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.
#60 With your crazy logic the existing grid nor internet nor sewer system nor roads can’t work because if everyone uses it at the same time it would fail.
How about we limit the discussion to things that are real and practical?
#62, Sigh. Show me where my calculations are incorrect. You have X capacity (a hard fact). You have 2.9X demand (another hard fact). You can’t charge them all during the same time period. The existing grid won’t handle it.
It will handle some but not all. Not unless we built many, many more power plants.
btw . . . those weren’t statistics I was using. I was using aggregations. Statistics are based on survey data and experiments. Aggregations rely on hard numbers.
#64, ok. Let’s.
If we do not increase the number of power plants we have now to above the capacity needed to keep everyone cool in Summer and warm in Winter, we will never have the spare capacity to move more than 16% of the “existing” short trip cars/light trucks to electric (remember, people want to drive 15k mi/yr and the current electric vehicles only allow 12k/yr).
It should be obvious that as the population grows, so will the need for more power above and beyond the requirements for the car charging.
This assumes the off-peak period remains an eight hour period at night when the rates are lower. I’ve seen numbers ranging from 32% to 48% of total capacity of the grid available during off-peak periods.
Let’s assume best case scenario:
48% of 1000 Gwh = 480 Gwh.
480,000,000 kwh / 96 kwh = 5,000,000 cars
Taking eight hours to charge those cars will allow us to charge more cars (in other words, there is no need to try and do them all at the same time) —
5,000,000 x 8 = 40,000,000 cars
254,000,000 total cars / 40,000,000 cars = 16%
This is using the total estimated capacity of the entire grid in the US during the off-peak hours.
Unless you have some numbers other than the ones I found on the government websites to do these calculations, I’ll consider the lesson complete.
Until gas hits 6$/gal, hybrids are the way to go for cars.
For the people spewing large numbers – remember a few things…
1. Local generation, wind/solar & other
2. Plug-In Hybrids & EV’s can “give back” HV amps, making 220VDC to 120VAC & 20AMPS a breeze.
Even my ‘current’ non-plug-in Prius, I can buy a relatively cheap rack-mount UPS system that operates on 220-240VDC – about 700$.
You can leave a HSD-hybrid “on” 24/7 w/o damage to the ICE.
Don’t you love hard facts compliers – with no sources cited? If I thought it useful (here?), I’d link to real numbers instead of libertarian myth.
Anyway, just thought I’d note for those who occasionally partake in verifiable fact, 2 chunks of the VW empire – VW and Audi – are each investing about $2 billion apiece in renewable energy production. Mostly offshore wind farms.
I guess the Kool Aid Party types should volunteer their expertise to these silly corporations. Obviously they don’t understand that they’re supposed to listen to conservative American politicians.
Frankly to me the bottom line is that I’d rather transfer my expenditures from crazy-ass nations who use our oil money to plan ways to kill us to scientists and engineers that are working on improved more efficient technologies for our future.
I don’t care if it is a push cost-wise, it is better to give money to those actually creating something of value that will continue to develop as a solution technologically than to pay foreign governments hostile to us a ton of cash to just pump more fossil fuels from the ground.
#67, Don’t you love hard facts compliers – with no sources cited?
I posted a link to the important info — the generating capacity of the US. It’s right there on the page linked to.
The rest is so easy to find I’m astonished you even accuse me of making up the numbers.
Number of cars in US. Wow. Really hard to google that one.
Oil Company Propaganda !!! At 3.81 a gallon, you can see why !!!
#65. No you’re still full of shit. Here is cut and paste from real scientists, not wanna be’s from Plano Texas.
US Dept of Energy
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=204
Pacific Northwest National Labs cited..
We won’t need additional generating capacity in the U.S. electrical grid for plug-in cars for decades to come. During that time we can shift to cleaner, renewable power options that cause less environmental harm than fossil fuels and nuclear plants.
The existing electrical grid’s off-peak capacity for power generation is sufficient to power 73% of commutes to and from work by cars, light trucks, SUVs, and vans without building a single new power plant if people drive plug-in hybrids, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. In addition, the existing nighttime electricity could be stored in plug-in vehicles and retrieved during peak-demand hours through vehicle-to-grid technology for use by the grid, helping to meet society’s daytime power needs.
New power generation facilities should focus on clean, renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal power. Combine these with the institution of energy efficiency measures throughout society, and we can meet the targets needed to avoid the worst effects of global warming without resorting to more coal or nuclear plants
DC versus AC
Transmission of power over long distances is best done at high voltage and low current. This results in a high impedance circuit. High impedance circuits are affected by stray capacitance. Stray capacitance causes current to flow in the transmission line that does nothing other than heat up the line. A power loss in other words. Underground and undersea cables have more of this problem than aerial lines.
With AC this capacitance must be charged and discharged 120 times per second. (0 + 0 – 0)
With DC you have to charge the stray capacitance once. After that it almost becomes an asset instead of a liability.
Another advantage for DC is that the connected power systems don’t have to be in phase or even running at the same frequency.
