EV’s Fossil Fuel Economy No Better than ICE Vehicles

From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Weather Blog

June 17th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

…But the price per mile of EVs energy use is cheaper for the time being ($2 per gallon of gas equivalent)

Photo credit: Insideevs.com.

Most of the electricity generated in the U.S. continues to come from fossil fuels (61% in 2021). This is not likely to change much in the future as electricity demand is increasing faster than renewables (20% of total in 2020 and 20.1% of total in 2021) can close the gap versus fossil fuels. Given that fact, it is interesting to ask the question:

Which uses fossil fuels more efficiently, an EV or ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicle?

Most of what you will read about EVs versus ICE vehicles discuss how EVs are more efficient at converting the energy they carry into motion (e.g. here, and here , and here, and here, etc.) but this is only part of the equation. The generation, transmission, and battery storage of electricity is very inefficient compared to the refining and transport of gasoline, and those inefficiencies each year add up to more than all of the gasoline consumed in the U.S.

EV Energy Usage per Mile

The average energy consumption of an EV vehicle is about 0.35 kWh per mile. At the U.S. average electricity price of $0.145 per kWh in June 2022, and assuming the 2021 average new car fuel economy of 39 mpg, this makes the ICE-equivalent fuel price of an EV $1.98 per gallon of gasoline. With the U.S. average price of gas now over $5.00 a gallon, this by itself (ignoring the many other considerations, discussed below) makes the EV attractive for month-to-month savings on fuel purchases.

But since most of this electricity still comes from fossil fuels, we must factor in the efficiency with which electricity is generated and transmitted and stored in the EV’s battery. This is how we can answer the question, Which uses fossil fuels more efficiently, an EV or ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicle?

The generation of electricity is pretty inefficient with efficiencies ranging 33% from coal and 42% from natural gas. As we continue to transition away from coal to natural gas, I will use the 42% number. Next, at least 6.5% is lost in transmission and distribution. Finally, 12% of the electricity is lost in charging of the EV battery. Taken together, these losses add up to the 0.35 kWh per mile energy efficiency of an EV increasing to 1.0 kWh per mile in terms of fossil energy being used.

ICE Energy Usage per Mile

How does the internal combustion engine stack up against the EV in terms of efficiency of fossil fueled energy use?

A gallon of gas contains 33.7 kWh of energy. But like the generation of electricity, it takes energy to extract that gallon of gas from petroleum. However, the refining process is very energy efficient (about 90%), so it takes (33.7/0.9=) 37.44 kWh of energy to obtain that 33.7 kWh of energy is a gallon of gas. At the 39 mpg gas mileage of 2021 cars, this gives an energy economy number of 0.96 kWh per mile driven, which is just below the 1.0 kWh fossil fuel energy usage of an EV. With advertised fuel economy of 48 to 60 mpg, hybrid vehicles (which are gasoline powered) would thus have an advantage over EVs.

Other Considerations

Of course, the main reason EVs are being pushed on the American people (through subsidies and stringent CAFE standards) is the reduction in CO2 emissions that will occur, assuming more of our electricity comes from non-fossil fuel sources in the future. I personally have no interest in owning one because I want the flexibility of travelling long distances in a single day.

There is also the issue of the large amount of additional natural resources, and associated pollution, required to make millions of EV batteries.

Furthermore, the electrical grid will need to be expanded to provide the increase in electricity needed. This greater electricity demand, along with the high cost of wind and solar energy, might well make the fuel cost advantage of the EV disappear in the coming years.

Finally, a portion of the true price of a new EV is hidden through subsides (which the taxpayer pays for) and high CAFE fuel economy regulations, which require auto manufacturers not meeting the standard to pay companies like Tesla, a cost which is passed on to the consumer through higher prices on ICE cars and (especially) trucks.

5 32 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
232 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 20, 2022 6:12 am

The science is not settled….97% of all scientists do not agree….but let’s rush ahead and spend trillions where wise men refuse to tread.

Dennis
Reply to  Anti_griff
June 20, 2022 8:39 am

It is rarely mentioned that if there were 97 per cent of scientists in agreement they represent a tiny fraction of the total number of scientists world wide.

See hacked emails released around the time of the IPCC Copenhagen Conference: Climate Gate 1 and 2 exchanged between the creators of the computer modelling of creatively accounted warming trend. The data audited by Christopher Monckton (mathematician) and reported by him after it was reviewed by qualified people. Monckton was criticised for not being a scientist, but he never claimed to be.

b.nice
Reply to  Dennis
June 20, 2022 4:45 pm

As a mathematician, he would trounce basically any “climate scientist”.

AndyHce
Reply to  Dennis
June 20, 2022 6:07 pm

if there were 97 per cent of scientists in agreement they represent a tiny fraction of the total number of scientists world wide

I don’t know what you think you were saying, but 97% is 97%, which is 33.3 times as many as that part (3%) not in the 97%.

Drake
Reply to  AndyHce
June 20, 2022 7:04 pm

But the study DID NOT say ALL scientists. They were analyzing scientific papers that mentioned climate change, you know, written by the people whose livelihood depends on their NEXT grant for their next phony CAGW study.

So 97%, bogusly attained BTW, of climate centric scientists, is NOT, by far, 97% of all scientists.

If you have time go to Climate Audit and search for the articles on the 97% BS. You, from your comment, haven’t done much research on THAT fraud and will greatly benefit from the FACTS.

MGC
Reply to  Dennis
June 20, 2022 8:36 pm

It is quite dismaying to find that here we are, years and years later, and we still have folks like Dennis (and b.nice below) so misinformed as to actually believe Monckton’s ludicrous lies about “climategate”.

Dennis
Reply to  MGC
June 20, 2022 8:58 pm

Why did the IPCC not publish a detailed critique of Christopher Monckton’s audit report?

All they did was try to insult him referring to his facial expression (medical related), not being a scientist and claiming the science is settled to dismiss his very detailed report.

I have read many audit reports of company accounts and they are not guess work.

Bill Toland
Reply to  MGC
June 21, 2022 2:06 am

It is quite dismaying to find that here we are, years and years later, and we still have folks like MGC so misinformed as to actually believe the ludicrous lies about “climategate” from climate alarmists.

Reply to  MGC
June 21, 2022 7:39 am

Why should we care about Monckton’s interpretation?
Some of us read many dozens of the Climategate eMails ourselves. We learned that government climate scientists are biased to promote the CO2 is evil belief they have.
After reading your comment we learned that you have no idea
what you are talking about.

Bill Toland
Reply to  MGC
June 21, 2022 8:03 am

There is a good reason why the vast majority of climate alarmists refuse to discuss Climategate in any way, shape or form. They know that it was an unmitigated disaster for them and the less said about it, the better. However, there is a tiny minority of climate alarmists who are particularly dim who don’t realise this. MGC, sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

MGC
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 21, 2022 8:37 am

No one bothers to talk about “climategate”, because there was nothing to it. Eight separate investigations conducted, on both sides of the Atlantic; zero evidence found of anything “fraudulent”.

But here we are years and years later, and so called “skeptics” are still sadly parroting the same tired old long refuted misrepresentations.

Proverbs 26:11

Bill Toland
Reply to  MGC
June 21, 2022 8:52 am

MGC, I said that it was better for you to remain silent.

MGC
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 21, 2022 9:38 am

Sorry that you are unable to accept reality, Toland.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
June 21, 2022 11:28 am

What’s sad is that you actually believe that climate alarmism has any basis in reality.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
June 21, 2022 11:27 am

The mafia inspects itself and finds no illegal activity.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2022 1:49 pm

What’s sad is your delusional imagining that every major scientific organization in the entire world has been “lying” for decades.

niceguy
Reply to  MGC
June 21, 2022 6:33 pm

Eight separate”
Why so many were done?
Certainly because none were convincing.
Only a pure hack would huge that argument.

MGC
Reply to  niceguy
June 21, 2022 7:21 pm

And the delusional conspiracy theory clap trap sadly continues.

Reply to  MGC
June 22, 2022 7:55 am

“Delusional conspiracy theory” claims alarmists have never been able to substantiate.

The only “delusional conspiracy theory” identified in climategate or any of the political theater following climategate by alarmists are the only extant conspiracy theories.

niceguy
Reply to  MGC
June 22, 2022 8:25 pm

So you don’t even try to justify the need for EIGHT different investigations, yet you assume that number is enough and just one more investigation is not needed.
So why EIGHT?
Why, say, SIX was not enough?

Reply to  niceguy
June 22, 2022 7:49 am

That “Eight separate”, investigations claim comes from mikey manniacal’s desperate claims.

Mark Steyn investigated mikey’s investigation claims destroying mikey’s specious claims.

Most of the alleged “Eight separate” investigations were not anything near “investigating”.

None of the alleged “Eight separate” investigations interviewed McKitrick or McIntyre who were the subjects climate alarmists like phil jones lied about.

None of the investigations went so far as to review the actual data or actions discussed, nor did they interview anyone besides the involved climate alarmists..

Asking the involved climategate alarmists about their guilt or illegal actions so clearly identified in the emails, is NOT any form of investigating.

The alleged investigations are total nonsense or pure whitewash akin to the corrupt “peer review” or FOIA malfeasance described by the involved climate researchers.

MGC
Reply to  ATheoK
June 22, 2022 9:31 am

And the delusional conspiracy theory clap trap sadly continues.

Reply to  Anti_griff
June 20, 2022 9:08 am

Tesla batteries are too bulky…too heavy…don’t go far enough …take too long to charge…cost too much…but otherwise are OK. A gasoline gas tank can explode into flames …videos are available…need statistics on which is more likely to result in flames. A new Magic Battery is needed….maybe that Lithium glass bat…or the sodium ion…or the aluminum air…or….waiting….waiting. Cost is more important than “efficiency”….most “efficient” does not mean lowest cost.

MarkW
Reply to  Anti_griff
June 20, 2022 11:19 am

Actually, the only time gas tanks can explode into flames is when they are crushed in an accident. And even then, they don’t explode into flames. They leak, and then the gas on the ground can ignite.

In every case where a gas tank might catch on fire, a battery would also catch on fire.
After a severe accident where the tank/battery is damaged.
After an electrical fire elsewhere in the car causes the tank/battery to heat up too much.

Batteries have additional modes of self immolation that aren’t available to gas tanks.

My understanding is that aluminum air batteries aren’t rechargeable. The other batteries that you mention are heavier than lithium batteries.

