above 70% and temperature below 40 F) the heat pump efficiency will drop below the table listed numbers.
        >>
        >> So I hope I explained the process. The heats of vaporization and condensation do not cancel each other out or there would not be any heating or cooling possible. They allow the freon to absorb heat from cold air and give up heat to very warm air. Without the huge change in temperaturere that results during the latent heat of vaporization and condensation it would be hard to obtain heat from cold air and give up heat to very hot air. One other thing, a BTU , British Thermal Unit is defined as the energy required to raise one pound of water one degree. The latent heat of vaporization would require 900 BTUs to change that one pound of water to a gas!. That should put in perspective how important state changes between gas and liquid are for a heat pump. One other note is that many heat pump use a freon called R-22. R-22 is a CFC depletor and is being phased out. The new freon is R-410a which will not damage the ozone layer.
        >> The problem with it is it does not transfer energy as well as R-22. Essentially it is 30 % less effective at doing so. As a result you will see that new heat pumps use larger outside coils and pressure levels from the compressor to compensate for this deficiency. Amny people are not aware of the fact that the new R-410 is in fact inferior in its heat exchanging properties to R-22.
        >>
        >> See Heat Pump Performance file under files section and Trane XR-12 Perfromance at Outside Temperature for more information:at the below link:
        >>
        >> http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/files/
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> Yodda
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> --- On Fri, 1/14/11, Oliver Perry <perrydap@...> wrote:
        >>
        >>
        >> From: Oliver Perry <perrydap@...>
        >> Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
        >> To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
        >> Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 4:35 PM
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> Question Yodda.. I also overlooked the heat of condensation and vaporization when I first tried to figure out how the heat pump worked. When the working gas Freon vaporizes after compression the change an adiabatic change, (taking heat from within itself and lowering its own temperature) or an isothermal change (taking the heat from the outside air and in an attempt to to keep the temperature of the gas constant) or both? And again, when the gas is condensed I does all of the heat liberated go into the room or is it used again to evaporate the gas? Do the heats of vaporization and condensation cancel each other out over the whole cycle? If the heat of vaporization comes from the outside air and the heat of condensation goes to the inside air that would seem to me to be a real good deal.
        >>
        >> O.H.Perry
        >> EEVC
        >> On Jan 13, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Oliver Perry wrote:
        >>
        >>> Excellent explanation Yodda. I never saw the natural flow of warmer to cooler heat sources and sinks in the compressor cycle until I was forced to by both Ernie and you. It now makes sense and as you say it is quite an incredible principle, one that I would have never discovered on my own. By the way, your explanation is one of the best I have read. Thanks,
        >>>
        >>> Ollie
        >>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Yodda Pierce wrote:
        >>>
        >>>> Oliver,
        >>>>
        >>>> I think from what I read, your understanding of thermodynamics and physics is accurate, the situation with heat pumps is interesting and unusual because they transfer heat from outside air. Even at 0 F many air source heat pumps still have a COP of around 2, (see the heat pump performance table in the Files area) meaning they pruduce twice the heat of a resistance heater for same electrical input. So there is still substantial heat energy, even at 0 F. Seems incredible, but true. And actually many newer air source heat pumps have COP values much higher as they employ "towers" vs. "cubes" normally used for the outside heat exchanger. So as far as conservation of energy, you are correct in your theory, you simply forgot about the outside air source as an input. In the case of the typical heat pump having a COP of 3, 1 unit of heat is derived from the electrical input, while the 2 come from the outside air. Here is how it works
        >>>> simple put. The compressor in heat pump mode compresses coolant (freeon) until it gets very hot (maybe 130 F -150 F) in the air handlers inside coil. After that heat energy is distrubuted by a fan to the home (90-100 F typically) and expansion valve depressurizes the coolant and it moves toward the outside coil where it is typically very cold like maybe -20 F or lower, so then the outside air blows across it at 0 F and warms it! If the outside air is 50 F there is more energy and instead of COP being 2 at 0 F it might be 3 or more at 50 F because the energy content in 50 F is greater than that of 0 F. Then the process restarts as that -20 F coolant might be warmed to 10 F through the outside coil before it is sent to compressor to be pressurized to the inside air handler coil. Hope that makes sense. ALso, as we know there is a huge amount of heat lost as a vapor goes from gas to liquid. Freon uses the changing of these states
        >>>> (latent heat of vaorization/condensation) to transfer hear efficiently and effectively.
        >>>>
        >>>> Yodda
        >>>>
        >>>> --- On Thu, 1/13/11, Oliver Perry <perrydap@...> wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> From: Oliver Perry <perrydap@...>
        >>>> Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
        >>>> To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
        >>>> Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 9:28 AM
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> To the Group.
