The reason for the push on Electric Vehicles

reply to post by Numb2itall


That is a very kool motorcycle, but it is too quiet for my taste. People overlook motorcycles all the time, imagine a silent bike like that.

reply to post by TKDRL


Yea, I dig the silence of it. i would much rather hear the wind and the birds chirping than the blare of mufflers and inhaling hot exhaust... but to each their own.
I walk a lot and ride a bike and I'm constantly overlooked by drivers on their cell phones or dazing hypnotically at the street light, waiting for it to go green.
I've come close to death several times but I think that falls on the fault of the driver and NOT on the guy walking in a crosswalk, or sharing the road on a bicycle (which is law) with cars.
People driving cars need to pay more attention IMO.
Didn't mean to go off course on the Thread (sorry OP)
I do think electric and careful planning on how you travel (is it better to walk someplace or ride a bicycle rather than drive) is our only answer right now till the tech gets better.
Off to work I go!!! 14 miles a day, 6 days a week. Booyah!

reply to post by Numb2itall


the silence might be good for some but i was standing next to a HK power company car last week, all electric,

on a quiet street when the driver got in and took off.


not a sound! i said to myself, that is pretty dangerous!

i don't know about you people, but hearing cars and trucks has kept me out of trouble sometimes.

the power grid must be upgraded anyway like the op says.

we have enough coal to last a couple centuries. we will still need oil for somethings but to take it out of transportation will be a huge step.

turning food space into fuel space is asinine, imo. bio fuels will never supply the demand anyway.

burning trash, garbage to methane dumps can be used to some efficiency too.

btw, did anybody have a bike with that little generator to run the lights?

why can't a car have one or 2 to run some systems on it without the extra drain on the battery?
maybe even putting back a % or 2 of charge?

Greetings,

The concern about plugging in, and hybrids requiring a fossil fuel engine generator and batteries(batt) may be short lived.

There are two types of generating systems that require either no batts or a smaller amount of batts.

One is a magnetic motor/generator system that uses permanent magnets for powering. This is an active system.

The second is a passive system such as the Tesla system that has been reinvented by an engineer in the Philippines. The passive, or static system, is showing great promise as it has been evaluated by a Philippine government agency and validated as a working system. It is on a mobile platform and is powered by an 11 hp electric motor. A good deal of info is on the peswiki.com site.

Either one of these systems can also power your home. GOOD BYE power grid.

reply to post by boncho

From what it looks like, natural gas would have to increase 500% to meet it.

Your math is wrong.

define primary energy:

Primary energy is energy found in nature that has not been subjected to any conversion or transformation process. It is energy contained in raw fuels as well as other forms of energy received as input to a system.

en.wikipedia.org...

Oil consumption in the United States is around 11.71 PW/h/year of which 71% or 8.3 PW/h is used for transportation. The oil infrastructure is around 17% efficient whereas an electric vehicle is 76% efficient including transmission, hence 8.3*(17/76) we need 1.86 PW/h of electrical energy, a 46% increase over today. Assuming 55% thermal efficient of natural gas combined cycle power plant the US would be required to burn 3.4 PW/h of natural gas per year, whereas total consumption at the moment is 6.5 PW/h/year which is a 52% increase in natural gas consumption, not 500%, you were off by an order of magnitude. Of course, it also means a 71% decrease in oil consumption and a total decrease of energy consumption of around 15%, and a 100% decrease in oil imports.

Unfortunately, what you are proposing seems like a large headache for a little payoff. Retrofitting, etc. Not only that, but the strain that would be put on power production. Canada sells 50-70% [if I remember correctly] of its natural gas to the USA.

The electric car is not going to spontaneously appear and internal combustion engined cars are not going to spontaneously disappear. Instead any change will take place over several decades (perhaps something better will come out during that time too) and is still unlikely to totally phase out the internal combustion engine completely. Furthermore, electricity demand growth has slowed to a crawl in most parts of the west, so I don't see the infrastructure upgrades significantly different than anything we have already accomplished - like the massive amount of air-conditioning that has been installed in some areas.

