Why the Electric Car Is Doomed to Fail?

[trentr]

So called "expert" thinks electric cars will fail due to resale value and that Better Place is the solution. He also thinks that everyone will charge in the morning so we need a smart grid. :roll:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-electric-car-doomed-fail-150050289.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[EVDRIVER]

Round two of the people in the "bubble". Yahoo seems to breed ignorant posters, just watch it develop, crest and die in a feeding frenzy.

 

[SanDust]

He also apparently believes that as more EVs are sold, increasing the demand for electricity, the electrical utilities won't add to or change their networks. By this reasoning you could never build more houses because the increase in demand will bring down the grid.

 

[smkettner]

He says the grid is not ready for 50% of vehicles to be electric. That would give a few years to prepare?

BTW I am fine with resale value so far. But actually he lost me at "investment". "Vehicle Investment" is an oxymoron to me.
Besides if you fear resale value then lease. Where is the issue?

Just more of the same. They just don't get it.

 

[vin944]

The amount of electricity used to refine a gallon of gas can be used straight away in the Leaf. So grid demand should stay about the same shouldn't it?

 

[TonyWilliams]

The amount of electricity used to refine a gallon of gas can be used straight away in the Leaf. So grid demand should stay about the same shouldn't it?

You're assuming that we won't be still making gas, from overseas oil, then shipping it to emerging markets. Nigeria, for example, has virtually no refining capability, but is a big oil producer.

 

[lpickup]

The amount of electricity used to refine a gallon of gas can be used straight away in the Leaf. So grid demand should stay about the same shouldn't it?

Plus this is where the "EV crowd" gets this argument wrong--and we need to be careful how we present this argument. Yes, the refining process uses a lot of electricity. It's not known exactly how much (unless you are an oil company) but it's probably safe to assume that the amount required will ALMOST (but not quite) power an EV the same distance as a high mileage car would go.

However where the argument goes wrong is that their electricity is mostly generated on-site using the refined fuel or other by-products. So they are not actually pulling a lot of power from the grid. Therefore to make the argument that the grid can handle it, or that the refining process is using the "dirty" coal-fired power is incorrect. Basically the net effect is that the efficiency of the refinery as a whole is lower by the amount of product that must be used to generate power for the refinery.

All in all the argument is still valid from an efficiency point of view: power generated for electricity and then distributed to your outlets makes more efficient use of the raw materials going into the process than does gasoline refining. But to be fair we have to present the argument properly.

 

[thankyouOB]

However where the argument goes wrong is that their electricity is mostly generated on-site using the refined fuel or other by-products.

source please.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

Yeah, I think you are right, the argument is a blind alley. The real come back response is that tens of millions of cars can be charged at night with the waste off peak production capacity we currently have, without burning any more coal. The grid is already practically at double capacity from actual current consumption rates.

The amount of electricity used to refine a gallon of gas can be used straight away in the Leaf. So grid demand should stay about the same shouldn't it?

Plus this is where the "EV crowd" gets this argument wrong--and we need to be careful how we present this argument. Yes, the refining process uses a lot of electricity. It's not known exactly how much (unless you are an oil company) but it's probably safe to assume that the amount required will ALMOST (but not quite) power an EV the same distance as a high mileage car would go.

However where the argument goes wrong is that their electricity is mostly generated on-site using the refined fuel or other by-products. So they are not actually pulling a lot of power from the grid. Therefore to make the argument that the grid can handle it, or that the refining process is using the "dirty" coal-fired power is incorrect. Basically the net effect is that the efficiency of the refinery as a whole is lower by the amount of product that must be used to generate power for the refinery.

All in all the argument is still valid from an efficiency point of view: power generated for electricity and then distributed to your outlets makes more efficient use of the raw materials going into the process than does gasoline refining. But to be fair we have to present the argument properly.

 

[MrFish]

I appreciate these debates, they have helped me to refine how I feel on the subject and how best to express these feelings.

I agree with the assertion you make in principle, however I disagree with throwing out this argument altogether. The EV vs ICE debate is not as much a scientific debate as it is a political one and it is based in too many unknown variables. So we are left to make generalizations that if dissected may contain debatable assertions. The point is to have a balanced debate based on macro analysis not micro analysis. If one side is going to make a general statement that electricity is generated with coal, which may be true however it is not true in all circumstances then it is a equally fair statement to state it take 6kw of "energy, (not necessarily electricity)" and that energy can move an EV 20 miles,(that has been scientifically proven in other references)
After all, even if the electricity used in the refining process is generated from waste product, one could use the argument that the waste product energy could still be used to power an EV so we are hurting ourselves by trying to be so scientifically pure in what is an ideological debate that we are, like the expression says "bringing a knife to a gun fight."

Plus this is where the "EV crowd" gets this argument wrong--and we need to be careful how we present this argument. Yes, the refining process uses a lot of electricity. It's not known exactly how much (unless you are an oil company) but it's probably safe to assume that the amount required will ALMOST (but not quite) power an EV the same distance as a high mileage car would go.

