Off topic electric vs ICE discussion

[EdP]

Okay... let's look at that comparison.

The typical gasoline engine's efficiency has been going up steadily over the past decades. Just the introduction of DI has increased efficiency some 10-20%. And diesel engines are substantially higher still. But just for argument sake, let's stay at the 25% for gasoline engines as quoted.

What about EV? Well, as the chart above indicates, upwards of 79% of electricity generated in the US come from fossil fuel. Based on this article, the power plant efficiencies are as follows:

Coal power plant - 32-33%
gas power plant - 33- 43%
Oil power plant - 40%

So the combined efficiency is mostly below 40%. According the below link, total of some 65% is lost at the power plant. Lost In Transmission: How Much Electricity Disappears Between A Power Plant And Your Plug?

Now add the transmission line loss from the power plant to point of consumption. The same above link estimates losses in transmission and distribution at around 6%.

Now what about the EV itself? This article (All-Electric Vehicles) estimate them to be about 75-80% efficient. Some of that is the driveline loss (which any vehicle would have), so let's just say 10% loss in the battery-motor system on a good Summer day (and that's being generous).

So what's that add up to... 100% - 65% - 6% - 10% = 19% efficiency overall for EV.

Well... still think EVs are so much more efficient?

Not today. It is an evolutionary thing. Some time in the future solar and wind will be a much larger portion of our energy generation. Nothing will ever be 100%, even solar requires manufactured panels, but, if the panels on your roof charged your car it would be much better in many ways.

Yes, it will take a long time to get there but we have to.

 

[Volfy]

Not today. It is an evolutionary thing. Some time in the future solar and wind will be a much larger portion of our energy generation. Nothing will ever be 100%, even solar requires manufactured panels, but, if the panels on your roof charged your car it would be much better in many ways.

Yes, it will take a long time to get there but we have to.

Yes, as we should all hope.

As the Architect in the Matrix said: "Hope... it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness."

Hope is our greatest strength only when it's based on accurate information, sound judgement, and realistic approach. Wind and Solar increasing in % production? Absolutely. Enough to take over fossil fuel for electricity production? That, I'm afraid, is a delusion. Even if it does happen, it won't be soon enough to stem the looming tide of climate disaster.

Unless large-scale nuclear fusion becomes reality tomorrow, the only realistic HOPE is nuclear fission... whether we like it or not. Given the political will, large scale construction of nuclear power plants can yield enough capacity to take over electricity production from fossil fuel in 10yrs.

Stark choice. It is nevertheless the lesser of two weevils.

 

[ballistic]

what about the scientists that say it's not us humans that are causing climate change but its always cycled. i'm not big on the discussion but it's an argument i've seen intelligent people make. so it's difficult to assume i know one thing or the other when intelligent people seem to argue opposing points.

 

[EdP]

what about the scientists that say it's not us humans that are causing climate change but its always cycled. i'm not big on the discussion but it's an argument i've seen intelligent people make. so it's difficult to assume i know one thing or the other when intelligent people seem to argue opposing points.

There has always been some cycles. Some people though, don't want to believe that we have to change our comfy lives to change anything, they don't want to believe what science is saying.

If you look back at the industrial age and what we have done, do you think it matters? Burning billions of tons of fossil fuel clear cutting tens of thousands of acres of rain forrest may make a difference.

Meantime, ther is other realities people don't want to face because it does not affect them today or even next week. Some day we will run out of oil. Do you think, knowing that, it would make sense to work on alternatives? Remember how we bitched about $5 gas? Some day in the future, that will be a cheap memory when it gets harder to find and more scarce.

The sun puts enough envery on the earth every hour to supply all our energy needs for a year. Lets figure out how to use some of it.

Top 6 Things You Didn't Know About Solar Energy

Counting down our list of top things you didn't know about solar energy -- read on for more on the most abundant energy resource known to mankind.

tinyurl.com

Solar energy is the most abundant energy resource on earth -- 173,000 terawatts of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use.

