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.

4.9 59 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

334 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 13, 2022 7:00 pm

There’s the impossibility of achieving all this ‘transformation’, seemingly matched only by the difficulty of convincing people that none of it is required in the first place.
How can the blindingly obvious be so difficult to see?

IainC
February 13, 2022 7:20 pm

Willis, great math and thanks. No-one in the MSM does calculations. My X-factor is the instantaneous power requirements for widespread fast-charge EV usage. My calculations are for Australia (20m vehicles, 30GW power requirement)
Cheap EV recharging is currently a reality thanks to low EV numbers, cheap overnight rates and fossil fuel reliability. What about in future when the “experts” have destroyed our reliable grid and replaced it with RE, and mandates and penalties have driven up EV numbers? What might our new costs look like?
Assume we’re all miserly and recharge from home overnight, as many advocates here boast. EV battery capacities range from 60-180kWh depending on range, so let’s assume a mid-point of 100kWh charge. To charge over 10h, that’s a 10kWh per hour charge rate. Even if we have only a million EVs to consider (5% of vehicles in Australia), that’s 10 million kWh per hour, or 10GWh continuous supply, if they all charge on the same night. “But they won’t!” is the cry, but (a) you have to allow for that possibility (most people may want to charge up on a Sunday night ready for the week ahead, say) and (b) even at only 30-40% vehicle coverage that’s a million charges a night randomly, for a once a week charge.
Where do we get 10GWh continuous RE supply guaranteed overnight? Not solar, that’s for sure, and wind is quieter at night and randomly useful and useless anyway (30% random return on nameplate capacity). It’ll have to be RE plus storage, then. How much will THAT cost! I hear you ask? Well, as a foretaste, here’s a clue.
Mike Cannon-Brookes’ Sun Cable proposal involves putting about 100 sq km of solar panels in the Simpson Desert to generate around 3GWh of continuous DC supply, backing up the inconvenient 12-16h of non-production with, get this, around 40GWh of battery backup. He estimates the capital cost at AUD30 billion. Of course, once in operation, sunlight is free (sarc). We will therefore need 3-4 of these initially (90-110bn) to provide the 10GWh, and likely 10 or more once EVs start to dominate the market (300bn), and that’s only if EV charging is evenly spread throughout the week.
Fast charging, which requires 10-20x the current load, would amp up the power requirements enormously. Even only 50,000 cars (0.3% of vehicles) on “fast” charge (100kWh in 30 min) soaks up 10GWh of supply per hour (50,000 x 200kWh per hour).
EVs may be cheap to charge, and RE raw material (sun, wind) may be free, but the infrastructure costs will be staggering. Factor that in, EV activists.

February 13, 2022 8:28 pm

I disagree with those who doubt the viability of electric vehicles. I live in a relatively affluent town that also happens to be the home of Tesla’s US manufacturing plant. One can see Tesla cars everywhere. There are a dozen on my small street. They work and the charging problems can be overcome with some planning and inconvenience.

I agree with Willis regarding the impracticality of converting the national fleet to electric vehicles. The costs of generating the power and the network to deliver it are prohibitive. The supply chain problems we have today are a walk in the park compared with the sourcing and refining of the metals and other raw materials necessary to achieve this impossible goal.

You may be aware that electric vehicles are heavier than conventional cars, because of the battery. You may not be aware that road wear/damage is approximately proportional to axle weight raised to the fourth power. The impact of the condition of our roads (already bad) will be significant.

Reply to  Mike Smith
February 14, 2022 5:16 am

Driving that heavier vehicle on snow and ice is also more difficult, especially on the braking side of the equation. Heavier -> more momentum -> longer braking distance

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 14, 2022 10:01 am

Heavier vehicles also have longer braking distance on dry pavement. Can we expect an increase in rear-end collisions in the Brave New World that the progressives have planned for us?

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 14, 2022 12:28 pm

That’s scary, considering the reaction of batteries to physical damage.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike Smith
February 14, 2022 12:27 pm

Just about anything can be over come if you are willing to throw enough OPM at it.
How many billions are you willing to spend to provide charging points for people who live in apartments or who don’t have off street parking?

