Electric cars, unclean at any speed

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

The efficiency of 33% is the efficiency of a typical Rankine cycle power plant (where most electricity is generated in the US).

I do not disagree with many of your arguments against EV (electric vehicle ) applications in the present. But, understand that electric power production is changing and will be much different in the future.

The current 33% average is because of large numbers of single stage Rankine cycle power plants in use. Basic upgrades such as reheat and reuse of the "wet" steam in a second steam turbine can increase efficiency by several percentage points. Even more energy can be extracted by the addition of a "steam cycle turbine" utilizing refrigerants that can extract power from the low quality exhausting steam. Even more so, a gas turbine utilizing natural gas or gassified coal can be used to generate power and provide high enough quality heat to a Rankine cycle turbine.

As market pressures and legislation effect greater cleanliness and efficiencies in our power generation, so will EV's benefit.

Of course fossil fuels are finite. Electrical generation will become increasingly nuclear and renewable in its forms. I am quite sure you will not argue with that. The beauty of the electric vehicle is it's ability to grow along with our power generation. It is better to develop our EV capabilities now, while our power generation transitions.

Or we can leave it to our children and children's children to fight over the shrinking easy oil and finite shale oil. Sure, they can extend the fossil energy period by mining the oceans for gas and oil. They may even mine the deep sea methane hydrate deposits. But the bottom line is, they will run out of fossil energy sooner than later.

Would it be better to develop the electric propulsion that can bridge the fossil to renewable gap better than the ICE (internal combustion engine ) can? It is far easier to produce renewable electricity than renewable liquid fuels.

I can see Plug in EV's that can use the grid for most short range travel and commute. The grid WILL get more efficient and renewable.

I can see Long ranging transports utilizing solid oxide fuel cells and making better use of modest amounts of bio derived liquid fuels.

The power to weight advantage of liquid fuels would still be used by air transport.

These technologies can easily transition to when clean nuclear becomes abundant. Along with increasingly efficient ICE's, we can use various technologies to carry us until clean nuclear arrives. ICE's will still have a place, but it will take a back seat to electric drives.

[Xist]

Hey, where is that thread about the politician saying that bicycles pollute more than cars?

That, my friends, may be the only answer.

A velomobile can go as fast as a horse, won't kick you, and I have yet to see one fertilize asphalt.

I wish that it were feasible to put an open dome over Phoenix. As soon as it is 100°, block 10% of incoming sunlight, like an upside-down strainer.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If electricity is more inefficient than gasoline, why is it several times cheaper per mile?

electric cars are about as efficient as gasoline cars, but coal is cheaper than gasoline.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

electric cars are about as efficient as gasoline cars, but coal is cheaper than gasoline.

And that's because there is significantly more energy input and pollution associated with manufacturing the gasoline, which is not getting factored into your efficiency numbers.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by t vago

The irony is lost, that people here are vehemently defending electric vehicles and denying that they have a larger carbon footprint than the ICE vehicles they are to replace.

Somebody here mentioned aluminum and copper as "rare earth metals", for instance (I'll quote, this time, so that the quotation doesn't mysteriously disappear)



The problem isn't with easily recyclable copper or aluminum. The problem is with that nasty lithium in EV batteries. It takes a lot of energy to extract lithium from the ground, for instance, because lithium does not occur naturally in elemental form. The lithium must be handled carefully, because it's kind of reactive. Car batteries made with lithium must be made explosion-proof, which both makes the battery more complex and reduces their maximum energy density (which, incidentally, raises the price even more). Oh, yah... nobody's recycling lithium batteries because it's too expensive to reprocess the battery! However, let's pat each other on the back instead, for figuring out clever insults about "Uhmuricans!"

And what about motors? The EV motor approaches 90% efficiency, true. But that has to rely on a power plant which will typically get about 35% efficiency from burning petroleum. Oh, and let's count the distribution grid, which will zap out another 5%. Charging? Say buh-bye to another 10%. All of a sudden, EVs aren't that much more efficient than ICEs.

. . . than the several pounds of lithium in it's battery pack. But of course, this also goes for internal combustion powered cars.

The battery pack in the electric drive vehicle will see possible use as a power storage battery as it will still have 50 - 70 % of capacity remaining. This can help power generation as a power buffer on a micro or macro scale.

