First Chevy Volt Electric Car Gets 450 MPG in New Jersey

[JaneyVee]

Two-and-a-half years after Chevrolet delivered its first Volt electric car, its owner from New Jersey says the vehicle has gotten the equivalent of about 450 miles per gallon.

The Volt has an on-board gasoline generator that makes electricity when the plug-in charge runs out after about 36 miles, but Jeff Kaffee, a retired airline pilot, said he rarely drives more than that before he recharges.

Kaffee said he has had to fill up the generator only three times over 13,700 miles, with a total of 30.2 gallons of gas.

"The wave of the future is here," said Kaffee, who noted that he will probably buy his wife a Volt in another year or two.

Kaffee said he appreciates electric cars both because they have less of a negative impact on the environment than traditional cars and because they don't funnel American dollars into unstable, oil-producing regimes.

The rest: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-First-Volt-Electric-Car--204338281.html

[onehandle]

1. Cheers for Chevy, but America is an unstable, oil-producing regime. nt

[Leslie Valley]

2. I guess we'll have a chance to change that in 2016 if that's the case.

I've seen some criticism of the current president here but that's pretty blunt.

And on a "liberal" website at that.

[caraher]

3. OK, but the electricity counts too

Plug-in vehicles really shouldn't be rated just on gasoline consumption. If the motivation is reducing carbon emission, for instance, let's look at where the electricity comes from and the associated emissions.

I'm sure it's still much better than even an efficient gas-only car, but "450 MPG" is not really an accurate picture of energy efficiency, just the number of fill-ups at the gas station.

[RobertEarl]

4. True

But plug the Volt into a solar system and pollution is quite negligible.

Jimmy Carter, and the whole US, had the 1980 democrats just pulled together instead of apart, would have had solar for charging the Volts 20 years ago. What a pity.

[JimDandy]

19. That's the same thing I say

when anyone brings up the "oh but that's not the whole picture argument.

Electrical cars recharged by an onsite (home/business) solar system would be the best. Almost no loss in transmission etc.

[Gregorian]

5. Yep. When I was in my dad's Volt, we both discussed that the mpg should be "mpg".

He and I are both engineers. So we're not just yacking nonsense. The mpg is a total misnomer. The Volt is an electric car until the battery reaches a certain limit, when the engine begins to run as a charger.

And who knows what is being burned when that car is charging. It could be nuclear, coal, fossil fuel, or maybe renewable.

[caraher]

6. The EPA fuel economy labels are trying to take account of some of this...

I'll bet this was hard to develop... it's a challenge to decode for most consumers, I'd imagine!

[ErikJ]

7. ELectric engine efficiency 3 times higher than gas

Energy efficient. Electric vehicles convert about 59–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels—conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*

That means it can get 3 tmes the distance for the same energy used. The powwer source might have some loss of energy though if its fossil fuel. If hydro or wind or solar it would bbe much higher efficiency. ANd there are al lot of stores that have free recharging stations. I guess they figure its worth it in keeping the customer there for that time. A "captive audience".

[snooper2]

13. internal combustion engines are actually 25-30% efficient, the rest of the energy released as heat

This company is looking at an old design with modern implications-


http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509466/an-engine-that-uses-one-third-less-fuel/

The basic Junkers design has an unusual arrangement of pistons. In a conventional engine, a piston moves inside a cylinder head, compressing fuel and air against a cylinder head. A significant amount of energy in fuel ends up heating the cylinder head rather than driving a piston. The Junkers design puts two pistons in the same cylinder and eliminates the cylinder head. Instead, the two pistons compress fuel and air between them and then fly in opposite directions when the fuel is combusted.

[Gregorian]

14. That's all true. But the Volt mpg is ignoring the fact that carbon emissions are part of charging it

Most likely.

There are mpg going into those batteries. Or worse. There may be nuclear waste and or coal fired emissions going into recharging those batteries.

My point is that people still don't understand the BIGGER system.

It's pretty much not worth discussing as more renewables come on line. But the same discussion also pertains to a number of other areas. Nothing pisses me off as much as people who blindly think they're saving the planet by driving to an Earth day gathering, or changing a bulb to compact fluorescent. But that's another subject.

[ErikJ]

15. Yes-- fossil fuel electric plants only 31% efficient

so if you multiply the electric car 60% efficient and multiply it by 30% you get 18% efficiency like the internal combustion cars.

But renewable especially wind is THEE fastest growing energy source as the utilities find out its long term cost MUCH less than fossil or nuclear, especially when more and more customers are willing to pay MORE for renewable source electricity--LIKE ME!!. I heat my house with electricity generated from wind turbine farms. All the electricity I use too so for me an electric car would be a total of 60% efficiency BUT with zero carbon footprint. OK, my actual elect. is composed of hydro and coal power too but you get my drift. I PAY for 100% wind which they use to buy strictly from the wind farms.

