Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
For those who think that electric vehicles make a difference … think again.
The Department of Energy’s Argonne National Lab has just released a study showing that in 2021, US privately-owned plugin hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs) “saved about 690 million gallons of gasoline.”
But that is a huge exaggeration because fossil fuels provide 61% of the electricity in the US, and we have to include:
- the inefficiency of burning coal or natural gas to make electricity (around 45% or so)
- transmission losses (~ 5%),
- losses in the inverter to charge the battery (another ~5%).
… so less than a third of that apparent savings is a real reduction in fossil fuel use, the equivalent of maybe 230 million gallons.
The Argonne report also says that from 2010 to 2021, EVs have saved 2.5 billion gallons of gas. So let’s be generous and say that in 11 years, EVs have saved less than a third of that, the equivalent of about 750 million gallons of gas.
Now that sure sounds like a lot of gasoline, three-quarters of a billion gallons.
However, as always, a sense of perspective is required. The US uses about 370 million gallons of gas per day … so that’s only about two days’ worth of gas.
I say again. Over the last eleven years, electric vehicles in the US have saved Two. Days. Worth. Of. Gasoline.
Hmmm …
And how much has that cost?
Direct taxpayer subsidies for EVs have cost you and me $10 billion dollars to date, and we’re on the hook for more. The government just extended the EV subsidy until 2032 and removed the cap on the number of vehicles eligible for the subsidy.
It gets worse. The US government also just approved spending an additional $7.5 billion of taxpayer money on EV charging stations.
So to date, we’re spending TWENTY-THREE DOLLARS for each gallon of gasoline saved … economic suicide.
Who is benefitting from this lunatic waste of taxpayer money? The richest 20% of the US population, of course. Surely you don’t think the actions of the climate activists would benefit the poor?
According to research from the University of California at Berkeley, 90% of the tax credits accrue to America’s top income quintile. A May 2019 Congressional Research Service report found that 78% of the tax credit’s recipients had an adjusted gross income of $100,000 per year or more.
On top of that, we have to consider the fact that the $7,500 per electric vehicle subsidy is a tax credit, not a direct payment … so unless you’re paying more than $7,500 in Federal taxes, you don’t get the full credit. For lower-income people, this means they may only get a kilobuck or so. How upside-down is that? The richer you are, the larger the subsidy you get for buying a mostly fossil-powered sparky car! Say what?
It’s nothing but a money-transfer scam to benefit the wealthy. Lower and middle-class people are paying for the vanity-signaling EVs of doctors, CEOs, lawyers, and politicians.
And how well are the electric vehicles selling? Here’s how people think they are selling, compared to how they are actually selling.
Note that the electric car data in the graphic above (yellow/black line) is the same in both panels …
There’s a much larger problem with EVs, however—we’re rapidly running out of both the generation capacity and the grid capacity to recharge them. California can’t even keep the lights on, and our insane Governor’s response is to forbid selling gasoline-powered cars after 2035 …
… and meanwhile, Switzerland is already having to bite the EV bullet. If current European energy shortages continue, they plan to ban EVs from anything but “essential” journeys this winter …
Not only that, but going to a “net-zero” all-electric economy by 2050, as many people advocate, is economically, physically, and politically impossible. I discuss this in my post “Bright Green Impossibilities“.
The problem with electric vehicles is that they are a hugely expensive imaginary solution to an imaginary problem. There is no “climate crisis”, that’s just a lie to keep people scared and compliant. I go over the facts in my post “Where Is The Climate Emergency“. I’ve posted it all over the web, and no one has found a single flaw in it.
Unless we can stop the insane war on fossil fuels, it is going to bankrupt us all, driving energy costs through the roof, leaving low-income people shivering in the winter, and denying poor countries the energy they need to escape grinding poverty. For details about how this plays out down at the bottom of the economic ladder, see my post “We Have Met The 1%, And He Is Us“.
Grrrr …
w.
As Always: I ask that when you comment, you quote the exact words you’re discussing. This avoids endless misunderstandings as to what and who is being discussed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘However, as always, a sense of perspective is required. The US uses about 370 million gallons of gas per day … so that’s only about two days’ worth of gas.’
On the other hand, the rate of global warming has not gone up and it’s getting colder – so must be working. 😊
The exaggeration of benefits is worse than this.
According to a detailed comparison of lifecycle CO2 emissions published by Volvo for their C40 vehicles, CO2 emissions to manufacture an EV are about 70% higher than equivalent ICE vehicle. So lifecycle CO2 emissions for an EV are heavily “front-loaded” by manufacturing.
It takes years of driving on electricity provided by low-CO2 generation, for the EV to “break even” with an equivalent ICE vehicle. Since the current EV fleet is “too young” to have worked off that deficit, and “getting younger” because of increasing production, building EVs has most likely only increased CO2 thus far, and this is likely to continue for many years.
Regardless of how much gasoline consumption has been avoided, there has been no CO2 emission reduction whatsoever thus far from building EVs (an increase, actually), and mandating more rapid production EVs will only drive further increases for the foreseeable future.
