No Politics: This Is Why Electric Vehicles Won't Work In The Long Run

nicholastanguma

Los Angeles, San Francisco
Full disclosure: I pulled this post from Mike Veal over on pistonheads.com. It was a thread entitled, "How much longer will diesel be a viable option?"

No political wannabees or culture warriors need get themselves in a huff; this is just the science of the world's current technological limits from a logistical standpoint. Meaning, EV technology itself will likely become viable as a passenger vehicle option (how could it not?), but the power grids of even the planet's mightiest economies simply can't produce enough electricity to charge everyone's vehicles and keep lighting our housing infrastructure at the same time. Here's a linky to the entire thread if you're interested.

"We don't have the infrastructure to charge EVs.

This (from here) shows that cars, light vans and motorcycles used 12.9 million tonnes of petrol and 12.4 million tonnes of diesel in 2012.

For petrol the energy density is 45.8MJ/Kg, lets use an engine efficiency of 25%. So that's 45.8MJ/Kg * 12.9M Tonnes *1000Kg/Tonne * 0.25 = 147705000 GigaJoules per year that actually get used for propulsion. The other 75% is wasted as heat.

Similarly for diesel, energy density is 45.5MJ/Kg, but engine efficiency is higher at around 35%, giving : 45.5MJ *12.4M Tonnes *1000Kg/Tonne * 0.35 = 197470000 GigaJoules.

Our combined energy need to drive EVs is 345,175,000 GigaJoules per annum. But the EVs aren't 100% efficient. If we use a figure of 90% efficiency (combined efficiency of EV motor, battery, charger, national grid, it's a guess & a very generous one), that need rises to a more realistic 383,527,778 GigaJoules per annum.


Since the national grid capacity is measured in Watts and 1J is 1W for 1s, we divide the EV energy need in Joules by charging time to work out the wattage that the national grid needs to supply.

Time available is 1 year, which is 31,556,926 seconds.

But these magical EVs won't be available to be charged 24/7. So the load can't be spread evenly onto the national grid over any 24 hour period. Let's guess that of the 24 available hours per day, all the cars are out and about during daylight hours & get plugged in at night. I'm going to use 8 hours per day out and about, 16 hours plugged in.

That reduces the time available to 21,037,950 seconds.

So the potential EV load on the National Grid is 383,527,778 GigaJoules / 21,037,950 seconds = 18.23GW.

Our 2015/2016 capacity (p36) is about 75GW. So we need an extra 24%, but current spare capacity is a woeful 5%

Waving a magic wand and fixing the EV battery / range problems is only half the problem. We'd need a lot more power stations and a serious upgrade to the electricity distribution network. The cabling from generating station all the way to our houses may need replacing / upgrading."
 
Last edited:

haven

Expedition Leader
Perhaps we'll see advances in local solar energy and local power storage. No need to grow the power grid when production and consumption of electric power is on and in your own garage.
 

AFBronco235

Crew Chief
Honestly, this argument sounds remarkably similar to the problems with getting gas from gas stations during the early 1900's. Look how that turned out.
And I think you're math is a tad off. Even the most efficient internal combustion engine is only 8% efficient, which means you're math is demanding about 3 times the power consumption.

I do agree that its unlikely we'll see any major increase in EV use any time soon except in large cities with infrastructures already in place. It would take some sort of On-Board Generator like "Mr. Fusion" to really change the game for people out and away from those infrastructures. The other problem is time. It takes me 5 minutes to fill up for gas for a week. It takes, what 5-8 hours to charge up for one day with an EV. Do you really see our fast paced society doing that at the consumer level?
 

OCD Overland

Explorer
Yep, just an updated version of 'we don't make enough gasoline to replace our horses with cars'. It's a ridiculous argument.

Plus, just a quick Google search shows that his numbers are off. UK capacity is 80Gw and peak demand is 80%. And peak demand is summertime mid day, so you can't just add EV demand to that number, and say everyone in the UK is going to plug their cars in at once.

And somewhere in there it looks like he's got his units mixed up. Why is he not just converting joules to kilowatt hours?
 
Last edited:

tgreening

Expedition Leader
I'd like to see a study on how green EVs actually are. I have the impression a lot of the people on the street who are proponents seem to think the power for these just appears at the socket in their garage, but it doesn't. For conversation it's accurate enough to say that electricity is produced 2/3 by fossil fuels and the other 1/3 divided close enough to evenly between renewable and nuclear.

