Electric Transportation By 2050

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I’ve written before about the insanity of the “Net-Zero By 2050” push in a post called “Bright Green Impossibilities“. Today I thought I’d talk about a different impossibility, that of changing all of our land-based transportation (light vehicles, plus our buses and heavy trucks) to being battery powered.

Here’s how I went about it. I use the computer language R for my calculations. I used a few functions to do my conversions, as follows:


# joules to watt-hours
j2whr=function(x) x*0.0002777777777

# gallons of gas to kilowatt-hours
galgas2kwh=function(gal) gal*j2wh(130927880)/1000

# gallons of diesel to kilowatt-hours
galdiesel2kwh=function(gal) gal*j2wh(146765930)/1000

# calculates the months from now to some future date
monthstodate=function(thedate) {
	if (is.double(thedate)) thedate = paste0(thedate,"-01-01")
	as.double(as.Date(thedate)-Sys.Date())/(365.25/12)
}

# terawatt-hours per year used to gigawatts generation needed
twh2gw=function(twh,peakfactor=2,capfactor=1,transmission=.95) (twh/hrsperyear*1e3*peakfactor)/capfactor/transmission

The first function converts joules to watt-hours. The next two convert gallons of diesel and gasoline to their energy content in kilowatt-hours.

The next function calculates the number of months until some date in the future. And the final function converts terawatt-hours of electricity used in a year to the amount of gigawatts of generation needed. It takes into account

• a peak factor to account for the fact that peak usage needs to be covered and is generally about twice average usage.

• a capacity factor to cover downtimes for maintenance, and

• a transmission loss factor.

Then I went and got the figures for the number of miles driven and gallons of fuel used in the US in 2017 from the US Department of Transportation. Now, it’s very likely that by 2050 many more miles will be driven … how many? Well, this document says about 50% – 60% more miles, so I’ll use 40% as a conservative number.

With that in hand, here are my calculations. We can’t just divide total miles driven by electric vehicle miles per kilowatt-hour, because we need to figure in the trucks and buses as well. So the first part of my calculation is to figure out the difference between the energy used per mile for light cars and that used for trucks.

In the following, the lines starting with “>” and a hashmark are comments, the lines starting with just “>” are instructions to the computer, and the lines starting with the “[1]” are the computer output.


> # miles driven light cars/trucks
> (light_miles=2877378e6)
[1] 2.877378e+12
 
> # miles driven heavy trucks
> (heavy_miles=297593e6) 
[1] 2.97593e+11
 
> # gallons gas light vehicles 
> (light_gal=129178914e3)
[1] 1.291789e+11 

> # gallons diesel heavy trucks
> (heavy_gal=45963416e3) 
[1] 4.596342e+10
 
> # kwh in gas used, light vehicles
> (light_kwh=galgas2kwh(light_gal))
[1] 4.698089e+12

> # kwh in diesel used, trucks
> (heavy_kwh=galdiesel2kwh(heavy_gal)) 
[1] 1.873851e+12

> # miles per kwh light vehicles
> (light_mpkwh=light_miles/light_kwh) 
[1] 0.6124571
 
> # miles per kwh trucks
> (heavy_mpkwh=heavy_miles/heavy_kwh) 
[1] 0.1588136
 
> # extra kwh for trucks
> (truckextra=light_mpkwh/heavy_mpkwh) 
[1] 3.856453

OK, so that’s the first part. Heavy trucks use about 3.9 times the energy per mile as light cars.

Next, we need to calculate the amount of electricity we’ll need. The wall-to-wheels efficiency of light electric cars is about 2.5 miles per kilowatt-hour. Note that this is less than the battery-to-wheels efficiency because of losses in the transformer used to charge the battery and the losses in the battery itself in the form of heat.


> # electric vehicle miles per kilowatt-hour
> (ev_milesperkwh=2.5) 
[1] 2.5

From this point, we need to divide the estimated miles driven in 2050 by the relevant miles per kilowatt-hour to get the total power needed.


