There is no gas pedal in my car!

2012 Chevy Volt electric vehicle

When I take people for a demonstration drive in my Chevy Volt, I have to remind them that I am not using the “gas pedal”, I am using the accelerator pedal.  The pedal has no direct connection to the gas engine generator that GM refers to as a “range extender".  The pedal is hooked into the control computer of the vehicle and its only function is to modulate the amount of energy going to the electric motor.  It is interesting to note that when I punch the accelerator to the floor, my energy gauge shows over 80 kW of power going to the motor. Yes that’s Eighty. Thousand. Watts!  That is a truly enormous amount of energy capable of getting the 3800lb vehicle to 60MPH in 8.5 seconds with neck snapping acceleration in the 1st 40 feet!   And no gasoline involved unless I am running in "range extender" mode, in which case the four-cylinder 1.4L gasoline powered generator can contribute up to 50 kW to the battery to help maintain a safe battery level. There are times when that engine generator will ramp up to over 4000 RPM, and you really hear it, but most of the time it is barely audible.

Since we charge the vehicle largely from solar, the EV range of around 33 miles is literally a free ride for us (with zero carbon emissions!).  When the battery is low, the gas generator allows us to continue driving at about 40MPG.  

Observant passengers often notice that I leave the shift lever in "L" and not in "D".  Since this is an electric vehicle, the designations of Low and Drive are irrelevant, so GM just left the labels there as a convention.  "L" mode simply enables an aggressive regenerative braking feature that allows for one pedal driving.  By lifting your foot off the accelerator the vehicle slows so dramatically that you barely need to touch the brake pedal as you come to a stop.  This feature puts a great deal more energy back into the battery as it is recovered by the electric motor.

I have devoted a page of my web site to all the features of my Volt and it's performance and energy use/savings.  It is such an amazing vehicle - GM totally got it right with this one, and owners all agree by giving it the highest customer satisfaction ratings year after year.  With over 40K miles on my 2012 Volt I still consider it the best vehicle I have ever owned and love driving it.

Revised charging strategy for the 2020 Volt

I am still discovering differences between the 2012 Chevy Volt and the new 2020 model that I leased a few weeks ago.  Previously, I wrote a detailed comparison of the two vehicles, but now I want to delve into the difference in the way these two vehicles utilize power from the charging station.

The first difference I noticed is that the new one draws 500 W more power in order to charge the 15% larger capacity battery more quickly from my level II charging station.

I am currently using a 240 V JuiceBox charging station that I installed myself and it can fully charge the new Volt in about 4.5 hours.  This is convenient when I have to make multiple long trips within any given day.  Years ago, I installed a live-to-the web energy monitoring system that show charts of the last 24 hours of energy drawn from the charging station on my web page.  

With the 2012 model, I noticed that the vehicle would draw power in brief bursts even after the vehicle was fully charged.  It would only do this during the winter after temperatures got below freezing.  In fact the further the temperature dropped below 20°F the more often it would draw power.  My assumption is that this was all about keeping the battery warm.  As I understand it if a lithium polymer chemistry battery is below freezing when you draw significant power from it, the battery can be damaged.  So GM engineers have implemented systems to ensure that the battery does not freeze.  A warm battery is a happy battery!  The combined chart above shows this clear correlation between temperature and these short energy draws.

click the image to see current charts at the bottom of my Chevy Volt web page

The 2020 model seems to draw power on a consistent basis in short bursts irrespectful of temperature.  The charts above (from mid December) show that the temperature dropped down to around 7°F and peaked around 35°F while the maintenance charge intervals remain the same.  Note that there is a full charging cycle at the left edge of the chart and two short vehicle charging cycles to the right.

The resolution of my data monitor is not fine enough to resolve details of the brief energy draws because it only takes a reading every 10 minutes, so I hooked up a data logger to do a deep dive on exactly what is going on.  The chart above shows a 12 hour period sampling power every second with a fully charged vehicle and temperatures hovering around freezing.

Zooming in on the left side of the chart above I discovered that the 2020 Volt often starts out by drawing 4000 W and then tapers off.

Zooming in even more to the center of the top chart you can see a single cycle that starts at 4 kW, drops out briefly and then holds at about 4 kW for just over nine minutes, eventually tapering off a little.  This dropout and tapering off varies from cycle to cycle for reasons not yet apparent to me.


