Because we recently ran a story that was highly critical of electric cars, here’s a positive story for balance. – Anthony
Guest essay by Jan Kjetil Andersen, Jkandersen.no Csens.org
I want to share some thoughts and experiences about using electric vehicles (EV) and how they compare to traditional internal combustion engines (ICE).
My personal experience is based on being a user of Nissan Leaf in my daily commute for the last four years. We do also have two ordinary cars in the family, but what we see is that the EV is the car everyone chooses first. The reason is obvious; it is simply a much better car to drive. The noiseless engine let you hear the wind blowing and the birds singing, or you can turn on music and hear it without any disturbing engine in the background. The gearless drivetrain gives a unique smoothness, and the acceleration is just superb.
My experience so far have made me to be an enthusiastic EV supporter, not because I think I save the planet, but because I find the EV much more enjoyable to drive.
With that as a prologue, let us take a look on the more theoretical and technical constraints of electric versus fossil fueled cars.
Efficiency of combustion engines – theoretical limits
Efficiency is the relationship between the total energy contained in the fuel, and the amount of energy used to perform useful work.
Let us first analyze the theoretical limits given by the physical laws for an “ideal” frictionless engine.
The most fundamental limit of efficiency for a combustion engine is given by Carnot’s Theorem which states that:
The Maximum Efficiency = (T2-T1)/T2
Where
T2 = The maximum temperature in the process in Kelvin
T1 = The minimum temperature in the process in Kelvin
If for instance the minimum temperature is 300K (27 Celsius), and the maximum is 1200 K (927 C), the maximum theoretical efficiency is (1200 – 300)/1200 = 900/1200 = 75%
The main point to take from this is that the maximum theoretical efficiency is substantially below 100%, even if the machine is without any friction.
But even though all gasoline and diesel engines are covered by the general Carnot process, they are far from a Carnot processes. We come one step closer to reality by looking at the theoretical upper limit for Otto cycles and diesel cycles for gasoline and diesel engines respectively. The theoretical efficiencies of an Otto cycle, diesel cycle or any other thermal cycle can never beat the Carnot cycle, but they set an upper limit for those engines.
The maximum efficiency of an Otto engine is given by the compression ratio, the higher compression the higher efficiency. However, the compression ratio of Otto cycle engines is limited by the need to prevent the uncontrolled combustion known as knocking. Modern engines have compression ratios in the range 8 to 11, resulting in theoretical ideal cycle efficiencies of 56% to 61%.
The Diesel cycle is less efficient than the Otto cycle when using the same compression ratio, but this is more than compensated by the higher compression ratio. Diesel engines therefore have slightly higher efficiency than gasoline engines.
Efficiency of combustion engines – in practice
Real engines are obviously not ideal. The actual cycle of a four-stroke gasoline engine is very different from the idealized Otto cycle. In addition, there are of course frictions in all moving parts which results in truly existing engine efficiency in the range of 25% – 30% in ordinary gasoline automobiles.
In addition to that, there are losses in the drivetrain between engine and wheels, resulting in actual power to the wheels efficiency of only 18% – 25%.
So how does this compare to the efficiency in an EV?
Well first of all, there is no theoretical upper limit for efficiency like the Carnot theorem for EV. A frictionless electric engine has a theoretical efficiency of 100%.
In practice we see that there are losses in charging batteries, using batteries and friction in the electric drivetrain, but the actual power to the wheels is here about 82 percent, i.e. several times better than an ICE.
The figure above show development in the efficiency for steam, gasoline and electric engines. James Watt revolutionized the steam engine by improving the efficiency from Newcomen’s puny 0.5% to 3%. Later triple expansion engines reached about 10% efficiency. Nicolas Otto’s petroleum motor had 12% efficiency, and the Spague electric motor had about 70% efficiency.
The superior efficiency of electric motors is also illustrated by the fact that it makes sense for diesel electric railway locomotives to use an electric generator combined with an electric motor as a replacement for a mechanical transmission.
The Battery vs the gasoline tank
The electric automobile engine is in my opinion superior to the combustion engine. In low and moderate speeds, you get the noiselessness and smoothness of a luxury car, the acceleration of a sports car and the energy use of a moped. That combination is unbeatable by any single fossil fueled car.
However, when the features of energy storage in a battery is compared to a gasoline tank there is no doubt that the battery is far inferior.
The battery in my Nissan Leaf has a capacity of 24 KWh, which is equivalent to 2.6 liters (0.7 US Gallons) of gasoline.
Imaging having a car with 0.7 gallons gasoline tank, which it takes 8 hours to fill at home, or 25 minutes on a supercharger, would you, buy it?
Well I have, and I must say that in spite of the low range, I am overall very satisfied with it.
Due to the good energy economy, it has a driving range from 140 km with modest speed in the summer to about 80 km in the coldest winter months. Those ranges may seem puny, but in my experience, it covers the vast majority of most people’s driving needs.
Battery development
The prices of Li-ion batteries have dropped considerably recent years and the drop is projected to continue. How fast the prices drop can be debated, but approximately 14% annually, as is described in this article, is a conservative bet.
Fourteen percent drop each year translates to halving the prices in five years. This development can be seen on the new generation EV now brought to the market. The prices have not halved, but the battery size and range have approximately doubled compared to the ones we saw five years ago.
Tesla is leading the range contest with 500 km (310 mile) range and a supercharging rate of 270 km (170 miles) in 30 minutes. With those figures, the range and filling time properties starts to close in on fossil fueled cars.