> # kwh needed, electric light vehicles
> (light_kwh=light_miles*milesinc/ev_milesperkwh) 
[1] 1.611332e+12

> # kwh needed, electric heavy vehicles
> (heavy_kwh=heavy_miles*milesinc*truckextra/ev_milesperkwh) 
[1] 6.426858e+11


> # total terawatthours needed/yr
> (tot_twh=(light_kwh+heavy_kwh)/1e9) 
[1] 2254.018

So we’ll need ~ 2,250 terawatt-hours of electricity per year to move the people and the goods around. And how much new generation will this require? Well, by comparison, the US currently uses about 3,800 terawatt-hours per year, so we’ll need a huge, unimaginable 60% increase … and that just for electric cars and trucks and nothing more.

How much generating capacity will that take? Here you go:


> # gigawatts new generation needed

> (generation_needed=twh2gw(tot_twh,capfactor = .95)) 
[1] 569.8329

We’ll need an additional ~ 570 gigawatts of generating capacity. And how long do we have to do that?

The only currently available technology capable of delivering that is nuclear. And it takes about ten years from conception to completion for a nuclear power plant.

Figure 1. Timeline from feasibility studies to actual startup for a new nuclear power plant.

So that means we have only until 2040 to begin the power plants we need by 2050. How many do we need?


> # months from now until 2040
> (time_available=round(monthstodate(2040))) 
[1] 215
> 
> # gigawatts of new power plants needed per month
> (round(generation_needed/time_available,1))
[1] 2.7

So … to provide for an all-electric transportation fleet, starting tomorrow we’d have to build a new 2.7 GW nuclear power plant each and every month for the next 215 months … and those are huge plants, 20% larger than the giant Diablo Canyon power plant in Californa that the eco-fools are planning to shut down.

( … gotta love California. We can’t even keep the lights on now, and the idiots in charge want to shut down Diablo Canyon and require only electric cars to be sold in the state after 2035 … but I digress.)

Oh, and besides building 215 new giant nuclear power plants at the rate of one per month every month for the next 18 years starting this month, we’d need to upsize our entire power grid by 60% from end to end, all the way from the generators down to the transformers and the electric wires feeding your house.

I’m sorry, but doing all of that is politically, practically, logistically, and financially impossible.

And what will it accomplish? Sweet Fanny Adams, as our British cousins say. The entire US could go net-zero tomorrow, and even if we accept the alarmists’ hysterical figures, the temperature difference it would make in 2050 is too small to even be measured … we’d be throwing trillions down a rathole and we’d get nothing in return.

Well, except for greatly increased taxes and much higher energy prices …

The stoopid, it burns.

w.

My Usual Request: When you comment, QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO, so we are not left in mystery as to who and what you are talking about.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 59 votes
Article Rating
334 Comments
February 13, 2022 11:41 am

What is great about this post is that one can approach alarmists & say “Fine ! So how are you going to solve the problem ? (without ever getting into / arguing the scientific issues)… ” and show that even if you are a true believer, the only way forward is to adapt. I guess the flip side is that most the true believers won’t be able to grasp even simple calculations, such as present here.
Thanks for “doing the maths” , Willis !

Tom.1
February 13, 2022 11:46 am

Good job Willis. Question: I assume the auto companies have people who can also do the calculations which you just did. How come then are they all seemingly planning for an all-electric EV future?

Old Retired Guy
February 13, 2022 11:58 am

Noting that just the transportation side of things creates a practically impossible scenario, how much further beyond does converting all the energy consuming activities move these numbers? Plus all the products that require O&G as a base component?

All of which is beyond the understanding of the innumerates populating the MSM and the liberal gaggle.

michel
February 13, 2022 11:59 am

Willis,

Its right of course, to do it is impossible. But maybe the real issue is to go a little further.

We know from what you’ve done (and it was intuitively obvious anyway) that the idea that we all carry on as now but with the engines changed from ICE to electric is not going to happen.

But that does not mean we are all going to carry on driving ICE cars as now. What is much more likely is that the government, particularly in the UK, where all four political parties agree on it, the other three of them being even more extreme on this stuff than the present Conservative government, will make a serious effort to do it. And they really will actually ban the sale of ICE vehicles after 2030.

What then?

Well, it would be a very long post to spell it out, but I think the bottom line is fewer cars, maybe 10% of what we have now. Much less driving. Much less freight. Much less shopping. Tracking vehicles and charging per mile and by where is driven. Using the car as a grid storage device, and draining its battery when the grid needs it.

