By P Gosselin
Green technology debacle
“Hidden gas guzzlers”…The wonders of electric cars are turning out to be pie-in-the-sky fantasies.
Massive energy losses from generation, to transmission, to charging and during battery storage are turning electric mobility into a cost nightmare.
“E-cars lose massive amounts of power during charging,” reports the online 24hamburg-de here, citing results of tests conducted on a variety of electric cars of different price classes and sizes by Germany’s ADAC automobile association.
This makes electric cars even more expensive, and less affordable, than previously thought.
The ADAC’s results show, “electricity consumption when charging electric cars is significantly higher than indicated on the consumption displays.”
Manufacturers forgot to tell e-car buyers that lots of energy – about 10% – in fact gets lost during charging and battery storage.
Wasting huge amounts of energy
“The result is devastating,” reports 24hamburg.de.
“With a gasoline-powered car, that would be like spilling a few liters when refueling,” says the ADAC.
Apparently. significant energy gets lost by all the electrical systems, from the charging station, to the on-board charger and the drive battery in the car itself.
Currently e-car owners are forced to contend with a myriad of obstacles in their quest to achieve the level of convenience and comfort that combustion engine vehicle drivers enjoy. “Not surprisingly, a survey by the German automobile association ADAC had previously shown that e-car drivers were still extremely dissatisfied with the infrastructure of charging stations,” reports 24hamburg.de.
Major charging losses
The ADAC tested electric vehicles were all connected to the same 22-kW wall box at 23 degrees ambient temperature, all under the same conditions. According to the test results: “a 100 kWh battery in a Tesla Model X100D actually requires 108.3 kWh. The Kia e-Niro Spirit requires 72.3 kWh for a 64 kWh battery. Even the Jaguar I-PACE EV400 needs at least 10 kWh more for a 90 kWh battery,” reports 24hamburg.de.
With skyrocketing electricity prices in Germany, these hidden costs are turning out to be substantial. But the news will soon get a lot worse, 24hamburg.de reveals: “Electricity prices will rise by 320 percent. […] Driving electric cars is and will be more expensive for drivers than previously thought.”
Currently charging rates in German cities are at about 50 euro-cents a kilowatt hour. With a 300% rise, mobility is about to become a luxury only affordable by the rich.
Germany’s once much ballyhooed “Energiewende” is unraveling, and turning into a grand technological fiasco.
The politicians pushing for electric cars fail to give the public a proper cost-benefit analysis over say ten years comparing gas and electric vehicles.
When it comes to stupid can Germany be beat?
Yes
“ More than 20 police stations in Scotland are home to electric vehicles despite not having any charging points.
The national constabulary has invested almost £20 million over the last three years in electric vehicles as part of its drive to create “a fit-for-purpose, efficient, effective and sustainable 21st century police service”.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/police-stations-across-scotland-given-27745262
Ha Ha, for the benefit of readers not familiar with climate or politics in Scotland, Imagine California without the sun and without the mega wealthy residents. With a leader who thinks the state can provide free everything for everyone and who believes green energy forcibly sold to the English will balance the books. The purchase of electric vehicles in a climate that is less than ideal for them even if there were any chargers to power them up, is about as dumb as it gets. That makes it a perfect decision in the minds of SNP politicians.
The acid test of EVs is how many criminals would choose an EV get away car if given a choice between that and a fast ICE powered Mercedes?
You will note that in the article, the point was made that the EV’s were NOT tasked with critical policing duties like pursuit vehicles.
Ah, to be a station commander there… I would just assign all of the Woke Transport to the Woke MTP (Mean Tweet Squad). Net social benefit!
Do they take them home to re-charge them?
They scatter them about the district, like bread upon the water, hoping that no one decides to nick them from the public car park.
Prices are all you need. The rest is just cherry picked hand waving.
Prices are my choice for best invention of all time, allowing you to literally compare apples and oranges. If you are in the habit of buying some of each every weekly grocery excursion, and the price of oranges goes up, you don’t care why; crop freeze, seasonal variation, new orchard matures, old orchard replaced by subdivision — doesn’t matter.
