THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 3 (merged)

[Frank]

Typical EV's are at least twice as efficient as regular ICE-powered vehicles, even if all the electricity comes from fossil fuel power plants. Factor 2 is still a big deal. EV's are the only motorized transportation scheme where future environmental costs can decrease i.e. with more renewables online, pollution will decrease. I'm not denying that everyone's sense of entitlement surrounding personal transportation should not be challenged, but until we're willing to account for external costs I can't see the existing paradigm changing much.

[vision-master]

But how efficient are our existing power plants that will charge these EV's? lsol

Typical thermal efficiency for electrical generators in the industry is around 33% for coal and oil-fired plants, and up to 50% for combined-cycle gas-fired plants. Plants designed to achieve peak efficiency while operating at capacity will be less efficient when operating off-design (i.e. temperatures too low.)[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant

[Bruce_S]

But how efficient are our existing power plants that will charge these EV's? lsol

Again, there is no requirement to build only one type of powerplanet for new generation. There isn't even a requirement to build powerplants, just change construction codes to require PVs on rooftops. Slap up some more windmills, whatever strikes your fancy. Fortunately we live in an age of abundance of natural gas in America, and we all know that natural gas generation is cleaner than coal, we can use that as well, or even do micro-generation in our homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_comb ... _and_power

I think the main resistance to EVs as one of the solutions to the problems facing the world is that they don't require a destruction of the current American car paradigm. Peak oil is psychologically linked to being anti-SUV or anti-car, and the idea that we can keep right on trucking/suving except using a different fuel is just disruptive to that goal.

[vision-master]

How will we pay for our roads then?

[PeakOiler]

What else?

Why do you assume we would only build nukes for new electrical generation? It would seem reasonable to suppose that we use our massive new-found natural gas reserves as well, continue the buildout of windmills, PVs on every rooftop, a nuke here or there where deemed reasonable...?

More of a multi-solution issue rather than just a "go forth and build nukes!" type argument?

I never wrote that I was pro-nuke.

I was only implying that nukes don't use a hydrocarbon for generating electricity. (No CO2 emissions.) I was also trying to point out some of the hurdles that an all-electric vehicle future has. I only see electric vehicles as having a small niche in the future of transportation. It certainly won't be BAU.

Natural gas, although less polluting than coal, still releases CO2 into the air when burned.
I just think electric cars are an attempt at keeping transportation habits the same as it presently is with gasoline, a stepping-stone if you will. The future of transportation will become less and less miles driven, but certainly not BAU as we now know it.

People also don't seem to grasp the concept of the concentrated energy density of gasoline compared to other types of energy, especially electrical energy, i.e., the energy density of batteries, which is pretty low compared to a liquid fuel.

[pstarr]

People also don't seem to grasp the concept of the concentrated energy density of gasoline compared to other types of energy, especially electrical energy, i.e., the energy density of batteries, which is pretty low compared to a liquid fuel.

For instance Bruce believes "slapping some PV's" on the roof will get him to the convenience store. But it doesn't work like that. He would need a dozen roofs and a battery bank as large as the kids room just to power the car to the corner.

[vision-master]

Oh, he would just use his harbor freight savage wind genny.

Shorty.

[Frank]

My "factor two" accounts for power generation efficiencies. Typical ICE's only convert about 15% of fuel energy into mechanical energy. EV's 75-85% (not using a heat engine they're not constrained by Carnot.)

PV output depends on where you live. Here in Maine our 3.68kW (nominal) PV array produced over 4600 kwH energy last year. At 3 miles/kWH (what my converted pickup with 1320# of PbA batteries achieves) that's almost 14K miles. Total (pre-incentive) installed cost was ~$19K. Assuming very conservative 25 year life (I fully expect these panels to be producing 40 years from now) that works out to about $.05/mile for pollution-free fuel. That's the equivalent of a 70 mpUSg vehicle at current gas prices. Given a 40-year panel life it's obviously much cheaper. My truck has a bumper sticker that says "Powered by US Electrons" on it.

Re gas tax: there are proposals being floated all over the place including a GPS-driven solution to record and report mileage driven. I'm sure a fair alternative can be found.

[Bruce_S]

How will we pay for our roads then?

Mileage taxes will replace gasoline taxes I imagine. Never underestimate the TPTB to make sure they don't lose revenue streams.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ax05m.html

[Bruce_S]

What else?

Why do you assume we would only build nukes for new electrical generation? It would seem reasonable to suppose that we use our massive new-found natural gas reserves as well, continue the buildout of windmills, PVs on every rooftop, a nuke here or there where deemed reasonable...?

More of a multi-solution issue rather than just a "go forth and build nukes!" type argument?

I never wrote that I was pro-nuke.

Quite true. You just mentioned nuke examples, and I pointed out all the other ways we can make electricity.

I was only implying that nukes don't use a hydrocarbon for generating electricity. (No CO2 emissions.)