In practice no more time on filling station than for a gasoline car.
Personally, I do not use more time on supercharger stations than I used to use on gasoline stations. The reason is that I charge at home, and do not use supercharges station more than approximately 10 times per year. I may stay there 20 minutes each time, which amounts to 200 minutes annually. A petrol car with the same driving distance would have to be filled about 50 times per year, which would have taken about the same time in total when the stop, opening tank, payment et cetera is included.
Toque and rotational speed
Torque is a measure of the turning force on an object such as a bolt or a crankshaft. It is important to understand this unit to get a grip of a fundamental benefit of the EV, so let us examine it a bit.
Torque is measured internationally in Newton*meter. As an example to illustrate the amplitude of the unit; you should use about 100 Nm on each bolt if you want to fasten your wheels on your car.
The conversion factor between torque and power delivered is that power in watt equals torque multiplied by rotations per second multiplied by two Pi:
P = T * R*2*Pi
The reason it has to be like this, is that Watt is just Nm per second and the perimeter of the circle with on meter radius is 2 Pi as seen on the figure below.
If the crankshaft for example has a rotation speed of 10 rotations per second and 100Nm torque is applied, the power delivered is 6.26 Kilowatt (KW). The same torque applied at 100 rotations per second thus gives 62.8 KWFigure: If you push a handle of 1 meter one rotation in one second you deliver a power in Watt of 2 Pi times the torque.
The rotation speed given by tachometers in automobiles usually show rotations per minute (RPM), not per second, so I will continue with the most common form here.
Figure, the tachometer in an ordinary petrol vehicle. Here showing 2000 RPM on a scale going to 7000RPM.
The reason we are interested in torque is that it gives valuable information about the engine behavior with different rotational speeds. A typical plot for petrol and electric automobile engines is shown in the figure below.
Figure. Typical torque/RPM diagrams for traditional gasoline engine, modern electronically regulated gasoline engine and electric vehicles.
Gasoline engines have a useful rotation range approximately between and 1500 to 6000 RPM. However, in ordinary smooth driving you want to stay between 2000 and 3000 RPM.
The electronics in modern cars modern cars usually cap the torque to an upper fixed value, which is seen as a flat torque curve. There are two advantages with this. The first is that the drive chain must be scaled to handle the maximum toque, and it is uneconomical to have those dimensions just for a narrow peak range.
The second is that a flat toque curve feels smoother because, as long as the air resistance is negligible, constant toque gives constant acceleration. The G-force you feel against the seat is therefore constant, and that feels better than a varying acceleration.
The torque delivered by an EV is high and even from zero to about 4000 RPM, and thereafter slowly decreases. An EV operate over a very broad rotation spectrum. This eliminates the need for a gearbox.
You can do without shifting gears on a gasoline car too, just put it in second gear, start with some careful clutching and you may accelerate up to motorway velocity and stay there without using any other gears. The tachometer will then show around 6000 RPM. It is of course not recommendable to drive like that since it may damage the engine. You will also use extra petrol and it gives a lot of vibrations and noise.
Nevertheless, this demonstrates one aspect of the difference between ICE and EV; an EV has no engine noise even at 12 000 RPM.
The torque curve and wide rotational spectrum show that an EV has some features that is just better than what you find on a similar ICE.
Comparison
The table below gives a side by side overview of EV vs ICE features
| Combustion vehicles | Electrical Vehicles | Plus / minus for EV | |
| Engine Noise | Varying | None | + |
| Acceleration | Varying | Excellent | + |
| Gearing | Varying | No gearing | + |
| Energy economy | 7 – 8 L/100 km
(35-40 Mpg) |
Approximately: 2 KWh /100 Km = 2,0 L /100 km
( 120 mpg) |
++ |
| Engine Oil | Change every 10 000 km | No oil | + |
| Transmission oil | Change very 100 000 km | No transmission oil | + |
| Brakes | Tear out after approximately 100 000 km | Almost never tear out because of regenerative braking is used instead of brakes | + |
| Driveline complexity (increase cost) | Complex, hundreds of moving parts | Small, few parts, very few moving parts | + |
| Engine durability | Good | Good | equal |
| Energy storage | Gasoline tank | Li-ion battery with 5 – 8 years warranty
Replacing battery may cost 10 000 – 20 000 USD |
—
(but battery prices are falling) |
| Range | Approximately 700 km | Up to 500 km | – |
| Fill up time station | 2 minutes | 30 – 60 minutes | — |
| Availability of gas/supercharging stations | Good | Sparse, but improving | – |
| Option to fill up at home | In practice: no. | Yes, but slow | ++ |
| Total economy | Depends on oil prices | Improving as battery prices continue to drop | In transition from minus to plus? |
There is a large uncertainty concerning the total economy because of the yet unknown lifetime of the battery.
The warranty for most EVs batteries today is that there shall be at least 70% capacity left after 8 years or 160 000 km (100 000 miles). This guarantee may not seem very assuring since a modern car of good quality should at least last twice as long as that. That means that the owner run a substantial risk of having to replace the battery at least one time in the car’s lifetime.
The battery pack is the most expensive item in an electric vehicle. The current cost is approximately 300 USD/KWh which gives a price of USD 22 500 for a car with 75 KWh battery. If the prices continue to drop by 14 % annually, the price will be USD 6732 eight years from now, still a considerate amount, but at least it is more acceptable than the current price.
