... and the EV goes the way of the steam powered car.

Funny that you bring up steam, because both steam and mobile electricity are NOT energy sources, they are means of conveyance of energy.

I've never understood why anyone would think an EV car is "green", since an EV car is really a coal-powered or natural-gas powered car. These primary sources are used to make the majority of electricity in the U.S. The current administration is basically at war with both of these primary sources, while in love with EVs. Go figure.

When you consider the end-to-end conversion and transmission losses, an EV is an incredibly inefficient vehicle. Certainly not as "green" as using natural gas directly as the mobile fuel. I see some value to EVs in reducing local city concentration of pollution by shifting it to someone else's backyard, but the net effect is far more pollution overall. More carbon too, if you care about such things.

Hybrids are a different story and are the thread topic, so apologies for ranting on EV.

 

When you consider the end-to-end conversion and transmission losses, an EV is an incredibly inefficient vehicle. Certainly not as "green" as using natural gas directly as the mobile fuel. I see some value to EVs in reducing local city concentration of pollution by shifting it to someone else's backyard, but the net effect is far more pollution overall. More carbon too, if you care about such things.

Please show us a quantative analysis of the relative effeciency of end-to-end domestic electricity generation and distrubution compared to effeciency of a gas engine.

 

Bottom line first: I was wrong. Things have changed since the last time I looked at this. Thanks for challenging my mistaken assertion. Overall fuel required to push a car down the road can be reduced by EV technology.

Conversion of coal to electricity - which accounts for over 40% of global electricity production - is about 35% efficient (see here, page 57) and rising only very slowly. If we were to build a new plant, 45% would be a target. But the U.S. hasn't built coal plants for 50 years.

Transmission losses average 7% in the U.S. (see) That drops us to 93% of the 35%, or 32.6% of the coal's calorific value delivered to our homes.

Charging an EV loses maybe 15%, leaving us with 29.3% of the coal's energy delivered to the EV.

EV's are really good at the final step of getting propulsion out of the stored electrical energy. I see estimates of 85%, or 24.9% overall coal-to-propulsion (or NG).

This is better than the ~20% efficiency that can be obtained with a normal ICE (internal combustion engine). The principle gain comes from the fact that a power plant can run far more efficiently than a small engine in our cars. Power plants can also handle emissions more effectively.

Now if it was just practical to own one, I'd head out shopping!

 

Thanks for taking the time to look up the numbers. It's very unusual here that someone does actual research.

 

This is better than the ~20% efficiency that can be obtained with a normal ICE (internal combustion engine). The principle gain comes from the fact that a power plant can run far more efficiently than a small engine in our cars. Power plants can also handle emissions more effectively.

As long as you are computing end-to-end efficiency, you should also include the additional energy and material required to manufacture the car in the first place (i.e. battery production and transportation), and replacement materials throughout the economic life of the car (again, batteries, both production and transportation). Perhaps also the waste of relatively scarce materials used in the batteries themselves, and the energy cost of recycling those materials should also be considered. I won't do the research or math, but I bet it eats up that final 5% or so.

 

As long as you are computing end-to-end efficiency, you should also include the additional energy and material required to manufacture the car in the first place (i.e. battery production and transportation), and replacement materials throughout the economic life of the car (again, batteries, both production and transportation). Perhaps also the waste of relatively scarce materials used in the batteries themselves, and the energy cost of recycling those materials should also be considered. I won't do the research or math, but I bet it eats up that final 5% or so.

There was an episode of Top Gear (british) where they made the claim that the production of the batteries for one hybrid releases more harmful pollutants into the atmosphere than a similar all-gas car would release in tailpipe emissions through its serviceable life. I'm sure there is some caveat in the way they worded it, I just paraphrased what I can remember, so don't hold me to it, search it on YouTube. That sounds a little far fetched to me, but it makes me wonder just how much pollutants are released and how efficient it is to produce a hybrid vs. a non-hybrid. I haven't researched it, but I doubt there is a great difference between the two. If we must factor in production efficiency into a hybrid/ev then we must do the same for for all-gas, including inefficiencies in drilling and refining operations. I don't think anybody really wants to go there, so shall we just call it even?

 

...you should also include the additional energy and material required to manufacture the car in the first place...

Absolutely no question. But hard to research. I did think about the fact that an EV requires you to haul around more weight for a given amount of power, but again I decided to ignore this in my back-of-the-napkin analysis. I also expect that, if the average ICE is 20% efficient, then there may well be high-end (efficiency wise) models and that would actually be the better, apples-to-apples comparison to an EV, which is purpose built to be highly efficient at the expense of all else.

 

Joey you should be able to appreciate this idea...

Instead of trying to calculate inefficiencies at every juncture of the energy harvesting, delivery, and manufacture of each respective industry, why don't we just rely on the dollars to tell the tale? All grievous subsidies and welfares aside, the energy and the technology that costs less is more efficient. This is because if a particular energy or technology costs less to the end user, it can be attributed to superior efficiency somewhere upstream. And that might not be technically accurate if you were to bean count every watt from the sun to tire tread, but in real world quantifiable terms it is, and that's what matters. Gas cars cost less than electric ones, so they are more efficient. You win.