Sure. Fortunately, peak oil doesn't have much to do with peak other stuff. Natural gas being a wonderful example of course.

I was also trying to point out some of the hurdles that an all-electric vehicle future has. I only see electric vehicles as having a small niche in the future of transportation. It certainly won't be BAU.

A reasonable assumption. Another one would be that they are a wonderful future BAU for those who live within reasonable commuting ranges, like say <100 miles/day driving.

People also don't seem to grasp the concept of the concentrated energy density of gasoline compared to other types of energy, especially electrical energy, i.e., the energy density of batteries, which is pretty low compared to a liquid fuel.

Energy density is nice, but doing an equivalent amount of work from an energy source is much more important. Does the average commuter care whether or not their 100 miles of mindless driving is powered by batteries or gasoline? Nope. All they care about is whether or not they can do that 100 miles of mindless commuting, whether they can afford it, and whether or not they can roost all over hapless econo boxes. A nice side effect of a semi-EV like the Volt is wonderful acceleration off the line. Make a performance model (that isn't as expensive as a Tesla) and American consumers will be all over it like white on rice.

[Bruce_S]

People also don't seem to grasp the concept of the concentrated energy density of gasoline compared to other types of energy, especially electrical energy, i.e., the energy density of batteries, which is pretty low compared to a liquid fuel.

For instance Bruce believes "slapping some PV's" on the roof will get him to the convenience store. But it doesn't work like that. He would need a dozen roofs and a battery bank as large as the kids room just to power the car to the corner.

The Volt battery pack weighs some 400#, and not only gets 4 adults to the convenience store but takes them to the mall, will do a decent burnout at the local burger joint, take everyone to the drive-in movies, drop everyone off when done and have enough charge left over to commute to work the next day. Take one for a drive, it is surprising how well it does its job.

[pstarr]

People also don't seem to grasp the concept of the concentrated energy density of gasoline compared to other types of energy, especially electrical energy, i.e., the energy density of batteries, which is pretty low compared to a liquid fuel.

For instance Bruce believes "slapping some PV's" on the roof will get him to the convenience store. But it doesn't work like that. He would need a dozen roofs and a battery bank as large as the kids room just to power the car to the corner.

The Volt battery pack weighs some 400#, and not only gets 4 adults to the convenience store but takes them to the mall, will do a decent burnout at the local burger joint, take everyone to the drive-in movies, drop everyone off when done and have enough charge left over to commute to work the next day. Take one for a drive, it is surprising how well it does its job.

So you really don't know the difference between roof-top pv array and the electrical grid? Do I need to explain? Perhaps you are unable distinguish a specific point from a generalization. Are you shorty?

[Bruce_S]

So you really don't know the difference between roof-top pv array and the electrical grid? Do I need to explain?

I understand. I put PVs on the roof to mitigate against peak load during mid-day and afternoon, and to sell any juice back to the grid when I have more than I need. Base load generation runs longer than it normally might to sell juice back to me in the evenings and night time when I am most likely to charge my car. Less unbalanced load on the grid, and all because of mandated PVs in the building code. Until we have too much PV electrical generation of course, then we crash the price of electricity during peak load times and start to incentive people to charge their cars during the afternoon to soak up all the extra. Charging stations at work for example (my office has several on the way, which is why my interest in acquiring a car which runs on other than gasoline).

At the end of the day, much of this debate comes down to how electricity gets made, electricity being much more critical to how our world works than any particular combination of carbon and hydrogen atoms.

[pstarr]

At the end of the day, much of this debate comes down to how electricity gets made, electricity being much more critical to how our world works than any particular combination of carbon and hydrogen atoms.

Not to give you too much credit shorty, but your mischaracterization of energy priorities is quite common among virtually all sectors and demographics in the blogopshere--cornies, peakers, republicans, truthers and liberals alike. Fact is carbohydrates and hydrocarbons are actually VASTLY MORE IMPORTANT than iPhones and Facebook. But that would be difficult to see deep within the American Consumer Womb.

A common misconception is that electricity (and NG for that matter) and oil are fungible differing only on energy intensity, production details, and power generation. Nothing could be further from the truth. That free-flowing light sweet crude is a liquid is what makes it infinitely superior to all other energies. It comes straight up out of the ground under it's own (and associated H20/NG) pressure, stays where it is directed (at the bottom of the container), flows downhill toward storage under the influence of nothing but gravity, and can be transfered endlessly by hand, pump, horse cart, truck, trains, plane and bottle. That is what makes it so wondrous and indispensable.

Not only is oil superior in most ways to other energy carriers but more critically this very character is at the bottom of our dispersed industrial paradigm (not to mention our commuter culture). We depend specifically on this liquid fuel for our transport to remote place where the natural capital lies. Without oil there would be no cross-country trains, ocean-going fisheries or cargo ships, mountaintop mines, forest timbering, commercial airlines, modern agricultural. It would all be gone. Nothing will ever replace oil. period.

