Electric cars are a pipe dream

[Skeptical]

Another energy development many of you may not be aware of is the hybrid fission/fusion nuclear power plant. This burns nuclear waste to both reduce tonnage of waste, and reduce amount of uranium 235 fuel required. Assuming this becomes widespread, it will generate a lot more electricity suitable for electric vehicles.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127131654.htm

 

[Billy T]

What exactly is untested about it? *yawn* pathetic appeal to the unknown fallacy.

Billy, I think referring to EVs as Untested is a tad unrealistic.
We have a great deal of experience with both batteries and the various forms of battery powered transportation. Technology like the Extended Range EV don't even require any infrastructure change to make a big dent in oil use.
Technology advancements are making the cost of EVs comparable or even cheaper than fossil fuel based systems for a reasonably decent number of car owners. The trend is for oil costs to go up and cost of EVs to go down, so its a reasonable prediction that a large part of our transportation system will switch from oil to electricity. ...

Untested in massive automobile use. For example, in an accident, especially if car rolls over, where do the massive batteries fly? Do they rupture? Where in the car should they be located? Do they or their electrical wires make sparks and set fire to leaking fuel from the gasoline generator? What happens to the old batteries? – That is already a pollution problem. As cars are already stolen and reduced to parts for resale in a few hours, how much more will the valuable batteries add to this problem and insurance costs? This is especially worrisome if the batter unit is designed for quick exchange as is often suggested to solve the slow recharge problem. Who owns the batteries the car owner of some firm rents them to the car owner? Where is the rate of recharge limited? (by the charging station or the car) and how often does some defect in it explode batteries / destroy cars? Who does an injured by-stander sue? Even small Li-ion batteries have a history of explosion and fires. ETC.

I agree that there is a lot of off peak electricity available but it too is ~90+% fossil based. When electric distribution losses are added to the discharge / re charge losses are added to electric motor losses is there any reduction in CO2 release? I mentioned nuclear power, not because US lacked off peak electrical energy but to point out that only with that can the EV reduce CO2 emission when gasoline ICE is the alternative. – You seem to have misunderstood my point. ETOH fuel is and economical way to slightly reduce the CO2 already in the air and certainly does not add to the CO2 in the air.

... The trend is for oil costs to go up and cost of EVs to go down, so its a reasonable prediction that a large part of our transportation system will switch from oil to electricity. ...

I agree with this, except the final now bold part. The EV is NOT competing ONLY against the gasoline ICE. The ETOH ICE alternative is already cheaper than the gasoline ICE and getting cheaper each year. Let's see if the EV can compete against that.

Oh I'm all for that, lets say that we get the average MPG up to 40, and we get incredibly 20% of the population to use high speed rail instead of cars. Great now the amount of ethanol needed is down by 30%, {BillyT insert: from the US big car needs} still needed 280,000,000 acres of cropland, try harder. {Billy T insert: No you get realistic and use smaller more fuel-efficient cars such as in Europe now. Assume more Telecommuting, Free electric city busses, etc. as the starting point for your calculation. I have agreed that the current system is not sustainable, but needs considerable (more than 30%) reduction in energy demands.}

Well if you wanted solar fuels why didn't you ask to begin with? We can cheap printable solar panels get 12-18% efficient photovoltaic conversion, {BillyT insert: No – not with printed cells do you get 18%. - The theoretical limit with Si band gap and our sun’s spectrum is 22%.) we could easily do up to 50% with solar thermal! [BillyT insert: Possibly at noon in a cold region (not a desert). What temperature hot and cold are you assuming the thermal engine uses? I think you are speaking of the thermal engine efficiency only, but note that if the solar absorber is very hot, the collector field must be much larger to make up the re-radiation losses from it. (Carnot and materials limit your efficiency. I note that electric power plant cannot get 50% because they cannot use the full combustion temperature potential of natural gas due to these material limits.) Transport and store that solar electricity in batteries with 20% loss, use it in an electric car with 90% efficiency, total efficiency is 9-36%. [BillyT insert: How did battery stored solar energy get to your city car? Rail transport of batteries from SW desert where cheap land with sun is available or via HV transmission lines and more losses in transformers and transmission lines?