Streetcred
Reply to  Anti_griff
June 20, 2022 2:15 pm

Plenty of reports, videos and pictures about the internet of EV’s catching fire for no apparent reason.
EV Batteries Are A Major Fire Risk And Carmakers Need To Act | CarBuzz

Drake
Reply to  Streetcred
June 20, 2022 7:06 pm

And EV fires can even sink a ship!

Philo
Reply to  Drake
June 20, 2022 7:56 pm

That’s why all the export cars travel by a container ship or similar. The car-carrying containers can be puched overboard fairly quickly.

PCman999
Reply to  Philo
June 20, 2022 11:08 pm

“That’s why…” – how else would you export cars? (Meaning shipping overseas, right?)

They are certainly not going by container ship from Brampton or Windsor Ontario to places in the rest of Canada or in the US, though the latter counts as export. And I haven’t heard about Tesla’s arriving from California or Texas via the Panama Canal, to Ontario.

I’m not trying to criticize, and being able to douse the burning cars quickly into the sea is a definite plus (oh, but what if the burning cars are in the bottom of the stack…), but the potential for lithium batteries to ignite is not the reason some cars travel by container ship, or the potential of gasoline in the fuel tank of ICE cars, for that matter.

Reply to  Anti_griff
June 21, 2022 7:35 am

Science is never settled.
The future climate can’t be predicted.
Therefore if 100% of scientists agree on the future climate,
they have no idea what they are talking about.

It’s sad that “scientists say” convinces so many people
that what they hear is the truth.

The truth is that scientists began predicting a climate crisis
from CO2 in 1957 science papers,
starting with oceanographer Roger Revelle.

In the 1970s specific ECS number were wild guessed.
In the 1980s the coming climate crisis started getting lots of publicity.
In recent years the Climate Howlers have become hysterical.

65 years after 1957 our actual climate is wonderful.
But the scary predictions just get louder.

What climate crisis?
Warmer winter nights in Siberia?
Greening of our planet?
US land falling hurricanes in a downtrend since the 1800s
US major tornadoes in a downtrend since the 1950s?
US heat waves much lower than in the 1930s?
US wildfire acres burned much lower than in the 1930s?
Far more US state heat records set in the 1930s
than in recent decades?
Sea level slightly higher?

We should be celebrating the current climate,
not fearful of the future climate,

Duane
June 20, 2022 6:13 am

This post is utter bullshit, the efficiency of EVs is phenomenally better than any ICV. Starting with the fact that all ICVs waste at least 75% of the energy contained within a gallon of gasoline as heat exhausted to the atmosphere.

Secondly, that EVs are much less complex mechanically, meaning they waste far less energy in drive train losses. No transmissions, no torque converters, no long drive shafts running from front to rear. Most use extremely simple electric motors, one on the front and one on the rear, or four drive motors, all of them providing four wheel drive as a base configuration, not as an expensive option as with ICVs.

Electric motors range between 95 and 98% efficient in creating power at the drive wheels from electrical energy input.

Battery losses during charging are negligible, about 1% or less of input energy vs output energy.

And EVs are far less maintenance intensive, having vastly fewer moving parts than any ICV.

Steve Case
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 6:17 am

Battery losses during charging are negligible, about 1% or less of input energy vs output energy.
__________________________________________________________

I don’t believe that for a second. Where’s your link to the engineering tables on charging and discharging efficiencies of storage batteries.

Willem post
Reply to  Steve Case
June 20, 2022 7:33 am

About 16%, according to Tesla

H.R.
Reply to  Willem post
June 20, 2022 11:37 am

Who ya gonna believe, Willem; Duane (1%) or those lying Tesla engineers (16%)?
😉

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  H.R.
June 20, 2022 11:10 pm

Duane seems a bit of a fool, TBH.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
June 20, 2022 8:34 am

If battery losses were only 1%, electric car makers wouldn’t have to add active cooling during charging.
BTW, is the energy consumed by this active cooling,considered when calculating efficiency?

Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2022 8:05 am

BTW, is the energy consumed by this active cooling,considered when calculating efficiency?”

No.
I also doubt that the charging station converting AC line electricity into DC charging electricity are included in electric vehicle energy costs.

One cannot trust complicit media or government agencies, “ecocostsavings.com and fueleconomy.gov” to accurately identify and track real costs.

Bloke down the pub
Reply to  Steve Case
June 21, 2022 4:41 am

There are many schemes planned whereby the grid can draw on car batteries that are connected in order to provide backup to overcome shortfalls in supply. The energy lost in charging the batteries will presumably be repeated in the discharge and the recharge, which will add to the list of inefficiencies.

Jeroen B.
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 6:19 am

You forgot to factor in where your EV’s electricity came from and how much energy was lost to transporting, conversion, as well as to heat while charging/discharging.

EV’s have a great niche purpose; but to misquote Dennis Ritchie when he said that UNIX will be many things to many people but never everything to everyone – EV’s will be a a few things to a few people, but to foist them as the only option on everyone is folly beyond sanity.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jeroen B.
June 20, 2022 1:36 pm

“You forgot to factor in where your EV’s electricity came from”

If you charge at home, it’s one price, and if you charge at a charging station, it’s another, higher price. Has that been factored into the costs of an EV?

AndyHce
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 20, 2022 6:11 pm

The article is about energy efficiency, not about cost of ‘fuel’ to the user. Currently, most charging station electricity is paid for by someone other than the EV user.

Drake
Reply to  AndyHce
June 20, 2022 7:16 pm

Yes Andy, you and me and other suckers who pay their taxes, etc.

David A
Reply to  Jeroen B.
June 20, 2022 6:56 pm

Not to mention, not possible in the next 15 years.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 6:33 am

“Electric motors range between 95 and 98% efficient in creating power at the drive wheels from electrical energy input.”

Wrong, but thanks for playing. Motors use power, they certainly do not create it.

Steve Cushman
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
June 20, 2022 10:52 am

That efficiency is only at 100% of motor power vs. RPM. At part load the power factor drops so resistance losses vs shaft power increase. Also the inverter efficiency decreases as load (current) decreases. The only thing I disagree with in the article is the efficiencies of modern base load gas turbine power generators. From the numbers listed I assume he is using the high heat value of natural gas. Except for fuel consumption to determine cost of fuel since suppliers bill based on HHV engineers used LHV to compare prime movers. For natural gas the difference between HHV & LHV is approx. 13% so unless the HRSG condenses the exhaust the highest possible efficiency for a bottoming cycle power generator is 87%. For a gas turbine you have losses from lubrication & ventilation as well. The steam turbine that is connected in tandem with the gas turbine also has lube & ventilation losses including boiler feed pump power demand which is significant since the condensate has to be pressurized to 900 PSI.
P.S. Current low emissions, 0.5 gram per bHP-hr NOX natural gas fueled reciprocating ICE electric gensets rated 2000eKW & greater have simple cycle LHV electrical efficiencies of 43%. If used in a district heating/cooling power plant total thermal efficiencies are >60%

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 6:44 am

Duane, this is pretty standard thermodynamics, which is what I did for 30+ years. Yes electric motors are very efficient at turning electricity into kinetic energy. Electricity has to be generated and that’s where the inefficiency is. The miles per energy used (kW-h) is the correct way to compare the two forms of transportation. The production, refining and distribution of gasoline is a very efficient process. The major loss of efficiency is in the internal combustion engine. For electricity, it is at the power plant. Unless you have a PV farm on your property and a very large battery array, your electric car is using fossil fuels just like everyone else’s car. No, you can’t charge a battery with only 1% loss. Whoever told you that was wrong. These data are available. I know you don’t want to see the truth here, but investigate it and be willing to see the facts. If you are worried about CO2 levels, then push for nuclear. i f you support wind and solar, start living on it. Turn off all your appliances randomly during the day (clouds, low wind speeds) and most of the night. Live with that for a while and see what the rest of the world wants but can’t have.

Meab
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
June 20, 2022 9:18 am

DuhWayne could have challenged Roy Spenser’s assumptions, like his 39 mpg assumption for cars in 2021, and flipped the comparison to be slightly in favor of EVs, but he obviously doesn’t understand even simple physics – an example is that drive train losses are already included in a ICE vehicle’s efficiency measured by mpg.

DuhWayne does what many liberals (who also don’t understand simple science) do – he just makes stuff up and lies. Batteries don’t charge with only a 1% loss, that’s a lie.

bruce ryan
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 7:22 am

I love electric cars but your comment is a fallacy

PCman999
Reply to  bruce ryan
June 20, 2022 11:26 pm

I feel the same way, EVs have some great ideas that appeal to an engineer/geek like me, but you are not saving the world by buying a new, 0-60 in under 4 sec sports sedan. I’m driving a 10 year old 2.5L minivan (with a 6spd manual! Thanks Mazda!) – great fuel economy even when full to the brim, and no unnecessary emissions from excess vehicle production.

You want to save the world? Keep your car much longer and well maintained, and ease up on the gas pedal -at least on the acceleration.

The Tesla, Rivian, MachE, etc. owners drag racing big engined sports cars are not trying to save the world – though they do point out the EVs value proposition in that area.

Anyways, CO2 is plant food and the Earth’s orbit is going to totally overwhelm any effect from increasing CO2, so EVs should just be regarded as a curiosity for the geek or the rich, not the smart and thrifty.

Willem post
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 7:32 am

Energy and the CO2 emissions should be counted from mine or well to end use, I.e, A to Z basis.

If that is done, efficient EVs, such as expensive Teslas, have no energy and CO2 advantage over equivalent-size, efficient gasoline vehicles.

Gasoline vehicles have about 2 times the range, and access to gas stations everywhere

EVs, with a passenger and some luggage, perform terribly in cold weather, based on my own experience.

EVs may be OK in polluted urban areas, such as in China, India, Los Angeles

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Willem post
June 20, 2022 11:17 pm

Modern petrol cars produce very little pollution. A private car driving down Oxford St ( not allowed ) cleans the heavily polluted air by burning off pollutants.

Prjindigo
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 7:35 am

100% of the energy consumed by either vehicle type is converted into heat energy by one method or another, If people were willing to pay the additional $20k necessary to build an ICE vehicle out of the super-strong light-weight materials and accept the inconvenience of the aerodynamic demands the difference between the efficiencies would be very different in favor of the gas powered vehicles.