For low impedance lines AC is the best.
#71, No, you are full of rainbow colored belief.
Where are the facts and figures from these “real” scientists?
Do you believe everything you read if it says it comes from an “official” source as long at it agrees with your worldview?
#71, Interesting . . . the part 1 and part 2 links — the ones actually showing the study . . . are missing.
I’ll do your research for you — found the links under a different site.
I can’t believe you actually read those — there weren’t very many pictures.
They only estimated 12,000 miles per driver per day. The real number is 15,000 so they shorted it there.
They are talking about the cars being plugged in during the day, too. Really? Do they come with a long extension cord?
From the study: If charging periods are to be constrained to a 12-hour period starting at 6 pm and ending at 6 am, the technical potential would be reduced to 43% of the LDV fleet. From a regional perspective, there is some diversity in the technical potential.
Notice the 43%? That’s actually worse than my best case scenario of 48% in my above numbers.
Planned outages for plant maintenance would likely need to occur more frequently, making it more difficult to schedule maintenance. Furthermore, the overall system reliability could be reduced in this high utilization scenario as less reserve capacity is available to the system operators for managing system emergencies.
#74, Ignore that whole post please. My web browser locked. My apologies.
Working on the new post . . .
#71, They only estimated 12,000 miles per driver per day. The real number is 15,000 so they shorted it there by 20%.
They are talking about the cars being plugged in during the day, too (a full 24 hours). Really? Do they come with a long extension cord?
From the study: If charging periods are to be constrained to a 12-hour period starting at 6 pm and ending at 6 am, the technical potential would be reduced to 43% of the LDV fleet. From a regional perspective, there is some diversity in the technical potential.
Notice the 43%? 43% of 217 million (their number from 2001) is 93 million.
My best calculations show to be 40 million.
Hmm . . . searching.
Ah. They are assuming a 11.55 kWh battery where we’ve been talking 96 kWh. Only using 12% of the energy requirements we’re talking about changes everything.
12% of 93,000,000 is 11.2 million. 1/4 of my best case scenario.
Further —
Planned outages for plant maintenance would likely need to occur more frequently, making it more difficult to schedule maintenance. Furthermore, the overall system reliability could be reduced in this high utilization scenario as less reserve capacity is available to the system operators for managing system emergencies.
Smart controllers in the vehicles might help alleviate some of that problem, though.
One thing they do spend quite a bit of time on — not all areas would benefit from this. Some areas are in the low teens on the conversion due to lacking infrastructure.
I see nothing in this study to refute my claim that we can’t supply as much as you are wanting to unless you plan to rotate the working hours for the entire population.
@WmDE,
Sadly there is a lot of pushback from the engineering community on this. I moderated the rap session on AC vs. DC at this year’s IEEE APEC event, and it was very hard to get past predjudices to even discuss the merits. I had one EE swearing using DC would weld all the manhole covers to the ground over time and other dire effects.
AC vs DC
Wasn’t this problem resolved 100 years ago? Wasn’t there something called “Transformer” that worked only on AC not DC? And this transformer thingy allowed the stepping up of AC voltage to tens of thousands of volts at very low loss, which made long distance transmission of power possible and effective? Why are we still talking about transmitting DC power?
#78–oldman==you ask: “Why are we still talking about transmitting DC power?” /// Because science and technology march on. See my link above to BRAZIL that is using HVDC as their main power trunk from Dam to City. ITS MORE EFFICIENT.
You know the thing about science/technology? It changes over time? Basic physics doesn’t change that much BUT supporting tech does.
Like solar energy: it gets cheaper every year so that at some point the cost competitiveness with oil/gas/coal is reached and we achieve Nirvanna. The MARKET moves to green because it is cheaper.
Nothing in the SCIENCE changed: it was tech driven. Same with the ac/dc situation here. ===I asssume. Because I only read the science.
Too much economic/political/scientific thinking is overly attached to the past. Or not, if you disagree.
What works?
Lucidity Loser===man, you are being very trippy. A legend in your own mind? Like do-ill, you will take industry sourced figures of various sorts and then “analyze” them to come up with conclusions opposite to what the experts in that same industry come up with???
HAW, HAW.
Exposed. Pants on the Ground. Sunburn on the genitals.
What a stupid human.
@bobbo
Really? You mean the laws of physics work differently in your kitchen? It takes an average person 20 minutes to boil water to cook grits, yet it takes you only 10 minutes?
Yes, technology progresses, but laws of physics don’t change.
@smartalix
The guy worried about the manhole covers was probably thinking of a uni-polar line. With a bi-polar line his manhole covers should be safe.
@oldman
100 years ago they decided that AC was easier. Edison liked DC because the man had a battery named after him. DC starts to become worthwhile when your transmission line is measured in hundreds of miles.
At thousands of miles you start having to worry about the standing wave ratio for AC.
#76
“…They only estimated 12,000 miles per driver per day….?..”
“…They are talking about the cars being plugged in during the day..”
