It seems to me that the current rush to embrace electric vehicles as
an environmental panacea may be a mistake. Can you turn your
electrifying wit and wisdom to this topic?
I understand - at least at a superficial level - the full extent of
environmental problems created by our current infrastructure of
gasoline-powered vehicles. First the raw non-renewable oil has to be
extracted, transported, and refined; all of these have energy and
environmental costs. Then the resulting refined fuel is also
transported to hundreds of thousands of dispensing points and loaded
into individual vehicles; there are energy and environmental costs and
risks inherent in this as well. Finally the non-renewable refined fuel is burned in
millions of vehicles, causing air pollution, etc.
But it seems that electric vehicles may well give rise to another, but
not necessarily less costly, set of circumstances. The electricity to
power these vehicles must be generated. I believe that the most common
type of generating plant in the US is coal-powered. So we are
consuming another non-renewable resource when we create the
electricity. Then the electricity must be transmitted, and there is
surely some significant loss that occurs during the transmission
process. And electricity cannot be centrally stored, so we must always
be consuming excess resources to produce excess capacity. I am sure
that there are other energy and environmental costs associated with
power-plant construction, operation and maintenance (even for those
power plants that use renewable resources), manufacture of car
batteries, replacement of batteries in cars, etc.
Has anyone ever tried to parse all this out, and determine if there is
really a net savings in terms of use of non-renewable energy sources
and environmental costs?
First, it’s easier to contain pollution from a few large sources than from millions of small sources. Second, electricity can be generated in environmentally friendly ways (e.g. nuclear) that are not directly applicable to automobile use.
What Steve MB said; also, coal is likely to last much longer than oil, and we have plenty of it here. Not under countries that don’t like us.
Also, once we have electric cars as the norm, we can switch to whatever form of energy generation makes the most sense at the time; solar, coal, oil, geothermal or nuclear generated electricity all drive a motor the same. You can’t just shovel coal or uranium or sunlight into a gas powered car and make it go.
Also, there are efficiencies of scale. A centralized power source can generate energy more efficiently than millions of tiny power sources, even including the loss from transmission.
The most important thing to save fuel is to get rid of the latest generation of “land yachts”, the SUVs and minivans. Those things came about because of a loophole in the gas saving laws, when the automakers snuck in exemptions to the fleet efficiency test for “light trucks”.
By striking that exception, the vehicles will go away overnight.
Without bothering to do the math on efficiency, transmission losses, etc., you can still get a pretty good idea of how much more efficient electric cars are by comparing the costs of running them to the costs of a gasoline powered car.
Most accounts I’ve seen show that the (“to the electrical socket”) cost of the energy used in an electric car is only 1/5th-1/10th the cost of gas in a comparable car. This isn’t a direct comparison because gas is highly demanded for vehicular use, and very little gasoline is used for power generation, but it’s good as an estimate. Even with all the transmission losses, electric cars are still way cheaper to run than gasoline ones, and since the costs of producing electricity are fairly similar across many different fuels, it’s reasonable to assume that the actual use of fuel is considerably less.
I’m not sure about that. The costs do not include all the cost of dealing with the pollution (especially CO2) produced by the manufacture, operation and disposal of the vehicles. That goes for both IC and electric vehicles.
The problem with electric vehicles is their limited range. I think it has been demonstrated that electric vehicles would be sufficient and plausable for urban commuting. But, would I be able to make a 500 mile round trip? Would I be forced to wait overnight while my car charges back up to drive another 250 miles costing me more for room and electricity? What if I want to go see grandma out in Peoria? What if she can’t afford to have me plug my car into her electrical outlet?
If gas ever became prohibitively expensive I think we will see a rebirth of the (wood, or coal or whatever else we can burn) seam-powered car, and commuter trains. I believe diesel will continue to power a fleet of commercial vehicles. And I think those wealthy enough to afford it will continue to drive gas-powered vehicles until gasoline is as expensive per unit as fine perfume.
To many, commuter automobiles equal freedom. Just ask any teenager. Putting the automobile on an electrical tether takes some of that freedom away. Fully electric automobiles wouldn’t be cars, they would be appliances.
I think the golden age of the automobile may nearing a close. Electric vehicles may be a useful and possibly necessary component to fill the gap that the gasoline-powered car will one day create. Nothing will ever fully replace the gasoline engine, neither in our imagination nor in reality.
I would a viable electric or hydrogen car would be a plus. In addition to Stve said, one of the major sub-issues within the energy crisis is that most of our transport, now, is dependent on oil in a way that our other technology is not. Given present circumstances, there are many sources from which we can produce electricity, but our transportation system, for the most part, runs on oil. Electric and hydrogen powered transport would give us the same flexibility in transportation as we have for our other technology.