        >>>> Thanks Ernie and Yodda for expanding my understanding of heat pumps and the physics involved. I was wrong in several of my assumptions regarding the conservation of energy principle in heat pump theory. Athough I understand the conservation of energy principle I didn't understand the language and proper applications of thermodynamic laws to heat pumps. Actually as I am beginning to better understand the concept I am pretty amazed. Ernie was right it is more efficient for us to use our electricity to run a heat pump than a resistive electric heater. It seems as if the electric energy input to the heat pump triggers a natural flow of energy from the outside surrounding into the space we wish to heat, thereby multiplying our input energy. I thought that all of the energy we put into the room was limited through the conservation of energy law to the input energy we put into the pump. Added energy comes in from another source, a point I missed. I still am
        >>>> somewhat unsure how that energy is transferred but I suspect it is a natural flow of energy from a hot source to a cold sink created by the heat pump. I have trouble seeing that because the outside air is colder than the inside air of the room being heated. I thought that the heat created by pressurizing the gas could not exceed the work done by the pump,, which could not exceed the input energy of the electric motor. But additional energy out side the home must flow into that gas on one side of the cycle and flow out into the room on the other side automatically without taking energy from the pump. Please correct me if I am wrong.
        >>>>
        >>>> Are heat pumps feasible for heating in electric cars?
        >>>>
        >>>> Thanks,
        >>>>
        >>>> Ollie
        >>>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Yodda Pierce wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>> Ernie,
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Uploaded a few files for you in the Files area on heat pumps. I hope the info. is useful
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Yodda
        >>>>>
        >>>>> --- On Tue, 1/11/11, Arcologic@... <Arcologic@...> wrote:
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> From: Arcologic@... <Arcologic@...>
        >>>>> Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
        >>>>> To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
        >>>>> Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 10:58 PM
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Thanks for the update, Yodda.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Ernie Rogers
        >>>>>
        >>>>> -----Original Message-----
        >>>>> From: Yodda Pierce <ntsl532@...>
        >>>>> To: future-fuels-and-vehicles <future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com>
        >>>>> Sent: Tue, Jan 11, 2011 11:21 am
        >>>>> Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Hello Ernie and Oliver and the rest of group,
        >>>>>
        >>>>> I am getting into this discussion a little bit late, as I'm just returning now to the group, but I had to jump in here because Ernie has presented some data here that is misleading or factually incorrect. Allow me to explain.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Ernie stated that the heat pump has a COP of around 3-4. Actually a heat pump can have a COP of up 20 depending on the design. Typical air source heat pumps are now in the range of 3-4. And good geothermal systems are typically from 4 -6.5. You can go to a website like Trane or Wikipedia to verify these facts.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> For almost all places in the US the heat pump is the most economical way to heat a house. Natural gas is still second unless the heat pump is really dated or you ar epaying a really high price per kWh.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Yodda
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> --- On Mon, 1/10/11, Arcologic@... <Arcologic@...> wrote:
        >>>>>
        >>>>> From: Arcologic@... <Arcologic@...>
        >>>>> Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
        >>>>> To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
        >>>>> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 9:59 PM
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Hello, Oliver,
        >>>>>
        >>>>> I will offer a few comments and then maybe we can give others a chance to make suggestions.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> "Work" is a good term to refer to a general kind of energy. In thermodynamics, the proper term is the "free energy."
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Free energy can be defined as the ability to do work and would include electrical energy as a particular form.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Now, about heat pumps--
        >>>>>
        >>>>> A heat engine by definition converts input heat at a high temperature ( QH at TH ) into Work ( W ) plus some rejected heat ( QL) at a low temperature ( TL). The most useful statement of the second law is the common Carnot efficiency, the maximum performance of a heat engine operating between specified temperatures. This is an ideal engine-- the analysis assumes zero friction and all steps are reversible. The first law provides this relationship -- QH = QL + W
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Here is the formula for the Carnot efficiency, the theoretical maximum work you can get out of a given amount of heat.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> η = 1 – TL/TH = W/QH
        >>>>>
        >>>>> The second part is the definition of efficiency, work you get out divided by the heat you put in. (Notice that the denominator is input heat, not work of any kind, such as electricity.)
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Now, let's define the efficiency of a heat pump. You input some work and the "pump" moves heat from a low temperature to a higher temperature. The energy put in as work has to go somewhere, and so it is added into making more heat. Notice that the engine we are talking about above is completely reversible, step by step. That means (theoretically) that you can run the engine backwards and all of the relationships are still the same. A good definition for the efficiency of the heat pump is the heat you get out at the high temperature divided by the work you have to put in. This has a special name, coefficient of performance, or COP, for the heat pump--
        >>>>>
        >>>>> COP = QH /W
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Do you see that this is just the inverse of the engine efficiency? So, then, here is the formula for ideal COP of a heat pump--
        >>>>>
        >>>>> COP = 1/η = TH /(TH-TL)
        >>>>>
        >>>>> While the engine efficiency is less than one, the COP of a real heat pump can be greater than one, sometimes as high as three or four, depending on the operating conditions. (The definition of COP for refrigeration is slightly different.)
        >>>>>
        >>>>> To repeat the previous point, we see here that if you have electricity as your source of energy and you want to heat a building with it, by operating a heat pump, you can get three, four times, or even more heat out than the work that you put in as electricity. A clear illustration of the greater value of electricity compared to heat.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Ernie Rogers.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> -----Original Message-----
        >>>>> From: Oliver Perry <perrydap@...>
        >>>>> To: future-fuels-and-vehicles <future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com>
        >>>>> Sent: Mon, Jan 10, 2011 11:47 am
        >>>>> Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Attention: Group, THANKS ERNIE FOR THE CHALLENGE. Please allow me to use inserted bold type AND SOME CAPS to address the following. MY REMARKS ARE DIRECTED PARTICULARLY TO ERNIE BUT OTHERS MAY FIND OUR DISCUSSION OF INTEREST AND MIGHT PROVIDE SOME USEFUL COMMENTS. Scroll down.