Or we could grow crops with sunlight to biomass efficiencies 0.5% (we could do up to 6-7% with algae in enclosed field bags pumped with CO2) convert it to a biomass derived fuel with significant energy lose of up to 60%, then run that in the ICE engine with at most 30% energy utilization, total efficiency 0.06-0.84%. So with solarvoltaic economy we get 10-600 times great efficiency. {BillyT insert: Than what? I think that the unknowns in large algae based system are extreme – just keeping the algae from “going wild” - evolving to a system clogging scum is one. Many are trying on very small scale, but none show promise that I know of. It does not need to be a one or the other though, there are nearly 1 billion tons of biomass waste produced a year (forestry saw dust, corn and wheat stems, sewage, etc) that could supply a third of our petroleum and natural gas needs, but it would be best to put that into making plastics and fueling jets, economies electrics can't touch.

If that is possible, it might be economical but some how you need to pay for the collection transport of low energy density grasses, wood chips, etc to the processing plant. Thus far it is not even economical just to transport them and burn them for heat in a power plant with a few exceptions. Adding the cost of enzymes etc, distillation, etc. does not improve the already poor economic of wood chip utilization. More economical use is to make press board sheets out of them etc.)

Oh yes lets cut down the rainforest! …

Well humans did, say in Ohio, but I think great expanses of forest can survive. We disagree on the land needed and available as I assume that a large part of the switch to a sustainable system has much more changed than just the ICE’s fuel:

I.e. Smaller cars driven much less with telecommuting, greatly increased use of improved and subsidized local public transport, etc. even restoration of urban centers to be the desired place to live, as they were 100 years ago. (High rises and parks, commuting by elevator to lower level in same building job when necessary to be there in person, etc.)

I am not trying to sustain the unsustainable current system. Mankind will someday have a sustainable system – what it is like is our choice, if we begin to act intelligently now. If not, we will brutally sink back into a dark ages – that was a sustainable system for a much smaller population. In the long view of human history this current petroleum drunken binge was an aberration.

 

[adoucette]

I agree that there is a lot of off peak electricity available but it too is ~90+% fossil based.

Ah, 31% of our electicity comes from Nuclear, Hydro or Renewable resources and the renewable component, though still small, is growing at a respectable rate.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Ah, 31% of our electicity comes from Nuclear, Hydro or Renewable resources and the renewable component, though still small, is growing at a respectable rate. ... Arthur

I think you speak of installed generation capacity, not the fraction of KWH delivered each year. Correct me if I am wrong. (Renewable capacity is not always available energy. Even hydro is limit during dry periods. Have you seen any photos of Lake Powell, behind Bolder dam? - More than 100 feet below dam's top for the last decade or more, I think.)

 

[adoucette]

I assume that a large part of the switch to a sustainable system has much more changed than just the ICE’s fuel:

I.e. Smaller cars driven much less with telecommuting, greatly increased use of improved and subsidized local public transport, etc. even restoration of urban centers to be the desired place to live, as they were 100 years ago. (High rises and parks, commuting by elevator to lower level in same building job when necessary to be there in person, etc.)

Interesting assumption.

Too bad it doesn't account for the fact that in about 30 years the US population will have grown by about 100 million people.

There will be more people living in cities, but OOPS there will be more people living in Suburbs as well, and OOPS, if you can telecommute, good chance you are already doing it.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

I think you speak of instaled generation capacity, not the fraction of KWH delivered each year. Correct me if I am wrong. (Renewable capacity is not always available energy. Even hydro is limit during dry periods. Have you seen any photos of Lake Powell, behind Bolder dam? - More than 100 feet below dam's top for the last decade or more, I think.)

NOPE

That's GENERATION, not capacity.

EIA figures from 2009

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_1.xls

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

NOPE That's GENERATION, not capacity. ...Arthur

Thanks for the link. Yes it is KWHs.

I did not realize there was so much nuclear in US. Without it, I get only 10.5 % for full year 2009. Columns H+ I = 413.246 GWh divided by column L = 3953.111 GWh of the Excel spread sheet as the percentage that is from truly “renewable sources.”

I note however that the 21% nuclear contributes nothing to the "off peak" power available for battery recharge. I.e. nuclear power is "base load power" - making its output 24/7 except for necessary shutdowns.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Untested in massive automobile use. For example, in an accident, especially if car rolls over, where do the massive batteries fly? Do they rupture? Where in the car should they be located?

Nowhere, no, below the floor boards.

