Why the Electric Car Is Doomed to Fail?

[Desertstraw]

Many of the electric vehicles will be solar powered, within a decade not the distant future. Mine is already. Here is a quote from "MSNBC":

"Investors looking to get fabulously rich may want to place a few bets on solar cell and rechargeable battery technology. At least, that's one way to frame an onstage chat between U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and billionaire Bill Gates at a recent energy innovation conference.

"A combination of breakthroughs in solar and battery technologies will allow them "to go viral in the same way that cellphones went viral not only in the developed world, but also in the developing world," Chu said at the annual summit of the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy."

Underestimating the speed of technology is a good way to lose money. We are nearing the age of cheap energy, the promise of nuclear energy to be delivered by the other kind of nuclear energy, solar. Even the Republicans with their oil backers cannot stop progress.

 

[etracing]

So....

I cannot get a new....better....battery pack to just bolt in to my LEAF in 10 years and keep it running until
I really wear out the whole car??

Sounds like a good start up company. Oh wait, we are doomed.... never mind LOL

( I also charge up on Solar if I have extra at the end of the day)

 

[ENIAC]

The amount of electricity used to refine a gallon of gas can be used straight away in the Leaf. So grid demand should stay about the same shouldn't it?

Plus this is where the "EV crowd" gets this argument wrong--and we need to be careful how we present this argument. Yes, the refining process uses a lot of electricity. It's not known exactly how much (unless you are an oil company) but it's probably safe to assume that the amount required will ALMOST (but not quite) power an EV the same distance as a high mileage car would go.

However where the argument goes wrong is that their electricity is mostly generated on-site using the refined fuel or other by-products. So they are not actually pulling a lot of power from the grid. Therefore to make the argument that the grid can handle it, or that the refining process is using the "dirty" coal-fired power is incorrect. Basically the net effect is that the efficiency of the refinery as a whole is lower by the amount of product that must be used to generate power for the refinery.

All in all the argument is still valid from an efficiency point of view: power generated for electricity and then distributed to your outlets makes more efficient use of the raw materials going into the process than does gasoline refining. But to be fair we have to present the argument properly.

Actually the "EV crowd" has it right, you have it wrong. The amount of electricity purchased by refiners is tracked. In 2010 refineries in the U.S. purchased 46.227 GWh of electricity. That electricity came from the grid. To state "their electricity is mostly generated on-site" is patently wrong.

 

[edatoakrun]

Actually the "EV crowd" has it right, you have it wrong. The amount of electricity purchased by refiners is tracked. In 2010 refineries in the U.S. purchased 46.227 GWh of electricity. That electricity came from the grid. To state "their electricity is mostly generated on-site" is patently wrong.

And I'd expect that the total hydrocarbon-fueled energy used in refining, is much greater than that from electricity.

Anyone got a good figure on how many kWh from the grid on average, in total, refining, pumping, etc., it takes to put a gallon of gas into an ICEV?

I wonder if I get higher m/kWh in my LEAF, than some ICE SUVs do?

That would be an interesting point to make, when the "EVs will crash the grid!!!" FUD is spewed.

 

[Stoaty]

Actually the "EV crowd" has it right, you have it wrong. The amount of electricity purchased by refiners is tracked. In 2010 refineries in the U.S. purchased 46.227 GWh of electricity. That electricity came from the grid. To state "their electricity is mostly generated on-site" is patently wrong.

At 4 miles per kWh, that would be about 185 million miles of driving. National average per month in 2008 was about 230 million miles: http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=443" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So the U.S. could drive about 25 days on that amount of electricity (if everyone had a Leaf and drove reasonably carefully).

 

[GRA]

So we should be able to figure this out. Assuming 12,000 miles a year average, 4 miles per kWh, the average Leaf will consume 3000 kWh of electricity in a year. Now let's say the Tennessee plant runs full tilt cranking out Leafs and they all sell like hotcakes as far as the eye can see. After 10 years, there will be 1.5M Leafs on the road, consuming 4.5B kWh of electricity per year.