I am seeing around 9 of these 9+ minute cycles every 12 hours, so a fully charged vehicle is drawing 4 kW for a combined total of around 180 minutes every 24 hours.  That adds up to around 81 kWh per month!  (For reference, the 2012 Volt needs about 13 kWh for a full charge, and the 2020 needs around 15 kWh.)

Looking at a 4 day data log of charging Watts vs temperature, there is no clear correlation between temperature and charging power used for battery maintenance.  In fact energy draws seem less frequent as temperature increases which is odd.


The average cost per kilowatt hour in the US is $.10, so this battery maintenance energy is costing around $8 per month if it remains very cold.  Here in Maine I pay around $.13 per kilowatt hour for energy that is 30% renewable so I'm paying about $10.50 per month to maintain the battery.  (Actually for most of the year my electrical energy comes entirely from my 5 kW solar array, so there is no cost to me).

Another way GM engineers are squeezing more range out of the new, 15% larger battery is that they are using more of its capacity.  Based on readings taken from my DashDAQ-XL performance monitor I learned that the 2012 utilized from 22% to 87% state of charge, while the 2020 uses from 14% to 90% state of charge.  So the new Volt is using about 11% more capacity from the battery.  When I met the GM battery engineers back in 2011, they sounded quite paranoid about not abusing the battery in order to give it plenty of life.  I'm guess that they learned a lot from the 2012 battery and applied those lessons to a different battery management strategy for the 2020 model.

The main lesson to be learned for those of us driving this amazing vehicle is that it is essential to leave it plugged into the charging station if you live in a cold climate to protect the battery.  If it is not plugged into the charging station it will draw down battery energy, and even resort to starting the gasoline engine in order to utilize heat from the coolant to maintain a safe battery temperature.

Learning lessons from living off-planet

Anyone who has been paying attention is well aware by now that humanity is destroying the planet's ecosystem quite systematically.  While the planet Earth may well survive humanity, humanity may not survive the planet in the long run.  In my mind humanity's final lesson will be to learn how to live off planet.  Consider the small manned space missions we have undertaken so far, including the International Space Station.  These tiny spaceships represent a small closed ecosystem with a minimal inputs and outputs, and the ideal space colony whether in the asteroid belt, on the moon or Mars will need to be entirely self-sustaining in the long-term.  If we were to view our home planet as a similarly small closed system, we would certainly treat it with a great deal more respect.  Once humanity begins to reach towards the other planets we will be living in completely closed systems and our consciousness will change because our very survival will require maintaining these environments. (I am reminded of the classic Bruce Dern movie: "Silent Running").  For this reason, I admire Elon Musk for his proposed long-term goal of making humanity extra planetary and colonizing Mars.  His company SpaceX put out a T-shirt a few years ago with a picture of Mars and the text "Occupy Mars" and I have been wearing mine ever since.  Sadly, it has not stimulated conversation around the potential for humanity to become extra planetary. 

The nations and economies of the world seem to believe that sustained economic growth is possible into the indefinite future but we simply do not have the resources. The reality is that we simply cannot continue to support an increasing population all of whom require products and services.  So if/when we become a multi-planetary species, I am hoping that we will have learned the lesson of living in small, contained ecosystems.  Hopefully we will treat the planets that we colonize in the future with more respect than we treat our home planet which may be doomed to a future as a garbage heap as imaged in the movie: "Wall-E".

Why you need a home energy audit

I have a well deserved reputation as an energy efficiency and renewable energy guru and people frequently ask me what it would cost to put solar panels on the roof.  My immediate reaction is to ask them if they have done everything possible to ensure that their home is as efficient as they can possibly make it.   I point out that solar power systems are very expensive and in order to reduce the cost of that installation you first need to do everything you can to reduce the energy consumption within your home.  I encourage them to have a professional home energy audit done first and this can be done for between $300 and $600.   Some state utilities will do it for free, so do your research.   The quality of an energy audit will vary significantly from one entity to another, but bottom line they should provide you with a shopping list of things that you need to repair or change around your home starting with the "low hanging fruit" of the least expensive options and working up from there.

Blower door test in progress

While it is possible to do an amateur DIY home energy audit yourself, is really no replacement for a professional audit.  Professionals use a blower door test to find leaks in your building envelope, and a thermal imaging camera to identify energy leaks.  Several years ago, I followed my friends Paul and Topher around when they did an energy audit here in Maine, here is a link to my photo essay that details what they did and why.  The report they provided to the homeowner ran to over 10 pages and included a very thoroughly detailed analysis of their energy use and many suggestions for improving efficiency by reducing heat loss and energy waste.  