Buy a bicycle. Not a fancy lightweight one, a Dutch style bike with big panniers and metal fenders. You are going to need it, if they really keep on with this. And they show no sign of stopping.

February 13, 2022 12:06 pm

“Then I went and got the figures for the number of miles driven and gallons of fuel used in the US in 2017 from the US Department of Transportation. “

Did I miss the calculation for regenerative braking that electric vehicles enjoy? I’m sure it wouldn’t make all that much difference, but it would allow the critics an opportunity to throw water on the argument and dismiss it out of hand.

Peter
February 13, 2022 12:12 pm

A few years ago I did a similar calculation based on the energy equivalent of all the oil we were using in Canada. That produced a number like 2x the current generating capacity equivalent . Reworking to to use average miles driven etc to try to factor in EV effeciency gains it still came at over 1x the current capacity… so doubling at a minimum the electricity generating capacity in Canada is required. I got into arguments with people but nobody ever corrected the math. At this point my conclusion is the best way forward is to go gung ho green in certain provinces and states and let them fail quickly so we can move on. They wont learn unless they fail so lets get it over with fast.

griff
February 13, 2022 12:22 pm

Well I can’t speak for the USA, but looking at the average commute in the UK – 11 miles – the average journey length – 8.4 miles – the average annual mileage – 6,800 miles and the average mileage in first 3 years for new cars – 10,377 miles – it is plain that taking a 200 mile range (most UK smaller EVs will do more than that) you’ll be charging your car about once a week in the UK.

And you’ll do that off peak, at the commuter rail station or supermarket or gym as often as at home…

So there’s not going to be some huge increase in power use every evening.

Marcus
February 13, 2022 12:24 pm

Willis Eschenbach

“I’ve written before about the insanity of the “Net-Zero By 2050” ”
Willis, it’s not insanity, it’s criminal ! As with the “Wufu Flu”, the left is trying to get rid of the non productive, non Demoncrap voting segment of society..

Another great post, how do you find the time to write them all with so few typing errors ?

February 13, 2022 12:47 pm

Willis,

Thanks for your detailed efforts in this regard, but wouldn’t it have been much simpler to have uses the R code function “credibility test” to establish the non-feasibility of “net-zero by 2050”?

My use of this function in R code returns a value of 0.0000013 (basically, “one-in-a million” chance), but then again I am not as facile as you in using R programming language.

🙂

George V
February 13, 2022 1:07 pm

Thank you for the analysis, Willis. You make it obvious that no one government is actually thinking.

The need for electricity is even greater if rail transport were added to this set of equations. While the US has some electrified lines that are primarily passenger transport, think of all the freight that moves by rail.

kybill
February 13, 2022 1:14 pm

On this site alone we have had years of discussion concerning the improbability of going carbon free. We have had years of discussion on the need to go carbon free. I don’t see where we are getting anywhere.
Isn’t it time to back up and get out of the weeds – who and why is leading this? Six years ago AOC’s chief of staff openly stated that this isn’t about the climate – it is about destroying our capitalistic society and replacing it with a global socialist type of society lead by a few and making the rest of us serfs.
My suggestion is to take all of the green money allocated and MAKE the USPS go green. Make them order the vehicles they need. Make them request budgeting based on design drawings and actual quotes. Stop repairing the existing fleet. Put in the charging stations, etc. This will shut down the Post office in a few years and will put actual numbers on the actual costs.
Currently we are spending a little money here and a little money there. Nobody notices what is accomplished and the cost – a form of divide and conquer.

.

Paul
February 13, 2022 1:33 pm

Willis, you missed one big fuel user for transporting goods. 30-40% of the truck/trailers are refrigerated with diesel motors running the compressors. I have seen the trailers set for several days with the Diesel running to keep the cargo cold. How is that going to work with batteries?

Richard (the cynical one)
February 13, 2022 1:46 pm

If the point of the exercise were as stated, the goal will not be reached. But if the true goal were the bankrupting of industrialization, it may well be reached. And if a byproduct of the exercise would include a major decrease in population, whether by starvation, violence or disease, the Malthusians would be ecstatic.