The primary problem we’re facing is actually human incompetence as drivers – we wouldn’t need 1400lbs of steel in cars if they didn’t crash into each other all the time and cargo wasn’t allowed to be transported by truck on the roads. Just imagine how efficient a car with less than half the front loading cross section that weighed half as much could be!

william Johnston
Reply to  Prjindigo
June 20, 2022 9:37 am

A bit off topic. But if over-the-road trucks are converted to EV, the weight of fuel will be eliminated. But won’t the batteries required weigh more than the fuel removed? And if so, won’t they have to carry less cargo to meet highway weight restrictions?

JimH in CA
Reply to  william Johnston
June 20, 2022 10:33 am

Using a Tesla battery of 100 kWhr, weighing 1,100 lb, and being equivalent to 9 gallons of gas, [ accounting for the 90% eff EV vs 30% diesel ], the 250 gallons of fuel carried weighs 250 x 6.5 = 1,625 lb.
The equivalent battery would weigh 30,500 lb [ 250/9 x 1,100 ]
So, the load capacity would be reduced by about 29,000 lb, or about by 50%, assuming an 80,000 lb. max weigh limit, [ in CA ].[ The truck weighs about 25,000 lb. ]

Oh, and recharging that 2,777 kWhr barttery with a 250 kW dc fast charger will take 11 hours. But the driver could take an overnight sleep break.!

Mike Lowe
Reply to  JimH in CA
June 20, 2022 1:26 pm

Better advise Mr.Scania, before he invests too much in EV truck development!

James Stagg
Reply to  JimH in CA
June 20, 2022 7:24 pm

Not to mention the higher wear level on the electric truck tires.

Don Perry
Reply to  JimH in CA
June 20, 2022 8:20 pm

The diesel truck gets lighter as it uses its fuel; the EV truck batteries stay the same weight as they discharge.

willem post
Reply to  JimH in CA
June 21, 2022 1:22 pm

Tesla recommends operating your battery from 80% full to 20% full, to achieve about 10% deterioration of range after 80,000 miles of driving, at 10,000 miles per year.
Your range is much less, up to 40% less, during winter.
Most people drive their EVs less than 9,000 miles per year.

AndyHce
Reply to  Prjindigo
June 20, 2022 6:19 pm

Bicycles generate relatively little CO2 during use, bicycle crashes involve considerably less energy than heavier vehicle crashes, and bicycles hardly ever burst into flames. Isn’t that what the masters really want for the peasants?

Derg
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 7:43 am

Back on your meds dude.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 8:25 am

griff (Duane?),

Is that really you? This post has all of your demonstrated characteristics . . . you know, a post that talks with authority but is filled with misinformation/malinformation and lacking any cited references.

To wit:

(a) your statement Electric motors range between 95 and 98% efficient in creating power at the drive wheels from electrical energy input.”
Ridiculous. How about this real world data from https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/motor-efficiency.44455/ :
“From OBD II data I collect from my PHEV (not Tesla), I am able to observe electric motor efficiency. I can measure the mechanical power output of the electric motor as well as the electrical power input to the inverter. The efficiency (mechanical power output by motor divided by electric power input to inverter) varies from 0 when the motor outputs 0 kW of power to about 85% when the motor outputs 30 kW of power. At about 10 mph, the mechanical power output by the motor is about 1 kW and efficiency is 30%. At 30 mph, the mechanical power output is 4.3 kW and efficiency is 63%. At 50 mph, mechanical power output is 8.9 kW and efficiency is 74%. At 70 mph, mechanical power output is 13.7 kW and efficiency is 80%.”
So, Duane-griff, didn’t you overlook the fact that EV electricity is stored in batteries in DC form and must be converted to AC form be used for the electric motors used in today’s EV’s. That DC-AC conversion has an associated efficiency loss. Furthermore, you are just basically unaware of (intentionally overlooked?) the fact that EV electric motors as used in EVs have to operate over a wide range of output torque versus rotor RPM, which necessarily means their efficiency varies greatly in operational use, as indicated in the attached figures extracted from https://insideevs.com/news/348504/tesla-improves-motor-efficiency-increase-range/ . Note that neither type of electric motor (PM or slightly less-efficient induction) discussed has peak efficiency above 96%, and that’s not even considering the DC-AC conversion inefficiency. The average deliverable efficiency of EV motors driving the wheels will be far less than even 85%, as confirmed in the quote I provided above.

(b) your statement “Battery losses during charging are negligible, about 1% or less of input energy vs output energy.”
Here again is evidence of your lack of knowledge or intentional misinformation. Your reference to “battery losses” during charging may be true if just considering the ohmic heating losses in the battery itself, but there are far greater losses (that you did not mention) associated with the fact that AC input electricity from the grid has to be converted the DC input energy in order to charge an EV’s battery pack. Tesla Motors has one of the most efficient in-vehicle, high amperage AC-DC converters and here is what is said about it:
“Tesla says their in-car charger has an efficiency of 92%. Meaning, if you add 20kWh to your battery SOC then you actually drew 21.74kWh from your AC supply (and will pay accordingly for that).” (source: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/efficiency-of-dc-charging-vs-ac-charging.51729/ )

Now, Duane-griff, you started off saying something about “utter bullshit” . . .

E_motor_Eff.jpg
JimH in CA
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 20, 2022 10:42 am

Then, in California the electric baseline rate is $032 / kWhr, for about 360 kWhr.
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/index.page
But most of run over into the 2nd tier, which is $0.39 / kWhr.
So, in CA, multiple the EV charging cost by 3x. !!
Charging at home requires the user to be on a time-of-use [ TOU] rate which is not ‘user friendly’ with daytime rates very high [ in the PGE tariff link ].

And, other than Tesla chargers, the cost to use a DC fast chargere is $0.40 to $0.69 / kWhr. So a ‘road trip’ will be expensive and you’ll likely to be waiting in line to use the chargers on the freeway.

JimH in CA
Reply to  JimH in CA
June 20, 2022 10:44 am

typo, , the baseline rate is $0.32 / kWhr.

David A
Reply to  JimH in CA
June 20, 2022 7:06 pm

Most utilities in California over a discount fir ev owners. Often substantial, especially if you charge on non peak hours. ( not disagreeing with the article)

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  JimH in CA
June 20, 2022 11:43 am

A friend has a Tesla, and always does a fast-charge, for about 45 minutes, after waiting in line about 45 minutes. 1.5 hours to recharge the car.

Drake
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 20, 2022 7:26 pm

And each of those fast charges shorten the life of the battery, no?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 21, 2022 4:24 am

Sounds like he was in a line of two cars. His, and the one ahead of him.

Last edited 12 days ago by Tom Abbott
MarkW
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 8:30 am

Once again, Duane absolutely rejects science in his eagerness to support his toys.

The point that Duane is working so hard to miss is that if you only compare an electric motor to a ICE, the electric wins. However, out here in the real world, which Duane refuses to visit, you have to compare the entire fuel chain for both vehicles is you want to be accurate.

When you do that, electrics lose. Duane is just not emotionally mature enough to accept that what he wants to be true, isn’t.

BTW, the claim that EVs are less costly to maintain is also not true. When you factor in the cost of replacing the battery every few years, electrics lose, big time.

Last edited 13 days ago by MarkW
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2022 11:45 am

Idrive past a shop called EVFIXIT (corner of 16th and Superior in Costa Mesa). There always 10 or more Teslas at that garage. Maybe they need more maintenance than we are told of?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 20, 2022 11:47 am

EVFIXME

yirgach
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 20, 2022 3:24 pm

https://www.evfixme.com/

We started this journey working on our own cars, and now we are able to offer a great upgrade to address an issue that effects over 300k S/X’s to help your car last much longer! We have saved nearly 400 cars now, and that number increases daily!

The center screen (MCU) contains a “memory chip” that has a limited life. 2012-early 2018 S/X are all effected. The chip will last 2-10 years on average. When it dies, your car will loose a lot of functionality, the screen goes black.

The best time for this upgrade is BEFORE your MCU fails. If you already see signs, please contact us for help. Even if your not seeing signs and you believe your MCU is more than several years old, get the upgrade before your files have a chance of being lost.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  yirgach
June 21, 2022 4:31 am

“loose” should be “lose”, and “your” should be “you’re”.

And they are going to fix my car? Let’s hope they are better with automotive tools than they are with the English language.

Scissor
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2022 2:35 pm

Tires wear faster on EVs because of mass load, all things being equal.

HotScot
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 9:07 am

This article is examining the waste before it gets to the EV.

LdB
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 9:09 am

Duane you are miles away with your efficiency as many have already said … do some reading.

Regardless the biggest EV issue is the cost it’s 40% more expensive for the same model car a hybrid is actually a lot better typically 10-15%. You are going to have to drive a lot of distance to pay that back with fuel cost and pray you don’t need to replace your battery after it comes out of warranty.

That is why most countries are trying to make laws to force people to buy them because on a cost basis it’s a non starter.

HotScot
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 9:13 am

Volvo did a study of a single model with two power units, one ICE the other electric.

The point at which the EV began to pay the planet back for emissions incurred in its manufacture and running is 90,000 miles in the US.

Drake
Reply to  HotScot
June 20, 2022 7:29 pm

And in that study, how soon after that did they need to replace the batteries?

That would restart the test “clock” as it were.

PCman999
Reply to  Drake
June 20, 2022 11:39 pm

That’s the issue that is driving early adopters of the Nissan Leaf, after only a few years, 4-5 iirc, the battery’s capacity is down below 100km, even 50km of range, and the replacement battery costs many more times than the car is worth.

Hopefully cheaper 3rd parties step in, and hopefully Tesla owners fair better.

Archer
Reply to  PCman999
June 21, 2022 5:39 am

Unlikely.

And given that the latest models are incorporating cells directly into the body frame, to wave weight and space (and reduce repairability), the chances of third parties offering replacement packs in the long term is slim to none.

Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 9:38 am

A lot of hot air, no data. Please learn to lie convincingly.

DrEd
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 10:43 am

comment image

Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 11:25 am

EVs, by being heavier than ICEs, create more particulate matter pollution from faster tire wear. They cost much more and so does their insurance. Their batteries are unlikely to last as long as a ICE powertrain with regular oil changes, so depreciation will be faster.

The longest range tiny Tesla 3 clown car costs DOUBLE
of what one would pay for a Toyota Camry
LE 4 cylinder ICE, which has MUCH HIGHER RELIABILITY
and is much larger, for HALF the price.