Here in Maine, typical low cost suggestions might include installing gaskets under the outlet and switch plates on the exterior walls to prevent cold air from infiltrating from the outside.   Next, you should look at weatherstripping the seal around your attic hatch.  Due to the chimney effect of warm air rising within your home, heat wants to exit at the highest point which is typically your attic hatch.  It is also quite inexpensive to weatherstrip around all your doors and windows to prevent cold air entering.  If you have a basement you should look very closely at any basement entrances or windows.   One way to dramatically improve the energy efficiency of your windows is to install interior storm windows.  Here are instructions on my website for making them yourself at a cost of around $1.25 per square foot.  Commercial interior storm windows can be custom-made at around $9/sq. ft. from AEP in Albany, New York.   Before my friend Topher came up with the DIY version, I installed some of the custom commercial panels in our home, here is a detailed overview that includes thermographic images showing how well they perform.

If your refrigerator is more than 10 years old, you may want to consider replacing it.  Refrigerators are the single largest energy user in the average home and newer refrigerators and freezers are a great deal more efficient than they used to be.  When shopping for any new appliance is important to look at the Energy Star label as a guide to comparison shopping.

Thermal camera showing cold air leaks
(blue) around our front door frame.

I did a thermographic imaging analysis of the exterior of my home and workshop several years ago and you may find it informative to review the images to see what I learned

In cold climates, it is essential to ensure that your attic is very well insulated.  If you can see the exposed top of the joists, then there is room for improvement.  You can add another layer of fiberglass bats across the top, or have a contractor blow in an additional 10 to 12 inches of cellulose.  Here is some helpful information about doing it yourself.

 

Self-installed solar power and heating
collectors on my super insulated
Maine workshop building.

Once you have achieved optimal efficiency in your home,  you will have significantly reduced your energy consumption and thus the size and cost of a solar power system .

I encourage you to get at least three estimates from local solar installers.  You can find solar installers in your area on the http://www.findsolar.com site.  There are multiple options for installing solar energy systems on your home and a qualified professional can explain them for you.  You may also wish to explore the systems I self installed on my home and workshop buildings.  If you are comfortable doing things yourself I suggest you start by looking at the Living Sustainably page of my site.

Climate change has crossed the tipping point

The greatest threat to humanity

I am very committed to living sustainably, and this commitment arises from my deep concern about the future of humanity in the face of accelerating climate change.  To put it simply, there is no greater threat to humanity.  Mainstream media and even the better web sources that report responsibly on climate change are not covering the rapidly changing news.  It is quite clear to me that humanity has already passed the tipping point this summer when CO2 in the atmosphere exceeded 400 ppm and that global climate change is accelerating, and will continue to do so at a very rapid rate.  Yes, I mean that the rate of change is increasing.  Climate scientist's predictions are generally  conservative, but there are a few who have been sounding the alarm in recent years.

Arctic Science

I have been following the blogs of several climate science researchers (see below) who have written posts about how the warming planet is melting the Arctic ice caps and causing accelerated feedbacks resulting in massive releases of methane (known as the Methane Time Bomb) from the Arctic Ocean and tundra.  Methane is 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.  But now new science has discovered that as the Arctic soil warms, microbes in the soil are now beginning to release massive amounts of CO2 creating yet another feedback that accelerates global warming.  This has been an unanticipated source of CO2 not used in calculations and climate change models to date.

Agriculture

Bloggers are suggesting that agriculture throughout the world could crash within 20 yearsdue to extreme drought and other effects thus beginning the start of a huge human die off.  Even if these guys are off by 20 or even 40 years, the situation is dire, humanity may well be on a path to extinction.  And it's not just us: since 1900, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish died 72 times faster than normal.

Species Extinction

Nearly half the species on the planet are failing to cope with global warming the world has already experienced, according to an alarming new study that suggests the sixth mass extinction of animal life in the Earth’s history could take place in as little as 50 years.

Knowledge is power

Many of us older folks (I'm 61 as I write this in 2020) will not live long enough to see the worst outcome of this crisis, but future generations will.  So I feel it is important for us to be aware and knowledgeable about the situation so that we can advise those who come after us and suggest that they now begin preparing for the worst.  Anyone alive now who is less than 40 years old may be living in a vastly changed world in which food will eventually become extremely expensive and/or largely unavailable.  Life as we know it will be fundamentally changed.

