Electric cars are a pipe dream

[Billy T]

Most EVs use several pounds of rare earth metals, mainly in batteries and drive motors. China has world´s main supplies. MolyCorp is starting up in CA (reprocessing old mined material mainly) and Lynas is a few years more advanced in Australia.

Un fortunately the rare earths are always found with radio-active elements, especially thorium. MolyCorp´s mine was closed some years ago (not then owned by MolyCorp) due to radioactive spills (and cheaper RE from China). Lynas has not gotten permission to process in Australia, so got permission from job hungry Malaysia; however not from the people who will live near the processing / separation plant:

"... People living near a planned refinery for rare earth elements in Malaysia have held a demonstration to try to halt its construction. The protesters in the eastern city of Kuantan say there is a risk of dangerous radiation from the plant.

The refinery will process precious metals used in the production of mobile phones and flat-screen TVs. Regulators insist that the plant will pose no health risk to people living in the area, in Pahang state. However the BBC's Jennifer Pak in Pahang says few people believe the Malaysian government could handle a radioactive disaster.

The protest - dubbed Green Gathering 2.0 - began in a carnival atmosphere with people dressed in green and beating drums. More than 2,000 people took part.

Last month shares in Lynas surged after Malaysian authorities granted it a licence to operate the refinery. ..."
Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17169601

As always, the greening of some gives the risk of contamination to others who typically are despirately poor. Your old TV will probably be taken apart in some Indian slum for the silver and gold in it with very toxic chemical processing, in the slum´s open streets.

EVs are not the way to go, IMO and fortunately the low cost of natural gas will kill them, with less CO2 release in any nation like the US or China that gets more than half of its electric power from coal. Sugar cane alcohol would of course be much better - very carbon (co2) negative when the fossil fuel dispaced is considered.

 

[cosmictotem]

Well, I guess the horse and buggy were just a pipe dream then. After all EV's basically do what the horse did for hundreds of years only they've eliminated the need for the horse. Seems to me the problem with EV's is not range or speed but our unquenchable demand for more, more, more.

Get the picture?

 

[billvon]

EVs are not the way to go, IMO and fortunately the low cost of natural gas will kill them

That won't last at the rate they are building natural gas power plants. It's a reasonable alternative for gasoline though.

with less CO2 release in any nation like the US or China that gets more than half of its electric power from coal.

An EV charged by coal power is still lower carbon emissions overall than a gasoline powered car.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Burning natural gas in a power plant to charge electric cars could be far more efficient then burning it in a ICE in the car its self. Baseline Natural gas power plants can achieve efficiencies up to 60% while cars 30%, added in 93% for the electric grid and 90% lithium ion batteries and the electric car is still nearly twice as efficient.

 

[Billy T]

That won't last at the rate they are building natural gas power plants. It's a reasonable alternative for gasoline though. ...

No, you don´t seem to be aware of how fast the supply of JUST cheap Conventional NG is expanding. Here are some developments from just two of the major energy companies:

(1) “...Statoil (operator & 65% owner) made a large gas discovery offshore Tanzania in the first exploration well in Block 2 which covers an area of approximately 5,500 square kilometres.{Billy T comments: a tiny fraction of the E. African deposit - more already proven off Mozambique but together still small compared to what is happening on west coast of Africa. The East coast field, very little explored, is much closer to the Asian markets, so no US LNG will be sold in Asia while it is producing.} … logging results now show that the discovery is a high impact discovery, so far proving up to 5 Tcf of gas in-place {equivalent to 891 million barrels of oil, & that is probably only a tiny part of this new field}. The well has encountered 120 metres of excellent quality reservoir with high porosity and high permeability. ...

