[Oeva-list] Public comments at the Governor's Vehicle Emissions Workgroup last Tuesday--very long

Gary Graunke gary at whitecape.org
Sat Sep 17 20:56:43 PDT 2005


Thanks to Tony, who posted the orignal meeting alert, and Dan, who 
attended Monday, I decided to take off Tuesday and listen to the task 
force meeting on Tuesday. Since I did not prepare written comments ahead 
of time, I wrote this today from my notes. I will send it in, if 
possible, so that the group has an additional written record.

In a related matter, I believe that the OEVA should formally support the 
  Governor's initiative to adopt California's carbon-dioxide emissions 
standards. While the OEVA (and this list in particular just before 
elections) avoids partisan politics, I feel that this is a public 
interest area that we have very relevant experience to offer, and is in 
line with our charter to promote electric vehicles.

See http://cleancarsoregon.org. I would see our organization listed as a 
  supporter of this effort. I invite your comments.

As input to DEQ, I would like to ask Oregon to retain the ZEV section 
for Oregon. Secondly, I would ask that grid-connnected hybrid vehicles 
(true electric vehicles that you can plug in) be given due consideration 
in the partial ZEV formulas. That is, PHEV cars (see http://calcars.org) 
should count a lot more than ones that you cannot plug in.

Gary

PS, Sorry for the long post. Perhaps Ross can put the Word document on 
the website.

===============================


Zero-Emission Vehicles and True Dual-fuel Hybrid Electric Vehicles—Easy 
and Practical Solutions to CO2 and Other Emissions Problems

A Public Comment for the Governor’s Vehicle Emissions Workgroup
September 13, 2005






Gary Graunke, Co-chairman
Oregon Electric Vehicle Association
http://www.oeva.org

First of all, let me say that I am encouraged to see Oregon joining 
other states in taking action to address this most serious problem. 
However, I am concerned that even this effort may be too little and too 
late. I think we can do much better by making any kind of vehicle more 
electric, as many amateurs have done for many years using century-old 
technology.

In my day job I work as a research scientist for Oregon’s largest 
employer—one whose customers expect our product to be twice as good 
every 18 months. However, today I came to speak for the Oregon Electric 
Vehicle Association, the Oregon chapter of the Electric Automobile 
Association (EAA). We are primarily a group of hobbyists that promote 
electric vehicles of all types, including freeway capable cars and 
trucks. In my family, we have two zero-emissions electric vehicles, a US 
Electricar S10 pickup and a converted Honda Insight. We also drive two 
gasoline-powered hybrid cars:  a Honda Civic and Toyota Prius.

Thinking that my Insight is still the factory hybrid, people often ask 
me how many miles per gallon I get.  After pointing out that it uses 
only renewable electric energy from PGE and no gasoline at all, I answer 
that the energy equivalent miles per gallon would be 200 to 266 mpg. It 
gets 6 to 8 miles per KWH of electricity, and a US gallon of gasoline is 
the same amount of energy as 33 KWH of electricity [DOE]. However, if we 
were to burn non-renewable gasoline to produce this electricity, we 
would only get 12 KWH, or 72 to 96 mpg. It should be noted that the EPA 
highway mileage of the original Insight is 70 mpg, but the best drivers 
often get 92 mpg—a thousand miles on one 11-gallon tank of gasoline.

So the key strategy here is to use renewable electric energy to 
significantly reduce CO2 and other emissions, as well as improve our 
national security by reducing our dependence on oil, whose production 
has recently peaked globally. While the first half of the bell curve of 
production took 125 years, we are currently on track to deplete the 
balance of all oil, discovered and undiscovered, in 30 years [OIL]. 
While some senators have recently bemoaned that fact that rising oil 
prices will, if we continue the present course, severely impact the 
economy, I note that government cannot change the fundamental economic 
laws of supply and demand. However, even politically conservative 
economists see a role for government in preventing harm to third parties 
as a result of the transactions of a buyer and seller, as is the case in 
the lack of choice in the transportation sector and its effect on global 
warming.

Assuming continuing slow progress in battery and possibly also fuel-cell 
technologies, we still expect pure electric vehicles to be the long term 
solution when oil is exhausted or just too expensive. However, for right 
now, a painless and practical solution is to allow certain hybrid 
electric vehicles to have additional battery capacity and run as to true 
dual-fuel electric vehicles. At the OEVA, we have a T-shirt that says, 
“If you can’t plug it in, it’s not electric,” to underscore the point 
that consumers would like to have a choice to use renewable electricity 
to fuel their vehicles. We would like the option of getting the 
equivalent of more than 200 mpg from renewable fuels rather than less 
than 72 mpg from the non-renewable fuels most people use today.

On the technical side, the national EAA supports a program that we call 
the Partially Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV). Initially, this program 
[CARS] will take a hybrid Toyota Prius and add more battery capacity, to 
not start the gasoline engine unless required, and to allow overnight 
charging. It can do 90% of most people’s trips (under 35 miles) as a 
pure ZEV, but also have the normal Prius extended range (600 miles) and 
power of using both fuels simultaneously. The net result is 100 mpg for 
most drivers, with 200 mpg for the best drivers, for very little change 
in their lifestyle or our infrastructure.

Hybrid vehicles are, of course, a substantial improvement over regular 
cars, achieving 50% better fuel economy and the corresponding reduction 
in CO2 emissions.  Tri-met buses seem to do even better, achieving a 60% 
improvement. A hybrid Humvee project by PEI in Huntsville, Alabama, 
produced a factor of two improvement in fuel economy. (It also had the 
capability of running 20 miles on electricity with its diesel generator 
off-- silent, and with no heat signature.) Perhaps the best example of 
large-scale vehicle fuel economy and performance improvement is the 
diesel-electric locomotive, which has been around for a very long time. 
So this is not fundamentally new technology—just good engineering and 
application of existing technology to cars and trucks.