My experience there is that after four years and 91 000 km, I see no performance drop at all. I use my daily commute as a benchmark, and on days with mild temperatures, I have always used exactly 20% battery capacity on 29 km.
Conclusion
The EV driving experience is superb, but the range and recharging time is still inferior compared to traditional cars.
However, the technology is now evolving quicker for EV than for traditional cars and the battery prices are cut in half every fifth year.
Many different sources all forecast that the market share of EV will grow from the current 0.2 percent. BP forecast a slow growth up to six percent market share in 2035, while Bloomberg new energy forecast that EV will outsell ICE in 2038.
Personally, I think the evolution will go even quicker. The much better energy efficiency and torque curves are revolutionary improvements which are impossible to match for any ICE. The EV will soon have both better total economy and better driving performance than any ICE, and most people will then buy the best and most economical vehicle. My bet is that EV will outsell ICE before the year 2030.
I do recommend them now in 2018, may be not yet for the economy, but definitely for the driving experience.
References:
1. Fuel economy: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
2. Nature: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2564.html?foxtrotcallback=true
3. Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-06/the-electric-car-revolution-is-accelerating
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I haven’t read through all the other comments yet, so forgive me if I’m repeating some points that may have already been raised, but here are some thoughts:
“My personal experience is based on being a user of Nissan Leaf in my daily commute for the last four years. We do also have two ordinary cars…”
Of course you do. Because while your EV may be a good “commuter” car, it’s quite impractical when you’re going on a longer trip.
“In practice we see that there are losses in charging batteries, using batteries and friction in the electric drivetrain, but the actual power to the wheels is here about 82 percent, i.e. several times better than an ICE.”
Which conveniently ignores the losses in electrical generation (generally fossil fuel (coal or oil) based), and in transmission and distribution, all of which occur before the electricity magically emerges from the outlet you plug into. So an invalid comparison.
“Imaging having a car with 0.7 gallons gasoline tank, which it takes 8 hours to fill at home, or 25 minutes on a supercharger, would you, buy it?”
Hell no! Which is exactly why I’ll continue driving ICE vehicles as long as I can forsee. EVs are simply not practical as anything but special purpose use (i.e., short distance commuting) vehicles.
“Due to the good energy economy, it has a driving range from 140 km with modest speed in the summer to about 80 km in the coldest winter months. Those ranges may seem puny, but in my experience, it covers the vast majority of most people’s driving needs.”
So, BEST range of 87 miles. 50 in cold weather. IOW USELESS. And please, stop with the “most people’s needs” assumptions.
“Tesla is leading the range contest with 500 km (310 mile) range and a supercharging rate of 270 km (170 miles) in 30 minutes. With those figures, the range and filling time properties starts to close in on fossil fueled cars.”
My ICE car can get 310 mile range doing local short trips; on long highway trips, I can get about 400 mile range. And I can refill the gas tank in about THREE minutes, not 30 (which only gets you 170 miles). So color me unimpressed. Especially since ALL of those supposed EV “ranges” are probably calculated under ideal conditions I seldom encounter in the *real world* – as in driving in the dark, in cold weather, in heavy traffic, etc. In no way do those ranges come close to ICE cars, and the refuel times are pathetic.
“There is a large uncertainty concerning the total economy because of the yet unknown lifetime of the battery.”
Yes – and a waste disposal problem too!
“The EV driving experience is superb, but the range and recharging time is still inferior compared to traditional cars.”
Yup, and just think what would happen if ICE cars employed a generator and elctric traction motors, ala RR locomotives, instead of a transmission/transaxle. You might just lose your only reason for buying an EV!
“Personally, I think the evolution will go even quicker. The much better energy efficiency and torque curves are revolutionary improvements which are impossible to match for any ICE. The EV will soon have both better total economy and better driving performance than any ICE, and most people will then buy the best and most economical vehicle. My bet is that EV will outsell ICE before the year 2030.”
Personally, I think your predictions are daft. EV “issues” far outstrip EV “advantages,” and nothing meaningfull is occurring to do away with the “issues.” And the employment of an electric generator powered by an ICE would render the supposed (efficiency) and actual (torque curves) EV advantages moot, so future cars may bear little resemblence to your predictions.
Meant to say coal or gas (not much oil these days)…
I once drove an electric vehicle. It had a post with a strip of spring metal on top at the back and it cost sixpence for every three minutes it ran. My girl friend preferred the Royal Enfield Constellation 700 that we went home on though.
Here is what many Tesla owners get to experience in regards to their EV’s dependability:
http://i66.tinypic.com/2mblw8.jpg
Seems to be all too common.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/battery-won%E2%80%99t-charge-and-now-it%E2%80%99s-totally-dead.113204/
I love this carefully crafted analysis….
Electric vehicles are analogous to wind and solar power. Both are niche technologies/markets with huge government mandated taxpayer subsidy supports. You can purchase them to fit your limited niche needs and desires, but you will still need a reliable conventional transportation technology to provide the longer range, all weather, heavy load and towing capabilities that are dispatchable 24/7/365 and can be refueled in a few minutes wherever your travels take you.
Yesterday I drove about 100 miles over to the Teanaway River and then up into the hills northeast of Cle Elum WA. I spent a wonderful 7 hours exploring the area on various logging and forest service roads, stopping to take pictures of wild flowers and rushing mountain streams, hiking, and just enjoying early spring in the hills south of Mount Stuart. The gravel/dirt roads are narrow, rough, water washed and steep in places, choked with snow in shady areas and largely impassible above 3000 feet due to unmelted snow pack, even with 4 wheel drive. Traveling there and back required going over 3300 feet high Snoqualmie Pass. My total trip mileage was 268 miles, at an average 21.5 mpg for the trip. That’s about 12.5 gallons US and cost about $38 at $3.10/gal.