Now the part you're going to fight tooth & nail...
Gas cars are only more efficient and you only win because the source is abundant "free energy" that we only must go and retrieve. It ultimately came from the sun, like all usable energy here on earth, but it took forever and a day to transform into a convenient fluid for our use. I'm not an expert on the topic, but I would venture a guess that we'll use it up before it can replenish itself. Then it won't be more efficient and you won't win. Electrics will, probably solar ones, and they will owe their technology to what we are doing now. Do you think in the future people will be complaining about how the government subsidized cars back in the day, or do you think they will be grateful for the opportunity to continue owning and driving cars in complete freedom, that notion not being to confined only to something that people used to be able to do back in the "good 'ol days?"

So let's not waste time being pedantic over the here and now. Let's exercise some foresight, overlook the perceived evil archenemies of the free market (subsidy, welfare, and anything with "eco" in the name) and try to figure out how to improve our EV (and hybrid) technology.

Or, we could just do it your way; sit around saying that everything will be fine - when gas prices rise to the point that electric cars make sense, the free market will deliver. It might happen. You might be right again. But if that's the stance we are to take, it is an aweful big leap of faith. I would rather trust my fate to my own hands than the whim of such a cantankerous beast.

 

...but I would venture a guess that we'll use it up before it can replenish itself.

There's a shocking weakness in data to support that guess.

 

There's a shocking weakness in data to support that guess.

There's a shocking weakness in data to support any of the mainstream guesses on the topic. Anyway, I'm not going off data, just logic, based on what I've seen. I've seen oil coming out of the ground much faster than it goes in. Actually, I've never seen oil going into the ground, only coming out.

 

It's true an EV is problematic for a single car family, due to their limited range. But there would seem to be a market for them as a second car for commuting and local trips, assuming they can be cost effective for those purposes. Never having to buy gas or change oil or antifreeze is a big plus.

And I would think they could be practical for short delivery tasks such as local mail delivery.

There's a Catch-22 in this. An AEV is only practical if the majority of your driving (not just the daily commute to work, but nearly ALL of your driving needs) are within a very small distance. That generally means that you live in a densely populated area, but that generally means that you live in an area that has a better-developed mass transit system and in an area where you are less likely to have the physical room to accommodate even one vehicle, much less two. So you use mass transit for your commuting and if you have a car at all it needs to be one that you can use when you do have to go outside your normal area.

As for the short deliver tasks, I don't think that is at all practical. The total number of miles put on a mail or other delivery vehicle each day is significant. With just a 40 to 100 mile range, you can't use that for a vehicle that is in use all day long.

 

There's a Catch-22 in this. An AEV is only practical if the majority of your driving (not just the daily commute to work, but nearly ALL of your driving needs) are within a very small distance. That generally means that you live in a densely populated area, but that generally means that you live in an area that has a better-developed mass transit system and in an area where you are less likely to have the physical room to accommodate even one vehicle, much less two. So you use mass transit for your commuting and if you have a car at all it needs to be one that you can use when you do have to go outside your normal area.

As for the short deliver tasks, I don't think that is at all practical. The total number of miles put on a mail or other delivery vehicle each day is significant. With just a 40 to 100 mile range, you can't use that for a vehicle that is in use all day long.

I live in the Los Angeles area which is reasonable densely populated but with poor rapid transit where many in the suburbs have more than one car. I seldom drive more than 30 miles one way to run errands or when I commuted to my job.

I was specifically thinking of those small mail trucks that deliver mail to local residences. I don't think they drive all that fast or that far in one day and do a lot of stops, which would minimize the battery drain.

But arguing about it won't make it any more or less practical. If the electric vehicle is viable then it will survive. If not, it won't.

 

My daily commute to work in Huntsville was 13mi one way.
My daily commute to work in Orando is 17mi one way.
My daily commute to work in California was 20mi one way.
My daily commute to work in Tucson was 19mi one way.
I've lived in densly and non-densly populated areas, and I've never driven over 20mi to get to work, shopping or any other service needed. I've always had parking for at lest two cars. With typical ranges of 70-150 miles, EV's would have been perfect anywhere I've lived.

 

Perhaps the best solution is AEVs with trailer hitches that can pull small portable generators, effectively making them series hybrids for the occasional long trip.

 

The real problem is heating and cooling the passengers. There might be a need for a small generator just for that.

The perfect place for EV's are on crowded city streets during morning and evening rush hour. I see hundreds of cars idling away precious fuel and stinking up the city, just sitting there like a parking lot. At lease the EV is emmiting zero emissions (or whatever comparison to wasting charge is) when not moving.

 

Instead of trying to calculate inefficiencies at every juncture of the energy harvesting, delivery, and manufacture of each respective industry, why don't we just rely on the dollars to tell the tale?