 

[Husky]

Yes.
A couple of obvious points :
1. You included all of the efficiency losses (assuming they're correct) for an EV, including losses associated with the generation and distribution of the electricity. That's fair, and certainly part of the picture.
However, when I referred to the low efficiency of an ICE (which may indeed now be better than 25% due to advances like DI), that was for the vehicle only. It seems whenever there's a discussion of EVs, everyone looks at the big picture. But when there's a discussion of the ICE infrastructure, I don't see the energy losses and associated pollution of refining the oil and transporting it being discussed (not to mention the huge environmental damage from periodic oil spills). I think if you did a similar analysis of energy efficiency from start (oil in the ground) to finish for ICE, you'd end up with a number much less than 19%.
2. When the electricity comes from wind and solar, which is not insignificant now, and is on the rise, the efficiency of the EV system as a whole is much higher. Your 65% loss number nearly disappears.

 

[Husky]

what about the scientists that say it's not us humans that are causing climate change but its always cycled. i'm not big on the discussion but it's an argument i've seen intelligent people make. so it's difficult to assume i know one thing or the other when intelligent people seem to argue opposing p

The VAST majority of actual, legitimate expert scientists who study and work on this are in agreement that what we're seeing with climate change is caused by human activity (pollution). Yes, there have been temperature cycles over millions of years, but what we've seen happen to our climate in the last couple of centuries has happened much, much faster than any past climate variation (with the exception of being hit by a large asteroid).
Those that believe this is all part of a normal cycle probably believe the earth is flat, or only a few thousand years old, or simply use it as an excuse to do nothing. It's not science based.
Does it make any sense to think that we could put millions and millions of tons of pollution into the air, for say 200 years, and it would NOT have an effect?
Scientists who study ocean currents and temperatures are now very concerned that the ocean currents that flow around the globe may change or even reverse direction due to ocean temps (like 100 deg F around Miami. That's hot tub water.) If that happens, they predict catastrophic changes to our climate. Denying the science is never smart or effective.

 

[Volfy]

2. When the electricity comes from wind and solar, which is not insignificant now, and is on the rise, the efficiency of the EV system as a whole is much higher. Your 65% loss number nearly disappears.

I'm sure we would all like to believe that will become the reality... some day. Problems, we've been waiting on "some day" for decades, and yet the total worldwide electricity production from renewables is still sitting at around 12%. Here in the US, that hasn't changed much in over 30 yrs. (from 11.5% in 1990 to 13.1% in 2022). See here: U.S. Renewable Energy 1990-2023

So what are the chances that is going to change drastically over the next 30yrs? Shoot up to 95%?

Again, hoping for the ideal solution won't save this planet. Being pragmatic, bite the bullet, make difficult choices, and do what needed done... will.

 

[Volfy]

1. You included all of the efficiency losses (assuming they're correct) for an EV, including losses associated with the generation and distribution of the electricity. That's fair, and certainly part of the picture.
However, when I referred to the low efficiency of an ICE (which may indeed now be better than 25% due to advances like DI), that was for the vehicle only. It seems whenever there's a discussion of EVs, everyone looks at the big picture. But when there's a discussion of the ICE infrastructure, I don't see the energy losses and associated pollution of refining the oil and transporting it being discussed (not to mention the huge environmental damage from periodic oil spills). I think if you did a similar analysis of energy efficiency from start (oil in the ground) to finish for ICE, you'd end up with a number much less than 19%.

A power plants and an ICE that run on similar petroleum-based fuel will see similar logistics costs for the FUEL they burn. Take a diesel-fired power plant and a diesel F-350... they burn very similar fuel. Why would one cost substantially more to produce, refine and transport?

All those additional losses added to EVs come AFTER the fossil fuel is burnt.

ICE vehicles incur no such losses... or any other.