I attempted to figure out how much 4.5B kWh is out of the total generating capacity. Check my math:

4.5B kWh = 4.5 terrawatt-hours, or 4.5 x 10 ** 12 watt hours.

Near as I can tell electric generating capacity in the US is something on the order of 4.4 peta-watt hours, or 4.4 x 10 ** 15 watt hours.

So 1.5 million electric cars would take about 1/1000th of our present day generating capacity? Can that be right? (yeah I know there are transmission losses, blah blah blah, and the Leaf won't be the only EV, but still...)

I think you're conflating yearly U.S. electricity output (4.4 PWH) with peak generating capacity (just over 1 TW):

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As there are ~8,765 hours in a year, you can see that average capacity factor (across all types of plant) is around 0.5. There will be no problem for many years with charging a large number of EVs off-peak, but it will require lots of non-renewable power. [Added] However, it will be necessary to upgrade many neighborhood transformers to handle the load, if charging is done at home.

 

[TRONZ]

The OP article reads like a Better Place press release. I also noticed that Better Place posted it onto their FB page. If battery swapping is "the" EV answer then they are very free to roll it out.

 

[SanDust]

Actually the "EV crowd" has it right, you have it wrong. The amount of electricity purchased by refiners is tracked. In 2010 refineries in the U.S. purchased 46.227 GWh of electricity. That electricity came from the grid. To state "their electricity is mostly generated on-site" is patently wrong.

Just doing some math it looks like if ALL electricity was used to produce gasoline then the refiners would be using about 6 kWh per gallon. But they make a wide range of products so the number would be far less than that.

Any idea why the electricity consumed would be going up while the amount of gasoline being refined would be going down?

 

[lkkms2]

I have been using the fact that it takes 6 to 7 kWh of electricity to produce a gallon of gasoline, and that does not include the energy it takes to drill for the oil, transport the oil to the refinery, and transport the gasoline to the gas station.

I like to share with people that I can drive 4 miles/kWh. Then I can drive 24 miles (4 x 6 = 24) in my Leaf using the same amount of electricity it takes to produce that gallon of gasoline . Then I like to add, "and if you give me that $4 you spend on a gallon of gasoline and I can go over 100 miles on $4 worth of electricity to charge my EV.".

Although oil has provided plenty of energy for our modern industries and modes of transportation over the last century (and is not going away overnight), as this EV technology continues to develop and improve, people are going to begin to wonder, "Why even drill oil to produce gasoline?, it will better, cleaner and more efficient to drive using electricity.

Edit: fixed gallon of "electricity" to gallon of gasoline. Also, sorry about double posting.

 

[lkkms2]

I have been using the fact that it takes 6 to 7 kWh of electricity to produce a gallon of gasoline, and that does not include the energy it takes to drill for the oil, transport the oil to the refinery, and transport the gasoline to the gas station.

I like to share with people that I can drive 4 miles/kWh. Then I can drive 24 miles (4 x 6 = 24) in my Leaf using the same amount of electricity it takes to produce that gallon of gasoline . Then I like to add, "and if you give me that $4 you spend on a gallon of gasoline and I can go over 100 miles on $4 worth of electricity to charge my EV.".

Although oil has provided plenty of energy for our modern industries and modes of transportation over the last century (and is not going away overnight), as this EV technology continues to develop and improve, people are going to begin to wonder, "Why even drill oil to produce gasoline?, it will better, cleaner and more efficient to drive using electricity.

Edit: fixed gallon of "electricity" to gallon of gasoline. Also, sorry about double posting.

 

[ENIAC]

Actually the "EV crowd" has it right, you have it wrong. The amount of electricity purchased by refiners is tracked. In 2010 refineries in the U.S. purchased 46.227 GWh of electricity. That electricity came from the grid. To state "their electricity is mostly generated on-site" is patently wrong.

Just doing some math it looks like if ALL electricity was used to produce gasoline then the refiners would be using about 6 kWh per gallon. But they make a wide range of products so the number would be far less than that.

Any idea why the electricity consumed would be going up while the amount of gasoline being refined would be going down?