The Zafarani discovery is the fifth high impact discovery made byStatoil in the last 12 months, with the other discoveries being Skrugard and Havis in the Barents Sea, Johan Sverdrup (former Aldous/Avaldsnes) in the North Sea and Peregrino South in Brazil. … From: http://news.morningstar.com/all/ViewNews.aspx?article=/ACQ/ff80808135ab8db20135ae3019dc1c9e_univ.xml

“...Recently the International Monetary Fund (IMF) highlighted Tanzania’s potential by saying it would become a major global producer of natural gas by 2020. …It is estimated that, following exploration projects, Tanzania will confirm around 60 trillion CF of natural gas. … Mozambique and Tanzania may eventually rival Qatar and Australia as the world’s biggest suppliers of liquefied natural gas (LNG).The East African deposits found so far are large enough to justify construction of at least eight LNG production trains, {"Trains" is industry jargan for LNG production plants} according to estimates by the companies,”…

“Today Qatar has 14 trains operating, while Australia has at least six trains producing and about $250 billion in projects under construction or planned. Experts say, the gas industry development will be a catalyst to the predominantly agriculture economy by stimulating other sectors such as supply services and thus rendering a variety of employment to the youth,” …” From: http://thecitizen.co.tz/sunday-citizen/-/20099-tanzania-gas-find-excites-the-world

(2) ------------------- Now After StatOil, a word from Chevron:
“...Chevron has a net production of more than 5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, including equity shares in affiliates, and we expect to substantially increase this volume over the next decade. We hold the largest natural gas resource position in Australia through the Gorgon and Wheatstone projects, the Browse Basin, and the North West Shelf Venture. We also have significant natural gas holdings in western Africa, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, North America, the Philippines, South America, Thailand, the United Kingdom and Vietnam:
Australia: “… operates offshore producing fields and extensive onshore facilities that include five liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing units, or trains, and a domestic gas plant. Approximately 70 percent of the natural gas is sold in the form of LNG to major utilities in Japan, South Korea and China, primarily under long-term contracts. PLUS New:

Gorgon Project will develop the Gorgon and Jansz/Io gas fields, located within the Greater Gorgon area, about 130 kilometres off the north-west coast of Western Australia. It includes the construction of a 15 million tonne per annum (MTPA) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant on Barrow Island and a domestic gas plant with the capacity to provide 300 terajoules per day to supply gas to Western Australia.
It is one of the world's largest natural gas projects and the largest single resource natural gas project in Australia's history. It’s our plan to build a plant that will include three, 5 million-tonne-per-annum LNG trains and a domestic gas phase and establish international shipping facilities. …” From: http://www.chevronaustralia.com/ourbusinesses/gorgon.aspx
But see some details of dozens of other Chevron NG expansion projects around the world at: http://www.chevron.com/deliveringen..._source=Google&utm_term=natural_gas_resources with links to more details on each.

Billy T comment & SUMMARY: The world´s reserves of CONVENTIONAL natural gas will more than double in time it takes to build a new gas fired power plant. This is a major reason why most to the shale fracking projects everyone was so excited about a year ago are now being shut down. They are not economical, even if one does not worry about the insurance cost and huge unknowns associated with ground water pollution Plus the fact that great quanties of methane (at leats 20 times worse for global warming than CO2) are released. It is dissolved in the dirty water that comes back up with the natural gas liquids, but not spoken of much, nor is much said about what to do with this highly polluted water.)

The price of NG is down more than four fold in less than 5 years and will be going lower still as ocean transport is so cheap. Yes, there will be great increase in use of NG both for electric power and vehicle fuel, but the time scale for demand to double is at least twice longer than for the supply to double. (not even considering fracking NG).

I am almost sure that even if every US power plant and every US car were converted to NG, Cheveron´s NG production ALONE (if all sent to the US) could power them for at least 30 years with no use of US´s more expensive and more polluting fracking gas and that NG would be available before they could be converted!

 

[Billy T]

Burning natural gas in a power plant to charge electric cars could be far more efficient then burning it in a ICE in the car its self. Baseline Natural gas power plants can achieve efficiencies up to 60% while cars 30%, added in 93% for the electric grid and 90% lithium ion batteries and the electric car is still nearly twice as efficient.

... An EV charged by coal power is still lower carbon emissions overall than a gasoline powered car.

