Bullish on Electric Transportation?
In response to my colleague Fritz Maffry’s piece gushing praise and bullishness on the electric vehicle market, frequent commenter and EV disbeliever Glenn Doty notes:
Color me skeptical.
2016 will mark the 3rd year in a row where EV sales growth were <20%, which is terrible for the initial years of an extreme niche market with very poor margins. I think EV’s at large are showing very little promise thus far, and I’m very thankful for that because every sale is still worse for the environment than a hybrid-electric vehicle of similar size.
Whether or not Fritz is correct with his prognostication, there are certain things that push me in his direction, or at least make me want to believe he’s right:
• It is true that EV’s have a negative environmental impact when they are charged with coal. In the US, an incremental load on the grid at night is normally met with coal, while such a load during the day is met with natural gas, or increasingly, solar. Our decommissioning coal plants (while cranking up renewables) will soon produce the conditions in which EV’s are an incredible boon to the environment (though I admit that, for the most part, they are not now).
• Because of the low efficiency of internal combustion engines (20% – 25%), and the relatively high efficiency of charging batteries and discharging them through electric motors (80%+), we could replace 100% of our 230 million cars and trucks in the US with an increase of less than 14% in the demand for electricity.
• Most importantly, oil represents 98+% of the world’s transportation fuel (soon to be entirely eliminated by electric transportation), but we normally ignore one of its most important externalities (costs that are unaccounted for), i.e., war. For the moment, forget about the $4 trillion cost of the Iraq invasion and all the needs for education, infrastructure and healthcare that went unmet as a result. My daughter’s boyfriend is now guarding a military base in Qatar; fortunately, his deployment was switched from Afghanistan at the last minute. See pic above, taken in happier days.
Why is the Middle East so important? Oil and only oil. I am extremely agitated that a close member of our family is put in harm’s way because of the importance of oil, and the enormous corruptive force that the oil companies have on the way the US conducts its international relationships. Of course, I’m far more angered and saddened that thousands of families have lost their children, or had them return home physically dismembered and/or emotionally traumatized.
If you want to talk about externalities, I’d call that one “considerable.”
I’m also bullish on EVs even though it is too soon to be certain that EVs will turn out to be the best choice. Improved batteries plus cleaner ways to generate electricity would favor EVs. However, it could turn out that if we get plentiful clean and economical electricity it would be better to use that electricity to produce an artificial liquid fuel to be used for vehicles.
Probably I’ll keep driving my 2004 Mazda 3 with 21,000 miles on it for many more years. Considering how little I drive it replacing it would make no sense.
Using electricity to make fuel for transportation is never going to be better than using it for electric transportation due to the difference in efficiency for the respective drive-trains.
However there will be many who prefer to drive petrol vehicles just as there are probably some who continue to use a VCR.
Making fuel for transportation could be a reasonable thing to do when range is more important than efficiency. In fact, for airplanes that probably will be the way to go because it is unlikely that battery technology would ever advance to the point that battery electric airplanes would be practical for long distances. The same thing is true for boats.
For boats we shouldn’t try to capture the sun with solar panels to make electricity. Nature already has given us wind. There are several new configuration for sails including tethered para-sails and computer controlled vertical sails. It has been estimated that a commercial container ship could save up to 50% of its fuel and no additional human power with a computer controlled para-sail. Like houses there are completely renewable energy powered boats.
Similarly we don’t have to imagine some unknown technology for long range electric transportation.
There is an somewhat older study that I read which advised that the cheapest way to implement electric transportation would be through transmission. Wired transmission has been done before and is being experimented with now. Wireless transmission is also possible. Wired roadways are possible with the potential to transmit electricity to moving vehicles. So we could go with fuel for long distances or in a civilized society we could incorporate wireless transmission into the major arteries for long range electric transmission.
But transmission is also not the only solution sans batteries. Ultra capacitors alone or in combination with advanced battery storage is another alternative. Ultra caps could be charged in seconds. A charge could be nothing more than switching to a special lane for a minute or pulling in for a recharging pit stop for a few seconds.
There may be some applications for ground based fuel but perhaps ultimately it will only be for something like the Australian outback or the Serengeti.
With respect to air travel. High speed electric trains like the Hyperloop will likely revolutionize travel up to about 700 miles. They promise to be more convenient than air travel.
There is already a plane traveling around the world with no fuel. I think of the solar Impulse http://www.solarimpulse.com/adventure as something like the Wright brothers contraption. But as I look at the concept I see that large wings and solar panels high in the atmosphere are a perfect match. There are drones that have stayed aloft for more than three weeks without landing. A solar drone has been in flight without fuel for more than 11 days: https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/another-first-for-airbus-zephyr-7/
It is sometimes easy to say something can’t be done because we don’t have experience with it. Sometimes there is an intermediate step, not because of lacking technology, but because of unknowing and a reluctant psychology. It is the primary reason why new companies and 3ed world countries can sometimes leapfrog technology.
Since there is no reason at all why capacitors have to be any shape in particular at all it occurs to me that the capacitors could be “molded” into a wing shape with some additional structural support and then coated with solar panels. Depending on what is used for the dielectric, that material may provide a fair amount of structural properties all by itself. For that matter they could also be molded into the shape of the spaces between structural supports of the body of the aircraft.