Editor
February 13, 2022 1:48 pm

Well, if we needed Net Zero to be EVEN MORE IMPOSSIBLE than it was yesterday, w. has supplied the data.

Of course, I was perfectly willing to settle for just normal everyday impossible, but I’m a mere pragmatist.

February 13, 2022 2:20 pm

The only currently available technology capable of delivering that is nuclear. And it takes about ten years from conception to completion for a nuclear power plant.

Longer. Here are the dates for Plant Vogtle units 3 & 4:

August 2006: Application submitted for ESL (Early Site License)
March 2008: Application submitted for COL (Construction and Operating License)
August 2009: Early Site License and Limited Work Authorization issued by NRC.
February 2012: COL approved by NRC.
July 2012: litigation initiated by environmental and anti-nuclear groups was rejected by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
March 2013: Construction officially begun on unit 3.
June 2013: original schedule extended by 14 months
November 2013: Construction officially begun for unit 4.
October 2021: revised schedule announced: unit 3 operational 3rd quarter 2021 and unit 4 to follow 2nd quarter 2022.

Total time from conception to completion: 16+ years.
Total time for major construction: 9+ years.

The Plant Vogtle campus has been approved as a nuclear power site since before construction started on units 1 & 2 in 1976. For a totally new site it is quite likely the ESL and COL review process will take longer.

Even the French are taking much longer to build nuclear reactors these days: the average start construction to operational status for the four reactors put in service this century is 14.3 years. For the 52 put in service before 2000 it is 6.7 years. The one still under construction is the 1660 MW Flammanville unit 3; started in December 2007 and projected operational May 2023 — 16.5 years.

Aside from cost and time the other reason we can’t rely on all nuclear to meet the additional demand is that pressurized water reactors (the entire US commercial fleet) can’t be ramped up and down to follow demand due to Xenon poisoning. The explanation is here. With current designs nuclear is limited to base load; variable demand will need to be met with other generation types.

Coeur de Lion
February 13, 2022 2:35 pm

Sitting in the UK in a fog of uncertainty, I asked my MP whether I would be allowed to import another French Citroen diesel automobile in 2030 as I’d seen nothing about it. She didn’t know. What wd be the WTO’s reaction to an import barrier?

Terry
February 13, 2022 2:41 pm

I think we are misunderstanding what this means. It is not the intention of the elites – the John Kerry’s, Klaus Schwab’s, Leonardo DiCaprio’s etc, that non elites – the 98% of the population, continue to live like we have been living. For example, ownership of personal transportation devices must come to an end except for the wealthy. As Schwab, the originator of the elite wateringhole – Davos, said of the future: “You will own nothing, but you will be happy.”

February 13, 2022 2:41 pm

Willis,

Just one little nitpick. You won’t have just transformer losses to worry about. If all the public, residential, and business chargers use transformers they will put a huge inductive load on the transmission lines. That’s especially true for residential load at peak usage time. Those inductive loads increase the current requirements at the source generator even though the inductive current produces no real work at the load. That inductive current increases total loss in the transmission lines used to serve the load.

I’m not sure what the power factor of the typical low-output, residential charging system is but I’m pretty sure it is not 1. How much widespread residential chargers will increase the inductive current for a typical residence is something I can’t judge. Maybe someone on here will know. It is a factor that should be considered in sizing the generator plants.

February 13, 2022 2:43 pm

If genetics is any clue, I’ll be dead way before 2050 and probably incompetent to drive by 2035.

So I will be missing out on all that electrical stuff anyway.

But I’m sure my grandchildren are more than capable of voting for their own best interests regardless of what currently aging boomers have planned for them.

OK Boomer?

February 13, 2022 2:52 pm

Oh, and besides building 215 new giant nuclear power plants at the rate of one per month every month for the next 18 years starting this month, we’d need to upsize our entire power grid by 60% from end to end, all the way from the generators down to the transformers and the electric wires feeding your house.

So we instead need to look towards the real issue which is that fossil fuels will run out, especially oil which is the focus of your transport calculation

Even if you ludicrously say that oil can be made to last at current production rates with whatever growth is needed for 12 x 18 = 216 years then that still means we need to be building one new plant every year.

