How much energy does it take to produce a gallon of gasoline?
 

How much electricity and natural gas is used to explore for petroleum, extract it, transport it, refine to gasoline (or diesel, etc.), transport it again, and then pump it into your tank?

Some sites I've found that are trying to answer this question:

Gasoline and Oil

Electricity vs Oil - Planet Better Place

Just to refine the oil to make gasoline, it may take 3kWh or 7.5kWh (plus many therms of natural gas?), so for the refining alone, it could be used to move an EV 30-50 miles -- without using the gasoline!

Can you confirm/deny/correct these numbers?

Answer: Too much.

Moving on... :P

I keed...

Crossposting:
Fuel production efficiency

I have emailed the Union of Concerned Scientists; and hopefully I hear back from them?

The point is that grams of carbon per mile for gasoline is usually just counting the carbon contained within the gasoline -- and leaves out the carbon it took to obtain the oil and make it into gasoline; which may be as much as 50% as much as what is in the gasoline.

If it takes 7.5kWh of electricity (plus some natural gas, too) to refine one gallon of gasoline from petroleum -- then why don't we just use the 7.5kWh directly in an EV?

7.5kWh of electricity could move and EV anywhere from 30 to 60 miles or so.

If you put the gasoline in a car that get the national average of 25mpg, you only go 25 miles -- and you should also count the 7.5kWh against that, too. Which lowers the MPGe of the ICE car even further; and it raises the carbon emission to levels far higher than the EV, obviously.

And that is only the energy it took to refine the petroleum -- in reality, you should also count all the other energy inputs to produce the gasoline!

So, an EV is going to be much, much more efficient than a ICE. And using a lot of EV's will likely reduce the overall load on the electrical grid.

way back when they had steam power doing all the big work.
up to 24 pumps hooked up to a makeshift crank spinning around, mechanical dangers everywhere, boilings into 900F making fuel.

whatever the "watt" today, it is better than ever.


I find astonishing..even in that link about consumption...the fantastically ridiculous leap into doubling consumption exactly coincides with that idiot called fuel injection, making its sloppy butt way into america and the world....why does noone focus on the real facts?:mad:

even the EV world is a wild tangent of fantasy, hardly maximizing itself into a heavier purpose for reality...not to menmtion, the by product of using the energy in the long term.Even folks in old cars have had to go einstien themselves to stop the little mysteries...still not conquered....the market and science has to focus on the real consumption.

That is one of the best reasons for ditching the ICE in favor of electric that I've ever read.

Ok, so thinking back to high school, and the "butterfly" effect that occurs in production circles:

In order to make a gallon of fuel, you need to extract the raw material, which takes fuel.

Then, you need to move the raw material, which takes fuel.

Then, you need to refine the raw material into usable substrates, which takes yet more fuel.

Production of electricity is a lossy operation, using yet even more fuel.

All of the fuel you just used to get fuel was also, at one point, raw, and had the same requirements.

The effect isn't just singular, it's multi-generational. Each KW of energy you use had to come from a previously used KW of energy which came from a previous KW, etc.

This reminds me of a fun fact: the green energy infrastructure of tomorrow will be built on the brown energy of today. How much would it cost to build a wind farm, hauling 150' blades and 60-ton nacelles, using battery-electric trucks? And what if the electricity to charge those trucks came from coal extracted using battery-electric mining equipment and delivered by electrified heavy rail?

This is an unfair comparison. An "average" person driving an electric midsized sedan or SUV at 75mph with the A/C on would not be getting 125-250Wh/mi. If you wanted a fair comparison, the best we have available would probably be a Prius (or a PHEV converted Insight or Tahoe?) driven in EV mode, versus the same car driven the same speed on gasoline.





I found the following source: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry...fs/profile.pdf
with the relevant info starting on p 19. It mentions that refining represented 7% of the US' energy consumption in 2002. Unfortunately, it doesn't mention how much energy and non-energy products refineries put out that year, so it doesn't give an efficiency number. But it's still worth reading:

64% of the energy used in refining comes from the refining process itself. When refinery gas is burned in a turbine to generate electricity that is used for refining, it is completely wrong to assume this energy could be used to power an EV. Without refining, this energy would be unavailable. Another 22% comes from natural gas, which is often, but not always, mined alongside crude. 12%, or 225 billion KWh, comes from purchased electricity. That's enough for 250 million EV's to drive three thousand miles a year, which is a quarter of what is currently driven.

Maybe we could get where we need to be by halving our fleet average fuel consumption AND halving the number of miles driven?

