By David Wojick
The energy content of gasoline and other fuels is usually measured in Btu, or kilojoules if you are metric. But it can also be done in kilowatt or megawatt hours. Fuel energy and electric energy are both energy, after all.
Given the Biden rush to electrify all fuel use, this way of measuring helps make clear the fantasy of that policy. The amount of electricity required to replace ordinary fuel uses is enormous.
In fact, this conversion issue is staring us in the face. A recent CFACT article points out that EPA proposes to regulate at cross purposes. They want to force us to switch to electric cars while at the same time shutting down fossil-fueled power production.
See https://www.cfact.org/2023/07/30/epas-power-grid-assumptions-are-disconnected-from-reality/.
As my regular readers know, I am focused on Virginia, so let’s take it as our example. The reality is complex, but we will keep it simple enough to see the stark general picture.
According to EIA, Virginia’s estimated 2021 gasoline consumption is around 440 trillion Btu. The conversion is 3,412,000 btu = 1 MWh. So that is about 130 million MWh in gasoline energy. Also, in 2021 Virginia’s electric power generation is 93.5 million MWh.
So the gasoline energy is 1.4 times the total power generation. That’s a lot, right? If it takes this much energy to power our cars and light trucks, then we need to build generation capacity that is almost one and a half times our present generation to make the transition. We also need to build the costly transmission, distribution, and charging capacity to deliver all that juice to the EVs.
I have yet to see the cost estimate for all of this, but clearly, it is huge. And if we are also supposed to shut down most of our existing generating capacity because it is fossil-fueled, that is surely impossible. I have seen no plan that even begins to seriously address this issue, just a lot of empty arm-waving.
Mind you, a real analysis would get pretty technical pretty fast. For example, car engines are only around 40% efficient. So one might argue that only 40% of that 130 million MWh, or 52 million, is needed to run the electric version. That is still well over half of the present generation.
But the electric power and electric car system is also far from 100% efficient. There are line losses, storage losses, motor losses, etc. So if 52 million MWh has to be used, then a lot more has to be generated. Plus EVs are a lot heavier, so take more energy.
Then too, there is the unanswered question of where all this new juice is going to come from if fossil-fueled generation is not allowed, or only allowed with energy-intensive carbon capture bolted on. This absurd target is a separate issue that megawatt hours of gasoline clearly raises.
And this is just gasoline. The Biden goal is to electrify as much fossil fuel use as possible, including that used to generate electricity.
Natural gas is a real whopper. EIA says Virginia’s 2021 consumption was about 700 trillion Btu, or getting toward twice as much as gasoline. And many gas uses are efficient. Distillate oil, including diesel and heating oil, is another 200 trillion Btu or so. Even coal is around 70 trillion Btu.
One can do this megawatt-hour analysis for every State (or Country). The consumption data for each State is here: https://www.eia.gov/state/. The power generation data is here: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/.
These are enormous numbers. As the Beatles sang: We’d all like to see the Plan.
Author
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.
I have yet to see the cost estimate for all of this, but clearly, it is huge.
What’s huge is the dishonesty of the political fugnutches who blithely propose to scrap the current reliable energy sources that our civilization runs on, and oh, just so glibly declare that it’s a simple matter to replace them with wind/solar, and we don’t need no steenkin’ cost estimate, so let’s just Start Today!!!!
Add in the diesel fuel used by over-the-road trucking and trains, pleasure boats and ships and then aircraft fuel and the electrical power needed is unachievable. staggering, impossible,
Very achievable! Look at the rate we build nuke plants in the 70s and 80s in the US and how China is doing it now.
Clearly we can build nuke plants faster than BEV. Many years ago I calculated that one nuke plant could provide power to a million BEV.
For those who have not taken second year calculus, let me explain the ‘S’ curve.
Often we hear claims of exponential growth of wind and solar. But there is the ‘die off’ factor. At some point wind and solar will fail faster than we can build them. This is the flat end part of the S curve.
My first commercial nuke startup is still running past 40 years and not permitted to run 60 years and working on 80 years.
It is the equivalent of building two new plants that could power 2 million BEV.