Same here. What is the actual cost of refueling / recharging? Of course government distorts markets every change it gets, it’s the point of being a politician. But the price at the pump/charger is what people notice. Vehicle purchase price and maintenance are different matters, presumably already taken into consideration.
When you buy an orange, you are planning to eat it. The amortized cost of a paring knife or a juicer per orange is infinitesimal. You can safely ignore it.
When you buy energy (whether liquid or electrons), you are planning to travel. But the amortized cost of an ICE, hybrid, or EV per mile is NOT infinitesimal per mile. Ignore at your peril!
Not a problem. Just catch a few more unicorn farts and gather up another basket of pixie dust and the losses are rendered inconsequential. Trust the “science”.
A major investor in wind energy once said the wind is free, just before divesting in wind.
There is a plan to shut off electricity at peak times so charging may take a little longer.
Don’t worry the government has a plan, you can ride the bus and won’t have to walk more than a few blocks to catch it and at destination only a few blocks to the say grocery store or liquor store. You may need it.
But of course they haven’t considered that in rural or even semi rural areas there is no bus, and grocery stores may be 10 miles (or so) away. Apparently they assume everyone lives in a city, or wants everyone to.
They want us to in sustainable cities per the 2030 agenda. The thing that is really happening is that crime is rising in big blue cities and people are moving into the suburbs and some suburb folk are now moving even further away to have freedom. I don’t thing the NWO gave the plan much real thought of keeping us as pets
That’s the goal. More people need to read and understand what was originally called Agenda 21.
Tangentially, I’ve just seen ads for #The Line, a proposed Saudi super-duper-whuuper-city, that looks about 100 metres wide and a thousand miles long.
MBS, the Crown Prince [and not an admirer of the late lamented Jamal Khashoggi] seems to have a lot of spare cash, thanks to the super-efficient Resident of the US’s War on Cah-bon.
Presumably all Saudis will live in this mirror-finish ribbon development.
There, they will, of course, be free to say anything they want – about the weather.
Auto
Oklahoma has a lot of those already. So does Kansas.
No, no, no Olen. You don’t understand. They don’t plan on shutting off your electricity. That was only in the old days when rationing was considered. Instead, things are now much improved. Instead, they now plan on implementing “demand management.” That’s why they want you to get a smart meter – so they can “manage your demand” as needed. I’m sure you now feel much better about EVs.
It really is “worse than we thought”!
23 degrees ambient is pretty close to the optimal charging temperature. At temperatures above and below that point, losses will be higher.
They could have picked any temperature. The important point is that it is the same temperature for each charging session.
That has always been the goal.
A 22 KW wall box? How many people have that, or can even get it? That’s the entire mains input or more to most houses.
I feel like I’m being targeted by my government and the EV proponents/lobbyists. As a buyer of used, very long-life Toyotas, I have the most to lose from the switch over to throw-away EVs and a large stack of “unintended” consequences like true battery performance, true battery life in a desert environment, prices, material and supply chain shortages, indirect effect on household electricity rates, fire safety, and insurance rates for auto and home. That’s the short list version of the complaint. The other problem is I did not forget the previous govt/lobbyist trick that changing the coolant chemistry in my AC units for the ozone hole costing only “pennies.” That of course leaves out chemistry and pressure and the cost of redesigns by suppliers and service repair costs. I fear the same translation and transition lies are stacking up again on a much larger scale.
The mass use of EVs stands to be the biggest waste of electrical energy since the invention of the heated-filament electric light bulb.
EV batteries charge and store electricity on a DC basis whereas electrical grids connected to stand-alone homes, all multi-family residential complexes, businesses and charging stations require AC electricity supply.
The AC-sourced/DC-stored-and-used electrical conversion is costly and not very efficient.
To put just this portion of the energy waste issue into perspective, consider the following.