Your 64 thumbs down so far may be a record.
It would be 65, but I don’t vote on other’s posts.

DonM
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 12:45 pm

Duane,

You got slammed so hard that you probably won’t respond to any of it.

I’ll give you a little incentive to reply.

*Donald Trump is a very smart guy and a great leader; the election was stolen.
*Joe Biden is mentally challenged; compared to Trump, Biden is insignificant.
*Oil runs the world. When Oil stops running the world, the world will slow considerably; for life to not suck, controlled reproduction will be required.
*Electric cars are inferior & always will be.

bdgwx
Reply to  Duane
June 20, 2022 1:45 pm

I can’t speak for other vehicle types, but for my PHEV the charging efficiency is only 80%. In other words, to put 5.6 kWH into the battery I have to draw 7.0 kWH from the meter.

Last edited 12 days ago by bdgwx
Todd
Reply to  Duane
June 22, 2022 1:38 pm

Dude: read the full article so you can make an informed and valid criticism. Yours isn’t.

Steve Case
June 20, 2022 6:14 am

With advertised fuel economy of 48 to 60 mpg, hybrid vehicles (which are gasoline powered) would thus have an advantage over EVs.

 I personally have no interest in owning one because I want the flexibility of travelling long distances in a single day.
______________________________________

My little two door hatchback gets 32 mpg the wife’s hybrid is a much bigger car and gets 40 mpg.

I want an electric to replace my little car for trips around town.

All that aside, plus ten for pointing out how much fossil fuel it takes to run electric vehicles.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Case
June 20, 2022 7:04 am

I live in Wakyfornia and wouldn’t want a hybrid either. Gruesome Newsome wants to end ICE vehicle sales within the state and one could presumed the Dumbocrats would eventually eliminate Gasoline sales to the general public as well. Most Hybrids have an EV range of about 40 miles before the ICE kicks in. By 2035 of 2040 you’d likely have an EV with a 40 mile range…a gilded Golf cart

Steve Case
Reply to  Bryan A
June 20, 2022 8:28 am

Gruesome Newsome wants to end ICE vehicle sales within the state and one could presumed the Dumbocrats would eventually eliminate Gasoline sales to the general public 
_____________________________________________________

That’s right “President” Biden has repeatedly said he wants to end fossil fuels even if that costs a substantial number of jobs. People should take at his word.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Bryan A
June 20, 2022 11:49 am

Comparable tio the range of the original Leaf?

Kevin kilty
June 20, 2022 6:38 am

How is it that the EV fuel economy is no better than an ICE, but the cost per unit of energy consumed is lower? Easy answer — they are being powered largely by coal.

I am not overly influenced by efficiency calculations because what matters in the end is cost/economics, but about 15 years ago I saw a surprising calculation showing the efficiency of fully ICE vehicles, considering all efficiencies involved in petroleum exploration/development/refining and distribution, to be roughly the same as hybrids which were on their electrical side powered by coal-fired power plants.

EVs do solve some problems of urban stop/go driving, but they come with new issues of their own. Give consumers real choices about energy which include no contributions from lurid SciFi fantasies about energy.

Bryan A
Reply to  Kevin kilty
June 20, 2022 7:07 am

I’ve never seen a Gasoline powered vehicle SPONTANEOUSLY erupt into flames with no prior accident occurring and definitely not while it’s sitting parked

Last edited 13 days ago by Bryan A
lee riffee
Reply to  Bryan A
June 20, 2022 7:17 am

My mom had a Honda CRV that had a recall on it for some kind of wiring fault in one of the door panels that could cause a fire. I couldn’t tell by the recall notice as to whether that potential fire would happen when the vehicle was running or not. But if it somehow did start when the car was turned off, it would be a heck of a lot easier to put out than an EV fire!

MarkW
Reply to  lee riffee
June 20, 2022 8:41 am

Additionally, EVs have wiring as well. Whatever the problem you mention was, the exact same defect could easily exist in an EV.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  lee riffee
June 20, 2022 9:45 am

I’d put that in the “manufacturing/design defect” category as that isn’t related
specifically to ICE & can happen with any product you buy.

Scissor
Reply to  Bryan A
June 20, 2022 2:38 pm

Sometimes, a good immolation solves a lot of problems.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Kevin kilty
June 20, 2022 8:53 am

“Easy answer — they are being powered largely by coal.”

Actually, NOT. According to the latest figures from the EIA (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php ) coal contributes only 22% to the total generation of electricity in the US.

The largest fuel source for electricity generation in the US grid is natural gas.

It would be fair to say that the US electrical grid (and hence all EVs that tap into it) is powered predominately by fossil fuels, with natural gas and coal contributing 60% of the total.

Last edited 13 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
OweninGA
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 20, 2022 10:41 am

True, but he did specify that he was using the GAS efficiency numbers for his EV calculations.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  OweninGA
June 20, 2022 11:37 am

Now that’s a funny comment! I just reread Kevin Kilty’s above post of June 20, 2022 6:38 am—as any WUWT reader is free to do—and I find no mention whatsoever of “GAS efficiency numbers”.

Perhaps we live on different planets?

mkelly
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 20, 2022 2:07 pm

Dr. Spenser says:”…and assuming the 2021 average new car fuel economy of 39 mpg, this makes the ICE-equivalent fuel price of an EV $1.98 per gallon of gasoline.”

I think the “he” Owen was referring to was Dr. Spenser. At least that is the way I understood him. So perhaps we do live on different planets.

R_G
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 20, 2022 3:38 pm

You missed 15 years ago bit.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  R_G
June 20, 2022 7:14 pm

Ho, hum . . . Kevin kilty posted on June 20, 2022 6:38 am:
” . . . but about 15 years ago I saw a surprising calculation showing the efficiency of fully ICE vehicles, considering all efficiencies involved in petroleum exploration/development/refining and distribution.”

It is fascinating that you interpreted that statement to be relevant to “GAS efficiency numbers” for today’s ICE vehicles (i.e., mpg). Do you believe that there have been no improvements in ICE combustion efficiency, leading to better mileage, nor improvements in efficiencies related to petroleum exploration/development/refining and distribution, over the last 15 years?

BTW, 2+2=5 is, to me, a surprising calculation.

Kent Gatewood
June 20, 2022 6:39 am

How about price based on dollars. What is the most efficient in dollars.

Is coal cheaper?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Kent Gatewood
June 21, 2022 2:59 pm

“How about price based on dollars. What is the most efficient in dollars.”

Ummmm . . . would that be:
— $ per vehicle purchased?
— $ per mile driven for, say, the first 100,000 miles?
— $ per mile driven based on what assumed $/kWh and what assumed $/gal gasoline?
— $ per year average for ALL vehicle costs, including insurance, repairs, maintenance, annual vehicle registration and tax, etc.?
— including, or not including, use of “free” public charging stations for EVs?
— including, or not including, government subsidies incentives to EV purchasers?
— including, or not including, vehicle value at end of period being considered?

(Perhaps by now you have an appreciation of why there is no such thing as “efficiency” measured in dollars.)

As to both of your above-quoted sentences taken together, I don’t believe the “efficiency” would matter if the price was based on, say, shekels instead of dollars . . . unless, that is, you’re also concerned about currency arbitrage and/or inflation over the time period of establishing financial “efficiency”.

🙂

vboring
June 20, 2022 6:43 am

Who cares about CO2? A $40k work truck Lightning can drop a TRX like it’s standing still.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  vboring
June 20, 2022 8:55 am

?

Scissor
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 20, 2022 2:44 pm
Last edited 12 days ago by Scissor
AndyHce
Reply to  Scissor
June 20, 2022 6:44 pm

The article referenced in your post says the truck can carry 1,310 pounds in its bed.

in the 1980s I was heating with wood. I purchased a 1950 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup and built a timber cage on the bed that would securely contain a cord of firewood (4’x4’x8′). According to available data on the weight of various kinds of wood, fresh cut oak was somewhere over 4000 lbs per cord. I cut, loaded, and transported full cords of fresh cut oak a fair number of times although I never turned up my nose at any other decent firewood.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  AndyHce
June 20, 2022 7:18 pm

But remember, AndyHce, wheels are standard!

yirgach
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 20, 2022 4:05 pm

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  yirgach
June 20, 2022 7:21 pm

+ 42^42 intergalactic credits!

vboring
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 21, 2022 5:07 am

https://youtu.be/-h2bwCZ_1dQ

TRX is Dodge’s fastest truck. The Lightning electric is faster.

And EV fuel is closer to $1/gallon in most of the US. Just call your utility to sign up for their “time of use” rate. It is cheaper electricity overnight.

Night time electricity is mostly coal and nuclear power.

Electric trucks are fast and powered by coal. What could be better?

Last edited 12 days ago by vboring
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  vboring
June 21, 2022 6:34 am

As scissor previously informed me, wheels are standard.

Ann Banisher
June 20, 2022 6:46 am

In the short term, the CO2 emission is higher for renewables. All of the CO2 required for solar and wind construction is emitted prior to 1st kW of electricity being generated. Therefore, the increase in solar and wind will expend more CO2 now for the promise of savings later. The more we build, the more we increase CO2 emissions.

Bryan A
Reply to  Ann Banisher
June 20, 2022 7:13 am

And Solar And Wind are highly inefficient. In the case of solar generating nameplate capacity only between 10am and 2pm local time. Solar can’t be relied on for production 24 hours a day and Wind likewise for 24/7/365
IF CO2 we’re a problem, Nuclear is the only option where Pumped Hydro won’t work

Dennis
Reply to  Bryan A
June 20, 2022 8:16 am

Great big IF.

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
June 20, 2022 8:59 am

Solar is only available between 10am and 2pm, ASSUMING there are no clouds overhead during that time period. A heavy cloud bank, and you get next to nothing from solar.

Doonman
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2022 9:39 am

Liberal democrats blaming CO2 for droughts want to make more clouds. But they also want more sunshine for the solar panels to charge their batteries.

This makes them schizophrenic which is bad for energy planning.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Bryan A
June 20, 2022 9:35 am

Since storage is the BIGGEST problem of RE, they’re HEAVILY promoting carbon capture
as a way to avoid nuclear & reduce the need for batteries, as pumped hydro isn’t always
available. This allows them to keep some “steady Eddie” 24/7 solar which they need as
batteries are very expensive. In this study of solar & wind in the US, they needed up to a
30-day supply of backup for solar & wind to replace all of the US 24/7 solar. It peaked in
May/June as winters require a lot of energy. Carbon capture is their way of hanging on to
something reliable without looking too hypocritical. You must keep an eye on these grifters
as they never tell the whole truth!