I see ultra capacitors as being paired with batteries to either provide a boost of power to avoid drawing too much from the battery or rapid absorption of power in excess of the battery’s charge/discharge characteristics which could then be dispensed to the battery within it’s parameters sort of like a buffer between the battery and the real world.
It is highly unlikely that ultra capacitors could ever store anywhere near as much energy as batteries. The advantage of ultra capacitors over batteries is that they can handle much higher currents more efficiently than batteries. Thus on battery electric vehicles and especially on hybrid vehicles, ultra capacitors could efficiently handle the very high currents briefly required for hard braking and rapid acceleration with the batteries handling the more modest long term current requirements. The computerized electronics and software required to make that work would not be simple, but it would result in greater efficiency especially on hybrid vehicles.
It is highly unlikely that solar powered airplanes will ever be practical except in some very specialized situations. The power requirements for airplanes are just too high. That can be demonstrated by using the available area for the PV panels and the efficiency of the PV panels to calculate the power available and compare it with the power required for flight at various speeds keeping in mind that the power required increases with the cube of the velocity. Perhaps someone here could do the calculations.
Here is an interesting article on solar powered airplanes. The author does not expect them to replace current airplanes, but there are other considerations:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/07/solar_impulse_and_cricri_could_these_solar_powered_airplanes_lead_to_real.html\
I’m not sure that solar and battery tech will not at some point have the capability of providing energy required for both short and long flights. Telsa also provides a home battery that can be charged with solar panels for example and then in turn charge the car, also see the Edge building in Holland that already charges hybrids in its parking lot from solar energy,and to top it off Ford was researching solar cars! and reached last stage research including a model but for some reason discontinued…. in my opinion the critical question is will gov’t like China and Russia make this mandatory or at least encourage such a turn over only then can we hope to see any real environmental improvement if its not too late….GB
It may well be that “solar and battery tech will “” at some point have the capability of providing energy required for both short and long flights.” But remember that power requirements increase with the CUBE of the velocity. Thus, doubling the speed requires EIGHT TIMES as much power. The subject plane is barely capable of very low speeds. Even doubling the speed, which would require EIGHT TIMES as much power, would result in a speed which is still very low. It is very unlikely that advancing technology would make eight times as much power available.
There is no way to increase the amount of energy per square unit that the sun delivers. Even 100% efficient PV panels would not provide enough power for long distance travel at reasonable speeds since even 100% efficient PV panels would provide only about seven times as much power as the current PV panels which would be insufficient to double the extremely low speed. The choice then would be high speed travel for a very short distance when the batteries are fully charged (in which case the PV panels would serve no useful purpose) or very very low speed travel for a long distance. Thus the technology is practical only for very specialized situations.
You can easily do your own research work to determine how much power the sun delivers per square unit, i.e., power per square meter, power per square foot, etc., and multiply by the efficiency of the chosen PV panels. Then figure the actual area available for PV panels and determine how much power would be available. If you do that you will quickly find that solar powered air planes are useful only for very specialized purposes or demonstrations.
Craig, your post illustrates the importance of holistic accounting practices that address the externalized costs not seen at the pump, or even in the associated illness and death at our civilian hospitals, or the widespread threats indicated in our global CO2 measurements, and the varied ills and losses of natural services that we all suffer by way of our accordingly damaged and poisoned environment.
Shell analysts have reportedly internally concluded: a) it is unavoidable – in our current paradigm – that the growth of oil demand will severely outstrip supply, and b) world leadership is unlikely to facilitate the satisfaction of the resulting needs rationally and equitably.
Lacking government leadership and/or market-led movement to alter the current paradigm (given the profitability of the status quo, with costs remaining externalized), this points to escalating and spreading conflict globally over an increasingly coveted resource.
Add the adverse impacts on of climate disruption the availability of potable water to large segments of the global population, and we can see that the probability increases for multiple resource shocks, unchecked internal unrest, political and economic instability, and regional conflicts spreading into global war among larger powers (with the very real potential for thermonuclear exchanges).
How does one put a price on the shattering of the biosphere and the outbreak of WWIII? How does one calculate an acceptable risk of these outcomes? One hell of a numbers crunch, and one miserable end of the stick for life on earth, if insufficient caution is applied.
Indeed. The true cost of all this garbage is incalculable. Good point.
There may come a day when people in Frank’s situation choose not to own a vehicle but rather call one when they need it.
In this situation, a small fleet of self driving vehicles available on demand could do the job of a much larger fleet only ever used by their owners.
Gary – I wonder of it would be possible to convince employers and educational institutions to allow staggared arrivals to facilitate the greater applicability and success of a smaller automated fleet.
Additionally, I wonder if expanded public rail transport could be structured modularly, with pre-sorted boarding and destination input, to allow seperate routing and connection of individual rail cars, in order to more efficiently achieve a wide array of customized routes and destinations.
There was a time in Europe when many rail cars were self-powered. That would accomplish what you have proposed, but obviously it would be less fuel-efficient and require more personal to operate it unless each self-powered rail car could also be self-driving.