About 48% of a refineries production is gasoline. Gasoline production is down 2% from a year ago, but it's up 1.3% over its five year average. Crude inputs are up almost 12% year over year. They are making a lot more diesel fuel.

 

[lpickup]

However where the argument goes wrong is that their electricity is mostly generated on-site using the refined fuel or other by-products.

source please.

I guess I would turn it around and ask you for a source that shows that a refinery uses X number of kWh from the grid!

But since you asked, I base that assertion mainly off this report: Updated Estimation of Energy Efficiencies of U.S. Petroleum Refineries (see Table 3) and also from message board posts from someone supposedly "in the industry" that shared that the electricity "bought" (I can't remember the exact word she used, but this was essentially the meaning of what she said) to refine a gallon of gas was 0.5kWh. I have seen several other references and could probably dig them out, but this is one of the better ones.

Again, I am not disputing the claim that it takes somewhere between 5 and 7.5 kWh (the range I have seen) of electricity to refine a gallon of gas. I'm just saying that it appears that only a small portion of that is actually bought from the grid.

 

[lpickup]

Actually the "EV crowd" has it right, you have it wrong. The amount of electricity purchased by refiners is tracked. In 2010 refineries in the U.S. purchased 46.227 GWh of electricity. That electricity came from the grid. To state "their electricity is mostly generated on-site" is patently wrong.

Yep, that's basically the same table I just referred to. Not saying they didn't purchase that much electricity. I'm just saying they used a lot MORE power (generated from all those other rows in your table) that what they brought in from the grid.

 

[lpickup]

I agree with the assertion you make in principle, however I disagree with throwing out this argument altogether.

I agree. It's still a great argument in general. I'm just cautioning that if you go down that path with someone "in the know", they will be able to correctly refute your claim that the "coal-fired" electricity used to generate a gallon of gas will is greater than what is needed to drive your LEAF for 25 miles. Because strictly speaking, I don't think this is true.

However, you CAN make the valid argument that the POWER required to generate a gallon of gas is greater than is needed to drive your LEAF for 25 miles. Just leave it at that. That packs enough of a punch in my opinion!

 

[EdmondLeaf]

This is same story that was reported a while ago http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=8040. Prof Ron Adner is a very good spokesperson for Better Place EV saver.

 

[Nubo]

Grid capacity is different than grid energy. Coal and Natural Gas plants spin down their generation at night, so there isn't all that many extra electrons (energy) floating around. Where customers are served by these kinds of plants, new plants aren't needed b/c there is plenty of capacity but more fuel will need to be burned when people charge at night, so it ain't 'free'.

True, but it does avoid major infrastructure costs of new plants, transmission lines, transformers, etc... However, the "off-peak" charging concept is not as easily implemented as it seems at first. In this area, a second meter is needed at a minimum. One can put the whole house on TOU, but the utility TOU plan doesn't simply offer cheaper night rates, but jacks up the daytime rates too; turning the whole deal into a Carnival game where people trying to do the right thing nonetheless get slammed.

We couldn't justify the expense needed to get the EVSE on the TOU plan. I thought to do it anyway but the final nail in the coffin was that it is still "experimental". There is simply no way that any significant percentage of EV owners in this area are going to go to the trouble.

I will still charge at night to be a "good citizen", but due to the short-sightedness of the utility and PUC in this matter we will see negative grid effects a lot sooner into the adoption curve than we would with a more enlightened approach. Not that PG&E much cares -- if they can make the ratepayers liable for goofs as monumental as their pipeline debacle, surely they will be more than happy to do so when transformers start burning out.

 

[Yodrak]

Yes, nuclear plants do not 'follow load' like fossil-fuel plants, you are correct that the reactors are kept operating at constant output. In large part it's an economic decision, to get the most energy out of each load of fuel.

But nuclear plants most definitely do not vent the steam to the atmosphere during low-load periods! They keep right on producing the full electrical output dictated by the reactor's energy output. (Note that the steam generated by boiling wate reactors is radioactive - no way in he|| is that going to be vented to the atmosphere!) It's the other generation - the fossil-fuel units - that have to back down, or shut off, to balance the generation with the load, and it can cause transmission system operators and power plant operators a great deal of difficulty. So charging EVs overnight can provide some benefits to the utilities, much of which can be passed on to customers.