However, what is the die off of BEV? I suspect what ever it is it will be spectacular and a ball of fire.
In other words, I do not think we should rush to build new nukes for BEV demand when BEV are DOA and MIA.
I am so old that I remember California promoting switching to natural gas for hot water heaters so we could shut down the nuke I worked at.
Don’t kid yourself, part of “the plan” is to have 1/3 the number of vehicles on the road…thus reducing electrical infrastructure cost to about a 50% expansion, paid for by carbon taxes on FF during the infrastructure build out period.
Your 2 cars in the driveway will become 1, and your next door neighbor will have no car, work from home, and take an electric scooter to the store. The cost of gasoline will force you into this.
And one has to remember that wind will, in Texas with nice open plains, regularly drop below 8% of nameplate rating. I do not know which rating he is using to rate wind, the 30 odd percent actually produced on average, the fantasy nameplate rating, or what it produces in bad conditions.
Type of generation does not seem to be considered in the ‘how big an increase is necessary?’ question. The statements are how much generation would be required. If the capacity factor of the replacement generation is 20%, multiply ‘necessary generation’ by 5 (or more, if the 20% isn’t reliable). Generation and capacity are not the same thing.
And every one of the brainless calculations ignore the fact that power every Wind Turbine or solar facility creating steam power takes as much as 15% of name plate generated power from the grid to generate power – 24/7/365. It is not taken from the so called amount delivered to the grid. There are two meters on the facilities, one for the amount generated and sold and one for the amount consumed and needed to make the beast run.
Plus all the extra generation needed to charge the batteries, and recharge them rapidly after they have discharged during a low-renewable-energy time period.
What I pointed out had nothing to do with whether or not the 150% generation increase figure is correct, only with the fact that some people are confusing generation with capacity. To get a 50% increase in generation could require a (potential) capacity increase of virtually any amount. If the generation capacity is reliable, the calculations are probably pretty straight-forward. If the capacity is not reliable (like some forms we know about), what is necessary to assure any particular available increase is much more complicated.
The lightbulb moment for the NetZero nutters is fast approaching critical mass.
They will never admit that it’s not possible. They’ll say we need to try harder, subsidize more, put the “right people” in charge, … and just believe it will happen.
And there will be technological breakthroughs – magical thinking.
Which grid will crash first, California, Germany or South Australia?
I think each of them have already crashed at least once.
Now if you want to place a bet which will crash next, I want the Vegas odds for Germany.
Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators, remove all wind and solar from the grid and stop pissing away valuable resources on EVs.
Problem, at least for the UK, is we stopped building new FF and nuclear decades ago. Anybody who knows how to do it is either dead or retired.
What are the only countries building the technology, China and India.
Thanks to the Pied Pipers of climate change we’re between Scylla and Charybdis. With China fulfilling the role of both.
I thought that the French were building a new nuclear power plant in the UK, and Vogtle 3 just went on line in the US.
But to improve this, and build them quickly, we have to overcome the ridiculous fear of nuclear radiation, compounded by the NLT foolishness, and streamline the regulatory process, while reducing the frivolous lawsuits. Easy peasy.
I notice that he did his calculations using gasoline. A lot of cars and trucks use diesel, so would that have to be added to the amount of new generation capacity needed?
Yes. He pointed out how much diesel and other distillates are down at the bottom.
The transition to electrification wont happen over night, but its impossible to avoid the change.
The only question is where do wan to work, live, invest to take advantage of the transition.
a model X is now more affordable than camary. Reality is bearing down on the stupid approach of burning stuff for energy.
zero points for fighting the future
futile to swim against the tide.
Poor Mosh, off in prime la-la-land , yet again. !
Reality is bearing down on the absolute idiocy of using intermittent, unreliable sources to provide reliable electricity.
Reality is bearing down on the idiotic thinking that EVs can ever replace ICE for most transport needs.
Not really. All that is needed is trans-dimensional transmission via massive quantum level fabrication to replace the batteries.
Screw batteries. I think we should be working on Star Trek Transporter beams. We should have them up and running by 2030 if we just spend more money…
that we don’t have.