Do they or their electrical wires make sparks and set fire to leaking fuel from the gasoline generator?

Might as well ask if electric wires from existing 12 VDC systems in cars create sparks and cause fires in a crash. The batteries them selves are physically safer then gasoline, the amount of energy they hold is a fraction of gasolines, they have no vapor pressure and do not "leak" from a container even when punctured.

What happens to the old batteries? – That is already a pollution problem

Lithium is pretty biologically safe, these aren't lead acids, but considering the high price of lithium it would be best if a recycling system were implemented.

As cars are already stolen and reduced to parts for resale in a few hours, how much more will the valuable batteries add to this problem and insurance costs?

And how is this a problem that would make EV inviable, I would think this is a big problem if these were nuclear power cars with little reactors but they aren't, I'm sure the car theives can get their pointers from computer thieves on what to do with the batteries (sell them!)

This is especially worrisome if the batter unit is designed for quick exchange as is often suggested to solve the slow recharge problem. Who owns the batteries the car owner of some firm rents them to the car owner?

That is a good question, and I'm not an advocate of battery swapping, I don't think lithium batteries will ever be cheap enough to make that approach economically feasible. Zinc or Aluminum pastes though will be.

Where is the rate of recharge limited? (by the charging station or the car) and how often does some defect in it explode batteries / destroy cars? Who does an injured by-stander sue? Even small Li-ion batteries have a history of explosion and fires. ETC.

The problem of exploding batteries has been dealt with, newer battery designs such as lithium iron phosphate and lithium titanate oxide aren't physically incapable of thermal runaway.

I agree that there is a lot of off peak electricity available but it too is ~90+% fossil based. When electric distribution losses are added to the discharge / re charge losses are added to electric motor losses is there any reduction in CO2 release? I mentioned nuclear power, not because US lacked off peak electrical energy but to point out that only with that can the EV reduce CO2 emission when gasoline ICE is the alternative. – You seem to have misunderstood my point

read this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...90vJkB90g&sig2=XGmz0_01WLKzl591TlMh2w&cad=rja

Oh and this:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/200...s-for-transportation-output-and-ghg-emis.html

Even with a high coal inputs an EV would produce less net CO2 emission then a conventional car. A powerplant even a coal one, is significantly more efficient then a ICE engine, has more pollution filters and power line loss in the US is an average of 7% (so 93% on average makes it to the costumer) all this net favors EVs even when burning a high carbon fuel, not to mention several projects exist were biomass has been dumped into coal power plants. Converting coal power plants to biomass ones would be an easier endeavorer then mass production of biofuels.

ETOH fuel is and economical way to slightly reduce the CO2 already in the air and certainly does not add to the CO2 in the air.I agree with this, except the final now bold part. The EV is NOT competing ONLY against the gasoline ICE. The ETOH ICE alternative is already cheaper than the gasoline ICE and getting cheaper each year. Let's see if the EV can compete against that.

Only in Brazil Ethanol production scalability has serious limitations as I have already mentioned, your not going to power the world's cars on ethanol. With far less energy upscaling we could power most cars with electricity, and with the push for solar, wind and wave power that are intermittent the existence of batteries on the grid make those power supplies more economically feasible.

If that is possible, it might be economical but some how you need to pay for the collection transport of low energy density grasses, wood chips, etc to the processing plant.

Same question for sugarcane was already answered. Pure Sugar (sugarcane of course is not pure) has 15.6 MJ/Kg, Wood has on average 18 Mj/Kg, coal is in the same range at ~14 MJ/kg. Recycling facilities already managed the movement of cardboard and paper.

Thus far it is not even economical just to transport them and burn them for heat in a power plant with a few exceptions. Adding the cost of enzymes etc, distillation, etc. does not improve the already poor economic of wood chip utilization.

Yeah read these: http://www.greencarcongress.com/cellulosic_ethanol/index.html

I.e. Smaller cars driven much less with telecommuting, greatly increased use of improved and subsidized local public transport, etc. even restoration of urban centers to be the desired place to live, as they were 100 years ago. (High rises and parks, commuting by elevator to lower level in same building job when necessary to be there in person, etc.) I am not trying to sustain the unsustainable current system. Mankind will someday have a sustainable system – what it is like is our choice, if we begin to act intelligently now. If not, we will brutally sink back into a dark ages – that was a sustainable system for a much smaller population. In the long view of human history this current petroleum drunken binge was an aberration.