        >>>>> O.H.Perry
        >>>>> EEVC
        >>>>> On Jan 8, 2011, at 12:03 AM, Arcologic@... wrote:
        >>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Hello, Oliver,
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Let's start by talking about forms of energy--
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Ernie,, it might be helpful if you provided a clear specific definition of what you mean by high value, low value, and medium value energy. Further down you imply that the value rating has something to do our ability to use that energy. What is the quantitative mathematical relationship between high, low, and medium or are they more or less qualitative terms? Generally speaking we measure energy in energy units. What units do we use when measuring high, low, and medium energy in and where are the cut off points between them?
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> 1) Work-- high value energy. This includes electricity
        >>>>>> 2) Heat-- low value energy.
        >>>>>> 3) Light-- medium value.
        >>>>>> 4) Stored energy-- can be any of the above, from heat (e.g., fused salt, low) to electricity (e.g., battery, high)
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> You can do all sorts of useful things with work (electricity) WORK IS FORCE TIMES DISTANCE... CAN WE ELIMINATE THE WORD WORK AND JUST USE ELECTRICITY? with few restrictions. But heatAPPLIED TO ENGINES has limited use, and can only be converted to work by paying a price in terms of lost "waste" heat. AS ONE OF THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS STATES YOU CANNOT CONVERT ALL OF THE HEAT PUT INTO AN ENGINE INTO USEFUL WORK Heat engines do this. By contrast, work can be used to pump heat from a low temperature to a high temperature, NOT CLEAR WHAT YOU MEAN FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE TO A HIGH TEMPERATURE.. DO YOU MEAN FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE SOURCE TO A HIGH TEMPERATURE SOURCE? USING A PUMP,, APPLYING A FORCE TIMES A DISTANCE.. ONE CAN TRANSFER HEAT FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE REGION TO A HIGH TEMPERATURE REGION OR DO YOU MEAN ONE CAN PERFORM WORK WITH A PUMP (FORCE TIMES DISTANCE) AND PRODUCE AN AMOUNT OF HEAT EQUIVALENT TO THE WORK DONE? essentially creating more heat
        >>>>> than the work that was put in, often three times as much.FALSE... FALSE..AND FALSE . YOUR STATEMENT VIOLATES THE FIRST AND SECOND LAW OF THERMODYAMICS. WORK AND ENERGY ARE EQUIVALENT. YOU CAN NEVER PRODUCE MORE HEAT IN A CLOSED SYSTEM THAN THE WORK YOU DO ON THAT CLOSED SYSTEM. IF THERE IS THREE TIMES AS MUCH HEAT AT THE END OF THE PROCESS THEN THE SYSTEM WAS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM AND THE ADDED HEAT CAME IN FROM SOME PLACE OTHER THAN FROM THE WORK (FORCE TIMES THE DISTANCE) DONE ON THE PUMP PISTON. This demonstrates that work has higher value. FALSE TOTALLY FALSE YOU NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC AND NOTE IN WHICH CASES THAT MIGHT BE TRUE Note that light can also be converted to electricity (work) with some loss, but theoretically it is more efficient than starting with heat. I SORT OF UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT BY COMPARING LIGHT ENERGY TO HEAT ENERGY BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU MADE CLEAR EXACTLY IN WHAT APPLICATION YOU ARE REFERRING TO. ARE
        >> YOU
        >>>>> SAYING WE CAN MORE EFFICIE NTLY CONVERT LIGHT ENERGY TO ELECTRICAL ENERGY THAN FROM HEAT ENERGY TO ELECTRICAL? SO FAR IT HAS BEEN CHEAPER TO MASS PRODUCE ELECTRICITY BY USE OF COAL THAN BY USE OF PHOTOCELLS IN TERMS OF COST EFFICIENCY. SOLAR PANELS ARE NOT KNOWN FOR BEING EFFICIENT CONVERTERS OF LIGHT TO ELECTRICITY ARE THEY? IS A DIESEL GENERATOR MORE EFFICIENT THAN A SOLAR PANEL? I REALIZE THAT SUN ENERGY IS FREE BUT WHEN YOU TAKE THE ACTUAL ENERGY IN A PHOTON AND CONVERT IT TO ENERGY IN AN ELECTRON WHAT IS THE LOSS? I DON'T KNOW THE EFFICIENCY RATINGS OF THE LATEST SOLAR PANELS. AT ONE TIME I HEARD THAT THE TYPICAL MASS PRODUCED SOLAR PANEL WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE TEENS WHEN IT CAME TO EFFICIENCY, BUT LATELY I HAVE HEARD OF EFFICIENCIES OVER TWENTY PERCENT FOR THE MORE EXPENSIVE PANELS. I REALLY NEED to UPDATE MYSELF ON THIS.