Electric cars are a pipe dream

[Billy T]

This statement appears to be a typo: Through 2013, AT&T anticipates it will have purchased up to 8,000 CNG vehicles ... That date is actually 2018 according to AT&T.
http://www.att.com/gen/corporate-citizenship?pid=17899 ...

Thanks for the link. Typos are always possible but your link does NOT disagree with text I quoted:

Your link: “a 10-year commitment to invest up to $565 million to deploy approximately 15,000 alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs) through 2018. “
My link: “Through 2013, AT&T anticipates it will have purchased up to 8,000 CNG vehicles at an estimated cost of $350 million.”

I.e. my link plans $35E7 spent over two years for 8E3 CNG vehicles or ~$4.4E4 = $44,000 per vehicle.
Your link plans $56.5E7 spent over ten years for 15E3 AVF vehicles or ~$3.77E4 = $38,000 per vehicle.

I would assume this implies that the cost of at least CNG vehicles is expected to drop, as volume of production increases.
Thus I see no reason to assume the 2013 in my link is a typographical error. What is your reason for thinking it is?

Your link also states AT&T´s program will:
“Reduce carbon emissions by 211,000 metric tons over the 10-year deployment period — the equivalent to removing the emissions from more than 38,600 traditional passenger vehicles for a year.
And
“The use of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles in our corporate vehicle fleet helped the company avoid the purchase of more than one million gallons of traditional petroleum fuel in 2010.”
And that AT&T:
“Had deployed more than 3,400 CNG vehicles and more than 1,600 hybrid electric vehicles by start of 2012.”

Note CNG buying was more than twice the EV buying.
I expect it will soon be (if not now) a 3 to 1 ratio as cost of CNG has fallen so much - In last year alone approximately by 50%! See graph:

A 50% reduction in cost per mile driven (& NG was already cheaper) will kill the EV IMO.

Note that it is winter and stored reserves of NG are less than average. Also most of the fracking production of NG has been haulted - not profitable to produce. The drill rigs are moving to where there is more oil or at least NG liquids in the shale. The huge increase in CONVENTIONAL (AND CHEAPER) NG production has not yet entered the market - when it does, even with the cost of ocean transport added, the price at the henry hub should fall below $2/ million BTU.

 

[adoucette]

Thanks for the link. Typos are always possible but your link does NOT disagree with text I quoted:

Your link: “a 10-year commitment to invest up to $565 million to deploy approximately 15,000 alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs) through 2018. “
My link: “Through 2013, AT&T anticipates it will have purchased up to 8,000 CNG vehicles at an estimated cost of $350 million.”

I.e. my link plans $35E7 spent over two years for 8E3 CNG vehicles or ~$4.4E4 = $44,000 per vehicle.
Your link plans $56.5E7 spent over ten years for 15E3 AVF vehicles or ~$3.77E4 = $38,000 per vehicle.

I would assume this implies that the cost of at least CNG vehicles is expected to drop, as volume of production increases.
Thus I see no reason to assume the 2013 in my link is a typographical error. What is your reason for thinking it is?

Because if they were going to add nearly 5,000 more CNG over the next two years they wouldn't be talking about 2018 as their target.

It would appear that someone misread 2018 as 2013, because that figure, of 8,000 CNG vehicles by 2013 is NOT in the ATT site that the original report is linked to.

 

[Billy T]

BillyT: Agreed, CNG is better than gasoline, and cheaper. ... Eventually, we'll decide that it is cheaper to use hydro-electric/nuclear to power the compressors, and use the oil/CNG for manufacturing and specialty uses. And then we can put those sugar-cane fields in Brazil back into forest land!

Yes oil should not be burnt for heat eventually and used instead as chemical feed stocks.Brazil´s BrasKem is making 200,000 TONS of plastic per year from sugar cane (and second plant soon to be making 200,000 tons annually too)

I don´t now but have had stock in TATA, and follows their in licensing of compressed air car but as of about a year ago they were not making it. The motor is amazing and quite complex with heat recovery, etc. I tried briefly to understand how it got such high fraction of the stored energy to the wheel but gave up.