Few true eV’s have the battery range to just make the 200 mile round trip over Snoqualmie Pass to Cle Elum and back, let alone the ground clearance, range, endurance, and other capabilities necessary to safely and reliably traverse those rough mountain logging roads.
I did this trip on a ‘spur of the moment’ decision, after finishing my second cup of coffee on Tuesday morning. I had no worries about my vehicle being capable of easily handling all of the distance and terrain requirements. Just jump in and go. Get fuel if you need it, in minutes, from readily available sources. I didn’t need fuel, as the total trip only used a bit more than half a tank. The vehicle is so quiet that, even back on rough logging roads, the only noise you hear is the sound of the tires on dirt, gravel, snow pack, and splashing through deep mud holes.
If you’re willing to accept all of the debilitating compromises of current eV’s, that’s your choice. They sure don’t serve my needs. What vehicle do I have? It’s a 2017 Ford F150 4X4, with a 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 gas engine, SAE certified at 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft of torque. I also use it to tow loaded trailers weighing a tad more than 7000 lbs, on occasion. It is a marvelous ICE vehicle, with exceptional capabilities that meets most every transportation need I have without compromise. Exception capabilities without compromise are indeed virtues worth ‘signalling’!
You could tow a Tesla in case you ever needed one.
I don’t care how an electric car handles, or how quiet it is — I only want one if it saves energy over its whole life cycle (including manufacture, and the fact that you have to replace the batteries on some of them after 70 or 80,000 miles) relative to a gasoline powered car. Has anyone done a reliable comparison of this recently? Because the ones I’ve seen (several years ago) showed they had not yet reached energy break-even.
Sweedish research a few months ago (sorry no link) found that the production of the battery in an EV polluted as much as 10 years of normal use of a “fossil fuel vehicle”!
here is the link https://www.autovistagroup.com/news-and-insights/swedish-study-calls-smaller-ev-batteries-finds-tesla-more-polluting-8-year-old
Thank you, Kai but I see some weaknesses with the study
Firstly, they equal “pollutions” with CO2 emissions alone without mentioning any other environmental impacts. I think that is misleading.
Secondly, they assume a certain production process for batteries which is very energy consuming. The production of batteries is in constant change and the usage of raw materials per kWh battery has changed dramatically in the last decade. The cobalt content is for instance about one eight of what it was ten years ago.
I have seen studies with totally different results.
/Jan
I’ve read that the cost of cobalt has nearly tripled in the past three years, and that Tesla’s batteries use lots of it.
And the problem is EV cost benefit comes from the lack of taxes they face compared to fossil fuel cars. Given the massive tax take on petrol and diesel, money used across a wide range or areas. There is no hope at all of EV ,once they hit significant numbers , of not facing the same regime .Therefore bye bye goes one manager advantage , while the problems may well remain .
And by the way the greens have already made it clear they will oppose EV in their turn as well , because what they really hate is people having motorized independent travel options , no matter what powers it.
Thanks for an interesting article.
When I was in engineering school a half century ago batteries were the main limitation for electric cars. Sounds like that’s still the case. Maybe a way around that is electric roads https://www.dezeen.com/2018/04/23/electric-car-charging-road-opens-stockholm-sweden/
Batteries would only be needed for short distances from the main road to your house.
I have posted this before so apologies if you saw it then but it is highly relevant and bears repeating.
Where I live is a dispersed rural community of 21 dwellings. Our electricity comes from a single 3-phase 100kVA transformer. Supply lines are overhead on poles mainly with a few underground “tails” to individual properties. Some lines quite long, I am over 600m from the transformer. ALL my neighbours have at least 2 cars. One has 7 (it’s a large house!). One has holiday let cottages (6 of them) so when fully booked there would probably be 9 cars there.
Using reasonable assumptions regarding charging rates and car usage would require substantial upgrading to the local electricity supply transformer and distribution cables. This cost has been estimated at around £450,000, and that is between 21 dwellings. That’s well over £20,000 per house.
Where is that money coming from?
If we now add in conversion to electric heating (no gas mains within 3/4 mile) as the central heating oil is ‘orrible fossil fuel and has to be banned we would probably be looking at at least double that figure.
The concept of moving to 100% electric vehicles and house heating is clearly impractical nonsense.
Germany has a similar, but opposite problem: they promoted solar with a lot of subsidies with as result that the local lines are overloaded when there is a lot of sun and everybody is working at factories and towns in another area and there is little local use. So they need to increase the capacity of the local lines but that will cost an enormous amount of money…
Someone notify me when that EV will tow my 22,000 pound RV/Home…
Jan Kjetil Andersen,
There is a very good comparison of different means of transport by Jan van Staveren from page 47 onward about cars in:
http://www.energiefeiten.nl/energy-facts1.pdf
Also a lot of other facts all related to energy.
Although based on the Dutch situation, it gives a good insight on what different forms of energy do and can’t do…
Thank you for the link, Ferdinand
That was a lot of information for different transport methods. He mentions more or less the same pro and cons as I have listed for cars, but he has a lot more on other vehicles.
I think electric railways, bikes and scooters have a great future alongside electric automobiles.
