Real-world Mitsubishi i MiEV stats
The Japan EV Club drove a Mitsubishi i MiEV and a Subaru R1e from Tokyo to Hokkaido in the week before the G8 summit, for their "Challenge and Charge" event. Now they are sharing stats about the cars' electrical consumption and CO2 emissions and comparing them to a (presumably) typical Japanese gasoline car.
The poster in the photo summarizes the EV stats for the entire trip of 858.7 km ( = 533.57 miles):
* 85.65 kWh used
* 35.12 kg CO2 to produce the electricity ( = 77.43 lbs.)
* Fuel cost: 1,713 yen ( = $16.94)
In comparison, on the bottom of the poster are a gasoline car's stats:
* 75.3 liters used ( = 19.89 gallons)
* 174.6 kg CO2 produced by the ICE ( = 384.93 lbs.)
* Fuel cost: 12,956 yen ( = $121.34)
Thanks to Yanquetino for the tip, translation, everything.
[Source: Japan EV Club]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Yanquetino 11:47AM (7/19/2008)
According to these stats...
The i MiEV's mileage is 6 miles per kWh, and the ICE car gets 27 mpg.
The Japanese are currently paying $.019 per kWh of electricity, and $6.10 per gallon of gasoline.
In other words, in Japan it costs $0.14/mile to drive the ICE car, but only $.02/mile to drive the i MiEV.
And if, indeed, the i MiEV can go 6 miles per kWh, its range could conceivably be 96 miles (with the original 16 kWh battery pack) and 120 miles (with the upgraded 20 kWh modules).
Sounds great to me!
Reply
rj 12:31PM (7/19/2008)
sounds pretty good - I'd take one if it was available and affordable.
Reply
giyad 12:56PM (7/19/2008)
But they don't say anything about recharge time, how long did it take the iMiev to get there and how long did it take the gasoline car to get there? Thats the question that I care about...
Reply
stevefazek 2:32PM (7/19/2008)
Well if the car takes a dryer plug to charge thats 240V by 30 Amps 240V * 30A =7,200 WH. Since 100% efficiency doesn't happen with chargers they are around 85% efficient the rest is lost through resistance which = heat.
So 7,200KWh *.85= 6.120WH
now capacity of the battery pack. upgraded one 20,000Wh/6.120Wh= about 3 hours 15 min.
Reply
stevefazek 2:33PM (7/19/2008)
Well if the car takes a dryer plug to charge thats 240V by 30 Amps 240V * 30A =7,200 WH. Since 100% efficiency doesn't happen with chargers they are around 85% efficient the rest is lost through resistance which = heat.
So 7,200KWh *.85= 6.120WH
now capacity of the battery pack. upgraded one 20,000Wh/6.120Wh= about 3 hours 15 min.
Reply
GoodCheer 10:01AM (7/21/2008)
Or we could use the (RV park standard) 240V 50A plug, which puts out 12 kW
or if we assume 85% efficiency
12 kW x .85 = 10.2 kW
20 kWh battery / 10.2 kW charge rate = ~2 hour charge for 100 miles.
ltclloyd 3:05PM (7/19/2008)
Well lets plug in real-world USA numbers.
using $0.20 a KWH and $4 a gallon this the cost balance of 124 Miles per gallon. not too shabby by my standards. yea recharging is a pain in the ass.
But I'm doing the Math, a 240 volt 7000 watt (31 amp at 220V) Generator can be had for around $700 consumption at peak output should be about .4 GPH diesel or .6 Gasoline.
I'll use .5 as a average so it's about 12 hours of the generator running or 6 Gallons of fuel. that's 88 Miles per gallon if you carry a ICE Generator with you. (Wow all the sudden the volt make sense) I'll throw away 8 MPG for carrying the extra 300lbs so 80MPG.. me thinks somethings fishy.. and no that's not a Japanese pun.
Reply
tankd0g 10:06PM (7/19/2008)
If you can find me a generator that can do that, I'll sell it to Maximum bob for the Volt and split the take with you.
OhmExcited 3:13PM (7/19/2008)
It's not clear to me if the 85.65 kWh is energy the motor demanded from the battery or energy the battery demanded from the A/C outlet. Let's look at both scenarios, though.
For energy demanded from the outlet (which includes the charging inefficiency effect) that turns out to be 161 W-h/mi.
If we assume that is energy used by the motor, then assuming a charging efficiency of 86% that is 187 W-h/mi.
Either scenario is better than Tesla's published 206 W-h/mi.
As for CO2 output, it translates to 0.145 lbs CO2 per mile. That compares to my calculated 0.152 lbs per mile of a Tesla charged in Washington state (the best). Pretty good! Good for the car, and good for Japan (which relies heavily on nuclear power).