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> A fuel represents stored energy. Putting it in a fuel cell gives high-value electricity. ERNIE, I KNOW THAT AT ONE TIME FUEL CELLS OPERATED IN THE 30 % RANGE... DON'T GOOD DIESELS GET BETTER THAN THAT? I SEE THAT FURTHER DOWN YOU ADVOCATE USING A NATURAL GAS CERAMIC FUEL CELL.. I KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THESE. Burning a fuel produces low-value heat--the higher the temperature, the more value the heat has.TRUE (Heat at ambient temperature is worthless.) You can also convert electricity to heat, for example by running it through a resistor. The value of energy can also be reflected in the price you pay for it. Here are current costs for some energy sources, all given in terms of the heat (BTU) they can produce directly--
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Gasoline...............$2.50 /100,000 BTU (115,000 BTU gasoline at $2.88 a gallon)
        >>>>>> Natural gas...........$0.88 /100,000 BTU
        >>>>>> Electricity.............$3.52 /100,000 BTU (3412 BTU from 1 kWh of electricity at $0.12 a kWh) INTERESTING FACT
        >>>>>
        >>>>> CHECK: ONE CALORIE IS ABOUT .OO4 BTU'S 1 JOULE IS ABOUT .24 CALORIES SO 1 JOULE IS ABOUT .001 BTU'S
        >>>>>
        >>>>> ONE KWH IS 3.6 X 10(6) JOULES SO THAT EQUALS ABOUT 3600 BTU'S
        >>>>>
        >>>>> THE EFFICIENCY OF CONVERTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY TO HEAT MUST BE ABOUT 3400/3600 = ABOUT 94-95 %
        >>>>>
        >>>>> THIS IS INDEED QUITE EFFICIENT.
        >>>>> SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT USING ELECTRICITY IS A VERY EXPENSIVE WAY TO PRODUCE HEAT? ELECTRIC WATER HEATERS ARE KNOWN TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE THAN GAS HEATERS.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT WE OUGHT TO POWER OUR ELECTRICAL PLANTS WITH NATURAL GAS???
        >>>>>
        >>>>> THANKS FOR THE INFORMATION... VERY INTERESTING AND USEFUL
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Electricity looks a lot more expensive than natural gas, IT SURE DOES but by using a heat pump, you can heat with electricity for almost the same price as burning natural gas.MARVELOUS,,, AND QUITE AN INTERESTING POINT.. BUT I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY FIGURING OUT WHY IF RESISTIVE HEAT IS 95 % EFFICIENT. THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS SAY THAT THE HEAT PUMP CAN DO NO MORE WORK THAN THE ENERGY I PUT INTO IT WITH ELECTRICITY. AND,, I CAN GET NO MORE HEAT OUT OF THE HEAT PUMP THAN THE WORK THE HEAT PUMP DOES. SO WITHOUT ANY LOSSES,, IDEALLY.. WE SHOULD GET AS MUCH HEAT,,, NO MORE,.. THAN THE WORK DONE BY THE ELECTRICITY. SO.. THE NUMBER OF JOULES OF HEAT PUMPED INTO OUR ROOM CANNOT EXCEED THE NUMBER OF JOULES OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY THE HEAT PUMP USED. IT SEEMS AS IF WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AS MUCH HEAT INTO OUR ROOM BY PASSING THE ELECTRICITY USED IN THE HEAT PUMP THROUGH AN ELECTRICAL HEATING DEVICE IN THE ROOM INSTEAD OF USING THE HEAT PUMP.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD EXERCISE FOR ME AND I AM MOMENTARILY STUMPED. THANKS FOR CHALLENGING MY PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING UNDERSTANDING. I WILL DEFINITELY GET THIS STRAIGHTEN OUT IN MY MIND IN THE HOURS AND DAYS TO COME. YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING WE CAN HEAT OUR HOMES CHEAPER WITH AN ELECTRICAL HEAT PUMP THAN BY USING RESISTIVE ELECTRIC HEAT. IF THIS IS TRUE I CANNOT FIGURE OUT WHY.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>> Gasoline has a relatively high cost because it is so convenient. ???? WHAT DOES CONVENIENCE HAVE TO DO WITH COST ???