.
/Jan
I haven’t read all comments so maybe this point has already been covered but I will state it here. All battery packs must be standardized, by decree if necessary. Lightweight (under 50 pounds) maybe, and easily swapable. Stations would have these standard packs on hand for instant changeout. These batteries can be trucked from large charging stations just like our gasoline is now. It’s all a matter of economics. Will it fly? Probably not.
Al
I get so irritated by people sometimes.
Here are some numbers for you EV fans.
Total United States Energy generation 2017 (estimated) : 4.01 Trillion kwh
Number of vehicles currently on road in America (estimated): 263 Million
Now let’s assume that the number of vehicles includes cars hardly ever driven, junkers and wild estimates….let’s go with 200 Million
Average charge for an EV on a daily basis (estimate) 20kwh
Ooooh, math time……… 50% EV saturation of market (eager assumption) = .50(200,000,000) x 20kwh =
2,000,000,000 kwh/day x 365 = 730 Billion kwh. Extra. Needed. A year.
Now, I have read here where people think that there is excess energy in the system at night. There is excess capacity, but it is curtailed at certain times to extend lifetimes. There is very little excess energy. Companies run at minimum capacity. Don’t want equipment failure. And it is difficult to sell unneeded power.
Now lets be nice and assume that in reality not every one will want or need a full charge every day…probably a day dream…but hey why not. That means we probably need at least an extra 600 Billion kwh a year and we have to allow for down time. We may get more out of existing power generation, but at some point equipment failure becomes an issue.
Sooooooo, do you think that will magically come from Solar? Wind? Nope. GAS! And you have to factor in transmission efficiency.
Why won’t it come from solar and wind you might ask. Well its called rare earth metals. China bought our mine and shut it down and has complete control of the earth’s supply. Not to mention finding enough space in the southwest to put up solar facilities, because it is a waste of money to put those anywhere else. And on, and on, and on.
That doesn’t mean that it isn’t doable, but America’s flirtation with abject stupidity makes it plain that it probably is….not doable.
I agree with your calculations, but I do not think 730 billion kWh annually is such a huge obstacle.
It is less than 20% of the current electricity supply and we are talking about fuel replacing all cars with EV.
The 730 TWh could come from several sources. One way is to build 80 new nuclear reactors, eventually
based on thorium or other technologies more accepted by the public.
Wind and solar combined with pumped storage hydropower is another alternative.
The so called “rare earth” elements are not so rare as you may think. I don’t think the resource issue will become a huge obstruction.
It is also possible that traditional coal and gas will have a future combined with carbon capture.
/Jan
I still have a major problem with your optimistic assumptions Jan that real soon now, along will come a new technology that will somehow solve of the existing problems. As a technology developer I have to say that it doesn’t always work that way. We all wish that it would but we have to be pragmatic.
Jan, that was only 50% market penetration. Complete replacement would require 1200 – 1400 TWh. Our country, as paralyzed as it is by a very militant left, would be incapable of building the necessary power generation facilities.
“based on thorium or other technologies more accepted by the public.”
Some of the public has been brainwashed to think that any trivial amount of additional radiation is (at least slightly) dangerous and has measurable effects (according to some academies).
Of course the baseline natural radiation exposure that is much higher than exposure from nuclear industry should have more dangerous effects and these effects should be easily measurable. These expected effects (more cancers) are not visible. They do not exist, obviously.
The main obstacle seems to be power rather than energy. There are some efforts on making schemes for charging EVs based on availability of power and low energy prices and it seems to be working. If it will still work when everyone is going to start charging during the same low demand periods is a question of course.
Power costs a lot, since it drives the size and cost of actual infrastructure. Norway has an issue in this regard. We have the energy, but lack the ability to carry the power.
It’s worth remembering that in Norway, some high mountain roads are only travelled convoy style in winter. You wait (engine running, its -20C and snowing) for the lead snow-plough to arrive, and follow it across the hill. Some of the convoy routes have banned EV’s. The reasons are obvious, and that sort of thing matters to me as I don’t stay home in front of the fire in winter. I’m often out enjoying the delights of Scotland’s winter hills.
I have a 13 year old diesel estate car, thankfully pre-DPF, which has never failed me, and which I intend to run until it dies. I’ll replace it with a petrol ICE car to avoid DPF hell, and my mileage is going down now anyway so the economy aspect is less important.
An EV might be a decent city car, but only if you’re lucky enough to have somewhere to charge it. In some parts of Edinburgh you’d be lucky to park within 50 or 100 yards of your house, which doesn’t have a driveway. So, how would you charge your EV?
Stuff that. I’m nearly 60, I cycle to work 4 or 6 miles depending on venue, and can beat the traffic, even when it’s snowing.
Folk are soft these days.
Well, you shouldn’t be out enjoying yourself
This may have already been brought up but the tax-payer pays for part of the cost of an EV.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/electric-vehicles-tax-credits-and-other-incentives
That may be a plus for the buyer but not for us payers.
PS In your comparison you left out resale value. BIG minus for EVs?
I enjoyed the article, glad to see the positive EV side without much fiction, but I cringed when I saw the efficiency graph. I recently compared the Wells-to-Wheel (WTW) energy efficiency of EV vs gasoline using the latest California power efficiency estimate of 44%, 6% line losses, EPA combined-cycle fuel economy estimates, and our Ca Greet 2.0 Well-to-Tank petroleum estimates of 95%. The Wells-to-Wheel methodology was developed decades ago to specifically keep us out of the ditch for electric vehicles energy discussions.