I'm all for that, but what does it have to do with sugarcane ethanol? Man kinds sustainable system in the long run with most like be electric, considering how battery prices and solar power and production cost drop with each year and taking in account their ~100+ times great efficiency than lower tech options like oil and sugarcane alcohol and ever decrease amount of land and water resources available and biomass economy will ultimately be relegated to making plastics, asphalt and specialties fuels.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I note however that the 21% nuclear contributes nothing to the "off peak" power available for battery recharge. I.e. nuclear power is "base load power" - making its output 24/7 except for necessary shutdowns.

Off-peak exist because of base load power, Rankine cycle power plants (existing nuclear and coal) can't change output quickly and only operate at peak efficiency at full power. Nuclear power plants and coal powerplants are literally spinning usually at night to keep the turbines spinning and reactors/boilers hot to prevent breakdown from thermal cycling, as you basically stated their output are 24/7, which is why off-peak prices was implemented to get more use of this wasted power. Smart charging of EV at night and at low power usage times would flatten power usage over a day and make base load powerplant more efficient and more profitable.

 

[Skeptical]

If you are going to go with biofuels, the best option is certain algae with their very high oil content - up to 50% for some species. Those oils can easily be converted to biodiesel. They also can be made to grow very fast in sewage treatment ponds.
http://www.ecosherpa.com/green-energy/algae-biofuel-from-sewage/

The greatest advantage of algae is that the biofuel per acre is massively greater than land based biofuel crops.
I quote :
"At a panel last week, Martin Tobias, CEO of biodiesel company Imperium Renewables, said algae could theoretically produce 10,000 gallons of oil per acre, compared with 680 gallons per acre for palm, the current highest-oil-yielding crop (see Biofuels Smackdown: Algae vs. Soybeans)."

 

[ElectricFetus]

If you are going to go with biofuels, the best option is marine algae with their very high oil content - up to 50% for some species. Those oils can easily be converted to biodiesel. They also can be made to grow very fast in sewage treatment ponds.
http://www.ecosherpa.com/green-energy/algae-biofuel-from-sewage/

The greatest advantage of algae is that the biofuel per acre is massively greater than land based biofuel crops.
I quote :
"At a panel last week, Martin Tobias, CEO of biodiesel company Imperium Renewables, said algae could theoretically produce 10,000 gallons of oil per acre, compared with 680 gallons per acre for palm, the current highest-oil-yielding crop (see Biofuels Smackdown: Algae vs. Soybeans)."

I'm all for algae, in fact that is what my MS thesis is on, but its still many years from high scale production, ultimately at sea algae farms of high protein algae will allow food production without the limitation of croplands. And of course high lipid algae will be a bases from bioplastics and jet fuel production.

 

[Billy T]

... off-peak prices was implemented to get more use of this wasted power. Smart charging of EV at night and at low power usage times would flatten power usage over a day and make base load powerplant more efficient and more profitable.

That is almost, butnot quite correct.

The power company builds only as much of the high capital cost generation (such as nuclear power) as it expects it can use 24/7. Then they add to that base various lower capital cost generation (as it will not have 100% duty cycle and they don't want the higher cost generation sitting idle). These units have relative higher fuel usage per KWH generated but do sit idle part of the time. They in turn are supplemented by "peaking units" such as gas turbines which have the lowest capital cost and thus can sit idle most of the time but are "fuel hogs."

I.e. what you state some what incorrectly is that off-peak prices were implemented to get use of the wasted {base load} power. There can only be "wasted base load power" if the system's base load becomes less than the company expected when they installed it, but that is rare as generally they have a growing base load, in part for reason you suggest. I.e. if their high capital cost generation is no longer being used 24/7 (company estimated wrong when buying it), then a lower off peak rate will help restore the base load generation to 24/7 use. You are completely correct that encouraging more uniform load is economically advantageous for the company. For example, in many areas, if you agree to let the company turn off some of your demand at the peak (say not run your electric hot water heater) they will give you a lower rate ("peak shaving" this is called)

Peak shaving is the more important approach to getting a more uniform load profile. Off-peak rates only correct for the companies error when they over estimated what their base load would be. Normally there is no "wasted base load generation capacity."

