End of the line for combustion engines?

jstand said:

Ian F said:

In reply to RossD :

The difference is grid production systems are typically far more efficient at producing KW(HP) for a given amount of fuel burned than vehicle engines.

Once you take into account transmission losses, and charging losses for en EV, then its a much smaller difference.

Looking at the graphics from Fuel economy.gov and the web:

• Gas efficiency is 18-25% to the wheels
• EV is 82% to the wheels (includes 17% regeneration)
• Powerplant efficiency is roughly 35% for coal or oil fired, less for gas fire turbines
• Transmission losses for electricity range for 8-15%

So some simple math:

(35% PP efficiency - (35%*8% transmission losses)) * 82% vehicle efficiency = 28.6% of the fuel energy gets to the wheels.

28.6% is only 3.6% better than a gas engine if a fossil fuel plant and best case numbers are used for both. Change to Hydroelectric and the EV is much better, but fossil fuel still a large contributor to the power grid.

Is 3.6% better efficiency enough to justify the cost? Is there a measurable environmental improvement?

I would guess and urban environment sees a reduction in smog as EV become more prevalent, but the area local to the powerplant sees a negative impact to their environment due to the need to produce more electricity to charge the EVs.

You talk of transmission losses. What about the transmission losses in getting fuel to your car. Oil has to be pumped from the ground, transported across ground and sea, then distilled down (how many gallons of gas from a barrel of oil?), shipped again, and then pumped into the car. Depending on the energy generation used to produce electricity, the transmission losses can be great or not. Around here I have 2 nuke plants, the ONLY wind plant in NJ, at least one solar plant, and a few gas powered plants. One of the nuke plants is across the state, but the other is 20 minutes up the highway, so I am going to say that around here at least, transmission losses are not that great

In reply to mad_machine :

I had left out transmission losses for getting fuel to the local gas station because I had also left out the cost of getting fuel to a power plant. Coal, oil, and natural gas all have transmission cost associated with them whether going to someones home, car, or a power plant.

It had been posted earlier that power plants are more efficient that vehicle engines, which is true, but my there are other losses to be considered.

My point was that the improved efficiency of an electric vehicle and powerplants may be offset by other losses resulting in an overall efficiency when you look beyond the vehicle to the supply chain for the energy.

I also wanted to point out that the overall efficiency from switching to EV's may not be significantly better than an ICE powered vehicles and that the environmental impact may just be relocated, rather than reduced.

For me it would be as much about convenience. Get home. Plug the car in. Done.  I just spent a good portion of my lunch hour getting gas for the van.  And I have to change the oil tomorrow. 

Plus, there have been a few times during the past few years where some sort of storm has knocked out power for a few days. An EV combined with a NG generator means not worrying about gas shortages or stations without power.

frenchyd said:

In reply to BrokenYugo :

power grids already exists. Energy demand is at a minimum later in the evening and early morning when most of us are home and asleep. The timer goes off and your Volt/ Tesla/ whatever is charged ready for tomorrow. 

Same with buses and trucks.  

Further energy reduction will occur when cars aren't owned. But ordered when and where needed.  

Sitting quietly by the curb freshly charged waiting for someone in the area to hit the order car button. 

Hence driverless cars on demand.  

Race cars will be kept at race tracks  just like horses are kept at stables.  

 

Forum question:  did the new format make this post bold?

In reply to FlightService : I don't know why some of my comments come out bold and some aren't  I understand it's like shouting and I apologize but I don't know what to do to stop it 

In reply to mad_machine :getting coal/ gas to a power plant is infinitely more efficient than getting oil to your car as gasoline.  Trains hauling coal, pipelines pumping natural gas do it so much more efficiently than tankers crossing oceans or delivering gasoline to neighborhood stations. Yes there are transmission losses getting electricity to homes but that ignores the local solar or wind.  Rural wind generation reduces transmission losses since more and more large scale farmers are acquiring wind generation ability.Wind generation supplemented by solar  is making even non-productive farm land valuable.  

In reply to jstand :with regard to the use use of EV vs ICEs  in metro areas 90-95% of use will be met by current technology, the 5% or so of drivers who need to cover more than 200 miles per day will retain ICEs for the foreseeable future without significantly depleting or oil reserves.  As for the tiny fraction of 1% that value motorsports  we are simply insignificant to energy consumption  

The cost of solar to power an EV is borderline insignificant compared to the cost of the EV (new).  If everyone worried about grid issues just got a panel or two with their EV, there wouldn't be a problem.

ProDarwin said:

The cost of solar to power an EV is borderline insignificant compared to the cost of the EV (new).  If everyone worried about grid issues just got a panel or two with their EV, there wouldn't be a problem.

I'm not sure that would help the grid much.  I'd expect peak EV charging demand to occur in the evening / at night when there's no solar.  Solar is great for offsetting peak mid-day A/C demand in the summer, however.  

I suspect the ICE will outlast Tesla, and I'm not the only one that thinks so. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/12/tesla-stock-may-be-soaring-but-elon-musks-business-model-is-doomed-says-former-gm-vice-chairman-lutz.html

1988RedT2 said:

I suspect the ICE will outlast Tesla, and I'm not the only one that thinks so. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/12/tesla-stock-may-be-soaring-but-elon-musks-business-model-is-doomed-says-former-gm-vice-chairman-lutz.html

Musk is in this to make money.  Not to save the world.  He's appealing to "world savers" to keep him alive and get other funding sources.

There is plenty of EV development in the OEM world that he really needs to step up his production game if he plans on surviving.