However where the argument goes wrong is that their electricity is mostly generated on-site using the refined fuel or other by-products. So they are not actually pulling a lot of power from the grid. Therefore to make the argument that the grid can handle it, or that the refining process is using the "dirty" coal-fired power is incorrect. Basically the net effect is that the efficiency of the refinery as a whole is lower by the amount of product that must be used to generate power for the refinery.

All in all the argument is still valid from an efficiency point of view: power generated for electricity and then distributed to your outlets makes more efficient use of the raw materials going into the process than does gasoline refining. But to be fair we have to present the argument properly.

 

[padamson1]

Yeah, I think you are right, the argument is a blind alley. The real come back response is that tens of millions of cars can be charged at night with the waste off peak production capacity we currently have, without burning any more coal. The grid is already practically at double capacity from actual current consumption rates.

He says the grid is not ready for 50% of vehicles to be electric.

Gasless you aren't 100% correct: Grid capacity is different than grid energy. Coal and Natural Gas plants spin down their generation at night, so there isn't all that many extra electrons (energy) floating around. Where customers are served by these kinds of plants, new plants aren't needed b/c there is plenty of capacity but more fuel will need to be burned when people charge at night, so it ain't 'free'.

However in areas served by Nukes it is nearly free: http://www.torquenews.com/397/senator-alexander-unused-electricity-our-greatest-national-resource there is estimated to be plenty of excess electricity between 6pm-6am (note the source conservative Lamar Alexander, EV proponent, owner, & Tea-bagger target of abuse). Nuclear power plants don't spin down like coal & NG fired plants because a fission reaction can't be manipulated as easily/quickly. This means the energy is still present, but the steam is vented into the atmosphere instead of run through turbines. When people start charging at night, the problem will be getting that excess energy (in the form of electricity) to parts of the grid that aren't served by Nukes.

 

[MrFish]

padamson1

I have learned that there are actually 3 types of power plants, Peaking, Intermediate Load Following and Base Load http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant (I know that Wikipedia is not a "scholarly " reference but it has a good overview)

After review, I would have to say that many power plants are not as you have stated due to their less efficient energy production and coal plants in particular are generally Base Load and therefore run at a constant level so the assertions of excess energy capacity and unused production are both valid arguments.

 

[Roadburner440]

I cannot go in to vast details obviously. Nuclear plants are controlled much in a similar fashion that a regular plant would be. The fuel rods are "consumed" at various rates depending on how much power you are generating at a given time, OR what you a trying to degrade the fuel in to. Now there are various ways to speed up/slow down these processes which I cannot go in to here, but you can "slow down" the reaction inside of a reactor & generate less electricity. You are right that this process takes time, and cannot be accomplished to accomodate off peak periods, but most reactors are not operated at 100% capacity, or even 90% for that matter. Plus the excess electricity can be diverted to other area's for use. When you have many megawatt's of power in the lines it would take a lot of electric cars charging at 3.3kwh/hr to utilize it.

So the flip side to this is yes, in theory there is "unlimited" power in a reactor as the fuel is always going to decay at a given rate if unusued. However if you are constantly operating the plant at the higher end of their capacity you will speed up the degradation of the rods, and shorten their life. So while consuming a nuclear fuel rod is not the same as consuming/burning fossil fuels it does get consumed faster the more it is used. Ideally the reactor is run at a certain capacity with a buffer based on whatever their max draw is. They will ramp up the "reaction" during peak times of year as well as this process can take anywhere from a day to several days depending on how cautious/controlled you want the escalation in power production to be.

Personally in my mind nuclear is the way to go. It is not the be all/end all solution. However they are working on plasma hot fusion reactors which may be the future nuclear source of our power. There are a lot of advances going on in these areas. So between conventional fission, future fusion, solar, wind, and the like electric cars will be the way to go. Also it would be good to utilizie the plants to their fullest extent. However in the short term I think people must realize that this will cause slightly more nuclear waste which is why we need to work on the next generation of plants.

So I thought watching the guys video was dumb.. I think the only VALID point he had was the age of the grid itself (transmission lines, transformers, etc) are getting old, and will need to be replaced. The Smart Grid is kind of a mute point, as in my mind the cars do not draw a tremendous amount of power. My kwh usage with our Volt is 37kwh/day, and with the Leaf it will not go up much higher as we only drive one car at a time. So a lot of these power grid fears in my mind are unfounded.

 

[Desertstraw]

If the Envia announcement holds up, this discussion is pointless. Electric cars will replace ICEs in the very near future. All gasoline vehicles will lose resale value. Our Leafs are obsolescent.

 

[Volusiano]

Everyone buying a Leaf within the last year or so already has the expectation that within a few years, the Leaf's battery technology would become obsolete. But they're buying them anyway because the current Leaf battery technology is good enough for them currently, and leap and bound type of improvement is not going to be that immediate.

Envia claims that production could be a year and a half away. I'd at least double any such claim to make it more realistic. So if within 3 more years the Envia battery is available, I'll have driven my Leaf for 4 years already. At my current rate of about 18.75K miles/year, I'll have put in easily 75K miles on the Leaf battery in 4 years, which is 3/4 of the useful life of the Leaf battery already (assuming 100K is the battery life).