 

[adoucette]

Agree, but that's where the growing amount of renewable power, particularly wind comes in. The wind still blows at night, but often isn't needed, but add recharge of batteries and all that renewable capacity you build will get used.
Arthur

 

[Billy T]

...
read this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...90vJkB90g&sig2=XGmz0_01WLKzl591TlMh2w&cad=rja...

I skimed it and found this claim:
"According to the World Resources Institute, EVs recharging from coal-fired plants will reduce CO2 emissions in this country from 17 to 22 percent."

I will grant that the power plant gets more shaft HP energy for the generator from X grams of CO2 released than the car's ICE does, but only by about 10%. Thus, I doubt this claim as there is more than 10% losses in the electric distribution system and its transformers + in charging battery + in discharging battery + in self discharge of battery when car is parked + inside car wiring losses + in the car's electric motor making shaft HP. I think it very hard to keep those losses less than 20%.

Summary: 10% (or less?) better efficiency at the power plant does not make up for 20% (or more) less efficiency in the EV system.

The batteries do get hot on the high way and very much so if quick charged - that heat is lost energy.

PS You did not answer my question about how the solar energy stored in batteries where land is cheap with lots of sunshine (say SW desert) gets to say NYC EV car. How great is the losses in moving that energy?

 

[ElectricFetus]

I skimed it and found this claim:
"According to the World Resources Institute, EVs recharging from coal-fired plants will reduce CO2 emissions in this country from 17 to 22 percent."

See right there, nothing more to argue about. But strangely you ignore your own citation and argue every little point as if it didn't just tell you that even with coal an EV would produce less CO2.

I will grant that the power plant gets more shaft HP energy for the generator from X grams of CO2 released than the car's ICE does, but only by about 10%.

and care ICE usually does 25%, a coal power plant 35%, so for every watt a ICE gives off as mechanical power a coal power plant gives off 1.4 watts in electricity, that 40% more power, not 10%.

Thus, I doubt this claim as there is more than 10% losses in the electric distribution system and its transformers + in charging battery + in discharging battery + in self discharge of battery when car is parked + inside car wiring losses + in the car's electric motor making shaft HP. I think it very hard to keep those losses less than 20%.

93% for grid distribution, 95% for charging, 95% discharging, large electric motors can do up to 98% efficiency but lets say 90% assuming unfavorable rpm and stop and going. But hey lets use real numbers, what does Tesla get with their roadstar?:

That over twice the efficiency of a conventional car and thats with the little parasitic loses and all.

Summary: 10% (or less?) better efficiency at the power plant does not make up for 20% (or more) less efficiency in the EV system.

The batteries do get hot on the high way and very much so if quick charged - that heat is lost energy.

Sure batteries get hot, but Li-ion has a charge/discharge efficiency above 90%, only 10% at most is lost as heat.

PS You did not answer my question about how the solar energy stored in batteries where land is cheap with lots of sunshine (say SW desert) gets to say NYC EV car. How great is the losses in moving that energy?

Never saw such a question and never suggested south west desert solar would power a car in NYC, they won't, rather NYC would be better off getting it power from ocean current mills several miles off shore and through tidal generators in it bays

 

[Billy T]

Let me use your numbers and follow 1000 units of chemical energy input being converted to energy for turning the car's drive shaft:

A power plant, 35% efficient, gives 650 electrical Units of Energy (UEs, here after) from the 1000 UE of chemical energy input.
After reaching the location of the battery the 93% efficient grid has 650x0.93 = 604.5 UE available for charging the battery.
95% battery charging efficiency produces chemical energy in the battery of 604.5x0.95=574.23 UE. {I will neglect the self discharge loss while car is parked.}
Also 95% efficiency for battery chemical energy converted to battery output electrical energy is 545.56 UE supplied to the electric motor.
Which in a 90% efficient electric motor gives 491 UE in the turning drive shaft of the car.

Thus the initial 1000 units of chemical (typically in coal) is converted into drive shaft energy with 49.1% overall efficiency in the EV system.

Now you said the ICE was 25% efficient so it gives 250 EUs when consuming 1000 EUs of chemical energy (in gasoline).

Thus to get the same energy to the wheels, say 100 EUs, the gasoline chemical energy required is 400 EUs and the coal chemical energy required for the EV system is 203.66 EU. However, the CO2 production from burning 203 UE of coal is worse than burning 400UE of gasoline as only carbon is being oxidized when coal is burned.