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Okay, so if you want to power a car (that's work), you might start with low-value (as heat) natural gas burned in an engine with maybe 28% efficiency of conversion of heat to work, GOOD Or, you could start with electricity fed to an electric motor that achieves up to 98% efficiency, converting "work" to work. TRUE But, we have to remember that the process of moving electricity from the wall plug to the electric motor also has an efficiency, typically about 70%. And if there is a power plant involved, there is yet another efficiency-type loss.YES , VERY TRUE
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Which is better, to run the car on natural gas or electricity? I would say it depends on your situation. At least economically and in terms of CO2 emissions, both are somewhat better than gasoline, but the CO2 differences really aren't huge unless the that's renewable electricity.OKAY
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> The best choice could actually be to convert natural gas directly to electricity at about 50% efficiency, which can be done with a ceramic fuel cell. (Look up the "Bloom box".)POSSIBLY
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> My point: Electricity is clearly more valuable than heat. IN CERTAIN APPLICATIONS I personally like to say that electricity has twice the value of the "equivalent" amount of heat. IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO DO THAT. THAT STATEMENT IS MISLEADING AND FALSE. YOUR IDEAS WILL NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY CREDIBLE ENGINEERS AND SCIENCE PEOPLE IF YOU MAKE UNTRUE STATEMENTS LIKE THAT. Then it only takes 17 kWh of electricity to equal the heat from a gallon of gasoline. FALSE.. TOTALLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY FALSE.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> How much heat would you get in a calorimeter if you completely burned a gallon of gasoline? HOW MUCH HEAT WOULD YOU GET IF YOU PASSED 34 kWh of electricity through a resistive calorimeter? I believe that the two amounts would be equal. What you are saying is that it would only take 17 kWH to get the equivalent amount of heat. In a lab you would be proven totally wrong.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Another way of saying the same thing: it takes at least twice as much heat to drive a mile as you would need for electricity. AGAIN, ERNIE, YOU CANNOT MAKE CREDIBLE STATEMENTS LIKE THAT. TWICE AS MUCH HEAT IS MEANINGLESS. LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.... ON A COLD DAY WHEN THE TEMPERATURE WAS ZERO DEGREES THE WEATHERMAN SAID, " IT IS GOING TO BE TWICE AS COLD TOMORROW!" TELL ME WHAT THE TEMPERATURE WILL BE. That's about the same result as getting power from a fuel cell at 50% efficiency.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> YOU MUST COMPARE QUANTITIES OF FUEL USED PER MILE OR QUANTITIES OF ENERGY. THE STATEMENT THAT IF YOU ARE USING A HEAT ENGINE YOU WILL WASTE TWICE AS MUCH ENERGY AS YOU WOULD USING AN ELECTRIC MOTOR MAKES SENSE. BUT YOU CANNOT SIMPLY CHANGE THE ENERGY CONTENT IN A GALLON OF GASOLINE TO SUIT YOUR VIEWPOINT WITHOUT CREATING A SOURCE OF SERIOUS ERROR FOR THE ENGINEER WHO MAKES EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY BASED UPON THE THE LAWS AND RULES THAT ARE TRUE. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF SOMEONE FOUND A WAY TO USE GASOLINE EFFICIENTLY IN A FUEL CELL? HOW MUCH REAL TOTAL ENERGY AVAILABLE IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHT THAT IF THE ONLY WAY ONE CAN GET ELECTRICITY OUT OF A GALLON OF GASOLINE IS THROUGH A HEAT ENGINE THEN PERHAPS (NOT SO SURE) THE MOST AVAILABLE ABOUNT OF ENERGY WOULD BE ABOUT 17 kWH. But, the energy counters in physics and engineering must play by the accepted laws of nature and stay within the bounds of accepted definitions or else we cannot pass on useful information that others can understand.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Now, to Oliver's questions. I think it would be a marvelous idea to publish somewhere how much power is needed to run a car at a given speed, which is an understandable way of giving the car efficiency AFTER the motor does its work. Call it chassis efficiency?
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Drive (motor, gears, battery, etc.) efficiency and chassis efficiency are multiplicative.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Oliver said, "The reason why an electric car is so much more efficient than an ICE is that the ICE wastes so much of the gasoline energy in the form of heat and the electric motor does not." ANSWER: Is it fair to compare a machine that converts high-value electricity to another that uses low-value chemical heat? It is a mis-use of the term, "efficiency," to try to equate these cases.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> I hope Murdoch finds some use in this discussion.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Ernie Rogers
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
        >>>>>> From: Oliver Perry <perrydap@...>
        >>>>>> To: future-fuels-and-vehicles <future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com>
        >>>>>> Sent: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 8:47 am
        >>>>>> Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Hello Ernie,
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Yes, neglecting the type of engine, the rest of the vehicle does has an energy efficiency which ought not to significantly change when switching from an electric motor to an ICE. You make a good point in this regard.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Am I correct in assuming that you think it would be helpful to include a vehicle efficiency rating separate from it's engine or motor efficiency rating? Would the overall efficiency be the product of the two, the sum of the two or the average of the two? (trick question) Most consumers prefer a whole car efficiency from the plug or pump. And could you give me reasons why you feel that one should use the energy conversion of 17 kWh per gallon instead of 34? The reason why an electric car is so much more efficient than an ICE is that the ICE wastes so much of the gasoline energy in the form of heat and the electric motor does not. I don't see how one can neglect that fact when posting vehicle efficiencies, unless the electricity coming to the plug is produced by a gasoline powered generator. If we use wind and solar for the electricity then heat to electric energy conversions are not a factor.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Thanks,
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> O.H.Perry
        >>>>>> EEVC
        >>>>>> On Jan 6, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Arcologic@... wrote:
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> YES!
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> I am quite satisfied with giving the fuel economy of an EV in kWh /100 miles--can't be more truthful than that.
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> I might prefer the inverse of kWh /100 miles, how about miles per kilowatt-hour? So a bigger number is better.
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> And I would be very happy if for the Volt they published BOTH the electric number and the gas number. Trying to combine the two makes me uncomfortable.
