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

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:
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

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

14.28 MPG of gasoline? The article isn't talking about gasoline consumption, it is talking about water consumption. So all three of your conversions should be "of water". The difficulty here is that in neither case is the water directly consumed by the vehicle, but in the process of getting its fuel, so it is hard to see the impact.

It is important that we really explore the impact of switching to plug-in hybrids before doing it. Unexplored solutions rarely solve our problems.

It's not even water consumption. How much water does a hydro plant consume? It extracts energy from the water, but it consumes very little. In most hydrogeneration schemes, the chances are very good that the same water will be used again and again to drive an entire chain of generators at dams downstream.

Once this is realized, the question is reduced considerably. What is the most efficient use of the energy? If you turn that around a little, which way is the most efficient way to produce the energy -- on the vehicle or by utilization of a ground infrastructure? And how much of a load reduction on that ground infrastructure can be achedive by eliminating gas pumps, tanker trucks, tanker trains, pipelines and pipeline pumps, fuel producted to compensate for system losses, etc.?

It is the ignorant among us that will eventually destroy us all.

Most of the US gets its power from coal plants (60% is the number that comes to mind, but I'm not positive). Their impact on water is considerably different than hydro plants.

Since the article won't be available until June 1, it is hard to know what the author has in mind by the term 'consumed'.

Good point! I misread the Science Digest article. Still, I suspect it will be used for 'not good things.' Worse, the economic impact of gasoline vs. water usage is an order of magnitude different problem.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

If you want to see the paper, then click here.

After their explanation of water consumption and water withdrawal, with examples of closed-loop and open-loop cooling systems, I'm not confident that the authors even understand whether water consumption is applicable. They do not make it clear that water is being made to disappear. Certainly existing consumption in the generation of energy seems absurdly bloated. For example, in closed-loop cooling, the same water is being reused over and over again, whereas the report suggests there is a steady rate of consumption in proportion to the output. Nonsense?

Water is a pretty renewable resource. Did I miss something in my interpretation?

You're understanding of a closed-loop cooling system isn't quite correct. Although the water is typically recycled multiple times, it is lost to evaporation, leaks, etc. The key is that the water is not returned to its original source.

After reading the article, it seems the authors can definitively say that water consumption applies to the mining of coal, natural gas, and uranium as well as the operation of power plants that use these fuels based on the 1995 figures they quote.

In my opinion, their suggestion to research means to use non-fresh water for power plant cooling is the most likely to relieve this problem.