A positive perspective on electric vehicles

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.

image

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.

image
Figure: 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.

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.

image

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.

image

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

381 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 26, 2018 7:05 am

This entire article could be used as a boiler plate for another article entitled:
A Positive Perspective on My McMansion
Frankly, I expected more from this particular author.

meigs
April 26, 2018 8:38 am

Anyone done a life cycle cost analysis of ICE vs EV? Materials, fuels, efficiencies, disposal, etc? I tried one once just looking at power generation and use (fuel to fuel) and it indicated what one comment above indicated, fuel to fuel it seems either vehicle is a wash?

Reply to  meigs
April 26, 2018 11:50 am

Hi Meigs
I can offer you a very simple one here:
An EV can in theory be made of 100% sustainable resources. All metal used can be recycled forever and all energy used can come from renewables. This is not the situation now, but it is possible to aim for that goal.
Elements are forever and renewables last as long as our Sun, i.e. a few more billon years.
A car fueled by fossil fuel can never be sustainable because the burning of fossil fuels is a one-way non-renewable process. The energy in the fuel were stored as chemical energy millions of year ago. When we burn the fuel, the elements recombine in CO2 and water, and it will not form fossil fuel again in the next million year.
/Jan

s-t
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 26, 2018 5:53 pm

Can you give examples of “renewables” please?
How do you go from “the sun shining” to “the battery is charging”?

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 26, 2018 9:14 pm

Hi s-t,
The renewables we can take into consideration with the current technology are: Hydropower, wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal, and hydrocarbons from plants and animals.
All these can be harvested for millions of years.
You may object to this and say that we need to use resources and energy to harvest these resources. We need to build windmills, photovoltaic cells, et cetera which use rare earth elements.
That is true, but it is no fundamental physical constraints that stops us from making all these processes 100% sustainable. Elements never disappears so they can be recycled forever. Similarly, all energy used in the construction processes from excavators in the mines to the construction of photovoltaic cells can in principle be based on electricity from renewable sources.
As I said, we are not there now, but sometimes it is useful to take a helicopter view to spot the difference in the fundamental physical processes. Renewable energy can be produced by 100% sustainable processes, but fossil energy can never be sustainable in the long run.
/Jan

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 3:44 am

“When we burn the fuel, the elements recombine in CO2 and water, and it will not form fossil fuel again in the next million year.”
Yes but the same CO2 and water will be absorbed by plants and you can harvest it again as biofuel. Burn the fossil fuel to make it sustainable and renewable. Or you only want CO2 from animal exhalation?

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 5:52 am

Dr. Strangelove
As I said above, hydrocarbons harvested from plants and animals can be counted as one of the renewables.
Burning of fossil hydrocarbons is not a renewable process because we have no way of bringing the carbon back to the deposits. The process does not become renewable just because it is possible to transfer it, and store it for a while, in plants and animals.
/Jan

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 6:45 am

Why do you want to bring the carbon back to the deposits? You don’t want to recycle it? You said you want sustainable and renewable energy
“The process does not become renewable just because it is possible to transfer it, and store it for a while, in plants and animals.”
Then biofuels are not renewable. Reductio ad absurdum

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 7:49 am

Why do you want to bring the carbon back to the deposits? You don’t want to recycle it?

Because recycling is a “cycle”.
The biosphere cycle of carbon:
Carbon captured from the air or water by plants in photosynthesis -> Carbon released to air or water when plants rot or are burnt -> Carbon captured from air or water by plants in photosynthesis etc. ad infinitum
Fossil deposits have no place in that cycle.
The carbon flow in the usage of fossil fuel is:
Carbon dug/pumped out from the ground -> carbon released to air when fossil fuel is burnt.
After that the carbon may of course interact between water, air and plants. The same carbon may also take place in another renewable biosphere cycle. However, if we ignore transitions in the very long time spans, it never gets out of the combined atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere.
It is a one-way journey from a fossil deposit to the combined deposits in air, water and plants.
/Jan