For the near-term, the emergence of PHEVs using 120-V charging strategies is not likely to have a significant impact on distribution systems with relatively new infrastructures. This result is not too surprising when considering that the additional demand of a PHEV would be comparable to or only slightly more than that of a 1000-W electric hair dryer. When, however, quick charging strategies are explored, the analysis indicates that they would likely impose a significant burden on common residential feeders operating at higher levels of load concentration.

The discussion on quick charging strategies has recently attracted more attention because of numerous announcements by many credible manufacturers to make electric vehicles (EVs) commercially available. With the larger battery sizes of EVs (30 kWh and more), compared to those of PHEVs (10 kWh and more), it is likely to become desirable to charge at higher charging rates than a 120-V/15-A circuit will allow. Should 240-V charging become the commonly adopted charging mode, the adoption of the quick charging scenario could become reality sooner rather than later. However, it is not expected that utility planners will be surprised overnight by this new load growth. Because of the high public awareness of PHEVs and EVs, it is expected that utility planners will monitor the growth of this emerging technology and prepare for its implementation accordingly. Furthermore, with the growing deployment of smart grid technologies into the distribution system and the efforts by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to develop communication standards between a vehicle and a smart electric infrastructure, it is likely that sophisticated load management and smart charging technologies would be deployed that can diversify or even coordinate the charging of PHEVs and EVs in a manner to mitigate their impacts on the distribution system and the grid as a whole.

www.pnl.gov...

Right, but everyone seems to ignore geopolitics when discussing these issues. If the US was self sustaining on energy they would be depleting their own reserves....

The US would keep trillions of dollars within its own borders and stop funding nations that it has difficult relations with. Jobs would be created. The reserves are coal, natural gas are enough to last over a century even at increased consumption rates (remember that coal can be gasified into something similar to natural gas). A massive amount of renewable sources just waiting to be tapped into, and hundreds of years of depleted uranium are just sitting there.

reply to post by C0bzz

Assuming 55% thermal efficient of natural gas combined cycle power plant the US would be required to burn 3.4 PW/h of natural gas per year, whereas total consumption at the moment is 6.5 PW/h/year which is a 52% increase in natural gas consumption, not 500%, you were off by an order of magnitude.

You numbers are off because you are assuming that all natural gas production is being converted to electricity. I admit my numbers were vague, but yours are equally.

You can see in this report here.

I will try to make a better summary in future posts.

Well for what its worth, Electric Vehicles are the future IMHO. Power sourcing is still up for grabs though which will ultimately be determined by TPTB. Sucks how they determine our fate. Everything seems to be all about money and personal gain.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by C0bzz

 

Assuming 55% thermal efficient of natural gas combined cycle power plant the US would be required to burn 3.4 PW/h of natural gas per year, whereas total consumption at the moment is 6.5 PW/h/year which is a 52% increase in natural gas consumption, not 500%, you were off by an order of magnitude.

You numbers are off because you are assuming that all natural gas production is being converted to electricity. I admit my numbers were vague, but yours are equally.

You can see in this report here.

I will try to make a better summary in future posts.

No, my numbers are fine.

define primary energy

Primary energy is energy found in nature that has not been subjected to any conversion or transformation process. It is energy contained in raw fuels as well as other forms of energy received as input to a system.

en.wikipedia.org...

define secondary energy

Secondary energy is an energy form which has been transformed from another one. Electricity is the most common example, being transformed from such primary sources as coal, oil, natural gas, and wind.

First I worked out the electrical energy consumption of the electric vehicles. This can be done by multiplying the current primary energy consumption of current vehicles by the ratio of well-to-wheel efficiencies of electric car versus internal combustion engine - this is about 17/76. Current primary energy usage of oil for transportation in the US is 8.3 PWh hence to do the same amount of work 1.9 PWh of secondary (electrical) energy is required.

1. 8.3*(17/76) = 1.9 PWh of secondary energy (electricity).


