 | DrumBeat: February 26, 2009 | The Oil Drum | A Few Thoughts on US Petroleum Demand, Inventories, and Prices |  |
| UK NAT GAS WINTER 2009, FEBRUARY UPDATE | The Oil Drum: Europe | Fire or Ice? The role of peak fossil fuels in climate change scenarios | |
Costs and environmental impacts of electric cars
Posted by Rembrandt on February 26, 2009 - 10:08am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: electric, electric car, the netherlands [list all tags]
This is a guest post by Joost van den Bulk in which the costs and benefits of electric cars available by 2010 are compared with internal combustion cars powered by gasoline for the Netherlands. It is a summary of his Master thesis in environmental science at Wageningen University in the Netherlands (PDF, 3 Mb, 72 pages).
Developments in battery technology have made cars driven by electric propulsion cost competitive with internal combustion based cars. Based on a scenario in which a car owner drives 15,000 kilometers annually, the car is owned for a period of 6 years, and the oil price on average remains above 100 dollars per barrel in the next two decades, it was found that an electric car for the consumer is already cheaper than a gasoline powered vehicle in the Netherlands, and that this will only improve in the future. This is the case because higher initial investments in the purchase of an electric car are more than compensated by lower fuel costs, reduced maintenance and tax benefits. Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions of an electric car are at least half that of the gasoline powered car based on the current Dutch electricity mix.
In recent years attention for electric cars has increased significantly. There are many countries and regions pursuing electric car technology, including Israel, Denmark, Portugal, Germany, Ireland, and California. Most of these countries have a goal of 500,000 to 1 million electric cars on the road by 2020. The necessary battery technology for all these cars is developing rapidly which stimulates large and small car manufacturers to develop a production line. Considering the current developments, it is interesting to analyze the costs, benefits and environmental consequences of electric cars compared to cars with a combustion engine.
What is the electric car?
The biggest difference between a car with a combustion engine and the electric car lies in the drive-train (see Figure 1 to the left). The electric car is powered by an electro motor which receives its electricity from an on board battery. In the majority of electric cars currently under development lithium-ion polymer batteries are used which combine a high energy density with durability and safety. An inverter placed in between the battery and electro motor converts direct electric current from the battery, to alternating electric current supplied to the electro motor and car electronics. An electric car can be charged in four to eight hours by plugging it in the standard electricity grid or in fifteen minutes by connecting it to a high voltage charging station.
Cost comparison
The costs of a car can be divided in depreciation costs, fuel costs, maintenance costs and fixed costs shown in table 1. These costs are based on specific parameters such as the efficiency of a car. The fixed costs of the car consist of road tax, insurance and membership of the Automobile Association patrol. Current costs of the electric car and a car with an internal combustion engine can be compared by developing a car usage scenario. In the scenario included here I assume an annual driving distance of 15,000 km, a car ownership of 6 years, and two oil price and related electricity price scenarios. The first scenario is based on IEA assumptions in the World Energy Outlook 2008 which assume an average global oil price of over $100 per barrel between 2010 and 2030 (see figure below). In this scenario the Dutch gasoline price increases from the 2007 average of 1.40 euro per liter to 1.50 euro per liter in 2020 and 1.60 euro per liter in 2030. The energy content of gasoline is 34.3 mega joule per liter which results in a base electricity price of 0.15 eurocent per kilowatt hour in 2008, 0.16 in 2020 and 0.17 in 2030.
In the second gasoline price scenario it is assumed that the Dutch petrol price increases gradually to 2.00 euro per liter by 2030, which is equal to an annual inflation corrected gasoline price increase of 1.56%. Resulting in a gasoline price of 1.7 euro per liter by 2020 and an electricity price of 0.18 eurocent per kilowatthour in 2020 and 0.21 euro cent in 2030.
Depreciation costs - A Detroit Electric Subcompact electric car which will be available around 2009/2010 on the Dutch market is expected to cost 22,491 euro. It is estimated that the car will have an expected rest value of 7,000 euro after 6 years with an assumed battery life of 10 years. The rest value of a comparable gasoline/diesel car with a new price of 15,000 euro is expected to depreciate to 4500 euro after 6 years. In this scenario the depreciation costs of the electric car are 17 eurocent per driven kilometer. The depreciation costs of the combustion car are 12 cents per driven kilometer.
Fuel costs - Fuel costs per kilometer of an electric car are based on the consumer electricity price per kWh and the overall energy efficiency of the car. With 23 eurocent/kWh the electricity price of Dutch households is one of the highest in Europe. The energy efficiency of the electric car is almost 8 kilometer/kWh which results in an electricity cost of 3 eurocent per kilometer. Fuel costs of a car with an internal combustion engine are calculated by multiplying the costs of gasoline (Euro 95) with the fuel use of the car. The average Dutch gasoline price in 2008 was €1.40 for a liter of Euro 95. Fuel use of a compact combustion car under mixed traffic conditions (combination of city and highway traffic) is 6.2 liter per 100 kilometer which results in fuel costs of almost 9 eurocent per driven kilometer.
Maintenance costs - The electric car contains few moving components which are vulnerable to wearing out. The electro motor for example contains one moving component while the combustion engine contains dozens. Regular combustion car maintenance such as the replacement of oil and filters is not necessary with electric vehicles. The yearly maintenance costs of electric cars are estimated to be €180 which results in maintenance costs of 1 cent per kilometer. The drive-train of a car with an internal combustion engine contains a considerable number of moving components which are vulnerable to wear out such as the internal combustion engine, transmission system, and gearbox. Cars with a combustion engine need regular maintenance including the replacement of oil, oil filters and spark plugs. The annual maintenance costs of a compact car with a combustion engine are €440 which results in 3 eurocent per driven kilometer.
Fixed costs - The fixed costs of a car consist of road tax, insurance, membership of the Automobile Association patrol and cleaning costs. At this moment the fixed costs for electric car owners are lower than the fixed costs for combustion cars because the owners of electric cars do not have to pay road taxes. On a monthly base fixed costs for electric car owners amount to 90 euro which results in 7 cent per driven kilometer. Combustion car owners have to pay an additional amount of €40 on road taxes monthly which results in fixed costs of 10 cent per kilometer.
Total costs - The total costs per kilometer of a compact electric car are at 2008 oil prices 5.5 cent lower than total costs of a compact combustion car as shown in table 2. The new price of an electric car is higher but the fuel costs, maintenance costs and fixed costs result in cost benefits over a time period of 6 years.
Future development
The future development of the kilometer price of electric cars and combustion cars can be estimated by developing scenarios for the parameters on which the costs of a car are based. By 2020 it is expected that the large scale production of electric cars and improvements in battery technology will result in reduced electric car costs. The amount of yearly driven kilometers is expected to increase to 16,500 by 2020 and a kilometer tax which is coupled to CO2 emissions of a car is expected to be implemented, included in table 3.
According to the scenario the total costs per kilometer of a compact electric car are estimated to be 4.9 cent lower than total costs of a compact combustion car by 2020 as shown in table 4. The new price of an electric car remain higher due to its more costly components, but the lower fuel costs, maintenance costs and tax costs result in cost benefits over a time period of 6 years.
Environmental impacts
Electric cars drive on electricity which is stored in the on board battery. An electric car is not directly dependent on oil because electricity is generated by a variety of sources. The compact electric cars which are developed at the moment have a range of 200 to 300 kilometer on a full battery. It can be charged on the standard electricity grid or by charging poles situated at parking lots. Use of electricity instead of gasoline has consequences on the environmental impact of the electric car. Measured by the CO2 and particulate matter (PM2,5 and PM10) production per driven kilometer. Besides environmental impacts due to the energy use the battery of the electric car is an important aspect from an environmental and resource perspective.
Environmental impacts of a combustion engine - The European Union has decided that CO2 emissions of a car driven by a combustion engine should be reduced to 130 gram per kilometer by 2012. At the moment, CO2 emission of an average Dutch car are 150 gram per kilometer. The efficiency of the production process of oil is estimated to be 83% which results in a well-to-wheel CO2 emission of 180 gram per kilometer. Current PM10 production of combustion cars with a soot filter is 5 mg per kilometer. Road traffic is the main cause of particulate matter- and air pollution such as SOX, NOX and ozone in the Netherlands. Furthermore, combustion cars emit their exhaust gas directly in the urban environment which results in air pollution of the urban environment.
Environmental impacts of Dutch electricity production - 
The majority of Dutch electricity is produced in power plants which are powered by natural gas. Other electricity sources are successively electricity from coal powered plants, hydro, wind and solar powered energy, nuclear energy, oil and other sources, shown in figure 2. According to Dutch electricity companies average CO2 emission per kWh of produced electricity in the Netherlands is 450 gram. An electricity grid efficiency of 92% and an electric car efficiency of 8 kilometer per kWh results in well-to-wheel CO2 emissions of 60 gram per kilometer. CO2 emissions of the electric car can be further reduced by increasing efficiency of the electricity production process and increasing electricity from sustainable sources such as wind and solar power. Per kilometer, electric cars have a lower PM10 production compared to cars with a combustion engine. Power plants cause no air pollution in the urban environment which reduces health risks.
Environmental impact of the battery - Electric car producers already guarantee a battery lifetime of 160,000 kilometer for models currently on the market. Sufficient to drive 11 years when one drives 15,000 kilometers annually, a distance covered by the average Dutch car driver. Improvements in battery technology and battery management systems are expected to increase the lifetime of the batteries further. The Lithium-ion polymer batteries which are used in electric cars nowadays are relatively environmental friendly because they contain no heavy metals or other toxic compounds, opposite to Zinc acid batteries. Lithium-ion battery are claimed to be completely recyclable by companies such as Tesla motors. Costs involved in recycling need to be included in the new price of the car as to ensure proper handling of the material. When electric cars are implemented on a large scale the recycling process of the Lithium-ion batteries provides economic opportunities due to the value of the material remaining after the battery life time is spent. Another possibility lies in using a former electric car battery as a stationary electricity storage station. Because when a car battery is not suited for use in a car anymore it still has 80% of its charging capacity .
May I suggest this is a Netherlands-centric view of our motoring options. Many of us require vehicles with range, load carrying and some dirt road ability. Those who can get by with an electric car (EV or PHEV) could possibly take the bus or cycle. The episode of the BBC program Top Gear contrasted a Tesla roadster and a Honda Clarity fuel cell vehicle and came down in favour of the FCV, albeit with some accusations of bias. However I don't see either type of vehicle making huge inroads, including battery swap cars. For running errands electric scooters may become popular however because of the low ticket price.
I think the future of private motoring is ICE vehicles or hybrids running on new types of hydrocarbon fuels. Those vehicles will be used sparingly or jointly owned by groups of people, perhaps hired. We will be forced to use public transport or electric scooters for most of our mobility needs. When that doesn't suit we will borrow or hire an ICE vehicle.
"Its the batteries stupid"
LIFEPO4 seems to be the holy grail at this point.
but who will be able to afford them ? Maybe for a scooter ??
Hope for mine to arrive anyday now
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/lifepo4-purchase/
"Many of us require vehicles with range, load carrying and some dirt road ability."
For those on a farm, in remoter rural areas, or those with expensive hobbies like a log-cabin, a boat, a desire to tear up nature with an off-roader, maybe. For the average city-dweller (most of us, even in the US) this is not really the case.
And in view of climate change and resource scarcity, any hobby or lifestyle requiring "range, load carrying and some dirt road ability" is either insensible, egoistic, a waste of money, a nuisance, or all of the above.
Your point about taking the bus or cycling is an important one. In bike-friendly cities with good public transportation it makes much more sense to skip the electric car and go straight to the most people- and environment friendly modes of transportation (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/amsterdam-overtake-copenhagen-in...). Most European cities simply have no room for cars, electric or otherwise.
I understand why the author has decided to use this model for vehicle use, as it has one very strong attribute: it is how nearly all of us presently use ICE vehicles.
But I do not believe that this model would reflect how people would use electric vehicles, or how they would be adopted into the national fleet. I think that EV adoption would more likely follow the path that most Prius owners (like myself) have used. Using this model dramatically alter the landscape, both for electrical use and for planning purposes, from what the author has proposed.
To draw from my personal experience, since this model has roughly the same attribute as the author’s (it is presently in use by a suburban dwelling American) and shares the virtue of actually being used, I suspect that EV usage would follow this path:
1) The EV would replace one of the family’s vehicles, or would be a temporary augmentation to the vehicle fleet. In my family, we replaced a ten year old four passenger compact car, getting roughly 25mpg, with the Prius. Prior to the Prius, we drove the compact about 8,000 miles per year, and the family station wagon (15mpg) about 12,000 per year. Of those 20,000 total vehicle miles, perhaps as much as 5,000 were for trips longer than 40 miles. Total gasoline usage: about 1100 gallons.
2) After the Prius, the mileage allotment shifted; the station wagon was driven less than 6,000 miles a year, and the Prius was driven about 12,000. Total gasoline usage has dropped now to about 650 gallons per year.
3) Add in an EV: since the station wagon now has little resale value (like hundreds of thousands of SUV’s), our EV would be an addition to our vehicle fleet, not a replacement. The EV would be a two seater, useful for commuting and for dates. Longer trips, or more passengers, and I would use the Prius. Larger loads across town, I use the paid for station wagon (or would purchase an old junker SUV/pickup truck).
4) Now, I would expect that the annual mileage on the station wagon would drop to less than 1,000 (hauling wood, etc.), the Prius would probably drop to about 9,000 miles, and the EV would replace about 5,000 miles of station wagon usage and 3,000 of Prius usage: ie, those times when both parents have to be mobile, and two cars are needed. Gasoline consumption would then drop to about 275 gallons per year.
5) Assuming 8,000 miles on the EV, at 5 miles (8km) per kWh: 1,600 kWh annually, or five 80 watt solar panels on my roof. I feed my solar kWh into the grid during the day at peak times, pull off my 5kWh at night from the load usage. I also install CFL’s, insulate, and put in a geothermal HVAC to replace my electric system. My annual electric consumption (including my EV) has gone from nearly 9,000 kWh to about 5,000 kWh, with nearly 2,000 kWh coming from my rooftop.
6) Bingo: my total yearly fossil fuel energy usage from paragraph 1 to paragraph scenario 1 to paragraph 5 has dropped by over 800 gallons of gasoline and 6,000 kWh. At $3/gallon and $0.12/kWh (all USD), my annual savings in fuel alone is about $3,300. The total cost to my family for the EV, the solar, and the geothermal is about $55,000. After my US tax credits, that drops to about $45,000; amortized over ten years at 5%, that is about $370/month (after my mortgage tax deduction), or $4,500 year. No change needed to my electric grid; my total electric usage has dropped, even without the solar.
THIS is my hybrid system of transport: ICE, Hybrid, and Electric. All needs met, consumption reduced, with the bonus of there always being a car in the driveway, looking like someone is home.
Nice Write-up!
(a little bit of paint and some junkyard scraps, and you could do what the Airports do, and always have a Police Patrol Car in the driveway! (No, I guess that's illegal.)
Bob
Well, you can do what my musician neighbor does: he buys used unmarked police cars at the police auctions for a few hundred dollars, leaves the speed hubs and spotlights on them, washes and waxes them, and then leaves them out front when he tours. The reason for this became very evident when a door-to-door "magazine" salesman asked me if my neighbor was a cop. My statement of "I think so" was at least as honest as his pricing for his magazines.....
Unfortunately annual fixed burdens for the station wagon are likely as high as for the Prius, ie insurance, registration/plates, and any other taxes or inspections such as city stickers or emissions testing, etc.
Thus gasoline cost for the wagon can become inconsequential compared to total ownership costs below a certain level of use. For many folks this equation works out such that fuel savings of adding a highly efficient vehicle to their 'fleet' don't add up to compensate for the added fixed costs.
I would love to see a system where more of the costs could be made variable. Eliminate license plate and city sticker fees and increase the gas tax to make up the funding difference. If insurance (at least the minimally required liability coverage) could be done that way too it would be a huge win for people who try to use the most efficient vehicle for each need.
However, for the short term there is a way for some folks to economize. If one sometimes needs substantial cargo capacity it can likely be met using a small efficient car with a roof rack and/or a trailer as opposed to maintaining a truck, van or suv. If a rack or trailer can meet 95% of your hauling needs then you can rent for the remaining exceptions and come out ahead.
Insure the driver, not the car...?
I think they're moving to that in a small way in the UK.
(If the car is a 'junker' (but still road-safe, of course :-), most people who can afford a car at all could afford a few hundred to replace it if it was stolen, so no point insuring the car, just liability.)
Re the original post. Sure, the lifecycle cost of an EV may be cheaper, but nearly everyone looks at the 'sticker price', not the running costs. This will be a stumbling block in getting widespread take-up.
Taxis.
Run for office and I'll vote for you :-) We bicycle about 4-5,000 miles a year and would do even more if the streets were safer. We have an old car (worth much less than my bike) and a pickup truck. I'm hoping the car will last until there is a good option for an EV - personally, I'd like to see something that is not much more than a glorified golf cart (but legal and with a safer traffic environment).
My real problem is the one you describe - I need a truck, but it sits idle most of the time. But, renting a truck when I need it is not feasible (towing trailer, etc). I suspect the time will come when having the truck is just not viable - but the insurance and license fees will hasten that day.
MarkM - while I agree entirely with you regarding hobbies, let it be noted that growing food for those of you in cities out in teh countryside is not a "lifestyle choice" nor a nuisance. You'd miss it if it went away, trust me.
Sharon Astyk
Point taken for the 3% of the population earning a living in agriculture. Many others among the remaining 97% pretend to need an off-roader because of road-conditions, but actually need it because self-esteem-conditions.
Tell that to:
My rural mailman when there is 30 cm (1 foot) of new snow on my rural gravel road (Or mud during the spring thaw)
My neighbor who runs a trucking business hauling gasoline from the terminal to the gas stations.
Another neighbor that runs a business doing tiling on farms to increase the food production for feeding city people.
Another neighbor who runs a welding shop that repairs farm equipment on the farm site.
The local co-op that supplies seed, fertilizer (incl application), herbicide and pesticide spraying.
Etc.......
It takes a heck of a lot more people than just the farmer to grow food today! And they almost all live in or have to transit to rural areas.
I live on a rural farm in the Midwest USA.
Why?
The US is 80% urban, meaning that rural considerations don't affect the large majority. You and your mailman may have very valid reasons for off-road vehicles, but most of that urban 80% doesn't, and solutions which don't apply to you can still work brilliantly for them.
A solution does not need to work for absolutely everyone before it's a useful way to tackle the problem. If EVs work for urban people, that's 80% fewer Americans competing with you for gasoline. Win-win, no?
"Those who can get by with an electric car (EV or PHEV) could possibly take the bus or cycle"
Amsterdam is one of the best bicycle cities in the world(flat, high density), has good public transport, and yet about half of the km's traveled are by private ICE vehicles. What hope have cities with hills like Sydney, Vancouver, and spread out suburbs to use private vehicles less than Amsterdam. Most vehicle trips are short but more than a few km, so an EV with 8kWh of usable battery power giving a range of 64 km seems about right for most city trips.
If you want to travel into the country to haul 1 tonne of wood, sand or gravel, hire an ICE pick-up or have it delivered. How many SUV's in the cities ever go on dirt roads?