Wayne
April 26, 2018 10:42 am

Great article! Two issues to consider:
1. Your living situation affects EV viability. For example, we live in a condo and park in an underground garage. To use an EV in practical-mode (i.e. charge it at home, so it’s always topped-off), I would have to pay a couple thousand dollars to have power routed to my parking space. IF I am even able to get access to power. (In our condo, there are three spare circuits, so I’d have to be one of the first three in line.)
2. Let’s not forget hybrids. There really is a spectrum here: ICE –> Hybrid –> Plugin hybrid –> full EV. Hybrids provide many of the advantages of an EV with the power-density of gasoline. Plugin hybrids — if you have access to power, see point #1 — provide even more of the benefits. EV’s currently have to live with the youth-hostel-like situation of public charging stations, which is a nightmare if you’d actually travel a lot. (Tesla, with it’s faster charge and dedicated stations is an exception, and Nissan is a partial exception due to its charging stations at dealers.)
We recently got a second Prius and love it. If we didn’t live in a condo, it probably would’ve been a Prius Prime (plugin hybrid). Our next car will probably be an EV, but not yet.

Reply to  Wayne
April 26, 2018 11:29 am

Thank you for your kind words Wayne.
In Norway where I live, residents in condominiums can require having installed EV charging options. Although they probably must bear the cost themself, usually 1000 to 3000 usd, the condominiums management cannot reject applications for charging station without having a very good reason.
That is the law.
I guess that similar regulations will come in other counties as more people require it.
Concerning hybrids, I agree that they are a good alternative, but the extra complexity with two engines make them quite expensive, at least if you want one with a great range on pure electricity.
/Jan

Walter Sobchak
April 26, 2018 1:00 pm

“existing engine efficiency in the range of 25% – 30% in ordinary gasoline automobiles”
Sorry to rain on your parade, but the boffins have been working overtime:
“Toyota … with its new Dynamic Force four-cylinder engine. Set to make its market debut in the new 2019 Corolla, this engine is chock-full of innovations to help it achieve 40-percent thermal efficiency, a number unheard of in production car engines.
“How does this 2.0-liter four-cylinder achieve such major efficiency? As Jason Fenske of Engineering Explained tells us, a lot of it comes down to simple engine design and tuning tricks. Toyota put a ton of attention into refining the airflow characteristics of the port- and direct-injected engine, optimizing the tumbling flow of the intake charge for efficient burning. The 13:1 compression ratio helps get even more power out of each revolution.”
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a19592640/toyotas-new-engine-is-hyper-efficient-thanks-to-simple-tuning-tricks/
“Mercedes-AMG says that in Dyno testing at its Brixworth, UK engine factory this power unit can achieve over 50-percent thermal efficiency. In other words, this V6 can create more power than waste energy, which as Motorsport points out, makes it one of the most efficient internal-combustion engines on the planet. Motorsport also says that this engine can actually operate at similar levels of thermal efficiency as diesel engines used in large ships.
“To better put that figure into context, AMG notes that F1’s much-beloved old V10 engines only operated with about 30-percent thermal efficiency. When the V6 turbo era began in 2014, AMG’s engine converted 44-percent of its fuel into power. With the increase in thermal efficiency between 2014 and now, AMG’s power unit effectively makes 109 more horsepower using the same amount of fuel.”
https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/a12443313/mercedes-amgs-f1-engine-is-amazingly-efficient/

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
April 26, 2018 1:47 pm

Thank you for interesting links Walter,
But I a bit sceptic to claims from car manufacturers on progress that is said to be coming on their models soon.
40%, or even 50%, thermal efficiency can be achieved for engines running at optimal RPM and load, but the situation is another for a car on the road in variable traffic.
I suspect that the claims from Corolla and Mercedes are based on situations that are more laboratory-like than traffic-like.
/Jan

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 12:17 am

Better than leaving out the heat engine that generates the electricity your golf cart runs on.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 12:24 am

Yes this one is experimental, but it is 60%:
Super Efficient Engine Uses Gas AND Diesel – RCCI

Jake J
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
May 4, 2018 12:16 pm

As soon as these engines are actually in vehicles, we can talk.