Perhaps self-powered rail cars could be part of a train for much of the trip then freed to go to their own destination.
Indeed, that’s rather what I’m envisioning, Frank – most often powered by a separate dedicated engine while linked in a train, and then with the cars only self-powered and automated while switching from train to train, and perhaps on short runs to extra-local departure and pick up points.
In fact, the main engines could also function as central generators and/or batteries, linking and feeding power to both drive and charge the individual cars during transit.
The system could even be structured to accommodate light personal vehicles for the roadway – sized on the order of a modified Smart car – which could be designed into the system so as to be rented, leased or owned by individuals, groups or organizations.
In such a system, one could drive a short distance in a driver-controlled or smart-traffic self-driving roadway car, quickly arrive at a local station and input destination data, then have the system join the vehicle to a rail train and cover most of the commute by rail, moving and switching to other trains with other cars as needed to maximize efficiency for the distance traveled.
Conversely, we could see an evolution in work-from-home strategies that would serve to greatly minimize daily commutes in the first instance. Then the above-described system could be used for personal errands and recreation, and for the transport of people who must be on-site, such as skilled artisans, physical therapists, personal/retail service workers, and people who sell various forms of physical labor.
Goods could also be similarly transported to homes and businesses.
NYC and probably most other subway cars are individually powered from a third rail (transmission of electricity to a moving vehicle) and controlled centrally.
All that certainly sounds like a possibility. How much of it will eventually be implemented remains to be seen, but I think that the technology already exists to make it possible.
You might like to take a look at a NASA developed solution called Skytran for “the last mile” applicable to local, suburban and smaller city transportation
http://www.skytran.com/
Quite an interesting concept, and a company that’s still trying after 26 years. The described form of mag-lev is intriguing. It’s said by the CEO to offer net neutral energy usage with distributed solar along the guideways.
This was an interesting vid from 2013 I found, which touches on the functionality and cost (the construction cost is said to be about 10% the construction cost of light rail, I believe): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT1CjKtGFZs
Thanks for the info, Gary – I hope something like this goes somewhere.
Autonomous vehicles seem to be a trend. It will be interesting driving with mixed control of vehicles on the roads. One of the problems presently is that you never quite know what another driver is going to do. With an autonomous vehicle it is a matter of programing. If you understand the program you could more accurately predict the next move.
In the last decade, I have somehow managed do a bit of research, attend a few conventions, write many articles and respond to thousands of questions on electric transportation. It has been interesting to see how the area has changed but also curious that there remains some misconceptions.
Efficiency is a perfect example. When it comes to vehicles there are many things we could be talking about. But even if we restrict to a thermodynamic calculation of “useful energy derived over energy input” there is still the question of how much of the vehicle we are discussing. The electric motor in some solar cars are considered to be 98% efficient. The Tesla roadster was quoted as being 92% efficient from battery to wheels.
The theoretical thermodynamic efficiency of an internal combustion engine (OTTO cycle low compression) using regular fuel was 27%. Ethanol as an additive helps us to use higher compression and the theoretical efficiency of modern engines is now listed as around 46%. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98966/maximum-theoretical-efficiency-of-internal-combustion-engine
Unfortunately this is just scratching the surface. Once we build the engine we find that it does not match the theoretical performance in a “bench test” of its efficiency. So it would not be unusual to de-rate an engine to 75% of its theoretical efficiency or for the bench test of an engine to give us a 35% efficiency number.
But such an engine is useless in a vehicle as it has no low end torque. To move a vehicle an ICE will always need a transmission that is not required for an electric vehicle which has sufficient low end torque. Transmission losses may sap another 5%. Additional drive-train losses will take more but some EV also have a rear axle and rolling resistance. Just as the torque will vary with the RPM of an ICE so also will the efficiency. With the engine running and vehicle standing in traffic the efficiency is essentially zero at a time when the EV isn’t using energy to “keep the engine running.” While real world efficiency of the ICE vehicle will depend upon operating conditions the overall average could be as lower than 15%.
So when you see the word efficiency it may be important to understand if this is a “theoretical efficiency,” a bench test efficiency” of the engine alone or a “real world efficiency” of the entire vehicle.
That 46% efficiency for an Otto cycle engine is probably obtainable only at full throttle. In part throttle operation, which is the normal operating mode of a car engine, the energy lost sucking air in against the vacuum created by the throttle valve causes a serious loss of energy in Otto cycle engines.
In a hybrid car, it should be possible to get an Otto cycle engine to run more efficiently because the electric CV transmission could use a ratio enabling the engine to run at a lower speed with the throttle doing less throttling.
I suspect that in situations where range is not a problem, battery EVs are the way to go.
A theoretical efficiency is just that, something that exists in the calculations. What is “obtainable” on a bench for an actual engine would likely be just under 75% of that or something a little less than 35%. Add the required transmission and you will immediately lose another 5% so that in a car with a transmission you are not going to see better than 30% efficiency. By the time you add in stop and go traffic you can easily drop down to 15% efficiency. At a stop with the engine running the efficiency is 0.
Hybrid cars can be considerably more efficient than non-hybrid IC driven cars. However, I think that eventually the efficiency of hybrid cars can be significantly further improved.