1.9 PWh is 1900 billion kilowatt-hours. From memory nuclear power in the united states produces 20% of the electricity which is 800 billion kilowatt hours, hence the total electricity generation in the united states is about 4000 billion kilowatt hours. Therefore there will be an increase in electricity consumption of around 45%.

2. i. 800*0.20^(-1) = 4000 billion kilowatt hours is total electricity production
ii. 1900/4000 = 0.46.


Electricity is secondary energy, therefore the conversion efficiency of primary to secondary energy must be taken into account. The most popular form of new power generation in the US is natural gas (followed by wind turbines), hence that is the efficiency I will use. Modern combined cycle natural gas power stations are 60% efficient at converting primary energy into secondary energy. Total primary energy use is therefore 1.9 PWh*0.6^(-1) or just over 3 PWh per year.

3. 1.9 * 0.60^(-1) = 3PWh of primary natural gas energy

I am therefore comparing the primary energy use to fuel the power stations to power the electric cars, with the current natural gas primary energy consumption of about 6.5 PWh per year.

50% increase.
www.eia.doe.gov...

upload.wikimedia.org...

Can convert quads to petawatt hours here:
www.convertunits.com...

reply to post by Jetman44


Added on top, it works well for future replacement techs.. Improvements to gas cars are blocked by big oil... electric cars can be upgraded by the owner or hobbyist..

Star and Flag...

A problem with the above calcs is that the charge/discharge efficiency of batteries doesn't appear to have been considered and it's fairly woeful for most battery technology in mainstream use at something in the order of 50% more energy applied during charging than can be recovered in discharging and higher charging rates make it even worse due to additional heat losses (I^2.R).

Seems to me that battery powered vehicles may not be the complete answer and why there still seems to be a lot of reluctance in investing in battery charging facilities because the tech could become obsolete virtually overnight with the next big development, whatever that may be. Could be a quantum leap in capacitor technology or something else.

We're trying to maintain an energy-guzzling lifestyle and perhaps the only sane solution is working on reducing our demand on the reserves. Where will we be if every household in the world demands over 20kWh of electric energy per day in addition to transportation needs? (screwed is what)

A problem with the above calcs is that the charge/discharge efficiency of batteries doesn't appear to have been considered and it's fairly woeful for most battery technology in mainstream use at something in the order of 50% more energy applied during charging than can be recovered in discharging and higher charging rates make it even worse due to additional heat losses (I^2.R).

The 76% wheel-to-well efficiency given to the electric car included losses from the transmission, distribution, battery charging, battery self-discharge, and the electric motor. Fast charging typically uses a much higher voltage to keep losses to a minimum.

reply to post by C0bzz


That seems way too high to me when the battery alone comes in at less than 70% efficient and even looks unachievable with a lossless battery (never saw one of those). Let's say the energy comes from a hydro scheme which can be over 80% efficient by the time the energy is distributed to the user for charging his battery pack, what percentage of that original potential energy stored in a lake actually gets onto the road? I'd put 50% as very optimistic and even exceptional.

reply to post by Pilgrum


You sure about that battery efficiency there? Maybe for lead-acid batteries. Lithium polymer batteries have 95%+ charge/discharge efficiency. Where did you get 70% for battery alone from?

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Granted that LiPo batteries are much more efficient but currently the issues with these are volatility, high cost and relatively short life expectancy in an intensive application like a vehicle. Maybe the tech will improve and the cost will fall with mass production of banks large enough to power a car but we're not quite there yet, not in terms of making a realistically priced electric car that will displace internal combustion engines.

I'm not against electric cars but, as yet, there's nothing that would compete financially (from a practicality viewpoint) with my existing relatively efficient 4 cylinder small car.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Check out Altairnano lithium batteries. They are very impressive! wish I could get my hands on a few!

second line...

reply to post by C0bzz

I am therefore comparing the primary energy use to fuel the power stations to power the electric cars, with the current natural gas primary energy consumption of about 6.5 PWh per year.