John Hardy
April 26, 2018 2:26 pm

I have been pulled around by an electric motor for the last 5 years. I would not go back to driving a conventional ICE car for any reason. It isn’t the CO2 or the cost. It is just a far better drive. For sure five years ago I could have found a way to get myself from A to B more cheaply: but people pay bigger money for “high performance” dinosaurmobiles than I paid.
From a national perspective the issue isn’t CO2 or grid efficiency. It is survival of the Western auto industry. Costs are coming down and range is going up (compare the 2014 and 2018 Leaf in Wikipedia). If the bright people on here keep trashing EVs on the basis of half-truths, urban myths, zero experience and because greens like ’em, they will contribute to the demise of a major chunk of our industry

Reply to  John Hardy
April 26, 2018 9:29 pm

Thank you John,
I agree 100%, the drive is superb.
Concerning the western auto industry, I find it a bit surprising that most people here, who for the most part seems to be American, trash Tesla. I think Tesla is the world’s most innovative car company, and Americans should be proud of it.
/Jan

Roger Knights
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 1:14 am

If you want to see why Tesla is disdained, check out the Tesla page on the Seeking Alpha financial site, at https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/TSLA
Here’s a podcast 1-hour interview with the leading Tesla-bear, “Montana Skeptic”: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4165662-1b-portfolio-manager-tesla-reminds-enron

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 3:32 am

News from Norway, your home country, about your most innovative car company. Tesla car burning again. This is tiresome news all over world

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 5:37 am

Dr Strangelove
Yes, some cars Catch fire, but do you have any statistics which shows that Tesla Catch fire more often than other cars?

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 7:00 am

You don’t know why Tesla Li ion battery is a fire hazard? I guess you think lead acid car batteries burst into flames and burn the whole car. Another Tesla burned in France

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 9:11 am

Tesla irritates many Americans because it has managed to “innovate” billions of dollars of taxpayer money out of the federal and state governments to build cars far out of reach of the average American. The same people who champion social justice are just fine with Tesla.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 11:25 am

You don’t know why Tesla Li ion battery is a fire hazard?

Yes, I do, but the gasoline in a ICE is also a huge fire hazard. I have never seen statistics showing that EV burns more often than ICE.
The top reason seems to be fuel leak: https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/accidents-hazardous-conditions/10-causes-of-car-fires10.htm

I guess you think lead acid car batteries burst into flames and burn the whole car

No, I know they do not burn like that, but they are a hazard because they contain acid and they can explode. Many people have lost their eyes due to battery acid.
/Jan

John Hardy
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 27, 2018 11:34 pm

Jan I agree. What Musk has done is amazing and all the rot about subsidy farming is just muck raking. He started with a fortune from PayPal. And nobody complains about the barrel load of money loaned to GM

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  John Hardy
April 27, 2018 12:26 am

Of course that future is real different than the one where Ford is going to stop selling sedans an sell nothing but trucks and SUvs.

Roger Knights
April 26, 2018 9:50 pm

“There’s life in the old gal yet.” The gas engine abides.
https://gas2.org/2018/01/30/mazda-says-new-skyactive-3-engines-will-clean-electric-cars/
Mazda Says New SkyActive 3 Engines Will Be As Clean As Electric Cars January 30, 2018
Here are four recent videos on Mazda’s new “spark-controlled compression-ignition” engine, the best of which is :
“Skyactiv-X: Mazda’s Revolutionary Engine Explained”
http://bit.ly/2GxOg1K
It’ll be coming in summer 2019, with a claimed 30% improvement in fuel economy. Here’s an article and two other videos on it:
“Spark Controlled compression-ignition” gasoline skyactiv X engine; Feb. 2018 article:
http://bit.ly/2GPUrl9
“Mazda Creates The Holy Grail Of Gasoline Engines – HCCI SkyActiv-X”
http://bit.ly/2GBsH0p
Mazda Skyactiv-X HCCI Engine Technology Explained | AutoExpert John Cadogan | Australia 8/17
http://bit.ly/2wy9tUH
A Feb. 24 YouTube video of a German test driver commenting on a pre-production version of the latest iteration of the Mazda 3 with its new SkyActiv X engine. He says it’s quiet and more powerful

zzy
April 26, 2018 10:31 pm

You people obviously don’t live in a city like L.A. If EVs were so great, they’d be flying off the showroom floors. Most people can’t afford completely impractical toys pretending to be real motor vehicles.