Brian R
February 13, 2022 8:43 pm

Want to take it even further? Look into how much wind or solar would be needed to generate that 2.7 GW. Even if you use nameplate capacity the number of bird choppers is staggering. Throw in the required distance between turbines and you’re talking installations covering tens of thousands of square miles.

alastair gray
February 14, 2022 2:17 am

Willis, I did a similar calculation to yours a year ago using near identical methodology to calculate future energy needs the UK in Halcyon Net Zero future and came to the same dismal conlusions on the number of nuclear reactors or wind turbines we would need to build to get there.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/07/letter-to-uk-minister-of-state-minister-for-business-energy-and-clean-growth/
He read i, reassured me that Her Majesty’s Government have it all under control, advised me to more or less smile and be happy or something, and completely ignored the contents of the letter.
Regrettably no one in power will listen to your warnings either but keep up the good work and “nil illegitimi carborundum”

michael hart
February 14, 2022 2:43 am

In the UK, at least, I think there are other motives: They intend to essentially remove private personal transportation from the bulk of the population. Except for those who can afford it. Cities like London already have a “congestion charge” tax (and being able to afford parking spaces also rule it out for very many).

While there is certainly some truth in the argument that uncontrolled car usage has practical physical limits, they are taking the economically punitive measures to get the hoi-polloi back of the roads and onto inadequate public transport.

griff
Reply to  michael hart
February 14, 2022 3:55 am

Paranoid nonsense.

London has a congestion charge because it gets congested – and polluted from traffic fumes.

michael hart
Reply to  griff
February 14, 2022 5:34 am

So you didn’t even read my second paragraph?
I guess I shouldn’t really be surprised.

MarkW
Reply to  michael hart
February 14, 2022 12:31 pm

I’m surprised he read the first paragraph. He usually doesn’t get that far.

Reply to  griff
February 14, 2022 5:52 am

You’ve obviously not been listening to Khan. It’s also the case that successive mayors have made congestion worse.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 14, 2022 12:30 pm

There are other ways to deal with congestion. It’s not at all surprising that the self anointed elites pick the one that forces the poloi to abandon personal transportation

Just yesterday griff declared that economies need to be centrally planned.

Mark Hansford
February 14, 2022 2:47 am

Perhaps the next calculation would be the amount of copper needed to beef up the infrastructure so that all these cars could be charged. Next to that, the carbon footprint of such a massive construction feat. Next to that the conundrum of supplying enough electricity to equivalent filling stations with the ability to fast charge enough cars to be practicable.
Ultimately transportation will be majority electric…….but by 2050……no chance!!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Mark Hansford
February 14, 2022 8:04 am

Recently read an interesting conversation between a Doctor of Engineering at Southampton University (Steve Broderick) and a person at V2G Co UK (V2G = vehicle to grid)

Basically the UK has c300,000 Low Voltage (LV) substations and c.1m residential 230volt LV networks with some 450,000kms of buried cables and only 10-20% of these networks are able to support the charging of EVs. The rest are likely inadequate particularly when heat pumps are added to the equation

A dated cost of upgrading these networks was put at £60b and would involve digging up most of the non motorway roads in the country.

https://v2g.co.uk/2021/05/electric-vehicles-as-energy-smart-appliances

https://www.researchgate/net/profile/Steve-Broderick

February 14, 2022 4:24 am

If only the stupid did burn.

I ain’t been here long and when I first pitched in, was convinced that alcohol consumption was driving the ‘stoopid’
Certainly Climate Change is a western ‘thing’ and Western Nations drink vastly more than ‘most everyone else (per capita)

Since I quit drinking nearly 20 years ago and, with new found self confidence (I could be and was – Shy for England) lots of interesting things have happened to me and within me.
In actuality, I have learned that sugar in all its manifestations is simply = diluted down alcohol.

Ah you say, so is ‘Shandy’ and also ‘low alcohol’ beers and they have no effect – they do not make you (classically) drunk
Neither does sugar but what it does do is release Dopamine into your brain (makes yo happy and outgoing) and then make you sleepy/drowsy, (depressed and ingoing) about an hour after you consumed.
Just Like Booze

Except we are eating sugar almost constantly throughout our waking hours

And there is Climate Change
One minute a happy joyous feeling that windmills, solar panels and electric cars will make everything lovely and then the next, a depression saying that everything is awful and we need windmills to fix it.
But much worse, that all the awful things are being inflicted on us (i.e me, me, me, me and me) by Everybody Else. That they must be made to stop and compensate me for the woe & hurt so far inflicted. On me.
Money is good for that. And I will go out and spend it on something that makes me happy – the more expensive it is, the better.
Like an electric car

If that doesn’t describe a hopeless case of Addiction, what does?