Hybrid cars use batteries to capture braking energy which would otherwise be lost. They could do that more efficiently if they had ultra-capacitors to capture energy during braking and to deliver power under heavy acceleration. That’s because ultra-capacitors are more efficient than batteries. I’m sure that hybrid car manufacturers know that, but effectively supplementing batteries with ultra-capacitors would considerably complicate the electronics and add cost which no doubt is why it has not yet been done. In the future, advances in technology coupled with greater demands for efficiency may result in manufacturing hybrid cars which combine ultra-capacitors with batteries.
Large Diesel engines can, under ideal conditions, have efficiencies which slightly exceed 50%. Wärtsilä makes huge Diesel engines which exceed 50% efficiency; they are used as marine engines and to drive generators but are much too big for road vehicles. Also, in vehicles, engines usually cannot operate under ideal conditions so their efficiency will be considerably lower. Stirling engines can be somewhat more efficient than Diesel engines but don’t seem very practical for road vehicle usage although they have been successfully used in boats.
It’s interesting that in spite of the horsepower race which has enabled late model cars to perform better than race cars of slightly earlier times, fuel efficiency has still greatly increased. Advanced engine management systems, fuel injection, transmissions with an ultra-high gear for cruising, and improved aerodynamics are largely responsible for the increased efficiency.
Frank, Ultra caps perform better because they have a higher POWER density than batteries. Power is a measure of how quickly the energy can be transferred. Batteries however continue to have a higher ENERGY density. Energy density is a measure of how long the energy will last (ie the total amount of energy compared to either the weight or the volume of the ultracap or battery)
Efficiency is entirely different matter that governs how much of the energy put into a battery or ultracap is available over time or for discharge. Charging batteries is said to be about 95% efficient. Part of this would be the battery and some of it would be the battery. I think you could expect the same or slightly better from ultracaps but it is power density not efficiency that makes them better for delivering quick bursts of energy.
A hybrid does not need energy density like a BEV which only has the charge stored in batteries. Hybrids have another storage option: the energy stored in gasoline which is even more energy dense than batteries. Hybrids then need batteries or ultracaps designed for short term storage and quick bursts of power. This makes the energy storage for hybrids fundamentally different than storage for the EV.
Generally when we see lots of power being released quickly we will also find less efficiency than a more controlled release. Acceleration requires energy and will include energy losses.
A hybrid also has many more moving parts than an EV leading to more energy losses. Between these factors, although we can presently get more energy storage and range from a hybrid, I would be surprised if in the long term a hybrid is ever more efficient than a BEV.
With respect to engine efficiency, my previous comment suggests why I hear quotes of engine efficiency with some reluctance until I also understand what exactly is being measured and how.
In my previous comment ” Part of this would be the battery and some of it would be the battery.” should read Part of this would be the charger and some of it would be the battery.
Re Ultra Capacitors, there is a firm in the R stage of R & D which expects to be able to make a 200Wh per kg ultra-capacitor next year, and to greatly improve on that within a few years with a target of 1000 Wh or about 4 times the energy density of current lithium battery technology.
http://www.capacitorsciences.com/?utm_source=Energy+Storage+Report&utm_campaign=7a2168eaf3-ESR_2_10_1210_2_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bd57f7e9aa-7a2168eaf3-83832613
Expected cost is around $100 per kWh with a likely 20 year guarantee
Just as efficiency can be misused by essentially not talking about the same fundamental things so also are pollution comparisons between the EV and ICE often confused by “cherry picking.” The most egregious is comparing the “long tailpipe of the EV” to the air pollution produced by an ICE vehicle alone. This doesn’t include the same elements but it never-the-less has been the basis for some environmental objections to the EV. Along the same lines, coal fired power is often cited as the most objectionable way to produce EV electricity sometimes to the exclusion of any appreciation for the local energy mix.
There are some places in the world where coal does contribute 80% to 90% of the local electrical energy mix. Mid western states, Australia, and South Africa come immediately to mind. Because Coal is a baseload fuel and coal power plants can’t be turned off or down without economic consequences, it is also used at night by default. (It can’t be turned off.) But that also brings the possibility especially where the energy mix is normally high that electrical demand is going below the energy that is produced. Those coal plants are going to be polluting in any event. Some percentage of EV use (charging at night) would then not be the cause of “additional” pollution if it was going to be happening anyway. This is fairly esoteric and is like an accounting problem. But it does point out that it might not be fair to say then that EV use is “causing” coal pollution. No then the nature of coal plants is causing coal pollution.
The second is much more clear but rarely mentioned. Gasoline refining uses electricity. Refineries usually have direct feeds from power plants. Naturally these old production facilities sought the cheapest electricity. In the UK all 3 refineries have direct feeds from coal fired power plants. There is no energy mix to consider. 100% of the electricity is from coal to produce electricity that is then used to produce gasoline. It works out that from about 4.5 KWH of electricity is required to produce each gallon of gasoline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQpX-9OyEr4 When you look at the EPA rating for the Nissan leaf you find that the vehicle is rated at about .34 KWH / mile or on the electricity that is required to make a gallon of gasoline the EV could travel about 13 miles with no additional emissions from the vehicle. Traveling the same distance the ICE would use the same amount of electricity and the same amount of pollution as the EV but in addition it would be burning some amount of gasoline and releasing polluting compounds into the air. For a 39mpg vehicle it would be producing an additional 6.5# of carbon dioxide. You could repeat this analysis for any fuel or any energy mix on the electrical side. The ICE continues to come in second place. So, it seems, when you see a study that suggests that coal fired electricity makes the EV more polluting than an ICE you will need a very long look at this attempt to create a “long tailpipe for the electric vehicle.