Jake J
Reply to  zzy
May 4, 2018 12:14 pm

They are flying off the shelves, as a matter of fact. EV sales in the U.S. for the first quarter of 2018 were up 32%, compared with sales of cars, which were down 11%. As a result, the share of plug-in cars went from 2.8% of the car market to 4% of the market in one year. That’s a big change.

CapitalistRoader
Reply to  Jake J
May 4, 2018 2:26 pm

Wow. So pure EV (not hybrid) sales went from, what, 0.185% of total auto sales to 0.190%?

Reply to  Jake J
May 5, 2018 3:39 am

Pure ev share of new vehicles was 1.1% in the us in 2017.
http://evadoption.com/ev-statistics-of-the-week-historical-us-ev-sales-growth-market-share/
Never underestimare an exponential growth curve.
/Jan

CapitalistRoader
Reply to  Jake J
May 5, 2018 6:51 am

Pure ev share of new vehicles was 1.1% in the us in 2017.

Yeah, no. From you link:

For the first time in US history, sales of EVs – both plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) – finished above the 1 percent market share level for the entire year.

The article is about electric vehicles, not hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles. Nice try, but the author’s statement about pure EV sales is correct. Well, at least the second part:

Many different sources all forecast that the market share of EV will grow from the current 0.2 percent.

Reply to  Jake J
May 5, 2018 9:14 am

Capitalist, you are right, I did not see that they also counted plug in hybrids.
However, as I said, never underestimate an exponential growth curve. I still think it will cross the 50% mark before 2030. Time will show.
/Jan

Jake J
Reply to  Jake J
May 5, 2018 8:48 pm

Comparisons need to be like-to-like.
Battery power has notable limitations because of the far lower energy density. Therefore, the comparison needs to be for sedans. Even there, it’s imperfect because at this stage, batteries really make sense only in compact vehicles, the Tesla Model X notwithstanding.
In the U.S., plug-in cars were 4% of car sales in 1Q18 compared with 2.8% a year earlier. If we got more granular, the numbers would almost certainly look even better for plug-ins.

CapitalistRoader
Reply to  Jake J
May 6, 2018 7:09 am

If I plug in a 120 volt battery charger into my gasoline car every night does it make it an electric car? Here’s granularity from EV Obsession’s sales page: 10,100 100% electric cars were sold in February vs. 16.98 million total light vehicle sales. Dividing the former by the latter, I get 0.06% pure electric (no gasoline engine) vehicles sold.
Either that or is my math off by a factor of 33.

Reply to  Jake J
May 6, 2018 9:54 am

Capitalist, almost 17 million new cars per month must be wrong. Think of it, it will be more new cars than citizens in the us in less than two years.
I see that you link to a site that claims it, but they must have made an error.
/Jan

CapitalistRoader
Reply to  zzy
May 6, 2018 10:25 am

Yes, Jan Kjetil Andersen, you’re right: I didn’t read the fine print in that St. Louis Federal Reserve chart:

Units: Millions of Units, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate

Emphasis mine. Redoing the math with this chart’s data:

Pure EV Feb 2018 sales: 10.1 thousand
Total light vehicle Feb 2018 sales: 1.29 million
Dividing the former by the latter: 0.8%.

Less than 1% of vehicles sold in February were pure, non-gasoline engine electrics.

Jake J
Reply to  CapitalistRoader
May 7, 2018 8:11 am

In 1Q18, plug-in cars captured 4% of the car market, up from 2.8% in 1Q17. Half of the plug-ins were battery-only, and the other half were plug-in hybrids. This doesn’t include hybrids that lack plugs.

CapitalistRoader
Reply to  CapitalistRoader
May 7, 2018 9:17 am

In 1Q18, plug-in cars captured 4% of the car market, up from 2.8% in 1Q17. Half of the plug-ins were battery-only, and the other half were plug-in hybrids. This doesn’t include hybrids that lack plugs.