Calling gasoline iso-octane, (C8H18) we oxidize 18 hydrogen atoms to water for every 8 of CO2 produced. I am too lazy to look up the binding energy, of all the hydro-carbons in gasoline so will just guess that burning the same chemical energy in coal produces twice as much CO2 as burning that amount of chemical energy in gasoline. This is the same reason natural gas produces so much less CO2 for the same energy release than coal. I.e. natural gas burns 4 hydrogen for every carbon burned. My guess is based on fact that oxygen takes 16 electrons from carbon but 18 electrons from hydrogen when octane is burned. This crude analysis tends to say the more than half of the energy released by burning gasoline comes from forming water and less than half from forming CO2. If that is true then burning 400 UE of gasoline may produce slightly less CO2 than burning 203 UE of coal.

That is why I do doubt your reference’s claim that the CO2 production with EV is 17 to 22% less, even with coal as the primary energy source for charging the battery. That claim put out by: "The Electric Vehicle Discussion List, founded in 1991 by EV enthusiast Clyde Visser PE" This quote from their home page at: www.evdl.org/
I suspect he has strong bias in favor of the EV.

See right there, nothing more to argue about. But strangely you ignore your own citation and argue every little point as if it didn't just tell you that even with coal an EV would produce less CO2.

No, I did not "ignore the reference's claim" that the EV produces 17 to 22% less CO2, I just don’t believe it is likely to be true based on the above.

Another point in gasoline car’s favor is the high volumetric and specific energy densities of gasoline.

ENERGY DENSITY COMPARISONS (From: http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf )
Gasoline .... 9000 Wh/l ...13,500 Wh/Kg
LNG ......... 7216 Wh/l ...12,100 Wh/Kg
Propane .... 6600 Wh/l ...13,900 Wh/Kg
Ethanol ..... 6100 WH/l ...7,850 Wh/Kg
Liquid H2....2600 Wh/l ...39,000* Wh/Kg
150 Bar H2. 405 WH/l ....39,000* Wh/Kg
Lithium ..... 250 Wh/l ....350 Wh/Kg
Flywheel ... 210 Wh/l ....120 Wh/Kg
Liquid N2 ... 65 Wh/l ..... 55 Wh/Kg
Lead Acid .. 40 Wh/l ..... 25 Wh/Kg
Compr Air .. 17 Wh/l ..... 34 Wh/Kg
STP H2 ......2.7 Wh/l ....39,000* Wh/Kg
*=uncontained
I.e. much lower when weight of steel tank etc is included or in the case of STP H2, the tank is bigger than the car for useful range. You would need legal permits to tow H2 tank behind the car.

The energy volume density of gasoline over Li-ion battery is 9000/250 = 36 times and that does not include the thin walled gas tank or the thicker walled battery cases and much heavier system attaching the batteries below floor boards.
The energy weight density of gasoline over Li-ion battery is 13,500/55 =245.5
That is because gasoline floats on water but most Li-ion batteries sink fast in water - like a rock. Note also that this weight is still being hauled around when the car is running on the hybrid gasoline generator.
But of course the main reason EVs will not be popular is their high cost, even with subsidies, which will phase out. (If not killed first by typical voters who grow tired of subsidizing the typically quite rich buyer of an EV.)

I don't think there are many advocates of the hydrogen fuel still left (unless very ignorant) but it is interesting to note that a gallon of either gasoline or ammonia contains significantly more H2 than a gallon of liquid hydrogen, which must be very cold to be liquid.

 

[adoucette]

Ah, he does say with coal as the PRIMARY source of energy.
Not the ONLY source of energy.
The difference I think you will see is that a great deal of the energy we get from electricity does not come from coal or even produce CO2 even though it is our primary fuel source.

It might not be bias, but it is subtle.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

Billy T,

Good logic, but again there are many studies on the topic not just from the fallaciously bias sources, most generally agree that even off a coal EV would provide a pollution reduction as long as the power plant and grid are of nominal efficiency and pollution filter are in place. I'll trust those over any rough numbers you or I would calculate with simply because of the hell that is input-output and life cycle analysis.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es062314d
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702178s

Another point in gasoline car’s favor is the high volumetric and specific energy densities of gasoline.