“..My best calculations show …”
“..They are assuming a 11.55 kWh battery..”
“..They’re assuming..1/4 of my best case scenario…”
“..I see nothing in this study to refute my claim..”
Good lord, man! I assume the Dept of Energy’s engineers and National Lab Scientist had better peer review in their study than your guy at Luby’s Oil Change. Your study is interesting but I give the slight edge to the scientists that have book learn’n.
#83, You aren’t reading the article, you are only quoting the headline. RTFA.
They said they were assuming the recharging would be accomplished over 24 hours. They said that wasn’t reasonable. The number you quoted was the 24 hour number, not the one that should be used.
The numbers I gave you are very close to the one in the article when you cut out that kind of fluff.
Get a clue.
*81–oldman==you are being devilishly clever in making yourself look obstinately stoopid. Very clever indeed, but I don’t know why.
there is the reletively stable physics that doesn’t in relative point change at all, then there is the advance of technology that changes everything.
This is very clear to us all when it comes to boiling water to cook grits. The average person 20 years ago might have taken 20 minutes but today we have pressure cookers (back then too but not as easy to use), and microwaves that cook grits in not 10 minutes but 5 minutes. We now have quick cook grits that take 3 minutes. We now have instant grits that you just add hot water to from your demand heater at the sink and you have your grits in 5 seconds.
Yes grits. Grits haven’t changed, but the technology has.
Very clever example oldman.
I’m sorry. Just because oldman may get confused: let me correct my statement above.
The physics of boiling water has not changed. The technology of cooking food and prepared food has.
Same with DC vs AC.
Its was obviously and clearly stated right from the start with excellent details provided by others posting.
and I do think Watchman and I were both taught incorrectly in High School–or we both forgot the details of the discussion.
Electric cars, like solar panels on the roof are merely religion icons which demote green piety.
In 1910, a Detroit Electric cost 2 1/2 times as much as a gas car and got 100 miles per charge.
In 1996, a Chevy EV-1 cost 2 1/2 times as much as a gas car and got 100 miles per charge.
In 2010, a Nissan Leaf costs 2 1/2 times as much as a gas car and gets 100 miles per charge.
In 2012, a Ford Focus-E will cost 2 1/2 times as much as a gas Focus and get 100 miles per charge.
Progress
Bobbo, you mean Joe Pesci’s income just dropped?
RS–nice arrangement of “facts” and red herring invitation to make the links that you only hint at.
What has the cost per 100 per charge done over the same time?
Course, mostly what you have is the REASON why alternative fuels was not developed: subsidized gas was too cheap and readily available.
Why don’t you tell us when you think peak oil was/will be?
Why don’t you tell us about paying Arabs for our Energy rather than having our own domestic energy sources.
Pick and choose your facts to avoid/hide/distort the more relevant facts.
Nicely done. Still painfully obvious. I just hope you don’t use your brain as a doorstop like Lucidity Loser does and fail to admit your error.
Where do you think our/the Worlds energy future is RS? The fuel of the past 100 years, or maybe something green?
Mike–you got me. Don’t know the Pesci reference. I thought he was promoting candy bars now.
Transmission Lines
A transmission line is built that is 776 miles long. The engineer at the generator end of the line is named Able. Able asks Baker, the engineer at the load end of the line, to short the line so he can do a continuity check with his ohm meter.
Able connects his generator to the line through a properly sized fuse. His generator is running at 60Hz. Everything seems to be alright.
Baker asks Able if he is ready to remove the jumper. Able says it must have been removed already because my fuse is holding. Baker pulls the jumper loose. Able’s fuse blows.
The problem is that the transmission line is one quarter of the wavelength of 60Hz. If you short a transmission line operating at 60Hz, 776 miles up the line looks like it is open. If the line is open, 776 miles up the line it looks shorted.
Radio guys love this stuff. Power guys, not so much. Able and Baker probably decided that the simple solution was to use DC.
GREEN ENERGY and getting off Lucidity Losers ass loving carbon:
Seven Green Ocean Wave Electrical Generators that could provide 300% of the power used today:
http://newscientist.com/gallery/next-wave-of-energy-from-the-sea?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
I also really like the notion of turbines in the air==several thousand feet up where the wind blows 24/7. These could be located where ever energy is needed. GREEN.
Its all doable unless you have the imagination of a clam===or are being paid to be a shill.
The future is so bright, I gotta wear phase change goggles.
Its really rather simple. Electric cars will become feasible when the costs drop and the mileage increases. So pretty much when pigs fly. It is however much less likely that they will replace tractor trailers rigs or mid or full sized trucks and vans. Great for the coastal areas where population density is much higher. Not as feasible for rural areas. Plus it won’t pull my boat to the lake.
Ok, children stop this silly back and forth bickering.
All we need to do, is ask George W Bush to design a nucular car.
Viola, no grid electricity needed. In fact, we could plug our GW nucular car in, of course when not driving and power the world!
W, we need you boy, we need you bad, save us!