Source(s) please. I’ve shown you mine; you show me yours.

Roger Knights
April 27, 2018 1:08 am

A Mazda/Toyota partnership is building a $500 million factory in Alabama to produce a PHEV using Mazda’s rotary engine running constantly at its optimal speed (so no seal leaks). They wouldn’t be doing so if they don’t think this will be a world-beater (and likely an EV-beater).

Roger Knights
April 28, 2018 4:04 am

At http://bit.ly/2I1MRC1 26 April 2018:
[short version]:

From the Bosch paper presented at the Vienna Motor Symposium this year (in April).
Bosch says it has solved diesel NOx problem; as low as 13 mg NOx/km even under RDE; refining existing technologies
Bosch says that its engineers have refined existing diesel technologies to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) so significantly that they already comply with future limits. Even in RDE (real driving emissions) testing, emissions from vehicles equipped with the newly premiered Bosch diesel technology are not only significantly below current limits but also those scheduled to come into force from 2020 (Euro 6d).
Because the solution leverages existing technology, there is no need for additional components, which would drive up costs.
…………..
A dynamic driving style demands an equally dynamic recirculation of exhaust gases. This can be achieved with the use of a RDE-optimized turbocharger that reacts more quickly than conventional turbochargers. … This means drivers can drive off at speed without a spike in emissions.
To ensure optimum NOx conversion, the exhaust gases must be hotter than 200 degrees Celsius. In urban driving, vehicles frequently fail to reach this temperature. Bosch has therefore opted for a sophisticated thermal management system for the diesel engine.
At a press event in Stuttgart Bosch had dozens of journalists, from both Germany and abroad, drive test vehicles equipped with mobile measuring equipment in heavy city traffic, under especially challenging conditions.
AI can further boost performance.
This will mark another step toward a major landmark: the development of a combustion engine that—with the exception of CO2—has virtually no impact on the ambient air.
Denner also called for a renewed focus on CO2 emissions. Denner said that consumption tests should no longer be conducted in the lab but rather under real driving conditions.
Moreover, he added, any assessment of CO2 emissions should extend significantly further than the fuel tank or the battery—a full well-to-wheels lifecycle approach.

Toto
April 28, 2018 4:58 pm

“The Norwegian electric car revolution is at risk of becoming a failure”
https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/den-norske-elbil-revolusjonen-star-i-fare-for-a-bli-en-fiasko/69749403
(Translations by Chrome)
“In 2016, the Storting adopted a tough target that all new cars sold in 2025 should be zero-emission cars.”
“Our country is an electric car paradise, with duty free cars on the roads and max half price for parking, ferry and boat. In March, the electric car’s share of new car sales was 37 percent. So far this year, every third new car is an electric car.”
“But in the shadow of this gratifying development, some serious hurdles hide along the way towards the 2025 goal. New reports show that we are in trouble.
“The Transport Economics Department has made a model that shows that in order to reach almost 100 per cent electric car within the deadline, with the same level of taxation on fossil cars as now, the electric car benefits must be extended until the deadline – 2025.”
“But most importantly, of course, is the economic cost. If all of the people are allowed to buy tax-free cars, the government loses huge revenues.”
“Because we had high car fees, the duty free electric cars were relatively cheap. In the next year’s budget, politicians have to start charging [higher] fees on fossil cars, so that when the fee for electric cars will be phased in from 2021, the competitive advantage will be maintained at the same time as the state treasury gets its [share].”
The implication here is that electric cars are popular because of price and tax manipulations.

Jake J
May 4, 2018 12:02 pm

Very good article. Treats EVs as a car not a cause in either direction.
I’d have commented earlier, given that I was all over the comment threads on the anti-EV articles, but I live in the countryside and my Internet satellite went out for a couple weeks.

Reply to  Jake J
May 5, 2018 3:42 am

Thank you for the kind words Jake,
Contryside living comes with many benefits, but some downsides too, like unstable internet.
Jan

Jake J
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
May 5, 2018 8:52 pm

We love it out here, but s*** happens.

1 3 4 5