If you never have to walk or cycle more than a few km you wouldn't need a car, but my experience is that few of us are in that position. The vehicle traffic in Amsterdam indicates that there are still lots of people who also need to drive in a private vehicle but also lots who can manage most of the time cycling or using mass transit.
There is a difference of course between "need to drive" and "want to drive." Many, if not most people, on daily errands could get where they wanted to go, and do what they wanted to do, by means other than an ICE, if they had foresight and planning. Using a ICE vehicle is really a matter of convenience. A mile to the grocery store is an easy bike ride, once you start doing it, and takes adds only about ten minutes to thirty to forty minute trip. You just have to have a maintained bike, a helmet, a bike lane and the will to do it. Americans don't generally do that, so we will have some lifestyle changes.
My guess is that you have not tried to haul $100 in groceries on a bicycle.
That's easy as long as you shop at Whole Foods!
That will get easier as food prices rise.
This is where foresight comes in to play: for example, I buy flour, sugar, canned beans, oats, frozen meat, etc. in bulk, once every few months, and use a car. Weekly shopping then becomes a trip to the store for fresh fruits and vegetables (those we don't grow), dairy, and other perishables. Those are easy to haul back and forth on a bike (or two or three, when we bring more family members).
But yes, $100 in lobster tails and Clicquot was VERY easy to haul back for Valentine's Day Dinner.
A couple weeks ago I brought home three 20 lb sacks of rice and 50 lbs of flour along with about 40 lbs of other miscellaneous groceries by bicycle. Using a trailer makes it easy, at least if one doesn't have steep hills in their neighborhood.
There are a lot of commmerically available bike trailers that will handle 100 lbs, a few that will do 200 lbs and one that I know of good for 400 lbs. I bought a small one and then later scratch built my own that I've used for hauling things like a 25 cu ft refrigerator, a piano, drywall & lumber, a 3 piece band - including 250 lbs of speakers, amps, mics, batteries, etc.
Excellent effort. But the next time you loose something on the road, your efforts to conserve the precious resources end up in the storm drain. A bike trailers will not work for everybody, in all weather.
Why would he lose something on the road?
Of course, it's impossible to cycle in cold weather.
Impossible? Or...
In Russia people also swim with ice in the middle of winter. Have you ever ridden a bicycle in the snow? I did once and once only, it is possible but not enjoyable!!
My guess, photo is first snowfall of winter, or unexpected snowfall in autumn, or perhaps people in Copenhagen do actually bicycle in snow! how long does snow last in Denmark?
Come on up to Portland Maine! Bikes all over the place. Snow and Ice all over the place.
One friend, a Mapmaking Prof at USM, has studded tires and brings his girls to school in a bike trailer..
Why Goldfish had to say 'It's not for everybody' .. ??!! NOTHING is for everybody. If this worked for 7% of the people it would be incredible. BB's folks.. lots and lots of BB's.
Actually, I was thinking about rain.
The idea of doing all personal errands on a bicycle is foolish. There are bicycle purist that believe that they do not rely the cars, but they rely on others who must drive.
"..doing all personal errands on a bicycle.."
Who said ALL? Your objection is part of the 'negation through hyperbole' that makes me nuts at this site.
But beyond that, try to imagine for a second whether our snow bikers would really be stopped by rain? Or more importantly, would those who really prefer using the bike over the car not simply wait to do an errand after the worst weather had stopped? Can people figure out how to keep things in stock, so they don't feel obliged and entitled to 'run (!) to the store on an expensive whim' ?
What's foolish is dismissing the alternatives because they don't solve ALL problems. But I can go this far with it. ALL towns should be bike/trike and pedestrian accessible.
Nobody said all. But for people with responsibilities, "most" or even "sometimes" is unworkable.
Actually, I like my bicycle, and was an avid rider, and because of that experience I give bicyclists wide berth. But I haven't ridden it much since progeny arrived. "Planning" and "keeping things in stock" don't fit in well with the unpredictable and accident-prone behavior of children. I do not go to a store on a whim, but most parents find themselves running errands all the time, which cannot wait for good weather, and which must be done within a tight time constraint (e.g., need to get back by bedtime). My bicycle just won't get it done.
And yes, most cities (mine included) are not bike-friendly.
Goldfish - I'd guess you are the one who hasn't carried 40lbs on a bike? With a decent bike it is a piece of cake. Loads of people live car free lives with kids and jobs and smiles and time and health and cash and friends and ... need I go on?
Check this report out:
http://www.railstotrails.org/whatwedo/trailadvocacy/ATFA/index.html - they reckon half the trips in america can be done in a 20 minute ride.
And in europe try this one - http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNethe...
Do some googling around it and see what you turn up.
"they reckon half the trips in america can be done in a 20 minute ride."
That's a little misleading. First, those are very short trips, and would only account for a relative small% of miles traveled, and 2nd, I don't see a real analysis of how many of those trips could truly be handled by bicycles: many trips involve multiple people, large loads, bad weather, or physically limited drivers for whom bicycles will never be appropriate. I couldn't find how they calculated the 50%, but if we assume that it corresponds to their best-case scenario for bicycling market share, we're talking about 8% of miles driving, of which half (or 4%) is realistic. If these are slow urban miles that are more energy intensive than average, maybe 5% of fuel consumption.
Bicycling is A Good Thing, but it's not the main solution. The main (fast) solution is replacement of oil with renewable electrity, mostly in transportation, which in turn is mostly light vehicles, starting with hybrids, moving through plug-in's (for a long time), and ending with EV's.
I'd like to see a real analysis of bicycle safety vs driving; and what it would take to provide real safety; and comparison of various solutions, including lanes, boulevards* and truly separate bike roads. I think we should expand bicycling (and electric bikes, and segways), but it will take a while to do properly.
*“bicycle boulevards,” typically residential streets where traffic volume and speed are reduced to levels at which bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists can comfortably share the road.
Goldfish:
what you need then is an electric bike with an extended frame.
Look into xtracycle and the Surly "Big Dummy" frame both fitted with a Stokemonkey motor.
Here's a video of a small framed woman on a stokemonkey having an easy time of it with TWO kids and FOUR bags of groceries.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7299806719474456134
I'm looking int oa an electric bike myself. I commute 7 miles each way, and driving is slow and a pain in the ass. Public transport where I live, is very good, but also crowded and smelly.
I want to get an electric bike and it will replace my car.
Foolish? I guess you have to call it that since it's plainly not impossible... since lots of people do it.
Go to the doctors and ask them to amputate your legs, if you're never going to use them then they'll just get in the way and risk expensive injuries.
Goldfish,
Bike trailers are very efficient - when I was a kid (mid 40's) I pulled an 80 lb trailer over the Beartooth pass into Yellowstone. Although I couldn't repeat that journey today (nearly 30 years later) I still like my bike trailer. It is light, stable, waterproof, etc.
I'm not a purist (have a car and a pickup truck) but I really would like to use my bike for more daily activities. I would be happy to add another 2-3,000 miles to our 4-5,000 annual bike miles. The real impediment is safety issues related to motor vehicle traffic. Also, the general lack of accommodation for bikes in congested shopping areas (at least in my area). Even winter here in Wisconsin would not be big problem (most of the time) for our trike - which is very stable on icy roads.
But aside from us old retired folks who certainly have more time than the busy, working, family parent - there is the issue of busing school children. Talk about national folly! We live a area with several built up villages and many ajacent suburbs. Most kids live within 5 miles of their school (probably less than 2 for the majority) and yet we have these fleets of buses roaming everwhere - making kids unhealthy and wasting resources and contributing to GW. And yet, few parents are willing to risk their children's lives on public roads with insane traffic conditions.
Not as a regular method of transport. Let's be serious here, and compare like with like.
And driving in urban traffic is enjoyable?
Lots of things are possible but not enjoyable, and we do them regularly, because we see them as necessary. After all, many of those cyclists are going to work which they don't enjoy. What is necessary is made possible, and when made possible often doesn't seem so bad after all. Many of us dread going to work but once we get there it's alright; likewise, many will dread cycling or walking, but once they do it it's alright.
Hi, I was reading your comment and am interested myself in building some kind of large load hauling platform (bike powered with likely no electric assist) that is also stable/flat when stopped. I'm excited about extracycles for lots of other applications, but I want to be able to make grilled cheese sandwhiches at a standstill. Look forward to hearing from you.
-David
I'm not sure what you're buying, but I and my woman regularly take $30 of supermarket stuff (tinned food, fruit juice, etc) and $30 of fresh fruit and vegies and bread in two backpacks, or one backpack and 2-4 cloth bags. The walk is typically 1km there, 1km back, and 1km around the shops, but we sometimes do twice that.
I mean you can spend a lot of money on bulky things. You can get $10 cereal packs which are as big as a couple of telephone books, a few big bottles of soft drink, and if you get lots of that stuff it becomes pretty difficult to carry. Prepared foods are bulky.
But if you focus your shopping on raw or preserved foods, rather than prepared foods and soft drinks, $100 of shopping will be easier to carry. And it'll probably be more like $50 of shopping, too. We used to spend $200 for three, nowadays it's $65 on average.
The truth is that I HAVE carried a 100 dollars of groceries on bike. You just have to have the right kind of bike and trailer.
http://www.bikefriday.com/index.cfm
http://store.bikefriday.com/product_info.php?cPath=51&products_id=6964
This got me thinking (or reminded me of something I read elsewhere on this site).
Could you use a nation's electric cars as an electricity storage system?
Renewables are often attacked for being variable, but this might be somewhat neutralised if you could use a fleet of plugged-in electric cars to store excess and release it when supply drops. Now all we need is a perfect battery...
Yes it is known as Vehicle to Grid power (V2G). There is a page on it here:
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/
The Zero Carbon Britain report envisages the use of electric vehicles as you suggest:
http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/content/view/57/71/
Daft idea.
When I get into my car in the morning to commute to work, I really don't want to see that the battery is flat because there hasn't been much wind. You need a huge fleet of EVs before you can even think about this.
That's not how V2G would work, but nice Hyperbole.
Your car or your home's grid-inverter/charger system would SELL available power, based on your preset Buy/Sell conditions, and would not sell past the State-of-Charge that you had determined (programmed) in to allow you to get your morning or day's drive completed. You could probably even program in a 'Sick Day Rate', so when the electricity is paying really well, that you'd run your battery down in 'sell mode' and call in sick.
As long as people think they can't live without air conditioning, peak demand is on hot afternoons. As long as people maintain the morning-to-evening work schedule (and still have work) the car would be parked at work at that time, partly discharged (due to the morning commute) and awaiting the evening commute and errands. There wouldn't be much energy available for sale, even if the car is on-the-grid while at work, which is not likely. Unless the battery packs are very much over-sized, which is unlikely due to cost.
I should also mention that the depreciation calculation for the ICE car (in the main article) does not apply to older cars, and I expect most of us will keep our old ICE car for as long as we can keep it running, assuming the economy is not going back to what used to be normal. Also, from my experience, that $600 annual maintenance cost estimate seems high (in the USA anyway) for a small and fairly new ICE car, and not counting items that the EV would also need, such as tires.
The examples you use to show how it WOULDN'T work are pulled from the averages, average peaks, average consumption, average work schedule and parking.. if you're going to look into how to change things and mix them up, then pulling from the median stats isn't going to reveal many options.
You have to find the exceptions, look for untapped possibilities, etc..
As far as peak times, for instance, it would probably behoove people who can (this doesn't pretend to work for everyone, remember?) to be connected while at work. Would businesses that have employee parking find this to be a good way to draw and keep happy workers, to have parking spaces with grid connection and a wifi node? (Might be as much for the owner/boss as for the staff, after all) That way, you get some recharge while at work, or the chance to sell as prices move around through the day.. Parking garages and lots might have linked spots, with a price-structure appropriate to the gives and takes. I bet there are a lot of possibilities in this kind of a system.
At night, you're probably just buying cheap. If you're still in VT, you know that there are Dinnertime peaks and Electric Heating peaks and troughs as well. The point is to have a chance to be connected whenever you're not driving, and be able to link in for good deals in either direction.
Vtp,
Well said, now might be a good time to become and electrician. There will be a few years work installing millions of plug sockets in carparks all over the world. It might be a good time for transformer and cable manufacturers as well, supplying hardware to upgrade the electricity supply to all these carparks that was originally sized for lights and ticket machines. There may be some "smart" device in development out there that can overcome my old fashioned worries and transmit power through the aether, but like nuclear fusion we will have to wait and see if that comes good.
Your second point is also true, older cars have a value profile that has a sawtooth wave form. After about 8-10 years or when the "status value has gone" due to the introduction of a revised model, price is effectively governed by how much MOT test they have remaining before the current certificate expires. After the MOT "pass" date the value instaneously rises and then falls gradually towards zero as the year progresses, ditto for next year. (In the UK, MOT is ministry Of Transport and it is a legal annual requirement to have a vehicle inspected, though ironically is is no guarantee of road worthyness!!)
Service costs are artificially imposed due to extortonate labour rates. Car makers have to subsidise their sales somehow and compulsary services are one method of achieving this. An oil change for most cars is now 15,000 miles or greater which is once per 18 months using the annual mileage quoted in the original post. Oil and filters cost about 20 quid unless they are sourced from main agents. Invadidating the warranty it the catch. I would imagine there will be imposed services on electric vehicles, even if they are not strictly required. All I ever change on my diesel is oil and filter. Cam belt 80,000 miles, but again if manufacturers had stayed with chains, as some did, then this is not required.
As for engine wear, strip down an engine withh 200,000 miles on the clock and you will be suprised how little there is. It would become impossible to start an IDI diesel if wear was a problem because it would be impossible to maintain adequate cylinder pressure at cranking speed to get ignition.
Now for the constant "proof links" posted here, for every "proof" there is "antiproof". Like the advert for cat food that apparently demonstrated "8/10 cats prefer Whiskas" (to what?) I can disprove this theory without any difficulty, just open a can of tuna. Some times it is better to follow your own line of observation rather than rely on other folks studies.
In what form battery cars make it to mass market will be down to cost and consumer demand. Nothing is set in stone at this stage in the game. The new Toyota Prius uses NiMH, not lithium, this was a decision by one of the world's top auto makers. If Li was such a safe bet with all the claimed advantages, Toyota would have used it, that's a simple observation.
Unless you're in Denmark during the winter even a worn diesel, to a point, can be started with a good (read big) battery and an extra cycle or two from the glow plugs. Sure, it may not sound pretty at first if there's uneven cyinder pressure, but it'll run. Ignition is a function of energy, and while lower cylinder pressure can present problems, cranking speed and pre-heating are just as important IME.
As for why Toyota stayed with NiMH, it's a mature technology and probably cheaper than Li-whatever in hybrid applications since they can keep it in a sweet spot in terms of capacity loss. The best battery tends to depend on the application, just like charging behavior depends on the chemistry. ;)
I blew the glowplug fuse on my car (by being careless) Its DI and 133000 miles and its made no difference, still starts as if they were working. During the very cold weather we have just had it cranked a couple of times but then fired and ran smoothly. I have done a few post mortems on high mileage engines, and there is usually no appreciable wear either on the crank journals or the bores. Afterall the crank shaft bearings run with about 0.0015" clearence and I can assure you if you get to 0.005" you have a very noisy engine.
Hmmm...wishful thinking?
How long do you really suppose it would be before governments would step in and FORCE you to SELL power at THEIR convenience rather than, let's say, face down some NIMBY obstructionists and put in enough solar panels, nuke plants, wind turbines, or whatever to have a proper supply? If governments cared one jot about you and the value of your time, then for example traffic jams wouldn't be so huge, because they'd put in enough roads or alternatives to solve the problem. But politicians don't care about you, they care about NIMBYs and other social parasites who have plenty of time on their hands to make noise, which you don't.
The wheel that squeaks gets the grease. Regardless of the conditions politicians might offer to get their foot in the door with something like this, there will be some sort of manufactured crisis soon enough, and they'll change the conditions against you. And you'll be sitting stranded somewhere with a hugely expensive flat battery drained by the politicians.
"...And you'll be sitting stranded somewhere with a hugely expensive flat battery drained by the politicians."
Oh man! No more TV for you.
'Watch out! It's the politicians, get the batteries and the children inside!'
So we are also adding real time pricing info and a very smart charger to the mix.. and then setting their charger to 'always 100%' the first time they run out of power due to unforseen circumstances. Especially given the horror stories from early adopters..
As far as cash goes, at peak you may get 20p/kwh meaning that the total ultra-peak-rate charge for your EV might cost £4. Well, if I called in sick to save £4 (assuming you charged it up for free), I'd never go to work..
A more realistic arbitage of perhaps 5kwh @ 5p gives 25p/day, so a person prepared to sacrifice 25% of their battery capacity could earn as much as £90 a year, minus the cost of shortened battery life.
I'm a fan of electric cars in general, but v2g is one of those ideas that is never going to fly in the real world; it only gets pushed because it is seen as a cheap answer to renewable intermittancy.
..and yes, it would require a LOT of vehicles operating this way to make much of a dent in the Grid's stability.. but you could devise this pricing system so that it would be worth it for individual car owners to do it, so that the build-out can commence. It shouldn't even require a 'SmartGrid' to work, since the pricing and local demand info could be available to the Charger/Inverter via the web at this point.
Straw-man criticism of the idea.
When you get in your car in the morning, you don't care if it was charged from 8 PM to midnight or 3 AM to 7; you only care that it's charged. The utility (or an aggregator) would take the data from all the cars plugged in, calculate how many megawatt-hours are needed to charge them, look at the list of powerplants on-line and the forecast for RE production, and figure out which plants to run and how to shape the charging curve over the next 12 hours or so.
The utility would love this. Big powerplants change their output only slowly, and matching instantaneous load can be a hassle; if they only have to meet (a) X megawatt-hr overnight, and (b) generator output roughly matched to load when the cars start unplugging, the job is far easier. Instead of jiggering plant output on a scale of minutes, they blip chargers up and down a bit.
You would not need a huge fleet to get useful results. A mere 1000 vehicles with 220 V 30 A connections is 6.6 megawatts, which is a substantial part of the jitter in the local grid's demand. 100k vehicles is 660 MW, the size of a major powerplant. Average US consumption is about 460 GW, while the vehicle population is over 200 million; if even 5% of the fleet was EVs, the instantaneous power capacity would be 660 GW. Matching instantaneous demand to generation would be a snap.
EP,
660 GW! Is that correct for 5%? In that's case the US will require some serious capacity upgrade if all vehicles become electrified.
That depends on the average vehicle type. currently we could only charge about 70% of the current fleet off peak, but at the same time I also doubt that we would loaf around in a fleet of oversized electric SUVs and pickups like we do now considering the cost, so current idle capacity is probably enough barring a huge breakthrough (drop) in battery costs that would allow for the same tubby fleet we see today.
"In that's case the US will require some serious capacity upgrade if all vehicles become electrified."
Not true, overnight charging one EV would average 1KVA, but discharging could be 3.3 or 6.6KVA depending upon the outlet.The batteries could deliver 50KVA for short periods if they were connected to heavy duty outlets but this would not be the norm or desirable for battery life. Still 10 million EV's is 66GW peak, three times larger than all pumped hydro in US.
Surplus capacity during off-peak is at least 220GW(220 million X 1KVA). Natural gas peaking capacity is approx 400GW, hydro 80GW with additional from Canada.
