News from California 11

[zdas04]

California passes new auto emission rules

This article is AMAZING. The regulators in California have mandated that 1.4 million electric cars be on the roads of the state by 2025. I tried to count the number of times electric cars were called "zero emissions" in the article and got to 8 before I lost count. One of the comments after the the article hit the nail on the head by saying "Electricity comes from coal and natural gas, why don't they call these cars 'coal fired vehicles'?".

Why do regulators insist on pretending that they can ignore the laws of nature?

David

 

[GMIracing]

In terms of air quality, it makes quite a bit of difference. Coal is cleaner per unit of energy than gasoline is, and coal effluent goes up a smokestack and gets spread very thinly, while gasoline goes out a tailpipe and into my face.

Really? Coal is cleaner than gasoline? Are you sure that an EV charged 100% by a coal fired power plant will be cleaner than a modern Tier2 Bin5 compliant vehicle?

The average emission rates in the United States from coal-fired generation are: 2,249 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 13 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 6 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/coal.html

If we estimate that an EV requires 0.25 kW/mile, and ignoring all transmission and charging losses, I figure this is roughly 0.68g/mile of NOx alone. This would not come nowhere near passing the FTP standards. (0.07g/mile)

Does it really matter if it comes out the tailpipe or a smokestack when it comes to generating smog? Should we also ignore the heavy metal pollution that is emitted by coal fired power plants?

 

[FeX32]

I realized the reason why we engineers argue about many things on this forum and in person is because of lack of hard data. If there were hard data available for this topic on coal vs. gas etc, I don't think anyone would go against the data. Hard data meaning something that can't be disputed like wiki.






Fe (IronX32)

 

[JohnRBaker]

...I don't think anyone would go against the data.

I see that you've never participated in a discussion about global climate change ;-)

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[CastMetal]

There is always data, "hard data" is a funny term because the data is always subject to interpretation(manipulation). I don't dispute GMI's "hard facts" from the epa I'm sure they are correct. However he makes one important assumption in regards to this discussion. That once EV become a significant portion of the automotive fleet we will still be using the existing coal fired power plants, which thereby increases our pollution output per mile. Regulations for new plants are set at 1.6lbs of NOx /MWh and some are already operating at 0.7lbs/MWh which would bring it inline with the pollution levels of current automotive standards.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/cctdp/project_briefs/tampa/tampaedemo.html

So does this mean we should only allow EV in areas supplied by powerplants that would meet automotive standards?

"Facts" in complex issues are always open to interpretation.


Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations

 

[FeX32]

LOL Mr. Baker

Good points CastMetal.


Fe (IronX32)

 

[moltenmetal]

CastMetal: GMIracing also misses the point that broadcast emissions of NOx from a tall stack on a coal power plant are very different than emissions from tailpipes at ground level in urban centres. Equal concentrations emitted at these two locations result in VERY different concentrations at the "point of impingement", i.e. my mouth and nose as I breathe them in. Not that "dilution is the solution to pollution", but POI concentrations are what matter to people. Continuous emission control and monitoring on the coal plant stack is also possible, whereas the best you can do with the vehicle tailpipe is to monitor about every 2 years.

It would be interesting to compare the natural gas--> electricity--> EV cycle to natural gas --> LNG --> IC hybrid in terms of both bulk fuel economy and total emissions. In that comparison I'm not sure the EV would win, but it would probably be close. Any use of renewables or nuclear in the grid supply, particularly renewables which are generated off-peak when they are currently more of a nuisance than truly useful, would tip the balance in favour of the EV. The use of coal would tip the balance back in the other direction to some degree.

 

[jmw]

In point of fact anthropogenic NOX is negligible. It is indeed the proximity to source that is an issue.
However, when attempting to assess particulates and such like as a factor in morbidity studies there is a lot of data missing.
One factor is that a lot of the data is historical and they have yet to figure out how modern living standards affect the data.
Back when Britian's air was dirty (most people tend to assume pollution is getting worse all the time but in fact the first major change came from smokeless fuels then the shift to gas from coal as a domestic fuel).
Interesting for example is the fact that before we had ring roads and everyone had cars industry was located in the towns where the workers lived.
Cars and ring roads meant factories moved to the peripheries. A move in most cases of a very few miles but despite the extra pollution form more cars, the net effect was a substantial lowering of local pollution in the towns with a significant reduction in life time exposure rates and such that, in the UK, it is only in a very few areas, at peak times and only at certain times in the year does anyone experience pollution levels in excess of the safe level and not for long enough to make a major morbidity impact.