Assuming an AC-DC converter for recharging an EV at home uses a special 240 VAC, 50 A max circuit and that the converter when connected to and recharging the battery plus the batttery’s internal ohmic heating losses when being charged combine to yield an overall power transfer efficiency of 90%, eight (8) hours of recharging under such conditions yields only 61 kWh into a 100 kWh battery pack, which is near the largest size for passenger car EVs. This is equivalent to a recharge from only about a 39% depth of discharge on the battery, therefore would be not be considered a “maximum-need” situation. The energy loss during those 8 hours of charging would be 6.8 Kwh, equivalent to leaving more than eight 100 watt incandescent light bulbs on during that time.
There are additional inefficiencies resulting from the battery pack’s thermal management and monitoring/regulating systems.
Moreover, there is an additional inefficiency with the self-discharge rate of the Li-ion battery packs (almost universally used in current EVs) even when sitting idle (e.g., inside a parked car). According to http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/elevating_self_discharge , Li-ion battery self-discharge rates are “5% in 24h, then 1–2% per month (plus 3% for safety circuit)”.
EV batteries must remain above a minimum charge level when operating and even when parked long term, to avoid permanent damage.
One does not have such non-operating/storage waste and energy/fuel-maintenance requirements with gasoline ICE automobiles that sit with their engine off over long periods.
Finally, consider that the preponderance of EVs will NOT be charged using home or work PV systems, but instead from remote power plants that have, on average, a loss of 5% of total electrical energy output in the course of distributing electrical power over the grid to the homes of end-users.
All of the above-described “inefficiences” and “losses” represent wasted energy and end up in the form of heat released into the global environment, which is something the AGW/CAGW alarmists should be concerned about, if their goal is have millions upon millions of “green” EVs running all over the planet.
Here’s a fun scenario – charging in the evening in California using a solar/battery grid:
1) Solar to Grid (DC to AC)
2) Grid to Battery (AC to DC)
3) Battery to Grid (DC to AC)
4) Grid to Car (AC to DC)
I’m betting any electric engineer would look at that and say “well, I guess you could do that, but why would you?”
Shows the absurdity of planning to use EVs parked overnight and during the day as a means of backing up or “load leveling” the grid.
They are actually currently implementing this absurdity in Utrecht The Netherlands.
And how’s that working out for “them”, especially the EV owners who might want a fully charged EV to leave their home on a moment’s notice?
I wonder what the legal responsibility might be if someone had a medical emergency and they discovered that there wasn’t enough charge in their battery to get to a hospital some distance away?
Or, if a hurricane suddenly veered off the predicted course, and an emergency evacuation order were issued, and people trying to leave all ran out of battery charge before getting out of range of the hurricane?
They don’t seem to care if these things are used for transportation at all, apparently in Utrecht bikes are the standard mode.
Or the charging cable has been stolen for scrap value…
can’t sue the government
At least not without the government’s permission.
I finally found a link to the article (their web site is horrible to navigate):
https://spectrum.ieee.org/vehicle-to-grid
It says that so far there are only 800 bi-directional ports so far. Some guy named Berg is quoted as claiming that 1.5 million V2G battery cars (Holland has 8 million total) would “balance national grid. You could do anything with renewable energy then.”
“You could do anything with renewable energy then.”
Well, in that case, it certainly appears the Dutch government should immediately purchase 1.5 million V2G battery cars.
Gordon, I seem to have missed something. If you run 240VAC at 50 amps, that’s 12 kilowatts. Over 8 hours, that’s 96 kW-hrs. De-rate by 10% and that’s 86.4 kW-hr. Where’s my disconnect? Did you assume the 50 amp connection was running only 35 amps? I know wall chargers and EVSE’s can be programmed to use lower charge rates based on the installed conditions.
“If you run 240VAC at 50 amps, that’s 12 kilowatts.”
No, the power in a rectified AC cycle (a sine wave inverted over the negative phase) has to be multiplied by 0.707 to arrive at the equivalent of continuous DC power.
