Car ad with a message: what do you think of this Nissan Leaf polar bear ad?

[kgrandia]

I personally think it is very cute and this Nissan Leaf looks like it might be a big hit considering the price point.

http://energyboom.com/yes/very-cute-nissan-leaf-polar-bear-tv-ad-video

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Makes me feel kind of sad......but it just may be a great car...

[EmilyKent]

2. I like it. And yet Ford CEO says

Ford Canada CEO says buyers won’t go electric this decade

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/green-driving/news-and-notes/ford-canada-ceo-says-buyers-wont-go-electric-this-decade/article1701620/?cid=art-rail-newsandnotes

[ClassWarrior]

3. The record moguls said the Beatles' music wouldn't catch on. Guitar music was out.

:rofl:

NGU.

[EmilyKent]

4. I know. I meant don't buy

stock in Ford.

They don't appear to 'get it' anymore than GM did.

[petronius]

5. My automatic reaction was negative - I have this knee jerk reaction to anything

that makes large predators look overly huggable. :)

[DrGregory]

6. Misleading comes to mind...

what do you think of this Nissan Leaf polar bear ad?
---------------------------------------------------

One has to keep in mind that an all-electric car like
the Leaf is no cleaner than the source of the electric
power to charge the batteries.

Where do we get 70% of our electric power? From
burning fossil fuels - we are about 50% coal and
20% gas. So if you are using a coal or gas fueled
power plant to charge your Leaf - you've just MOVED
the source of the CO2 pollution from the tailpipe
of the car to the exhaust stack of the power plant.

You aren't doing a thing to reduce global warming.
In fact, you are actually INCREASING it. There are
losses in the transmission lines between the power
plant and your house. Since you need a certain amount
of energy to run your car, the power plant has to make
that amount of energy PLUS extra to account for the
loss in the transmission lines.

The power plant is serving as the "engine" - the
mechanism that converts fuel energy to mechanical
energy. The "motor" in the car just converts one
form of work to another - electrical work to
mechanical work.

With the engine on board the car; you don't have
the transmission line losses you do when you
have a Leaf.

Unless you can guarantee that the electricity going
into your car was the 25% that we get from nuclear
power plants; then you aren't helping any polar bears.

Dr. Greg

[Xithras]

8. You are completely and totally wrong. That argument is 100% false. (Warning: Science Content)

People have been making that argument against all-electric cars for decades, and it has NEVER passed a simple check of basic math. Does an electric car shunt its pollution off to another source? Of course, but the huge increase in efficiency means a massive reduction in per-mile pollution when that energy is actually put to the road.

Science content:

The Nissan Leaf has a 24 kWh battery with a peak range of 100 miles, so we're looking at up to .24kWh per mile.

The thermal energy content of coal is 6,150 kWh/ton. Although coal fired power generators are very efficient, they are still limited by the laws of thermodynamics. Only about 40 percent of the thermal energy in coal is converted to electricity. So the electricity generated per ton of coal is 0.4 x 6,150 kWh or 2,460 kWh/ton.

To find out how many tons of coal were burned for our one mile trip we divide .24 kWh by 2,460 kWh/ton. That gives us a very tiny number which, when multiplied by 2000, works out to slightly less than 0.2 pounds of coal per mile. Lignite coal, often used to generate electricity produces 2791 lb/ton of CO2 when burned.

With a little math, we end up with about .28lbs of CO2 per mile driving an all-electric Leaf.

By comparison: The Toyota Prius, still the most fuel efficient car in America, is rated at 51MPG city, or .02 gallons of gasoline per mile.

How much CO2 does gasoline generate? About 20lbs per gallon! Most of the weight of the CO2 is from oxygen pulled from the atmosphere, and not from the fuel itself. CO2 is generated by combining the carbon from the gas (which weighs 6.3 lbs per gallon) with atmospheric O2 (at a rate of 12 carbon atoms to 32 oxygen atoms). To calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, just multiply the weight of the carbon in the gasoline (87% of its base weight, or 5.5 lbs per gallon) by 3.7. An average gallon of gas, therefore, puts out 20.35lbs of CO2.