The battery storage summary is below.

https://www.cfact.org/2022/06/16/breakthrough-in-u-s-grid-storage-estimating/

https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2021/12/21/the-cost-of-net-zero-electrification-of-the-u-s-a/amp/

h/t David Wojick

batt30d.jpg
Last edited 13 days ago by Old Man Winter
Bryan A
Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 20, 2022 7:34 pm

Gotta keep an eye on the Griffers as well

Kevin kilty
June 20, 2022 7:00 am

Lately we have seen the price of gasoline and diesel increase very fast because of supply/demand issues (I won’t go into the weeds over what caused demand/supply in this case). The transportation fuels sector is tied closely to current economics. In the case of electrical energy the public service commission can make long term decisions to set ( by this i mean negotiate with the utility) the price of energy. That will end with all renewable grids. By the time we attempt to replace all such fuels with electrical energy, and try to run everything else on the grid too, the energy market will have to feel the full effects of supply/demand. In other words people will sometimes pay a very high price to charge their cars because energy becomes (temporarily we hope) dear. For reference see Australia lately.

On a drive last week from southeastern Wyoming through the Powder River basin wind turbines were at least one-half shut down over very high and variable wind. Two days later on the return trip nearly all turbines were shut down over no wind at all. Meanwhile the mines and pump-jacks operate as normal. People who think they can count on wind and weather for a basic necessity like energy, especially at the margins of demand, are thinking like fools.

Last edited 13 days ago by Kevin kilty
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Kevin kilty
June 20, 2022 12:28 pm

‘ (I won’t go into the weeds over what caused demand/supply in this case). ‘

The Biden administration will suffice.

Derg
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 20, 2022 5:26 pm

This or Jobama works too

roaddog
Reply to  Kevin kilty
June 20, 2022 12:49 pm

Driving back from ABQ on Saturday, the 4 wind turbines that sit alongside I25 south of Pueblo: 3 out of 4 shut down, as is typical for that little farm.

Drake
Reply to  roaddog
June 20, 2022 7:51 pm

They don’t care if they generate, they are only there for virtue signaling

It is so hilarious to drive the Mass. Turnpike and see each little town’s single bird chopper to signal their climate virtue.

Andy H
June 20, 2022 7:20 am

Lets not forget that EVs also have to drag around a stack load of batteries.

A Tesla with a 540kg, 85KWh battery has the same energy output (30% ICE efficiency) as about 40kg of fuel. You can add 200kg for a small car engine and transmission and you are still 300kg lighter. That extra 300kg is going to add another 200kg in upgraded suspension and chassis. So overall, you are probably looking at half a tonne extra weight to get the same performance.

That is one reason why the reality of EVs (energy per mile) is not as good as some would claim.

DaveS
Reply to  Andy H
June 21, 2022 5:54 am

There were quite a lot of photos of early Teslas with collapsed suspension – have they improved?

bruce ryan
June 20, 2022 7:21 am

but as a car, the electric car is twice as nice to drive.

MarkW
Reply to  bruce ryan
June 20, 2022 9:02 am

Different strokes for different folks.
BTW, lead footing it, cuts the range for electrics just as much as it does for ICE cars.

Last edited 13 days ago by MarkW
Scissor
Reply to  bruce ryan
June 20, 2022 2:48 pm

Depends. I like a little sports car with a manual transmission for mountain roads.

Derg
Reply to  Scissor
June 20, 2022 5:27 pm

Or a manual Jeep off road is fun too.

Prjindigo
June 20, 2022 7:23 am

And a gas vehicle doesn’t consume 40 miles of power sitting in a garage every day it isn’t used….

commieBob
June 20, 2022 7:26 am

A strong reason gasoline is so expensive is road taxes.

When electric vehicles (EVs) become so common as to decrease gasoline sales, and therefore road tax revenue, a tariff will be applied to EVs that will erase their advantage over ICEs.

Derg
Reply to  commieBob
June 20, 2022 7:45 am

Yep, pay for the roads EV drivers!

b.nice
Reply to  Derg
June 20, 2022 4:52 pm

I don’t think anyone pays for the roads around here 🙁

MarkW
Reply to  b.nice
June 20, 2022 6:16 pm

They pay for them, they just aren’t getting what they paid for.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  commieBob
June 20, 2022 8:07 am

You think the cabal will ever admit that mercantile policies are artificially propping up the EV market and make them actually pay for the infrastructure they use? Na, the infrastructure will completely crumble first, as planned, and is currently ongoing.

David Brewer
Reply to  Robert W Turner
June 20, 2022 8:55 am

They will if AND only if they reach the point where they can’t make the tax money intended to be spent on the roads via drivers buying gasoline. I’m not suggesting they’ll actually use the money to fix infrastructure, but rather that they’ll adjust/correct the taxes if they can’t keep their extra personal income streams sufficiently supported.

Drake
Reply to  David Brewer
June 20, 2022 7:54 pm

And how much of those GAS taxes go to mass transportation in cities?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  commieBob
June 20, 2022 9:06 am

Yes. In the UK fuel duty and Vehicle Excise Duty(road tax) contributed £37 billion to the Treasury in 2019-20. EVs are currently exempt from these charges.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  commieBob
June 20, 2022 9:07 am

Since the batteries make similar sized EV cars heavier than an ICE, EVs put more stress on the roads and should pay higher taxes.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Matt Kiro
June 20, 2022 12:31 pm

At least one US state (Hawaii) charges an annual registration fee based on vehicle weight. Most others charge an annual ad valorem tax, which will indirectly hit EVs more heavily as they cost $10,000-$20,000 more than the hybrid version of the same model.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Matt Kiro
June 20, 2022 11:00 pm

EVs also put out significantly more particulate pollution from brakes and tyres because they are heavier. So they should be heavily taxed.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  commieBob
June 20, 2022 12:28 pm

Not true for the US. Federal fuel tax for gasoline is 18.4¢ per gallon. Each state adds its own tax ranging from 15.13¢ in Alaska to 68.15¢ in California. So worst case in the US you are paying 83.28¢ per gallon in fuel taxes, which if you live in California is the least of your problems. In most states the combined tax is less that 55¢.

In Georgia EV owners are charged a flat $200 per year as replacement for lost fuel taxes at 37.55¢ per gallon. So EV owners are taxed as if they purchase about 533 gallons each year. Assuming 15,000 miles/year, that means Georgia treats EVs like a conventional car getting 28 miles/gallon.

I drive a hybrid Avalon getting on average 38 MPG, so every time I see a Tesla or a Leaf on the road, I mentally thank the owner for subsidizing my fuel taxes, especially as most EVs are driven much less than the assumed 15K miles annually.

Fuel taxes are much higher in Europe: at least triple the typical US rate.

The Netherlands has the highest gas tax in the European Union, at €0.81 per liter ($3.51 per gallon). Italy is second, at €0.73 per liter ($3.14 per gallon), followed by Finland and Greece, which have a tax of €0.72 and €0.70 per liter ($3.13 and $3.02 per gallon), respectively.

The lowest gas tax is in Hungary, at €0.34 per liter ($1.49 per gallon), as the Hungarian rate is set in its domestic currency, the Forint, resulting in a rate slightly below the EU minimum after exchange rate fluctuations. The next lowest are Bulgaria (€0.36 per liter or $1.57 per gallon) and Poland and Romania (both at €0.37 per liter or $1.61 per gallon).

I believe in Europe and UK, fuel taxes are folded into general revenue rather than being dedicated to maintaining the roads and bridges. Which means as EVs become more common, the impact on government budgets will be much greater than in the US.

commieBob
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
June 20, 2022 12:40 pm

Good point.

I’m in Canada, which, according to this, has the hemisphere’s highest gas taxes.

Of course, with the current crazy price of gas, taxes are a proportionally smaller part of the price. Except for the sales tax which goes on top of the road taxes.

AndyHce
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
June 20, 2022 7:02 pm

A number of years ago, from an official list of CA gasoline taxes, where a large increase was being phased in over several years to hide the reason for the increase at the pump from the public, the total CA tax was over $1/gallon. Only part of that was supposedly intended for highway maintenance.

AndyHce
Reply to  commieBob
June 20, 2022 6:53 pm

“road taxes” is a funny fantasy. A large chunk of that large tax (e.g. in CA) goes for other things, especially socialists’ projects, unrelated to roads or the use thereof.

niceguy
Reply to  AndyHce
June 20, 2022 10:23 pm

When the French socialist gov built “les portiques écotaxe” (automatic taxing structures over roads), it was to get money for collective transport projects.
That caused the “bonnets rouges” (red hats) protest (*) against these automatic tax systems. The project was cancelled by François Hollande.

After “portiques écotaxe” cancellation, road users remained highly taxed as before, but not even more over taxed. So the power sycophants complained that there wasn’t enough money collected over road users.

Some time after it was revealed that many bridges were in poor condition.
The same sycophants then said that because of the cancellation of the “portiques écotaxe”, there was no money for bridge maintenance.

But the “portiques écotaxe” project was never framed, at the time they were built and the idea was sold to the general public, for infrastructure maintenance, but for new projects!!!

(*) “bonnets rouges”: referencing the “révolte du papier timbré” (= stamped paper) the protests and revolts over that tax on official paper, in 1675

fretslider
June 20, 2022 7:38 am

“ But the price per mile of EVs energy use is cheaper for the time being ($2 per gallon of gas equivalent)”

I won’t have to replace my fuel tank – and its capacity will always be > 49l

No radio/ heating/ac anxiety

Erik Magnuson
June 20, 2022 7:39 am

The peak efficiencies of the newest Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) exceed 60%, so the 42% conversion efficiency in the article is a little bit suspect. OTOH, CCGT’s achiee that efficiency when running as base load generation (nearly constant power output), but CCGT’s are not economical when operated as backup power for wind.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Erik Magnuson
June 20, 2022 10:46 am

” . . . but CCGT’s are not economical when operated as backup power for wind.”

The truth of that statement depends on many factors that you did not mention.

One of the most important is whether or not the CCGT is kept in hot-standby mode or in cold-startup mode. Another is the life cycle cost of using a CCGT continuously in a relatively low-power mode, reserving its remaining nameplate generation capability for backup purposes (most LC cost efficient) versus just have it sit idle/shutdown until needed for backup for renewables (least LC cost efficient).

