An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the total BTU of fuel that it burns.
Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).
Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.
More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.
Further, more is lost in a battery charger.
Then more is lost in the car battery.
Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.
This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an distribution of gasoline!
And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be burned as coal than would come from gasoline?
There are essentially two sources of electric power on the planet: Hydroelectric and coal. There are others, but they are very small.
Hydro power is cheap, so is always sold first. In other words, the production capacity is always maxed out. It is not possible to produce more hydro power than we already are.
Every electric car increases the total global demand for power, and the only way to satisfy the demand is to make more coal power. Every electric car is therefore coal powered.
If you put a similarly low powered gas engine in a car you could achieve similar efficiency, but it would be only feeble, without the compensating green status appeal. Such cars don't sell well enough. The people who demand them want to force them on someone else.
formatting link
My 1978 Accord averaged 36-38 MPG with the interior space of a Saab or BMW. It handled better than my rich buddy's Saab 900 Turbo, too. (but was no match for his BMW 2002)
Energy is also lost transporting fuel to power plants and preparing it for use.
Worrying about breathing is only an issue if you live in Los Angeles-- one of these days some terrorist with a nuke is going to put an end to that problem. The major emission that anybody who doesn't live in Los Angeles worries about is CO2 and fixed power plants don't emit any less of that than mobile ones, it's part of the basic chemistry of combustion.
That's dollar cost and has little to do with the actual energy consumed. Remember that much of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is taxes. Those same taxes are not currently applied to electric vehicles, but if they become popular those taxes will be.
I really wish the tree-huggers would all get together and come up with a rational policy. One groups screams "we need more windmills, they're clean" and another group screams "windmills spoil the view". One group screams "roll CO2 back to the 1900 level" another says "no nukes".
The only candidate in the last presidential election to take global warming seriously was McCain, and he had a program to deal with it in a way that would address the concerns of the UN commission. But it involved nukes. Obama's solution has been to put his finger up his butt and let somebody else sometime in the future worry about it.
The glaring error there is ignoring the batteries as an operating cost.
formatting link
I've tested high-end batteries at Segway and [a medical equipment manufacturer] and seen a small percentage of Lithiums begin to degrade in less than a year. The packs' built-in supervisory computer recorded all charge and discharge cycles, temperature and remaining capacity. The battery maker wouldn't promise more than three years life, regardless of cycle count.
What is your experience with the same battery technologies in power tools and laptops?
Mine isn't good. I have to employ lab tech tricks on the batteries to keep my Makita drills and 5+ year old laptops running.
You forgot to add for petroleum refining losses. Gas manufacture runs around 85% efficiency. That puts your internal combustion engine closer to 24% efficiency. Paul K. Dickman
Obummer was pushing nukes as well (the only currently viable solution) up until Fukishima. The fact that Fukishima was 40yr old technology why has little in common with current reactor design is of course lost on the clueless masses who are prone to believe the propaganda from the loony antis.
The source of the electricity used for charging has the greatest impact on the true efficiency and emissions as everyone else noted. What they forgot to note is that EVs do not consume any energy during stops or downhill grades, and recapture some energy during braking, both of which can further improve efficiency to a variable amount based on terrain and usage.
Also, your transmission losses are high. According to the EIA electric transmission losses are 7% average nationwide (5.5% here in IL) and are based on total production + imports - direct use -watts sold. So it would include losses at stepdown to 220.
This analysis neglects the differences between the qualities of energy sources. Coal won't fuel a car directly, it's only good for making steam . Petroleum is more versatile. Electricity is the highest, most valuable form which can do almost anything except be stored cheaply in bulk..
Arguably, the main problem with nukes is that they are so costly to build that private investors are loathe to fund their construction.
===
formatting link
"As of December 2011, construction by Southern Company on two new nuclear units has begun, and they are expected to be delivering commercial power by
2016 and 2017.[9][10] But, looking ahead, experts see continuing challenges that will make it very difficult for the nuclear power industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that ratepayers pay for construction in advance".[11]"
===
And before anyone starts suggests that government ought to take over, using taxpayer dollars, you need to realize that someone's taxes would need to go up, and that government-control of energy production is a textbook example of socialism.
The government has owned and controlled energy production since 1933:
formatting link
"The Kentucky Sierra Club called the [2008 Kingston] disaster the "worst environmental disaster since Chernobyl"." "The disaster continues to poison lakes and stream as well as potentially the drinking water of millions."
That's simple. Just like any truly green electricity without CO2 emissions. Make the electricity with nuclear power.
However, in the cold or hot climate (most places:), one of the big problems with electric cars is AIR CONDITIONING, cooling or heating. In a normal gasoline powered car, there is extra heat to use for heating the car (here in winter at -20C). In the electric car, the extra heat has to come from electricity in battery, and we are talking about several kW.. Electric cars are cold cars in winter as the battery just simply can't handle the heating.. Also, you have to use power to cool it in summer, but that is less of a problem (less delta-T). Perhaps better heat insulation will solve this.
The second big problem is that it costs 10000-20000 usd per 5 years for battery replacement.. That makes a LOT for the USD/km cost.. Perhaps better battery technology will solve this.
The third big problem is TAXES. Nowadays here in Finland the gasoline costs about 1.7 euro/litre (0.70euro/litre for gasoline and 1.00 euro/litre government tax). If the electric cars come popular, there will definitely be a tax on "electric car electricity".. Perhaps put a kWh counter in each electric car and then pay X.XX USD/kWh electric car electricity tax.. Nothing will solve THIS.
Here the reasonable way to go at the moment is with CNG, compressed natural gas. Conversion of old car is about 2500euro. Cost of CNG driving is HALF the cost of gasoline driving, for fuel cost per km. However, the big threat is that government will also put a heavy tax on CNG (like on gasoline), so people are afraid to convert their cars. It takes about 2 years payback time for the conversion. Again, nothing will solve the TAX problem, especially poor predictability on changes of taxes.
To be clear, my point was that Iggy's original premise was flawed. He assumed no production or distribution losses on petroleum and inflated those losses on electricity.
In terms of btus dug from the ground and delivered to the transmission, it is probably a wash.
28% carnot efficiency * 85% production efficiency = 23.8% of the btu dug hit the transmission
33% production efficiency * 93% transmission efficiency = 30.69% for electricity delivered. If the charging and motor losses are 22.45% than it is dead even.
As to Iggy's question, "And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be burned as coal than would come from gasoline?"
Even if the EV is less efficient than gas engines, not all electricity comes from hydrocarbons but all gasoline comes from hydrocarbons. If the difference in efficiency is less than the percentage of electricity produced from hydro/nuke/solar/wind then it will result in a net reduction of CO2.
All that aside, I drive a 12yo pickup. But speaking as a person who owns a hundred different hammers, I say "Diversity is always a good thing and should be encouraged".
There's more than one way to skin a cat. That doesn't seem important now, but it's gonna be real handy when we run out of squirrels to eat.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.