So it goes on in an ever deepening spiral, loop and darkening hole. i.e. Classic depression
That is The Stoopid = chronic depression effected and endlessly exacerbated by Sugar Poisoning
Hence why Vegetarianism is The Answer, according to those who are affected.
=The Stepford Wives basically, once you have taken the poison, you will ‘understand’ and will become ‘one of us’.
Welcome to The Collective. Read: A world-wide community of dementia sufferers.

Thank you Ancel Keys, Thank you for nothing because unless this thing is turned around pretty damn pronto, that is all there’ll be.
nothing.
The ‘drunks’ and chronic depressives will have trashed everywhere, safe in the knowledge that they were saving it.

Duane
February 14, 2022 4:36 am

The author is assuming incorrectly that all of the additional electrical energy needed for electric transportation would come from additional generating capacity. Most vehicles will be used almost entirely during the normal waking hours of people, when daily electrical power demand peaks. But left parked at home during the normal sleeping hours of people, when daily electrical power drops to a minimum. Therefore a very large proportion of the necessary electrical energy will be demanded from underutilized generating plants, which actually makes the grid much more efficient than it is now with its huge daily peaks and valleys in electrical demand.

The author is also not accounting for the reduction in energy demand from producing and transporting crude oil, and refining, storing, transporting, and dispensing of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The “energy losses” that he claims for transformer losses are dwarfed by the losses in hydrocarbon production, refining and distribution.

The author also overestimates internal energy losses – in a battery powered EV, the losses internal (electrical energy in minus mechanical energy at the wheels) is practically negligible – less than 5 %. Whereas for internal combustion vehicles, the energy losses due to waste heat alone comes to 70-75%, plus additional significant energy losses in the transmissions and other mechanical drive train components.

The bottom line is that electrical motive systems are vastly more efficient at converting stored energy to motive power than any internal combustion powered vehicle. And the additional energy required from using EVs does NOT equate on a 1 for 1 basis to new generating capacity.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duane
February 14, 2022 10:19 am

But left parked at home during the normal sleeping hours of people, when daily electrical power drops to a minimum.

That is the current situation. If the entire country is electrified, everybody will be charging at night, and it will turn the situation on its head.

Reply to  Duane
February 14, 2022 4:47 pm

When all appliances are electric, such as heating/cooling, electric demand won’t drop much at night. When most cars will be slow-charged which can take 8-10 hours, that demand will be pretty constant all night. Electric demand is already high in the evening hours, going total electric won’t change that.

The largest part of transporting fossil fuels today is by pipeline or rail, pretty darn efficient.. Storing fossil fuel is not very energy demanding. Electric losses are not just “transformer losses” but transmission losses as well. As electric infrastructure has to be upgraded to replace fossil fuels, transmission losses will mount as integrated, nation-wide interconnects will be required to make use of unreliable wind and solar.

Waste heat from ICE engines is what heats your car in winter, and its free. Battery power will have to do that in an EV and that probably isn’t going to be efficient or free.

An EV may be more efficient in moderate temps. That isn’t the case in high temps or low temps. Batteries lose available power at a higher rate than fossil fuels in these conditions.

You need to consider *all* factors, not just whether an electric motor is more efficient than an ICE motor. Try stopping a heavy EV on ice compared to a lighter ICE vehicle. You can only get so much traction from similar sized tires meaning the heavier the vehicle the longer stopping distance it will have.

IanE
February 14, 2022 5:29 am

No, no! You miss the point entirely, Willis. This is NOT about replacing transportation by oil into transportation by e-vehicles: no, it is about STOPPING the bulk of transportation for ordinary mortals.

Just think, the roads will be so much clearer for the super-men who run our world!

February 14, 2022 5:53 am

The Church of Warming does not allow mathematics only hysterical rhetoric supplied by government clergy, excuse me , scientists. Running the numbers on the only viable electrical generation today, natural gas, I calculated that that it would require using about 2 times as many Btu’s of natural gas as there are BTU’s in a gallon of gasoline to go the same distance in an electric vehicle. This could be mitigated by installing “hot rails” on major thorough fares by eliminating the energy losses caused by battery charging as well as provide charging while driving. The fact that no one is even discussing this viability in my opinion shows the entire EV push is a complete scam.

February 14, 2022 5:57 am

An important outcome for those pushing this agenda is to force people away from private vehicle ownership. They aren’t planning a one-for-one replacement. The oiks will have to make do with public transport.

vboring
February 14, 2022 7:28 am

The Transmission and Distribution system impacts are less than the energy impacts because of the load shape.

T&D are designed for annual peak coincident loads. Investments are only made for loads that increase this load. Charging your EV at any other time of the year will not trigger T&D upgrades.