 

[PMCErnie]

Nuclear waste is a problem for sure. However, compared to the enormous magnitude of the climate crisis, it is a problem that is relatively easy and cheap to solve... if one is willing to get past the fear mongering and understand that it is a solvable problem. Take a look at how Finland is tackling the issue: https://www.science.org/content/art...ore-nuclear-waste-can-it-survive-100000-years

Sound policy and effective solutions are possible, when folks quit the "not in my backyard" bickering, educate themselves on the challenges at hand, and empower those who have the know-how to engineer systems necessary for achieving the end goal. I interned at a Nuclear Power Plant just north of NYC in my college sophomore year. I fear politicians making short-sighted climate policies infinitely more than the potential dangers of nuclear energy.

EV is far from a panacea for our fossil fuel dependency. It is only a partial solution that works well for some applications... and really only works if the problem on the production end is solved, which it most certainly is not. Yet, folks drinks the EV coolaid, like a 400lbs obese person lying on the couch drinking diet coke.

Wake up and smell the aspartame.

Not so fast with the Aspartame.

Exclusive: WHO's cancer research agency to say aspartame sweetener a possible carcinogen

One of the world's most common artificial sweeteners is set to be declared a possible carcinogen next month by a leading global health body, according to two sources with knowledge of the process, pitting it against the food industry and regulators.

www.reuters.com

 

[Husky]

A power plants and an ICE that run on similar petroleum-based fuel will see similar logistics costs for the FUEL they burn. Take a diesel-fired power plant and a diesel F-350... they burn very similar fuel. Why would one cost substantially more to produce, refine and transport?

All those additional losses added to EVs come AFTER the fossil fuel is burnt.

ICE vehicles incur no such losses... or any other.

I was referring to the energy used to refine oil to make gasoline for our cars, and the energy used and pollution created in transporting it. That's unique to ICE vehicles.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Husky]

I'm sure we would all like to believe that will become the reality... some day. Problems, we've been waiting on "some day" for decades, and yet the total worldwide electricity production from renewables is still sitting at around 12%. Here in the US, that hasn't changed much in over 30 yrs. (from 11.5% in 1990 to 13.1% in 2022). See here: U.S. Renewable Energy 1990-2023

So what are the chances that is going to change drastically over the next 30yrs? Shoot up to 95%?

Again, hoping for the ideal solution won't save this planet. Being pragmatic, bite the bullet, make difficult choices, and do what needed done... will.

There's lots of websites and lots of charts. Here's one I would have more faith in, from the actual Dept of Energy.

Renewable Energy

EERE's applied research, development, and demonstration activities aim to make renewable energy cost-competitive with traditional sources of energy. Learn more about EERE's work in geothermal, solar, wind, and water power.

www.energy.gov

Their number is 20% rather than 13%, and indicates more growth over time (and in the future) than the other site would have you believe. I know, statistics can always be manipulated. But I trust my own eyes - I've seen huge solar and wind farms all around the country that didn't exist ten years ago, so I happen to believe that renewable energy sources are growing fairly rapidly. Still, I understand it's not 100% or even 50%, but it's getting up there. Your own site shows that many European countries get a majority of their electricity from renewable sources, so it's possible. We need the commitment and the will to make it happen.

 

[Volfy]

I was referring to the energy used to refine oil to make gasoline for our cars, and the energy used and pollution created in transporting it. That's unique to ICE vehicles.

Gasoline, diesel, and heavy fuel oil all come out of the same distillation tower that crude oil goes in. There isn't a substantial difference in cost to refine. Any difference you see available commercially are more due to government taxes. A good example is the fact that diesel is typically cheaper than gasoline in Europe, whereas here in the US, it's the opposite.

And unless power plants are all right next to oil refineries, coal mines, and natural gas wells (they are not) their fuels will have transportation cost as well.

 

[Volfy]

There's lots of websites and lots of charts. Here's one I would have more faith in, from the actual Dept of Energy.