Neil,
I was questioning the figure of 660GW, the rest was sarcasm (or my warped sense of humo"u"r). Is 5% 660GW or 66GW? It makes a difference!!
You saw the figures. If the connections were 220 V 80 A, the max capacity could be 1.76 TW.
You'd never see that as an average. Back in '04 I calculated that, even ignoring all efficiencies from converting to EVs, the power required to replace all LDV power from gasoline would be roughly 120 GW average; the actual figure would probably be substantially less. The US grid already has a peak capacity close to 900 GW (total nameplate over 1 TW by now, I bet), so there is plenty of room between off-peak demand and actual max capacity. Flattening the load curve would allow the use of more efficient powerplants anyway.
EP, I was simply inviting you to confirm your numbers which I did indeed see.
5% of 200 million is 10 million. 10 million @ 220V 30A is 66 GW not 660GW, unless I have got my numbers wrong otherwise missed your point entirely.
You're right. Wouldn't be the first time I dropped a decimal point.
66 GW is still more than enough to absorb the full power of one or more max-size powerplants per major city, or soak up the swings in output from wind farms as fronts blow past them.
There's a first time for everyting! All I need to achieve now is a similar statement from my wife.
Since you'd be getting into your car just after peak morning demand, there could well be an issue. But if we have a large renewable component to the electric supply, you WILL have mornings where there was little wind and (obviously) no solar overnight and the charging didn't happen.
It only has to happen a couple of times to a small number of people for people to start switching their V2G capability off - it's not as if there is a lot of money at stake.
We already have mechanisms to deal with normal changes in demand, V2G is all about balancing over hours to days, which is why there is a problem. Instantaneous capacity is meaningless in this respect. Your 1000 cars may have perhaps 5MWh available (100%->75%?) - meaning that your 6.6Mw dosen't last very long.
You don't understand how V2G works. You'd always (barring outages, like ice storms) have the car charged by morning; V2G would just let the utility jigger the generation according to what is cheapest to run to make the required GWH across the entire charging period, instead of trying to match a demand curve over which they have no control.
V2G is mostly about minute-to-minute changes in demand for regulation, but it can also provide schedulable load. If you've got to have 10 kWH between 7 PM and 7 AM and there's a front coming past the wind farm during that time, it doesn't matter exactly when because the car with a 6.6 kW connection can take 10 kWh in less than 2 hours.
If the typical period of discharge for regulation is 60 seconds at max power, the cars would only need 110 kWh or 110 Wh/car. On average, the cars would be charging; taking a 14 kWh charge over an 8 hour day (70% efficiency) is an average of 1.75 kW, but a 220 V 30 A connection can run at nearly 4x that, so the utility could let the vehicle fleet soak up peaks from whatever sources happen to be producing.
Daft idea.
When I get into my car in the morning to commute to work, I really don't want to see that the battery is flat because there hasn't been much wind. You need a huge fleet of EVs before you can even think about this.
It's so daft that a bunch of Silicon Valley companies are working on it, including Google.
"V2G Demonstration at Google with PG&E: RechargeIT is also exploring ways to develop and deploy V2G technology. With the help of PG&E, Google will be demonstrating how electricity might be transmitted back and forth between plug-in hybrids and the grid. V2G offers the potential to use plug-in hybrids as a battery storage to make better use of our energy and stabilize the grid. Similar to the plug-in hybrid vehicle demonstration, the objective is to collect real world data to understand the benefits of V2G and enable future adoption."
PG&E is the local utility, quite accustomed to offering demand response programs.
People are building smart charging stations which don't yet do V2G, as far as I know, but certainly will sooner or later.
Companies like Applied Materaials are covering parking lots with solar cells, a triple win:
a) Electricity.
b) Cars stay cooler.
c) Asphalt stays cooler, which reduced the Urban Heat Island effect, which reduces air conditioning load.
Of course, the solar/electric car connection fits some geographies and not others.
====
"There are many countries and regions pursuing electric car technology, including Israel, Denmark, Portugal, Germany, Ireland, and California. Most of these countries..."
was an amusing start to the article, given that CA does act like a country on occasion :-)
C doesn't work. If the solar cell is 15% efficient, the other 85% is heat, which is very similar to the asphalt.
Of course the time distribution of the heat may differ, the asphalt conducts a lot of the heat into the ground, where it will be reradiated at night. So the PV solution will have hotter days, and cooler nights -but about the same average. That would help people like myself who use the nighttime cool air to precool the house -and avoid or delay the need for A/C, but very very few people do this.
Yes, V2G has been proposed as a way to balance out peak load on the grid, but I see one huge problem with it. Batteries are expensive and have a limited number of charge and discharge cycles. I doubt the utility will reimburse you for the loss of battery life from discharging your battery. You could mitigate this by limiting the amount and rate of discharge.
It would mostly be to bridge expensive (~25c/kWh) peak power. The idea is that you charge up at night for ~5c/kWh, at $350/kWh and a PHEV like the volt, storage costs are around $10c/kWh, so by paying you 20c/kWh the electric co can save ~5c/kWh and you can make ~5c/kWh. As usual YMMV, and we shouldn't sign anything we don't understand! ;)
AC Propulsion's V2G grid regulation test found that the capacity of the (2-yr old Panasonic lead-acid) battery pack increased over the life of the test.
Many batteries have limited calendar life; if you don't use the available cycles, they die anyway. While certain kinds of operation are not consistent with maximum battery life, certain types of V2G are all but certain to be worthwhile.
While I appreciate the analysis I have to believe that one of the most critical detailed comparisons between the ICE car and the electric car has been completely ignored. That is performance. If we match an equivalently performing electric car to that of its internal combustion brethren you will most likely find that the battery and related battery management system will equal the entire total cost allocated in this analyses for the electric car. If we accept the stored energy requirements of 1kWh to travel 8 km (and I believe this efficiency to be overstated by at least 50% when assumptions of equivalent performance, vehicle weight and commensurate safety features are included) then it would require an onboard vehicle storage capacity of at least 40 kWh to have a vehicle range of 320 km or 200 miles. A fairly rational lower-end expectation of range for most consumers of automobiles today. When you factor in the safety floor of depleting the battery to enhance the longevity of the battery life and the reality that most people will feel quite uncomfortable driving to the zero point of range capability you most likely would have to have a storage capacity of between 45 and 50 kWh to achieve a reasonable vehicle range and reasonable acceleration and top speed performance. At a high-volume wholesale cost of lithium technology batteries and related battery management system of 300 Euros/kWh you are looking at 15,000 Euros. Wholesale. For the battery system alone. By the time the vehicle is offered at retail this cost would look closer to 20,000 Euros for the battery system and well in excess of 30,000 Euros for the new electric car price. This reality would yield a much less attractive result for the electric car.
Battery costs are the challenge in getting the affordable electric car out into the world in numbers that might make a substantial difference. Sadly we only have to look to the solar pv industry over the past 20 years to draw applicable analogies for rational expectations of cost reductions in batteries in the next 5 to 10 years. Increasing consumer and industry demand will likely keep battery costs high even as we achieve ever greater manufacturing efficiencies.
Depends on the batteries' recharge time. Basically what you want is that people have to recharge at most once a day. However far you're going to travel in a day, you should be able to charge the vehicle up for that distance in the eight hours you're asleep.
But how far do people travel each day?
Just picking out the first links that pop up in google, we get the following average distances driven per car - not per person, but per car,
US, 19,064km [Source: CERA]
Germany, 14,500km [Source: German car-sharing company]
France, 15,000km [Source: Energy savings site]
Denmark, 14,000km [Source: Århus Bike Busters]
UK, 14,720km [Source: carbon offset site]
Australia, 14,600km [Source: ABS]
Interestingly, the one of Australia tells us that Queensland with 15,600km was the highest average, and Tasmania the lowest with 13,500km. Looking at the map we might have expected Tasmania to be much lower than that.
Further research along these lines shows a fairly consistent 14-15,000km per vehicle annually around the world - it's higher in countries where fuel is strongly subsidised in one way or another (like in oil-exporting countries and the US), but doesn't seem to be lower in countries where fuel is heavily taxed, or where there's decent public transport, walkable cities, etc. It's a bit higher in richer regions, a bit lower in poorer regions.
Basically, public policy and income seem to determine whether you have a vehicle, but once you have it you drive it 14-15,000km annually.
That's about 40km a day. As I write here, when you look into it, it turns out that only about a third of all trips are non-discretionary - work, childcare and education - that is, you can't avoid them or bundle them up with other trips. Social activities, shopping and so on make up the other two-thirds of all trips, those can be cut or rearranged (do one big shop each week instead of a short shop each day, etc).
Still, if you're determined to insist that nobody can possible change their behaviour, we need 40km a day on average as the range we put in charge in the vehicles over eight hours while we sleep. If the article's right about 8km/kWh, that's only 5kWh going into the vehicle, 625W - less than my mate's plasma screen tv. Batteries for 5kWh? Well, a plain old lead-acid car battery is around 100A.h at 12V, that's 1.2kWh already - so you could manage it with about 4 plain old lead-acid car batteries.
That's the average, of course. You'd want a safety margin - people might drive a lot during the week and not much on weekends, and so on. Call it twice the average, that should account for about two-thirds of all vehicles - not more than 80km a day. So then we need 10kWh of electricity over 8 hours, or 8 bog standard car batteries.
Is 8km/kWh optimistic? Well, the REVAi claims battery storage of 9.6kWh (8 lead-acid batteries) giving a range of 80km, basically 8km/kWh. For a little commuting vehicle that seems good.
However, technically the REVAi is a quad not a car because it's so light. Now, it would be a bit daft to insist that it be heavier to use more energy and fit in with our outdated road rules, but if we did, we can imagine a halved performance at worst. So then we need 16 bog-standard lead-acid car batteries to get us that 80km a day. That'd be 2,400W for eight hours, a power drain like my aircon. Again, all quite achieveable.
Most drivers are not Boof's imaginary bloke hooning along at 120km/hr over 480km with a tonne of wood in the back. They just zip around the city a lot - thus, 40km/day on average, 80km/day tops.
So the thing is not going to replace all current vehicle use. But saying that an electric car is no good because it can't replace every kind of vehicle out there is like my saying that my old man's Toyota Landcruiser is no good because it'd use so much fuel driving around the city - for him in the bush where he actually does put a tonne of wood or water in the back and where the roads are unsealed, it's great.
Of course if we had heaps of electric cars then we'd just create more emissions in another way, but that's another issue entirely.
Some people(Australia, parts of the US) generate almost all of their electricity from coal so for them electric cars are worse. If you get your power from coal at 1050 grams CO2 per kwh then electric cars are more polluting assuming you use same fuel efficient gasoline cars (in the Dutch example ~37 mpg) which was 150 g/km. For example, charging electric cars
from the grid is 75% efficient(Bossel), so 1050 grams/kwh x .125 kwh/km / 75% = 175 grams per kilometer > 150 grams/ kilometer in Holland.
An alternative would be to water-shift coal to hydrogen gas and bury the CO2. Water-shifting (including CCS) a ton of bituminous coal can produce 120 GGE of H2 gas if compression(to ~2000 psi per Bossel) energy is included.
A fuel cell car(Honda FCV) gets 100 kilometers per GGE so that's 12000 kilometers per ton of coal.
(By contrast hydrogen from electrolysis you'd get ~ 90 GGE per ton of bituminous coal.)
See case 3 below.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/hydrogen_clean_fuels/refshelf/pubs/...
This is the same as a car on electricity from a ton of coal;
75% of 2000 kwh per ton x 8 kilometers per kwh= 12000 kilometers per ton of coal.
Given the fact that Holland will become a net importer of natural gas in 20 years is the switch to electric cars a good idea? World supplies of natural gas will probably run out in about 50 years at current consumption rates while coal will last 3 times as long at current consumption rates.
In other words, Holland will have to convert to something else anyway. I'd suggest nuclear, but wind is certain to be a big fraction also.
Of course. A system built around gasifying coal for motor fuel has no alternatives, but when Holland's electric grid starts switching, the electric vehicle fleet will switch with it.
I am not imaginary. I live on a dirt road and do haul firewood among other things. I do admit however that my trips in the truck (loaded or I'd have the car) are normally 60km or less.
BTW if the average daily drive is 40 km, you need to fudge factor for all the days of no driving
so at least 60 km, better 80 between charges.
I know many people who really need their work trucks.. of course, I also know people who use that truck when they could be driving something cheaper to run.
Here is Pete Seeger, not only carrying his firewood with an electric pickup truck, but also running the electric chainsaw with the batteries. (radio show transcript, avail there as an MP3)
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00017&segmentID=4
Pete is 90 now, as of May 3rd. - also has PV on the barn roof for house power and charging, etc.
LOTS of possibilities and combinations out there..
Bob
Exactly. One size does not fit all-- lots of combinations and possibilities. I find it amazing that American, the land of the individual, has morphed into one homogenous zone of detached singled family residences, two cars in the garage/driveway, etc.
You have really got to read someone's whole comment before responding to it.
I already said that we'd want a range of about twice the daily average as a minimum.
I also already said I knew someone who, like you, was that exception - my old man.
But most of the driving done is not like that. Most driving done is city-slickers driving 3km to the shops or 5km to work. That sort of thing accounts for the vast bulk of the kilometres driven.
Don't worry, we're not coming to take your 4WD or your guns off you. You need and want them, fine. But most city-slickers don't need them. And putting them into lower-consumption and lower-emission forms of transport will do us all a lot of good.
Honestly, if you read the whole post before responding to it, your reply will be much more interesting and useful.
FYI, the GM EV1 had a range of roughly 60-90 miles (100-150 km) on spiral-wound lead-acid batteries. If Firefly Energy's technology was used instead, the range could be at least doubled while increasing both the cycle and calendar lifespans substantially.
Kiashu,
Thanks for the excellent links and dispelling myth "its OK for small countries in EU, but US( or Australia) are large countries"
Electric or PHEV are part of the solution to declining liquid fuels, it are not the direct solution to GHG emissions.
Since all low carbon energy produces electricity, replacing oil for transport by electricity, is an essential step in replacing all FF energy by low carbon energy.
While I disagree with sarinpd on the need for range (at least if we assume EVs are for those drivers who can sacrifice range and performance, for a local trips only vehicle), his closing paragraph reflects the sad reality. At this point, long field lifetime of LiIon is still not assured. If you have to replace them every few years, that ruins the cost performance. Also the scaleup up of LiIon capacity may be problematic, because of limited Lithium supplies (although estimates vary widely). It is not unlikely we will have to await the development of another battery technology, which has high density, but doesn't rely on scarce materials. Zinc-air has been mentioned by some, but we can't take it for granted that it will meet all the requirements.
We won't need to replace anything every few years with current tech. Testing shows minimal loss in capacity/range over 180,000 miles. Granted, a lead acid powered EV may need to have the pack replaced every few years, but most production EVs won't be powered by LA. Capacity loss is only about 1.3% per year at 140F, so probably less in most applications outside of a car sitting in Death Valley, which does reduce capacity/range, but not by enough to make replacement in three years a reality. Maybe in around 10-20 years if the owner can't deal with 80% of the original capacity/range, but that's a ways away from every few years.
I think the refusal to consider lead-acid (mass-produced Firefly 3D or 3D² cells?) is just one example of industry stonewalling (with official complicity) of EVs and PHEVs. The starting battery is a service item with a 5-year lifespan if you're lucky, and there is no reason not to consider cheap traction batteries as replacement items like filters and tires.
When ever I mention lead acid, it causes a storm! Good old stalwart of battery technology, despite the hype of all its diadvantages it holds on there en masse. 5 years life is easily achieved. I have just dug out the receipts for the batteries for my own and my wife's car both Lucas Yuasa 096 and purchased in 2004. They have both just survived the coldest uk winter since "Adam" was a lad. (My car has no glow plugs because I blew the fuse and it still started with a 5 year old battery, got a new fuse now but too busy arguing on the oil drum to fit it!)
The problem I've seen w/ Firefly's stuff, such as the Oasis, is that there isn't a huge difference in cycle life compared to the average deep cycle lead acid (500 cycles @ 80% dod). Granted, it's lighter, smaller IIRC, and can output more instantaneous power and has a smaller Puekert's exponent, and can probably take a significant share of the market from current LAs, but in terms of cost per kWh stored, it still isn't near LiFePO4, barring of course more patent drama ala NiMH/Cobasys/Ovonics/GM/Texaco.
"The problem I've seen w/ Firefly's stuff, such as the Oasis, is that there isn't a huge difference in cycle life compared to the average deep cycle lead acid (500 cycles @ 80% dod). "
Do you have more info? Firefly says that they do at least twice the cycle life: 800 vs 400, and hinted at more.
Can you really get 500 cycles @ 80% DOD from lead-acid? It has looked to me like 400 was more realistic, say, from a Trojan T-105.
500 cycles at 80% DOD would be 400 effectively at 100%. T-105's go for about $65/KWH, so that would give $.16/KWH cycle. At 5 miles per KWH cycle, that's only $.03/mile.
Not bad.
The graph I borrowed from Commuter Cars found that Optima Yellow Tops could manage 4500 cycles to 20% DoD and maintain 80% capacity.
Look up the specs for their Oasis battery. They may have other versions that offer better cycle life, but so far that's the only version I've seen specs on. In terms of your pricing, I've never seen T-105s go for $65, but please correct me if I'm wrong since the cheapest price online seems to be $145/battery and nabbing a T-105 for ~$75 would be a great deal.
"I've never seen T-105s go for $65"
They're 1.35KWH (6V x 225WH). I saw prices at around $90, which gives you $65/KWH.
Where have you seen them for $90 per battery? The cheapest I've come up with when searching is $145/battery. Of course the 225Wh refers to the 20hr rate, which is more or less never going to be seen thanks to the higher Peukert's exponent of LAs. Given the likely use we would see something closer to the 115 minutes of capacity at 75A for around .85kWh available, which would be associated with a 144V string in a vehicle consuming about 250Wh/mile at a 40+mph average speed.
The comparison has been made on a price basis. As the fuel price in the market greatly affects the result, and EU fuel pices mainly consist of taxes, the comparison appears to boil down to a question of future taxation policy. If you consider the mix of electric energy sources shown in the pie chart, namely 88% fossile with 62% coal, one may reasonably ask why the grid energy used for transportation should be given advantage in terms of taxation.
Technically speaking, the electric car's advantage would stem from better part-load efficiency as the power stations feeding the grid have better overall efficiency compared to the ICE in a realistic load cycle. This has to be weighed against to the present shortcomings of the available batteries (cost, range, inconvenience).
Along with the price of oil, we'll also see the price of electricity, and batteries, and tires, and road maintenance (and food) rise too.
I know this article is about cars, but I doubt this will be our main problem. What are you going to eat?
My neighbors. :-)
The same types of foods people ate prior to 1869; maize, wheat,oats barley(drink),chicken,turnips and cabbages.
Well.. the article IS about cars.
You can point to any of several MAIN problems, and we do all the time. Point is, we'll have scads of problems, and even minor and unexpected ones might become the bottleneck that does more damage on a given day than the major ones.
Each problem is a lead weight in our pockets as we tread water, or forsee treading water. We have to unload our pockets, and there might well be smaller weights in the way of the bigger ones.