The dirty secret behind the transporter is that everyone who goes into one unconditionally ceases to exist. That a copy is created might be useful to a screwed-up society but every individual perishes.
Then let’s just send politicians and cargo through it.
Not to mention mosh’s intermittent, unreliable spelling and punctuation!
But remarkably better than his usual.
a model X is now more affordable than camary.
REALLY…IN WHAT WORLD…
The Tesla Model X awd suv is available in 2 trims starting at an Invoice Price of $95,940 versus the cheapest MSRP of $99,880 including destination charge. The dealership target price you should pay for a Tesla Model X is from $99,816 to $109,804.
The 2023 Toyota Camry price starts at only $26,320
2 Camrys would be $52,640
3 Camrys would be $78,960
4 Camrys would be $105,280
You can buy 4 Camrys for just the starting price of a Model X. Buying just 1 Camry the $79,000 difference would buy 19,750 gallons of gas at $4.00 per gallon. At an average 35MPG that gas would take you 691,250 miles.
In what world is a Model X more affordable than a Toyota Camry???
Even if you spend $50 on oil changes every 5000 miles that’s $6,900 over 690,000 miles
Even if you replace the engine $5400 every 200,000 miles that’s $16,200 over 690,000 miles.
Again, in what world is a Tesla X more affordable than a Camry???
The only reason cost of ownership of a BEV was cheaper, not so much now, was the lack of taxes on EVs. Fuel duty, VAT and Vehicle Excise Duty on ICE vehicles.
It’s very easy to switch the ULEZ* technology to being a charge for EVs once there’s no money to be made from ICE. Easy to extend to a mileage charge outside urban areas. The technology is installed on all Motorways and major roads for speed limit infringements
* ULEZ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Zone
A Tesla X with 5 years’ use on its battery would be worth about 1 new Camry. Or less.
But you don’t get much virtue signaling with a Camry.
But how many Camarys?
And don’t forget the higher insurance premiums on EVs. And the cost of the tires.
I didn’t want to sound Nickpicking
😉
In 2021 I got 2 insurance quotes on a NEW Sonata hybrid vs a 1-2 year
old Tesla 3 [at that time the used Tesla3 was still ~ $8000 more than the new Sonata]. The Tesla was ~ $600 more per year to unsure. I bet its even higher now.
You’re comparing to Camrys (Camries?), but mosh mentioned Camarys. Those are way expensive.
Dang nabbit, Aaah hate that varmint
You and reality are not close aquaintances but fantasy you know well.
He’s a so-so lit student.. You cannot ever expect him to get anywhere near reality.
In what language? It’s certainly not English.
ROTFLMAO!
There will only be a transition (for power generation) to non-combustibles if a whole lot more nuclear plants are built and brought online. But sadly, the greens don’t want those any more than they want fossil fuels. Nuclear power is by far one of the cleanest and most efficient ways to generate electricity.
But as for farming, transportation, heating, cooking and manufacturing, those will be fossil fuel powered for a very long time. As they should be. Heating a building with electricity is far less efficient than heating with gas, and the former is an unnecessary draw on the electric grid.
And if petrol from oil becomes too expensive…
… there are well known processes for getting liquid fuels from coal.
And Town gas.
Once you factor in the 16X reduction in population, it looks a lot more achievable.
Your comment started off so well Mosh. ” The transition to electrification wont happen”…
If you had stopped at that point, we would all be agreeing with you.
Thanks Mosh, for a fine example of the empty arm waving I allude to in my article. Fact is our civilization is still based on fire and that is not going to change in the forseeable future.
Empty arm waving is a Mosh specialty, he does it so well.
A Tesla Model X is more affordable than a Camry? I just priced a 2024 Camry XSE V6, the most expensive model they sell, with a MSRP of $36,845. Adding every single option, service, and protection plan they offer, I could get the MSRP up to $47,028. That’s for a brand new car.
On the other hand, virtually every used Model X listed on Carmax is over $60,000 – way over, in many cases. Only one outlier Model X was listed at $53,998 (with 40,000 miles on it) – the next cheapest was $59,998 (with 54,000 miles on it!). The high-end outlier was $92,998 for a vehicle with only 8,000 miles on it.