So what is a poor ICE advocate to do? They ante up the pollution from making batteries. We then see them with up to 5 oil changes for the ICE each year for the life of the vehicle and up to 325 millions of gallons of drain oil that is illegally dumped or put in landfills each year in the US alone. (The BP oil spill was estimated at about 200 million gallons) http://www.munciesanitary.org/department-pages/recycling/oil-facts/?back=Department_Pages
Note that coal’s average percentage of the grid-mix is irrelevant; what matters is how incremental loads on the grid are met. At night in the US, that’s almost always coal. Think about it this way: We’re already integrating every single Watt of renewable energy that we possibly can, so the question is how to we meet incremental demand. Sadly, that’s coal at night (and natural gas during the day).
Of course, there are people who overbuild their solar arrays specifically to charge their EVs, and I’m proud to say that I know quite a few.
Coal plants are in deed tamped back at night–a little less in cases of incremental demand.
It is true that we need more energy storage which is why CSP: concentrated solar power: Thermal solar energy collected and stored in hot salts for later use in a conventional thermal power plant holds some interesting promise as it continues to be implemented throughout the world.
Here is an article from 2013 about such a plant that just opened in California: http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/14/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-storage-comes-online/
It would be interesting to know which CSP installation has the largest heat storage capacity and for how long the installation will deliver its rated power with no solar heat available. So far as I know none will deliver rated power for more than 24 hours, but that information could be obsolete. There would be a practical limit to how big such a system could be.
The most common heat storage system uses fused salts consisting of KNO3 and NaNo3. There is a proposal to use hot sand instead because it enables the use of higher temperatures than fused salts. The sand is supposed to flow but I don’t know if such a system has been successful.
Craig,
I wondered at the numbers you suggested for the amount of electricity that would be required to charge our entire fleet of vehicles. As it required only two very large numbers and a transition to confirm I found that in 2015 the US used 140.43 billion gallons of gasoline. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10 The conversion from gasoline energy to electrical energy is through its BTU content. (gasoline gallon equivalent) 1 gal is equal to 33.56 KWH. http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/resources/a/gge.htm Our total gasoline consumption would then equal (140.43 billion gal x 33.56) 4713 billion KWH. 4,087,381 (thousand-megawatt hours [4087 billion KWH] of electricity were produced at utility scale facilities in the US 2015: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1 ) This is just gasoline and does not include the smaller amounts for diesel and other fuels. After you take into consideration the greater efficiency for electric vehicles (4 to 5 times more efficient) it still looks like about double the number or about 30% more electricity required.
Off peak night time generation infrastructure already in place would seem to supply most of this. There is a 10 year old study that offered we could charge 86% of all our vehicles if they were pure electric and charged at night using existing infrastructure (power plants and transmission)
For comparison, I have seen higher numbers, but this site suggests that air conditioners use 5% of all electricity produced in the US. http://energy.gov/energysaver/air-conditioning
My analysis was far more simplistic (not that this should come as a surprise), but I think it’s accurate. 28% of our total energy used in the US is consumed for transportation (of all types). If we convert that from oil to electricity and experience as little double the efficiency, which is very conservative, that’s 14%.
To get CO2 emissions down to acceptable levels, we have to reduce CO2 emissions from multiple sources, not just for generating electricity. Transportation is one of those sources.
If we assume that the percentage of electricity generated from CO2 emitting sources will decline, that might justify buying battery powered EVs now even in places where using EVs would temporarily increase CO2 emissions. The alternative would be to buy vehicles with CO2 emitting IC engines and those vehicles might still be around when many coal burning power plants have been shut down. Because we cannot accurately predict the future we cannot now know for certain whether or not we should be buying EVs at this time.
Agriculture is also a significant source of CO2 emissions. Burton Richter’s book, “Beyond Smoke and Mirrors”, covers CO2 emissions form agriculture. CO2 emissions therefrom can be and should be reduced.
Perhaps these are two different numbers. We sometimes speak of total US energy consumption and then must include all electrical production, all production for heat applications in industry and for buildings. We will sometimes use these totals to derive overall pollution or efficiency numbers. 28% of that amount seems about right for transportation.
If you intended to say that electrifying our fleet of vehicles would increase our total energy use (heat+electricity+transportation) by 14% this would be surprising as the overall energy use could be expected to decline not increase due to the efficiency of the EV.
However if we are just speaking about electrical energy production, as we would need to in order to convert from oil use to electrical energy use then because the total amount of energy is smaller the percentage would be larger.