Best,
Bob
Interesting post, but as mentioned the cost analysis may not be realistic:
- EU fuel costs have high levels of duty, which may change (though is likely to only go up)
- Electric cars currently pay no road tax, however that won't last, it is too big an income source for governments to ignore as the number of EV cars increases.
- Given the biggest component to an EV cars cost is the batteries, and they have a finite life, cars nearing that life will be worth a lot less due to the cost of replacement, so depreciation rates will be higher than ICE cars.
- This will only increase the demand on the electricity grids (even if most charging is done overnight), so electricity costs are likely to go up.
However as also pointed out, in a world without oil (or at least small levels of it) EV will be the only option.
double post
I just have some basic questions on all this, perhaps someone could help clarify?
1. Is there such a battery that lasts 10 years? Where is it used and how?
2. What are the realistic specs for an electric car. i.e. torque, power, weight, passenger capacity. etc. I wouldn’t consider a one or two passenger "car" (i.e. the Aptera) a car. It’s more likely comparable to a scooter or motorcycle.
3. What are the repercussions to electricity demand& production? Black-outs are very common (for example in extreme weather situations) so how would overstretched power grids cope with largely unpredictable, extensive use of electric vehicles?
4. Electricity is very cheap today since it being used for primary human needs (heating, cooling, food preservation, cooking, water& sewage, lighting). So can we really assume that cost would stay the same if electricity would be used for transport?
5. (Related to #4) Are we ready to jeopardize a basic human life-support system for the sake of transport?
6. Did electricity properly adjust in recent times of spiked oil prices? Or perhaps, due to natural time lag (economic, political & social aspects), prices didn’t even get that chance. Thus assumptions of cheap electricity on past trends are not very realistic?
7. Electricity cost is incrementally/ exponentially higher past certain Kwh per household? So we cant expect an electric driver to pay same per Kwh whether he drives for 5,000 or 15,000 miles per year?
8. Is there a limitation of natural resources for making enough batteries or not? What is the real cost (monetary, environmental and so on) of these batteries.
In response to 2.:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
And that's what's already available off the shelf!!!! Performance is ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUE! :-) I want one of these now!
110,000$ for a 2 passenger car with 230 miles per charge and a battery that (supposedly) lasts 5 years and will cost $$$$ to replace?! Thats not solving the energy/ transportation problem - seems more like eco-hype for a handful of super rich.
Stay calm! :-) I used the Tesla as an example of possible performance - which is fantastic. Yet, the Tesla is a high end sports car. The Mitsubishi MiEV on the other hand is a superb new electric car which will go into mass production from next year.
http://ecomodder.com/blog/mistubishis-electric-car-will-be-released-in-2...
37500 USD is fantastically cheap when you remember how low the running costs are. And this is just the beginning of a revolution. Just wait til there's competition!!
That's still about 4 times more expensive than a comparable ICE! Btw, seems like there isnt much reliable info out there - lots of blog references, hype and wishful thinking.
Edmunds, definitely not a blog, placed the car at around $24,000 USD plus whatever breaks from the local government, so it doesn't seem to be four times more expensive. Of course, those blog references you're saying aren't reliable could in fact be reliable and Edmunds could be wrong, but either way we cut it you're wrong about something. ;)
The Tesla pack and electronics came from the tZero by AC propulsion. The original cost of the pack was $155,000 in the mid 90's. Tesla was thinking of selling their pack and electronics to Th!nk of Norway for a production cost of $25,000. The tZero has been driven over 300 miles on a charge.
If the Tesla were produced for the masses ala Detroit, Toyota, etc. A $25 drive train, pack plus a shell, seats and instrumentation could quickly come down to under $40K. Tesla's next vehicle is supposed to be a Sedan at a cheaper sell point.
The other thing to consider is that technology and costs do not stand still. A Stanford University professor has been able to put 2 to3 times as much electricity into a laptop battery of the kind used to power the tZero.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html
with the prospects of increasing that to 8 to 10 times as much or basically a cross country USA trip on one charge.
The cycle life of the A123 Systems battery is 7,000 cycles so a 100 mile pack would deliver about 700,000 miles of driving which is close to a human lifetime of driving.
While there are other parameters to take into consideration such as shelf life, calendar life, on road abuse, temperature range, etc. The battery story is getting better.
This story/ link from Stanford is over 2 years ago, meantime what has happened with this advanced battery technology? Are they making these batteries or was this just another publicity stunt?
It is, but then again, it also shows that electrics are probably to the point where they cost the same or less than comparable conventional vehicles all things being equal. The problem with saying they cost more compared to most conventional vehicles is that they don't have the economies of scale to actually see the price breaks we see with conventional vehicles. For high end sports cars, this advantage isn't present, and we can get a pretty good idea of what the actual difference in cost/capabilities is. In the case of the roadster, the battery pack+electricity is equal to gas for a comparable Porsche or similar, and the maintenance is less, with the end result being something that costs less to operate and is as fast for the same price, but also has limited range/longer refueling times.
1 - Car engines don't last 10 years without being maintained.
3 - Overnight charging woiuld help, but yes, you would need an expansion of electricity generation (ie more nuclear plants).
4/5 - See above.
6 - No problem IF we sensibly plan to increase generation capacity.
7 - Electric cost per kwh comes down for bigger customers.
8 - Probably not.
1. I didnt ask about cars fluffy. I have owned several cars and know all the costs involved. So you answer doesnt really answer my question. You have any practical examples? The battery for the Tesla (quoted above) lasts (supposedly) 5 years? Whats the cost for replacing it? Any idea? Assuming the 110,000$ price tag isnt going for gold steering wheel my guess a big chunk of dough is for that battery.
3 & 6. Nuclear energy is no short term or even long term solution, according to most consensus its a very risky cushion.
7. In residential use the more energy you use the more you pay. Perhaps some industry gets better deals but thats probably for various grand reasons (economy, jobs, etc) so if I was going to hook up my electric car in some industrial drive in plug& go setting I guess they wouldnt do that for free, would they?
8. What information is your position based on? Are batteries made from abundant, easy to find, renewable sources?
2/4/5?
You would be correct. The battery pack uses the same 18650 Li-ion cells as your laptop batteries, about 7000 of them. Let's be generous and assume Tesla gets them for $3 each. That's $21000 for the battery cells before assembly, testing, and all the cooling/monitoring systems needed to keep it in one piece. It could cost less if you go with a larger format cell instead of the laptop cells, but the basic constraints of weight, capacity and raw materials are determined by battery chemistry.
If laptop batteries are of any guidance, then EV's powered on Li-ion is here painted as a much too romantic picture.
"If laptop batteries are of any guidance,"
They aren't. No heat management, little charge management, and mostly different chemistries.
For a while, the "consensus" was that polyunsaturated fats like corn oil were good for you. Now we know that they are omega-6 fatty acids and are associated with all kinds of pathologies.
Nuclear, especially thorium breeders and metal-fuel fast breeders like the IFR, has the potential to supply enormous amounts of energy with minimal environmental impact. The "consensus" is the same anti-nuke propaganda apparatus which has thrown up roadblocks for more than 30 years, and then claimed that the lack of progress proves nuclear isn't viable. It was lies then (proven by France), and it's lies now.
Here is a link to a Toyota RAV4-EV owner, showing how he's rerigged the charging gear to accept power from his rooftop PV system. He gets up to 150miles on a charge with a Nimh Battery pack (as he says, by driving very frugally, or down to 80 miles driving carelessly)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peW8kl-jpHc&feature=related
www.sealbeach.org (his site describing the whole setup, and their two Rav4 EVs.)
Towards the end of the video, he's driving while talking and shooting video (very safe practice..), and says 'There's no reason they couldn't use these batteries for the Volt.. they do just what the engineers claim the Lithiums are needed for' And of course, the drive is mysteriously silent.
Bob
Thanks Bob! I have come across this before and actually theres an e-mail going around with a power point presentation about alleged conspiracies behind the destructions of veriious EV's. I dont know what to make of all that really.
All I have to say is if it was that succesful why was it destroyed? Your link points out that there are some used RAV EV's for sale but we are talking about a handfull and with prices like $50-60,000. Add the cost for a PV system and what about them batteries, cost and replacement?
Hi efp; (it sounds like I have a lifp!)
A couple thoughts on that..
"If they're so good, then why haven't they succeeded?"
- Aside from Chevron grabbing up the Vehicle NIMH patents (tinfoil hat side of the story), we also still have $2 Gas in the US (supported by numerous, semi-visible subsidies.. oops, more Tinfoil!) so 'Why Pay More when you can Pay Less?'
There is apparently still a brisk business of RAV4-ev's on Ebay, etc.. pricey, but there are customers, not unlike the smallish but steady demand for the EV-1 . Probably in fact too small to justify a production line on, so there's a threshhold problem- directly pointing back to that $2 gas, of course.
Cost of System - Well, yes, it can be very pricey.. but of course his PV can get him to work, make toast in the toaster, send an email and freeze carrots, while his car can plug in to the PV, the wall, or any outlet out in the world.. so there are a number of extra benefits and versatilities that need to be accounted for in that pricetag, as well as the 'tough-to-factor' environmental/pollution benefits, and the 'stable access to emergency power for all of the above' that comes with this setup.
Finally, while the RAV4 and EV1 had loyal fans, there is also a burgeoning 'EV Conversion' community, where you can get a donor car, motor, controller, batts etc for something like $10-$15(EDIT: That would be 'thousand').. alas, no warranty! There is a lot of garage Trial and Error, and a LOT of web info about the results.. so it's not really an exclusive technology, but neither is it a 'cheap convenience', as we've been trained to expect of the good things in life. Like College, you have to choose whether the years of debt will be worth what you're ultimately investing in.
(I'm also a big fan of sneakers, bikes and e-bikes w/trailers, where possible. but sometimes, you just need the 4 wheels and a roof.)
Bob
Hi Folks,
While I appreciate that this exercise was focused on environmental & economic costs, what of the embedded energy costs? Where is all this extra power going to come from? Concomitant to building new assembly lines and new cars (admittedly there are fewer components in an electric vehicle - this should save a whole lot of both energy and material), would there also have to either be massive efficiency measures else where in the supply/use equation, or a considerable ramping up of energy production - renewable or otherwise to provide the extra power? A 'grid' efficiency of 92% is just that. However, the efficiency of producing electrical power at a centralised power station is somewhere between 30-60% depending on the type of process used, and up to about 80% with a good CHP (combined heat and power). Other integrated processes such as using the low level waste heat for industrial and agricultural purposes can boost the overall efficiency a little higher. Note, wind power efficiencies are of a different category, as if you capture 100% of the 'wind' energy, you will stop the wind! Theoreticalll you can get near 60%, but they average about 30%
Battery charging also has efficiency losses, again varying from 80% to possibly 99% (don't have any figures to hand for latest technology for this capacity/rate of charging) and the fact that battery performance drops to 80% over time I think also has a factor on charging efficiency. If we go for BAT (best available technology) I think we get a 66% efficiency of generated electrical power used(I used a 90% for battery charging). This is at least double the energy efficiency from an ICE (at anything from <20% to a little >30%).
The problem now is the 8 miles per KWh. Given the estimate of an average of 15000 km a year, that equates to 1875KWh per year extra. Divide this by the number of hours in a year, and we have 0.214 kW extra per car. With a million users, the extra load is 0.214 MW. With the 66% efficiency factored in that is an extra 0.32 MW of generating capacity. Of course, this is a gross simplification, for instance, not all cars will be on charge constantly, causing peaks and troughs in demand. However, if most were on charge overnight for say 8 hours, that is roughly 1MW of generating capacity 3 x 0.32). That's a realistic output of a wind farm. Even if the KWh per mile were five times this, that would equate to an extra generating capacity of 5MW per million vehicles. No wonder they killed the electric car!
Or am I missing something?
L,
Sid.
.214 kW x 1,000,000 = 214,000 kW = 214 MW
..so yes you are missing a few zeros.
Sorry, got my GW and MW mixed up! How embarrassing! The point was total Netherlands generating capacity was 21.5GW (2004 figures) . So the point I was after is that it would take an increase of anywhere between 5% (at 8 km per KWh charging for 8hrs) and 25% (1.6 km per KWh charging for 8hrs) on 2004 installed capacity to power 1 million vehicles.
Apologies for the crap error - almost solved the worlds energy problem there!
L,
Sid.
You are definitely missing something. By some analyses, we could get at least half of our current fleet onto the electric grid without needing to build any more generating capacity or grid carrying capacity (on average; some regions are different). This is because most of them would be charging during what are now off-peak hours (at night). In other words, we'd have better utilization of existing capacity. For the same reason, electricity prices may not go up as much as some think (though they would certainly rise somewhat). There would be little new infrastructure investment required, relative to the amount of new electricity being produced/consumed.
Moreover, electric cars and wind power are very complementary. Wind blows the most at night, when most cars would be charging up. The problem with wind power now is that it generates the most electricity when we least need it. Wind farms here in Texas actually pay the grid to take their power from them at night... I presume to offset the costs of shutting down and bringing back up equivalent generating capacity at coal and gas plants.
We wouldn't need to build any more power stations, but we'd need to put more fuel through them. So if we stuck with our current mix across most of the West, of mostly coal and some gas generation, then we'd burn more coal and natural gas.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, it just moves the emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack, not really an improvement for us. Puts off peak oil a bit, brings peak coal and gas closer. Better? I dunno, probably not.
Of course if we were to replace our current coal and gas-fired generation with renewables, then that's something different. But we seem reluctant to do that; we build renewables on top of fossil fuel burning, not instead of it. If we have 1,000GW of coal and gas and then build 400GW of wind and solar, we don't shut down 400GW of coal and gas, we just say, "look, we're 400/1,400 = 29% renewable, aren't we awesome?" Yet we're burning as much stuff as before...
So really these issues of how we transport ourselves and how we get electricity, they're paired issues and we have to look at them together. Or we just move burning up of depleting resources and their emissions from one place to another.
Amen.
A common misconception. It is definitely an improvement. First, even with electricity from fossil fuels, it is about twice as energy efficient in BTUs to power electric cars vs. with gasoline. On other considerations such as carbon dioxide released, it is also better. This stems mainly from the fact that the electric drivetrain is between 80-90% efficient, vs. 30-35% for gasoline. Even considering the whole chain including generation and transmission over the grid, electric cars are far more efficient.
The whole point of having electric cars, however, is to enable us to transition away from fossil fuels to renewables. Most renewables generate electricity, not fuel. So they would be a natural fit for the grid, and this can only extend to transportation if transportation is electrified.
Of course, ideally, we wouldn't have to use cars so much. But there's no way to wave a magic wand and make our cities work for mass transit. Until electric streetcars, etc. can be brought back in significant quantities, there needs to be some kind of transitional technology.
You can quote all the percentages you like, but percentages are irrelevant. What matters is total emissions.
Everything you're saying here I already addressed in my first post to this thread.
It is not hard to trade solar for electricity. A Solar Hot Water system costs below $10K and will reduce a person's electricity usage by about 10kwhr/day. Electric cars go 3 to 4 miles on a kwhr of electricity. Electrical rates in the SE USA are roughly $0.10/kwhr. So you can go about 30 to 40 miles on a $1.00 of electricity using the electricity saved using just a Solar Hot Water system. If oil is above $100/barrel, that would translate into $3/gallon here in the States. You'd need about 2 gallons to go the 30 to 40 miles using an internal combustion engined car. Therefore the difference between driving an EV and an ICE is a minimum of $5.00 per day. That's 2,000 days of driving to break even on your Solar Hot Water system. If you drive 300 days a year, payback is about 7 years.
Firstly, this article like many others underestimates the emissions due to natural gas. It only counts the emissions due to the actual burning of the stuff in the power stations.
However, worldwide it's estimated that "at least 150 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas are flared [...] every year". This compares to world production of 3,200 billion m3. So it seems fair to say that around 5% of all methane consumed is burned off unproductively; but if we did not consume fossil fuels at all, there'd be no need to flare, so that flaring emissions must be added to our energy emissions. It seems fair to add gas to gas, oil to oil, and coal to coal.
In addition, untold amounts are lost from poorly-maintained infrastructure around the world. 1% is a typical figure for a Second World country. Given that in greenhouse gas terms, methane has more than twenty times the effect of carbon dioxide, this miserable 1% leakage actually adds 20% to the total emissions impact of natural gas use.
Also, natural gas when pumped from the ground contains some carbon dioxide. This is never counted against the emissions when it's burned for final use.
In all, the emissions impact of natural gas consumption is about 30% higher than usually stated. This affects the emissions figures the authour gives above, making that of the electric car go from 60g/km to more like 72g/km or so.
Secondly, the pricing of the electricity ignores the fact that if electric cars were to become widespread, the extra demand of consumers would likely cause the price of electricity to rise.
Thirdly, what we recommend must be solutions for the world, not just our own regions. Here Down Under the prices and emissions would not be as brilliant... Using a plug-in electric vehicle in Australia simply moves the emissions from the car's tailpipe to the power station's smokestack.
Petrol is currently A$1.30/lt (taxes included), and a fair efficiency for a smallish city car is 10km/lt; thus, 13c/km in fuel.
Electricity is A$0.18469/kWh (taxes included), at 8km/kWh we're looking at 2.3c/km.
So far well in electricity's favour; let's ignore the fact that if even one-third the 14.4 million vehicles of Australia are drawing another 10kWh a day from the grid, that's 17.5 billion kWh extra, a significant addition to our current consumption of 220 billion kWh, so the electricity prices would go up - not, we hope, by the 600% or so to make it equal to petrol, but still.
The emissions are more troublesome. Petrol causes emissions of 2.6kg CO2e/litre, or 260g CO2e/km for that 10km/lt car.
However, in Australia most of our electricity is from coal. My own state has the privilege of hosting and relying on the dirtiest power station in the world. Electricity causes half of all our emissions - and our per capita emissions are among the highest in the world. Anyway, our 220 billion kWh generated are responsible for 283Mt CO2e [source], or 1.29kg CO2e/kWh.
So that our 8km/kWh vehicle would in Australia cause through its electricity consumption 161g CO2e/km.
While 161g is a big improvement on 260g, remember that for the 10km/lt car we're talking about a regular "light" car of a bit over a tonne, while for the 8km/kWh vehicle we're talking about a 665kg vehicle which because of its weight is classified as a quad, not a car. A lighter combustion vehicle would also use less fuel and cause less emissions. India's biggest selling car is the Maruti 800; they claim a fuel efficiency of 20km/lt, which would be 130g CO2e/km.
What we find then is that in a country like Australia with lots of coal power (which is most common in the highest-generating countries), going electric provides great money savings (in fuel, can't talk about price of the vehicle until it's sold here), but no emissions savings. The way to cut down on emissions for our electric car is to drive it less than we would our combustion car. But of course we can just save our money, not buy any new car, and drive the old one less.
And/or we could ensure we get more and more of our energy from renewable resources.
It's important in these kinds of discussions to emphasise the other changes needed, because many people see articles like this and say "see? just change to electric and we can all keep on truckin', change nothing else, easy!" It ain't so.
You can't just get off coal.
You'll have to learn bury the CO2(the easiest solution).
It will cost a bit but CCS is just another form of air pollution control.
Australia has a mere 47 GW of power generation 75% from coal.