How efficient is the whole process? You expend energy to pull coal from the ground and get it to the plant. You turn it into heat (loss) and turn that into mechanical energy (loss) and turn that into electricity. That gets transmitted into the grid and "shipped" with losses along the way, to your house where you feed it into batteries with loss again, and finally it gets turned back into mechanical energy again with yet more loss. What do those numbers look like and to be fair how does it compare to the losses from getting oil out of the ground and to the rear wheels of our junk?

What about the end of life recycling aspect? A fuel tank is almost 100% recyclable at the end of its days, which will be the end of the service life of most vehicles. How long do these lion batteries last before they need replacement, how much can be recycled, and how much energy is expended to do so?

As the info by the OP points out, this issue is way more complicated than just plugging your Prius into the wall and then patting yourself on the back for saving the planet. Maybe you are, but do we as the consumer really know, or are we just taking it on faith?
 

Hilldweller

SE Expedition Society
Better batteries are coming. That with solar & wind will tip things.

I'd still rather have a horse though. Call me old fashioned.
 

teotwaki

Excelsior!
I looked at a horse, but I just couldn't figure out a good way to attach an awning.

Here you go....
445892511_bfbcd4a587_b.jpg
 

Hilldweller

SE Expedition Society
Glad that I'm alone in my office, Jim; laughed out loud on that one.

A little over 30 years ago I was trying to figure out an overland route to ride a horse from Fairfield County, CT to my relatives in Colorado. Couldn't do it.
That's when I bought my first motorcycle and my "overlanding" bug first bit. I didn't call it that though; I just called it a roadtrip.

EVs will happen.
 

Haf-E

Expedition Leader
Most electric cars use 250 to 350 watthours per mile - and most people drive their cars less than 50 miles per day - so that works out to be about 12.5 kWh per day - which is typically able to be met by a solar array of about 3kW even here in the rainy pacific NW. The time required for recharging is not significant - for most people its just plugging in the car at the end of the day and the effort is small compared to going to a gas station and filling the gas tank even once a week.

There is a real challenge in replacing all of the vehicles with EVs - it is all heavy duty trucks / semi's - but those can still be powered by fossil fuels. Since they get such low gas mileage they are a surprisingly large portion of the national energy consumption. Also, many people drive around empty 4x4 pick-ups as cars to work each day though and that won't probably change easily...
 

Martinjmpr

Wiffleball Batter
Seems like a classic example of the "all or nothing" fallacy: If it's not 100% viable, right now, to replace everything, then it's not viable at all and never will be. The same argument that gets made against any alternative fuel or transportation technologies whether it's solar, wind, biofuels, etc. :rolleyes:
.
What was your point in posting this? :confused:
 

Rockhounder

Explorer
California cutting Diablo Canyon.

There is no ability of our electrical grid system to provide for the power of EXISTING projected population growth in California. Not including the almost tripling of needed demand capacity if everybody were to go full EV for transportation. It is a non starter from the beginning. There is simply too much current demand that is being cut too deeply by getting rid of our last nuclear plant.

In the The Electrical generation industries own words:


CGNP'S Summary Objections to PG&E's Plan to Close Diablo Canyon Power Plant in 2025

1. PG&E's current plan to replace DCPP's annual power production is to expand the four following approaches to maintain its carbon emissions at the current level.

A. Increase the use of solar power.
B. Increase the use of wind power.
C. Increase the use of electric power storage.
D. Increase the use of Demand Reduction.

2. All four of the above approaches require the PG&E expend substantial funds that will ultimately come from ratepayers. Estimates are that in 10 years, the average family will have to quadruple their electrical cost basis to cover the proposed baseload to $1240 a MONTH. None of the above four approaches will allow PG&E to maintain its carbon emissions at the current level after 2025. Currently, PG&E generates about 18 TWh each year from Diablo Canyon Power Plant, California's largest power generator by far. Diablo Canyon Power Plant generates about five times the annual output of Hoover Dam or about 13 times the annual output of the new Topaz Solar generating facility in eastern San Luis Obispo County.