But the output of the refining process is more than just gasoline for cars. There's also non-energy products, diesel, and other fuels. I look forward to the day when trains, trucks, and airplanes run on renewable, low-carbon electricity (which we don't have), but we're not there yet.

If refining took more energy in than it put out, people would stop doing it. But until contradicted by citation of better sources, I'm going to stick with the DoE's numbers, as I mentioned here: 83% efficient.




I'm going to point a finger at the editor of this EVWorld article and accuse him of either intentionally creating a misleading piece, or having a serious disconnect with reality. A fleet of electric vehicles are not viable given our current usage profile, and shutting down the refineries would not come close to providing enough energy to meet our needs. He is also wrong that PHEVs' only role is to "allow the hybrid drivers to relieve some guilt and feel better about themselves". PHEVs are a stepping stone that will drive the development of plug-in infrastructure, and their liquid fuelling capability makes them viable for one-car families. I believe the author also ignored the 80-something percent efficient charger and ~92% efficient battery (if the Wh/mi figures are at the battery rather than the wall).

I stand behind my 13.4KWh/gal energy equivalence figure, with the caveat that energy equivalence is a poor figure of merit. I suggest a weighted average of energy equivalence, cost equivalence, and CO2-equivalence (at 15.1KWh/gal for grid average). I've still been unable to calculate the carbon footprint of the renewable electricity my utility buys for me, but I know it's not zero.

I think this is the key. - Net energy gain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have electrified mainline railways in the UK for most main lines (I think) as well as Eurostar and the new high speed link proposed to come all the way up to Scotland. The problem is generating the power to run them. At the moment we are projected to be either just about OK for power in 10 years or (more likely IMHO) looking at a shortfall.

Additionally if you are going to carry out the comparison between liquid fuels and EV then you also have to factor in the cost of the infrastructure and the power / resources needed to make the batteries, motors, controller electronic components (electronic manufacture uses a lot of nasty chemicals) and thats on top of the normal car resources excluding ICE components. You could argue that infrastructure is there already powering our homes but this is a new level of demand our current system doesn't cope with. We (consumers) have demanded energy use far beyond what our parents had or even we had a few years ago. Another one to add to the list.

But the key one to most people is not the extreme of efficiency its acceptible efficiency vs convenience. A car with an ICE and liquid fuel has an unlimited range as long as there are fuel stations with fuel in them - debatable how sustainable that is - but at the moment its where we are. People are still not sure about EVs with quoted ranges of up to 150 miles, perhaps 200, maybe 250 and then a long-ish recharge time. The disapointment of that remote control toy car at Christmas gradually being unable to crawl across the carpet and having to wait for an hour to play again play on people's minds. They (EVs) are getting better and I hope will continue but at the moment ICE and liquid fuels work.

Having said that the Apteras of this world may as well forget it for me. Impractical as my only car and I prefer my cars to have a full complement of wheels. If GM can make an Impact work a decade ago why not improve on it now.

One of the reasons I believe Hybrids are a milemarker on the road to whatever we may use 50 years from now (if we can use anything at all) rather than the ultimate solution is because Hybrids were supposed to give us the best of both worlds - that the infinite range of being able to refuel instantly only better with extended range because of stored and regenerated power. In the real world with people who don't drive EM stylee they get disapointing mileages. The number of road tests of the Prius in the UK failing to match the claimed MPG forced Toyota to issue statements about it.

I honestly believe we are about 20-25 years too late to be able to do this on a scale large enough to make a difference. The cost comparison between green energy (whatever that is meant to mean) vs fossil fuels is too much in the fossil fuel favour to make those projects pay. And when the balance goes the other way we probably won't be able to put in the investment required in terms of brown energy anyway.

Add in the fact that 2bn Chinese also want cars, houses, air con, video games and so on, and they have an unelected government which is not too bothered about how they get those things as long as they keep the population happy to stay in power, and we have serious problems ahead.

I think the business-buzzword-bingo of "doing more with less" is more likely to change to "doing less with much less" in the future. For those who believe their way of life is non-negotiable I quote Richard Heinberg - "Nature doesn't negotiate".

I have seen many arguments about EV's not being that much more efficient or cleaner than ICE's because of the efficiency of the power plant involved, and that coal is so dirty.

However taking the energy back to the power plant is equivilant to taking the fuel cycle back to the refinery. And EV's still win out efficiency wise even by their calculations which doesn't even take in regenerative braking, that has to say something for EV's.