One thing I must note, is your "back" is in error. ARAIK, not one forest has been cut to grow sugar cane. There is about ten times more (still) abandoned pasture than land growing cane which could greatly expand Brazil´s out put of sugar or alcohol.

See post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2905616&postcount=16 that sort of proves, even if a forest were cut down to grow sugar cane, releasing the stored carbon in it, in about 10 years the growing cane would have removed it from the air. If, as will be the case for decades, still fossil fuel is burned for heat that "taken from air" CO2 avoids "ADDED to the air" by fossil fuel. So unlike EVs or compressed air cars, sugar cane is the only economically feasible way to REMOVE CO2 from the air (corn based alcohol is economical only because tax payers pay to make it competitive) some of the CO2 added by fossil fuels.

Also see my comments to Gustav here (my experience with buying ~100 acres of "abandoned pasture" in Brazil):
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2908413&postcount=541

 

[Billy T]

Because if they were going to add nearly 5,000 more CNG over the next two years they wouldn't be talking about 2018 as their target.

They spoke of 2013, as their target, not 2018. You need to give non-circular reason why it is a typo. Not just assume it is and then assert they were really speaking of a 2018 target.

Especially when they speak of 350 million spent by 2013 (end I assume) and also of 56.5 million spent by 2018 (end I assume). I hardly think they are speaking of both spending $350E6 & also of spending $565E6 by 2018. - That makes no sense to state two different sums to be spent by 2018 unless you want to say they have made two typos.

It would appear that someone misread 2018 as 2013, because that figure, of 8,000 CNG vehicles by 2013 is NOT in the ATT site that the original report is linked to.

If you can give link to that AT&T site please do so. The one you gave is completely consistent, as I showed, with there being no typo. Speaking of two different sums to be spent by 2018, would imply a typo, but they did not do that. You are the one asserting the target date for both these sums to be spent is 2018, not AT&T saying that.

 

[adoucette]

They spoke of 2013, as their target, not 2018. You need to give non-circular reason why it is a typo. Not just assume it is and then assert they were really speaking of a 2018 target.

The Press Release mentioned 2013.

The Press Release says for more information go to the AT&T site dealing with the issue.

The AT&T site only mentions 2018, not 2013.

in 2009, we made a 10-year commitment to invest up to $565 million to deploy approximately 15,000 alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs) through 2018.

http://www.att.com/gen/corporate-citizenship?pid=17899

In my experience Press Releases tend to be in error compared to the Company site dedicated to the issue.

 

[Billy T]

To adoucette

I understand you assert 2013 is a typo, but AT&T can not be claiming plans to spend BOTH $350 and $565 million dollars on this vehicle program by 2018.

Which of these sums do you claim is also a typo?

I think there is no typo, not two. I.e. spend $350E6 by end of 2013 & $565E6 by end of 2018.

 

[adoucette]

To adoucette

I understand you assert 2013 is a typo, but AT&T can not be claiming plans to spend BOTH $350 and $565 million dollars on this vehicle program by 2018.

Which of these sums do you claim is also a typo?

Neither.

The $350 million is just for the CNG portion of the fleet through 2018.
The other $215 million is for the Hybrid and EV portion of the fleet through 2018.

Your way of reading this is that AT&T is going to really ramp BACK the program in the 5 years after 2013.

I don't think that's likely.

 

[Billy T]

{2569}... The $350 million is just for the CNG portion of the fleet through 2018.
The other $215 million is for the Hybrid and EV portion of the fleet through 2018.

{2564}... It would appear that someone misread 2018 as 2013, because that figure, of 8,000 CNG vehicles by 2013 is NOT in the ATT site that the original report is linked to.

So you say, but is not said in any link you have yet provided. If this is wrong, quote it and give link.

{2563}Thanks for the link. ...
Your link states: “a 10-year commitment to invest up to $565 million to deploy approximately 15,000 alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs) through 2018.” …
I.e. my link plans $35E7 spent over two years for 8E3 CNG vehicles or ~$4.4E4 = $44,000 per vehicle.
Your link plans $56.5E7 spent over ten years for 15E3 AVF vehicles or ~$3.77E4 = $38,000 per vehicle.