A problem would be EV charging in the late morning hours if there is significant plugging in when people get to work. EV charging at that time would exacerbate the problems of ramping up generation to meet the rapid load increases that occur during that time of day.

Nuclear power plants don't spin down like coal & NG fired plants because a fission reaction can't be manipulated as easily/quickly. This means the energy is still present, but the steam is vented into the atmosphere instead of run through turbines. ...

 

[Yodrak]

There are 3 modes of operation for power plants - peaking, intermediate (load following), and base load. When the plants are designed and built they are generally intended to be used in one of those modes. But, over the life of a plant, system conditions change and it can be a struggle for power plant operators when their plant can no longer be operated in the mode for which it was designed.

This is particularly true for the base-load steam plants, whether fueled by coal, gas, or in rare cases oil. Few coal-fired steam plants run at a constant output these days, and it can cause the plant operators heartburn when the plants have to be backed down close to, at, or even below, their minimum reliable operating point.

I have learned that there are actually 3 types of power plants, Peaking, Intermediate Load Following and Base Load http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant (I know that Wikipedia is not a "scholarly " reference but it has a good overview)

After review, I would have to say that many power plants are not as you have stated due to their less efficient energy production and coal plants in particular are generally Base Load and therefore run at a constant level so the assertions of excess energy capacity and unused production are both valid arguments.

 

[lpickup]

We couldn't justify the expense needed to get the EVSE on the TOU plan. I thought to do it anyway but the final nail in the coffin was that it is still "experimental". There is simply no way that any significant percentage of EV owners in this area are going to go to the trouble.

Somehow you lost me. I don't think the point is that people will have to switch to TOU to charge at night, rather that it's just a natural consequence of the fact that most people are using their car during the day (or it's parked at work where charging is not available) and most vehicle charging takes place off-peak (or maybe more accurately, NOT during the peak usage of the day), whether or not the owners are on TOU plans.

 

[Yodrak]

My thoughts on this:
- I agree on nuclear, they are run close to or at full capacity 24/7, achieving overall capacity factors greater than 90%.
- While base-load coal plants my run in the 60-70% range, a lot of coal plants that started their life as base-load plants no longer are. Many coal plants, especially older ones, are now operating as intermediate duty load-following units and have capacity factors down to maybe 25-30%. (Many of these plants are now being retired, or are being considered for long-term lay-up, because the cost of retrofitting them to meet newly proposed environmental requirements cannot be justified given their low capacity factors.
- gas-fired simple-cycle gas turbine power plants that operate as peaking plants have capacity factors down around 10% or less.
- gas-fired combined-cycle (gas turbine with steam turbine) power plants are ideal for both base-load and intermediate operation, as they can adjust output to follow load relatively easily and they remain highly efficient over a very wide range of output. They may operate over a wide range of capacity factors depending on the needs of the system to which they are connected.
- wind generation has a relatively low capacity factor. Worse, from the standpoint of the electric system, the most wind energy is available at the time it's needed the least. When needed the most - at the times of peak electrical demand - wind energy is often not available. Why? Because among the weather conditions that creat peak electrical demand are no wind.
- Solar capacity factor has to be limited to something less than ~50%, even in the most ideal conditions, because 50% of the time it's dark.

Commercial nuclear plants typically operate at >=90% of peak capacity, on a yearly basis. IIRR base load coal runs in the 60-70% range, N.G. (often used for peaking plants, especially gas turbines) averages around the mid-30s. Wind can be very variable; from memory in Texas it's only credited with 8 or 9% of capacity, while the five-year average (2003-2007) of the EU was either 20.8 or 20.9%, with Ireland and Greece close to 30% and Denmark just under 20%. Solar too has a low capacity factor; I imagine the plants being built in the eastern Mjoave will have capacity factors in the region of 25%, while the solar plants in Germany (you've got to be kidding me!) would be much lower.