The Leaf, running on power generated at a coal fired plant, exhales 0.28 lbs of CO2 per mile.
The Prius, running on gasoline, exhales 0.4 lbs of CO2 per mile
The current average American passenger car (with 22.5 MPG), exhales .9 lbs of CO2 per mile.

The Leaf numbers actually get slightly better when you realize that relatively few Americans get their power from 100% coal sources. Wind, hydro, nuclear, and other fossil fuels generate a significant percentage of power on the American grid (more than half). Where I live, the majority of our electricity is generated from natural gas (which produces half the CO2 of coal) and hydro (which produces none of it). Only 12% of my power comes from coal.

Nationally, an average of 49% of our power comes from coal (we'll just say half, to make it easier). Factoring THAT in, the average Leaf owner will be generating about .2 lbs of CO2 per mile! That's half the CO2 emitted by a Prius, and a nearly a fifth of the CO2 pollution than is generated from the average American passenger vehicle.

Oh, and electrical transmission line losses in the United States were about 6.5% in 2007 per the DOE. If we factor that in, our theoretical Leaf CO2 generation jumps from .2 lbs per mile to a whopping .21 lbs per mile. :)

[DrGregory]

11. You got that right.

Oh, and electrical transmission line losses in the United States were about 6.5% in 2007 per the DOE.
===============================

That part you got right - it's about 7%

As for the rest; I always recall the maxim;
"Figures never lie, but liars sure can figure."

The number one source of electric energy in the
USA is coal - and coal puts out more CO2 per
unit of energy than gasoline, which more
than compensates for the difference in efficiency.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

12. WRONG!!

atmospheric O2 (at a rate of 12 carbon atoms to 32 oxygen atoms).
==============================================================

WRONG!!! The formula for carbon dioxide is CO2 - that is
one carbon atom with 2 oxygen atoms - or for 12 carbon
atoms - 24 oxygen atoms.

You have CONFUSED the number of carbon atoms with the WEIGHT
of a carbon atom which is 12. and the number of oxygen atoms
with the WEIGHT of 2 oxygen atoms which is 32.

That's why your calculations are a confused muddle - you
have to keep things like the number of atoms and their
weight straight.

Dr. Greg

[wtmusic]

16. Eh, take it up with the feds.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

"How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?

It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.

When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).

CO2 molecule with one carbon atom (atomic weight 12) and two oxygen atoms (atomic weight of 16 each)A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).

Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.

Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).

We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2!"

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/co2.shtml

[DrGregory]

13. Coal is about 50%

Wind, hydro, nuclear, and other fossil fuels generate a significant percentage of power on the American grid
=============================================

Coal is about 50%

Gas is about 20%

Nuclear is about 20%

Hydro is about 9%

Wind is < 1%


There are additional sources of energy loss in the
electric car power train. In addition to the transmission
line losses, there are loses in the battery chargers. Even
SCRs - Silcon Controlled Rectifiers, the solid state devices
to rectify AC are not 100% efficient. Additionally, you have
losses in the batteries. What happens when you charge a battery?
It gets warm. That is energy that is not recoverable - it saps
away as heat, never to return.

It's a standard problem for engineering students to show that
if you power your electric car with coal - which is the majority
electric power source in the USA; that you produce more pollution
than if you have an on-board internal combustion engine.

Dr. Greg

[diane in sf]

14. You're spewing misinformation as usual

http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml
Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks, by Chip Gribben
Clearing the Air About Power Plant Emissions

...In California, where over half of the state's pollution comes from ICE vehicles, the overall mix of power plants is one of the cleanest in the country. (See Table 2) Power plants burning cleaner fuels, such as natural gas, account for a major share of the state's electricity. In fact, natural gas facilities in California emit 40 times less NOx than existing coal plants in the Northeast (2). Renewable sources such as hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal produce a respectable share of the electricity generated in California....The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that EVs operating in the Los Angeles Basin would produce 98 percent fewer hydrocarbons, 89 percent fewer oxides of nitrogen, and 99 percent less carbon monoxide than ICE vehicles.

In a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles.... Many EV critics remain skeptical of such findings because California's mix of power plants is relatively clean compared to that in the rest of the country. However, in Arizona where 67 percent of power plants are coal-fired, a study concluded that EVs would reduce greenhouse gases such as CO2 by 71 percent (6).