These examples show that there is no reason that we should let large 
vehicles off the hook when it comes to carbon-dioxide emission 
improvements, as in a recent Federal proposal. The past approach of 
exempting large vehicles only makes the problem worse, as automakers 
tempt consumers with inefficient, grossly polluting larger vehicles, 
such as the four-door, four-ton family pickup truck! Fortunately, rising 
oil prices have recently reduced demand for such vehicles, and renewed 
demand for fuel-efficient vehicles with corresponding emission benefits.

The critical feature is that the Toyota hybrid system is able to move 
the vehicle without the use of gasoline under common conditions. In the 
electric vehicle community, a number of people have gone so far as to 
exile their gasoline or renewable biodiesel engine to a trailer—saving a 
significant amount of vehicle weight for in-town trips. The trailers 
either act as generators or, in some designs, gently push the heavier 
electric vehicle while relying on the electric motor for acceleration. 
We estimate that I can still get 60 mpg in my Insight by this approach. 
Perhaps these would be the best hybrids of all. We think renewable 
electricity is the fuel of choice in the city where emissions are more 
important, and renewable biodiesel as a supplement for the long trips, 
which in Oregon are outside cities.

Watching the evening news coverage of the governor’s press conference at 
Pioneer Square announcing this initiative, I noted that the news channel 
focused on the $3000 cost increase for cars under this program. Not a 
word was mentioned about savings due to increased fuel economy and the 
dwindling oil supply. Even my best-of-class Prius will use over $6000 of 
gas if there are no future price increases in the next 7 years.

Sometimes people tell me that they looked at the hybrid vehicles, but at 
$2.50 per gallon, it did not make sense to buy a hybrid due to the 
higher cost. After pointing out the federal and state tax advantages to 
offset some of this cost, I ask them how long they plan to own the 
vehicle. A typical response is 10 years. I ask them how much gasoline 
will cost in 10 years, given that oil production is peaking, and 
emerging middle classes in China and India will also want cars. I’m not 
in the business of predicting oil prices, but I can be sure that they 
will only go up, and perhaps far more than most people realize.

It may be that cars need to have the same labeling that major household 
appliances do. What is the annual cost of fueling a new car for sale? 
What is the best and worst fuel economy and emissions of similar vehicles?

It would be very helpful if consumers would also see the lifetime cost 
(yes, someone will have to predict the gas prices 10 years out). This 
will help provide a balanced view that we seem to be lacking in the 
media coverage, and help provide public support for this important 
initiative. Of course, they can also make the right buying decision, 
which is perhaps most important of all, and has impact for as long as 
they own their vehicle—not just the next election.

Global warming is a huge change for mankind. In all of recorded history, 
we have not had to adapt to changes of this magnitude in such a short 
time. In 1981 I moved to Oregon from South Florida (where every vote 
used to count). There were few hurricanes then. My parents’ house 
experienced 3 major hurricanes last year, and I’m very thankful my late 
father-in-law still does not live in Punta Gorda. While hurricanes do 
follow decade-long patterns of varying frequency, and it is too early to 
tell how global warming is affecting them, we do know that increased 
water temperature is a major factor in increasing their strength. For 
Katrina, the Gulf of Mexico was just a bit warmer than usual. We also 
know that one effect of global warming is a rise in sea levels. While 
New Orleans may be the most vulnerable, parts of Miami are also below 
sea level. Five miles inland, my house in Florida was only 8 feet above 
sea level. Just the economic impact on real estate may justify our 
efforts many times over. While we may have different and more subtle 
problems in Oregon than in the South (and some of these have been 
identified by the Governor), they will all of us in a significant way.

We may not be able to predict the costs precisely, but they will be 
huge. I am concerned that we are doing too little and too late, but 
encouraged that some citizens and governments of our country are joining 
many overseas to begin the process of change. The sooner and more 
effective our change, the less devastating the effects of global warming 
and declining oil production will be on us. We currently have the 
resources and we can afford to change, but we may not be able to if we 
continue to ignore these problems.

As I have commented above, these changes do not require any new 
fundamental technologies, nor significant improvements to existing 
technology.

I ask you to retain the ZEV provisions for Oregon. This should not be a 
burden to meet—after all, Oregon has the highest per capita purchases of 
just the Prius, and we are third in absolute terms behind the San 
Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas. We have voted with our wallets.

In addition, we hope that as the ZEV section is periodically reviewed, 
true dual-fuel electric hybrid vehicles that can satisfy the bulk of 
most people’s daily driving purely by electric means will be given 
corresponding credit in the ZEV-equivalent formulas. The electric 
vehicle community has a number of examples that have shown that hybrid 
vehicles are a solution to the ZEV range problem, and that allowing 
electricity to be used as the primary fuel has highly significant 
benefits (remember 33 KWH v.s. 12 KWH) over hybrids that cannot be 
directly fueled using electricity.

Thank you for your attention and your hard work in this critical area.

Gary Graunke
Hillsboro, Oregon


References

DOE:	“Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Program; Petroleuum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; 
Final Rule”, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal 
Registry Vol. 65, No. 113, June 12, 2000,  10 CFR Part 474, pp. 36986-36992.

OIL:  “Peak Oil”, R. Bartlett, U.S. Congressional Record, March 15, 
2005, p. H1409.

CARS: 	http://www.calcars.org/.



More information about the Oeva-list mailing list