The Environmental Impact of Electric Transportation
Frequent commenter “Breath on the Wind” provides some very interesting and important math in response to my recent post about charging electric vehicles. His central point is that the incremental amount of load on the grid associated with converting all our cars and trucks to EVs is far less than most people realize.
That’s quite correct–and here’s another way to look at the math: About 28% of the total energy consumption in the US is transportation, so one might jump to the conclusion that we would need to increase the supply of electricity by 28% if we were to convert our cars and trucks to electric. But the process of charging batteries and discharging them with electric motors is more than 80% efficient, where internal combustion engines are only about 20% efficient; a delta of 4X. Therefore, converting these vehicles can be accomplished by increasing the grid supply by 28%/4, or 7%, which is extremely modest.
“Breath” goes on to point out that refineries are huge consumers of energy in the processing of delivering gas and diesel to the market; he’s totally correct there too.
Having said this, I think he’s incorrect when he says that an additional benefit to electric transportation derives from charging in off-peak periods. There would be great benefit if EVs were being charged with electricity that is over-produced and thus dumped back to ground, but there is very little of that. EVs are charged with whatever resource is available at the time we plug them in. Sadly, in the US at night, that almost always means burning more coal. That’s the problem we really have to solve.
While EV charging takes place at night and can be sourced to coal fired generation, we can take some solace in the fact that the gasoline alternative is produced in refineries which operate 24/7. They are creating a demand for coal fired generation which makes the ICE dirtier than the EV. As coal plants are retired and replaced by renewables or at least natural gas we will see an even greener pasture for EV grazing.
Breath presents a very narrow view on this subject from a global perspective.
Breath on the wind said:
“Poof! So much for the “huge” demand electric vehicles will pose to our electric grid. In fairness you are raising some very old arguments that have been debunked years ago:” Debunked? Thank you Breath.
The key phrase here is not “Poof!” but “our electric grid”. And it explains a lot about Breaths breadth of understanding of the greenhouse gas science that he likes to “selectively cut and paste” and (unwittingly I believe) re-badge as a home-grown all American scientific phenomena.
Breath this is a global issue that is strangling dear old planet earth mate – it is not a US only issue!! So referring to “our electric grid” in the context of the global emissions (energy generation technologies by extension and association) debate is not going to cut it Breath. You are only exposing yourself to ridicule as a commentator whose thinking is constrained by self-imposed boundaries that don’t exist.
I know you can do a lot better than that from what I have seen of many past well considered comments you have made on several kindred issues.
Greenhouse gas emissions are derived from fossil fuel consumption (globally). We need to move beyond fossil fuel consumption for both “power generation” and “reciprocating engines” Breath – forever, and I say again, this premise applies to ALL people not just the 5% of the world’s population that you like talking about so much.
And here is the salt in the wound Breath. The remaining 95% of people beyond the US borders all require and desire access to the same amount of power that your fortunate 5% have ready access to, in order to move their lives into the modern era. It’s a no brainer.
You should now challenge yourself to go back to the excel spreadsheet and run a few scenarios that can achieve that, and an interesting start might be to build up a simple formula based on the one you have already constructed that applies to the US car fleet; power generation; charging power demand; and fossil fuel consumption, then plug in the African Continent equivalent figures. After that plug in the Asian Continent figures, if you are still a bit confused by then plug in the South American figures. Then pick yourself up from the floor.
You will be surprised and overwhelmed by the results.
And maybe this will jolt you into reality regarding “the new age global energy imperative” as it applies to the urgent reversal of global greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel use (GLOBALLY).
The science is in – we all know that, so stop talking about it and redirect focus now to achievable technological solutions to solve it, and the foundation stone to all that is new power generation technologies that can achieve this and also provide for massive power generation increases to power the energy intensive technologies and industries that are “just around the corner” that will facilitate a new paradigm shift in global development.
No one in the world wants to retreat back to stone-age times as a hostage to the lack of availability of “huge” power, and without “huge” power modern aspirations, prosperity and development will be non-achievable for those without access to it.