Renewable Energy

EERE's applied research, development, and demonstration activities aim to make renewable energy cost-competitive with traditional sources of energy. Learn more about EERE's work in geothermal, solar, wind, and water power.

www.energy.gov

Their number is 20% rather than 13%, and indicates more growth over time (and in the future) than the other site would have you believe. I know, statistics can always be manipulated. But I trust my own eyes - I've seen huge solar and wind farms all around the country that didn't exist ten years ago, so I happen to believe that renewable energy sources are growing fairly rapidly. Still, I understand it's not 100% or even 50%, but it's getting up there. Your own site shows that many European countries get a majority of their electricity from renewable sources, so it's possible. We need the commitment and the will to make it happen.

LOL... okay, if you prefer to trust a single number touted by the "Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy", in an article that is clearly trumpeting the virtues of renewable sources... well, you are certainly entitled it.

I myself have nothing against wind & solar. Texas has actually been very proactive in expanding our wind turbine generation. ERCOT's published figures as of 2021 is 28% renewables. In fact, on some days, that number peak as high as 35-40%. Europe has nothing on us. I think that is great.

Only difference is... I'm not in the EV coolaid brigade that would go out and buy EVs, just because renewables will some day generate all our electricity, when the reality is there is ZERO chance that some day will come in the lifetime of the longest lasting EV. That would be delusional. Cars run on the here and the now. It don't run on some day.

All this wishful thinking and misguided optimism is just going to delay much needed action NOW and hasten the irreversible climate change. We should be switching to nuclear, which can replace fossil fuel for energy production en masse. Even if it's viewed as a stop-gap measure, we'd still be better off while we wait for renewables to take the necessary time before taking over.

 

[ballistic]

i'd like to see us progress away from oil but not stop using oil while we're doing that. we should work at improving all the alternatives including nuclear. make that safer, make solar work better, windmills, etc. it looks like the auto industry will be giving hybrids another close look and i imagine that's the case because we're not yet ready to go full electric. so pertaining to cars, i think it would be great to push hybrids to continued improvement of fuel economy, continue selling evs to people who want them, and continue research and development on ways to lessen the need for oil. and as also mentioned, stop eliminating so much rain forest. that certainly cant be good.

 

[Volfy]

Agreed. IMO, the demise of the ICE has been greatly exaggerated. Even though the efficient of the Otto-cycle gasoline engine has been steadily improved upon over the past Century, there is still substantial room for improvement. I look at it as an opportunity.

This is indicated mpg of the last 2 morning commutes in my Stinger. The fact that a relatively heavy 3600 lbs car with a run-of-the-mill 2.0T engine gets this sort of numbers on a daily basis is rather impressive. Yesterday, I wasn't even trying to hypermile. In fact, per usual, I had fun with a few corners and even squealed the tires a bit. (FULL DISCLOSURE: there were no cars anywhere close, so it was perfectly safe). Yet, I had no problem hitting 35mpg. So this morning, I figured I'd make a bit more effort to see how high I can push it.... and got over 37mpg. And that's with A/C running pretty much the whole way.



A lighter-weight economy car with smaller engine would have no problem getting 45-50mpg or higher. And that's before enhancing it further with a hybrid powertrain.

It wasn't that long ago, I drove a 2300 lbs VW GTI with a 1.8T naturally aspirated engine that would be lucky to get mpg in the high 20's on similar route.

Unless I have a solar panel roof and sufficient power bank storage, so I can be completely self-reliant and charge an EV off-the-grid, I just don't see operating an EV that suck on the utility tit doing a whole lot better to save the Earth. Yet, if I have to guess... vast majority of EVs owners aren't self-reliant.

In fact, one could argue that in the current heat wave, where utility companies are pushed to the limit trying to meet demand, adding even more load on the grid will only cause them to lean on older less-efficient standby power plants, which burns more-polluting fossil fuels, mostly likely coal. In this scenario, driving EVs could possibly pollute more, not less.

At the end of the day, ICE isn't the villain. The real problem is that so many folks view this as somebody else's problem. They drive F-150 bro dozer to work, cool their McMansions down to 68F in the Summer, and heat them to 82F in the Winter. Basically... DILLIGAF. I see this everyday. Unless these folks see fit to, uh... GAF, all the debate is this here thread is rather pointless.