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> Ernie Rogers
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
        >>>>>>> From: murdoch <murdoch@...>
        >>>>>>> To: future-fuels-and-vehicles <future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com>
        >>>>>>> Sent: Thu, Jan 6, 2011 2:26 pm
        >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> Hi Ernie:
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> Do you oppose accurate labeling, empirical measurement and statement
        >>>>>>> of the amount of energy put into a BEV to drive a given distance (such
        >>>>>>> as in kWh/100-miles numbers given by the EPA), or do you just oppose
        >>>>>>> the conversion of this number into mpge according to the EPA (and
        >>>>>>> others') formula?
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> For example, for the 2011 Leaf we are told by the EPA:
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evsbs.shtml
        >>>>>>> kw-hrs/100 miles
        >>>>>>> 34 Combined
        >>>>>>> 32 City
        >>>>>>> 37 Hwy
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> And for the 2000 Nissan Altra we are told by the EPA:
        >>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2000&make=Nissan&model=Altra%20EV&hiddenField=Findacar
        >>>>>>> Energy Consumption (kW-hrs/100 miles)
        >>>>>>> 29 City
        >>>>>>> 26 Hwy
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> So, do you claim that these numbers are inaccurate if they are
        >>>>>>> intendeed by the EPA to represent socket-to-wheels numbers?
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> Thanks,
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> [Default] On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 15:22:16 -0500 (EST), Arcologic@...
        >>>>>>> wrote:
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> Ohhh, Sorry, Murdoch,
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> Okay, I will define car "efficiency"-- thrift in use of energy by the whole car. Take the RAV4 EV for example. In the gasoline version, it gets only 24 miles per gallon (2002 manual). But, the EPA gives the same car a rating of 112 miles per gallon as an EV. The reader is automatically led to believe that the RAV4 EV is an amazingly efficient car, five times better than the gasoline version. NO! The two cars, over-all, are just the same car with a different power source. And, a careful check of the drive elements of the EV show that for that kind of drive, the electric energy is wasted just as carelessly as in the gas version.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> Without bothering to check, I would guess that the gas engine used in the 2002 RAV4 was an excellent engine, a quite efficient engine of its type, probably on a par with the engine used in the 2002 corolla, which got 31 miles per gallon. And, the Corolla was no paragon of effiency and grace, just a lot better than the RAV4. At the time, the gasoline Prius was getting 41 mpg--not so much a better engine, rather over-all superior design.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> It is entirely wrong to think that the RAV4 suddenly became very efficient because they put in a different motor.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> I only respect efficiency when it is applied to the whole car. The reason for supporting a conversion of 1 gallon = 17 kWh is that you get a fairer impression of the overall car design. In this case, the 2002 RAV4 EV would be entitled to a sticker number of about 56 mpg, still quite respectable, double the rating of the gasser, and roughly in line with the CO2 numbers published by EPA:
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> RAV4 gasser.........7.8 tons CO2
        >>>>>>>> RAV4 EV..............3.8 tons CO2
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> Oh, and yes, I say the root of the problem is in the "middle school science" equation of
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> 1 kWh of electricity = 3412 BTU of heat.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> This equivalence is only true when the input to a process is work (e.g., electricity) and the output is heat. There is no practical process for which you can put in heat and get an "equal" output of work, the stuff you use to make a car go.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> Short: The equation is false when applied to a car. EPA should not publish a "miles per gallon" number for an EV until they (and the reader) understand what they are talking about.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> Ernie Rogers
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
        >>>>>>>> From: murdoch <murdoch@...>
        >>>>>>>> To: future-fuels-and-vehicles <future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com>
        >>>>>>>> Sent: Wed, Jan 5, 2011 9:16 pm
        >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> Hi Ernie:
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> If you want to draw attention to any claimed inefficiencies of
        >>>>>>>> bringing electricity from primary energy source to transmission line
        >>>>>>>> to plug (probably not a terrible idea for some discussion), then I
        >>>>>>>> suggest the best way to do this is by actually focusing on those
        >>>>>>>> inefficiencies, and not by fudging any science.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> Trying to pretend that there is something other than about 115,000 BTU
        >>>>>>>> (give or take maybe 15k BTU) is released when one burns a gallon of
        >>>>>>>> gasoline isn't exactly conducive to further discussion (at least, from
        >>>>>>>> my point of view). Trying to pretend that 1 kWh does not equal about
        >>>>>>>> 3412 BTU doesn't exactly help me figure out how I'm supposed to engage
        >>>>>>>> in discussion on the matter.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> It is not as though the EPA or I or some other person on these boards
        >>>>>>>> is unique in saying these things. They're just middle school
        >>>>>>>> chemistry.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> In my case, I've never pretended that I'm discussing anything other
        >>>>>>>> than socket-to-wheel numbers, and that seems to be where the EPA is
        >>>>>>>> coming from.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> The only argument I seem to recall you making in these matters that I
        >>>>>>>> thought might have some legs (and I haven't had much time over the
        >>>>>>>> last year to pay good attention) is that it's worth questioning as to
        >>>>>>>> whether it's fair to assume that a socket is directly analogous and
        >>>>>>>> equal to a pump. That made some sense to me because after all, the
        >>>>>>>> upstream inefficiencies of the PEV energy chain might (depending on
        >>>>>>>> how you look at it) turn out to be worse than the upstream
        >>>>>>>> inefficiencies of the ICV energy chain, and so the net-net
        >>>>>>>> calculations might be closer than one sees in a comparison where
        >>>>>>>> socket and pump are presumed equal starting points. So, it's not
        >>>>>>>> necessarily the final argument I personally would go to bat with, but
        >>>>>>>> I think one could make the case that it's not quite fair to eliminate
        >>>>>>>> discussion of upstream inefficiencies of EVs by insisting on only
        >>>>>>>> socket-to-wheel energy analyses.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> In the end, it's a complicated matter (particularly because PEVs are
        >>>>>>>> flex-fuel-source, so today's inefficiencies can be eliminated tomorrow
        >>>>>>>> via installation of other nearby efficiency energy sources... that is
        >>>>>>>> much harder to pull off with an ICV).
