This excerpt is only a small part of a fascinating, hard-hitting analysis of why the current state of batteries and the paucity of some materials needed to make them make replacing gas-powered cars with electric vehicles worldwide an impractical pipe dream at best.
The following comparisons assume that a new car with an internal combustion engine will use 400 gallons of fuel for 12,000 miles of annual driving. For the sake of simplicity, they assume a total of 96 kWh of batteries are available to reduce societal fuel consumption. The numbers are easily scalable.
* 96 kWh of batteries would be enough for a fleet of 64 Prius-class hybrids that will each save 160 gallons of fuel per year and generate a societal fuel savings of 10,240 gallons per year;
* 96 kWh of batteries would be enough for a fleet of six Volt-class plug-in hybrids that will each save 300 gallons of fuel per year and generate a societal fuel savings of 1,800 gallons per year; and
* 96 kWh of batteries would be enough for a fleet of four Leaf class electric vehicles that will each save 400 gallons of fuel per year and generate a societal fuel savings of 1,600 gallons per year.This example highlights the fundamental flaw in all vehicle electrification schemes. When batteries are used to recover and reuse braking energy that would otherwise be wasted, a single kWh of capacity can save up to 107 gallons of fuel per year. When batteries are used as fuel tank replacements, a single kWh of capacity can only save 19 gallons of fuel per year and most of the fuel savings at the vehicle level will be offset by increased fuel consumption in power plants.
Using batteries to enable energy efficiency technologies like recuperative braking is sensible conservation.
Using batteries as fuel tank replacements is a zero-sum game that consumes huge quantities of metals for the sole purpose of substituting electricity for oil. Since roughly 45% of domestic electric power is from coal fired plants and that percentage will decline very slowly, the only rational conclusion is that electric drive is unconscionable waste and pollution masquerading as conservation.
#14–Ready==I wasn’t thinking that way, using the mass transit structure doesn’t strike me as practical because of the same problems with masstransit: doesn’t go where I want to?
I was thinking more electrical wires in the roadway with power beamed into the car. Some new technology to make the whole thing more efficient than systems are now. Issue is always the transition from old to new with new having horrible initial overhead in order to gain the long term net benefits. One more reason fuel cells look so good: green energy using old road system. Sweet. but all ideas are good while brain storming.
#12–Drive by==compressed air cars (Tata in India) are not perfect. Just an alternative as we look to get off gasoline power. Put solar cells on your roof, have it drive a compressor to fill a tank in your garage, air up your car when needed. No batteries. No pollution, no power grid. Cars do extremely well within 100 mile range and no need for air conditioning. compressed air tanks are crash worthy. Even saw compressed air motorcycles for more energy efficient transport.
The future is so bright, I gotta wear compressed air safety glasses.
No worries, Government Motors managed to sell 200 Volts last month. Glad they got rid of Saturn and Hummer.
Eliminating all gasoline powered cars and replacing them with clean zero carbon emission cars, including the electric sources, wouldn’t do anything for global warming. You have maybe a 20% cut in emissions which is substantial, but according to the scientists’ computer models, it would take global warming from 3C to about 2.9C, and that’s IF it happened globally, and you eliminated all transportation emissions, including jet travel, heavy diesel trucks, etc.
Mike N==very excellent point. All about scale.
I’ve always thought whatever fuel tech was brouht to cars would also get extended to other energy needs.
The panels compressing air for instance could also make hydrogen that could be burned for house heat, lighting, and so forth.
but yeah, scale.
Course no solution at all if we don’t start any technology in response. Pragmatic first, then scale?
#17 In other words Dallas picked another Gore. Someone who hopes to make a lot of money by using the government to force people to buy his product when the free market won’t support it because of the downsides.
Ouch! On those batteries.
If you are going to put the cars on the grid you are going to have to vastly upgrade the grid. How and in whose back yard? The greens will fight you every step of the way and the gasoline tax will have to be transferred to the grid.
Oh PLEASE, don’t spread this complete FUD any further! There is so much wrong in that “analysis”.
Metal production – affects regular cars too. In fact, worse.
You don’t need rare earths to build an electric car; Tesla’s cars use induction motors and non-rare earth battery chemistry.
The current supply of Lithium is more than adequate considering that EV batteries can and will be recycled, like lead-acid batteries are now (98%). Plus we’ve only tapped a tiny amount of the Lithium available; the only reason production hasn’t been greater is there has been little demand for it.
Solar power is fact quite a reasonable power source. You pump power into the grid during the day when demand is high, and charge your EV at night when demand is low. In fact this will *help* level base load generation.