The devil is in the details.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 20, 2022 11:29 am

How do the staffing/maintenance requirements differ between “continuous low power mode” vs “idle/shutdown”?

Last edited 12 days ago by MarkW
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2022 11:46 am

That’s a good question.

I have to assume a minimal operational staff for the CCGT power plant would have to be present at any idle/shutdown plant for it to be able to come on line within an advertised less-than-one-hour response time for backup electrical generation capability.

A much longer than one-hour response to providing stable power to a grid and the plant shouldn’t really be give the name “backup”. It would be more deserving the title “long term supplemental power source”.

ResourceGuy
June 20, 2022 7:43 am

Is it asking too much to see the bill for charging an EV? I’d like to see how sales taxes are applied with state and local sales tax rates.

For motor fuels the federal and state motor fuels tax applies to the volume of fuel purchased. But for most states, the sales tax on the electric bill is based on value for state, county, city, and improvement district. Cities also tack on a franchise tax the same way the sales tax is applied. Let’s compare the whole bill of sale and the tax incidence and consider what rising electric rates are going to do to this picture.

Robert W Turner
June 20, 2022 8:01 am

I’ve crunched the dollars on a Youtube video of someone driving their Tesla on a 2,000 mile round trip. It was slightly more expensive than a Prius, except there was about 12 hours of charge time on the Tesla.
Then factor in that once the vehicle is about 15 years old, the EV will be scrap unless you pay the $20,000 (at the current price) for a battery replacement.

Dennis
Reply to  Robert W Turner
June 20, 2022 8:21 am

Most EV batteries are guaranteed (conditional guarantee) based on eight years however, they do deteriorate within that period in terms of capacity for range.

And it’s recommended not to exceed eighty per cent recharging on a regular basis to extend battery life. So twenty per cent potential range not usable regularly and preferably never.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dennis
June 20, 2022 9:14 am

And using fast chargers on a regular basis degrades your battery much faster too.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Dennis
June 20, 2022 10:59 am

“And it’s recommended not to exceed eighty per cent recharging on a regular basis to extend battery life.”

First time that I’ve heard of that recommendation for EV battery packs if it is interpreted to relate to the maximum degree of charge.

However, I have read that it is recommended for most current EVs that users not run the battery packs below about 80% depth of discharge (DoD), i.e., below about 20% of the EV battery pack’s deliverable energy content, so as to avoid accumulating damage resulting from cycling the battery to a lower charge state.

Of course, maximum mileage range claims for EV’s are based on going all the way to 100% DoD, something not well known by the average consumer.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 20, 2022 11:36 am

I read a manual on building chargers for small lithium batteries a few years back, That manual recommended keeping the charge between 10% and 90% of full charge.

The manual also mentioned that storing the battery while charged would cause the battery to degrade faster. The greater the charge, the faster the degradation. The greater the temperature, regardless of charge level, the faster the degradation.
90% charge at 100F would cause a 10% drop in maximum charge after 5 years.

Last edited 12 days ago by MarkW
Romeo Rachi
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 24, 2022 7:05 am

The Fast Lane Truck or TFL Truck is a YouTube channel that reviews and does long term tests on all kinds of trucks, SUV’s and cars. They just purchased a new Ford Lightning for long term review and on their first trip with the vehicle, they drove from Michigan to Colorado. They picked up the truck in Michigan and drove it home. They talk about the recommended charge state that says not to exceed 80% capacity. Especially on a fast charger, the vehicle will begin to restrict the power delivered to the battery as it goes over 80%. This is explained to prevent battery degradation. Same thing as it goes below 20%. You can get more details from the videos but it is a real concern for EV’s.
Lastly, they added I believe around 7 extra hours to their trip versus a comparable ICE vehicle. Otherwise, I would say a very nice truck.

MarkW
Reply to  Dennis
June 20, 2022 11:31 am

It’s also not recommended to discharge below 10 to 20%, so more potential range is sacrificed to preserve battery life.

Romeo Rachi
Reply to  Dennis
June 24, 2022 6:58 am

This always bothered me and people seem to be okay with it. If you are told not to charge above 80% and not to go below 20% due to battery degradation, what is your actual range? They advertise 300 miles of range but not when you are working with only 60% of your total power capability. This is not an issue with gasoline powered vehicles.
Assume you purchased a new Honda Accord with a 20 gallon gas tank. At full capacity, you had 500 miles of range but they tell you that you should never fill above 80 percent of total capacity or go below 20 percent of total capacity so that you don’t ‘degrade’ the tanks ability to retain fuel and maintain life. How much ‘range’ did you give up from the official numbers just to ‘ensure’ your tanks efficiency over time?
This would never fly for ICE vehicles. So why is it acceptable for EV’s?

MarkW
Reply to  Robert W Turner
June 20, 2022 9:06 am

If you do a lot of rapid charging, the battery will need to be replaced even sooner.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Robert W Turner
June 20, 2022 11:58 am

Is that just the price of the new battery, or does it include the cost of removing the old battery and installing the new one?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 20, 2022 2:39 pm

The battery is in effect 25% larger than its recommended usage…it is like a car with a 10 gal tank but for some reason you are not supposed to allow more than 9 or less than 1 gal in it…they sold you a 10 gal tank for use as an 8 gal….sneaky.

ResourceGuy
June 20, 2022 8:16 am

The rare saver group in the population would like to see what car insurance rates look like for EVs and repair costs on major items–or is this the next level of throw-away-car mentality being forced on us. EVs have fewer parts in a simple-minded count approach but cost at least $15k more on average with more concentrated part costs.

Drake
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 20, 2022 8:05 pm

And that 15K more is WITH 8K government subsidy and whatever price reduction is due to the electric car manufacturer selling credits to ICE manufacturers in the US for the CAFE standard requirements.

So actual cost is what, 30K more?

Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 21, 2022 9:41 pm

~ Jan 2021 I priced insuring a 1-2 year old Tesla 3 vs a new Hyundai Sonata Hybrid .
Back then the Tesla was ~$48k and the Sonata ~$36k to purchase. The Tesla 3 was about $600 more per year to insure (I got 2 quotes).
The internet gods suggested higher price and more expensive parts & labor [repairs only at a Tesla dealer] as the reasons for the difference in insurance costs.
[I decided to keep driving my current Sonata.]

Gautam Kalghatgi
June 20, 2022 8:25 am

People on this thread might also be interested in the following – Scoping Net Zero (thegwpf.org)

MarkW
June 20, 2022 8:28 am

Prior to Biden trying to eliminate fossil fuels, the average price for a gallon of gas was just over $2 per gallon. When you factor out the extra taxes that are in gasoline/diesel, most of that difference disappears.

Beyond that, as Europe and Australia have demonstrated, as you add more renewables to the grid, the cost of electricity skyrockets.

Kramer
June 20, 2022 8:29 am

If you take a gallon of gas to power an electrical generator that charges a Tesla, how far can the tesla go on this charge?

JimH in CA
Reply to  Kramer
June 20, 2022 8:51 am

Interesting idea.
My 7 kw propane standby generator is spec’d to use 0.9 gallons per hour.
So 7.7 kWhr , at 0.35 kWhr per mile gives 22 miles of EV driving.
But propane is 91kBTU per gallon vs 114kBTU for gasoline, so then it’s about 27 miles…not so great.!

MarkW
Reply to  Kramer
June 20, 2022 9:15 am

Your home generator will not be as efficient as a power plant.
On the other hand you are able to avoid all of the transmission losses between the power plant and your home.
I suspect the two factors are pretty close to a wash.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Kramer
June 20, 2022 11:11 am

The answer to your question will depend directly on the overall efficiency of the fuel input to the generator’s ICE versus the electrical power of attached generator. Secondarily, it will depend significantly on what RPM/torque combination the Tesla uses that charge put into its battery, as I posted earlier.

Most gasoline generators (large or small) will not be as efficient as a modern fossil fuel-powered power plant . . . they are probable in the range of 25-33% overall efficiency in the conversion of combustion energy to electric output.

My bottom line answer: not very far, maybe 10 miles at most.

Gautam Kalghatgi
June 20, 2022 8:31 am
Reply to  Gautam Kalghatgi
June 21, 2022 9:52 pm

GK
Nice article. Thanks for the link.
It goes well with this 220 page report from MIT comparing the full life cycles of BEV vs ICE sedans [think Tesla S vs Toyota Camry].
https://energy.mit.edu/insightsintofuturemobility

Dennis
June 20, 2022 8:32 am

I have considered an EV replacement for my Diesel 4WD ICEV but cannot find one for the current retail price for a new Isuzu that can provide the same range (my 2017 model highway driving comfortably 800 kilometres, latest model over 1,000 kilometres – larger fuel tank capacity), provide equivalent refuelling time or tow 3.5 tonnes (latest model) with 350 kilograms on the towball.

The closest I can find is a Tesla SUV AWD that has a retail price of three times the Isuzu, considerably lower range fully charged (not recommended) and a lower towing capacity, and according to a video road test range when towing a caravan close to legal maximum weight for the Tesla of less than half potential range when not towing.

In other words, not comparable and not value for money.

And in Australia towing range and stress related location of recharging stations another problem.

Last edited 13 days ago by Dennis
Peta of Newark
June 20, 2022 8:58 am

Quote:”…n EV vehicle is about 0.35 kWh per mile. At the U….”

That’s garbage from the start, even before it is lifted from…
Quote:”….tated on fueleconomy.gov (the official US government source…”

Very lovely but we cannot always be driving at constant mph on flat level roads on warm sunny days with the wind behind us.

Why is The World now full of naive gullible people?

This fellow here in England, on “cold English day”, got 79% of what the Dot Gov claimed.

Cold English days are positively tropical to what you get in the US and, heaven forbid, Canadia.

Follow the rule of thumb for Lead Acid batteries.
Brand new from the shop, their Amp-Hour capacities are rated at 20 Celsius

For every 10 Celsius that the temperature drops, subtract 20% off the rated capacity.
Thus a 100Ah battery is only 60Ah at Temp= Zero Celsius
….and hence why your car so rapidly becomes a pig to start in cold weather, esp if it’s a diesel.

Batteries are effectively Living Things whether they be = Lead or Lithium so same will apply to Lithium powered EVs
or as one of those articles says: “Always expect The Worst then you won’t be disappointed”

Wait a minute, did that guy just say:
Buy an electric car then always expect the worst from it”

Do you laugh or cry?