On what planet does that translate into a Model X being “more affordable” than a Camry?
You have to remember it is important to articulate the lies as often as possible. Leftism is Pavlovian. It isn’t learned, it is absorbed until it permeates.
And keep repeating the lies until you actually believe them.
[For the political Right, the posterchild is Rep. Adam Schiff
and I suspect for the political Left it would be Donald Trump.]
Mosh – appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.
“Every one was doing it”
Insults is another – ad hominem attacks.
I expect more – open another window and check your facts?
17 million new cars and trucks sold in the US per year.
Bidens EPA states that by 2030 60% of vehicles will be EVs.
13,500 miles driven on average
Assume that the Tesla Model 3 with the 82kwr battery with no degradation over time and a range of 350 miles per charge is ~38 charges per year.
3,116 kwh/year per vehicle
31,783 GWh/year for all vehicles
Arizona Palo Verde Nuclear power plant with 3 reactors produces 31.920 GWh per year.
So every year that ~10million vehicles are sold, 3 nuclear reactors will be needed to generate sufficient electricity.
Nuclear takes 10 years to build, and it’s already 2023.
The progressive dream of an all-electric US is pure fantasy. California will be the first to fail, I will watch from one state over and make popcorn as it collapses from its own bad decisions.
Business-wise, Ford recently stated they have lost $4.5B on EVS. GM has killed the Volt and will end the Bolt this year as they continue to lose money on EVs. Siemens wind turbines lost $2.4B. Vestas wind lost $1.57B in 2022. GE wind turbine lost $2.2B in 2022. There are so many more companies that are failing financially with renewables and EVs.
I am pleased that my investments are not in those companies.
They will make it up in volume.
Maybe Steve Mosher is short all those firms?
The presumption is that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. That presumption is false. There is no need for any of this.
A short walk through history and economics reveals literally thousands of changes that the bright boys told us were impossible to avoid being avoided entirely.
And millions of things the bright boys never saw coming hit them right square between the eyes.
Funny how millions of peons making rational, personal decisions for their own lives seem to know more than the bright boys. Maybe they’re not so bright.
Here’s a timeline for only replacing electric generation with nuclear. Let’s be honest wind and solar is so low density, mineral intensive and battery dependent that proliferation must end in the next 10 years.
From 2030-2050 light water fission small scale modular will dominate while fast neutron is being perfected (see NuScale stock symbol SMR). Let’s say a gradual build up to 4 factories churning out cookie cutter identical modular reactor assemblies (300 MW each) in the USA, 2 each in Uk, Germany, France, India, Japan, South Korea, and 8 in China (7 countries with a total 24 factories by 2040, and 48 factories by 2050.
2028-2035. 1 factory in US producing a total of 3 reactor assemblies (900 MW).
2035-2040. 1 factory in each of 7 countries producing 3 each/year = 21 x 5 years=105 reactors
2040-2050. 2 factories in US, 2 factories in China, 1 each in Germany, France, India, Japan and South Korea =9 factories producing 6 assembles each =54×10=540 reactor assemblies
2050-2060. 18 factories 9 each = 162 x 10 years=1620 assemblies
2060-2100. 36 factories x 10 each = 360 x 40 years = 14400 assemblies
Total reactor assemblies = (3, 105, 540, 1620, 14,400) = 16,668 assemblies at 300 MW each = 5,000,400 (5 million MW) =5TW x 24hrs x 365days x 0.9 capacity factor =39,420 terawatt hours.
(Annual world consumption in 2022=25,300 TW (14,000/80 years = 175 TW addition/year (2010-2020 electrical consumption increased 500 TW/year).
Notes:
NuScale, in March 2023, placed their first long lead time reactor component order. It’s a go.
Fast neutron breeder reactors should start deploying after 2050 and begin phasing out Coal, Oil and Gas for transportation and industrial applications. Wind and solar additions should end by 2035 and be entirely landfilled by 2065.
See also X-energy SMR design. X-Energy is going public via stock symbol AAC.