I think central buring of NG for electric power charging of EV car batteries may be slightly more efficient, but don´t think NG turbin / generators are 60% efficient. I may be wrong, but think 50% is tops if you are including the high voltage step up transformer that feeds the tansmission line.*

I also doubt that only 7% is lost in typical transmission distances especially when two more stages of transformers are used (one at the local substations of the city and many seconds in the neighborhoods to get down to 220V.

Then there is the AC to DC converion loss, plus the charging loss, which if rapidly done that alone is 5% and the energy recovery from battery fraction, plus the electic motor to torque energy losses and the battery self discharge during days of no use.

Can you provide an unbiased link which includes discussion of ALL thee loses?
Years ago I read Amory Loving´s (very pro green) careful analysis. I forget detalis but as he pointed out Central power system with 50% efficiency must burn TWICE the coal to deliv er the energy locally. As I recall he concluded it would burn several times the coal when all loses are considered. His main point was that improved end use efficience was much more economicial and could reduce the use of coal more than 50%. I will believe anything Amory Lovings has to say on this. - He is one of the few "greens" who is not just dreaming but well informed.

Thus I strongly doubt billvon´s claim too, assuming we are comparing to a modern high MPG car, not to the large gashog boats of 5 or more years ago.

* Yes, I agree that the efficiencies you claim are possible, but the way power companies work is they compute the marginal cost of getting say 1% more efficient and compare that to the value (discounted to present value) of the energy saved over the life of the system.

For example, the discount rate, (closely reated to the interest rate they pay for invested funds) more than any thing else determine how large is the wire in transmission lines is. Same is true of copper size and iron in transformers, etc. The power grid is designed by cost accountants, not efficiency minded engineers.

Note that the huge increase in the cost per pound of metals, especially copper, is making all new transmission lines and large power transformers much less efficient. This effect would be off-set by current low interest rates IF the power company believed they would hold for a few decades, but no one believes that is possible with US debt increasing a trillion dollars per year and the Baby Boomers retiring so collect SS instead of pay high taxes. Inflation and double digit interest rates are expected long before half of the system´s useful life is over.

 

[adoucette]

Burning natural gas in a power plant to charge electric cars could be far more efficient then burning it in a ICE in the car its self. Baseline Natural gas power plants can achieve efficiencies up to 60% while cars 30%, added in 93% for the electric grid and 90% lithium ion batteries and the electric car is still nearly twice as efficient.

Well for the US average, 1 KWH generated equals an output of 1.34 lbs C02.

The LEAF uses 34 KWH per 100 miles:

So charging the Leaf with grid electricity at 90% charge efficiency, would produce .51 lbs of CO2 per mile.

But burning 1 gallon of gas produces 19.4 lbs of C02 and so the break even point for EV vs Gasoline IC is about 37 MPG.

If your car get's better mileage than that it produces less CO2 than the LEAF.

So consider that a Prius gets 51 mpg and thus produces only .38 lbs of CO2 per mile.

Quite a bit less than the LEAF.

Now this comparison varies quite a bit depending on where you live.
The West coast, with it's lack of coal use and it's abundance of Hydro, has a CO2 per KWh that is less than half the US Average, so on that coast the LEAF will beat out the Prius.

 

[adoucette]

As to actual number (and trends) of Alternate Fuel Vehicles in use in the US.

http://205.254.135.7/renewable/alternative_transport_vehicles/pdf/attf_V1.pdf

 

[Billy T]

As to actual number (and trends) of Alternate Fuel Vehicles in use in the US. http://205.254.135.7/renewable/alternative_transport_vehicles/pdf/attf_V1.pdf

Thanks. a very interesting set of facts. It shows that between 2008 & 2009, (most recent data in table) more NG cars than EVs were added to the fleet. This is impressive as that was when NG prices had not yet fallen by more than a factor of two (as they have between 2009 & start of 2012).

More current data, (posted by others in this thread) shows that the rate of EV sales is actually slowing. I don´t have data but am sure that with the great reduction in cost per mile driven, the rate of conversion to NG is soaring. Globally the number of NG cars are increasing almost exactly on an exponential growth curve during the last 20 years but still far from saturation with less than 2% of market share!