Ocean level rise

Consider for example that most climate scientists agree that the ocean levels will rise by at least 6 feet by the end of the century.  As our understanding of climate feedbacks increases this estimate may be considered quite conservative.  This is sufficient to completely submerge much of Bangladesh to the point where it becomes uninhabitable.  And of course many coastal cities and island nations will need to be abandoned and that point.  This will affect millions of people and force them to being climate refugees.  For example more than 1 million Syrians are now refugees due to drought triggered by climate change and these large droughts are going to get bigger and worse in the future.  Thousands of people are already dying as a direct result of climate change.
 

What can we do? 

Well, some of us are already doing the best we can by living sustainably, modeling the change we want to see in the world, and acting socially and politically to raise awareness and affect change.  It is important not to be paralyzed by this concern and to continue to do as much as we can - especially in the face of the current political climate.  Addressing climate change needs to be part of our daily dialogue.  I recall a bumper sticker from the 1970s that said: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".  Everything that we can do today no matter how large or small will have an impact on the future.  I have heard that Native Americans always made major decisions with a view to seven subsequent generations.  I hope that humanity has the luxury to survive for another seven generations.  I am an irrepressible optimist and certainly hope that we will figure this out, but it will take the concerted action of all of humanity to wake up and affect change as soon as possible.  We cannot continue with business as usual.  If I were a young person today, I would be giving very serious thought about whether it would be wise to bring a child into this changing world.  Population is a big contributor to the problem.

References

Arctic News blog
This one is written by Sam Carana in plain easy-to-read language with beautifully prepared graphics that explain everything very clearly.  I urge you to sit and take the time to read through this blog and share it with others.  Sam ends every blog post with this line:  "The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action as described in the Climate Plan."
Robert's Scribblers blog
Robert quotes a number of climate scientists who are all saying that we have passed the point of no return.  He goes on to explain in considerable detail in clear easy-to-read language what is going on.  The final line in his most recent blog is: "In other words, even the optimists at this time think that we are on the cusp of runaway catastrophic global warming. That the time to urgently act is now."


Arctic Sea Ice Collapse
Blog post on Weather Underground summarizing the issue and predicting a complete loss of all Arctic sea ice in the foreseeable future.  The impacts of losing the polar icecap are truly frightening.

NASA Global Climate Change

The scientific consensus updated frequently.

Learn more and share

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and if you want to dig deeper please follow the links embedded throughout my text.  If you have read this far please consider sharing this with your friends - particularly young people.

Norge: Prektige miljømål - lite handling

Aftenposten skriver i dag om at EU presser Norge til grønt krafttak. Det handler om at Norge skal ta sin del av dugnaden i Fornybardirektivet, som skal danne grunnlaget for at EU under ett får 20% av energien fra fornybare energikilder innen 2020. Selv om Norge allerede har en stor andel fornybar energi i forhold til andre land, har vi fortsatt enorme uutnyttede ressurser. Dersom Regjeringen godtar at EU setter ambisiøse mål for utbygging av fornybar energi i Norge, kan dette danne grunnlaget for at vi får tilstrekkelig tilgang på energi i fremtiden, i tillegg til at vi kan eksportere ren strøm til resten av EU.

Norge må forhandle frem en ambisiøs plan for fornybar energi frem mot 2020, sammen med EU. Dette arbeidet er på overtid for lenge siden, vi vil se resultater!

Hvis du er interessert i Fornybardirektivet og hva dette kan bety for Norge, anbefaler jeg Bellonameldingen, som skriver bra om dette på side 108 og utover.

The Great Climate Change Debate - NOT!

The media in the US and around the world continue to frame Climate Change as if there were some debate as to whether it is occurring.  What we mean when we say the phrase "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" is the abrupt change in the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere with the resulting dramatic increase in the average surface and water temperatures of the planet.  A more correct term to describe what is going on is Anthropocentric Climate Change, meaning that it is being created largely by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels being burned by human beings.  

The science of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere trapping heat has been known for over 100 years.  The effect was first described by Svante Arrhenius a Swedish scientist who was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming.   His theory was not verified until 1987.  In 2003 NASA scientist James Hansen published a paper called "Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?" in which he argued that human-caused forces on the climate are now greater than natural ones, and that this, over a long time period, can cause large climate changes.  From this point forward he spearheaded awareness of abrupt climate change caused by greenhouse gases and became a controversial figurehead.  