It is easy to confirm that the EV is very efficient on a WTW basis. For example the Nissan Leaf is generally found to be -/+ 15% (roughly) more efficient than a gasoline-hybrid counterpart. Hybrids are the proper vehicle comparison price-point and technology perspective, due to both vehicles using regenerative brakes.
Comparing a Nissan Leaf vs Ford Fusion-hybrid. The Leaf was found to use 15 percent less energy per mile than the Ford Fusion-hybrid (a heavier car comparison point). Conversely comparing the Nissan Leaf with a Toyota Prius C (a much closer car weight comparison point), finds the Leaf consuming 13 percent more energy per mile. Your mileage may vary and other vehicles may yield different results of course. But do EVs today justify continued Federal and State incentives?
Thank you for many good points G Yowell
You ask a big question:
I think it can only be justified it is obvious that they are, or will become, sufficiently less of an environmental burden than fossil fuel cars.
That is a quite complex question which I may come back to in another post, if Anthony accept it.
/Jan
If you write an article… please indicate why the government should enforce an arbitrary and short timeline on meeting unattainable emissions standards… which is the main creator of the entire modern EV market space.
This. Hybrid car efficiency is ≥ EV efficiency. Hybrids don’t require massively costly additional infrastructure and eliminate the range problem.
EV subsidies come down to taxpayers subsidizing two distinct interest groups: 1) Rich people who can afford a third car to tool around town and put their eco-virtue on display and 2) EV fanbois smitten with driving full-size slot cars around town, geeking out about 100% torque @ur momisugly 0rpm and a very low center of gravity.
Both groups can afford to fund their hobbies w/o taxpayer help.
CAN ANYONE SAY PROPAGANDA? The logical holes in this piece are legion. The apples-and-oranges “energy efficiency” figure is a joke, a bad joke: So misleading it seems worthy of the NYT. Andersen either has a poor grasp on the relevant physics and is just parroting technical terms (it almost reads like he cut & pasted from physics sources) or is intentionally omitting contrary facts. For example, his discussion of diesels omits the single biggest reason for the diesel’s high efficiency: the lack of a throttle, and the associated gains from the (virtual) elimination of the PV diagram’s “pump loop.” (For the thinking person, this line of physics reasoning clearly shows that a hybrid, save regeneration, is simply a throttled ICE trying to emulate a diesel by using a very small engine — i.e. one with a normal high throttle opening and thus much higher thermodynamic efficiency — with an electric boost system for “load leveling.”)
I’m a registered EE with years of experience with electric motors AND as a power system engineer. Andersen’s omissions are stunning. No mention of the generation mix. OF COURSE one can convert an highly organized energy source like electric power at high efficiency BUT he seems blissfully unaware that EV are just energy delivery systems, from energy that was generated (mostly), with the associated pollution, from fossil fuels in someone else’s back yard, whereas in the internal combustion engine the fossil fuel is burned in situ: No transmission line/transformer/generation/battery losses. (Since efficiencies are multiplicative, these are not insignificant.) AND, as was pointed out in IEEE Spectrum Magazine, the cradle to grave pollution of EV is several times that of an equivalent gasoline engine (March 2001, pp. 47; while things have improved since 2001, the basic point remains. One cannot ignore pollution due to battery manufacturing and disposal.)
In my view, as an EE, EV are a scam, where an ignorant public is conned into giving EV owners free energy and purchase credits.
Mr. Anderson, if you want to help your EV cause, in the future I suggest you make strong and honest arguments based on sound engineering. And leave the propaganda to the leftist media. After all, what good did it ever do to solve the wrong problem?
The problem isn’t the EV, it’s the fleecing of taxpayers to buy a “fun ride” for the wealthy.
What would you buy if you could only afford one car? In Canberra, new apartment buildings only have space for one vehicle per apartment. Technically you could get an ev, then rent a normal car when you have to go long distances before you could get to a charging station, but I don’t think that many people would want to do it that way. Not when you can see that the capital cost of just the ev exceeds the capital and operating costs of a normal car.
Also, how many apartments have a charging point for every ev? Even have the power distribution to handle an ev for every apartment?
Battery powered are traditional. They’re older than gas cars.
I think I must live in a different world from some of the posters here. In my world, things go awry, usually at the worst possible time. A neighbor calls, late on a rainy night. He and his family are on the side of the road with a flat, and he needed help changing the tire. Or, a relative nine hundred miles away, falls and breaks his hip. We need to get to the hospital to ok his medical care and see to his needs. The ‘polar vortex’ (this happened several years ago) was about to blow through, leaving us driving through a blizzard; a hundred miles on the interstate at thirty miles an hour in near white-out conditions after already having driven for twelve hours. My mother had to evacuate when a hurricane called Katrina took direct aim at her house on the Mississippi coast (nothing left but the slab), and I needed to get to her immediately. She was seven hundred miles away.
Refueling time is important. Driving range is important. But the most important thing is having a vehicle ready to go 24×7. Eight hours of downtime to recharge is unacceptable, day or night. A half-hour to refuel (assuming I’m not waiting in line for my turn) to continue for less than 200 miles is not acceptable. Having to worry about how far I can drive in an EV with the headlights on, heater on, the windshield wipers on, at thirty miles an hour in ten degrees (F) weather is not acceptable.
All other issues are purely academic to me.