 

[adoucette]

Thanks. a very interesting set of facts. It shows that between 2008 & 2009, (most recent data in table) more NG cars than EVs were added to the fleet. This is impressive as that was when NG prices had not yet fallen by more than a factor of two (as they have between 2009 & start of 2012).

No Billy, adding 1,372 NG powered cars to the US vehicle fleet over 2 years is NOT impressive by any rational standard.

Consider that in the first year of EV sales in the US they sold ~18,000 EVs, so that's more than 13 times as many as NG vehicles, in half the amount of time.

 

[R1D2]

K skimed this thread. Interesting but seriously like eventually a super valcano will erupt a comet will hit a meteor will nail us an we will B D-stroyed an the way scientist talk it will b soon like with in 100 to 200 years an the end of the Miya calendar ends. ENDS this dec. Oh an if we got these "Green cars" an arnt wiped out all goods will go up b cause the big trucks mostly won't B green. An my helpfull 2cents is add solar on the roof an tubes on the sides to collect air to turn a air turbin to make more electricity an do the kinetic thing felx fuel it and add a hydrogen cell u add water an it makes power put it N a 15 P van size seated for 5 an u could prolly go coast 2 coast with good cost

 

[adoucette]

Sounds like a plan....

 

[Billy T]

No Billy, adding 1,372 NG powered cars to the US vehicle fleet over 2 years is NOT impressive by any rational standard.

Consider that in the first year of EV sales in the US they sold ~18,000 EVs, so that's more than 13 times as many as NG vehicles, in half the amount of time.

not impressive when compared to gasoline sale - but point was EV sale are declining and NG sales /conversions (which were more than EV sale in last year of table´s data (2008 to 2009) are already greater and are surging upwards now that cost of NG gas has dropped more than 50% since 2009. If you compress your own from house gas, as friend of mine did 35 years ago for his converted car, it is even tax free fuel!

Having cost of driving on NG drop so much so quickly (only 25% of what it was 5 years ago) is a powerful stimulus to switching to NG if you have filling stations available. Also a powerful stimulus to adding more NG stations as the NG fleet size increases. Little point in adding EV charging stations if the EV sales are dropping.

 

[adoucette]

not impressive when compared to gasoline sale - but point was EV sale are declining and NG sales /conversions (which were more than EV sale in last year of table´s data (2008 to 2009) are already greater and are surging upwards now that cost of NG gas has dropped more than 50% since 2009.

Billy, you can't use one month's sales figures to claim EV sales are dropping.

Indeed, EV sales in December of last year were 2,483 vehicles.

While in the TWO years (08 and 09), the number of NG vehicles increased by only 374 vehicles.

There is no reason to believe that the numbers have improved since then since there is still only one CNG vehicle for sale in the US, the Honda Civic GX.

And in contrast to these paltry sales of NG cars...

sales of cars and trucks are surging. Sales could exceed 14 million this year, above last year's 12.8 million.
The result: Carmakers are adding shifts and hiring thousands of workers around the country. Carmakers and parts companies added more than 38,000 jobs last year, reaching a total of 717,000. And automakers have announced plans to add another 13,000 this year, mostly on night shifts.

http://news.yahoo.com/detroit-automakers-race-keep-sales-080141880.html

 

[spidergoat]

Quite a pessimistic post !

I wholly dis-agree with you.

My reason is simple, 50 years ago the idea that one day we would have personal devices that allowed us to contact people on the other side of the globe from wherever we are, to watch hi-def movies and listen to crystal clear audio. All of this would of been a dream that most people would say is impossible.

The truth of the matter is that fossil fuels will not last forever, man will have to diversify. Perhaps wide scale affordable electric vehicles will not happen in our lifetimes, but one thing I am sure of is that it will happen. Why, because we have no other choice.

Wrong, there is another choice, make living arrangements that do not require automobiles.

 

[billvon]

No, you don´t seem to be aware of how fast the supply of JUST cheap Conventional NG is expanding.