[Bruce_S]

Fact is carbohydrates and hydrocarbons are actually VASTLY MORE IMPORTANT than iPhones and Facebook. But that would be difficult to see deep within the American Consumer Womb.

I did not say which was more important. Only how a re-definition of what constitutes growth would allow it to continue indefinitely, even though that is not how the normal business cycle works.

Not only is oil superior in most ways to other energy carriers but more critically this very character is at the bottom of our dispersed industrial paradigm (not to mention our commuter culture). We depend specifically on this liquid fuel for our transport to remote place where the natural capital lies. Without oil there would be no cross-country trains, ocean-going fisheries or cargo ships, mountaintop mines, forest timbering, commercial airlines, modern agricultural. It would all be gone. Nothing will ever replace oil. period.

You are incorrect. I can replace a barrel of crude oil with ten thousand standard cubic feet of natural gas. Slightly more if it consists primarily of methane, rather than including the heavier components like ethane, propane, butane, etc etc. While pretending oil is a unique and wonderful item might play well to those who don't know any better, such claims do not change the facts of the known chemical universe when discussing long chain hydrocarbons.

To return to the topic at hand, the value of crude isn't particularly relevant to the manufacture of EV. For example, while crude based energy or feedstock goes into the manufacturing of one, you could triple or quadruple the cost of the crude (to reflect the cost of construction of it from natural gas) and it would increase the cost of the EV itself only slightly. There is an argument in here somewhere that making an EV using a little bit of crude is wildly better than using a little bit of crude to build an ICE car and then burning massive amounts to fuel the infernal contraction. Skip all the massive burning, and use it to build a few hundred more EVs instead.

[pstarr]

Dude, you are a broken record.

--You don't believe in peak oil or AGW
--You do believe EV's will save us.

But "saving" from what then? If we don't need saving, and BAU is just fine, why not stay with ICE's? Wait! I know! You are a Creationist and everybody needs saving.

[Bruce_S]

Dude, you are a broken record.

--You don't believe in peak oil or AGW

Incorrect.

--You do believe EV's will save us.

Save us in the sense of reducing dependency on crude, absolutely. If you are making some religious reference, that is between you and whatever particular deity you have decided to use to define how you are saved.

But "saving" from what then? If we don't need saving, and BAU is just fine, why not stay with ICE's? Wait! I know! You are a Creationist and everybody needs saving.

Certainly religion, yours or anyone elses, doesn't have much to do with the benefits of switching as much commuter transport as possible to electrically powered. Why are you using religion as an argument in a thread dedicated to the reasons why EVs are "getting in gear"?

[ralfy]

"Why Electric Cars are Really Coal Cars"

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... -Cars.html

Related:

"Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part I"

http://seekingalpha.com/article/187096- ... nce-part-i

The better option is to use electricity for regular rail, mass transit, esp. given the importance of oil for manufacturing and the need for other resources.

[pstarr]

"Why Electric Cars are Really Coal Cars"

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... -Cars.html

Related:

"Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part I"

http://seekingalpha.com/article/187096- ... nce-part-i

The better option is to use electricity for regular rail, mass transit, esp. given the importance of oil for manufacturing and the need for other resources.

Yeah. Americans seem unwilling to give up on their personal cars. This is wasteful, unnecessary, and IMHO their attitude is kind of regal, in a faux populist way. We expect our own personal air conditioned private Carriage. Can't be bothered stopping for other people, sharing a space with different folks, interacting.

Rail transport is an order of magnitude more efficient than car/truck. Metal on metal offers less friction. And rail transport is fun and communal, especially when you have bar and restaurants cars. But we won't change. We will go down fighting for the last drop of oil.

[Bruce_S]

"Why Electric Cars are Really Coal Cars"

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... -Cars.html

An interesting piece. It seems limited to simply noting that most electricity comes from coal, without really discussing how that isn't true in areas which have taken different routes for their electrical generation, such as the Pacific NW and areas of Quebec. Or even France.

Related:

"Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part I"

http://seekingalpha.com/article/187096- ... nce-part-i

This article was quite good. I found the calculations (without checking them, I'll take the authors word for it) interesting if you tried to convert all transport to natural gas, it would require a substantial rampup in natural gas production. The author did not address whether or not such a rampup was feasible and did not approach the actual resources available to fuel such a rampup, so that question will remain unresolved for now.

The better option is to use electricity for regular rail, mass transit, esp. given the importance of oil for manufacturing and the need for other resources.

I agree, although judicial conversion to EV fits right into this overall scheme as well. Instead of using that natural gas as direct fuel for cars, as your second reference tested, micro generation for the millions of homes which already have natural gas heat would work so much better probably. That way you could relieve stress on the grid as well, and it is another level of efficiency step up. You lose much less of the energy in the natural gas you transport via pipeline than sending electricity over lines any distance. I would think that more local energy generation solutions from these types of efficiency distribution would be part of the overall solution.