This is why it seems reasonable to convert from total gallons of gasoline used to the equivalent in electricity (which as you can see from the above calculations turns out to be slightly more than our overall yearly electrical generation) and then we would have to add a factor for the efficiency of electrical transportation over fueled vehicles.
Using 2015 as an example with its 4087 billion KWH of industrial scale electricity generated that year. A 14% increase would equal (4087 x 1.14) 4659.18 billion KWH (-4087 =) a 572 billion KWH increase. When compared to the just the electrical equivalent of the gasoline used in 2015 (see previous comment 4713 billion KWH) this represents approximately an 88% reduction due to the change in efficiency for the EV. By the time we add in diesel fuel and a few alternative fuels the increase in efficiency of the EV over the ICE vehicle would have to be over 90%. (If we are giving the benefit and saying that the EV efficiency is around 85% and the ICE efficiency is around 15% then the change would actually be 70%) I am sure I could find the diesel numbers for a more accurate calculation but the numbers already don’t reconcile.
One thing that may also be a factor is the increase in gasoline use due to lower prices in 2015. As much as I think the EV is the future the number does seem a bit low.
No, swapping electrical energy for chemical energy (oil) will not change the total demand for energy.
There’s energy lost in the transition, is there not?
I’m not explaining myself too well.
I’m just saying that if we need “X” kWhrs of kinetic energy to move our stuff around with oil, we’ll need the same with electricity. And yes, energy is lost in the process of delivering that, but with oil it’s ~80% and with batteries/motors it’s about 20%.
If there were no change, and as you can check with the numbers above, the amount of gasoline we used in 2015 would equal more energy than the entire industrial scale electrical energy production of the US and not an additional fraction 14% or more.
It is only because the EV uses that energy more efficiently than the ICE will the number be just a fraction of what we require to move inefficient ICE vehicle around the country.
As I continue to try and justify your 14% number there may be another factor which I already mentioned. Refineries also use electricity. Eliminating the need for gasoline would imply that less oil would need to be refined reducing the need for electricity.
I see once again a flaw in the thought process by assuming vehicle charging should be done at home at night. Vehicle charging should be done during the day in the employer’s parking lot using grid tied solar power from everywhere that should be built out as much as possible. This would reduce/possibly eliminate any additional coal usage and also help level out that “duck curve” that many power utilities use as an excuse to try to reduce the amount of solar being built up as being “more than they can handle”.
Brian, electric vehicle use will necessarily follow available infrastructure. For many people it is a terrific plus to say that they never need to go to a petrol station again and simply need to spend a few seconds to plug in a vehicle at home. In this way the ability to charge at home can be a boost to sales.
The capacity to charge in garages and at public venues is an additional plus. Just getting people into an EV rather than an ICE makes our energy use more efficient. Efficiency alone tends to reduce pollution levels.
As the supplied energy becomes more eco friendly this will also reduce pollution levels but this forms a separate inquiry. We can make charge points solar powered, but to be most efficient this will also require energy storage.
Craig argues that coal will be eliminated with a better and probably more efficient and cheaper model to supply power. While I agree as far as this goes, I tend to think that this will take too long and that we will need more funds supporting renewables and more legislation restricting coal among other fossil fuels. Germany’s and California’s present leadership in renewable energy is squarely based upon government policies and support rather than new inventions or technological revelations.
It is unlikely that coal use in the present environment is going to significantly expand. Although sadly it has in Germany due to their committment to eliminate nuclear power. I hadn’t seen the term “duck curve” used before and thank you for the point which prompted me to find this in reference to California’s electrical energy grid: https://www.caiso.com/Documents/FlexibleResourcesHelpRenewables_FastFacts.pdf
Some of this is intentional misdirection. Coal generation in California is less than 1% of the natural gas generation. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html The surface argument here is for more flexible generation. This type of power production has been called “peaking” or “load following.” This is almost exclusively natural gas and has never been coal. The truth of the matter is however that if they can convince the regulators to reduced the amount of solar contribution they could then use their economical base load plants like coal to supply more of the need rather than build more of the flexible plants that use natural gas.
Coal plants are being marginalized. This represents idle capital to energy companies. Rather than build a new gas fired plant they would rather start up an old coal fired plant. This is where the “model” of a new energy plan could break down.
I have done work at several facilities for a small company in NJ called Johnson & Johnson. They have covered their parking lots with PV panels and have installed electric car charging facilities. Even if there are no panels installed in a given parking facility, charging facilities in these locations for employees will be a plus as the power comes through the grid from other renewable generators helping to make use of that power.
I agree the “duck curve” while real, is an excuse for energy companies to fight back against a substantial change to their business model. They definitely need to increase their storage and “dump” capabilities. As I have stated previously, if the power companies can’t store this power then perhaps it behooves them to coordinate with large industrial processes who already have to work with the power companies, such as the metal industry, to use this power by running a process when renewable generation is high. Currently industries such as this already have to call the power company to give them a “heads up” that they are about to run a power intensive process so the power company can bring additional generation online. In the case of large scale power consumers it may be worth it to the power companies to offer a small incentive to run processes during times if peak generation as opposed to charging them a premium to run the process when it is convenient for the customer.