The batteries used in Tesla’s battery packs are ALREADY under $500 per kWh. Where the heck did he get that stupid graph???
Batteries aren’t doing a Moore’s law, but few things do. The log scale on his graph covers up the fact that batteries have been improving steadily by 8% a year. That compounds pretty fast.
Then he cycles back to stupid arguments about rare earths, which aren’t necessary, as has been proven by Tesla.
In short, he has cherry-picked his arguments, and made assumptions that are completely false. He should turn his attention to hydrogen power, which requires several miracles to become practical. Battery electric vehicles are practical, here now, and will be the future of transport.
>I’ve always thought whatever fuel tech was brouht to cars would also get extended to other energy needs.
Electricity generation from coal is the big CO2 emitter, primarily from developing countries. Additional CHinese coal capacity that gets added each year dwarfs any reductions coming from Europe or US.
So if you are concerned about global warming, then the solution is not to price carbon so high that people will be forced to switch to alternative energy, but to make alternative energy so cheap they will flock to it.
Like you say, pragmatic, then scale.
So far the government has just been trying to subsidize the way towards electric cars=big mistake.
Seeking Alpha of course has a very rightwing slant with a goal of doing nothing but making money, damn the environment, damn the future.
Its basically an investing website for those with pathetic dreams of mega wealth in hopes of “beating the market”. Poor fools, they don’t want to admit the markets are run by the wealthy and it doesn’t cater to them.
bobbo:
>>…when Brazil decided to get off oil, it invested in new tech of running their main electrical power trunk in DC rather than AC in order to avoid the power loss in transmitting the hydropower from source to main cities 100′s of miles away.<<
You might want to check that….
The question was settled around the beginning of the 20th Century. You can't transfer DC power over useful distances without huge losses. AC isn't perfect, but doesn't have that problem.
#39, no, electric cars are the past, over 100 years ago.
#41–Watcher==Hmm. You made me remember the Edison vs Tesla matchup on that and why Tesla finally won after going bankrupt fighting Edison. I was also going to comment on what I thought was the best current (sic!) thinking on long range transmission of power using supercooled trunk lines for virtually no power loss==so your comment made me think I must have heard the info incorrectly. A quick google implies that something in the technology and learned wisdom has changed?
http://abb.com/cawp/seitp202/06c9cd09d993758cc1257601003db274.aspx
Do you have better info or can anyone say how this is being done?
Hey Watcher==evidently you and I got the wrong message in science class. From the wiki, my impression is that long distance transmission using DC has always been more efficient than AC “but” as the article says it involves more maintenance, and more equipment to convert and what not. Did we miss the detail, did the detail change, or were we taught incorrectly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
#42 I can make a strong case that fossil fuels will continue to dominate but what exactly makes you in opposition to using the existing electric grid infrastructure for personal transport?
I just don’t get the conservative (no change) mindset. It’s astonishing and nearly literal. if it wasn’t so sad and self-defeating, it would be comical !
Here are some interesting numbers:
The average household in the US consumes 14,000 kwh/year. That is 38.4/day.
Let’s make some conservative estimates:
Each household contains TWO 96 kwh battery powered car (equiv to 130 horsepower).
Each household drives 30,000 per year (15,000 per driver).
The 96 kwh electric car gets the same “mileage” per kwh as the gas powered car (you have to recharge it every 400 miles).
30,000 / 800 = 37.5 rechargings per year.
37.5 x 192 = 7200 kwh total extra electricity usage.
In order to support the additional electrical requirements means we would have to increase our number of power plants by
7200 / 14000 = 52%.
Remember — this assumes we would get the same number of miles per charging we would get per refilling. Right now, it is closer to 20%. That means we would have to build 2.5x as many power plants as we have now
As there are only 2776 power plants in the US, we would need 4164 MORE power plants to replace all gas powered cars with electric cars.
Currently, the US gets its electrical power from the following sources (from wiki):
Coal – 41%
Natural Gas – 21%
Hydro – 16%
Nuclear – 13%
Oil – 5%
Other – 3%
Physics is physics. You want to move a ton of stuff around, it takes X horsepower to do so. To generate that horsepower, you need a high density power source. Whether that power source is located on the vehicle or located in a big field somewhere, the power still has to be generated.
LL–those are interesting numbers. Looks like we have a challenge before us, or should we just give up and call it freedom?
LL–just for grins==the first google says off peak capacity of the grid already exists. Probably some fudge factor but there must be something there? I’d think having an electric car would be a huge incentive to put solar on your home roof.