Not long ago I calculated how much power I would use if I switched entirely to electric for tranportation (other technical issues asside), and found that my electricity consumption would double. Considering that I have an average US carbon footprint, going completely EV would pose some serious problems for our grid.

We already have batteries that can be charged from 20% to 80% in under 5 minutes, their capacity by weight and volume is seriously lacking. However when you consider the ammount of power required to charge them in that amount of time (1Mw+ for an automotive application) and that you need to have some kind of connector that is both idiot proof, efficient and durable you begin to realize the obsticles ahead for a full EV conversion.

Edit to add: and yes EV's are the future, and Hybrids are the stepping stone to get there.

At 30 miles range on the 7.5kWh = 250Wh/mile and that is very doable with the A/C on.

The X-Prize is using the 33.4kWh/gallon figure -- this is the "direct" BTU equivalent.

Okay, Robert Llewellyn has a new pilot video podcast of his aptly (renamed) series called "Fully Charged":

[youtube]YfTiRNzbSko[/youtube]

Really, really good stuff! He does not mention (specifically anyway) about grid losses, when adding up the carbon footprint of electricity. Is it included in the calculations?

I will note that even if grid losses are 50% (aren't they actually 10-20%?) and you apply that to the total mentioned in the video, then the 40gm/km becomes 60gm/km, which is still far less than for gasoline. In fairness, that 50% increase should *not* be applied to the mining, transport, etc.

So, ~40-60gm/km for an EV vs 450-500gm/km for an ICE powered vehicle, source to wheel comparison of carbon (in the UK).

Hmmm.

What if someone made a solar panel factory that was powered by solar panels? Then used panels made in that factory to power another factory that made more solar panels?
Rinse, repeat. :)

To be fair, then, the comparison should include the cost of manufacturing the ICE car components.

And don't forget the hazmat cleanup costs of gas stations. There's an EPA site (used to be a gas station) a few blocks from my house that they've been working on for months. Who's paying for that?

Well, maybe. Typically electrical use is a lot lower at night, when most EVs would recharge. So there might be a modest increase in demand, but it will probably take a long time to materialize.

That's been done, IIRC. I read a few years ago about a photocell factory in Germany that is now powered by its own PV's. You can looking for it, I can't find anything today:(

@Patrick

I pretty much agree with most of what you said. I just think there isn't and hasn't been a full on end-to-end assessment of the technology as yet. Liquid fuels have that infinite range element and infrastructure. EVs the potential to be as good in most respects.

Remember of course people have got used to cars with the utility they have now, so the likes of the 3-wheeled, no room for luggage, and stability challenged likes of the Aptera just isn't going to plump my pillows in the near future. A >50% EV S1 Insight with the ICE as a backup would. I lived for many years with nothing bigger than an original Mini (10ft long and room for 4) so I'm used to limited space, but I prefer a full complement of wheels and some stability.

I hope there is time to nurture new tech, but I kind of worry there isn't enough.

How about ethanol. According to this:

How Much Energy Does It Take to Make a Gallon of Ethanol?
(sorry, I haven't made enough posts to post that as a link)

There is only a 38% energy gain from ethanol.

Then look at it from a CO2 stand point:
so for 1 gal of E .72gal of petroleum are used, some is in fertilizer, which is not burned, so let's say .65gal.

To make sugar into ethanol it ferments, which makes CO2. About 80% as much CO2 as it makes ethanol (by weight).
Then you burn the ethanol in your car, dose this make any sense? It wouldn't be at all economical if corn wasn't subsidized.
Okay I'm done ranting,
I just want a turbine drive nuclear powered car, just have to change the fuel rods every 70 years, or 10million miles (which ever come first)

So suppose you don't use any fertilizer and then use ethanol to do the distilling? And run all the farm implements on ethanol? Is that not sustainable?

And you'll just have to change your DNA every 30 minutes. :)

That would be sustainable, as that would be a closed loop, which takes CO2 from the air and makes in into fuel, then turns back to CO2.

I don't think anyone is going to try to do this. Corn farmers loose money growing corn, only gov subsidies put them back in the black (well some of them). So it is not economical for them to do anything that would reduce their yields. The subsidies reward using huge amounts of land and growing lot and lots of low quality feed corn (with the cheapest most effective fertilizers available).

For ethanol to truly be sustainable it would be far to expensive for anyone to use. Unless, that is, there is a major change in the whole system.
Personally I have my bet on algae or other microbes being the sustainable fuel choice of years to come.