Therefore 240 VAC @ur momisugly 50 ams is actually only 8.48 kilowatts of delivered electrical power.
Actually, I was a little too cavalier in my response about how to correctly calculate the power in a AC-to-DC charging circuit as might be applied to a charge an EV. The simple formula for available power in an AC circuit is Vrms*Irms*PF, where Vrms is the stated AC voltage (240 Vac) and Irms is the stated amperage (50 amps) and PFD is known as the displacement power factor, which represents the cosine of the phase angle between the voltage and current. PFD values typically range from 1.0 to about 0.9.
The above is more complicated when considering the power that is output from an AC-DC converter this is needed for charging an EV at home. The normal power factor gets multiplied by what is known as the distortion power factor (DPF) associated specifically with the type of converter circuitry involved and the load level at which the converter is operating at the time. “True” power factors (= PFD*DPF) for AC-DC converters can range as low as 0.5.
Somewhere, and I don’t recall the source, I had read to just assume a 1/(sqrt 2) = .707 true power factor for a well designed AC-to-DC converter. Hence, my comment that one needs to multiply (AC voltage * AC amperage) by 0.707 to get the rectified (converted) DC output power in actual kilowatts.
There are likely more efficient high power AC-DC converters these days that have “true” power factors better than 0.7.
I am certainly no expert in this subject.
The whole issue is summarized nicely at this link:
https://www.electronicspecifier.com/products/power/ac-dc-efficiency-measurements-need-to-include-power-factor
I was going to say, that’s not how it happens, at least in the US. Residential service is single phase, not 2-phase, using a center-tapped transformer, it splits the single 240 phase into equal 120 volt branches. Where it does matter is 3-phase power, where you use the square root of 3 in power calculations. The battery being charged looks like a resistive load, not a motor, to the charging circuit, so power factor is not so important. At the charging rates you can sustain in a typical residential installation, most of your losses will be the 10% conversion inefficiency.
You were correct to start. The equivalent DC voltage in a rectified AC circuit is .707Vpk (not pk-to-pk) – assuming adequate filtering.
Vrms from power company = 230v. Vpk = 230v/.707 = 325v
Assume a full-wave bridge circuit with a diode resistance of 2ohm per diode (2 diodes in each voltage half) and a 50ohm load.
Ipk = Vpk/(4+50) = 325v/54ohm = 6 amp
Irms = .707 * Ipk = 4.3amp
Iavg = Ipk/ (π/2) = 3.8amp
Pdc = Iavg^2 * 50 = 722
Pac = Irms^2 * 54 = 998
efficiency = 722/998 x 100 = 72%
This is the brute strength example. Switching power supplies can increase this efficiency significantly (say to 90%) at the expense of much higher complexity, much higher initial cost, very expensive repair costs, and far lower lifetimes.
If you put a true voltage detection circuit on US mains, the power is much higher than the nominal voltage. That’s because delivered power is ALREADY measured as the root-mean-square value. The peak for 120 is actually 170. You are incorrectly double applying that factor.
You are using the term power incorrectly. The peak to peak voltage (170) is higher than the RMS value (120). They both can be used to calculate power, but use different math. Basically, Vpeak * 0.707 = Vrms.
Vrms is used in calculating the power used.
“If you put a true voltage detection circuit on US mains, the power is much higher than the nominal voltage. That’s because delivered power is ALREADY measured as the root-mean-square value. The peak for 120 is actually 170. You are incorrectly double applying that factor.”
Malarky! I didn’t “double” anything.
I said: “Vrms from power company = 230v. Vpk = 230v/.707 = 325v”
I have *NO* idea where you are coming up with the 120 and 170. They weren’t anywhere in my post!
I also calculated both average and rms power.
Pdc = Iavg^2 * 50 = 722
Pac = Irms^2 * 54 = 998
Give it a rest. You have no idea what you are talking about.
So much utter bullshit here, where to start … first of all, who are these “24hamburg” guys – what makes them and their research a thing? What makes them an authority on anything? Who cites 24hamburg.de anywhere but here, or maybe on Breitbart?