The author, being Norwegian, is looking at EVs from a city perspective. I totally agree with him, and being Norwegian myself I know that with the current tax regime EVs are a no-brainer for local commute.
It is important, thought, to notice that EVs are mainly found in the south of Norway. The further north you go, the fewer they are. Go much north of Trondheim, where I live, and the EV density falls rapidly. Reason? Distance, utility and temperature. EVs are sensitive to temperature, and range falls dramatically with it. Very few EVs are delivered with the capability of trailing, and if you do it your range falls markedly. Distance between towns and cities are enormous up north compared to down south. Combined, they do not make for EV terrain.
Thank you for the info, Anders. From my point of view, even in the city, I would not want a vehicle that had regular downtime. In town I might consider an EV for a second car, where if needed I could get home quickly to get my ICE vehicle. Perhaps society is different in your area, but we have a very mobile society. I doubt if few people only have friends, family, property, and business solely in their specific city, and could manage life conveniently with no vehicle for up to one-third of a day on a regular basis. I know that with my luck, disaster would strike just as the voltmeter hit zero. Why tempt fate?
The topic of EV tech should not be in the mix of discussions re kerffufles about Grid electricity prices and sources.
The grid must evolve to accomodate EVs—it’s as simple as that. They are going to take over, plan for it.
For me, these are very different topics, and EVs deserve to be assessed on merit, without being smeared or lumped in with partisan arguments about CAGA, AGW, GW or natural variability.
These are good cars, as are hybrids, and having driven severalof them over the past decade I would not hesitate to buy a new version of either Hybrid or EV.
As pointed out in the article, range is now achieving 400 to 500 km, per full recharge. This is big, if cost is lowered. Consider this, hybrids have proven themselves for ~15 years as taxis. They exceeded range, cost and performance expectations from the outset and just kept getting better. A taxi typically does 300 km per 12 hr shift, with a 20 minute driver change-over at the end of the shift. So as soon as a 350 km recharge can be applied in 20 mins, EVs will take over in taxi operations, globally. ICE, and even hybrids, will soon simply be unable to compete beyond another 5 years of operation. In other words, when worn out, they will be replaced with an EV. Once taxis have been using and proving EVs, for 5 years, that will mark the point where EV sales will take off globally, as they will be better in every way than an ICE or hybrid.
I long ago decided I’m done with buying ICE vehicles, they’re simply not worth it and not good enough, nowhere near as good as a top quality Hybrid-electric or new EV. If you want range and the ready-to-go reliable convenience, get a hybrid-electric. If you want a commuter then get an EV, and just rent a hybrid if you want to go out of town. The money you save on lower fuel cost from a rented hybrid will pay for a fair chunk of the rental costs compared to a rented ICE car.
And thank you to the article’s author.
For the kind of vehicles I like, EVs are almost twice the price. https://www.fleetcarma.com/electric-pickup-truck-market/
Agree.
There’s a dividing line between EV supporters and EV skeptics. And that dividing line is financial…
The push EVs is a push to remove easy physical mobility for the average human. Of course, the EV supporters hand wave that away with “batteries will be cheap in the future” … utter nonsense.
The price of product is not determined solely by its raw material cost. It is determined by the price which a given vendor can make maximal profit. This means that if enough purchasers are available at a high price, there is no incentive to lower the price of the product. The lower prices come about because of competition between multiple products.
@unknown502…
” … Of course, the EV supporters hand wave that away with “batteries will be cheap in the future” … utter nonsense. . .”
Battery replacement was an issue LAST DECADE, especially in relation to gen-1 and gen-2 Prius, the reason for this was because they used NiCd batteries, which really can and do degrade and fail quickly.
Fhe gen-2 battery initialy cost about $7,200 AUD to replace the NiCd cell, which was under the interior foor. Thus much of the cost was in pulling the whole car’s interrior out of the car, replacing the battery, then putting it all back together again.But after about 6 years even the gen-2 batery replacement cost fell to around $4,200 AUD, fitted. And most owners only did it once in the whole life of the car.
This all changed with Gen-3 Prius, as they used a smaller lighter cheaper Li battery, and moved the battery to the rear hatch area, making battery swaps fast and very much cheaper. Plus Li lasts much longer, and degrades in performance far more gracefully and predictably.
Most Gen-3s will not even need a new battery, as they last as long as most of the cars will. And contrary to your assertion, the batteries do actualy get much cheaper, as the technology and production plants mature, and competitive distribution networks grow.
Most of the issues of battery change cost is a NYTH, that derived from the NiCd era, and those days are now long gone, so you might want to stop repeating that now inapplicable myth. The batteries now typically last the life cycle and usage of an average personal use car, so NEVER need to be changed, in 15 years of use.
Now, calculate the fuel cost of running your ICE car for 15 years, and tell me how that’s such a good thing in comparison to a $4,000 battery you’d probably never have to buy?
WXcycles – count how many gasoline pumps, not just stations, there are in your area. Then consider how long and how much replacing them with 20-minute recharging locations would be. Actually, that would not be enough, considering the average car at a petrol station is in and out in less than twenty minutes. If you have less, a line quickly begins to form, and the wait time becomes much longer. People become irritated quickly waiting in lines, especially when they never had to before.
If you think recharging would be at home for many, consider how long it and how much it would be to roll-out substantial numbers of charging stations (and I question whether a standard residential electrical drop would be sufficient for quick-chargers). Consider the effect on home sales; people don’t want to pay for what they won’t use, and those who need a station, but the prospective home doesn’t have one. Anything involving changes in an enormous market, like housing, takes a very long time.