Continued “unevenness” between people is directly connected to power generation and we are seeing an increasing intolerance to this inequity around the world.
New power generation technologies are an absolute must have this next 20 – 40 years. They are what I call “global social balancing and harmonising technologies”. “Huge power technologies” are a global imperative that can be solved and reasonably quickly with the right leadership and mobilisation of industries globally.
So back to the beginning. What does the “energy equation” have to do with all this stuff? Well as it turns out, just about everything.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence, I am with you mate, let’s dump all fossil fuels.
But that is a personal feeling. It is a wish, a hope and can even be a plan. It is not necessarily a practical reality. I can be going downhill on a ski slope and have my route all planned out but with a little deviation here and a little twist there, I am not going to argue with a tree in my path.
Similarly you might see me argue as in another response here for off-peak electrical usage to charge electrical vehicles knowing that this will involve using coal for electrical generation. It is not my first choice, but I presently think it works to avoid a myopic disaster with natural gas.
But my personal preferences and attitudes aren’t going to inspire me to try to “change someone’s mind.” There are many more tools I could and might choose to use if strong arm tactics and ego gratification were my goals.
Fundamentally, I am more concerned about human and personal attitudes and choices than in any particular carbon count. It is entirely too easy to play with the numbers and argue endlessly to no end except delay. When we change our attitudes our thinking and doing also experience a difference.
Although many are confused by numbers they can be sometimes useful. You seem somewhat concerned that equal time be given to electrical systems around the world. Lawrence, I have to go with research I have done and what I know as examples for what I am trying to say.
You seem to have something to say, and an interesting writing style that seems a lot like a motivational speech. (Long on superlatives although a bit short on details.) If you think examples from those places will prove your point, be my guest. I will pass the challenge to you and will enjoy looking over your figures. Otherwise it might be considered fairly lame to stand on the sidelines and cry to the players that you have to do more.
With regard to the 95% of population beyond US borders wanting a more energy intensive lifestyle, please trust when I say that I have traveled too widely, stayed in too many small huts, followed local guides into too many back alleys, shared tea with too many subsistence farmers not to be just a little conscious of life beyond the 50 states. And I have learned that often affluence caries with it a price of loss of community and a fear of losing that wealth.
So Lawrence come down off your podium and lets hear what you really think.
Energy is a very complex issue and like the “wise but blind men” who grabbed a portion of an elephant only to seemingly describe an entirely different creature it is very easy to “grab” part of the energy issue and see a very different picture. http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm
When it comes to energy there are pollution aspects and supply aspects among others. I directed my primary comments to the supply aspects as over all I was responding to another comment that suggested that there would be a huge missing demand for power. You also started this blog with the same perspective. On that we found common ground.
But I also referenced a former article. Again it was to illustrate that the issues were old and had been debunked in the past. But it was an article defending the “green” label for an EV and so we might say I brought up the issue and your switch to the pollution aspect is not completely off topic.
Craig, what you say about coal burning plants at night is probably a fair generalization. But, at the least, I think you will agree that we have (and will continue to have in the absence of grid level energy storage) excess power generation capacity at night off peak. Further, without considering pollution, this could be used to power electric vehicles.
The actual mix of this energy will change with the location and will consist of any or all the base load forms of power: coal, nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric. We can say with some certainty that direct PV or solar thermal will not be available for off peak use. There may be some wind resources and depending upon cost, rate structure and legislation these may be also be included in the mix.
So there may be some places where off peak electricity is only slightly dependent upon coal, like California which uses little coal for electrical generation and Pacific Northwest where the overall energy mix is heavily dependent upon hydroelectric. Conversely there are other places that primarily use coal for all electrical generation like the Central States. Overall the US average is now 33% coal, 33% natural gas about 20% nuclear with the balance mostly renewables.
Craig, when you question using off peak power for electric vehicles you seem to question of whether we “should” use off peak power when we contemplate potential pollution. It is a matter of choice and alternatives. Larry Lemmert has already pointed out that refineries operate 24/7 and therefore would use the same coal generated electricity as an EV. But I don’t think you are contemplating a choice between using an EV or using a petrol vehicle. Rather you seem to be contemplating the choice between charging an EV at night or charging it during the day.