Full disclosure, I own stock in SMR, and some NLR etf.
James, I bought 100 shares of NuScale a few months ago, more as a sign of support than as an investment. I’ll check out X-energy, thanks. .
My thought on this and similar projects is a “10, 100, 1,000” rule™.
Get 10 operating and connected to the grid.
Have 100 under construction with full financing in the bank.
Have 1,000 permitted by location with financing committed.
I’d add 10 years minimum to those years to allow for idiot Greens objecting, protesting, and generally getting in the way of a sensible energy policy.
Fusion has a big problem and that how do you keep the protons that come from it from destroying everything you built the fusion reactor from? I wish it was possible as much as you think it is possible but my 60 plus years of hearing it twenty years out leaves me wanting.
Fusion is right where it was fifty years ago: Fifty years from fruition!
Oh ye of little faith. They have done it again:
Nuclear fusion breakthrough: Is cheap, clean energy finally here? (msn.com)
Do I need to add a /sarc?
But we can’t have breeder reators in ther US – they are Evil.
David,
Thank you for providing a template for an easy to understand cost comparison that may be simple enough for general public use.
I believe that one of the forgotten elements of the alarmist view of the energy transition is the cost and reality of the proposed change.
I suggest that the cost to change be shown as an estimate for the entire USA (and then expanded for the world). Reduce this to a long term time table and then apply the cost to the average individual.
There are a few areas to help do a reality check – Germany and California are both going down the path to change with the increased costs to show for it.
I would be happy to help on such a project.
Cheers,
rwbenson
My third attempt to post this?
My rough guide fossil fuels to kWhs is one gallon (imperial) = 40kWhs of energy. so 32 kWhs for one gallon US.
As most of our modern cars achieve about 40 MPG then one mile requires one kWH of energy.
Cant quite bring yourself to say British Thermal Unit eh? 🙂
Excellent article. Proving that the best Climate Scientists make poor Engineers.
I lived off the grid for 20 years relying on wind and solar. The energy available is expensive, unreliable, and puny.
The problem is most people have no such experience. This includes politicians. They are easily convinced by glossy sales material to believe a 15 Amp household outlet is no different than a gas pump. In reality there are 3 orders of magnitude of difference in the rate of energy delivered.
Electricity is incredibly difficult and expensive to store. This simple physical fact makes it a poor substitute for fossil fuels which are an incredibly cheap way to store energy.
Most current plans are based on the dream that by 2050 we will have solved energy storage. But in reality we have a long way to go before electrons are as convenient as gasoline.
Nature makes extensive use of solar because she does two things very well: 1) she stores it efficiently and 2) she consumes those stores efficiently. We are abysmal at 1 and amateurish at 2.
Worse for us, nature doesn’t need the intense bursts of energy that we do. For instance, she doesn’t forge steel.
Good point: [Nature] “doesn’t forge steel.” She doesn’t need to but humans do, so to be able to live on a dangerous & unforgiving planet. Getting rid of reliable energy will only make society more fragile.
btw The last talk I heard stated that photosynthesis was only ~ 2% efficient – but the fuel was free!
Living on a boat in the tropics for as long as we did, refrigeration becomes a big issue. Many boats end up having to run their engine twice a day to keep batteries charged, even with solar panels.
We used propane/butane for refrigeration instead of electricity. One 30 pound tank of propane would run our dometic fridge/freezer for 3 months. No noise. No engine. No compressor.
US gas pumps are rated at 10 gal/min minimum which is 337 x 60 = 20 mwh/h =20,220 KW minimum.
In contrast a house is 100×220 = 22 KW maximum (100 Amp supply)
So 1 gas pump is the equivalent energy of 1000 houses.
Explain again how public chargers are going to replace a gas station with a dozen pumps. Look at the costs and power required.
Excellent analysis, however when you include the natural gas, diesel and coal values it comes to 413.5 MegaWatt Hours. compared to a mere 93.5 MW-hr for current electrical generation. That alone should slap the idiots upside the head (figuratively) who believe net zero is feasible.