Your link also states AT&T...: “Had deployed more than 3,400 CNG vehicles and more than 1,600 hybrid electric vehicles by start of 2012.”
Note CNG buying was more than twice the EV buying....

Thus, according to your interpretation, AT&T plans less than 8000 - 3400 = 4600 buying more CNG vehicles, call it 4500 to be bought by 2018 for a cost of $350 million or $350E4/45 each. Or $77,777 per vehicles (small CNG trucks, most probably, certainly not 18 wheelers).

Also note your interpretation gives 15,000 AVFs – the more 4500 CNG vehicles by 2018 or 10,500 AVFs that are not CNG (most surely are EVs.) They budget $56.5E7-$35E7 = $21.5E7 for them.(as you stated in first quote above) Or for the mainly EVs bought by 2018 they will pay $21.5E7 / 10.5E3 = $215E3/10.5 = $20,476 each.

That seems to be too low by at least a factor of two. Also why would they be buying any CNG vehicles at price of $77,777 which is three times higher? Why not just buy EVs instead?

{2569}... Your way of reading this is that AT&T is going to really ramp BACK the program in the 5 years after 2013. I don't think that's likely.

Here you noted that my interpretation implies they will slow the rate of purchase as 2018 approaches and asked if that was reasonable. I agree that is what falls out of my interpretation (taking their printed word to be what it states, not postulating it has a typo), but does not seem strange at all (to me) that the rate of purchase would be “front loaded” to start the benefits ASAP and phased out to a low rate of purchase near end of program.

It is much harder to understand why they buy any CNG vehicles at $77,777 each when EVs are available (in your “there is a typo” interpretation) EV for only $20,476

My “no typo – they mean what they state” interpretation lead to:
I.e. my link plans $35E7 spent over two years for 8E3 CNG vehicles or ~$4.4E4 = $44,000 per vehicle.
Your link plans $56.5E7 spent over ten years for 15E3 AVF vehicles or ~$3.77E4 = $38,000 per vehicle.

Which has a small but expected cost reduction per vehicle being achieved over the 10 years as production volume of EVs & CNGs increases. (Although I again note I think the EV production volume will fall dramatically as CNG cost so much less to operate, never need an expensive battery replacement, and last longer than a gasoline powered vehicle does.

 

[billvon]

Which has a small but expected cost reduction per vehicle being achieved over the 10 years as production volume of EVs & CNGs increases. (Although I again note I think the EV production volume will fall dramatically as CNG cost so much less to operate, never need an expensive battery replacement, and last longer than a gasoline powered vehicle does.

Why would it last longer than a gasoline powered vehicle?

And although it doesn't need a $10,000 battery rebuild every 100,000 miles it will need periodic $2000 compressor rebuilds. (Plus the usual transmission and engine repairs that EV's are less likely to need.)

You'll also need to buy that compressor to begin with. The cost of the compressor plus the cost of the car (Honda GX plus PHILL compressor) is around $27,500 - $10,000 more than the cost of a comparably equipped Honda Civic.

As quantities go up prices will come down - but that's true of EV's as well. And given that there are over 100,000 natural gas vehicles on US roads, and they've been there for 14 years, there's a lot more opportunity for EV's to come down in price than natural gas cars.

Overall NG certainly has a place in our transportation fuel mix - but it will just be one part. They are certainly not a magic solution to our fossil fuel dependence.

 

[Billy T]

Why would it last longer than a gasoline powered vehicle?

And although it doesn't need a $10,000 battery rebuild every 100,000 miles it will need periodic $2000 compressor rebuilds. ...

I don´t think any EV battery is good for 100,000 miles, even if always slow charged over night. If fast charged most of the time it won´t go 20,000 miles, I think.

I don´t know what compressor you speak of unless you are avoiding road taxes and compressing home heating gas. In that case your saving in not paid road taxes and low cost fuel will be much more than $2000 per year and the compressor will last many more than 500 uses, which will get you thru the Year. I am just guessing but bet your saving would buy more than five times as many compressors as you would need, which is zero in Brazil.