Yes. Earlier this year the head of Toyota, the largest car manufacturer in the world said
“Most electricity is from coal and natural gas any way”
“The more EVs we build, the worse carbon dioxide gets. When politicians are out there saying ‘Lets get rid of all cars using gasoline’, do they understand this?”
https://climatechangedispatch.com/toyota-warns-were-nowhere-near-ready-to-jettison-gas-powered-vehicles/
Your “we’re rapidly running out of both the generation capacity and the grid capacity to recharge them.” can be extended to include running out of the materials to build them as well: Assoc Prof Simon Michaux – The quantity of metals required to manufacture just one generation of… – YouTube
Also, a small quibble: if you’re going to throw in things like transmission losses, you should fairly do it on both sides of the equation (e.g. fuel transportation “costs”). I realize this won’t radically affect your conclusion.
I very much enjoy your articles, and particularly your attention to detail
This sounds about right. Both rich and poor buy novelty items. But this novelty is too costly for most low income people without a fat subsidy.
Surveys show that: “For plug-in hybrid owners, 20% of them flipped back to a car solely powered by an engine.” https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/ev-owners-switch-gas-power-study/
And… 78% of ev owners have at least one or more gas powered cars in their stable of cars as a back up and as the primary workhorse.
Which makes all these estimates of savings to taxpayers worth … pfft!
While AGW is the world’s biggest scam, properly managed electricity does make EVs a good alternative to ICE vehicles in most circumstances.
First, by properly managed electricity, I mean electricity from clean burning Alberta coal, Natural Gas and Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, (SMNR) which should keep our cost of electricity as low as it is right now.
Our electricity here in Alberta is costing me $0.085 per kilowatt hour. Most Tesla cars use around 0.3kwh/ mile but it’s getting better with every passing year.
(The Tesla Semi used only 1.7 kw/mile on it’s 500 mile with a GVW of 81,000 lbs and had a lot more horsepower than any other ‘normal’ semi! 0-60mph in 20 secs at the GVW of 40.5 tons.)
This means that it is costing about $5.19, (Tesla Model Y SUV), of electricity to travel 200 miles, (Edmonton to Calgary), vs about $31.00 of auto fuel for (Honda CRV SUV).
That makes EVs worth considering for a couple reasons:
As an addendum it is worth noting a couple of things.
Electricity doesn’t have to be transported anywhere, although you do have to set up the power lines for transmission.
You are wrong. Electricity transit loses 6%.
Elon Musk says …
You just outed yourself.
You’re right I forgot about transmission lose, and I wanted to correct it but you can’t correct your own posts and that sucks. So once you hit the “Post Comment” button it’s cemented in place, it seems.
All good points (thanks) but it doesn’t address Willis’ main point: if EV is so great, why the massive government subsidies and deceptive statements? If it is good, it will stand on its own (like ICE did as it developed). No one is saying you can’t have an EV if the circumstances warrant, just that by trying to kill the ICE with mandates shows a very weak hand. I live in cold rural PA. The only EV cars are owned and run by wealthy people who have one or more additional ICE cars for reliable backup.
The shift to less dense energy but cheaper LFP battery technology over NMC gave lithium battery resource costing a reprieve but it’s all uphill from here-
https://reneweconomy.com.au/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-since-2010-hurting-evs-and-storage/
The renewables/EV fan club needs to stop wasting lightweight lithium batteries on stationary grid firming if EV take-up isn’t going to hit the affordability wall.
I will respond point by point. By the way, I agree with some of the criticisms made.
I quoted the efficiency numbers from memory. If challenged, I can go far into the weeds. The numbers won’t change much.
I view EVs in engineering terms; I think the climate side of it is a joke for all the reasons commonly pointed out on WattsUpWithThat. On the engineering front, there are good and bad things to be said about vehicles running on lithium batteries. I think it’s impressive that someone(s) have applied lithium batteries to vehicles, but my inner amateur engineer recoils at the hype.
So, when it comes to attitudes, I’m pretty much in Eschenbach’s corner, but with reservations.
Math is a harsh mistress*.
*with apologies I’d Robert A. Heinlein
“But that is a huge exaggeration because fossil fuels provide 61% of the electricity in the US, and we have to include:
The loss in energy efficiency depends on what fuel is used to generate it.
A typical coal-fired plant has an overall efficiency of about 30 to 35%, meaning that the electrical energy obtained is about 30 to 35% of the heating value of the coal.
A simple-cycle natural gas turbine typically has an efficiency of 35 to 40%. This means that the gas is burned in a turbine, but there is no attempt to recover heat from the hot, low-pressure exhaust gases. This is usually true of “peaker” plants used to provide extra power during high-demand hours, which can be started up and shut down quickly.