Finding a cleaner if not the cleanest solution is the same argument you have used when you advocate substituting natural gas for coal in electrical generation. Therefore although coal may be “dirty,” if charging during the day was somehow more “dirty” then charging at night would be reluctantly preferred.
We say that the grid is sized for the largest peak daytime demand. So if we contemplate an increase in daytime peak load due to more electrical vehicles on the grid then a power company will anticipate that load by building more power plants. Building anything new carries with it a carbon demand. So even if we were building renewable power plants there would be a carbon cost to the construction. Existing power plants amortize their carbon construction footprint over a longer life and more power generation. Once point for charging at night.
What can be said about capital costs for power plants can also be said about the distribution network. Charging at night implies a plug in someone’s home about as many times at it might involve public charging infrastructure. While both involve a capital cost (and a carbon footprint,) putting a level one or a level II charger in someone’s home is not going to require the same investment in capital or the same carbon expenditure as heavy lines for level III public chargers. Night time chargers will tend to be more distributed and likely to involve fewer changes to the grid. This has to be another point for night time charging.
What kind of power plant would be built to accommodate increased usage due to electric vehicles charged during the day? You have argued that even if it were a renewable energy plant it would have to be backed up by fossil fuels, and most probably natural gas. You have argued elsewhere that this would be an improvement over using coal for electrical generation. It would have to do so using operational savings while carrying the disadvantage of new construction. So far this would seem to be a point in favor of charging during the day. But newer concerns over leaking methane has called into question the wisdom of substituting natural gas for coal. I won’t go into the argument here as I have written about this in the comments section of your blog here: http://www.2greenenergy.com/2016/08/26/should-we-ban-fracking-2/ The questions are serious enough and have not yet been countered so that at the present time this issue is under question. -no points.
So it seems that the argument in favor of charging electric vehicles during the day is heavily dependent upon how the leakage problem is resolved. As I said in my previous comment it doesn’t presently look good.
The question (and answer) may change if we were to begin using a massive EV market penetration as a source of grid level storage and as a way to support renewable energy. But even in areas which depend heavily on coal using EV for grid level storage may allow us to retire some coal plants and reduce the total carbon footprint.
Most vehicles will sit for 23 hours a day. During that time they could be charged and discharged. This seems to have tremendous potential. Questions would have to be resolved regarding battery life, battery warranty, compensation and infrastructure.
Craig,
Forgive me for being a little cynical.
What’s the point in debating the merits or problems associated with the capacity of the grid in relation to electric vehicles since none of the participants in the discussion has any intention to purchase an EV?
Each time this discussion arises the debate runs something like this:
ALL : Wonderful things EV’s.
All : We should stop using fossil fuels immediately! (cheers)
All : Electric vehicles are the future
All : Oil companies are all criminals, despoilers of civilization (loud cheering)
Marcopolo: Sounds great ! So who owns an EV ?
All (minus MP) …Silence…
Marcopolo: Aw,c’mon fella’s surely someone? At least buy a EREV, PHEV or hybrid ? How about an electric lawn mower ?
All : mumble, mumble, (growing stronger) ..powered by coal, not ready yet, mumble, mumble, Donald trumps fault, mumble mumble, …change the subject,..(nods of relieved agreement).
Who the hell cares where the grid gets it’s power from if no one’s buying an EV ?
In California you can pick up a pre-owned low mileage, still warrantied Nissan Leaf for under $9000 drive away. No?, how about a 2013 Tesla model S P85 with every extra, 28,204 mls, only $54500 ? (free supercharging).
Oh, c’mon guys, not even a low mileage Chevy Volt Premium for a mere $14,000 ?
Why not just as a second car or just to say you own one? Nope, must be all that oil company brainwashing, eh?
The federal government will forgive you taxes, the state government will give you even more taxes and incentives, but you just gotta go on filling your ICE with Exxon (but hating ’em).
Only a few years ago, everyone was saying,”It’s a conspiracy to stop me buying a Electric Car”, so they started making EV’s but the volume sales still haven’t eventuated.