Didn’t the Germans figure out how to make gasoline from coal during WWII? Is it too expensive now to do that, or is the resulting fuel too dirty?
One problem we cannot avoid as a planet is that someone is going to burn through all the fossil fuels that we (USA and/or Western world) does not. And they are probably going to do it much less responsibly, without emissions/polution controls or standards.
Electric cars powered by power stations that use coal and nuke power responsibly can help us gain some independence from OPEC, but I think that’s where it ends.
Don’t expect any meaningful gains to be made on the CO2 side of things.
This is where the plug in hybrid makes a lot of sense. A car that is capable of running on electric only with small batteries. For normal commutes/everyday driving you would only need the battery power, but for longer trips a gas (or other power source) engine would charge the batteries/supply power.
Of course there are several downsides to this setup, batteries add cost, weight and take up space that a normal hybrid does not have to deal with.
Plug in hybrids may not be the final answer but I think they are defiantly a step in the right direction.
Synthetic gas is too expensive. It was too expensive during the war, but the Germans didn’t have any choice in the matter.
Besides the issues of range, environmental damage caused by mining the materials needed to make the batteries and electronics of an electric vehicle, there’s the amount of energy and difficulty of getting it into a car rapidly. To have a range of 300 miles on a charge, you need batteries capable of holding 80kWh of energy (or so). At present, we have no way of getting that amount of energy into a battery in a short period of time. To do so, will require the use of superconductors, and no doubt IdiotPruf[sup]TM[/sup] connectors, otherwise, it’s only a matter of time before someone electrocutes themselves.
Nor, can the electrical grid handle the strain placed on it by a bunch of people plugging in their cars all at once. California’s grid nearly collapsed this past summer from people running their home A/C units due to the heat, add in a bunch of electric cars (or plug-in hybrids), and you can bet the grid will just flat out die like it did in NYC and the Eastern US a few years ago. Any plan to encourage people to adopt electric/pulg-in hybrid vehicles in large numbers which doesn’t include improvements to the grid is going to cause havoc.
Electric motors are a lot more efficient than ICEs, 70% up to (correct me if i’m wrong) 95% or so for top of the line electric motors. ICEs, on the other hand, rarely top 40% or so.
Likewise, commercial power generation is a lot more efficient as well… These installations go crazy for efficiency, and can use techniques that a car couldnt dream of due to weight and price considerations. Power transmission is also pretty efficient.
Another factor in electrics favor(even if coal plants were used) is its far easier to clean the exhaust of a handful of power plants than it is to clean millions of car exhausts.
Really, the only reason that gas is a better option today is simply the portability and ease of refilling it provides, as well as the amount of power it stores. We just dont have the battery technology to use the power we have(or could) make.
If someone builds a battery that can be recharged in minutes and offer hundreds of miles of cruising, and be relatively cheap… game over for gasoline, at least for automobiles. No doubt it would still be the fuel of choice for certain applications, such as airplanes and go carts.
Not necessarily. The problem with the grid capacity isn’t generally the total amount of energy demanded over long timescales, but the peak power requirements. There are a lot of things which are running during the day, which don’t run at night, so peak usage is generally in the daytime. But electric cars will mostly be recharged at night, when there’s plenty of extra capacity available.
Although electric motors are much more efficient than IC motors, you have to factor in the losses inherent in generating power. Here in Quebec where 99% of the electric power is hydro, the saving is compelling. A plug-in hybrid would cover all my local driving, at a considerable savings.
United Technologies’ CEO George David would disagree with you. He says central plants operate with an efficiency of about 30% and on-site co-gen plants are 70-80% efficient.
Unfortunately though, while much power is used during the day for businesses, there is a sharp usage spike immediately after work as people get home and crank up the a/c. In California we were asked to keep our a/c set lower during the day, so there was not such a spike when we got home. It would only get worse if everybody came home, cranked up the a/c and plugged in their cars at once.
I agree though that these problems can more easily get fixed as the need arises. I imagine residential solar power will become more common if/when electric cars become common.
Unfortunately though, while much power is used during the day for businesses, there is a sharp usage spike immediately after work as people get home and crank up the a/c. In California we were asked to keep our a/c set lower during the day, so there was not such a spike when we got home. It would only get worse if everybody came home, cranked up the a/c and plugged in their cars at once.
I agree though that these problems can more easily get fixed as the need arises. I imagine residential solar power will become more common if/when electric cars become common.
We don’t need to get to solar power to make the electric grid handle the capacity. There are relatively easy ways to set up the charger so that it only charges during non-peak periods. There are lots of appliances that already do this, and many people get a break on their electric bill for time-of-day metering or allowing the utility to turn off their a/c or other appliances during peak hours. You could easily do the same thing with vehicle battery chargers.