Who calibrated their equipment? Who verified their results? Has anybody in the world ever replicated their results?
Secondly, they claim significantly larger amounts of KH-hr in vs out for a given capacity battery. They can’t have measured it directly, because nobody runs a car battery down to absolute zero volts charge, anymore than any gas or diesel fueled vehicle is purposely run down to zero volume of fuel in the tank. So they’re reporting an estimate of some kind, rather than a direct measurement. In other words, they’re reporting bullshit.
Thirdly, the capacity of a battery is its published standard design value, not an absolute value, and it varies over use and lifetime. Battery capacity is therefore not a static value. Again, they’re reporting bullshit.
Finally, they’re going orgasmic over finding that up to 10% of electrical energy is wasted in the charging process – which by the the way, as I pointed out above is utter bullshit … all lithium ion batteries are a minimum of 99% efficient (energy out divided by energy input) as proven in gazillions of studies over decades – while of course the average internal combustion powered vehicle wastes a minimum of 75% of the chemical energy input. Mostly due to heat and friction losses, even in a perfectly tuned car run at peak efficiency. EVs are VASTLY more efficient than any ICV that ever existed – totally proven.
Try again dudes.
I notice that Duane didn’t bother to actually refute anything.
He just attacks the messenger and as usual throws up facts pulled from his nether regions.
Duane,
You are confusing lithium charging efficiency (very high, they don’t warm up) with the efficiency of the power conversion, transport, and final delivery from the remote gas turbine plant to the DC input current to car’s battery (at the connection port).
Then there is the expending of this concentrated battery power through to the car’s electric drive motors, which is not 100% efficient at either part or full throttle (worse in part throttle), and then the drive motors don’t run cold either (they heat up under torque generation and are cooled).
Toyota’s latest ICE efficiency is reviewed here-
Toyota new gasoline ICEs with 40% thermal efficiency (sae.org)
This issue of electric motor efficiency versus torque and rpm has previously been pointed out to Duane, be he refuses to acknowledge it.
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/
I understand that Tesla now uses the more efficient PM (permanent magnet) motor, but their earliest models used the IM (induction motor) type.
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 90% . . . note that even PM motors have to be rotating above 250 rpm to deliver torque efficiently. Starting and stopping EVs is a killer for electrical use efficiency, just like starting and stopping gas-fueled ICE vehicles is.
Efficiency in mechanical translation but otherwise an inefficient model of energy storage, conversion, and safety.
Sorry, 10% loss of electricity at charging …. if true, seems possible … doesn’t change the cost dynamic/mile between EV vs. ICE. The EV Achilles heals are initial cost, range, and charge time. The loss is much less than the difference between driving a gas guzzler and an economy car. Doesn’t negate the loss but puts it in perspective.
I’m no cheerleader for electric vehicles, there are too many downsides. But in fairness one should point out that the best gasoline powered cars, thermal efficiency wise, utilize about 40% of the energy in the gasoline they burn. So a couple KW of charging loss is not where the disadvantages of e-vehicles lie. They’re expensive, they’ve got limited range, they take forever to charge, and “supercharging” batteries reduces their lifetimes. There are plenty of good reasons to select an ICE vehicle, EV charging losses don’t seem like they should be in the top 5 though.
Yes, IC’s tend to be only 40% efficient. On the other hand, most power plants aren’t much better than that. Then you have to include the losses between the power plant and the wheels of the electric car, which in worst case could exceed 50%.
I’m with Jim on this.
Above I point out the production and transmission losses for ICEs. I’m told that this is all included in the price at the pump. Fair enough, but then you invoke the production and transmission losses here.
I believe the ‘tank/battery to wheels’ is therefore another argument, which is valid. After all, the production and transmission costs are included in the cost at the charger.