Not all of the 6.5 PWh consumed from natural gas is converted to electricity. You are talking about primary and secondary energy without representing it properly.

Total electrical generation is 4PWh. Which around 23% is from Natural Gas. 1 Meaning natural gas only produces around 0.92PWh in the form of electricity.

I was off a bit in my earlier number, but I still hold that to produce it through NatGas. infrastructure would have to more than double.

Unless you can put energy from your gas furnace into your car....

just on the CNBC News...TESLA is introducing Its' first battery swap power station...

the waited for infrastructure technology is finally being developed...


all along I thought the extremely high cost/value of the TESLA stock was in anticipation of a nation-wide network of battery-swap stations/terminals so one could theoretically go coast-to-coast instead of being corralled in a 150 mile radius area near your home/office...

it won't be anytime soon when being able to sightsee at a national park will be possible in an electric vehicle IMHO
but of course, a TESLA just ain't a family station wagon thingy...its a power projector for exec's or wall streeters or perhaps Architects who want to flaunt their stuff & impress clients


11:50 AM, eastern, 12/19/2014

a reply to: C0bzz

When a 4 person around town car has to weigh 1.5 to 2 metric tons and have a massive cubic volume compared to a PROPERLY DESIGNED ICE vehicle this increased efficiency at the generation point isn't always worth it...

Especially when a properly designed ICE with a truly modern power plant and something like a small electric or hydraulic launch assist, and regeneration capabilities you can EASILY get to within 15% of the efficiency your local power plant is getting... Now pencil out the vastly more and more energy intensive materials needed to build the electrics. Then the materials and cost of running VASTLY HIGHER base load generation you're going to need to build and maintain to transfer even 25% of your vehicles to grid based electric power supplies... And the math doesn't add up.

Well other than to once again prove that the best way to save energy is to use less! It's hard to do that when the current crop of "green" vehicles weigh as much as the laughably massive Cadillac land yachts from the 60's.

5.

a reply to: roguetechie

When a 4 person around town car has to weigh 1.5 to 2 metric tons

BMW i3 is 1,195 kg, 1,315 kg with range extender. Nissan Leaf is 1,493 kg whereas its closest ICE relative is the Nissan Tiida is 1,206–1,257 kg. Tesla Model S is 2,100 kg but is not an "around town" car and competes with the BMW 5-series or 7-series, both 1500 to 2200 kg cars.

and have a massive cubic volume compared to a PROPERLY DESIGNED ICE

Combustion Engines are effectively constrained to certain locations around the vehicle like underneath the hood. Electric motors are far more compact and do not require anywhere close to the ancillary equipment an ICE does. Batteries can be located underneath the floor. So while the electrics do require more volume, they can also be located in far more convenient places, it is therefore much easier to give an EV a perfect 50-50 weight distribution and an extremely low CG than an ICE.

The Tesla Model S has rather good internal volume for a vehicle its size - no gear box and driveshaft mean the entire floor was flat. And the hood becomes extra storage space. In the case of the BMW i3, the vehicle can become RWD without a draftshaft because the benefits of FWD no longer apply to an EV, eliminating things like CV joints in the process for simpler mechanical design.

You also note a "properly designed ICE", but I find it hard to believe the ICE vehicles already on the market are not "properly designed". EVs are often not "properly designed" because they are built off a conventional chassis with batteries crammed where they will fit (and then they take up internal volume). Such is the case with the Ford Focus EV - the designers of that didn't even put in a fast charger port.

Epecially when a properly designed ICE with a truly modern power plant and something like a small electric or hydraulic launch assist

If electrics are so heavy then why bother putting in any amount?

vehicle this increased efficiency at the generation point isn't always worth it...

Yes I agree. It depends on where the electricity comes from and the type of ICE vehicle that is being compared. Some of the newest ICE vehicles meet or beat EVs when the EV uses efficient fossil power stations.

And the math doesn't add up.

You haven't provided any.

It's hard to do that when the current crop of "green" vehicles weigh as much as the laughably massive Cadillac land yachts from the 60's.

Except they don't.