Next, is efficiency. ICE Cars are about on average only 30-35% efficient, though diesel trucks at relatively constant highway speeds can be as high as 45%.
But the REALLY big elephant in the room is the net efficiency of an EV (Electric Vehicle). turns out they too are only 36.6% efficient with the breakdown as follows:
Let’s use a Tesla with a nameplate battery capacity of 85 kWhr. It can run for 3 hours on the highway, for 180 miles distance.
Now efficiencies are multiplied so you have:
Drive motor(s) 0.92
Charging 0.90
Discharging 0.95
capacity floor 0.80 (you cannot take the battery below 80% discharged)
The result is 0.63 or 63% of the 85 kWhr is available (53.49 kWhr)
Ah but then there are critical ancillary power drains as follows:
HVAC 3.5 kW
lights 1.0 kW
control 0.45 kW
Power Steering/Brakes 2.5 kW
Total Ancillary draw 7.45 kW for 3 hours running = 22.35 kWhr
Which leaves only 31.14 kWhr for the drive motor(s) 31.14/85 =0.366 or 36.6% net efficiency of a typical EV. Note this does not account for losses upstream of the charger.
So you see an EV is not really better than an ICE vehicle in terms of efficiency.
Notes: it takes a fixed amount of energy to run both power steering and power brake functions irrespective of the method used. Whether the P/S is hydraulic, or via servo motor. Likewise power brakes are normally vacuum operated, or hydraulically operated via the power steering pump, so an EV must have these ancillary energy draws.
Oh and if it’s raining the wiper motors draw 0.35 kW each too. And we didn’t mention battery capacity loss with cold weather, or needing to use heating coils to keep the battery from freezing in cold weather too that can be an extra 2-3 kW.
Bottom line, yes electric drive motors are 92% efficient overall, but the entire vehicle system is no better than a good newer ICE vehicle.
Honest question: Why do you list Capacity Floor (80%) as a multiple, along with the motor itself, charging, and discharging? The others make sense to me, but Capacity Floor doesn’t. Isn’t that essentially a “one-time fee” of unavailable energy? (Sorry if I’m being dense)
I debated that to myself as I was calculating this in a spreadsheet… But honestly we determine the net efficiency of a gasoline car by taking the stored energy in the gasoline, against the net energy doing useful work. So in the EV the stored energy is the nameplate capacity of the battery, and since you cannot use any more than 80% without killing the battery, it should be included in the efficiency determination.
Even if you take it out, they do not really get any better than the best newer ICE cars, some of which are incredibly efficient compared to even 20 years ago.
The system is only slightly better than a 1915 Ford Model T
In 2014 A 2013 Tesla Model S raced against a 1915 Ford Model T from Detroit Michigan to the Tesla Museum gates on Long Island.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15112705/2013-tesla-model-s-vs-1915-ford-model-t-race-of-the-centuries-feature/
Model S landed at the museum gate at 7:25
Model T landed at the museum gate at 8:35
So the Tesla won by just over an hour against a 100 year old competitor that had to stop for repair work along the way. Doesn’t speak too well for the technology.
Story tip:
PBS NewsHour Indulges Neurotic Liberals With ‘Climate Psychology Therapist’
https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2023/08/05/pbs-newshour-indulges-neurotic-liberals-climate-psychology
“Emerging field” perfect sideshow for climastrology.
How about climate psychiatry?
Should be the next step.
And this is U.S. tax dollars at work.
We already have Climate Psychosis
Some posting to WUWT seem borderline Climate Psychopaths.
well, the greenies admit that it will suck to be you.
Zero Carbon clearly is not going to happen (even if it mattered—-noting coal-fired plant plans in China, India, Africa, etc.)
What will be interesting is to see how the political process comes to this reality.
I fear that you are, implicitly, assuming that the powers-that-be are expecting us all to still have cars and light trucks. If, however, most of us are supposed to regress to human-powered bicylcles, and walking, than no problem. Also, you appear to be assuming, implicitly, that we will all be allowed to maintain the same standard of living via appliances (hot-water heaters, heat in the winter, AC in the summer, dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, refrigerators and, of course, ovens/ranges). If not, then no problem.