In the US, we have 10 times your problem.
"What we find then is that in a country like Australia with lots of coal power (which is most common in the highest-generating countries)"
Australia and China are the exceptions in generating nearly all power from coal.
Many high kWh/capita countries generate significant power from hydro( Canada, Norway) or nuclear(France,UK,US) or a combination of NG/wind/nuclear.
China is expanding hydro, wind and nuclear and may slow down coal power now that they are importing coal. Australia will reduce the very high carbon intensity of electricity IF we meet the 20%renewable electricity target, and new FF plants use NG instead of coal, but will still be 65-70% from coal!
EV's using coal generated electricity will be better than oil powered ICE if <10% today's oil production is available and will help integrating wind power.
As I said upthread, the danger is that we'll just add renewables to the grid rather than having them replace fossil fuels. So the renewables % goes up, but we're still burning a heap of stuff.
In the island nation of MadeUp, they have a coal plant with a 1,000GWh capacity burning coal and putting out 1,200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. MadeUp's Energy Minister gets someone to build 200GWh of wind and 200GWh of solar, and proudly announces that the country is now 400/1,400 = 29% renewable.
Yet the coal is still being burned, and there are still 1,200 million tonnes of CO2 being pumped into the air. The "carbon intensity" of the energy has dropped - but they're still pumping as much CO2 out there as before. So in that respect, the "carbon intensity" or renewables percentage doesn't mean much. What matters is total emissions, and total consumption of fossil fuels.
What they need to do is when the 400GWh of renewables are ready, shut down some of the coal station's boilers - say, 400GWh of them. Then CO2 emissions drop from 1,200Mt to 720Mt, and people have as much electricity as before.
This issue of renewables adding to rather than substituting in the grid is a real problem. We've seen something similar in Sweden - in the 1980s they voted to get rid of their nuclear reactors, and so they built lots of renewables, but... kept the nuclear reactors going, and are now considering building more. I don't see why it wouldn't happen with fossil fuel plants, too - in all the talk of Australia having renewables targets, I hear nothing about our shutting down our fossil fuel plants. We're going to add, not substitute.
Natural gas emissions, as I noted upthread, are typically understated by about 30%. This still makes gas better than coal, but not as nice as many people think.
However, we have two problems. The first is that the climate does not distinguish between a tonne of carbon dioxide from burning gas and a tonne from burning coal, or poo, or making concrete, or cow farts, or whatever. What matters is the total amount. If gas produces half the emissions of coal but we consume twice as much electricity as today, then we're stuck in the same place.
Secondly, it's often forgotten, even at TheOilDrum, that coal and gas like oil are finite. It's senseless to substitute one declining resource for another. It's playing a shell game with our problems.
If we all build lots of natural gas-burning generation then the natural gas peak will be brought closer, and after that what will the plants burn? A power plant has a life of about 40 years. If we expand natural gas burning for electricity, we could replace most of our coal-fired plants worldwide over the next decade - building them 2009-2019. So they get shut down 2049-2059.
Are you willing to bet that we won't see peak gas until after the 2050s? It's thought by some that it'll peak around 2020 [source], but of course if we consume more it'll peak sooner. Why build a power plant that won't have a reliable source of fuel for its lifetime?
If we go into producing electricity with natural gas and find that it peaks, becomes more expensive and declines in availability over the the next decade or two, I think you'll find that it'll be very tempting to turn those coal-fired plants back on. Those turbines and boilers will come out of mothballs.
Basically we just have to give up on the idea of doing everything by burning fossil fuels. Whether it's oil or coal or gas is just a cosmetic question. We use less coal and oil and more gas and we bring the gas peak closer. We use coal to make gas and bring the coal peak closer. We use gas to get oil from tarsands and bring the gas peak closer. We use CNG to power vehicles and bring the gas peak closer.
It's a game of musical chairs, using one depleting resource to substitute for another. The only question is who'll be left standing at the end.
Even if burning coal gave us vitamin C and we could bury it forever and effectively and cheaply and burning gas made pretty girls smile, we should still give up on them because once you burn fossil fuels, they're gone forever; so at some point we won't have them to burn, and will have to learn to live without them.
Eventually fossil fuels are going to run short and we'll have to learn to live without them. We may as well start now.
kiashu,
Some interesting comments, but you seem to have missed the point about carbon intensity of electricity(gCO2/kWh). You were talking about replacing oil based ICE vehicles (260gCO2/km) with EV using 0.2kWh/km. For calculating if a switch from ICE to EV will reduced CO2 output it's irrelevant how much electricity is generated by renewable or coal, its the proportion ie average intensity(CO2/kWh). China and Australia have a very high CO2 intensity/kWh NOW(>1200g/kWh) but pursuing 20% renewable target will reduce CO2 intensity and may result in LOWER CO2 from a EV than an ICE vehicle.
To reduce total CO2 release you need to have a CAP on TOTAL CO2 released that is reduced over time. I think that's what the CAP and trade proposal is all about.
Reducing dependence on oil is not very relevant to reducing TOTAL CO2, unless electricity CO2 intensity is reduced to levels in US or Canada or France(<500g CO2/kWh).
In the comment you responded to I already linked to the earlier comment I made, which you obviously didn't read. I said,
"our 220 billion kWh generated are responsible for 283Mt CO2e [source], or 1.29kg CO2e/kWh."
That is, in making my calculations, I divided the nation's entire electricity generation emissions by its entire electricity output; thus getting the average intensity.
Yes, but this would be a shell game, showing that looking at "average" vehicles isn't enough, we have to look at the big picture.
If we build wind turbines but keep our coal-fired stations burning as strongly as before, the average carbon intensity of our electricity goes down, but the total emissions are the same. It's like how if me and my woman have a baby, now there's three of us our average income has dropped - but our total income is the same.
And it's total emissions which hurt the climate. The climate doesn't care whether 1 million tonnes of CO2 come from a 1MW coal plant or a 15MW wind turbine or 1,000 cows or whatever.
In the EU and Australia, the carbon trading schemes are a ceiling but also a floor on emissions. In a particular year the government will issue X amount of permits whatever last year's emissions were. So if you and I reduce our impact, if businesses are innovative and conscientious, if this causes total emissions to drop below X - then the government still issues X permits. So our innovation and conscientiousness makes it cheaper for big companies to pollute.
That's cap and trade, unfortunately.
That's why we need a straight-out carbon tax. Caps don't reflect things like cold winters, either.
Carbon taxes are in principle good. However, a carbon tax is a consumption tax, and the history of consumption taxes is that
Firstly, they hurt the poor, since more of the poor's income is non-discretionary.
This can be addressed with all sorts of concession rates; for example here in Australia we already have a scheme where concession card holders (pensioners, unemployed, etc) get half-price natural gas in the winter, pay half as much for water year-round, and so on. So it can be dealt with but has to be borne in mind.
Secondly, after a year or two people adjust to the new cost of things and consume as much as they did before. For example, when you increase the liquor or tobacco tax consumption drops for a year and then rises again.
This is more difficult. If behaviour only changes when we raise the tax, we'd have to raise the carbon tax every year. I'd be happy to do that, but it's unlikely to happen politically. Raise taxes every year for 40 or 50 years? Not likely. It's only palatable if other taxes are dropped in proportion. But then there's no incentive for change, is there? If carbon taxes add $100 to my bills but income tax cuts add $100 to my income, well what changed?
Thirdly, what we really want to do is abolish carbon emissions - or at least reduce them so much that it looks like abolition compared to today's profligate waste. This is a problem with both emissions trading and taxes - we did not abolish slavery by taxing it, still less by setting up a slave market.
If it's taxed then the government uses that revenue for various public works and pork barrelling. Government will not want to abolish something which gives them revenue. We've found this is a problem in my home state of Victoria with gambling. Public opinion, acknowledged by political leaders, is that it's a serious problem and really we should blow up the machines. But government makes billions in revenue from it, and already abolished other taxes; if they stopped the gambling, they'd have to bring in new taxes, which would be very unpopular. So the gambling goes on.
There's a strong risk of that with a carbon tax. My state has the most polluting (in kg CO2e/kWh) large power station in the world. If the government were receiving money from that, why would they want to close it down?
In the end, if taxes were good at abolishing things, then we would have no employment, companies, liquor or tobacco, in Britain and NZ no television, and so on.
In conclusion, a well-designed emissions trading scheme could overcome these issues. Let's say we issue 1,000 permits in 2010, and each year reduce it by 20, until we reach 100. From year to year the price of the permits rises, so that total revenue from their sale does not drop. This annoys people enough to give an incentive to change to lower carbon, but does not annoy them so much that the politicians don't dare do it. And it overcomes the desire for revenue problem.
So while I think a carbon tax is fairer and simpler, the political problems with it make an emissions trading scheme look better. I've changed my mind of this recently, don't be surprised if you find older words of mine saying different things. Yes, I know you're never supposed to change your mind in internet discussions, but there you go :)
"If carbon taxes add $100 to my bills but income tax cuts add $100 to my income, well what changed?"
A lot, actually. And this approach also addresses your first concern. People spend money based on relative value. If the cost of using ff is higher but they have more money, they will likely spend the money on something more valuable. And if continuously raising taxes is politically unpallatable, try your idea of abolishing the use of ff altogether!
"This is a problem with both emissions trading and taxes - we did not abolish slavery by taxing it, still less by setting up a slave market."
This is an excellent statement, and yet a slave market is exactly what you end up proposing setting up. I guess I'm confused about how you come to this position. Why would ever rising prices of permits be any more politically palatable than ever rising taxes?
As you imply elsewhere what we really have to do is stop using ff. And once it's been extracted it from the earth it is surely going to be used. So what I propose is a global system to stop it at the source. As Saudi Arabia is doing now, we need to have a global system to draw steadily draw down the amount of ff fuels extracted every year,prioritizing the worst offenders--tar sands and coal--first, then oil, then NG. Easy? Not a bit. But pretending that people won't use ff's that have been extracted and made available for use strikes me as the most unrealistic expectation imaginable.
We make global treaties all the time. This is one that will both give us some vanishing chance of averting the absolute worst consequences of GW and give us a predictable path to plan a world wide power down around. I'm generally a pacifist, but among the consequences that violators of such a treaty might face, military action should probably not be left out.
By which reasoning, after the GST came in Aussies should have eaten more fresh fruit and vegetables than junk food, since junk food carried the 10% tax but fresh fruit and vegies didn't; we'd see them buying more secondhand clothes and books than new since the secondhand ones don't have GST. And yet...
People don't spend money based on relative value. They don't make a rational assessment of everything. They spend based on perceived value. That's why deals like "buy a car, get a dvd player" actually work. The perceived value of junk food and new clothes and books remains high compared to fresh fruit and vegies, old clothes and books.
People will accept it if it's gradual. Nobody will accept an overnight change, if it's "2% less a year" or something, people will accept it.
Because again, people don't rationally assess things - such as by budgeting out their dollars. Paying $100 more "because that's the market" people accept, paying $100 more in taxes they're annoyed by.
It's also a matter of where any public resentment is focused. Resentment for taxes is focused on governments, which are elected - and so resentment matters to them. If you have carbon permits, then resentment for rising prices will be directed at private companies, which are not elected and thus can ignore public resentment - see for example the recent fuss over executive salaries, a fuss utterly ignored by the executives.
People will say, "mate, those guys got 2% less permits than this year, yet they've put prices up by 10%. Obviously they are idiots who don't know how to use energy efficiently, stupid bastards."
It's true that private companies have to take some notice of public resentment - they need to sell their products, after all. But it's not so important with products which are necessities. That's why Telstra's (Australia's original and largest telecommunications company, owns most of the comms infrastructure) service can be so shit - we have to be able to talk to each-other, Telstra can be awful and still be used. It's why Connex (operator of train service in Melbourne) can be useless - if you want to take the train at all, you have to take a Connex train.
Any global system is very attractive, yes. A global "cap and trade" treaty, or "contraction and convergence" or Staniford's global renewable supergrid.
Sounds good. Let me know when you can get the agreement of all 210 or so of the members of the UN - or even the 50 most important ones. It's slow to arrange. I mean, Kyoto was getting on twenty years ago now. Diplomacy is like when you take a dozen of your mates and go to the pictures and try to agree on what to see. You're still arguing when the last people come out of the last film. Better for someone to say, "well, I'll go to see X, who's coming?" Some will storm off, but most will say, "okay then" and follow.
I'd rather go for a system which we can begin today whatever other countries do or don't do. Both carbon taxes and an ETS, if well-designed, can be begun in my country today. A global system can't be.
An ETS is diplomatically easier than a carbon tax, because of our various free trade agreements. If we had a carbon tax on Aussie products, then all that'd happen is we'd end up importing from countries without a carbon tax, and producing even less here. So for a carbon tax to be effective, we'd have to tax imports, too. But our treaties prohibit this, as does the WTO.
Of course we could tear up those agreements, but that's an extra step and makes things harder. An ETS doesn't violate those agreements. Sure, if prices go up we'll still substitute non-ETS imports, but it'll still have a big effect since a lot of the stuff which pollutes we can't import - like coal-generated electricity.
Of course none of this applies to the current government's ETS, only to a well-designed one. This one will not reduce emissions, and will be a handout to the biggest polluters.
It's all completely frustrating, of course. A cap and trade system will never be "well designed" because corporate power is always going to influence the legislation to make it just another cash cow for them. The main problem I have with cap and trade schemes is that they are of necessity quite complicated no matter how well designed. And complicated rules always are invitations for clever lawyers to find loopholes. If Enron and the complicated risk management schemes that are still bringing down banks around the globe haven't taught us that, I don't know what will.
Do you really think a well-designed slave market would have ended slavery?
Solutions on a national level, while worth pursuing, are ultimately doomed if your goal is saving the planet. If your scheme actually did dramatically reduce use of ff in your country, it would lower the price for everyone else and someone would end up buying and using those cheaper ff's. That's why we have to focus on the source of the problem--bringing extraction of all that safely sequestered carbon to a halt as quickly as possible, starting, again, with the dirtiest.
dohboi,
"Do you really think a well-designed slave market would have ended slavery?"
If a CAP was placed on total numbers of slaves, and it declined by 1million a year, YES it would have ended slavery even though TRADING continued.
Focus on the CAP in "cap and trade", not TRADE.
A tax doesn't have to ensure any reduction in total CO2, neither would have a tax on slavery ended slavery. It's irrelevant if one industry increases CO2 as long as others make a larger reduction so the overall CO2 is capped and the CAP declines over time.
Great, Neil, we'll put you in charge of that slave market. Hope you sleep real well at night.
Between the two proposals usually put forward, C&T vs tax, I am for the tax because of its simplicity. Some here and across the country have an ideological inability to consider that any good can come from anything spelled t a x. I do not share this ideology. If you make the tax high enough and keep increasing it, it will have an effect on use. To say otherwise is to claim that people pay absolutely no attention to even huge differences in cost when considering different options--it stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.
But I actually don't share the premise that these are the best or only options. As Kiashi's comparison suggests, these are moral not just economic issues. It is immoral to spew more CO2 into the atmosphere than is absolutely necessary in a global warming world. We are near 400 parts per million now and need to get back to closer to 300. We have already passed all sorts of tipping points. It's too late to be playing little economic games. If the on going melt down of the world economic system hasn't convinced you that the magic of the market is a dark necromancy leading us straight to hell, I don't know what would. To paraphrase Ron Reagan, markets are not the answer, they are the problem.
We need to move rapidly to end all de-sequestration of safely sequestered carbon. To do this with some element of fairness, we need to carefully ration the remaining ff that we plan to use. A CAP certainly does need to be set and steadily lowered. But trade is not going to do the job, just invite more graft at the expense of the future viability of the earth.
I know this won't happen. We are almost certainly doomed to follow some cockamamy scheme that will temporarily enrich the few but will damn the most of us and of life to extinction.
But go ahead, set up your plan to save the world through greed. I'm sure it will work just as well as greed-based systems have helped the planet in the last hundred years. Perhaps you are hoping to make a tidy bundle on these schemes yourselves. Best of wishes on that. Hope you can sleep with yourself.
Is a gas tax a good idea? or a higher CAFE? Or cap and trade?
Yes, but any one of them won't be enough.We need all of them.
We need a tough automotive Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standard to provide planning certainty.
We need feebates (fees for low efficiency new cars, rebates on high efficiency cars) or fuel taxes to make people want to buy efficient vehicles, and to properly weight operating costs. Otherwise, buyers don't want to buy them, and car companies have to lose money on small cars to sell them - that means car companies fight CAFE tooth and nail. You even have the perverse effect of low prices making small cars seem low-status.
We need taxes to give buyers of used cars an incentive for to look for efficiency: half of all miles driven are driven by vehicles over 6 years old.
Finally, everyone needs an incentive to drive efficiently.
We need a balanced set of regulations and incentives to prevent or mitigate weird results, like the SUV loophole. It's very much like tax policy - minimize any particular tax, broaden the base, and prevent odd side effects.
Here's a relevant story.
Probably about as well as he'd sleep if he were in charge of a tax on the slaves sold at market.
Sounds like we're getting close to Godwin's Law. Maybe we need a US equivalent for slavery.
Yes. It's how Britain abolished slavery. As wikipedia describes it,
"On 28 August 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was given Royal Assent, which paved the way for the abolition of slavery within the British Empire and its colonies. On 1 August 1834, all slaves in the British Empire were emancipated, but they were indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system which was abolished in two stages; the first set of apprenticeships came to an end on 1 August 1838, while the final apprenticeships ended two years later on 1 August 1840. The government set aside £20 million to cover compensation of slave owners across the Empire, but the former slaves received no compensation or reparations."
In Upper Canada colony, slavery was gradually abolished by saying that no new slaves could be created, and children of existing slaves would become free at age 25; their children would be free at birth. However, there was no prohibition of the sale of these slaves, some of whom ended up in the USA.
Gran Colombia also had a gradual abolition plan.
Morally, the right thing to do was always to free them all immediately. But in practical terms gradual abolition was still abolition. As was seen in Upper Canada and USA, if one country was abolishing it and its neighbour was not, that undermined the scheme.
Likewise, a plan to abolish carbon emissions is undermined by a neighbour's not supporting it. We do need international agreements, as Neil has been saying. However, like Britain with the slave trade, if we wait for international agreements before doing anything, then nothing will ever be done. It's best to just go ahead and do our own thing and wait for everyone else to catch up.
Do they? I think US history contradicts you on this claim. Tobacco taxes are known to cut the number of people who smoke, and after the oil-price shocks of the 1970s US gasoline consumption slumped well after prices fell again, not recovering to their previous peak until 1992!
There are also the issues of substitution and revised habits. Electricity has the potential to substitute for perhaps 80% of US gasoline consumption, and a large fraction of diesel. Changed living patterns can and do change energy consumption. Once people have gone to the effort to substitute or change their habits, they are unlikely to return to their previous level of consumption while the incentives remain in place.
Then prices will spike in the years with cold winters and high fuel demand, and sag in years when it's warm. The public will scream that they're being gouged due to matters beyond their control... and they'd be right. Since neither the climate nor the ocean's acidity is affected differently by a ton of emissions during a cold year vs. a warm one, it makes no sense whatsoever for the price to vary with the weather. The fluctuating price also creates uncertainty in the market for fuel-conserving changes in behavior. People might not bother to insulate their houses because the next winter might be warm and gas might be cheaper; besides, if the limit on carbon emissions caused industry to shut down during cold winters, who'd have the money to buy insulation the next year?