[gejohnston]

18. I have been looking at getting one

how does your dad like his?

[snooper2]

10. That's why we need fusion reactors

[JimDandy]

20. No, that's why we need

onsite solar energy recharge stations. Very little loss in transmission. Utility companies feel threatened by onsite solar because it has the potential to affect their bottom lines and perhaps their very existence.

[snooper2]

21. Solar is cool, all for it, we need to spend billions on fusion research too

Harness the power of the Sun and we have it made

[caraher]

8. Applying EPA figures to Kaffee's driving...

According to the EPA, a 2011 Chevy Volt gets about 37 MPG when using gas. If Kaffee has only used 30.2 gallons of gas then of the 13700 miles driven, about 30.2 x 37 ~ 1100 miles have been on gas power, leaving 12,600 under electric power. EPA rates the "MPG equivalent" energy consumption in electric mode as 93 MPG (36 kWH/100 miles), so EPA would rate the performance of Kaffee's Volt under his driving conditions as (1100/13700)*37 MPG + (12600/13700*93 MPG = 88.5 MPG

EPA also has a calculator that lets you plug in your zip code and work out emissions based on the sources of your electricity. If I plug in the ZIP code for Parsippany, NJ (which is where he bought the car) EPA estimates 84 g/mile tailpipe emissions of CO2 and a total of 230 g/mile, assuming 64% of the energy comes from electricity. This is better than the national average of 260 g/mile (i.e. the local energy mix is a bit lower in carbon emissions than typical in the US).

But of course, Kaffee's driving is more than 64% electric; it's more like 90%.

[KurtNYC]

9. What utter bullshit! His car is 40% coal powered

because that is how electricity is generated in this country.

I suppose if Kaffee drove a golf cart he would be saying that he gets unlimited miles per gallon; and the dumbed down media would just go with that.

[Atman]

11. Hyperbole, but still a very good point...

People seem to think that "electricity" comes from nowhere. Just plug in your car and you don't have to buy energy made from fossil fuels. Energy isn't magic...you can pump it into your gas tank in liquid form, or you can plug in your car. But that energy still has to be produced, be it from coal, natural gas, oil, whatever. UNLESS you have solar panels and wind generators. I understand your point about the golf cart...I never have to pay for fuel when I golf. I just pay a greens fee...ain't no free. The energy is coming from somewhere.

[EOTE]

12. Better coal powered (or natural gas powered) or whatever than petroleum powered.

Having an engine run primarily on an internal combustion engine is very inefficient. Running on electricity, whether that be created by coal, NG, solar, hydro or whatever is far more environmentally friendly than burning gas. I'd much rather have a car that runs on 50 cents worth of coal a day than $5 worth of gas a day.

[KurtNYC]

16. Better !? Lithium batteries, coal, etc.

Norway studied the issue and found:

One of the authors of the report, at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Guillaume Majeau-Bettez, admits that he is shocked and disappointed that their findings are not more positive for EVs.
...
The study is a life cycle analysis of the global warming impact of the production and operation of EVs, driven for 150,000km (93,750 miles), compared with the production and operation of conventional cars. The scientists include so-called "well to wheel" data, taking into account the energy needed to refine and transport oil into petrol or diesel.

One of the findings is that the energy intensive manufacturing of EVs mean that some cars make almost double the impact on global warming as conventional cars. This is mostly because of the raw materials and energy needed to build the lithium-ion batteries.
...
Electricity from coal, which is the most polluting way to generate power, drastically reduces the environmental advantage for EVs. Because China, for example, generates almost all its power from coal, life cycle analysis of EV cars in China shows they are far more polluting than conventional cars.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22001356

There is also inefficiency in charging the batteries.

[EOTE]

17. EVs have far less of an environmental impact than conventional vehicles, especially when considering

operating costs.

In spite of really stupid and unsourced statements such as "One of the findings is that the energy intensive manufacturing of EVs mean that some cars make almost double the impact on global warming as conventional cars. This is mostly because of the raw materials and energy needed to build the lithium-ion batteries. ", EVs have far less of an environmental footprint overall than their ICE powered counterparts. And statements like this "Electricity from coal, which is the most polluting way to generate power, drastically reduces the environmental advantage for EVs. Because China, for example, generates almost all its power from coal, life cycle analysis of EV cars in China shows they are far more polluting than conventional cars." just further show how incredibly ignorant the author is. Again, much better to power a car with 50 cents of coal as opposed to $5 of petroleum.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/08/swiss-environmental-study-finds-ev-battery-production-impacts-outweighed-by-operation-impacts/

This article is almost 3 years old and even then the environmental impact of battery production is dwarfed by the fuel savings of EVs. Things are even more on the side of EVs now.