The most efficient power plants are usually combined-cycle natural gas, consisting of one or more gas turbines followed by a “waste heat boiler”, where the hot exhaust gases are used to boil water to make high-pressure steam, which is then used to drive an additional turbine and to generate more power. While some additional energy input is required to drive the water pumps, a combined-cycle plant can reach an overall efficiency of 60 to 65% based on the heating value of the natural gas.
If we use Willis’ estimates of 5% transmission losses and 5% inverter losses (of the generated electricity), then the best-case ratio of energy in the battery to fossil fuel burned would be:
Coal-fired 0.35 (1 – 0.05)(1 – 0.05) = 0.316 (slightly less than 1/3)
Simple Cycle 0.40 (1 – 0.05)(1 – 0.05) = 0.361 (slightly better than 1/3)
Combined Cycle 0.65 (1 – 0.05)(1 – 0.05) = 0.587 (about 7 / 12).
Electric cars only make sense from an emissions standpoint if the electricity is generated using either a combined-cycle gas-fired plant, or (better yet) nuclear fission.
The efficiencies calculated above represent (energy in battery / energy used to generate electricity). But an electric motor usually has an efficiency of about 80 to 85% in converting input electric power to mechanical work, so overall efficiency would be:
Coal-fired 0.316 * 0.85 = 0.268
Simple Cycle 0.361 * 0.85 = 0.307
Combined Cycle 0.587 * 0.85 = 0.499
Even using electricity generated by a combined-cycle (most efficient) plant, less than half the fossil-fuel energy is converted to mechanical work used to power an electric car. For coal-fired plants, the ratio is only about 27%.
Since a typical gasoline engine converts about 35% of the heating value of gasoline to mechanical work, an electric car actually burns MORE fossil fuel than a gasoline engine if the electricity is generated by either a coal-fired or simple-cycle natural gas plant.
Gasoline engines vary widely in thermal efficiency. The most efficient are about 35%, but most are far less efficient. I believe 25% to be a reasonable approximation; deduct another 10% for refinery distillation, and I peg the average ICEV at about 22% efficient.
The U.S. electric system is about 45% thermally efficient, and EVs convert about 83% of electricity to movement, making them 37% efficient. This is a national average, and would vary based on regional generation mixes. Yes, if the electricity comes from coal or the least efficient natural gas plants, it would be lower.
On the other hand, where I live, 79% of our juice comes from hydro; 10% from wind; 8% from a nuke. Our regional numbers would be much higher; this is why, in comments, I use national numbers rather than cherry pick one region or another to “prove” a point.
In China there are millions upon millions of PHEV’s and they are very useful. No one is claiming they reduce the total energy consumed (though it probably does, a bit). But it certainly cleans up the air in cities because the emissions are displaced to the countryside.
It is worth parsing what the claims are and the purpose of each technology. PHEV’s create mobile freedom at a very low cost (a huge number of them are electric motorcycles). Most people can afford them. In Jakarta and other Indonesian cities, there are vast numbers of motorcycles too, but all gasoline powered. The air and sound pollution are awful. That the Chinese have conquered.
No one in the Far East is interested in reducing CO2 emissions, gauged by their behaviours.
I did want to offer a more moderate set of figures for the power numbers involved:
>“saved about 690 million gallons of gasoline.”
>But that is a huge exaggeration …
Yup.
>…because fossil fuels provide 61% of the electricity in the US
Yup.
Electricity generation:
Let’s say 40% x 60% x 95% x 97% x 90% x 80% = 16% efficient.
Gasoline engines are about ~30% efficient (net) and diesel ~40%. Quibble as you will…
So how does the EV save anything at all in terms of energy? They may have indeed saved 690 or 230 or 23 million gallons, but it displaced those emissions to various power stations. If fossil fuels are indeed 61% of power generation and the system efficiency of the EV is half that of an ICE, I can guarantee that the net CO2 emissions rose.
The U.S. electric system is roughly 45% thermally efficient. There are some challenges with that number, but for purposes of this discussion it’s close enough for horseshoes. EVs are about 83% efficient from plug to movement, making them about 37% thermally efficient.
Gasoline refining is 90% efficient, and gas engines average about 25%, making them about 22% thermally efficient. Diesels are about 27% thermally efficient.
I omitted electric transmission losses, and the energy cost of shipping gas and diesel to filling stations. I also omit the energy used in mining oil, coal, uranium, and natural gas used to make electricity, gasoline, and diesel. The omissions are because a) I don’t have all those numbers, and b) I think the two sides of the comparison would balance those factors anyway.
In use, an EV is responsible for about 60% of the the CO2 emissions that gas or diesel vehicles are. That number is reliable, but I’m not confident in comparisons of CO2 emissions during the manufacturing of EVs and ICEVs. I did a deep dive 6 or 8 years ago, and found nothing that I could rely on.
Put it together, and I think EVs emit less CO2 on a lifecycle basis (crade to grave — manufacturing and use.) I think the entire greenhouse gas panic is phony, so I don’t view the EV “advantage” on CO2 as material to anything. I’ve looked into it only because it’s been widely discussed.
—–
Two more things.