Now the new factor.
In many parts people increasingly live in sealed homes and work in air conditioned sealed offices.
Air conditioning and central heating means people no longer experience as much outside polluted air as they once did.
Most people now drive in closed cars or buses and closed trains.
What they recognise they must collect data on is the comparative pollution levels in the home and workplace, shops etc and how much time they spend there now as compared to the past.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[JohnRBaker]

But living and working in 'sealed' buildings, depending on the materials used to construct them, could also result in elevated levels of Radon gas, which can be nasty stuff if its allowed to build-up in the air.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[cranky108]

Don't cars have air intakes just a foot or so higher than the exaust pipe of the car before them?

Also how can the NOX concertrations from a central power plant be much different from a car? After all the NOX generation is dependit on the burn tempeture, and any removal process that the power plant may have. So in a central power plant the burn tempeture is controlled to reduce the NOX, and it may have a system to remove them.
What do cars do to reduce NOX? I know they use an air compressor to inject air into the exaust, but that just delutes the NOX, not reduce it. The air also adds oxygen so the converter can reduce the unburned hydrocarbons.
Something isen't making since.

 

[jmw]

Nox reduction can be reduced by water injections or water atomisation systems.
Water reduces the temperatures which limits NOX production.
This is being done with some marine engines.
The thing about NOX and other particulates is that from a health perspective the further you are from the source the better.
And not much further at that.
The few miles some industry moved made a big difference.
peak pollution levels occur adjacent to busy roads at rush hour.
NOX itself is predominantly natural but not in your face.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

Very very few cars have water injection, unless they buy gas down the street from here. So what other reasons would someone think the NOX output from and auto be less than from a central power plant?

Agreed that the NOX conceration from an auto is deluted from the air injected into the exaust. But that dosen't reduce the amount.

 

[beej67]

If we estimate that an EV requires 0.25 kW/mile, and ignoring all transmission and charging losses, I figure this is roughly 0.68g/mile of NOx alone. This would not come nowhere near passing the FTP standards. (0.07g/mile)

Does it really matter if it comes out the tailpipe or a smokestack when it comes to generating smog? Should we also ignore the heavy metal pollution that is emitted by coal fired power plants?

That's some fascinating stuff, GMIracing. Thanks for sharing it.

Do you happen to know how much effluent is produced by the process of refining crude into gasoline? If we're talking about total pollutant load from powering cars with alternative sources, that certainly has to go into the equation as well.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[jmw]

Same as the costs of special steels batteries etc has to go into EV evaluations.
They are not zero emissions on an ashes to ashes accounting. Though the figures are disputed the early Prius came 60th in a list of lifetime pollutants and near the top came some kind of 4x4.... standard steels and they run a couple of times round the clock before they die and often as not they are kept running.
Battery disposal is also an issue.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[beej67]

Same as the costs of special steels batteries etc has to go into EV evaluations.

Well pollution from the creation of the car itself is yet a whole other can of beans. We can open that can too if you like, but at some point you have to draw a line, or you end up drawing some pretty grim conclusions. How much pollution is created by the car owner, not just throughout the car's life, but throughout the owner's life? If you move the goalposts far enough back, the best thing to do for the environment is shoot yourself.

But lets say we decide to draw the line at car manufacture and that's it. We'd also have to look at durability and expected life of the car, as well as the pollution that went into each of the car's maintenance items. Batteries are a thing, but so's engine oil, transmission fluid, etc. And the longer the car itself lasts before you have to junk it, the more its pollution due to manufacture is spread out per mile.

Anyone know where I can buy a horse?



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[berkshire]

Isn't the effluent from a horse considered pollution these days?
B.E.

The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor

 

[beej67]

I'd call it compost, myself.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[ivymike]

cranky108 (Electrical) 3 Feb 12 9:42
Very very few cars have water injection, unless they buy gas down the street from here. So what other reasons would someone think the NOX output from and auto be less than from a central power plant?

Agreed that the NOX conceration from an auto is deluted from the air injected into the exaust. But that dosen't reduce the amount.

flashback to 1978...
It doesn't seem unreasonable that a modern car would have lower tailpipe NOx emissions than the power plant down the street. Comparing emissions standards, the power plant may have an NSPS limit of 1.6 pounds of NOx per MWh = 725.7 g / MWh = 0.7257 g/kW-hr. Looking at a 2004 ULEV vehicle: NOx limit is 0.07 g/mi, so about 2.1 g/gallon fuel @ 30mpg. The energy content of the fuel is about 36.6 kWh/US gal, which would give 0.06 g/kW-hr, if you based it on the energy in the fuel. Based on flywheel power output, you have more like 10 kW-hr mechanical per gallon, giving about 0.2 g /kW-hr.