The packs will then be recycled via techniques that are already in use and well proven. Toxco is a California based company that has been recycling batteries since the old ni-cads of the 80's. Their process shreds the batteries in an environmentally controlled room then, the lithium is neutralized and sold as an oxide on the open market.

Just as lead acid batteries have reached a 97% recycling level, I expect lithium to do at least as well. And, since the packs will have a dual market, they will have lives of 10 - 15 years, easing the strain on raw mining.

[RedDevil]

I once had a tour round the Amer power plants in Geertruidenberg, the Netherlands. The biggest power plant in Holland at the time.
They were mainly using coal and a bit of natural gas.
Their 3-stage steam turbines and air-jet mattress burning bed (for near total combustion) made them close to 60% efficiënt measured from the caloric value of the coal to electricity delivered to the net; claiming a total efficiëncy of around 50% from coal to house applicances, including transport and conversion losses.

That was July 1982. If 50% was possible then how come there are still plants around that perform significantly less?
A greater demand will no doubt make it more profitable to build fuel efficient power plants.
The electric car would thereby help, not hurt, the environment.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by UFO

And that's because there is significantly more energy input and pollution associated with manufacturing the gasoline, which is not getting factored into your efficiency numbers.

Our America Military has provided the Country and the World with valuable services and sacrifice. However, much of these expenditures has been to pacify oil producing regions. These UN-accounted costs ( note the pun ), make oil much more expensive than what we see at the pump. My son will be entering the US Military. That barrel of oil just became priceless for myself and millions of other parents.

Domestically produced renewable energy will not carry that burden of cost.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by UFO

And that's because there is significantly more energy input and pollution associated with manufacturing the gasoline, which is not getting factored into your efficiency numbers.

Of course I don't include electrical energy to run the electrical powerplants either.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I once had a tour round the Amer power plants in Geertruidenberg, the Netherlands. The biggest power plant in Holland at the time.
They were mainly using coal and a bit of natural gas.
Their 3-stage steam turbines and air-jet mattress burning bed (for near total combustion) made them close to 60% efficiënt measured from the caloric value of the coal to electricity delivered to the net; claiming a total efficiëncy of around 50% from coal to house applicances, including transport and conversion losses.

That was July 1982. If 50% was possible then how come there are still plants around that perform significantly less?
A greater demand will no doubt make it more profitable to build fuel efficient power plants.
The electric car would thereby help, not hurt, the environment.

I'm calling BS on the 50% efficiency claim! peak steam cycle efficiency with today's top of the line super heated steam plants is 40% maximum. That is about the thermal dynamic limit. To exceed that you have to go to a binary vapor cycle (biggest was just 40MW) or Kalina cycle (of which are currently only small scale up to 3.6 MW).

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

I'm calling BS on the 50% efficiency claim! peak steam cycle efficiency with today's top of the line super heated steam plants is 40% maximum. That is about the thermal dynamic limit. To exceed that you have to go to a binary vapor cycle (biggest was just 40MW) or Kalina cycle (of which are currently only small scale up to 3.6 MW).

I can only reflect what I'm told.
Even though that was 30 years ago, I'm pretty sure that's what they said as they made a point about the 50% home delivery efficiency; they wanted to raise the voltage on the power distribution net, as that would allow them to break that limit for good.
Of course they could be lying to me then. Intentionally or through lack of knowlegde. The guy was an engineer though.
Your claims seem pretty convincing too, but it contradicts what I heard on the plant.
Ah well, nobody gets a free ticket to knowing the truth. I know now that I don't know.

I know this though:
We pay a lot of tax on both electricity (70%) and gas (65%) over here.
So my electricity comes at 20 cents per kWh (cheapest provider 1 year contract). Gas at my local is currently about 1 Euro and 65 cents (13 cents below market standard) per liter.
I can drive 25 km max on one liter, but if the Insight were an EV it could easily drive 5 km on a kWh. That would almost cut my cost in half. Even under this adverse tax regime.
{EDIT: the math behind it: A liter of gas contains 8.87 kWh of energy, but the ICE can transfer just 2.2 kWh of that in actual power, the rest is heat. So It takes less than 100 Wh of actual power to move my car for a kilometer.
I assumed that half the energy an EV takes from the grid gets lost before it reaches the wheels. it is probably much better. Even if just 500 wH remains from the kWh I started with, that should move my car over more than 5 km.}

If those power plants are so ineffective, why then is electricity so much cheaper than gas? Mind you, there are no subsidies for either power plants or the oil industry; it is basically an open market.