I.e. at about 1/3 of all the filling stations in Sao Paulo your tank is filled just like a gasoline tank is. - if there is a compressor some where, it is not to be seen. I don´t have a NG car so don´t know much but will get out of my car and look at the one being filled at the nearby NG pump soon.
-----
Now for your first question:


“… One of the biggest benefits of natural gas and propane as automotive fuels is their clean burning characteristics. Both fuels burn so cleanly that not only do they produce scant tailpipe emissions, but they also release virtually no by-products of combustion (carbon particulates and acids) into the motor oil.

The accumulation of unburned fuel, soot and acids are the major contributors to the breakdown of motor oil. It’s not so much that the oil itself “wears out,” rather it’s the depletion of additive packages from the cumulative effects of time and mileage that renders the oil ineffective. When motor oil is kept relatively clean, the anti-oxidants, anti-scuff compounds, viscosity index improvers (and myriad other additives) don’t take such a “lickin,” so they can keep on “tickin.” …” From: http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/generalmaintenance/a/gaspropanemaint.htm

My first Google hit with “Why do natural gas cars last longer?” There are many more hits which may make other points -I did not read. I recall reading that 150,000 miles (or was it 200,000 miles? - memory not clear) on NG makes less motor wear than 100,000 on gasoline.

I don´t know what frequency of oil changes is recomended for an NG car but three during its life time is probably adequate - more savings. I.e. the frequency of oil changes in a NG car may be about the same as the frequency of battery replacements in and EV , but ~400 times less expensive.

 

[adoucette]

I don´t think any EV battery is good for 100,000 miles, even if always slow charged over night. If fast charged most of the time it won´t go 20,000 miles, I think.

Billy, both GM and LEAF are warranting them for 8 years/100,000 miles.

 

[Billy T]

Billy, both GM and LEAF are warranting them for 8 years/100,000 miles.

Thanks for that fact, but when one goes to collect on the warranty, I think in many cases you will either be told you voided it by excessive charge rates, over volting it when hot, etc. Or you will be told that the "fine print" in the warrantee clearly says that some reduction in range is normal for all batteries.

We will see just what you get if with 50,000 miles driven you go in and complain the the range of a full charges is now only half what it was when new.

In any case, at eight years your car has lost value like any 8-year old gasoline car plus the additional loss equal to the cost of new battery - In practice that means it has negative value.

Also as I have already noted, but now have graph to show it, the operating cost of NG car is rapidly falling as huge new conventional (not fracking) sources of NG are being discovered. Cost per mile driven is less than 25% of what they were just a couple of years ago. (And on life cycle basis, NG was already by far the most economical choice back then. Why people doing a lot of driving were buying kits to convert gasoline cars to NG.)

(Graph is cost of same energy, oil to NG) One must be ill informed or crazy to buy an EV now.

BTW, I received the following PM, but at sender´s request, do not tell from whom:

Hi Billy, Ive been reading the electric cars thread and noticed that arthur is still being an ass. I also noticed that he says the att site doesn´t mention the 2013 date, but he's wrong (and or a liar)--click on his link to att, on the left side under "additional information" click on "compressed natural gas vehicles". You will find it says:

“ AT&T expects to spend an estimated $350 million to purchase about 8,000 CNG vehicles through 2013.”

Do me a favor and dont mention my name, but feel free to stick it to him.

Just my opinion, but you know I think he's one of the most dishonest posters Ive ever seen. He's a bully with an agenda and its unfortunate that he's allowed to get away with so much. ... {End of PM}

As one recente example of why many hold that POV, below is his silly comments, made just to argue about this graph:

I had noted it is an amazingly good exponential fit to 20 years of real data.

But it's not exponential.
Indeed the percent rate of growth for the last two years is quite a bit below the average since 2001.
~16% in 2009
~14% in 2010

Except it is not exponential. ...

But what mainly annoys me (and some others) is that he will reword, rather than quote, your post and then be critical of what he falsely claims you said. There has been some discussion in the moderator only forum about what to do with Authur. I have opposed banning as Authur does searches well and finds information supporting his POVs. (Of course if you are at good searching you can find support for any POV in the internet.) I think that compensates for his dishonesty and argumentative nature.