So, how does the efficiency from tank/battery to wheels compare between ICEs and EVs? I think that this is a valid comparison. Given the additional complexities of ICE transmissions and gearing, at the very least, and inherent inefficiency of ICEs, the EV may well prove to be more efficient, even when a 10% charging loss is included.
This is not the Achilles heel of EVs.
Article says:”…23 degrees ambient…”.
I am thinking C but could be F but definitely not K.
I am glad to see people suffer from their poor decision making. It’s not like they weren’t warned that they were making bad decisions.
Here’s a good, typical example of what the situation often actually looks like in these matters:
(41*.96)*.78 = ~31% typical overall fuel to electricity conversion/delivery efficiency.
From that figure we need to deduct the (often substantial) charge and discharge losses at the consumer side from battery charger to wheel.
All considered, in most cases we’re not doing much more than relocating a battery-operated vehicle’s exhaust pipe to a remote location.
NIMBY, anyone?
Cheers 😉
Methinks your stated “transmission system efficiency” of <78% is way off base, despite the reference that you cite.
According to the EIA (see https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3 ),
“The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses equaled about 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States in 2016 through 2020.”
Thus, according to the EIA, “transmission system efficiency” for grid electricity is 95%, not <78%.
electrical-engineering-portal.com must be referring to something else, or just have data that is incorrect.
We certainly have every reason to trust the “political science” of another prominent, democrat-run permanent government agency for truly sound and forthcoming technical data…
Something noteworthy in this context:
Realistic power transformer losses seem to sit at around 5% per unit/stage. There are multiple transformer units/stages between the producer and the consumer.
In addition, transmission line and connector losses can be reasonably anticipated at the 2% level from producer to consumer.
A 95% overall “transmission system efficiency” figure under these conditions would, of necessity, seem to require the harnessing of unicorn methane inputs to achieve the stated figure.
And that’s just to get the power to the house…
Consider the source?
Talk about losses. California is charging batteries with batteries after converting DC to AC to DC to AC to DC again. Refer to Moss Landing. Then refer to conversion and copper losses.
The plan is collapsing right on schedule.
It seems to me that to reduce CO2 emissions it is not enough to own an EV. You also need an off grid solar powered changing station with enough battery capacity so that the car can be changed at night and on cloudy days…
You add in the inherent inefficiency in carting around half a ton of lithium battery wherever you go, as well.
In a car, the gas tank gets lighter, and the performance and gas mileage increase, as one empties the tank. With an EV, the mass stays constant.
To fairly look at E-cars you need to be much more thorough. Just looking at charging loss is nonsense. You need to look at total efficiency. These numbers are the best I could come up with from various websites. Lets take a natural gas power plant. This is about 60% efficient so you lose 40% off the top. Transmission loss to get to the plug in about 10%. Charging loss about 10%. Efficient use of the energy in the Electric car 60-90%. To truly determine if E-cars are more environmentally friendly these numbers need to be pinned down and then compared to burning gas directly. The average gas powered car is about 20-35% efficient.
The new EV Tax credit should help struggling families.
Well if you are a standard family of 4 making $118,000/year, you could actually get the full tax credit. Because it is not a fully refundable tax credit. Less than that income, there is less or no help for you, ya loser.
And you do not live in rental home, as you will not likely to get a charger for your rental space, even if it is a home rental.
And you can find one that meets the requirement for battery manufacturing, car manufacturing and material sourcing.
And you can afford two of these since most families need two cars.
And inflation does not eat up the maximum MSRP for an EV car of $55,000 (price is not indexed to inflation) before manufactures have time to adopt their supply chains for batteries, materials, and North American plants to build them in.
Or gas gets cheaper. The Russia war did not limit supply, it only adjusted where supplies were sent. Plus the Joe Manchin requirement to force administration to boost oil and gas lease sales in the us for onshore and offshore.
Go Home
The sales incentive for Green solutions developed from disparately distributed (i.e. spacial) resources, ostensibly powered by renewable/intermittent/unreliable generators, is that they will improve the state of the environment… mitigate climate progress. Performance is a viable bonus in niche applications.