I am personally dealing with that duck curve phenomena here at my house. When panel generation is high my power usage is pretty low as we are mostly at work and when I use power the most there is no sun except on the weekend when I run “heavy” processes during peak generation such as laundry or the dishwasher. During the week I will run my entertainment center and laptop for 7 hours from my batteries to “empty” them out and make room so that during the next day my generation will refill them. Still I am capable of generating more power than the batteries can store so I am working on controls to shunt this excess power to things like the fridge and other appliances automatically when I am not here to do it manually.
This can all be done. It just takes a shift in mentality and some out of the box thinking.
Gary – I wonder of it would be possible to convince employers and educational institutions to allow staggared arrivals to facilitate the greater applicability and success of a smaller automated fleet.
Additionally, I wonder if expanded public rail transport could be structured modularly, with pre-sorted boarding and destination input, to allow seperate routing and connection of individual rail cars, in order to more efficiently achieve a wide array of customized routes and destinations.
A long-time reader in the solar business writes:
I understand and feel for you…….
Thought you may like to read an article:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_lie_of_patriotism_20160403#.VwKEkq4PgzQ.facebook
You are not alone and many many service men agree and are standing up…..The Lie of Patriotism
This article is worth a read. It is relevant even more now than in the past. I felt exactly the same way after my second tour in Vietnam and I totally see this rangers point and I think he is correct. There is no benefit to war and only the dead see the end of it. It is worthless. dramatically increases the number of our enemies, cost more money than we have and most of the time is unnecessary. Nothing has changed and we need to change it now. It is all fear based and has been used for centuries – here is a more recent episode.
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Hermann Goering.
Excellent article – it makes plain many factors we’re facing in the socio-political realm. Fear is a powerful tool, but not easily turned to lasting benefit.
I’m reminded of Lincoln who said both, “Force conquers all, but its victories are short-lived,” and, “I conquer my enemies when I make them my friends.”
I’m encouraged by human history, which not only demonstrates an arc toward civilization, but also the temporary nature of empires and dictators. The chief dangers now emerge from greed, ignorance, and little red buttons.
10 years ago, the cost of hauling fuel to our troops in the front lines of Afghanistan and Iraq was around $75 a gallon, plus the risk to the soldiers escorting the high-value convoy. Needless to say, these fuel tankers were easy pickings for insurgents and rolling death traps for our men and women. I’m glad my kids avoided that hazard in their lives. What did we really accomplish, and at what cost?
I have seen reference to this logistical cost by military thinkers. Some have considered the possibility of mobile renewable energy generators like tethered wind generators to substantially reduce the need for fuel.
The military is already doing that. They have high efficiency tent structures which require less energy to heat and cool and solar arrays with batteries in forward operating bases used in conjunction with generators for short periods to substantially reduce the amount of fuel used. One of the biggest advantages found was that they no longer had to stick to a schedule of convoys and deliveries that the enemy could predict and prepare for because fuel consumption was a constant. Instead of just going out to meet the predicted convoy at the predetermined time, the insurgents now had to wait in force for the unpredictable convoy to show up at some random time for weeks at a crack. It ties those forces down or they have to abandon the effort and the convoy goes through without incident. Tying the enemy down also makes them a static target that is easier to detect and deter. The bases were also quieter for much longer periods of time making them harder to detect. The whole enterprise has been a huge success.
http://solarindustrymag.com/forward-operating-solar-military-microgrids-lead-the-way
It is encouraging that the military is now considering energy efficiency. It has not always done so.
At one time I worked for a company that manufactured engines and generators for the military. Efficiency did not seem to be a consideration. For example, the 5GF engine-generator was rated at 5KW at altitudes up to 10,000 feet. That meant that the engine (but not the generator) had to be considerably more powerful than necessary at more usual altitudes so that it would be able to deliver 5KW at 10,000 feet. Because the engine was considerably more powerful than usually necessary the unit used considerably for fuel at normal altitudes than other engine-generators did. If the military had been more concerned with fuel efficiency they would have attached a table to the units indicating the amount they’d have to be derated at different altitudes. That way fuel consumption at normal altitudes would have been about 25% lower.
Tesla has taken over 300,000 deposits for the Model 3 in less than a week. That’s almost 3 times the annual plug-in sales in the US last year. The 200+ mile range and lower cost are game changers.
That’s good on many levels – EVs reduce energy consumption since EV’s are at least 3 times more energy efficient than gas burners (40 mpg max vs 124 mpge max epa combined ratings) This is great for the environment, because a solar powered EV causes about 1/10,000 the pollution (that’s about 27 years of driving an EV to get the same pollution as driving a gas burner 1 day) This also allows us to generate power locally using renewable sources rather than rely on middle eastern oil.
The energy transformation of our generation is happening now.
Breath,
I have a very good understanding of ultra capacitors even though their advent occurred after I reached a geriatrified but still competent state. Yes, I realize that they have a much greater power density and much lower energy density than batteries. Another problem with them is that whereas batteries tend to maintain a steady emf as they are discharged, capacitors, whether ultra or not, do not maintain a steady emf. Rather, their emf is proportional to the state of charge. Thus, when connected to loads which require a steady or controlled emf, which is the usual case, somewhat complicated electronics are required to compensate for the changing emf of ultra capacitors.