We have an existing electrical infrastructure, and one for delivering fuel to vehicles. They are both very extensive. Trying to enlarge one to virtually eliminate the other will be enormously expensive. So far I have not seen anything to justify such a conversion. Clearly, it won’t save us money.
BTW, what’s your Plan B if we spend trillions of dollars to upgrade the electrical grid, but the quick-charge for long driving distances never comes to fruition, resulting in EV sales not going up? What will you say to those freezing in winter because they can not afford the high price of electricity?
@jtom,
Most of your questions and points are answered or refuted all over this post’s comments, not going to repeat them all. As for your home, new build homes have options, if you don’t want it, don’t opt for it, it’s your choice. Hybrids will be around for decades anyway.
And who said you needed to wait in line? EVs with over 500 km range exist now. You think you couldn’t do with a rest, toilet and a meal break after 5 to 6 hours of driving? Be realistic, any other time you can recharge over night. Or get a hybrid.
But EVs will begin to take over from here, so the grid and infrastructure will evolve accordingly, as it always has. Who cares, you’re removing ME wars, supertankers, refineries, tank farms, trucks, pipelines, pumps, etc, with electron generators and cables.
Yes, it costs investment money, but EV operating cost is a small fraction of ICE car operating costs. That is where it gets many times cheaper and ecomony of scale will make and sell them much cheaper again than ICE cars.
And compared to ICE cars they’re far simpler and faster to make. The price will plumet as scale is acheived durng the 2030s
A few summary comments, mostly highlighting mistakes in the OP arguments. (I’m an EE, and owner of both a Subie and a Gen 3 Prius.)
BRAKES do wear out on an EV. Regeneration is insufficient for braking sometimes. Ours lasted about 120k miles which is good but certainly not forever.
CHARGING ON THE ROAD: long term, forget it. EV won’t be fully accepted until we see a change to standard cartridge power packs. Why: it takes too much power to charge an EV! 5-10MW to do a “fill up” similar to an ICE. That is an impossibility. Of course, cartridges are very heavy. Probably you’ll dump-and-load from under the vehicle (or something like that.)
CHARGING AT HOME: long term, this requires a MASSIVE upgrade of infrastructure. I have noted this before. I live in a brand new high end neighborhood. The transformer on our block only has 50KVA capacity, serving more than a dozen homes. You figure it out 🙂 (Max: 2 superchargers.) Thus, I believe long term the above cartridge power mechanism will win out.
Bottom line: EV’s won’t be mainstream until we have standardized cartridge power packs.
However Eric, as the author also states, that battery cost has been falling about 14% per annum.
14% of $6,732 = $942
So battery price next year will be around $5,800.
In seven more years … it will be comparitively CHEAP to replace. Economy of scale will just keep pushing battery costs down, just as it has for 20 years now in hybrids.
Yeah, but it doesn’t work that way. The price of regular automobiles has skyrocketed compared with the salaries of regular Americans. And so, today, a regular American consumer does not actually have the resources to purchase the average regular vehicle of any kind.
The price of batteries may go down a little over time. But there’s going to be a point at which the price of any vehicle will rest. That point will be when enough purchasers are available to satisfy the demand of the vehicle. For EVs, all of said purchasers have salaries well above the average American… and this will be true for the foreseeable future.
I myself drive around in an old beater car. It was less than half the cost of a used Nissan Leaf. The author had enough cash on hand to purchase his nice toy with its fun intangibles. However, most humans on the planet… even humans in one of the richest countries on the planet… do not have enough cash on hand to partake in such indulgent purchases.
I don’t object to EVs as a product, but why should Americans be forced to purchase one through inane emissions objects set through corrupt government offices?
I don’t object to EVs as a product, but why should American taxpayers be forced to pay a portion of toys with fun intangibles for the rich?
If EVs are so good and so cheap, let them compete on the free market without government emission controls setting the bar for purchase of any vehicle and without the government subsidies for the purchaser and the manufacturer.
I experienced that with my recently-replaced 2010 Prius. At the time I bought, it was $10,000+ to replace the battery. Unrealistic, but off in the future. Today it’s less than $3,000 I think. Not cheap, but considering the very low maintenance cost and gas savings over the years, it was an option I seriously considered.
@unknown,
I
” … If EVs are so good and so cheap, let them compete on the free market without government emission controls setting the bar for purchase of any vehicle and without the government subsidies for the purchaser and the manufacturer.”
—-
I agree, I suspect the cost is being held higher by the subsidies, the producer can charge more for them without killing demand. Once subsidies go the manufacturers who want to survive in the EV market will have to delivers better cars at cheaper prices. If they can’t they’re already failures.
A modern, Euro6, diesel engine is more than 40% efficient. Modern cars get mileage of about 4-5 l/100 km, and the potential is to get down to 2-3 l/100 km.
The article perpetuates very old information on ICEs, which is typical of stories you get from the EV perspective in Norway.
Funny that your article doesn’t even mention “climate” (a search gives only two occurrences in the URL http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2564.html?foxtrotcallback=true ) when climate is a major factor in usability of said car…
Also, you don’t mention taxation, the other really big issue. One type of cars is taxed, the other is subsidized. This cannot continue if the second becomes more successful than the first.
Correction: I see that “winter” is mentioned, but without details about which kind of winter…
Also, the article is waaay too long.
Tesla EV – crematory on wheels