Climate science has advanced dramatically in the intervening years and there are literally thousands of PhD climate scientists around the world that have verified various aspects of abrupt climate change and the forcings that are accelerating this change.  In 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to "prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies."  The IPCC continues to produce highly detailed reports every seven years about climate change and its impacts.  These reports are drafted in order to enhance awareness of this issue for policymakers and the public and include suggestions for mitigation.

I thought I would create a hypothetical TV interview to point up the foolishness of the so-called "debate" centered around climate change.  Picture a reporter interviewing 3 individuals in a kitchen looking at a pot of water on the stove with a gas flame turned up high beneath it.  Here is the transcript of their conversation:

Reporter: "Gentlemen, in front of us we see a pot of water on the stove with the burner turned up high, what are your opinions about the temperature of the water in the pot?"

Politician: "I saw that when you put the water in the pot you used the cold faucet, so eventually the water will warm up to room temperature as a natural process.  I am not a scientist so I can't say what the effect of the gas flame will have on the temperature of the water.  Furthermore, I question any implication that the natural gas flame is harmful in any way or that it could potentially raise the temperature of the water to dangerous levels." 

Reporter: "You raise an important point about natural gas."

Fossil fuel lobbyist: "Yes, it is called natural gas for a good reason.  Burning clean natural gas to heat water is an optimal way to heat water.  I look forward to sharing a nice cup of tea with you gentlemen in a few minutes."

Reporter: "Mr. Climate Scientist, perhaps you can give us some scientific background about what is going on here?"

Climate Scientist: "I have a PhD in climate science so I am fully qualified to explain the science to you.  Since we know that the flame temperature of natural gas is approximately 1960°C (3560°F).  If we do not turn down the gas flame, the water temperature will inevitably reach a boiling point at 100°C (212°F) at sea level.   Using science we can accurately predict when that boiling point will occur and we can be certain that there will be a significant amount of steam and the water will be significantly disturbed by bubbles rising from the bottom of the pan.  Some boiling water might escape the pan so I advise you to keep your distance."

Reporter:  "Are you sure about that?  I can put my finger in the water and it is not very hot, but thank you for sharing your opinions about the potential increase in temperature of the water.  But isn't it true that if we were at a higher elevation that the water would take longer to boil?"

Climate Scientist: "To clarify, I have not expressed any opinions I am simply citing scientific facts as they are known by almost all the scientists on the planet.  It is not true that water would take longer to boil at a higher elevation, in fact it would take less time because water boils at a lower temperature when the air pressure is lower.  For instance at 10,000 feet water boils at 193.6 °F (89.8 °C).  This too is a known fact.  Perhaps you are referring to the fact that it takes longer to cook food at high temperatures because the boiling temperature of water is lower."

Reporter: "It is kind of chilly in the room isn't it?  Why don't we all hold our hands up close to the stove so that we can be more comfortable.  There, doesn't that feel better!"

Climate Scientist: "Given the relatively small size of this kitchen and the amount of gas that we are burning.  I am quite concerned that the CO2 levels in this room will reach harmful levels in the foreseeable future.  I have an instrument that is tracking the parts per million of CO2 in the air and see that it has already risen significantly, and I can warn you that if we do not open a window or turn the flame off that CO2 levels will be unhealthy in the foreseeable future."

Fossil Fuel Lobbyist: "Don't be such an alarmist, it would take hours or maybe even days for the CO2 from burning clean natural gas to have any significant effect.  I for one would rather be warm wouldn't you?  You are talking about something that may not happen for a long time and I am cold right now."

Reporter: "Great, so while we are waiting for the water to get hot enough to make tea, we have a side benefit that the room is getting warmer too.   We can worry about CO2 levels later if that even becomes a concern.   Thank you gentlemen for your time."

Climate Scientist: "Don't say I didn't warn you!"

Politician: "Thank you, I look forward to a nice cup of tea with you."

Fossil Fuel Lobbyist: "Don't forget that Natural gas is one of the cleanest burning fuels on the planet."

Reporter: "We are out of time let's go to Fred at the weather desk who is reporting on the massive snowstorm that has dumped 6 feet of snow on Detroit."