Caps are attractive to the naïve, but cause perverse incentives in the real world. Straight tax-and-dividend eliminates the problems of uncertainty and can be adjusted to produce the desired rate of reduction (up to the limit that the economy can manage, but caps can't increase that either aside from forcing a contraction).
Certainly the history of consumption taxes is mixed. When you look at specific items it gets muddled, because it's not just the tax, there's usually regulation and negative advertising to go with it, too. I mean they didn't just bring in a tobacco tax, they started restricting where you could smoke, putting on warnings and anti-smoking adverts, and so on.
So liquor and tobacco were bad examples, except in that we can honestly say that there's plenty of consumption of those things still around, but much less than there used to be.
I can't comment on your gasoline tax example, because clicking on the link brings up "file not found."
In the US, prices will rise in years of cold winters and sag in warm years. In Australia, the reverse will happen - we have a different climate, and we have the opposite seasons. So this is an area where an international emissions trading scheme could be very useful.
There's a superfluous c on the end of the URL. Here's the corrected link.
The amount of economic activity between the northern and southern hemispheres isn't even close to equal, and I don't think that international trading is a good idea; emissions should go to the places which use fuel most efficiently, not to whoever is allocated permits. There is also the moral aspect of wealth transfers to thugs. Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong Il would make out nicely under a "trading" scheme by starving the population even more, which is enough to damn it in my eyes.
The talk of Peaks is wrong in my view.
Let's just talk about fossil fuel exhaustion.
The world has 6600 quads of natural gas according to geologists and uses 100 quads per year.
There is about 6600 quads of conventional petroleum and we use 168 quads of that per year.
Do the math!
The idea that people will radically taper off consumption is ridiculous. Also ridiculous is the idea that we will ever find much more than 30% of fossil fuels above current reserve estimates.
The fact is that the world has 22000 quads of energy in coal and uses 130 quads per year and so it will be used long after gas and conventional oil are gone. In addition there is 17000 quads of bitumen and oil shale which can either be
produced as liquid fuel or burnt as low grade coal(Estonia)--Canada produces 2 quads per year of syncrude from bitumen.
BTW, there is 2000 (to 4000 quads optimistic) of electricity to be had from uranium which we are burning at only 20 quads per year in LWRs. Of course if we were burning it at 20+130=150 quads per year by replacing all coal with nukes per the nuke cornucopians that wouldn't last more than 27 years.
Coal is also the biggest GW headache but probably the easiest to cure as all that CO2 can be traced to a relatively small number of electric power stations.
Coal will be the last chair left. We will NEED energy to make any transition. Clean it up(bury the CO2) and coal, not uranium will be the bridge to always costly renewables. I would guess that world renewables would max out at 100 quads per year of renewable electricity and maybe 20 quads of biomass based fuels. The world now generates ~10 quads of electricity from hydro.
Meanwhile the world is using 60 quads of electricity and
130 quads of liquid fuels per year.
If all the world's estimated coal and unconventional oil were burnt it would abount to 3900 Gt of CO2. According to the USDOE in North America alone there are AT LEAST 1260 Gt of onshore oil/gas fields, coal seams and saline aquifers that could geologically store that CO2.
The heat energy from fissionables is roughly 7.8 TBTU/ton, 0.0078 quads/ton. As of 2002, the USA had 43000 tons of uranium as spent LWR fuel alone (3300 quads) plus several times this much as depleted uranium suitable for fast-breeder reactors. Domestic thorium reserves are estimated at hundreds of thousands of tons.
Using nuclear we can take care of the next century, and the people living over the next century can take care of themselves.
You first.
That's wholly misleading.
We don't use heat from nuclear reactors, we use only electricity, 70% is waste heat.
But since you seem to be an arithmetically impaired blowhard the calculation is is simple enough.
There is between 2 and 4 million tons of uranium metal per IAEA. The Reasonably Assured Resource(RAR) is listed at 3,133,690 tons of uranium metal. The combination of the Estimated Additional Resouce(EAR-I) plus the RAR is 4,012,220 tons. The combination of RAR plus EAR-I plus the Estimated Additional Resources II (EAR-2) is 6,237,220 tons of uranium metal.
In their study the IAEA considers that in their market based scenario only 2,319,210 tons of the RAR will be used so I selected between 2 and 4 million tons of metal as the probable base.
No doubt you consider granite rocks and seawater a certain source of uranium.
A standard 1Gwe reactor operating 8000 hours per year requires 25 tons of uranium fuel per year. A quad is 300 Twh.
Therefore 3.133 MtU(the RAR)/25.5 tU per Gwea x 8000 x 1 E9 watts/ 300 E12 watts= 3276 quads of energy.
It is clear that you don't understand that producing HEU and breeder reactors will actually reduce the amount of reactor fuel because breeder fuel must be greatly enriched increasing the amount of depleted uranium six times over normal uranium fuel.
Your refering to domestic thorium shows you don't even understand that thorium is bred in thermal reactors
fueled with significant amounts of U-235 or plutonium which has to come from somewhere; for the 'open' thorium cycle 60% of the energy would come from U-235 and 40% from thorium bred into U-233.
BTW, world nuclear gives world thorium reserves(RAR+Infered) at 2,573,000 tons.
You should know by now that hypocrites are my favorite targets. I hope you like life in the crosshairs, because you're going to be there for a while.
Hypocrite. You were quoting total energy consumption from oil and gas, which includes waste heat.
So at roughly 1 GWe-yr/ton in fast breeders and ~4000 GW future average electric consumption worldwide, the uranium supply would be sufficient for 500 to 1000 years.
I am not talking about "standard" reactors. You keep raising them as a straw man, because the MIT study found them suitable for conditions that you yourself claim are not applicable. Despite this, you will neither throw out the MIT assumptions and start over, nor will you shut up. If you're looking for the "arithmetically impaired blowhard", try a mirror.
Who says we have to enrich anything at all? Fast breeders can use down-blended weapons material for the initial fuel load; it just doesn't have to be diluted as much. Reclaimed PWR plutonium is another fuel supply requiring no enrichment. After the initial load, they can breed all their fuel from spent PWR fuel (breeding the U-238 to fuel and burning the U-235 and actinides) or depleted uranium (of which we have plenty).
The power density of a metal-fuel fast breeder is higher than a LWR (~400 kW/l vs. ~100 kW/l), so the core doesn't have as much material in the first place. If you enrich PWR fuel to 3.5% with a 0.2% tailings assay, you get about 15% of the natural uranium stream as LEU; if you enrich to 20% MEU for a FBR you get about 2.6% of the total uranium in the fuel stream, but it produces 4x the power per kg so you are up to 2/3 before the reactor starts. Once the FBR is running, it's converting DU or spent PWR material to fuel and needs no further enriched fuel; enrichment services can go to expanding the power supply instead of feeding the existing fleet.
We have more than enough enrichment capacity even if we have no material from decommissioned weapons available for down-blending. It takes 55 SWU to enrich 100 kg of NU to 15.5 kg of 3.5% LEU and 84.5 kg of tails at 0.2%, and 108 SWU to enrich that same 100 kg of NU to 2.6 kg of 20% MEU and 97.4 kg of tails at 0.2%. The USA is only using about 25% of our available separation capacity, so we could provide starting fuel for plenty of FBRs without affecting the PWR fuel stream.
The open cycle is your straw man. Integral Fast Reactors electro-refine fuel to reprocess it; Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors distill salts to remove fission products. Neither one operates on the once-through cycle that your one MIT paper supports for political considerations, based on hypothetical technical conditions that you yourself admit do not apply.
Right now, the USA is sitting on 45000 or so tons of used PWR fuel which assays at roughly 1% U-235 (450 tons) and 0.8% plutonium (360 tons). The uranium is suitable for either FBR blanket material or CANDU fuel as it is, and the 360 tons of plutonium is sufficient to make 1800 tons of FBR fuel at 20% Pu; assuming 150 gigawatt-days per ton before reprocessing and a 1-year cycle, that's 270 TWth-days/year or about 300 GWe at 40% thermal efficiency. This is roughly equal to the total coal and natural gas generation in the USA, and we could start this much FBR capacity using no enrichment services whatsoever.
Once started, the system would require roughly 1 ton of uranium per GW-yr. At 300 tons/year, the spent PWR fuel could run the initial batch of FBRs for 150 years; the national supply of depleted uranium could run the nation for perhaps 6x as long, and thorium is roughly 4x as abundant as uranium. This is more than enough to get us through the fossil-fuel phase out and on to whatever follows; the only "shortage" scenario is your once-through strawman.
So at 1 GWe-yr/ton, there's enough for 4000 GW of generation (roughly doubling world generation) for 600+ years. I think that's enough.
Haha...Boo!
We don't use much gas and oil for electricity. We use gas mainly for heating at 80% efficiency and almost no oil for electricity. Coal and nukes are used exclusively for electricity.
Where is 25% enriched uranium required for fast breeder reactors going to come from?
First you have to enrich metal from .7% U-235 is to 25% for breeding stock in 4000 one GWe breeders. This would
require 675000 tons of natural uranium. Of course, you probably think with a breed ratio of 1 you never need add anything but at least 25% of the fuel charge will be transformed to products of fission so basically 2 tons of fission products must be replaced per Gwe-yr.
So basically 4 million tons of uranium - 675000 tons of 25% enriched starter fuel for 4000 GW of reactors= 3.2 million tons / 2 x 4000 GW=415 years of fuel with FBRs.
There is only 1200 tons of plutonium stockpiles left which could produce ~36000 tons of LWR reactor fuel-less than 2 years of mining.
There is a once thru thorium cycle which the IAEA is pushing for lightwater thorium thermal breeders. The alternative is heavy water reactors. You keeping pulling currently non-functional technologies out of your hat and whinning about LWR which have a good safety record.
Of course, LWRs aren't going away and will burndown starter fuel for fast breeders so you can forget about 4000 fast breeder reactors that will never get built.
Non sense, fast breeders or thorium breeders don't require "enriched uranium" (neither natural uranium, indeed). They only need the waste (trtansuranics or/and depleted uranium ot natural thorium) produced from current LWR fleet, absolulety are not in competion as fuel needed with LWR technology. Your arguments are totally wrong
Let me correct myself.
Assume there is 4 million tons of natural uranium, adding 1.2 million tons of depleted uranium that totals 5.2 million tons of potential fuel minus 25% of 675,000 tons of starter fuel=5 million tons/ 2tons of FP per Gwe-a x 4000 Gwe-a= 628 years.
All this assumes a futuristic breeder program manages to build 4000 breeder reactors, with vast numbers of enrichment and reprocessing plants.
This is no more likely than that fusion power plants will be built.
What will happen is that more LWRs will be built and uranium for LWRs will peak in 2026 per IAEA.
" Let me correct myself.
Assume there is 4 million tons of natural uranium..."
It' s irrelevant.
Actually, with fast breeders and thorium breeders we don't need ANY new uranium (natural or enriched) at all. Indeed, we can produce nuclear electricity for the worldwide energy needs for centuries if not millennia or millions years only with depleted uranium and transuranics (and at max,in case of thorium breeders, with only very tiny quantity of natural thorium) still produced from current tecnology fleet and today stored in the power plants or waste storage sites
And by the way, with electricity we can power electric heat pumps (besides eventually district heating from nuclear plants operated in cogeneration), electric trains and trams or electric and plugins private vehicles
The minute you get something correct, I'm going to buy a round for all the people who've spent their time trying to hammer sense into your head (thanks, Alex).
You manage to cram an impressive number of falsehoods into one sentence.
You will probably keep repeating your talking points despite these corrections. That's what makes you a troll.
If you think that you can run a fast breeder reactor without enriched fuel you're a idiot. The only place where you can possibly breed without enriching is in a heavy water reactor. Alex P. is out of his mind.
There are no IFR plants in the world so obviously this is futuristic.
You think the US can output several hundred 1GWe breeder reactors a year which is insane.
It is positively weird that you ignore LWR technology and keep saying breeder reactor technology which is confined to a single BN-650 1980's reactor in Russia can solve all problems.
Have you any idea how crazy you are?
CRAZY?!
Then being a typical loon you blame that fact on the Democrats.
You need to look in the mirror, poet-troll.
A breeding ratio >=1 implies that an initially enriched charge of fuel would remain enriched as fission products are removed and fresh fertile material is added to replace them. It seems to be a misconception shared by experts: "5. It does not require enrichment of uranium.".
In case you missed it, you are claiming that you know better than the people who built and operated fast-breeder reactors. If you really think that, you are not able to rate your own competence and perhaps not even your own sanity.
EBR-II tested all the reactor essentials, and pyroprocessing has been tested elsewhere. The remaining step is to put it all together - a step blocked by people like you.
You're a hysterical fanatic, but a very poor liar. It is especially bad form to lie about what someone said, when their words are available for anyone to check.
The Republican party has always been hostile to the "no nukes" crowd; their home has always been with the Democrats. The IFR was rolling along just fine through G.H.W. Bush's administration, and was killed at Hazel O'Leary's behest in the Clinton administration. The facts cannot be denied, the blame cannot be deflected, and all your hysterical accusations will not change history.
Edit: It's easy to prove that a breeder with e > 1 will require no fuel enrichment. Suppose that a fast-breeder has e = 1.05, and takes fuel at 20% fissionables (80% fertile material) and goes to 20% burnup. After the fuel has gone through a cycle, it is 20% fission products, 59% fertile material and 1.05 * 20% = 21% newly-bred fissionables. After removing the fission products (e.g. molten-salt electrolysis aka pyroprocessing) and replacing the fertile material, you've got 1% fissionables left over. If need be, you could use this extra fuel to start a new reactor.
Funny shit, poet-troll.
Yeah like Kirsch, the inventor of the optical mouse who you quote. How many breeder reactors has Kirsch designed and operated?
poet-troll said
...several(a): (used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many
1 per day x 260 working days per year or 365 per year...
100 MWe is much smaller than any commercial nuclear plant
the smallest US commercial nuclear plant is the 478 Mwe Ft. Calhoun. Obviously nobody will build a 100 MW nuclear power plant--it's uneconomical(no obstacle to poetic-troll though).
So you blabber on about what doesn't make sense.
Then you go on to claim that MSR don't require enrichment
which is completely wrong(naturally).
The MSRE was a 7.4 MWth test reactor simulating the neutronic "kernel" of an inherently safe epithermal thorium breeder reactor. It used three fuels: plutonium-239, uranium-235 and uranium-233. The last, 233UF4 was the result of breeding from thorium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
Of course IFRs don't require enriched fuel because they do require enriched fuel. So you are wrong again(naturally).
The IFR's primary fuel is depleted uranium (U-238) mixed with highly enriched uranium and plutonium (perhaps from decommisioned weapons).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
Of course, you being you, poetical-troll must be wrong again!
Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D, IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Mosley Braun (D, IL) and Paul Simon (D, IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994 by S.Amdt. 2127 to H.R. 4506.
But...poetical-troll...those are Democrats!! OMG!
Then you 'prove' that breeder reactors work because they have a breed ratio >1.
Wow! Very convincing.
So how do real world breeder reactors like France's beloved Super-phenix do?
Well in 113880 hours of operation, the 1.21 GWe fast breeder reactor produced 3372 Gwh. It has cost 9 billion Euros to date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix
of electricity
Aw! Poor poetical-troll! But you have your dream...of a world of 40000 of tiny breeder reactors; 4000 Gwe/100Mwe=40000!
Fly little reactors..fly.
Nice straw man. How many breeder reactors has Argonne National Labs designed and operated? I make that to be at least 3 and 2, respectively.
So? Installations would typically be built with several 285 MWth modules, and the economies of scale demanded by PWRs and their pressure vessels don't apply to either liquid-metal or molten-salt reactors. The ability to bring in completely assembled vessels on trucks argues strongly for smaller size.
You do realize that the EBR-II, which produced 65 MWth, had a core roughly 18 inches in diameter and about 13 inches tall? Large size is not required to get lots of power out of these things.
The Senate at that time was 56 Democrats to 44 Republicans; the Democrats could have fully funded the IFR. Further, spending bills cannot be filibustered. The US House was in Democratic hands until after the election of November 1994. (I remember that one. I was on a road trip in the west over the election, and the only stations I could pick up were AM carrying either country "music" or talk radio. I learned more about Rush Limbaugh than I ever wanted to.)
Since you're not convinced by the physical proof from Shippingport (e > 1.01) and other tests, it's obvious that your opposition is ideological; indeed, quasi-religious, like the fanatical denial of evolution by fundamentalists. You would make a very interesting study for a psychologist; unfortunately, here on TOD you're just making teh stoopid.
A monster using oxide fuel, requiring Purex reprocessing... no wonder it went nowhere, especially when uranium was so cheap. That design decision broke the economics, and France never revisited it.
Fine; to make you happy, let's build them at 1.43 GWth, 500 MWe. At 400 kWth/liter, that's 3570 liters, a sphere less than 2 meters diameter. It still fits on a flatbed, albeit probably oversize to accomodate the breeding blanket.
" If you think that you can run a fast breeder reactor without enriched fuel you're a idiot. "
If you mean "enriched uranium", you' re totally wrong, if you mean generically "enriched fissile fuel" I repeat you again we have still plenty of it, together with depleted uranium (and even thorium in same country), no need to mine a single extra gram of nat uranium. Your mention of heavy water reactors has absolutely no sense, because it's a slow neutrons technology, not fast neutrons breeder. We have still produced worldwide thousands of tonns of transuranics to start up enough thousands of GW electric of thorium or fast breeders (and personally, I prefer the former) to feed an entire planet of more than 10 billions of people with the energy consumption per capita Californians have today (plus the electricity needs for billions of plugins vehicles, electric heat pumps, etc..). No doubt about it, your arguments here have scientifically no sense
"However, worldwide it's estimated that "at least 150 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas are flared [...] every year". This compares to world production of 3,200 billion m3. So it seems fair to say that around 5% of all methane consumed is burned off unproductively; but if we did not consume fossil fuels at all, there'd be no need to flare, so that flaring emissions must be added to our energy emissions. "
Kiashu:
You make some good points but are completely wrong on gas flaring.
Gas is produced when oil is removed from the ground. Some of this can be condensed into a liquid hydrocarbon like propane, but the shorter chains remain as gas, like CH4 or methane. If the oil producing area has no infrastructure to store and transport the gas via CNG tanker or pipeline, the gas must be flared.
This is the case in much of Nigeria which has a large quantity of gas produced from most of its oil wells. Same is true of the Bakken Formation of north central US where much gas is flared that comes out with the oil due to lack of pipelines. As nat. gas prices increase world wide more storage facilities, liquifying plants and pipelines may be built. But for now all gas flaring is the result of our use of oil and thus the result of ICE engine use. Use of electric cars would REDUCE gas flaring as oil use declined.
I said,
"if we did not consume fossil fuels at all, there'd be no need to flare, so that flaring emissions must be added to our energy emissions."
Whether the gas is flared from a gas site or oil site is irrelevant. If we did not consume oil, there'd be no flaring in Nigerian oil fields, would there? Coal seam gas, oil field flaring, use of gas to get oil from tar sands - fossil fuels are all connected, if you burn one you end up burning another, too.