If someone can clarify how the kW-hrs are measured, I'll add the MiEV as a data point to my paper:
http://ohmexcited.googlepages.com/CO2.htm
Reply
Andy 10:18PM (7/19/2008)
Good work. I especially like the final table comparing the EV's performance in different states.
I read a few posts saying when you recharge off peak you are consuming excess capacity or spinning reserve.
Although I'm no power expert, I suspect you can realistically assumed a certain percentage of recharge is using spinning reserve.
This makes the power network more efficient and that gain should be factored into the EV CO2 emmisions.
Just a thought.
Joseph 12:01PM (7/20/2008)
According to this, the car (which one is a good question, R1e or MiEV?) consumes about 150 watt hours per mile. That sounds suspiciously low. They must have been hypermiling or something.
By the way, Yanquetino, you speak english, spanish, and now japanese?!?
Reply
meme 7:16PM (7/19/2008)
Let's go with that 7kW generator assumption above. Googling for one, here's the first I find:
http://www.peakpowertools.com/Electric-Generator-Pramac-7000-Watt-7kW-Honda-p/gpr05018.htm
8 gallons does 9 hours at 50% load -- i.e., 8 gallons does 4 1/2 hours at 100% load, or 1.8 gph. Way different from your assumed 0.4 to 0.6 gph.
Here's one that claims 12 hours at 50% load:
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-13-HP-8125-WATTs-watt-ohv-honda--Generator-7kw--tx_W0QQitemZ270256828420QQcmdZViewItem?IMSfp=TL0807181450r38473
So, that'd be 1.3gph. Still way far from your 0.4 to 0.6 gph.
Reply
EV-1 7:21PM (7/19/2008)
The comparisioon of Co2 emissions seem unfair, I think :
The specs include the emissions from producing the electricity, but there's no mention of emissions for producing the gasoline.
There have to be quite a bit of emissions from that.
Does anyone know a typical number ?
Or are there too many different numbers ( perhaps due to different production methods, and/or different transportation factors ) ?
- - - - - -
Just like to add a comment on
THE LACK OF REPORTS ON THE TRUCK TRANSPORTATION here on ABG .
Heavy Trucks ( and buses ) contribute a major part of the transportation sectors emissions.
Kinda frustrating having to bear the suspicion that the only thing that seems to matter is the selfish approach of saving $$ - - unbelievably irresponsible ... in a time like this.
Trucks should be sent on railroads !
A complete transformation of the transport sector is Urgent !
Reply
DJL 8:04PM (7/19/2008)
An ICE car that size should do better than 27 mpg.
Reply
stevefazek 2:11AM (7/20/2008)
The Hyundai Accent gets something like high 20s for its city milage which is a joke.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 10:57AM (7/20/2008)
EV-1 makes an excellent point, that's why I read this blog...
>> The specs include the emissions from producing the electricity, but there's no mention of emissions for producing the gasoline.
The "externalities" of burning gas are Not included in these calculations.
- Bribery of Foreign Government Officials
- Ship Tanker transportation or Pipeline
- Ship Tanker depreciation or pipeline
- Navy Shipping Lane protection
- Port infrastructure
- Coast Guard Port duties
- Refinery capacity and depreciation
- Tanker truck transportation and depreciation
- Add to that all the fuel used to preform all of the above operations.
If you give a fair look at electric vs. a gas transportation system, you'd have to be INSANE to pick gas.
Reply
Serge 1:30PM (7/21/2008)
+ Cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
larry 12:31PM (7/20/2008)
RE: the CO2 numbers, while I agree with the points made by EV-1 and Mike!!ekiM that the comparisons are not Apples-to-Apples, but can we get a bit more specifics on the apples behind the claim of * 35.12 kg CO2 to produce the electricity ( = 77.43 lbs.)?
Can we find out what generation method was assumed for that claim? If it were hydro, wind or solar, the number could be minisule - basically you'd have to go back the emissions involved in the manufacture of the generating facilities, since there's basically no emissions from ongoing operations. On the contrary, if the method of generation were coal, you'd have to include emissions of the power plan and the mining operations to get a "real" number.
Even with all of the above details, I'm sure they amount to little more than a "rounding error" in the grand scheme of the ICE vs. EV comparison, so I think the point is adequately made but the numbers as shown. I just want to be able to know a bit more about the basis when those nay-sayers complain that the numbers are suspect.
Reply
windsor exports 6:46AM (9/09/2008)
Exporter of Rice Huller, Emery Mill, Grinding Mill, Threshers, Chaff Cutter, Blower type Engine, Belt Fastener, Transmission Belts, Agricultural Engines, Agricultural Spare Parts, farm Equipment from India">
Reply