Imagine if all the subsidies given to oil/nuke/coal were turned over to green?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/12/idle-electrical-capacity-enough-for.html
Faxon #13 – your 4k$ Ranger will cost you just as much as my Prius if you drive it 5 yrs and do the same mileage as I do.
20k miles per year. Factor in for your Ranger:
– oil changes
– muffler changes
– brake changes
– bi-yearly tune-ups
– spark plugs
== at least 5k$ per year to operate
== multiplied by 5 years = 25k + 4k = 29k
== ZERO residual value – just a rusted hunk
My Prius will do only 2 oil changes a year, and ZERO of the above.
Both have tires to change, the Ranger tires cost more, Prius low-rolling resistance cost more, evens out.
After 5 years, my Prius will retain 40% – 50% of its initial purchase value of 25k.
My monthly payment of my Prius + Gas = Ranger Upkeep + Gas.
Ranger is worth 0$, Prius is worth over 10k$
Buying a NEW Ranger makes it even *worse*.
“Diesel giving a Prius a run for the money”
LOL – not at all. A ‘friend’ with a 2009 TDI + Blutec, did in two years 80k miles.
He factored that the diesel low cost and the better road handling of the TDI over the Prius would be the best bet.
He now has a 7500$ repair bill:
– muffler system
– full engine tuneup / overhaul
– full front brake system replacement
His monthly payment + gas was THE SAME as my Prius. Had he bought a Prius, he would be AHEAD right now of 7500$ just to be road worthy.
The Prius ‘system’ is a sealed system that other than 10k miles oil changes – that many people do at 12k or 13k – requires zero maintenance.
The two (2!) electric motors absorb 90%+ of the braking energy thus making brake jobs a thing of the past.
The batteries are lasting longer than 8+ years and 200k miles with little degradation.
Best Bang For The Buck – a “used” Prius.
They are quite roomy, and you can put a trailer on it and pull a ton (combined) with no ill effect.
7 years now driving 2 different Priis.
#47 you’re full of shit. The capacity is in place because charging takes place at night during idle periods. That doesn’t even take into account the huge benefits of a smart grid.
You’re no engineer fit sure but even a Walmart greeter like you should know some common knowledge on electric power usage .
Mike Derail my bike will kick your Prius’ sorry ass.
And not only that, the bike was made in America. OK, the frame was made in America. OK, the decal was made in the good ol’ US of A.
Actually, the decal was put on the frame in the USA. And it’s crooked.
foobar–that was funny. But then I checked, and my decal is crooked too! Rats.
#52, God I love it when logic hits a liberal. They start spewing curse words and insults because they have nothing else to fight with.
But I’ll rub it in a bit further. Maybe this will wake you up.
Let’s assume for a moment that everybody woke up one morning and all their gas cars were changed out for the electric cars (and quite lower powered ones at that — 130 HP).
Let’s further assume that when people are charging them at night (over an eight hour period), the power grid is completely free to do nothing but charge their cars.
254,400,000 vehicles in the US in 2007.
254400000 x 96 kwh = 24,422,400,000 kwh, instantaneous demand to recharge them all.
24,422,400,000 kwh is 24,422,400 Mwh or 24,422 Gwh.
Total generating capacity in 2010 was 1,039 Gwh. http://tinyurl.com/3tmq2d4
24422 / 1039 = 23.5. The demand to recharge them all is 23.5x what is actually available.
Assuming we recharge over an 8 hour cycle, that means we only need 23.5 / 8 = 2.9 times the capacity we have now (vs the 2.5x I calculated above based on mileage only). Theoretically, we could recharge all the cars in 23.5 hours if the grid did nothing else.
But let’s get a bit more realistic. Owners won’t only recharge when their batteries are completely drained. Let’s assume the current technology allows 50% battery usage in one day instead of full depletion. We would only need 2.9 / 2 = 1.5x. We could, theoretically, recharge 68% of our cars over an eight hour period. Again, this assumes we only use half of our 96 kwh capacity per day and the grid is used for nothing but this.
Sorry, Scooter, but the capacity is not there.
Oh, just so you know, I’m ok with converting to a system that doesn’t leave us dependent on foreign powers. That doesn’t mean I have to force myself into a fantasy world where wishing something makes it true.
Dallas, I have no objection per se to using the electrical grid for transport. However, the laws of physics make me object. There is a tradeoff between horsepower, range, speed, weight, car size, comfort, mileage, etc. Going electric pushes cars towards the smaller end of the range, as are pushes to increase fuel mileage.