Somewhat. You may be responsible for lots of CO2 indirectly from your electricity now, but the EV's emissions change according to its source of energy. You could buy wind power or install PV, and your emissions would go down. This also brings the energy situation home; you cannot do much personally about your liquid fuel needs, but you can certainly make your own electricity.
Certainly I could do things differently as an individual. But we're talking here about the impact across a whole society. And if all we do is bring in electric cars and change nothing else, we'll continue to find that few people buy renewable energy, and even fewer put in solar panels.
It's as I said, transport and the energy sector are paired issues, we have to consider and deal with them together.
A red herring, for a couple of reasons:
Even widespread adoption of EVs would have a minor effect on electricity demand. They're just not as power-hungry as you seem to think.
Why? Why insist on a one-size-fits-all solution, instead of solutions tailored to the characteristics of different regions?
If something is a great solution for large parts of the world but doesn't work in yours, you don't get to say other people can't use it. You don't have a veto here.
Moving pollution from densely-populated areas to more sparsely-populated areas has obvious public-health benefits. Even if the local pollution is just as bad, having 100x fewer people exposed to it will be a huge benefit.
Moreover, it's much easier to install pollution-scrubbing technology on 1 large emitter than 10,000 small ones.
That's unfortunate for Australians, but is effectively irrelevant to the larger picture.
Worldwide, 66% of electricity generation is via conventional thermal power plants. It's not clear how much of that is coal vs. gas or oil, but coal is only about 2/3 of that figure in the US and 1/2 in the UK, so the amount of world electricity provided by coal is probably around 40-50% of the total. Any reasonable analysis should take this distribution into account, rather than cherry-picking the most favourable region for the argument.
Accordingly, the average global CO2 emissions for one kWh will be roughly half of the emissions for a coal-fired kWh.
The lengths you go to to disprove someone's idea knows no bounds. The notion that you can compare "work" building a car with work for "bespoke" infrastructure projects is utterly ludicrous, to the point I have had to read your comment a few times in order to take in what you said. The figure you quote is 10 times, how on earth can you concoct such a figure based on a subjective quantity?
To build a car you need to spend a billion pounds to design and "tool" up. Once this has been done, making cars is little work at all, that why they fall of the production line every couple of minutes. Each car you make is "cheaper" than the previous one, as the initial capital cost gets distributed.
Providing charging points around the country (unless you go camping or caravaning) is a major undertaking, which will require planning approval, risk assessments galore, major civil works etc etc. I do not know any where at the moment in the uk where I can charge a car either at destiny or en route. I use "park and ride" facilities frequently, train station carparks regularly, no charging point anywhere close.
Why?
Manufacturing a car takes a certain amount of time, energy, and resources, just as manufacturing a wind turbine, HVDC line, or power plant does. Why are these not comparable?
A quick way to get a rough estimate for the relative amount of effort/resources required for each is to compare their prices. Roughly speaking, a car is about $20,000 and a 1MW wind turbine $2M. That turbine will generate roughly 2,000MWh over the course of a year, or enough to power 1,000 of the electric cars under discussion here. Accordingly, the price per car is $2M / 1000 = $2,000, or one-tenth the cost of building the car in the first place.
That's obviously a rough estimate (wind isn't the cheapest power source, but there's also additional wiring that would be useful), but it gives you an idea of the ballpark.
I think perhaps "making cars is little work at all" is rather understating the effort involved. Each one is a large, complex machine that involves substantial amounts of resources (steel, aluminum, plastic, silicon, etc.).
Toyota sold around 400-500k of its sixth-generation Camrys. The model lasted 4-5 years, for a total of about 2M cars sold. Whatever redesign and retooling was necessary for changing from the fifth-generation Camry to the sixth-generation, it seems unlikely that amortizing those costs over 2M cars would account for a huge fraction of the $22,000 retail price.
Virtually nothing is as widespread in industrialized countries as electricity. Why would adding additional plugs be prohibitively difficult?
Israel is building 100,000 charging points by 2010 - proportionally equivalent to about 1M charging points in the UK - suggesting it's not as difficult of an undertaking as you suggest.
The answer is obvious. I have previously come across the notion that the cost of an item is representive of its energy content, but the argument is flawed. The cost of everything, including energy is down to human labour. Oil, coal, gas are free, the only cost is people wanting money to extract them. This is the reason making goods in low cost countries is cheaper, despite it using more energy for transportation.
If you can't see the difference between manufacturing a car in pre-prepared production facility, where the only restriction on output is sales forecast, and the planning constraints imposed on civil projects, then this discussion may as well end.
For simplicity, assume that all cars become electric. In Australia we have 14.4 million registered vehicles in 7.6 million households, or 1.9 vehicles per household.
The EV model given in the article consumes 1khWh/8km, and as I said upthread, in Australia driving amounts to 40km/day for each vehicle. So that each such vehicle would require some 5kWh/day of electricity. Of course some vehicles are motorcycles and others are trucks, but 5kWh/day per vehicle seems like it'd be a fair if low figure for an average.
5kWh/day for 1.9 vehicles is 9.5kWh/day per household. By comparison, Australian households consumed in 2005 some 8,200kWh of electricity per year each, or 22kWh/day. So if all the vehicles were electric, this would mean that the residential sector would be increasing its energy consumption by about half.
A few weeks ago my state had a 40C plus heatwave, and residential electricity consumption increase by half. The state had blackouts. The power generation capacity existed, but the transformers and so on couldn't handle it. The things have to cool down, normally they let them cool in the low-demand periods, but suddenly there were no low-demand periods and they overheated and blew up. If we charged cars up, when would we do it? Late at night, normally a low-demand period. It'd be the same thing.
So my own state's power generation could handle the extra demand from electric vehicles, but the grid couldn't handle it. We could of course improve the grid. However, I am not hopeful of this happening.
That's because another cause of recent blackouts have been failure of high tension power lines - they just plain fell off. Why? They haven't been maintained. The company responsible for the infrastructure decided it was cheaper and simpler to fix things when broken than to maintain them - don't be too scornful, most of us do this with our cars, our homes, even our own bodies. If we're unwilling to maintain the electric grid we have already, I'm sceptical that we can improve it as needed.
So again, simply whacking in electric vehicles will do us no good. We need other things to change, too. That's things like improved public transport (not everyone should have cars, whatever they're powered with), distributed energy generation to improve grid resiliency (100 small lines are more reliable than 1 big line) and so on.
Of course this assumes all ICE vehicles are replaced with EV, which would take a generation if we tried hard. As less are replaced, it's less of a problem. But it nonetheless indicates that the problems are non-trivial, and we have to do things together, not just one thing.
Which may be obvious to you, but is not obvious to all. Many people like to think "well we'll just change to electric cars and everything will be okay." Or nuclear or solar or not eating animals anymore or whatever. But really we've chosen several ways to create our problems and so we need several solutions, too.
What's happening in Australia is as relevant as this article itself, which just looks at the Netherlands.
Having 40-50% of world generation contributed by coal is enough to make electric vehicles not a "plug in and play" solution, really not an improvement on internal combustion vehicles.
Again, when it comes down to it if you want to use a tonne or so of metal and plastic to move 1.5 people, it's never going to be very efficient whatever you do. Using a tonne of metal and plastic to move one or two people and then wondering why we're short of resources is like having everyone live in 220m2 houses on quarter-acre blocks and then wondering why we have urban sprawl.
You're comparing very different things.
For all-electric cars, the average daily consumption increases by 50%. For that heat wave, the peak instantaneous consumption increased by 50%.
Electric cars won't all be charged at once during the hottest part of the day. If - as is likely - they're mostly charged at night (a low-demand time), there's essentially no additional stress on the grid.
That's simply false.
A 50% reduction in emissions is rather more than "not an improvement". It would be foolish to take this as the only approach to the problem, of course, but it's equally foolish to dismiss it because it's "only" 50%.
All-or-nothing is a fallacy.
" residential electricity consumption increase by half. The state had blackouts. The power generation capacity existed, but the transformers and so on couldn't handle it. "
Demand increased in less than a week - PHEV/EV demand would increase over 10 years or more. That's pretty different.
We may need to invest a bit in higher capacity transformers, or we may expand local generation with solar PV. There's a nice match between solar power and solar heat that causes A/C demand. It would seem like a natural in Australia, no?
Yes, it's as I keep saying - we have to consider transport and energy together, if we change one it affects the other. This is sometimes missed by people in their breathless enthusiasm for this or that new piece of technology.
But again, in the end if you want to use a tonne or so of metal and plastic to move 1.5 people on average, there are limits to how efficient that can be. If not fossil fuels, something else will be a limiting factor. It's just not an efficient use of our resources.
" if you want to use a tonne or so of metal and plastic to move 1.5 people on average, there are limits to how efficient that can be."
Well, maybe, but is it important? We can produce enough electricity to power a PHEV/EV with only $2K worth of wind turbine. That's enough to power it forever. We think light vehicles are worth paying $28K for - what's another $2k to make it sustainable?
"If not fossil fuels, something else will be a limiting factor."
Once you've made a light vehicle, you can recycle it to make another. Very sustainable.
Personally, I like trains best, but there's a lot of travel that train's are terribly inconvenient for, and IMHO only an enclosed 3-4 wheel vehicle is safe enough.
I have been walking to work for almost a year now, so I have gained some perspective from my little experiment.
I no longer drive my car on a daily basis. I do still need to make at least one trip per week in my car to do the shopping and other chores. I need to use the car for this because not all the places I need to visit are within reasonable walking distance. More critically, I need to haul home the stuff that I bought. I suppose that if I were fortunate to have a grocery store along my pathway to and from work, I could then just buy a few things every day on my way home from work. There are many people in places like Europe that are fortunate enough to be set up that way. I, unfortunately, am not; nor is that likely to change any time within the next decade, at least. I suppose if I really had to get around totally on foot, I could equip myself with a cart to haul groceries home; perhaps I will eventually have to do that. With a bicycle, I could haul a little more, perhaps, especially if I also had a bicycle trailer; perhaps I will eventually have to equip myself with that as well. With either a hand cart of a bicycle/trailer, doing shopping on a weekly basis would still be quite a hassle. Yet, by having to walk home, it would be hard to get any shopping done before dark on weekdays, so it would be difficult to break the shopping down into multiple trips. Even if we had good public transport in my small town (and what we have is a very minimal shuttle bus), it wouldn't be practical to haul more than a bag or two of groceries. (I have left horses out of this list of options; they might be a viable option for people living on homesteads along the outskirts of town, but are presently unlikely to be a viable option for most small town and city residents.)
I occasionally also have to make trips to a nearby large city - sometimes for shopping, sometimes for medical appointments, sometimes to visit my parents, sometimes for other events; I do try to combine trips. IF there was a good public transport system available, I could possibly make most of these trips using that. Unfortunately, what we have is a bus that runs a couple of times per day between our town and the city, and a very minimal bus system within that city that does not go to many of the places where I would need to go. Furthermore, since I try to combine shopping on these trips, including visits to Sams or Home Depot, I often have big, heavy or bulky stuff to take home. So I must drive.
Finally, I occasionally have a weekday evening event that I must attend. I'm OK walking to and from work, but prefer not to walk in the evening; as our town has few sidewalks, the risk calculus changes after dark. Furthermore, some of the places I need to get to in the evening are farther away than my workplace, and I just can't get to them in a reasonable time. So again, I usually have to hop in the car. It would be nice if public transport is an option, but it is totally non-existent in my town in the evenings. I could, perhaps, take a taxi cab, but that is expensive, and since we have no local cab company they must be called to come here from the nearest city, which means that they are also very unreliable.
With the possible exception of the trips to the city, most of these trips could feasibly be done in an EV. I am hoping some day to have one. If I don't try to use it for the trips to the city, then I could get by with an EV that has a quite limited range - maybe 10-15 miles max - and I certainly wouldn't need a top speed greater than 25-30 mph. There are NEVs on the market right now that meet these specifications, and I could get one for the $7,500-15,000 price range, I understand.
Absent a huge investment by our local and regional governments in public transport, though, and a quick build out of it, I see no way around needing at least one car with more conventional range and speed specifications for at least the next several decades. I do not need to use such a car very often. If we had a car rental agency in my small town, I wouldn't need to even own the car, I could just rent it when needed. Unfortunately, I presently need to travel to the nearby city whenever I need to rent a car - which I do for the occasional long-distance trip, if I can't get to where I am going by public transport. Since the nearest Amtrak station is 90 miles away, and NCDOT has so far not made a priority of extending passenger rail to Western NC, I have seldom been able to travel long distances by rail, unfortunately.
In summary, the combination of walking, bicycles, EVs, and - if people are lucky enough to have it - local public transit and/or taxi cabs - should be quite sufficient for most people's local travel needs. If people don't have at least an EV, then they probably do need access to either a local taxi cab service or a local car rental service for the occasions when they need to haul large or heavy items home. People may occasionally need to travel greater distances. The more public transport is made available to such people, the better. Nevertheless, there will sometimes be occasions when they must haul things longer distances, in which case they will either need to own outright a vehicle with more conventional range and speed specifications, or be able to rent such a vehicle from a local car rental agency, or possibly have a local taxi cab service available.
Nice analysis, but it ignores the reasons why people spend money own a car. Electric vehicles are not practicable for most people, especially those with responsibilities.
1. I live in the walkable inner city, and fight for parking on the street. There is no place to plug in a car to recharge it.
2. The things are tiny, and cannot haul children, groceries, and sporting equipment at the same time. This means that it won't work for me on Saturday.
3. Most importantly, they are not available for some hours while charging. Say it is late afternoon and I just back from running some errands and the batteries are flat. My kid just fell off the playground jungle gym and likely broke something, and now I need to rush to the emergency room. That electric car I just bought won't get us there.
Think I'll spend $20k (it probably is much more than $20k) on electric car? No way!
I have an electric car. It cost about $11,000. It caries kids, groceries and pretty much anything else I need to move. It gets about 50 miles per charge during the summer. This is almost always more than I need.
Millions of people could be using EV's as their primary vehicle, reducing dramatically our dependence on oil.
Is it for everyone? No. Is it more practical than most people think? I think so.
As others have said, I see EV's as a transition vehicle. If most new car buyers purchased EV's over the next few years, we would quickly reduce our dependence on oil and reduce GHGs because of the greater efficiency.
Plug in stations could spread very rapidly, since electric lines are ubiquitous. Already in my towns there are many plug in stations for the plug-in hybrid fleets that are part of the community car service called HourCar where you join a pool of others to use cars from the fleet as needed so you don't have to buy your own. They are starting to add solar generation to these charging stations. This all happened in the last year.
This is not rocket science. No new tech is needed. It's all off the shelf.
Mostly, we have to move to walking, biking and public transit. But the next best thing from these is EV's, especially if the energy can be generated through renewables. The efficiencies are enormous. My Zenn gets the equivalent of some 250 miles per gallon. If a large percentage of urban dwellers who now use SUV's for no good reason switched to an EV, the effect would be enormous (but I'll leave it to the math wizzes on the forum to do the exact calculations.)
Where do you live? In the US, I have never seen a single charging station on the street. Not one. And I travel widely, up and down the east coast -- Boston, NYC, Washington -- the midwest, Florida, New Orleans, Los Angeles...(Probably there are are charging stations somewhere in LA, but they are not widespread.)
If they started the process today, it would be ten years minimum before they hit my street. But there are no electric cars, and nobody is calling for charging stations. This is a chicken-and-the-egg problem, with the lack of infrastructure the main impediment. Neither the city nor the utility is going to spend billions as it stands right now.
60% of US households are single family, and 90% of cars have off-road parking, per the DOT.
Now, for the remaining 10% of renters on the street, we could go with the Minnesota/Canadian solution of power outlets at parking meters (they're for engine block heaters).
Sorry, but I didn't catch that reference?
In my neighborhood, nearly all are owner-occupied single family homes with no off-street parking, and no parking meters, with buried power. Check out the residential neighborhoods in any east coast city.
But even if we accept your figures, that means that anybody purchasing an electric vehicle must install a $500 plug (or thereabouts) in their garage. That just boosted the purchase price by $500, not accounted for in the price comparison of EV.
You may be correct in suburbs built before cars, or before electricity and with no garages. All garages or car ports should have electric outlets and electric lights( for safety alone). An outdoor electric outlet allows the use of a barbecue with a rotisserie, electric mowers, hedge trimmers, and safely use outside Xmas lights.
When oil runs out I guess some of the older suburbs are going to need some electrical re-wiring. Do you have electric street lights or still on gas light?
Actually there are a few gas lights around. They are unmetered; they add a lot of atmosphere, but not that much light.
Point I was making is, electric vehicles will need a lot of infrastructure that is not included when one compares the cost of them to internal combustion vehicles. Particularly in historic areas, where there are strict regulations on what can be done to streetscape, there are huge challenges.
"I didn't catch that reference"
I'll have to look - it was US Dept of Transportation.
" owner-occupied single family homes with no off-street parking"
Across the country, that's not really that common. It's not uncommon for people to use their garages for storage, but that's a choice. What's your general address? It would be fun to use Google Streets to take a look.
"anybody purchasing an electric vehicle must install a $500 plug"
Most residential garages have power outlets, for lighting, garage door openers, etc. PHEV/EV's will use conventional outlets just fine.
A place I have lived (not now) is 02141. No parking meters and no garages and underground power. It is like that in all old neighborhoods -- Somerville, Jamaica Plain, Watertown,...etc. This is also true nearly everywhere in and around New York City.
In older neighborhoods, garages are generally too small for modern vehicles. In even older neighborhoods, they were carriage houses and most have long been converted to something else.
Hong Kong, New York and Venice are probably exceptions to most cities, but I accept your point that additional infrastructure will have to be built for electric cars in some neighborhoods, then again some service stations can be removed and can avoid building them in new "all electric suburbs" of the future.
Here's the source http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/hsgprof.html .
"PARKING: Slightly more than nine in ten American households (91 percent) have at least one car, van, or light truck at home for personal use.
Because 71 percent of homeowners and 35 percent of renters have more than one vehicle, parking space can be a real concern. Garages or carports are common for households living in single-detached units—just over three in four of these homes (76 percent) have a covered shelter for vehicles. Townhouses or row houses, on the other hand, include a garage or carport less than half the time (46 percent). In both mobile homes and units in multiunit buildings, the proportion is 26 percent.
At homes without a garage or carport available, vehicles may be left either on the street or in a driveway, parking lot or other off-street space. For homes without a garage or carport, some kind of off-street space is available at 87 percent of the detached units, at about 75 percent of both the single-attached units and units in multiunit structures, and at 90 percent of the mobile homes.
All this leaves about 7.8 million households who must rely on street parking. Of course, not all of those households have vehicles. Four in ten households who report no offstreet or garage parking also have no vehicles."
Nick,
Thanks for this reference, another phantom reason for not accepting electric cars bites the dust. Sounds like all the reasons for not having electric lights replacing kerosene lamps; I can't take it from room to room, I can't take it to the dunny (outhouse), We have to dig up the street to install power poles, Power poles are ugly(that ones true), Power is interrupted by floods and ice storms....