Doubling the electricity sales may increase T&D needs by 20% or less – it depends on the local conditions.

If EVs increase T&D needs by 20% while increasing energy delivered by 100%, this will cause rate decreases because 20% higher infrastructure costs will be spread over 100% higher product delivery.

The rest of the analysis is spot on. Strictly impossible in today’s regulatory environment.

John Hultquist
February 14, 2022 7:48 am

 In the PNW (WA/OR/ID), nuclear has been humming all week; wind not so much. Read the lists under the chart (updates while you watch) to see what the sources are; VER = wind, mostly. Colors are above the chart.

Columbia Generating Station Lat/Long: 46.453598, -119.345052

February 14, 2022 8:56 am

I posted a similar but less accurate calculation here a few months ago. Looking at UK government energy usage graphs by sector, you can see that with a first approximation to replace petroleum with electrical power , we need to more than double existing capacity – a lot more

With no plans anywhere in site to achieve this impossibility

Said it before, will say again

“Won’t happen because it Can’t happen”

5B892A4C-B6DB-43BE-A953-26330F143232.jpeg
Matthew R Marler
February 14, 2022 9:20 am

Willis, thank you again for your work.

Paul Penrose
February 14, 2022 10:17 am

Love the analysis, however it’s even worse than you show because you didn’t include heavy construction equipment, trains, airplanes, and ships. Those all add up to a considerable amount of fuel as well. That’s of course assuming that those sectors could even be electrified in any meaningful sense. The whole idea of net zero is so laughable on its face, that you have to believe the people pushing it are either completely ignorant of the engineering realities, or are playing a corrupt game to line their own pockets. Frankly, building a self-sustaining colony on Mars by 2050 is more feasible, and it would be cheaper, although it’s still a long shot obviously.

Quicky
February 14, 2022 1:30 pm

I love the Tesla recharging at our local mall: It is powered by a natural gas generator that starts when someone plugs in. “It” does indeed burn!

You can’t fix stoopid…but you can numb it with a 2 x 4!

John Hardy
February 14, 2022 2:27 pm

I am an EV enthusiast but I think mandating a switch to EVs is quite wrong. Let them grow organically (which they will – they are far better to drive). They are still not viable if you don’t have off street parking or for the sort of commercial traveller who does silly mileages every day.

Having said that Willis, I think there must be something adrift in your calculations or your assumptions. I do nearly all my miles on electric power and doing a quick and crude sanity check, the increment on my power bill is nothing like that implied by 2,250/3,800 Tw hours. It is hardly noticeable

Steve
February 14, 2022 5:16 pm

To be fair, you’d also get a large and prolonged boost in the electrical, construction, and supporting sectors, but that wouldn’t likely come close to balancing the damage done.

Kit P
February 14, 2022 5:32 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, …..

Now that is funny! Being in the nuclear industry it is not funny haha! The problems is not building all the nuke plants that society needs but being unemployed because we did it so well.

I calculated when I was an engineer in new reactors that it would take one reactor to power a million BEV for 60 years.

The problem is keeping a million BEV on the road for 60 years.

I am an old school slide rule engineering. Garbage in is still garbage out.

Nuclear power power plants are not giant but rather finite in size.

ferdberple
February 14, 2022 9:31 pm

Charging stations are a huge problem. You need a whole lot more than current gas pumps numbers.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ferdberple
February 16, 2022 10:59 am

You need a whole lot more than current gas pumps numbers.

Yes, because ICE cars take <8 minutes to refuel, and a single pump can service many cars throughout the day. EVs take 8 hours, and if their home or work place isn’t wired to recharge, EV owners will have to find a place to park their cars for 8 hours. If that means walking from where they left their car to their workplace or home — in rain, blizzard, or Sonora Desert scorching sun — the owner isn’t going to be happy. I imagine that someone living in Atlanta or Gulfport will have to put another shirt/blouse in their briefcase to change into when they get to their office.

Businesses that currently provide parking lots for their employees will find their profit margin impacted if they have to provide electric charging for every parking space.

Harry Passfield
February 15, 2022 4:51 am

Bit late to the table but…. I get the feeling that NZC is way for your enemies to keep you busy on pointless objectives which, in merely preparing for them will weaken you, but which, if they ever succeeded, would weaken you even more.

js290
February 15, 2022 8:06 am

The only clean energy is to consume less. Not possible for a heavier EV to consume less energy.

js290
Reply to  js290
February 15, 2022 8:31 am

Nicole Foss on renewables http://bit.ly/2rzS5Pq