...I bet Lutz has ran more car companies in the ground than Musk has companies.

This goes to my post earlier.  Central power generation is a problem.  Local generation and storage is a solution to the over loading grid issue.

In reply to alfadriver: 

Elon Musk's Real Endgame

I wouldn't be so sure.

Bob Lutz is a cartoonishly old-school businessman who's been warning of Tesla's impending demise for many years now. So far this stopped clock has been wrong, but as mainstream manufacturers start to compete with Tesla, he could finally be right - for example, the Porsche Mission E is a purpose-built Tesla S killer. It will take a chunk out of their customer base.

I remember a few months ago I made a bet with someone on here that more than 50% of new production cars would be EVs by 2030. I figured the odds were just slightly in my favor at the time, but I'm a lot more confident about it now.

FlightService said:

In reply to alfadriver: 

Elon Musk's Real Endgame

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

My real issues with Tesla are 1) they let their customers do too much development for them. 2) they still have a long way to understand how 90% of the OEM's make cars so cheaply.  CR got on the Tesla band wagon WAY too fast, and the problems that Tesla is seeing in the field as well as the new model issues are examples of that problem.

Maybe Tesla can be a battery supplier.  But most see that Silicoln Valley is figuring out how much harder it is to manufacture a car at car quality vs. computers and phones.

In reply to FlightService : you are absolutely correct  

the powerplant efficiency quoted above is complete bullE36 M3. Our new combined cycle gas turbine plants make nearly 63%.

I cannot believe how statistics like that are still out there.

In reply to tuna55 :

That's good to know. The numbers I had found with a quick searched seemed low, but consistent across several sources.

What is the average efficiency nationwide for operating plants? I suspect there are some that are into the 60% range, but many older ones still operating that are not as efficient and bring down the average efficiency.

jstand said:

In reply to tuna55 :

That's good to know. The numbers I had found with a quick searched seemed low, but consistent across several sources.

What is the average efficiency nationwide for operating plants? I suspect there are some that are into the 60% range, but many older ones still operating that are not as efficient and bring down the average efficiency.

Efficiency nationwide would depend on the hour, and what type of plants were operating on what. For a typical modern powerplant supplying baseload to the grid, they are nearly all combined cycle, putting them in the high 50% for old stuff or 62% for new stuff from our company.

A simple cycle (GT only) would be in the mid 30%, but those are peakers, not major contributors to the grid overall.

Liquid fuel is another ballgame, but natural gas is where most of this stuff operates for very good reasons, the emissions are otherworldly clean for a natural gas combined cycle plant.

In reply to alfadriver :If Henry Ford himself had to build cars at today's expected quality he too would struggle to get production numbers up

alfadriver said:

FlightService said:

In reply to alfadriver: 

Elon Musk's Real Endgame

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

My real issues with Tesla are 1) they let their customers do too much development for them. 2) they still have a long way to understand how 90% of the OEM's make cars so cheaply.  CR got on the Tesla band wagon WAY too fast, and the problems that Tesla is seeing in the field as well as the new model issues are examples of that problem.

Maybe Tesla can be a battery supplier.  But most see that Silicoln Valley is figuring out how much harder it is to manufacture a car at car quality vs. computers and phones.

And the whole deal of selling a product that will need a steady stream of replacement parts. I've heard that anywhere they're popular every other body shop has a few on the lot, it's something like 10 months to get a new hood. Basic fender bender parts are all backordered by several months. 

In reply to BrokenYugo :Minneapolis is one of those cities where Tessa is popular.  I don't see any sitting around in body shops that I drive by frequently.  The people I talk to all seem happy and spend a lot of time telling you how great the car is.  

Myself I like Chevies Volt over the Tesla  but maybe that's because owning one wouldn't be a pipe dream while a Tesla is a pipe dream  

There are quite a few Teslas around here (there is a charging station a mile from my house at the local Liquor store) and I do not know of any sitting around waiting for parts. Mind you, I am in NJ, the densest populated state in the US, and running nose to tail NASCAR style is a way of life

iceracer said:

In reply to dculberson :

I'll time it the next time I fill up.

Actually the "one minute" was just a swag.

I have timed my petrol fillups (because of course I have):

From the point where the car is physically stopped at the pump, for me to get out of the car, wallet in hand, insert my card, punch in my zip code, press the buttons for 'OK', "No Car Wash", "No, I dont want Citgo/Shell/BP/Exxon/whatever stupid rewards", and select the octane/cetane desired, take off the cap, insert the nozzle, press the trigger, wait for the juice to fill the tank (8 to 12 gallons for a typical car), then put the cap on, put the nozzle back on the hook, get back in my car and go...if I'm on my game and everything works perfectly, takes 3 minutes.  

I'd say the average person spends at least an extra 2 minutes farting around with something, or being on their smartphone and not noticing their tank is full...or going in to buy a Snickers or a Scratch-Off.  So 5-10 minutes might be a better average.  

tuna55 said:

the powerplant efficiency quoted above is complete bullE36 M3. Our new combined cycle gas turbine plants make nearly 63%.

I cannot believe how statistics like that are still out there.

I read this and thought that, too.  Back when I was doing thermodynamics calculations in college, we usually assumed ~40% efficiency for a dumb old coal-fired steam turbine.  I had heard somewhere in the 50-60 pct ballpark for natural gas, which jives with your figures (which I trust, as that's kindof your gig). 

However, the extraction issues with natural gas have yet to be resolved.