 

[Billy T]

Interesting to note that even back in 2009, natural gas was supplying more US energy than coal was and that the U.S. had an energy efficiency rating of 42%

Also note that for transportation NG supplied 23 times more energy than electricity did (and much of that electrical energy was for electic powered trains, trollies etc.). i.e. 0.69 vs 0.03 quads.

Also interesting is that LLNL model has only 25% efficiency for EVs - See last line of notes below the graph. - Well below the conservative 30% efficiency of NG used directly as fuel in an NG vehicle.

 

[adoucette]

BTW, I received the following PM, but at sender´s request, do not tell from whom:

Hi Billy, Ive been reading the electric cars thread and noticed that arthur is still being an ass. I also noticed that he says the att site doesn´t mention the 2013 date, but he's wrong (and or a liar)--click on his link to att, on the left side under "additional information" click on "compressed natural gas vehicles". You will find it says:

“ AT&T expects to spend an estimated $350 million to purchase about 8,000 CNG vehicles through 2013.”

Do me a favor and dont mention my name, but feel free to stick it to him.

Just my opinion, but you know I think he's one of the most dishonest posters Ive ever seen. He's a bully with an agenda and its unfortunate that he's allowed to get away with so much. ... {End of PM}

Pretty funny Billy.

He quotes the exact line from the Press Release that I suggested was a Typo as his example?

We all KNOW that line exists, it's why we are having the discussion.

What I find hilarious is all this intrigue about my suggesting the possibility of a typo, that only had to do with the rate of purchase of CNG vehicles as if it is that big a deal.

 

[Billy T]

Pretty funny Billy. He quotes the exact line from the Press Release that I suggested was a Typo as his example? ...

But you did assert that the 2013 was not found at the AT&T site. It is.

{post 2567}... The AT&T site only mentions 2018, not 2013.
http://www.att.com/gen/corporate-citizenship?pid=17899...

As discussed in my post 2570, not assuming it is a typo gives much more reasonable prices per vehicles AT&T is paying. (with slight decrease due to increasing volume of production, no doubt, by 2018 and "front loaded" buying to get benefits ASAP) not the more than three time higher price for NG vehicles vs. EVs your ("its a typo") POV leads to and makes one wonder why AT&T would be buying any NG vehicles. Fact is thus far they have bought more than two NGs for every EV they have bought.

I will cease this discussion, just noting in closing that my first post on it admitted typos were possible and then asked for a non-circular reason you think it is a typo (which you have yet to supply). Also I now ask: Why does AT&T not correct your postulated typo at their site?

 

[adoucette]

But you did assert that the 2013 was not found at the AT&T site. It is.
As discussed in my post 2570, not assuming it is a typo gives much more reasonable prices per vehicles AT&T is paying. (with slight decrease due to increasing volume of production, no doubt, by 2018 and "front loaded" buying to get benefits ASAP) not the more than three time higher price for NG vehicles vs. EVs your ("its a typo") POV leads to and makes one wonder why AT&T would be buying any NG vehicles. Fact is thus far they have bought more than two NGs for every EV they have bought.

I will cease this discussion, just noting in closing that my first post on it admitted typos were possible and then asked for a non-circular reason you think it is a typo (which you have yet to supply). Also I now ask: Why does AT&T not correct your postulated typo at their site?

Yup, I was wrong, it was found from a link on that page.
I only pointed out the possibility of 2013 being a typo for 2018, but regardless, it doesn't change how much ATT is going to spend or how many vehicles they are spending it on and thus it has no bearing on the cost of the CNG vehicles.

 

[adoucette]

Thanks for that fact, but when one goes to collect on the warranty, I think in many cases you will either be told you voided it by excessive charge rates, over volting it when hot, etc. Or you will be told that the "fine print" in the warrantee clearly says that some reduction in range is normal for all batteries.

We will see just what you get if with 50,000 miles driven you go in and complain the the range of a full charges is now only half what it was when new.

Nissan covers the Warranty requirements and what can void it.

