Hi folks,
As plug-in vehicles become real, the next set of skeptics will be using grid-power criticisms to complain about just the plug-in and EV vehicles. A double-standard, they don't see these as just another load on the grid like swimming pool motors, air-conditioners and dryers, but instead are trying to find fault with the plug-ins just as others narrow their complaints to just hybrids:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0310094555.htm
Quote:
Thirsty Hybrid And Electric Cars Could Triple Demands On Scarce Water Resources
ScienceDaily (Mar. 10, 2008) — Eco-minded drivers in drought-prone states take note: A new study concludes that producing electricity for hybrid and fully electric vehicles could sharply increase water consumption in the United States.
. . .
Each mile driven with electricity consumes about three times more water (0.32 versus 0.07-0.14 gallons per mile) than with gasoline, the study found.
. . .
|
One technique of the skeptic is to change the units to unfamiliar terms:
0.07 gal/mile -> 14.28 MPG of water for gasoline
0.14 gal/mile -> 7.14 MPG of water for gasoline
0.32 gal/mile -> 3.125 MPG of water for electric power
Opps, corrected the numbers.
The other technique is to ignore critical factors such as the cost of a gallon of gasoline versus a gallon of water. In Huntsville AL, we pay $0.00467 per gallon of water including sewer fee, only $0.0015 for water alone, and gasoline is running about $3.00 per gallon. There is about a 1,000 fold difference in the cost per gallon.
I'm posting this note because this is the second time I've seen this paper referenced. This means it will be picked up by the "sound machine" and echoed until enough comments come in to make it 'go away.' In the meanwhile, we are likely to see more of this paper's mischief in the future.
BTW, the original announcement about the pending paper is what is being 'edited' by the skeptics:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa...terplugin.html
Too often the skeptics take things out of context and fail to include facts and data that don't match their propaganda goals and objectives:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by original_release
. . .
In California, state programs and utilities are working to bump up the number of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), which would reduce air pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions. But the state is also water-stressed and its water consumption for generating electricity could grow more than 60% from 2000 to 2020, according to the Electric Power Research Institute. For example, "if Southern California Edison is going to be running a lot more power at night for plug-in hybrids, they're going to need more cooling water," Webber says. He notes that generating the electricity should not be a major problem for utilities. This squares with a recent study in ES&T, which found that "the U.S. currently has sufficient spare nighttime electricity capacity to charge a large fleet of PHEVs," enough to easily accommodate a light-duty fleet of one-third PHEVs.
"We're not trying to put a black eye on plug-ins," Webber says. "They're very appealing for a lot of reasons." They take advantage of off-peak power capacity, he notes, and they replace oil. Gleick agrees, adding that water use "is only one of the trade-offs, the most important being the emission of greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil."
. . .
|
The original study authors are asking a fair question but the skeptics will pass over these "inconvenient truths" and failing to address the relative cost of water vs. gasoline. Worse, the skeptics will only see the PHEV load and ignore the other loads.
Bob Wilson