I guess it’s all about the grid eh ?
Maybe I’m being cynical,…still,…
Marco, I have no intention of taking advantage of health care or even funeral services any time soon but that does not stop me from having an opinion. Some day I might need them and some day people would like to buy an EV.
Your somewhat smart ass and disingenuous assertion that everyone who advocates an EV should own one flys in the face of people already borrowing to the max. It is like the bully on the playground and his two mates sitting on someone and mocking him saying “If you really wanted to you could get up, you must be pathetic and weak.
Physical weakness is one thing, it may be insufficient to a task. Economic weakness is another. It can also be insufficient to a task. There can also be a weakness in compassion and understanding. Sometimes we can keep our personal weaknesses to ourselves but when we open our mouths we reveal the ugliness in our nature for all to see.
One person who lives on a city lot buys only electric tools for the yard because they are cheaper and last longer. The fact that they also don’t need pollution controls, and are lighter than petrol powered equipment is just a plus. But if that yard was too large for cords then they would have to switch to battery equipment and the savings would turn in another direction.
Even with your cynical attitude and a personal renewable energy standard I would be willing to advance you have not purchased an electric truck… because they are mostly not made and the ones that are sometimes available cost as much as a Tesla.
@ Breath on the Wind,
You are quite right, not everyone can buy an EV. Apartment dwellers, low income earners, people with very large families, for all sorts of people EV’s wouldn’t fulfill their personal transport requirements.
My comment was not intended to be either “smartass Or disingenuous”, I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, Craig’s readership is mostly well educated, professional, well paid, financially secure individuals who currently own and operate a gasoline or diesel vehicle. The sort of individual who cares enough to buy solar panels for their home, should really consider a small investment in Zero Emission personal transport.
I just assumed that committed environmentalists could find such a modest sum as $10000 to encourage the transition toward EV transport.
Surely for an environmentally conscious home owner, the small additional cost of a rechargeable battery for lawn garden equipment shouldn’t prove too much of a burden. (what price principles ?). No one said Clean Tech would be cheaper, just cleaner and better.
In answer to you question about EV trucks. Well, in the UK my personal transport for the last 4 years has been a Liberty Electric Range Rover, which can tow a twin horse float, does that qualify?.
(I’m not quite sure what you mean by “truck “, Americans often refer to small 1-2 ton vehicle as trucks).
In Australia, I’ve built a couple of medium sized EV buses, and a 5 tonne EV Tray truck. I also own three larger Hino hybrid trucks of various sizes.
I was an early investor in the venerable old UK firm of Smith Electric vehicles. Smith produced the first successful range of 6-8-10 ton trucks. Smith was later sold to a US company and progress seems to have slowed.
Trucks are a very difficult challenge for EV technology, since they’re really taxing on the ESD system.
My company has also built quite a number of large, low speed, short range, EV trucks for specialized usage.
On a personal note, I empathize with anyone struggling with debt.
As a young man, I thought I had shaken free from the decay and dismal petty squabbles of a shabby and dysfunctional UK, and looked forward to spending my life in the cheerful, confident optimism and sunshine of my mothers native land, Australia. I joined the Australian Army and after overseas service attended university graduating as a lawyer, was promoted and married my Australian wife and mother of my two sons.
Although not wealthy, our income was adequate to support a comfortable lifestyle.
It came as quite a shock to discover that upon my fathers demise I had inherited an ancient and unprofitable estate, crippled with so much debt that I thought at first the lawyers had got it confused with the national debt!
Unfortunately, I also inherited the responsibility for my orphaned school age younger brother whom I barely knew. My brother truly loved his family home, and his UK lifestyle. I also inherited the responsibility for families whose livelihoods depended on the success of the UK estate.
Added to the crippling debts from unjust and vindictive death and estate taxes, my father had spent years living beyond his means, and left a mountain of personal debt.
So yeah, I know the sacrifices that have to be endured to get free of debt. Anyone enduring the struggle to become debt free by meeting all commitments honorably has my support and admiration.