Because the dollars don't come close to telling the tale in terms of determine which is more efficient. I can cut trees down and burn the wood in an open fireplace to heat my house for free, or can spend $2000/yr on propane in an 85% furnace. Does that mean that burning wood in an open fireplace is hugely more efficient than using a propane forced-air furnace?

So let's not waste time being pedantic over the here and now. Let's exercise some foresight, overlook the perceived evil archenemies of the free market (subsidy, welfare, and anything with "eco" in the name) and try to figure out how to improve our EV (and hybrid) technology.

Or, we could just do it your way; sit around saying that everything will be fine - when gas prices rise to the point that electric cars make sense, the free market will deliver. It might happen. You might be right again. But if that's the stance we are to take, it is an aweful big leap of faith. I would rather trust my fate to my own hands than the whim of such a cantankerous beast.

No. The approach you are recommending is not to trust your fate to your own hands, but rather place your fate in the hands of government, and other people deciding what is best for you, and central planning, which has an abysmal track record.

 

EV1 was fairly successful for a new vehicle introduction. The way that it was melted down and swept under the rug is confusing. I sort of believe the theory that it was killed by the organization of dealerships. Most largescale dealers do not have all their eggs in one basket and if they can threaten GM with "Drop the EV1 or we will just try and sell more Fords, Hondas, Toyotas..." What would GM do?

Why did the dealers want it gone? EV1 reduced service requirements and costs by a huge margin. Most dealers rely on service to maintain their profit margins. The EV1 lacked profitable maintenance prospects.

 

Because the dollars don't come close to telling the tale in terms of determine which is more efficient. I can cut trees down and burn the wood in an open fireplace to heat my house for free, or can spend $2000/yr on propane in an 85% furnace. Does that mean that burning wood in an open fireplace is hugely more efficient than using a propane forced-air furnace?

That was my veiled point. Perhaps too veiled. Just because we can go out and suck energy dense fluid out of the ground and burn it with wanton disregard for efficiency does not make it the better/more efficient technology. That was aimed @joey because he keeps injecting Ayn rand into everything.

No. The approach you are recommending is not to trust your fate to your own hands, but rather place your fate in the hands of government, and other people deciding what is best for you, and central planning, which has an abysmal track record.

I suppose you're right. I think that subsidizing alternative energy is a good idea, and I feel entitled to that opinion as a taxpayer. I should not have worded my statement in a way that made it possible to come away with the idea that I grant blanket approval to subsidize any initiative that the government feels fit to pursue. That's a double standard, I know, but what can I say? That's how I feel

 

I suppose you're right. I think that subsidizing alternative energy is a good idea, and I feel entitled to that opinion as a taxpayer. I should not have worded my statement in a way that made it possible to come away with the idea that I grant blanket approval to subsidize any initiative that the government feels fit to pursue. That's a double standard, I know, but what can I say? That's how I feel

You're right. It's a double standard and very hypocritical. You want to use the heavy hand of government to force others to do what YOU agree with, but reserve the right to object when someone else uses the heavy hand of government to force YOU to do something you don't agree with. A big part of the reason that humans create so many messes, ranging from financial crises to wars and everything one both sides and in between, is because there's never any shortage of people (from any side of the political spectrum) willing to force their views and priorities and what is "best" onto other people but that reject any notion that anyone else has similar rights to do the same to them.

A much healthier attitude is to abide by the position that in order to impose my will on someone else that doesn't agree with it, I have to accept a corresponding authority in that other person to impose their will on me, even if I don't agree with it. In fact, if you could quantify it, there should be a premium. If I feel strongly enough about something that I want the government to exert 100 units of coercion on them to force them to do it, then the price I have to accept is that others get to use 110 units of coercion to force me to do something I don't want to do.

 

You're right. It's a double standard and very hypocritical. You want to use the heavy hand of government to force others to do what YOU agree with, but reserve the right to object when someone else uses the heavy hand of government to force YOU to do something you don't agree with. A big part of the reason that humans create so many messes, ranging from financial crises to wars and everything one both sides and in between, is because there's never any shortage of people (from any side of the political spectrum) willing to force their views and priorities and what is "best" onto other people but that reject any notion that anyone else has similar rights to do the same to them.

A much healthier attitude is to abide by the position that in order to impose my will on someone else that doesn't agree with it, I have to accept a corresponding authority in that other person to impose their will on me, even if I don't agree with it. In fact, if you could quantify it, there should be a premium. If I feel strongly enough about something that I want the government to exert 100 units of coercion on them to force them to do it, then the price I have to accept is that others get to use 110 units of coercion to force me to do something I don't want to do.

I don't see things as black and white as you do, or maybe you're cherry picking. If it's hypocritical for me to want the government to subsidize alternative energy but not abortion, then it's hypocritical for any American to want their house fire put out or criminals apprehended , and at the same time be anti socialized medicine. This country is a success because we are middle of the road, not extremists. If I could choose where my tax dollars went, a good portion would go to alternative energy. But I can't.