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> Ultimately though, I'm just saying to you that the energy released in
        >>>>>>>> combustion of a gallon of gasoline is what it is. In my fallible
        >>>>>>>> estimation, there are probably better ways for you to try to bring out
        >>>>>>>> your claims of inefficiency of some PEVs (probably not a horrible
        >>>>>>>> goal) than to use clearly empirically wrong numbers.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> I think it's a long time ago that you introduced the idea of using an
        >>>>>>>> empirically wrong number for the energy content of a gallon of gas,
        >>>>>>>> and I don't remember all the reasoning, and so maybe there was some
        >>>>>>>> slick reason for it that you had in mind, but even then I'd say that
        >>>>>>>> my reaction is that it's better if you just directly address head-on
        >>>>>>>> what you're trying to get at than fudge some basic empirical number.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> For example, you could say that the "pump" for an EV starts at a coal
        >>>>>>>> plant, or the "well" for an EV starts at a coal field, and do some kWh
        >>>>>>>> numbers from there, and then compare to a gasoline-powered vehicle.
        >>>>>>>> You've probably done that. I'm just saying, that's something I'd pay
        >>>>>>>> a bit more attention to if I had time.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> I'm not sure those are fully proper arguments, but they're probably
        >>>>>>>> somewhat defensible, as against counting 1 gallon of gasoline as 17
        >>>>>>>> kWh. I can't speak for others, but unless there's some blindingly
        >>>>>>>> clever reason (and I have seen none here, that I'm aware), I'm not
        >>>>>>>> going to bother with an equation that counts 1 gallon of gasoline as
        >>>>>>>> 17 kWh.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> I also was really glad and educated in seeing the X-Prize results, as
        >>>>>>>> I hope I've mentioned here. For one thing, those results really
        >>>>>>>> brought home the value of light-weighting, and for my money they also
        >>>>>>>> helped bring home that those who are out there getting racing
        >>>>>>>> experience do in their way tend to accumulate innovative ideas and
        >>>>>>>> solid capabilities that can be brought to other parts of the industry.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> [Default] On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 22:25:38 -0500 (EST), Arcologic@...
        >>>>>>>> wrote:
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> Hello, Murdoch, you said,
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> However, I can find the Toyota RAV4 EV and the Nissans and verify that
        >>>>>>>>> they got in excess of 100 mpge, even as the X-Prize, 10 years later,
        >>>>>>>>> was run with finding a 100 mpge car in mind.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> You might have mentioned that in fact those cars were very inefficient but looked good because the EPA chose to equate a gallon of fuel to about 34 kWh.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> I don't know if the X-prize followed that same conversion at the time of the "race," I know they did use it in the early years of development.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> I was delighted in a way that the winning X-prize 4-passenger car actually won on the basis of superior efficiency, too bad it seemed so ugly. In my opinion, the EV-1 was an excellent compromise, achieving both good efficiency and moderately good looks. Of course, we're not talking engineering now.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> Ernie Rogers
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
        >>>>>>>>> From: murdoch <murdoch@...>
        >>>>>>>>> To: murdoch <murdoch@...>
        >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wed, Jan 5, 2011 3:50 pm
        >>>>>>>>> Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] fueleconomy.gov - trying to find the mpge ratings for the latest PEVs
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> bcc: various discussion groups
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> Hello everyone:
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> One of my favorite sites for many years has been fueleconomy.gov. I
        >>>>>>>>> do think that it's government run and in some respects there are signs
        >>>>>>>>> that it is influenced by the American Petroleum Institute or others
        >>>>>>>>> who do not want us to know about the best mileage vehicles, but I
        >>>>>>>>> think the site has done a decent job in some respects. For example, I
        >>>>>>>>> can research past Electric Vehicles and their estimated EPA MPGE
        >>>>>>>>> ratings.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> Here we have the awesome MPGE ratings of some of the EVs that were
        >>>>>>>>> offered in very limited numbers for lease (or for sale in even rare
        >>>>>>>>> cases) from 2000-2003, for all to see: (put in the year of your
        >>>>>>>>> interest and the type of fuel or search by year and manufacturer):
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> The site doesn't seem to list any of the EVs from the late 1990s and
        >>>>>>>>> some of the others from the early 2000s seem to be missing. For
        >>>>>>>>> examples, I can't seem to find a Ford Ranger EV or Chevy S-10 or GM
        >>>>>>>>> EV-1.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> However, I can find the Toyota RAV4 EV and the Nissans and verify that
        >>>>>>>>> they got in excess of 100 mpge, even as the X-Prize, 10 years later,
        >>>>>>>>> was run with finding a 100 mpge car in mind. As I think Doug Korthof
        >>>>>>>>> has written about decent usable traction batteries for highway-capable
        >>>>>>>>> family cars ("searching for what was already found") I would say about
        >>>>>>>>> 100 mpge family cars.... they have existed for at least a decade, and
        >>>>>>>>> our government has displayed this fact on its own web page for some of
        >>>>>>>>> those vehicles, in plain sight.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> Yet, I have noticed that in the main area, where models and makes of
        >>>>>>>>> cars are all listed side-by-side, none of the newest electric vehicles
        >>>>>>>>> have been listed, in the main area. Why not? What is the hold-up?