How can tailpipe emissions be so low from a car, without water injection? Around here the device is called a three-way catalyst, and every gasoline vehicle has one. Can't recall seeing air injection into the exhaust since about 1985...

 

[GMIracing]

There is always data, "hard data" is a funny term because the data is always subject to interpretation(manipulation). I don't dispute GMI's "hard facts" from the epa I'm sure they are correct. However he makes one important assumption in regards to this discussion. That once EV become a significant portion of the automotive fleet we will still be using the existing coal fired power plants, which thereby increases our pollution output per mile. Regulations for new plants are set at 1.6lbs of NOx /MWh and some are already operating at 0.7lbs/MWh which would bring it inline with the pollution levels of current automotive standards.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/cctdp/project_briefs/tampa/tampaedemo.html

That is a really promising study CastMetal, thanks for sharing. It looks like coal does have much potential for being a clean way to meet our future energy needs. It is also a good point that my assumption was using our current average emission rates, and I do expect that these will improve, just as the traditional ICEs will improve with the next generation of standards also. I just wanted to show that the “zero emissions vehicle” label is a bit misleading, and that currently coal generated power isn’t really a green method to charge EVs.

GMIracing also misses the point that broadcast emissions of NOx from a tall stack on a coal power plant are very different than emissions from tailpipes at ground level in urban centres. Equal concentrations emitted at these two locations result in VERY different concentrations at the "point of impingement", i.e. my mouth and nose as I breathe them in. Not that "dilution is the solution to pollution", but POI concentrations are what matter to people. Continuous emission control and monitoring on the coal plant stack is also possible, whereas the best you can do with the vehicle tailpipe is to monitor about every 2 years.

Also a very good point you have moltenmetal, and I am not that familiar with the dynamics of emission gasses. I guess the idea I was trying to present is, that by replacing traditional Tier2Bin5 ICEs for the newest EVs, we would be moving 500,000 sources of “micro” pollution that is spread over a rather large city, to a single source point and at possibly increased quantities. Maybe it is better for the city, but what about inhabitants near the area of generation? Does releasing pollutants out a stack mean that someone downwind won’t have to breathe them in significantly higher concentrations? As for monitoring, all federal compliance must be demonstrated by the OEMs to meet the standard for a lifetime of 150k miles. Outside of those that tamper with the equipment and violate the laws, monitoring isn’t necessary.

Do you happen to know how much effluent is produced by the process of refining crude into gasoline? If we're talking about total pollutant load from powering cars with alternative sources, that certainly has to go into the equation as well.

Quite right, I’ve drove by enough refineries to know with my nose that everything coming out of them isn’t all rainbows and butterflies, but I don’t know the details without researching it. I simplified my boundary conditions for the calculation, because the equation grows rather complex when looking at it in a “raw material-to-driven mile” complete cycle analysis for both traditional and alternative sources. Finding, shipping, refining, shipping, and finally burning petroleum for transportation is an energy intensive and possibly quite dirty process. But EVs are not saints either. Lithium for the batteries is mined, creating a possible source of pollution. The increased electrical demand will also have to be generated somehow. Coal and gas are likely going to provide a majority of these increasing demands, at least for the short term, and they have to find their way out of the earth in huge operations and then be transported to the source of use. I wonder how much pollution is produced by the typical coal mining operation?


To get back to the original post: I wonder if California has any idea how their infrastructure will meet their “mandate” of 1.4 million cars. More back of the napkin calculations, 1.400.000 x 5kW-h nightly (20 miles at 250W/mile) = additional 7,000MW-h of energy per day, or = ~2500GW-h per year Will they be able to ramp up additional renewable energy in the same 2025 timeline?

I realize that California has a historical problem with smog and pollution, but I fail to see how this “mandate” does anything to really improve their current situation? The mandate will force the manufactures to insure that they are compliant at whatever means necessary, and they will then transfer the cost onto the consumer. This will most likely increase all new car costs across the board, which will then cause the less affluent to hold on to their older polluting cars even longer. Wouldn’t it be a quicker improvement in air quality by offering incentives to update the true problematic older vehicles today instead of forcing the well off to buy a new EV (with a generous $7500 Fed kickback of course) and then wait for another 10-15 years for them to trickle down to the owners of the current dirty cars? Another question, will these EVs even last 10-15 years?

 

[jmw]

I like the revamp idea.
A twenty year old 4x4 could do nicely if fitted with another large lump but a more modern lump with improved efficiency and better smog compliance.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

The energy content of the fuel is about 36.6 kWh/US gal, which would give 0.06 g/kW-hr, if you based it on the energy in the fuel.

Is this energy content at carnot limits, or actual efficency?