By then if the original Leaf battery becomes obsolete, it's not a problem because it will have served me effectively for 3/4 of its life so far, which is not too bad. By then, if they have a cheaper, longer range Envia battery packaged for the Leaf, I'd simply just swap the old battery out for a new battery, and I still would not have had to buy a new car altogether. The bottom line is that only the original Leaf battery would become obsolete, not the whole car.

 

[GRA]

I cannot go in to vast details obviously. Nuclear plants are controlled much in a similar fashion that a regular plant would be. The fuel rods are "consumed" at various rates depending on how much power you are generating at a given time, OR what you a trying to degrade the fuel in to. Now there are various ways to speed up/slow down these processes which I cannot go in to here, but you can "slow down" the reaction inside of a reactor & generate less electricity. You are right that this process takes time, and cannot be accomplished to accomodate off peak periods, but most reactors are not operated at 100% capacity, or even 90% for that matter. Plus the excess electricity can be diverted to other area's for use. When you have many megawatt's of power in the lines it would take a lot of electric cars charging at 3.3kwh/hr to utilize it.

Commercial nuclear plants typically operate at >=90% of peak capacity, on a yearly basis. IIRR base load coal runs in the 60-70% range, N.G. (often used for peaking plants, especially gas turbines) averages around the mid-30s. Wind can be very variable; from memory in Texas it's only credited with 8 or 9% of capacity, while the five-year average (2003-2007) of the EU was either 20.8 or 20.9%, with Ireland and Greece close to 30% and Denmark just under 20%. Solar too has a low capacity factor; I imagine the plants being built in the eastern Mjoave will have capacity factors in the region of 25%, while the solar plants in Germany (you've got to be kidding me!) would be much lower.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

So we should be able to figure this out. Assuming 12,000 miles a year average, 4 miles per kWh, the average Leaf will consume 3000 kWh of electricity in a year. Now let's say the Tennessee plant runs full tilt cranking out Leafs and they all sell like hotcakes as far as the eye can see. After 10 years, there will be 1.5M Leafs on the road, consuming 4.5B kWh of electricity per year.

I attempted to figure out how much 4.5B kWh is out of the total generating capacity. Check my math:

4.5B kWh = 4.5 terrawatt-hours, or 4.5 x 10 ** 12 watt hours.

Near as I can tell electric generating capacity in the US is something on the order of 4.4 peta-watt hours, or 4.4 x 10 ** 15 watt hours.

So 1.5 million electric cars would take about 1/1000th of our present day generating capacity? Can that be right? (yeah I know there are transmission losses, blah blah blah, and the Leaf won't be the only EV, but still...)

 

[SanDust]

The amount of electricity used to refine a gallon of gas can be used straight away in the Leaf. So grid demand should stay about the same shouldn't it?

Refining uses a lot of energy but this is probably not true. The error is in equating the energy loss during refining, about a 17% loss, with electrical usage. At one point Nissan was saying that it took 7 kWh of electricity to refine a gallon of gasoline but it hasn't said that in at least a year.

You're assuming that we won't be still making gas, from overseas oil, then shipping it to emerging markets. Nigeria, for example, has virtually no refining capability, but is a big oil producer.

That's a great point. Something along those lines happens now. As mentioned, we're a net importer of oil but a net exporter of petroleum products. Another example would be that the oil from the Keystone Pipeline would be refined in the US for export to Latin America and Europe.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

As mentioned, we're a net importer of oil but a net exporter of petroleum products.

I would describe the U.S. and a net importer of oil but a net exporter of petroleum refining services.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

yes, the math is correct. with current capacity, it was determined 4-6 years ago that the Puget Sound region had enough surplus power to supply 5 million EVs and we are just a teeny tiny region in the corner of the country.

but we can supply a billion EVs if we wanted to. a Central WA station has solar panels running a dozen L2 stations and estimates they collect enough at that one station alone to power EVs for another 3/4th of a million miles annually. now that aint much. that is only 60 Leafs. but at the same time, this solar panel area is a pretty small footprint in the vast (mostly nothingness) spaces of the area.

a Japanese Engineer proposed a network of solar/wind generators daisy chained to cover the issues of line transmission losses over long distances. he proposed that 12 years ago.

but if better batteries come along, we will simply have cheaper cars. Leafs selling for $25,000 fully loaded, entry models at $18,000 because we still wont be past the time to charge which means outright purchases of EVs will be a segment.

leasing from Better Place will be an option, widespread public charging of all kinds will be an option.

the options we cannot have; gas, oil, coal.

nuclear has inherent (what doesnt?) dangers especially when concerning long term nuclear waste storage, location in geologically unstable areas (Earthquakes AND flooding) and time to build and if we are looking for a "bridge solution" nuclear is it but we need to get on the stick. it is been regulated to extinction but we actually did have an announcement of approval for first plant in more than 30 years. now, how long it will take to build? that is the question