That’s why its imperative that we do something about this now. But we need to do it for the right reasons. The wrong reason includes CCS which is a waste of time, money and energy.

February 13, 2022 3:04 pm

You are of course assuming that charging takes place at an even rate across each minute and hour of the year, with no change in demand patterns for the rest of electricity usage. Maybe there is some spare dispatchable capacity that arises from the diurnal demand pattern, as illustrated by this chart that shows a dull windless day in January. Lower demand in summer or when it’s windy or sunny would create different patterns of charging opportunity. In practice, charging demand would tend to run overnight, and can be managed somewhat to give a more even flow. But if you get to a large fraction of charging being done overnight, it becomes the peak period. Perhaps trucks will have to be driven overnight,and charged up during the day at times to suit the grid. I suspect that in addition to nuclear, there will be a need for a substantial share of new flexible generation, and the total capacity required will be even higher in consequence.

The EIA report some 483GW of gas for 1617TWh (38%), 218GW of coal for 774TWh (41%), 103GW of hydro for about 250TWh (28%, allowing for a bad year), 97GW of nuclear for 790TWh (93%) and 36GW of oil for 36TWh (11% peaker operation) of generation that can be regarded as dispatchable – a total of 937GW for 3,467TWh. Average use amounts to about 395GW, so the current average capacity factor is just 42% reflecting the need to provide for high demand days (whether hot or cold weather), and to provide backup and spacefor renewables on the grid. I think this tell us that the real costs and requirements are going to be substantially higher, particularly if you have to factor in a larger intermittent renewables share.

EV elec gen.png
observa
February 13, 2022 4:22 pm

Don’t forget when you’re buying your new EV to get the really big long range battery so your neighbours can have the benefit of reliable power and wearing it out as the energy providers suck the life out of it regularly-
National Grid trials draining batteries of parked electric vehicles (msn.com)

Meanwhile more of the fallacy of composition as Western Australia joins South Australia with the inevitable-
Household solar to be switched off as another state gains emergency grid management powers (msn.com)
Always pays to hop in for your chop early with all the Greening going down as you don’t want to be tail end charlie. As the world’s greatest Treasurer reminded us once the easiest cut is the handout you don’t give in the first place and bad luck suckers and poor folks who were late to the trough or couldn’t afford the fare. You’ll get your warmening rotting in Hell watermelons.

dk_
February 13, 2022 4:41 pm

Thanks! Great explanation.

February 13, 2022 5:21 pm

What surprises me about many of the posts on this topic is the lack of optimism about the potential benefits resulting from scientific and technological research and development.

I think it’s true that the political agenda of many countries to reach net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 is unrealistic in relation to the current state of ‘renewable’ technology. However, ‘science and technology’ is always progressing.

The negative aspect of net-zero goals is that many mistakes will be made along the way, energy prices will occasionally soar and power outages might become more frequent. If technology has not advanced sufficiently to address these problems during the following 2 or 3 decades, then the target of net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 will not be met.

The positive aspect of such a target is that it will put pressure on the ‘science and technology’ community to solve these obvious problems by developing new, advanced devices.

For example, we all know that the current Lithium-Ion batteries used in EVs are heavy, expensive, and have limited range. Does that mean we should scrap the idea of EVs replacing ICE’s, or should we invest more money in research for better batteries that could eventually result in EVs becoming far more efficient that ICE vehicles?

Here’s a site that mentions a number of new battery types that are currently under development. Even allowing for an exaggeration of the benefits, they are still impressive.

“NAWA Technologies has designed and patented an Ultra Fast Carbon Electrode, which it says is a game-changer in the battery market. It uses a vertically-aligned carbon nanotube (VACNT) design and NAWA says it can boost battery power ten fold, increase energy storage by a factor of three and increase the lifecycle of a battery five times. The company sees electric vehicles as being the primary beneficiary, reducing the carbon footprint and cost of battery production, while boosting performance. NAWA says that 1000km range could become the norm, with charging times cut to 5 minutes to get to 80 per cent. The technology could be in production as soon as 2023.”

https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air
http://www.nawatechnologies.com/

I wonder how many negative ticks I’ll get. (wink)

Christopher Chantrill
February 13, 2022 5:24 pm

Math is hard.