I am finishing a study with a different focus: take the 73 millions IC cars manufactured every year and start a plan to transform first the production lines within ten years time and then the world car park (806 million cars and light trucks) from then onwards to 2030 (assuming we have time to do it in an environment of world oil production going from 84M+ barrels a day to some 50-55 millions by year 2030, as per ASPO predictions)
I assume no increase in the world car park troughout the considered period. (73 millions being scrapped every year)
I have made equivalent calculations for an average middle type car (Mitsubishi iMiEV versus Renault Megane (IC) diesel 1.6 and have equalized the differences in performances.
I have calculated a life cycle of 15 years for both at 13.333 Km/year average in both cases.
I have considered the most efficient batteries and performance up to date with Lithium-ion batteries (230 kG and about 330 kg when equalized). This is a car below the American present performance average.
The calculations do not take price into consideration; only energy inputs (which I have considered basically in five different types: a) energy cost of manufacturing a single unit car; this includes, for the electric, the batteries with about 500 full loads/offloads at 160 km (theoretical and at the beginning; most likely 140 km.) autonomy for the electric and 6 l/100 Km for the Megane diesel with 60 litres in the tank; b) the energy spent in operation at 200,000 km of the life cycle, before replacement c) the energy spent to restructure the world car factories (not in all lines; just in electric and motors and few other things), which are giving birth to 73 million cars/year; d) the energy spent in modifying the urban infrastructure to create an electric network able to supply energy (the present wires in the distribution areas will not support the loads of the electric cars; even most of the transport lines and substations will have to be modified. See the copper wire sections when a fast load (15-35 minutes) is demanded at 80% capacity (lower autonomy, shorter battery life cycle) instead the 6-8 hours standard charging for 100% capacity) and e) the energy spent in manufacturing, transporting and installing renewable energies to attend the growing EV world park. To be more efficient, I have taken the EROEI of wind energy only (higher than solar PV) at 10 (I do not believe, by experience, that they are providing an EROEI of 20)
Then, something interesting appears: although the energy consumption of Mitsubishi in the whole life cycle (already equalized) is less than half its equivalent in IC, the start up energy expenses for manufacturing the electric car are higher.
In order to finalize the 73 million units/year capacity by 2019-2020, I have started assuming that the first year (2010) starts with 1 million units (ramp up is not so easy) and then I have assumed a 60% cumulative annual growth. From 2019 to 2030, the production stabilized in the 73 milions/year unitl full replacement of the 806 million units existing world park takes place.
Then the energy expenses, including only the car manufacturing and the energy spent in operation, give a surprising result: we will be spending more energy (usually fossil, in the start up energy expenditure) than if we continue as we are now. Even considering the energy savings of producing less and less IC vehicles every year until reaching the zero level by 2019-2020. The crossing point is about 2025, but I am afraid we have no such time if ASPO bell shaped curve is right (or is even accelerated by this extra consumption). And of course, I have not yet considered the energy to be spent in restructuring the world car factories to accomodate the battery line production or the new electri motors. And neither the energy spent to transform the cities and laying the new electric distribution lines to the parking places and refueling stations in roads (hundreds of thousands worldwide)
As for wind, we should start by installing, already in 2010, some 13-15,000 MW of wind energy (the level of Spain, the thirs country in wind installed power in the world) and then, a 60% more every year (cumulative) throughout the period.
Even I have considered the energy spent in the batteries already in this study, I am also calculating the effects of going smoothly and simoultaneosuly in all the required production lines. Therefore, I can anticipate that we will be exhausting the world lithium known reserves (between 13 million tons USGS estimates to 25-30 million tons according to other estimates and including all the salt lakes in the Andes, including the new reservoire of Bolivia, the world biggest), in just going to 2030 with this scheme. So, a huge effort will have to be undertaken in mining openings.
As for the extra copper needed, we will consume about 5% of the world production annually, when world production is stabilized.
Other factors, as the asphalt needed to maintain the world paved roads (today taking about 2-3% of the total world oil production) or lubricants for EV's are neither considered in this analysis.
With all the respects to this study, I believe we need to pay attention to global issues. We are in a global world and no partial solutions will solve anybody lifestyle in the medium term if the solution can not be applied globally.
Pedro,
Car models,engines, change over 10-20 years requiring complete re-tooling anyway.
If you examine further up, EV's do not need a big electric grid upgrade) mainly overnight off peak charging). We already have the electric wires, outlets in place.
Many roads are concrete only use asphalt at joins.
Oil is going to run out, electricity can be supplied by wind, hydro, solar , nuclear.
Wind energy is growing at 30% a year(doubling every 2.5 years)
Sounds like a plug-in hybrid would work better than a EV for you.
Given the title of the post 'Costs and Environmental Impacts of Electric Cars', I fully expected to see some mention of water, which is rapidly becoming another Liebigs limiter in addition to liquid fuels.
Unless future electricity is largely generated from wind or solar, the water impact of a switch to electric cars is huge (about three times), and up to 18 times if we just consider water withdrawals as opposed to consumption.
There is much ongoing analysis on the linkages between water and energy. Todays Drumbeat has a story on water crisis in Middle East. Todays Bloomberg has story on water shortages in Vegas impacting Los Angeles. CERA put out a report last week on Water and Energy. My colleage Kenneth Mulder and I have a pending paper in Royal Academy of Sweden Journal titled 'Burning Water - EROWI -The Energy Returned on Water Invested'
This is a good analysis, but I am starting to get annoyed/concerned when the only 'environmental' constraint that people focus on when they say 'environmental analysis' is GHGs and impact on climate. The IEA WEO 2008 is classic example of this - fully 30% of the Executive Summary was devoted to 'environmental issues' but NOTHING other than GHGs were mentioned. Not water, not land, not pollution, not ecosystems, not runoff, not soil, etc. So while I commend this analysis on electric cars 'cost', we all need to widen our boundaries so we are speaking same language. We can't afford to leave water impacts out on any major global resource analysis.
Nate,
Your point about water consumption is a good one and yes most people overlook it. A nuke plant will use lots of water every day it runs. A coal plant will use lots of water every day it runs. A natural gas power plant also uses water for cooling every day.
My solar panels did not use any water to produce electricity today. The solar panels that I have on my work shop produced enough electricity to power my electric car and run the shop lights all day long. My battery bank is also full as of right now, so I will have juice tomorrow rain or shine.
KJD
http://www.zevutah.com/
Solar PV production is unfortunately quite water-intensive, too. The silicon purification process is described here. Water isn't used in it, but the chlorinated compounds waste (including hydrochloric acid) needs lots of water unless you want to pollute the area horribly, as the Chinese do.
There's no such thing as zero impact on the environment. All we can hope to do is make our impact much, much smaller than it is today. The health of the planet is a bit like the health of a human. We're all going to die someday, but we can die at 80 after years of vigorous enjoyment of life, or die at 60 after years of being obese, with achy joints, tired, and with diaorrhea or constipation, or perhaps struggle on to 90 but with the last 30 years being basically crippled.
Some impact's inevitable, we just have to minimise it. And we're FAR from the minimum right now.
That must be the understatement of the week. At least we have a LOT of room for improvement ; )
It may be an understatement, but it doesn't seem to be an obvious statement. We can see from this thread, and I can see from those I know in real life, that many people claim to be living pretty close to the environmentalist edge already. I've a friend who drives his SUV every day to the train station to work.
"Why don't you walk?"
"I get sweaty when I walk. I can't be sweaty at work, I work in an office."
"Mate, (a) you wear a tie - anyone will sweat walking in a suit and tie, put on your jacket and tie at work instead, and (2) you live fifteen minutes' walk from the station, if you sweat after fifteen minutes' walk then you need to walk!"
The following week I learned that the doctor had told him he needed to lose weight and exercise more. Hmmm.
But he claims to be very conscientious about these things.
Caring for the environment and society is like how well we drive or intelligent we are. Half of us are below average but about nine-tenths of us think we're above average :)
Man this thread ain't real life? ;-)
No doubt, the resistance to disentangling from the monster is ridiculously entrenched.
"put on your jacket and tie at work instead"
Where? Most people have to maintain their work image on their way to their office - they can't wait until they get there to change.
Very few workplaces have showers. I noticed the Budget director for the City of Chicago recently had to resign because he had one installed!
Where do you put on your jacket and tie at work? Well, in the toilet, where people already go to clean themselves up from time to time.
I mean, come on, this is not a horrendous obstacle. It's not cruel oppression. It's not like spending $20,000 on a PV system or having to cycle 100km to work.
If you sweat and need a shower with fifteen minutes' walk then you need to walk, or you're facing an early death from heart disease, probably preceded by long years of listless inactivity and impotence.
Walk to the train station, put your jacket and tie on at work.
Let's be serious, here.
"Where do you put on your jacket and tie at work? Well, in the toilet"
In most offices there are no public toilets, so you have to go into the private offices, past your co-workers. For many, a non-starter.
" fifteen minutes' walk "
That's a tiny % of commutes. Your friend isn't typical.
"Walk to the train station, put your jacket and tie on at work."
Sure. If you have a train available, you're in good shape. Again, I agree: your friend is annoying - 1st, there's the SUV, then there's the beneficial exercise that's shunned. But...this doesn't represent a large % of VMT.
I would note that many people have other forms of exercise that they prefer, or have disabilities that get in the way.
Is walking A Good Thing? Sure, it's just not the kind of large-scale, short-term solution that we need. A very nice, very small silver BB.
Let's be clear: in case of obvious emergency, there are lots of expedient solutions: carpooling, bikes, walking, telecommuting, etc. But, in my mind the largest, fastest solution is renewable electricity replacing oil, coal, gas, etc with PHEV's, EV's, heat pumps, etc.
Man, the excuses people will toss up to avoid a short walk. No wonder the West is turning so fat.
duplicate
" the chlorinated compounds waste (including hydrochloric acid) needs lots of water "
Do we know exactly how much? By an order of magnitude? This seems a little too vague...
Why do people online imagine that everyone else is their research assistant? I've given links to get you started, go do the research if you're interested.
Why didn't I go off and do research, before asking?
1) It's always possible that you, the presenter of the argument, already have the info at hand, and
2) if you don't have a number, you haven't finished your argument. You've simply suggested that there may be a problem, the size of which is unknown.
3) your references don't provide any info on water consumption. "Because of the environmental hazard, polysilicon companies in the developed world recycle the compound, putting it back into the production process. But the high investment costs and time, not to mention the enormous energy consumption required for heating the substance to more than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for the recycling, have discouraged many factories in China from doing the same."
To my mind the etiquette of evidence is the following: it's okay to make an argument without evidence, but if someone disagrees, or asks for evidence, then the burden of proof is on the originator of the argument or idea.
This was specifically a comparison in the Netherlands, not in general.
While any limiting factor is definitely good to look at it also depends on the situation. In terms of EVs,in most places it appears that renewables are scaling far faster than demand from EVs, and by the time we see them rolling off the assembly line in sizeable numbers, renewables for electricity generation will have a sizeable head start. In the U.S. for example, the NREL's 20% wind power by 2030 goal could provide secure domestic energy for a whopping .5c/kWh in terms of transmission costs and supply almost enough energy for a fleet of Volt like PHEVs. Solar thin film, at less than $3.50/watt, also seems to be competative with grid based energy costs.
Also, while considering limiting factors is always a good exercise, we can't simply take some figure at face value regarding water consumption and cry wolf. U.S. consumption of fresh and saline water for agriculture is about 81 billion gallons/day while consumption of fresh and saline water for power generation is about 3.7 billion gallons/day. Since about 2.5% of water consumption for power generation is associated fresh water, given the water use mix for electric power generation, we could eat a quarter of a percent less meat and have enough water for traditional generation of power for a fleet of PHEVs, although given the growth of renewables I doubt we'll need it.
We should always check sources/assumptions IMO. Given our current president's position regarding energy it seems that PR firms are in greewashing overdrive for their FF based clients. ;)
Not in perspective.
Electricity generation in the US requires 0.3-0.6gal/kWh; at 8km/kWh, that's about 15-20km/gal, or about 1,000 gallons of water per vehicle per year, or about 2.5 gallons per person per day.
For home use alone, that same person uses 80-100gal/day, largely for toilets, showers, and the like.
Even ignoring industrial and agricultural uses of water - which are more significant than at-home uses - the extra burden required by an EV would be no more than 3%. Taking those uses into account, an EV would account for roughly 1% of a person's water use. Far from being "huge", it appears to be quite modest; if you're concerned about water, it would be much more rational to push for efficient toilets and showers than to worry about EVs.
"Unless future electricity is largely generated from wind or solar,"
Yes.
That's a reasonably straightforward choice, as PHEV/EV's have a nice synergy with wind & solar (they soak up the intermittencies), but we do have to make the choice.
Very doable, but we have to push for it.
Some thoughts from someone living above the arctic circle:
* We are actually quite dependent on the "waste energy" in the ICE car during the winter time - both for comfort and security (keeping ice and humidity away from the windows).
* The by far biggest pollution problem with cars is not from the exchaust pipe, but from the tires; studded tires tears up the asphalt, causing dust problems as well as lots of maintainance problems. One will not get away from that by switching to electricity. It's not such a big problem in real winter conditions - but when there is enough cars and just a bit of snow, it's really horrible.
* Non-studded winter tires can be used to some extent, but the alternative to the studs is often to add salt to the roads. That also causes problems.
Winter problems aside, I think the concept of using personal cars for daily transportation is a big environmental problem which cannot be solved simply by replacing the ICE. Cars requires big paved areas - both when they are parked and particularly when they are driven. A car driving in 80 km/h requires around 200 m^2 of paved road. I also consider this to be a major environmental problem. Cars also produce noise pollution - in high speeds the tires and wind drag causes most of the pollution, so this is also something that cannot be solved by replacing the ICE. But the worst thing, I think, is that the car causes a big dependency problem.
When "everyone" uses cars, the society gets reshaped (sprawled development, people getting more and more dependent on regularly doing errainds that cannot be done without cars), people get lazier (after using the car for too long, it get's "out of the question" to use a bike or walking - not because the car is better per se, but because one simply isn't fit enough for the alternatives). When one cannot get anywhere without walking along or crossing heavily trafficated roads built primarly for the cardrivers, it gets unsafe and uncomfortable to walk/bike/ski, and one wouldn't dare to let the kids out in the traffic - so one ends up driving them wherever they want to go.
All in all, I believe "environmently friendly" cars is a mirage.
For what it's worth, I'm a car owner and car driver myself. I think the car traffic and car dependency is a big problem, but I'd be a bigger victim without the car than with the car.
Feel free to keep your ICE vehicles up there above the arctic circle. You guys make up about 0.02 percent of the human population, so your special situation can be taken care of.
Well send you our junked parts to keep your cars running until it's warm enough up there that you can switch to electrics too. ;-)
What I never see tackled in these types of analyses is a comparison of the up-front energy costs associated with buying an electric car (or hybrid). Clearly spelled out in the assumptions is that the electric car costs about 7,500 euros up-front more than the conventional car. How much of this increased cost represents increased energy input into the car's manufacturing, particularly for the energy-intensive manufacturing of the battery? In a very simplistic analysis, if just 2,000 euros is for energy, that is the equivalent of an extra 20 barrels of oil equivalent used in the car's manufacturing, or somewhere in the magnitude of an extra 3500 liters of petrol (equivalent), or almost enough for 60,000 KM of driving in the conventional ICE car (~4 years worth). That's a pretty steep energy hole to crawl out of.
I realize the manufacturing fuel mix means a lot to the exactness of the fuel consumption and CO2 , but the point is that the up-front energy expended to make an electric car (or a hybrid) is significantly in excess of the up-front energy expended to make an ICE car due to the added battery requirement. And these very significant energy & CO2 costs should simply be ignored. If these up-front energy requirements are large enough, it may be that they are overall NOT more fuel or CO2 efficient than an ICE.
It is clear that in this analysis the electric car is only "cheaper" due to taxes on petrol and road taxes, plus the cost of capital for the extra 7,500 euros is ignored, so in a non-distorted market the electric car is not more cost efficient either. Yet.
Oil_Yank
This point is nicely overlooked. An untaxed litre of fuel is about 30 UK pence. Thats roughly 3 pence/Kwhr, electricity costs 11-12p/kWhr. Taking claimed efficeincy gain claims into account, the EV still wins since the ICE wastes 3/4 of its fuel, but applying the same tax 11p/kWhr will rise to 35p. Then the roads will have to be maintained to support all those untaxed EVs. Are we all fools minister?
Great, don't put any tax on gas. Is that going to be a pure market? How are you going to account for the hundreds of billions spent on wars to secure oil supplies? Is that outside of your wonderfully free market somehow? How convenient.
Hear, hear on the last two posts. Where is the analysis here of the manufacturing costs, both ecological and monetary? And where are we going to obtain the extra coal, natural gas, and uranium it would require to run a world of electric cars?
Cars -- all cars -- are the enemy. Electric cars are but a milder poison. Unless we start grasping and speaking this truth, we are toast. We need to rebuild our towns, not our automobiles.
Wind, solar, and thorium.
At about the same point that battery pricing makes EVs feasible versus gas it should be possible to make wind/solar storage viable versus fossil fuels too.
People won't move until they can't use a car...and that's at least two or three more 50% step-downs from the one we just experienced, IMHO.
No. It's not an Either/Or.
We need solutions for both restructuring communities and lifestyles, AND
We need transportation alternatives. We don't need it to just refill the present model, but we need clean, durable tools to move us and our goods.. if we don't take that on, it'll be old, dirty cars and trucks.. You're not going to deliver foodgoods just with bicycles.. not every job can be made into a trolley or a bike ride, while a GREAT many can.
Cars are not the 'enemy'.. they and the roads are overbuilt with expensive, dirty materials. They need to be put into proportion again, but noone is going to uninvent the wheel. Powered Carts are simply part of the picture.. they just have to be built to play nice.
Looking at the large issues...
I think it is clear enough that if you accept the peak-oil predicament, you will realize that at some point it will become more economical for most ordinary folk to stop buying gasoline and consider driving an electric car manufacturered and powered by coal energy. That is, assuming there would be no carbon tax or similar restrictions on the burning of coal. I say coal because it's clear enough that coal is the energy source with the greatest EROEI that we will also not run out of before we could build a billion electric cars.
If you think that global warming is a hoax, then this is a "solution" to peak oil. If you think that global warming is real, this is a nightmare. A little follow up on the info in this post, as some have already mentioned, reveals that if the power for electric cars comes from coal, then carbon emissions for each car on the road would not be significantly reduced and might be increased. Ouch.
As someone who doesn't want to gamble the future of the human race on a small minority of scientists who doubt prevailing global climate change theory, my conclusions are twofold.
1) The whole globe needs BOLD policies to restrict the use of coal and encourage development of renewables like solar and wind. i.e. some kind of carbon tax..
2) We should not expect to see as many cars on the road in the future, electric or not. It's not good for us. Some large number of people who currently drive a car, but don't really need to, should give theirs up.
I see a future vehicle made of plastic reinforced carbon fibre, electric driven with enough battery range for a short commute ~30km. The vehicle should have a removable 5kW diesel generator which is fitted to run with LPG or natural gas injection which when connected to the gas mains allows the vehicle to operate as a CHP unit. This way the vehicles serves several purposes, it allows short range battery electric travel. It can operate as a longer range serial hybrid vehicle. The battery and generator perform back up / peaking duties with waste heat from the engine being used as space heating.