...A study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs in the Northeast would reduce CO emissions by 99.8 percent, volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent, and CO2 by as much as 60 percent (7).

[wtmusic]

15. No go easy, the good Dr. hasn't seen that meme debunked 1,789 TIMES before...

like we have.

The first one is the hardest. :D

[DrGregory]

17. What "proof: - just assertions..

EVs have the unique advantage of using electricity generated from a variety of fuels and renewable resources. The overall mix of power plants in the U.S. is 55 percent coal, 9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil (9). The other 32 percent include nuclear power and renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal.

Many EVs critics point out that charging thousands of EVs from aging coal plants will increase greenhouse gases such as CO2 significantly. Although half the country uses coal-fired plants, EVs recharging from these facilities are predicted to produce less CO2 than ICE vehicles. According to the World Resources Institute, EVs recharging from coal-fired plants will reduce CO2 emissions in the country from 17 to 22 percent.
==============================================================

There wasn't any "proof" in the cited article - just assertions.

Tell me HOW EVs charging from coal plants is going to reduce emissions.

The coal plant has an advantage in efficiency vs the ICE of 40% vs ~22%

However, the coal plant has to generate MORE energy due to all the loss
mechanisms between the coal plant and the EV. There's a 7% loss due
to transmission lines. The battery chargers are only about 80% efficient;
that is only 80% of the energy in AC electrical comes out as DC electric
for charging the battery. The rest is lost as heat - see how warm a
battery charger gets next time you have a dead battery.

Batteries are not 100% efficient. About 80% of the electric energy put
into the battery ends up as chemical potential energy in the battery; the
rest goes to heat. Charging batteries get warm. Same thing on discharge;
one gets similar ohmic heating in the discharge phase - so 80% of the
chemical potential energy in the battery comes out as electric energy.

So with all these loss mechanisms counterbalanced by an efficiency
differential in favor of the coal power plant - how does an EV account
for less CO2.

I'm a scientist - we want EXPLANATIONS!! We don't accept - "So and so
says its better." We want to know HOW!!

Can you explain how or are you just accepting someone's word.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

18. WRONG!

To find out how many tons of coal were burned for our one mile trip we divide .24 kWh by 2,460 kWh/ton.
=======================================================

This step is the FATAL ERROR in the calculation.

This step ASSUMES that 2,460 kWh/ton of coal at the output of the
power plant translates into the 0.24 kWh at the electrodes of the
motor with 0% LOSS!!!

WRONG!!! There are numerous steps along the way that result in
losses in the power train. As I stated, there are losses in
the transmission lines. There are losses in the battery charger.
There are loses in the battery when charging. There are losses
in the battery when discharging.

So if you burn a ton of coal in the power plant to produce 2,460 KWH;
you do NOT get 2,460 KWH at the input terminals of your traction motor.

The whole point of my post was that there are numerous energy LOSSES
between the power plant and the motor in the vehicle.

Because of those losses, the power plant has to generate MORE energy
than is needed to power the traction motors in order to compensate
for the losses. Even though the coal plant is more efficient at
turning fuel into energy than the IC engine; the fact that it has
to generate all this extra energy that gets thrown away as heat,
more than overbalances its advantage in efficiency.

Dr. Greg

[NNadir]

7. The fact is that it's a car, and most of the electricity in this country comes from coal.

It's just like that bullshit car marketing when they show people driving their SUV's off road through redwood groves or over desert geological formations.

The problem is, no matter what car CULTists say, that the car CULTure is the problem, and not what kind of car we drive. Electric cars will do nothing for the climate so long as the prime source of electricity on this planet is dangerous fossil fuels.

The fantasy that electricity comes from wind and solar energy is pure bull, since both of those forms of energy are also just "lipstick on the pig" marketing from the gas, oil and coal industry. I note that many of the electric car fans in this space are irrational opponents of the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

It is disgusting to use the tragedy of polar bears to market another car.

[NNadir]

9. I would like to kick this thread for selfish purposes. n/t

[hatrack]

10. It's a televised message designed to move units

That is all.