#55 your logic that assumes everyone one day wakes up to battery powered vehicles is on the same loonie range. It won’t happen so let’s leave this magical hypothesis to the bible.
The fact remains that the grid can support the most aggressive transition to battery powered autos. If 15% of the sheeple go electric in a decade, that would be huge.
#56 the vast majority of sheeple haul their asses to places well within today’s range of electric vehicles. I suppose those that need more range can buy are car, no?
Can you kindly explain why your logic takes you to an all or nothing conclusion? Why is it that corner cases (engineer speak) are used as a reason against doing something? A large percent of sheeple families have multiple cars. Why can’t one be electric and one be gas?
Just like sheeple families have an SUV for the wife/kids and a nice BMW for the husband and his mistress. Same logic.
Liberty Lover: “254,400,000 vehicles in the US in 2007”
So? How many of those cars are on the road at one time, or on any given day? How many total km’s (or miles) are driven each day or each year in the US? How many years would it take to get 254,000,000 gas and diesel vehicles off the road and replaced with alternate energy vehicles? In that time frame what other forms of more efficient transportation will be used as roads become impossibly overcrowded, or economically unfeasible to maintain? As personal transportation becomes transportation becomes more inconvenient due to cost and overcrowding, what percentage of cars will be off the road due to a higher and higher percentage of people working from home or from closer proximity to their homes?
Without those figures your argument is meaningless.
>If 15% of the sheeple go electric in a decade, that would be huge.
Why?
#57, Just to recap, you wanted to know why we were opposed to using the existing grid to power our cars (see #45). I showed that it wasn’t possible. Now you are changing the parameters to fit the model. Glad to see you coming around.
But why is 15% a magic number?
#58, See my entry at #55. The average driver in the US drives 15,000 miles per year. The Prius, at 33 miles per charge only allows 12,000. IMO, if we expect to replace all of our vehicles with electric, we need to be able to support the current requirements or the majority of people won’t move to it.
Develop me an electric SUV that seats eight, has 250HP, a towing package, can drive for 450 miles between 15 minute charges, and doesn’t cost twice as much as a gas powered one and I’ll buy it in a heartbeat. OH, and it MUST have four cup holders up front.
Lucidity Loser==you do an excellent job of illustrating my nom de flame. Don’t respond to links and expert testimony that off peak hours capacity already exists NOW—IE TODAY–in the grid. Ignore that actual conversion to electric will take time, Ignore that improvements in electrical transmission and efficiency and solar cells and battery tech and alternatives to all the above and do NOTHING BUT REPEAT YOUR POSITION AD NASEUM.
Just like every good LIEberTARD, Teabagger, and Puke does. Oh—and Alfie too by the way.
Head: up and locked?==Check.
Objective: to be stuck in the past.==Check
Convince anyone not already convinced.–Nope.
THEMATICALLY===a very good movie is the first Posieden Adventure. Trapped at the bottom of a boat upside down in the Ocean. What ya gonna do? ———and the existential answer is: Try.
Say LL===AGW. What ya gonna do?
#55, LL
Yes, you aren’t an engineer.
There are lies, damn lies, and people that use statistics incorrectly to bolster a failed argument.
First, there is a large over capacity in our generating and transmission capacity. The only time that comes close to being fully used is during the hottest summer months when air conditioners are in full use. At night the usage is a fraction of the highest daytime use.
Second, while fossil fuel generation is still #1, renewable energy is coming on-line. I can’t mention anything about Rick Perry’s LaLaLand, but in the normal world, wind farms are sprouting up all over the country. The expectation is wind will generate 20% of electrical needs by 2030. I think that will be reached by 2020 and as much as 40% by 2030. Even many older and abandoned hydro
facilities are being retrofitted with more efficient generators.
Third, most trips do not use an entire battery of energy. Cars are currently built for the extreme; you might need to carry four heavy (that Texas deep fried butter lover type) passengers, plus luggage, for a long distance. 95% of all trips are single or double passengers of short duration. Even 130hp is more than necessary for most driving.
Fourth, not even gas or diesel uses a full tank every day unless they are a commercial vehicle.
Fifth, charging while the vehicle is parked, or even discharging into the grid, adds to the capacity of the grid to smooth out bumps in demand.
Sixth, even though our energy is relatively cheap, our appliances and use is becoming “greener” all the time. The change from computer desktops to laptops has reduced our power needs by a couple of generators. When you save a little here and a little there it all adds up.
But, a nice try.
BTW, DC transmission is more efficient over long distances today only because of modern technology. In Edison’s day it wasn’t possible to boost DC to the high voltage we can today.