Topaz covers 9.5 square miles and was built at a cost of about $2.4 billion dollars. Thus, a solar-powered replacement to Diablo Canyon Power Plant would cost approximately $31 billion and cover 123.5 square miles of precious California land. Costs for wind energy to replace DCPP would likely be higher, requiring more land. Solar and wind power levels are subject to harmful random fluctuations. In addition, the solar power is generated in the five hours centered around solar noon. California's peak power demand period is in the late afternoon. The new estimated minimum coverages to provide for Californias projected population growth would require PG&E to purchase and develop a minimum expected 1665 square miles of california land conversion to PV collection at a projected cost of over $400 billion for infrastructure development alone. These costs when distributed over the customer base will result in a special assessment fee schedule over a 20 year schedule, averaging each of Californias approximate 11.4 million electrical customers an extra $1756 per year.

Thus, solar (or wind) would require an unprecedented amount of energy storage, with storage power losses between 25-50%. The storage requirements are far in excess of the bulk power storage system that PG&E designed for use in conjunction with DCPP, namely Helms Pumped Storage located in the Sierra foothills to the east of Fresno. DCPP pumps water uphill at Helms during the night using DCPP's surplus power. Then, in the late afternoon, Helms Pumped Storage releases the power equal to one of DCPP's twin reactors. Thus, Californians in PG&E's service territory use the equivalent of 3 DCPP reactors of emission-free power in the late afternoon, powering us through the period of peak demand with no brownouts or blackouts.

As a consequence of California's large projected population growth of more than 14 million new Californians by 2060, relative to the 2010 baseline of 37 million, demand reduction schemes are doomed to failure. Expecatation of enforced peak load electrical sequestration and rationing will become normal. To achieve this it is recommended that all electrical customers be installed with amp/watt reduction/shutoff meters to prevent rolling blackouts from becoming commonplace.

The reality is that PG&E (and the power generating entities that it purchases power from) will increase the combustion of natural gas within California to generate the huge amount of missing power. In addition, increased importation of out-of-state electric power from the burning of dirty coal beyond the ~18 TWh/year now used is likely. These actions will exacerbate global warming, effectively tripling the overall levels of greenhouse gas emissions to cover the inability of renewables to adequately supply the baseload demand for California in 2025. Instead, for the sake of clean air for our children, and for the benefit of our planet, DCPP should encouraged to continue to operate well beyond 2025.

Gene Nelson, Ph.D., Government Liaison
Californians for Green Nuclear Power
San Luis Obispo, California



This is just to cover the current needs, not the extra estimated 15tw/h of generation needed to charge all vehicles in California if they were to be mandated to go full EV in 10 years.

EV sounds great on paper, until you realize that SOMEBODY is going to have to pay for the delivery and storage infrastructure. If you live in California, Drive your EV proudly, and do not mind that your families electric bill in 5 to 10 years will be an AVERAGE of $1240 a MONTH to pay for it (as taken directly from PG&E's own projections). Plus the 20 year special assessment of $1756 to pay for this infrastructure estimated costs(which we all know due to govt bureaucracy will be a much larger real world number). $16,636 is the PG&E OWN estimate of what the average electrical consumer unit will be paying a year, if enforced renewables and EV power infrastructure capabilities are built. Then on top of that, they , I noticed, are going to force new version smart meters to slow down or shut off completely your electricity, at your home meter if they deem it "necessary" to balance ever decreasing availability of electricity from the grid. Who thinks this is a "great idea"?
With people barely able to afford living month to month as it is, good luck trying to force everybody to live in a house with a single 20 watt light bulb in each room, and no more TV, washing machine, Internet, Microwave, and all other power consumption that now will cost triple Germany's electrical rates. And feel great that the cost per mile to drive your EV will now end up costing way more than gas vehicles do now.

This is not to say that there "could" be an advancement in the white swan event of a miracle discovery of a new technology to produce and store electricity. Keep hoping for a solution to a problem voted into existence by green politicians.

Yet another reason I want to go off grid as much as possible.........
 
Last edited:

fluffyprinceton

Adventurer
Perhaps we'll see advances in local solar energy and local power storage. No need to grow the power grid when production and consumption of electric power is on and in your own garage.

x2 particularly local power storage. Elon Musk is betting the farm on it. Interesting times. Moe
 

evilfij

Explorer
The good part about electric cars is that many are/will be charged at night when electricity use is the lowest. You could also (they may already) make the chargers smart and have them charge from say midnight to 6 am or something.

California is perpetually screwed, but EVs are not going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,539
Messages
2,875,669
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top