Some numbers:

US reserves: 2632 tcf natural gas (from EIA)
US usage of gasoline: 400 million gallons/day (from Seattle Times)
126 cu ft NG = 1 gal gasoline

Time to empty if all cars switched to natural gas AND we didn't use it for anything else: 143 years

Time to empty if all cars switched to natural gas and we kept using it at the same rate we use it now for power, heating etc: 67 years

Additional electrical power we'd need for all those compressors: 25 gigawatts (25 new large nuclear plants, or 25 new large NG plants)

 

[billvon]

Years ago I read Amory Loving´s (very pro green) careful analysis. I forget detalis but as he pointed out Central power system with 50% efficiency must burn TWICE the coal to deliv er the energy locally.

That's true - compared to using the same heat energy locally (i.e. burning the coal right there and using the heat.)

But if you compare delivered power to an EV (80% efficient) vs. burning gasoline or NG in an internal combustion engine (30% efficient) you get a significant advantage.

Thus I strongly doubt billvon´s claim too, assuming we are comparing to a modern high MPG car, not to the large gashog boats of 5 or more years ago.

Comparison of Tesla Roadster to Toyota Prius (Tesla Motors analysis):

Well-to-wheel for Tesla: 1.14km/MJ
Well-to-wheel for Prius: .56km/MJ
Well-to-wheel for natural gas car: .37km/MJ (not including compressor losses)

http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf

 

[adoucette]

Yes, but the much more affordable LEAF uses 34 KWH per 100 miles, or .212 KWh per KM, which is over TWICE the KWh per km as the Tesla in that Tesla Motors study.

And the analysis for the Tesla assumed that the electricity was ALL generated from our most efficient fuel.

It's not.

Which is why you really need to find an Independent Study.

 

[Billy T]

Billy, you can't use one month's sales figures to claim EV sales are dropping. ...

I didn´t. I used the latestest ANNUAL change from YOUR link´s table. Don´t take it so hard. Some very smart, rich people have failed to recognize that NG is the fuel of the future for at least three decades:

“…Warren Buffett, who bought about $2 billion in bonds of power company Energy Future Holdings Corp., said the investment is at risk of losing all its value after natural gas prices fell. … Energy Future needs a gas price of $6.15 per million Btu for profit margins wide enough to cover interest and operating expenses …

The new sources have driven the price from a high of more than $13 per million British thermal units in 2008 to as low as $2.23 on Jan. 23. Gas for March delivery fell about 1.5 percent to $2.51 at 10:12 a.m. today in New York. …” From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ture-bond-bet-at-risk-of-being-wiped-out.html

Billy T comment: That is more than a five fold drop in NG price in only little more than three years! And the flood of new, cheaper than fracking, less pollution risk CONVENTIONAL NG is just starting! See more details at http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2909091&postcount=2507.

NG was already cheaper than gasoline fuel for cars so even with no factory NG cars available some technically skilled people driving long distances commutes were were converting three decades ago. One of my APL group´s Lab Teks, did 35 or 40 years ago as his five times a week dirve to work and back home was nearly 200 miles. Now compared to gasoline fuel, NG can give more than 80% lower cost per mile driven. NG fuel also makes the car last longer - important when you are putting more than 50,000 miles on it annually.

One thing to note is that there are several big motor companies pushing the EV and essentially none the NG car, so most of the expansion of NG is by conversion kits. When greater than 80% fuel cost per mile driven reduction is available, you can bet this will rapidly change.

 

[adoucette]

I did´t. I used the latestest ANNUAL change from YOUR link´s table.

But Billy you're being SILLY.
You know that neither of the big manufacturer personal EVs (Volt and Leaf) had even made it to the market by 2009.

That's why we look at the FIRST YEAR of sales of EVs and see that they were more EV sales in ONE MONTH than NG cars had in a year.

Indeed, this year several more models will be released, so let's see how EV sales in the US compare to NG sales in the US this year.

Care to make a prediction on which will dominate the other?

(won't be NG as Honda only plans on making about 2,000 GXs this year!)

EV sales in December of last year were 2,483 vehicles.

While in the TWO years (08 and 09), the number of NG vehicles increased by only 374 vehicles.

There is no reason to believe that the numbers have improved since then since there is still only one CNG vehicle for sale in the US, the Honda Civic GX.