True, I never denied this, and its why I'm not advocated for say battery power planes were energy density really matters. Again you need to considering that of the energy content in gasoline only quarter to a thrid makes it as useful power, while nearly all the energy in a lithium-ion battery makes it as power. Next you need to consider the weight of a ICE and its supporting equipment is far greater then and electric motor and supporting electronics per power/kg. After that there is much room for improvement in battery chemistry, lithium sulfur batteries for example could provide double the Wh/kg rating of lithium ion batteries, Lithium air batteries have theoretical energy density as high as 11140 Wh/kg. I have great interests in zinc air batteries, as zinc is cheap, has high electrolysis efficiency, can operate in a flow cell as zinc pellet paste, despite its "low" specific energy density of 1350 Wh/kg. The cost issue is a catch 22, as long as no one buys and support the growth of the infrastructure and manufacture, the cost will remain high, but with present implementation in hybrids, then PHEV and finally EV over the next decades the cost will drop dramatically.

 

[Syzygys]

Boy this thread really took off...

I would like to repeat my opinion. I would like to see EVs to succeed, but I am also a realist. The next 20 years is NOT the EV's yet. Unless there is a technical breakthrough or some other things changes, it is going to be the hybrids'. In 10 years the capacity of making meaningful number of EVs is still not there, and we are talking about maybe 1 million made, when the US carpark is 250 millions.

So EVs still not going to make a meaningful contribution to personal transportation for at least 10 years. beyond that, we shall see....

 

[Billy T]

Billy T, Good logic, but again there are many studies on the topic not just from the fallaciously bias sources, most generally agree that even off a coal EV would provide a pollution reduction as long as the power plant and grid are of nominal efficiency and pollution filter are in place. ...

I tend to agree the the coal energy source EV is probably less "polluting" as coal fired electric plant in the US at least scrub out a lot of pollution from the stack gases (not yet CO2 however) and some pre-clean the coal. I think that the high performance ICE makes a lot of NOx compared to the coal fired power plant per unit of shaft energy delivered. I was only doubting the claim that the EV reduces the CO2 release by 17 to 22%.

... you need to considering that of the energy content in gasoline only quarter to a thrid makes it as useful power, while nearly all the energy in a lithium-ion battery makes it as power.

That is a good point. So the useful energy density advantage is not 245.5 but more like 70 when one considers only the fuel. However the support structure holding the much heavier batteries under the cars floor compared to a few thin metal straps holding a gas tank and the weight difference of the gas tank compared to battery cases, etc. boost that advantage back up to 130 or so, I think. Reducing weight is important in cars for better efficiency.

Next you need to consider the weight of a ICE and its supporting equipment is far greater then and electric motor and supporting electronics per power/kg.

Another good point. In the EV, there is no massive gear box nor a drive shaft, often going from front of the car where motor is to the rear wheels. That can be small if front wheel dive is used. I don't know but think that four in wheel electric motors may weigh about the same as equal HP ICE. If so and 4 are used then the motors are about the same weight. (Electric motors magnets and copper wires are a lot denser than Al block with steel sleve inserts for the piston chambers.) Certainly fuel and system weight is very important in airplanes but it is important in cars too. When everything is considered it may be possible for an EV with short range capacity to be a lighter car than a gasoline ICE, but surely the EV will weight more if the EV has the un-refueld range of the typical gasoline ICE.

I will defer to your judgement about potential battery improvement new chemistry, etc. but think the main improvement to be realistically expected is in charge and discharge rates. Both are important for the EV, but if one could get double the power out for 30 seconds without damage to the battery, the battery could be smaller , weigh less and still let driver have a burst of power for passing etc.

...The cost issue is a catch 22, as long as no one buys and support the growth of the infrastructure and manufacture, the cost will remain high, but with present implementation in hybrids, then PHEV and finally EV over the next decades the cost will drop dramatically.

Perhaps. But this thread seems to assume that the race is between the EV or PHEV etc. and the gasoline ICE. I do not. I think that the well proven and cheaper ETOH ICE has already demonstrated for more than a decade in Brazil that it is better (amazingly even in peak power from the same cylinders) than the gasoline ICE in every respect, especially pollution avoidance, except range. - for that to be the same you would need a larger fuel tank.

This thread is really the EV against the straw horse of gasoline ICE. Eventually all will understand that the EV must be better than the ETOH ICE. That is my main point.