I'll try to find it, but I believe they were claiming at least 80% capacity over it's life.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ry-warranty-what-you-must-do-to-keep-it-valid

Tesla is getting heat from irate owners who let their car discharge for too long only to find that when they tried to drive their dead battery was a $40,000 BRICK.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1073312_is-tesla-bricking-story-just-an-angry-owners-shakedown

 

[billvon]

I don´t think any EV battery is good for 100,000 miles, even if always slow charged over night. If fast charged most of the time it won´t go 20,000 miles, I think.

I have a hybrid with 120,000 miles on the battery. No problems.

I don´t know what compressor you speak of unless you are avoiding road taxes and compressing home heating gas.

Yes, that's the PHILL compressor I was talking about. It does indeed save on fuel costs - but incurs a purchase cost, a maintenance cost and a cost for both the gas and the electricity needed to fuel it.

One of the biggest benefits of natural gas and propane as automotive fuels is their clean burning characteristics. Both fuels burn so cleanly that not only do they produce scant tailpipe emissions, but they also release virtually no by-products of combustion (carbon particulates and acids) into the motor oil.

That used to make them unique - but improvements in emissions technology have resulted in PZEV vehicles that are as clean as natural gas vehicles nowadays. (Note that SULEV's all meet the same standard, whether powered by natural gas or gasoline.)

The accumulation of unburned fuel, soot and acids are the major contributors to the breakdown of motor oil. It’s not so much that the oil itself “wears out,” rather it’s the depletion of additive packages from the cumulative effects of time and mileage that renders the oil ineffective. When motor oil is kept relatively clean, the anti-oxidants, anti-scuff compounds, viscosity index improvers (and myriad other additives) don’t take such a “lickin,” so they can keep on “tickin.”

Agreed, the oil will stay cleaner with natural gas overall. But for a vehicle that has its oil changed regularly that's not going to be a big factor. (It would, however, be a significant factor for poorly maintained vehicles.)

I don´t know what frequency of oil changes is recomended for an NG car but three during its life time is probably adequate - more savings. I.e. the frequency of oil changes in a NG car may be about the same as the frequency of battery replacements in and EV , but ~400 times less expensive.

The one Honda GX I looked at had the usual 7500/3000 recommended intervals for oil changes - same as my Honda Civic Hybrid.

 

[Syzygys]

Volt got overproduced, production gets suspended:

"General Motors announced Friday that that company would put a stop to its Chevrolet Volt production for five weeks, putting 1,300 factory workers out of jobs temporarily. The company also said that its European counterpart, Opel Ampera, would be off for the same amount of time. Chevrolet fell short of its goal of selling 10,000 Volts in 2011, selling 7,671 instead. Sales were up in February over January, but a spokesman said the company is still attempting to “align” its “production with demand.” "

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheets/2012/03/02/cheat-sheet.html#6

7K cars sold in a whole year??? That's what I call pipedream...

 

[adoucette]

Well January's Sales figures are in and they really SUCK if you were hoping for any growth in the EV sales market.

Nissan sold a pathetic 676 Leafs, down from the 954 last December

Chevrolet sold an even more pathetic 603 Volts, which is less than 40% of it's 1,529 sales in December.

Mitsubishi sold just 36 of its 'i' electric cars (Though sales were only in 2 states, so don't read too much into this very low number)

That gives an electric-car total of ~1,315.

Or quite a bit less than last year's average monthly sales.

That number doesn't include any sales of the Ford Focus, which technically went on sale last December in limited markets, but no sales numbers have yet to be provided for this 100 mile range EV that is selling for $40k. Nor does it include any sales for the Fiskar or Tesla as neither of those companies are releasing any sales figures (but they are small or they would)

Well Feb Sales figures are in

And Volt gained quite a bit of ground

Chevrolet delivered 1,023 Volts in Feb vs just 603 last Jan, a big increase.

While the LEAF continued it's downhill slide, selling only 478 down from a pretty dismal 676 in January (or half as many as they did last December)

So, for the month, the sales totaled 1,699.

The Ford Focus is still not posting sales numbers, but the EPA came out with it's range numbers, 76 miles (3 more than LEAF) at about $4,000 more ($39k)