If ultra capacitors, like batteries, had a steady emf, it would be much easier to integrate them into hybrid vehicles to improve efficiency when current demands are high such as during rapid acceleration or heavy regenerative braking. The efficiency benefits of ultra capacitors are such that the increased electrical complications of using them along with batteries in BEVs may be worthwhile in spite of the additional complications, at least sometime in the future if the cost of ultra capacitors and electronics declines enough.
I just now came across an article on electric busses that are being used in London on a trial basis. They use sodium nickel batteries that I had never before heard of although I am somewhat familiar with liquid salt batteries. On the busses they are combined with super capacitors (ultra capacitors).
Here is a link to the article:
http://insideevs.com/irizar-i2e-electric-bus-london/
I can’t recall that electric busses have been discussed here but surely they are relevant.
Electric busses were very common in Philadelphia a long time ago. They had a boom that would connect to a wire above but it could rotate allowing the bus to pull over to the side of the road to take on and let off passengers and had more flexibility to drive around some traffic impediments unlike trolleys which were stuck on the tracks.
Brian,
They were called trolly busses and in earlier times were quite common. I seem to recall that Baltimore had them before 1950 but my memory that far back is not very good. On a business trip to Seattle in 1975 I saw them there. I learned that because they were quite old it was difficult getting parts for them. The reason they kept them was that the Diesel busses of the day had trouble ascending the steep hills whereas the trolly busses zipped right up the hills.
Of course not all electric busses are trolly busses; some use batteries instead. It is that type of electric bus that my previous post was about.
Ironically after I posted that I went looking for pictures of them on Google and found not only the old ones that I remember but shiny new versions that are currently on the road today. Amazingly on facebook today there was a picture posted from 1967. I am trying to post the picture but I don’t know if it will work.
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12963888_1080035385392732_4305877011579703523_n.jpg?oh=6ba5e60c5f5fbba7c6c95ca770da54dd&oe=578C7533
Craig,
I don’t know if you recognize this place in the picture but it is the corner of Cottman and Castor in Philadelphia at the Roosevelt mall.
I couldn’t have named the exact intersection (though I’ve driven through it many dozens of times), but I certainly could have told you that it was from the Northeast. LOL, I had forgotten all about Lit Brothers.
That trolly bus is styled much like the Diesel busses of around 1960. I remember when they added the small windows above the big windows; it was sometime in the middle or late 1950s if I correctly remember.
Those trolly busses were left helpless if the trolly became separated from the catenary. They could be made with enough battery power to permit them to transfer from one catenary system to another under their own power.
Cameron, You commented that energy would be lost in transition. If I understand your comment correctly: If we were to change our fleet from using gasoline to electric we are not actually putting in some device which would change gasoline to electricity. In a device such as a generator there would be some energy lost in the transition from one form of energy to another.
Rather what is anticipated is a gradual switching the vehicles used from gasoline powered to electric powered. We would not be using gasoline at all but we would need some amount of electricity to power the electric vehicles. The question is how much electricity would be required and how this compared to present use. Craig used the number 14% which sounded a bit low to me. (by about 1/2)
To make some estimate of how much electricity would be needed I starting with the total amount of gasoline used in 2015. This is a way of saying how much use are we demanding from our vehicles. I could have instead come up with a number for how many miles are traveled by all vehicles and then applied some average of the EV fuel economy. To try and double check the numbers I worked from the 14% back to the calculated electrical equivalent of the gasoline used in 2015 but came up with an efficiency that was beyond what should be reasonably expected without including some other factor.
Starting with the total gasoline used allowed me to leave the efficiency of the EV for last as it is the only uncertain number. The transition from gasoline to electricity is mathematical not actual so it would be inappropriate to take away something for a loss in efficiency.
I could have sent the whole calculation to Craig privately but I was hoping someone would check the calculations and agree that the 14% is too low or suggest other factors not considered.
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression you were considering a form of chemical energy storage/transit medium, such as hydrogen or ammonia. There would be losses in conversion in those scenarios. You are of course correct that such a loss does not occur merely within a math formula.
Renewable energy and oil have an inherent vested interest and conflict, arising political and economic instability. Peace and non violence, along with practice of minimal usage of natural usage, and treating Sun as the almighty power have been practiced in India, forgotten and now need an urgent push from you, me and all across the Globe. Please ask me for volunteering help if you need.
Interesting. What do you have in mind?
New Zealand is probably the only country in the world that could power all it’s Petrol and small Diesel vehicles with Renewable Electricle Energy. That is Hydro, Wind. Geothermal and with plenty of Geothermal and Tidal Energy as yet untapped.
But instead the government is running down the electrified Rail system and going very cool on Electric Cars
Hi Roger,
I’m curious to know what that indicates, in your estimation.
Please see: http://www.2greenenergy.com/2016/04/15/fossil-fuel-death/.
This shows that the present government is beholden to business as usual with oil Companies and Coal mining Companies. It also indicates that the present government will not “rock the boat ” because it is just thinking about their re Election next time, and not the future of the Country or their childrens future.
I’d be highly inclined to agree.