In either case it’s now quite obvious, You finish up walking.

Dennis
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 20, 2022 9:08 am

A couple of years ago a Tesla S EV followed by ICEV onto a motorway that had a 110 KMH speed limit, I set cruise control with speed on 117 KMH which is close enough to 110 KMH after correcting for calibration error for my vehicle. The Tesla S EV driver was tail gating and obviously taking advantage of the wind shield provided by my much taller 4WD.

After 15-20 minutes the EV began to slow and drop back until it became a red spot in my rear view mirrors. The motorway presented several hills and a number of double trailer heavy transport vehicles to overtake.

I believe the EV driver was concerned about high electrical energy use and battery pack charge level dropping.

Last edited 13 days ago by Dennis
sniffybigtoe
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 20, 2022 9:28 am

They are chemical reaction powered cars. EV is is false advertising.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  sniffybigtoe
June 20, 2022 11:30 am

There is a distinct difference between irreversible chemical reactions, such as occur in ICE powered vehicles, and reversible chemical reactions, such as those that occur during EV battery pack discharging/recharging.

I have seen no advertising in any media that claims EV batteries do not utilize chemical reactions.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 20, 2022 11:26 am

PoN posted: “Quote:’…n EV vehicle is about 0.35 kWh per mile. At the U….’
That’s garbage from the start, even before it is lifted from…
Quote:’….tated on fueleconomy.gov (the official US government source…’ “

The advertised standard range for a Tesla Model 3 with a 82 kWh battery pack is 305 miles. That equates to 82 kWh/305 miles = 0.27 kWh per mile . . . not that far different from the “about 0.35 kWh per mile” figure that you state is garbage.

Remember, Tesla is among the most efficient EV’s in terms of battery power use, but the quoted statement refers to EVs on average.

Mark Simonelli
June 20, 2022 8:59 am

Maintenance of the roads is paid with the gas tax. If all cars were EVs, the tax scheme would have to change.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Mark Simonelli
June 20, 2022 9:27 am

It’s already a problem with inflation impacts on road project input factors. Road construction costs are rising rapidly in the U.S. while overtaking the over-simplified debate about cost sharing and taxation of EVs. Stagnant or declining refinery capacity thanks to EPA will make cheap diesel fuel a thing of the ancient past. Let’s see the percentage of electric vehicles in quarry operations and road construction machinery.

Doonman
June 20, 2022 9:27 am

Batteries charging batteries is no way to live your life kid.

Matthew A. Siekierski
Reply to  Doonman
June 21, 2022 12:11 pm

It’s like using a credit card to pay a different credit card. Sadly, people do it all the time, so charging batteries with batteries won’t be all that weird.

n.n
June 20, 2022 10:12 am

Marginal fuel economy and the environmental footprint of the rare earth elements are nothing short of catastrophic.

Neo
June 20, 2022 10:28 am

After they finish trying to replace the gas tax with an EV equivalent, they will cost more.

Merrick
June 20, 2022 10:34 am

Can you not read. The analysis was very clear. Per mile. You can quibble over a few percent here or there, but that’s the reality whether you like it or not. If it weren’t for subsidies it would be a huge money loser life of vehicle. With subsidies you’re just paying it other ways whether you realize it or not is your problem.

ResourceGuy
June 20, 2022 10:35 am

Why do I get the feeling an EV purchase is coming from a lobbyist and on a par with a used car salesman for level of information disclosure? One other reason I’m reluctant is what the lobbyists did to my wallet in the previous case of making the case for HVAC system coolants to save the ozone layer. I distinctly recall the lobbyist line “it only costs pennies more” when in fact they were leaving out the full story that comes later from HVAC system salesmen and repairmen with regards to the system cost differences stemming from pressure differences and design issues of the coil. Return of the scum

ResourceGuy
June 20, 2022 10:39 am

I’m going to join an EV car club as an observer rather than a car owner. Maybe I can get some real answers while sorting through the rich toy issues there.

Redge
June 20, 2022 10:51 am

Not only that Roy, but all tyres are a potential source of carcinogenic Dibenzopyrenes. Since EVs are significantly heavier than ICEs, they wear down tyres quicker thus releasing carcinogens into the environment.

Eco-friendly, they are not

mal
June 20, 2022 10:56 am

If I had an EV I could not go fishing at my favored stream in AZ it about 130 from my house, With AC I could not make the round trip since there is no charging station along the trip and if I charge in Payson I would spend more time charging than fishing.

MarkW
Reply to  mal
June 20, 2022 11:41 am

Carry extra batteries in the trunk????

bdgwx
Reply to  mal
June 20, 2022 11:43 am

You could consider a PHEV.

Romeo Rachi
Reply to  mal
June 24, 2022 7:20 am

What is your favorite stream? Asking for a friend who also lives in AZ and likes to fish and is always looking for a new spot to try.

bdgwx
June 20, 2022 11:07 am

For my particular circumstances charging my PHEV is more cost effective when gasoline is > $1.50/gal. At 100,000 miles I estimated that I’ve saved $3000 (or $0.03/mile) when factoring in capital cost, tax credit, maintenance, fuel, etc. relative to the ICE-only version of the same vehicle with the same options. With gasoline being well above $4/gal my accumulated cost savings is rapidly increasing now. That’s not bad especially considering I have no range limitations like would be the case with a pure EV. I realize everyone’s situation is different. I happen to live in a part of the country were electricity is relatively cheap.

Last edited 12 days ago by bdgwx
Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
June 21, 2022 4:57 am

There are hybrids that don’t need to be charged. Why buy one that does need to be charged? What am I missing?

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 21, 2022 5:03 am

It is a lot cheaper for me to charge than to use gasoline.

Matthew A. Siekierski
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 21, 2022 12:28 pm

For short trips you could run solely on electric. Say you work under 10 miles from home. Round trip can be handled by most plug-in hybrids. Get home and plug it in for the night to do the same thing the next day.

But for longer trips the ICE kicks in and extends your range, getting the benefit of quick refuels.

And, hey, you get the bonus of annoying everyone with not only adding to the strip mining for lithium, cobalt, and rare earths and adding load to the electric grid, but also burning evil fossil fuels.

Full disclosure: my (not plug-in) Prius v meets two of those goals 😀 But I buy used, so the strip mining was already done…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Matthew A. Siekierski
June 22, 2022 2:17 am

Thanks for the explanations. I think I get it now. 🙂

Bob
June 20, 2022 11:49 am

Let us suppose that I have an electric vehicle and I only charge it at my residence. Is it charged with 110 or 220 I have no idea. What is the equivalent electricity use compared to household appliances? Would it be the same as an electric range or electric dryer or electric heat/air conditioning? Surely it is more than using my toaster. How much is my power bill going to go up if I always charge my car at home?

bdgwx
Reply to  Bob
June 20, 2022 12:01 pm

If you are in the United States you have 240v service. It is sometimes referred to as a split-phase system because the neutral wire is center tapped on the transfer providing 120v from leg-to-neutral. 110 and 220 are not voltages in use in the US generally speaking.

Anyway, you can charge on either 120v or 240v though most EVSE’s only support 240v. The amp draw depends on the charger in the vehicle. It would be common for most high capacity EVs to use a 50-amp EVSE on 240v which means given the 80% load via the NEC code would provide 40 amps or 40 * 240 = 9.6 kW charging rate.

Your power bill in this case would go up by 9.6 kW * X hours * Y $/kWH where X is the number of hours you charge in a month and Y is the electric rate.

Last edited 12 days ago by bdgwx
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  bdgwx
June 20, 2022 1:08 pm

And once more than a few people on the block has them start replacing all the utility infrastructure to support the load, all the way back to the source, all costs that will be picked up by taxpayers.
Ev owners are free riders, and as always once there is enough uptake the reckoning comes

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
June 20, 2022 3:08 pm

Houses may have 240V service, but it isn’t available in the garage. You have to hire an electrician to provide the additional plug in the garage. Or preferably outside the garage to keep your insurance company and local fire department happy.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2022 5:07 pm

Many people have 240v service in their garages. If you don’t already it is legal to add it as long as it complies with the version of the NEC your local code authority is currently using. Insurance and fire departments don’t care if you have 240v outlets. Most homes in the US have at least one already.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
June 20, 2022 6:21 pm

Over my life I’ve been in hundreds of homes, only one or two had 240V drop to the garage and its always the dryer connection. In other words, you have to unplug the dryer if you want to charge your car.

I never said or even implied that it would be illegal to add a 240 service to your garage. Why don’t you try responding to the argument I actually made?

The fire department doesn’t care if you have 240V service in your garage, however they do care if you try to charge your electric car in the garage.

Last edited 12 days ago by MarkW
bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2022 5:29 am

Maybe it is different in different regions. Where I live the fire department does not care. Insurance companies prefer the use of a garage regardless whether you have an EV or not here due to the frequency of hailstorms. In fact I get a small discount just for having a garage.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
June 21, 2022 11:32 am

Just make sure your life insurance is up to date.

bigoilbob
Reply to  bdgwx
June 21, 2022 7:35 am

Give us Bob’s a break. 110 and 220 are vernacular terms. We know better….

Dr. Bob
June 20, 2022 12:09 pm

EV’s are really what should be called “Remote Pollution Devices”. And the Pollution (or GHG emissions) is really dependent on the Grid Average GHG emissions for power generation which varies significantly. In CA it is low, but in many other locations it is not. As Dr. Spencer indicates.
What bothers me more is the enormous amount of mining necessary to produce both batteries and highly efficient electric motors (rare earth elements). There is both an environmental impact and ever escalating costs for obtaining these needed elements to make EV’s work.

Drake
Reply to  Dr. Bob
June 20, 2022 8:13 pm

“In CA it is low”

Really? Does that include the FF generated electricity Cali imports from other states. I doubt it if the numbers you use are from ANY Cali government entity.

June 20, 2022 1:30 pm

“But since most of this electricity still comes from fossil fuels, we must factor in the efficiency with which electricity is generated and transmitted and stored in the EV’s battery.”