Why is everyone so afraid of nuclear energy? A tiny reactor could be sealed well... until you crash in to something.... or hit too many pot holes... or the cooling rods stick, and your car has a meltdown.

...are you talking about a Detroit-Made SUV-Nuclear-reactor, or an Japanese or European made reactor (wink,wink)?

...GM could name it the '3-Mile-Island SUV'.

May I present the Ford Nucleon

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rd_Nucleon.jpg

...late 1950's, right?

That's not funny... I used to live near TMI. I almost contracted to work there installing tile, but my contractor douched out of the deal before I could get certified.

...it could have a "one-of-a-kind" bluish GLOW-IN-THE-DARK paint scheme!

lmao... The tiles we were supposed to be installing were lined with lead... Wonder why they were putting those in the staff rooms? (Rest rooms, included.)

...I can visualize the DOT safety label on the radiator:

CAUTION -- DO NOT OPEN CAP WHILE REACTOR IS REACTING.

"Hey, bro, we heard you like reactions, so we put a reactor in your reactor to see how you'd react... "

LOL. I hate myself sometimes.

...the new car logo, a "mushroom cloud"?

Wow, I bet that thing has 50/50 front/rear weight distribution, too. I wonder, does it deliver steam to a motor at each wheel, or what?

I'm sure some less-than-green fellow would install a remote starter on it, too. Or rig it up to run the reactor 24/7.

Also, I read about cars with nuclear reactors in them in a Tom Clancy book. Rather, they were warheads installed inside hollowed-out A/C compressors, strategically distributed across the US by some Japanese organization or another, and used for nefarious purposes.

How about Russian SUV producer UAZ makes a luxury model called Chernobyl?
"This engine will give you explosive acceleration, leaving everyone else in your (fallout) wake..."

So, maybe the electricity would not be available to run an EV, but it is used to refine the gasoline; and it should be added to the carbon footprint of gasoline.

Here's the best source on this question, that I have found:

Gasoline and Oil

Which is really too bad -- why can't we find authoritative sources on this?

Extracting oil takes a lot of electricity. Refining oil takes a lot of electricity and natural gas.

A lot of our military spending goes to defending our oil supply.

I do consider the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration to be authorative.

Hi Matt,

I've been looking around that site, and it is a bit dense -- lots of info, but not very easy to find specific answers. Do you have a direct link to how much energy is embedded in gasoline?

Neil,

Would it settle the matter?

Sounds like a show I watched about a large farm totally powered by its own cow dung.

...this is just an annecdotal comparison, but a TV show about mining shale-oil in Canada mentioned that it took:

1 barrel of recovered oil to produce 25 barrels of normal (drilling) liquid oil

1 barrel of recovered oil to produce just 5 barrels of usable liquid oil.

...takeaway is: it's 5X harder to extract oil from shale oil than to simply drill for it.

Neil,

This PDF seems to show that gasoline refining is 87.7% efficient and 4.3% of the energy used is purchased electricity.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/mo...ries-03-08.pdf

So I'm not sure you can just say that 7.5 kWhr went into the gasoline that could have been used for charging an EV. I think you'd have to use the 4.3% that was purchased. If the balanced was burned fossil fuels, you'd still have to convert that to electricity, so apply a 1/3 multiplier to that (to convert it to electricity instead of burning for refining).

So, 100 - 87.7 = 12.3% used for refining.

12.3% X 4.3% = 0.529% was purchased electricity.

33.4 kWhr/gal X .529% = 176.7 Whr of purchased electricity "embedded" in each gallon.

100 - 4.3 = 95.7% of energy used for refining was from "petroleum" sources.

95.7% X 12.3% = 11.77% of the energy in each gallon was "embedded" burned fossil fuels.

33.4 kWhr/gal X 11.77% = 3.93 kWhr of "embedded" refining energy from fossil fuels. But we cannot use that as electricity without burning it in an engine, so divide by 3. (Even so, I'm not sure you could just burn it in an engine to make electricity without refining it first).

3.93/3 = 1.31 kWhr that we would have if we burned the fossil fuel to make electricity instead of refining the gasoline.

1,310 + 176.7 = 1,487 Whrs of electricity we could have had to charge the EV instead of it being used to make the gasoline, about 1/5th of Nissan's number.

OK, what's wrong with my math? :D

Something I never even realized is that drilling a well requires Drilling fluid/Drilling Mud. This stuff uses a lot of water and clay with added chemicals. It's very energy consuming to make and to transport.