        >>>>>>>>> This has been apparent for years. Why is Tesla's vehicle nowhere to
        >>>>>>>>> be found on this page?
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> I did finally, today, find the Leaf and the Volt listed here in these
        >>>>>>>>> off-to-the-side areas:
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/phevsbs.shtml
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/evsbs.shtml
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> There is only one BEV (the Leaf) and one PHEV (the Volt) listed so
        >>>>>>>>> far.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> On the BEV side, I see only the Leaf. No iMiev, no Tesla, no Think.
        >>>>>>>>> The Tesla has been on sale for a long time. Where are the
        >>>>>>>>> fueleconomy.gov numbers? Maybe they are there somewhere and I don't
        >>>>>>>>> see them.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> For the Leaf and the Volt, does anyone know why the plug-in vehicle
        >>>>>>>>> models are not listed clearly in the main area alongside the other
        >>>>>>>>> models from Nissan and Chevy?
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> Here are the 2011 Chevy models, but no Volt?
        >>>>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008selemodelf.jsp?year=2011&make=Chevrolet
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> Here are the 2011 Nissan models, but no Leaf?
        >>>>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008selemodelf.jsp?year=2011&make=Nissan
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> Here is the "advanced search"
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/advancedSearch.htm
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> If I set it to go from 1984 through 2011 and search only on electric
        >>>>>>>>> models, only models from 2000-2003 show up (the 2003 Panasonic NiMH
        >>>>>>>>> powered RAV4 EV showing 112 combined city/highway mpge, and the 2000
        >>>>>>>>> Sony (I think) Li-ion Altra EV showing 123 combined city/highway.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> So, where is the 2009 Tesla (and what exactly is the EPA mpge ranking
        >>>>>>>>> on that vehicle)? Or the 2011 Nissan Leaf?
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> The Chevy Volt does not show up under Electric or Hybrids, so for that
        >>>>>>>>> model it's not a PHEV classification issue.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> Some of the models that I think might have sales numbers as low or
        >>>>>>>>> much lower than (Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, etc.) have information that
        >>>>>>>>> is readily available for 2011 and other years. So, where is Tesla?
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> There are two links provided to the top 10 2011 most economical cars
        >>>>>>>>> according to EPA, and to the all time records:
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/topten.jsp
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> 2011: Prius - 51/48 city/highway
        >>>>>>>>> All-time EPA ratings: 2000 Insight - 49/61 city/highway
        >>>>>>>>> All-time "Real World" [their wording]: 2004-2006 Honda Insight - 71.4
        >>>>>>>>> user average, 52 combined EPA.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> So.... again, no Leaf, no Volt, no Tesla, and here even we have the
        >>>>>>>>> Nissan Altra and the Toyota RAV4 EV and several other EVs relegated to
        >>>>>>>>> the dustbin? That's official-looking EPA data I see on those other
        >>>>>>>>> pages:
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=19296
        >>>>>>>>> 2003 Toyota RAV4 EV
        >>>>>>>>> 125 City
        >>>>>>>>> 100 Hwy
        >>>>>>>>> 112 Combined
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=16423
        >>>>>>>>> 2000 Nissan Altra EV
        >>>>>>>>> 117 City
        >>>>>>>>> 123 Combined
        >>>>>>>>> 130 Hwy
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=18291
        >>>>>>>>> 2002 Ford Explorer USPS Electric
        >>>>>>>>> 63 City
        >>>>>>>>> 55 Combined
        >>>>>>>>> 47 Hwy
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=17329
        >>>>>>>>> 2001 Ford Th!nk
        >>>>>>>>> 106 City
        >>>>>>>>> 94 Combined
        >>>>>>>>> 83 Hwy
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> There are a few others.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> So, in the end, the government site, while very useful and I think
        >>>>>>>>> very good in some ways, is not getting the information out there
        >>>>>>>>> properly about the top mpge vehicles available, or that have been
        >>>>>>>>> available. This is particularly true if we count Tesla, which has had
        >>>>>>>>> (to date) much better availability-for-purchase (if not affordability)
        >>>>>>>>> than some of the previous EV efforts.
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> ------------------------------------
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> ------------------------------------
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>
        >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>
        >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>
        >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> ------------------------------------
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> ------------------------------------
        >>>>
        >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> ------------------------------------
        >>>
        >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> ------------------------------------
        >>
        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.