Why? According to Roy, the basic arithmetic to the consumer is
“this makes the ICE-equivalent fuel price of an EV $1.98 per gallon of gasoline. With the U.S. average price of gas now over $5.00 a gallon,”

If the EV process uses hydrocarbon so much less efficiently than just putting it in your tank, who is paying for the difference? Not the consumer, evidently.

n.n
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 2:45 pm

Progressive prices. Shared responsibility.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 3:11 pm

1) Electricity prices don’t include road use taxes.
2) Current gas prices include quite a few devices by you alarmists to increase the cost.
3) You aren’t including any of the many subsidies enjoyed by EV users.
4) There is a big difference between cost and price. Perhaps you never got that far in your math classes?

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 5:31 pm

C’mon Nick…trolling today. Grab another blanket dude.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Derg
June 20, 2022 8:20 pm

RY my mom? She keeps her house at 27C.

nw sage
June 20, 2022 1:50 pm

As seen in the photo, the ‘fuel’ filler does have a smaller ‘pipe’ though!

chadb
June 20, 2022 2:00 pm

I like using 2007 as a baseline for electricity generation. It may seem arbitrary, but that was the year that electricity growth basically stopped (4,157 Billion kWh in 2007 vs 4,116 Billion kWh in 2021). Generation from renewables has roughly doubled in that time with wind/solar going from roughly 0% of generation to 10% of generation.
I’m not sure that I would say “generation is growing faster than renewables.” While that may be true globally it is not true in the US for any time frame larger than 1 year and smaller than 30 years.

Waza
June 20, 2022 2:13 pm

Good article.
Any thoughts on other vehicle types?
Trucks
Planes
Construction equipment.
Ships

June 20, 2022 2:58 pm

The generation of electricity is pretty inefficient with efficiencies ranging 33% from coal and 42% from natural gas.”

More like 60% for a modern CCGT installation.

niceguy
June 20, 2022 5:18 pm

The generation of electricity is pretty inefficient with efficiencies ranging 33% from coal and 42% from natural gas

Nuclear “efficiency” is poor compared to all of that, but given the fact the only attempt at small nuclear motor is the Russian cruise missile (nuke planes have been tried once), the comparison never comes into play.

Chris Wright
June 21, 2022 3:29 am

Overall, I’m not a fan of electric cars. Roy Spencer’s analysis looks very good.
I think they’re fun to drive, due to good acceleration and fast response to the accelerator.
But I regard them as expensive toys rather than fully practical vehicles for all applications.

The big, big problem is the batteries. They are dirty, almost impossible to recycle, prone to catching fire, require absolutely massive mining operations. There arfe ethical problems linked to child labour. EV drivers seem to be dominated by charging their cars and also by a constant search for the next charging point while out on the road. If EV numbers do increase massively as governments want, they will probably get a lot more expensive due to limited supplies of essential metals sych as lithium and cobalt.

One thought occurred. I believe that batteries get significantly less efficient with age. Probably the manufacturer’s data is for brand new cars. So it would be interesting to see how both EV’s and ICE’s lose efficiency over their lifetimes. That could be a significant part of the equation.
Chris

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Chris Wright
June 21, 2022 5:31 am

The IEA has recently said that the price of lithium has increased by almost 750% since January 2021 and it foresees worldwide shortages of both lithium and cobalt as early as 2025.

Dennis
June 21, 2022 9:40 pm

What EV fans will do to convince others that the EV transition is good for all …

“One person who needs no convincing is keen caravanner, Keith Blackburn from Canberra, who has become something of a pioneer in electric vehicle van towing.
The Canberra Times reports that Keith was an early convert to EVs and took delivery of a Tesla Model 3 long range model back in 2019, the same year that Scott Morrison declared that electric vehicles would ‘ruin the weekend’.

Canberra Times extract;

“Determined to prove the one-time PM wrong, Keith set out to show his Tesla could take him on decent length trips … and that the van could come too!
While his Model 3 was factory-rated to tow one tonne, Tesla didn’t offer a towbar so Keith tracked down a US company, Stealth Hitches, which did. The Canberra Times reports that the national Tesla owners club, which was keen to support Keith’s quest, had it uprated and compliant to tow the full 1000kg.
The next challenge was finding a caravan which fell well under the Tesla’s tow rating and provided a safety margin. Keith settled on a unique teardrop-shaped design from Canada called the Alto, which weighed in at 766kg. It boasts a lightweight sandwich-type construction with electric actuators to raise and lower the roof so that under tow it has far less wind resistance than a normal van. However, once on site, the roof can quickly be raised to a conventional height.
When not towing, Keith’s dual motor Tesla long range usually has a range of around 500km.
In order to test the capabilities of his new set-up, Keith towed his van from the South Coast of NSW, up the Clyde Mountain, and back to Canberra … all on a single battery charge.
“My calculations on the net rise and fall in the highway from the coast to home indicated that, with regenerative power to assist, the journey was achievable without a recharge,” the retired statistician to the Canberra Times. “It was always going to be touch and go, but I knew that if I got really low on battery, there were recharge stations at Braidwood and Bungendore as a back-up.”
Keith safely made the trip with an indicated range of just seven kilometres left after the 198-kilometre journey.”

Hmmm

H Fan
June 22, 2022 12:41 am

We have a Tesla. Great car, but:
– we charge at night (using 100% natural gas, likely)
– a trip from CA to AZ cost about $55 in supercharger fees, one way. Cheaper than gas (especially Biden prices) but probably not much savings vs a hybrid
– charging at a Supercharger adds about an hour or more extra to our trips to AZ.
– range is constrained by speed and limits on trying to stay between 20-80% charge levels.
– however far I need to go I multiply by 1.3 to be sure I have that much charge / range as I never get 100% of stated range
– non-Tesla charging is slow. Chargepoint at work only adds 15-20 miles each hour.
– we added solar at home to help offset charging costs (net Metering)
– how apartment dwellers would easily charge their cars is going to be a huge issue

Again, great car. Comfortable, quiet, and fast. But it I don’t believe it will save the planet or work well for most people who can’t charge at home or work.

June 22, 2022 8:05 am

The MPG to use for comparing an EV to a conventional vehicle’s MPG is the EV’s MPGE times the combined generation, transmission and distribution efficiency of providing the electricity that is used to charge the EV. A typical figure for combined generation, transmission and distribution efficiency for providing electricity from fossil fuels is 35%.

niceguy
June 22, 2022 6:32 pm

I just stumbled on this gem:

Borne monophasée métal avec protection DC Green’up Premium 2 véhicules électriques Modes 2 et 3 – 7,4kW 32A

https://www.legrand.fr/pro/catalogue/41514-74-kw-32-a/borne-monophasee-metal-avec-protection-dc-greenup-premium-2-vehicules-electriques-modes-2-et-3-74kw-32a

They sell you a glorified (communicating over IP, remote controlled) mono 230 V 32 A socket, for only 5001€ without taxes.

To charge a car with 7.4 kW power.
Or 67 euro cent for each watt of power.

But you can manage that huuuuuge power source in mode 3!

niceguy
Reply to  niceguy
June 22, 2022 6:47 pm

I also found this non Wifi capable, non smartphone manageable, non “smart” device:

Compact Fuel Dispenser / Diesel Transfer Pump 

 

240vAC, 60L/min 

Includes flow meter, nozzle, hoses and suction strainer

 

Wall mounted fuel dispenser for diesel only, ideal for own consumption and dispensing applications.

This unit allows the user to easily and accurately dispense diesel and monitor exactly how much they are dispensing on the built in flow meter.

https://www.bellflowsystems.co.uk/wall-mount-diesel-dispenser-cabinet-diesel-transfer-pump-kit.html

For €303.27 (excl. taxes), and assuming the appropriate tank is available of course, you get a distributor of 1 liter of diesel fuel per second.

niceguy
Reply to  niceguy
June 22, 2022 7:16 pm

This source gives energy content for many liquid fuels. (It’s in French but since it’s mostly chemistry.)

https://www.douane.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/uploads/files/2020-08/Annexes_circulaire_TIRIB.pdf

It agrees with many other sources I checked: “le gazole” in French (diesel) gives at least 32 MJ per liter.

So the dispenser sends each second an amount of combustible sufficient to produce 32 MJ of heat from a chemical reaction. Of course we are discussing cars here, not heaters, so I won’t end up with that value.

Diesel motors have higher efficiency than “super”/regular gas motors; highest cited figure is 40% but let’s say for practical use on the roads (frequent changes of power) it’s close to 20%.

We end up with 6.4 MJ of usable motive energy per second of tank refilling.

niceguy
Reply to  niceguy
June 22, 2022 7:23 pm

For an electric car, the efficiency of the motor is much higher: a car maker gives an estimate of 90%.

For simplicity, as precision won’t be needed here, let’s neglect all the electric system conversion losses and battery losses. Let’s say heating won’t be needed.

So assuming no energy wasted during charging, that’s 6 660 J of more charge for each second for the 5001 € plug.

Compared to 6 400 000 J for the diesel pump: the 303 € pump procures 960 times more usable (mechanical) energy for a given refilling time than the 5001 € socket.

(That’s NOT 960% more. That’s times 96000%, or 95900% more.)

Last edited 10 days ago by niceguy
niceguy
Reply to  niceguy
June 22, 2022 8:10 pm

I’m fully aware that many simpler, cheaper, more “cost efficient” options exist, from this simple 16 A normal plug adapter device: “Evse Car Charger Type 1 J1772 Eu Wall Socket

If you want to trust your electric safety on something called “Dirtypigs“, it will cost only 339 €, for a power rating of 3.6 kW, that’s 9 euro cent per watt, a much better deal than the 67 euro cent for each watt of power of the smartphone controlled communicating socket by very respected brand Legrand.

Last edited 10 days ago by niceguy
niceguy
Reply to  niceguy
June 24, 2022 5:37 pm

To clear up the confusion, mode 3 can refer to two very different things:

  • like USB 3.0, which can provide more than the 500 mA of the historical USB sockets, if the devices have a chip to communicate (so no USB fast charging with pure analog devices), mode 3 car sockets can signal that more than the default ridiculous 10 A is available;
  • unlike USB which draws little power (compared to the overall PC power consumption), a charging car can draw huge power (compared to the overall house power consumption) even while charging a sluggish speed (such that complete recharging of the car would take several hours); so dynamic power management is needed to module the power drawn.

The high end mode 3 sockets can do the second, while the cheaper ones only do the first.

Trebla
June 30, 2022 3:51 am

39 miles per US gallon for 2021 cars? Come on! The biggest selling vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150. I’m averaging 0.2 kWh per mile with my plug-in hybrid. On average, an electric motor is four times more efficient than an ICE.