The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles

[AmmoManAaron]

There will always be petroleum powered cars in my lifetime as they can do things that electric vehicles can't do, easier- like go cross country and refuel in minutes. However, with wider use of nuclear power (if people can get away from their primitive superstitions) and some exciting things happening in geothermal, electricity may get even cheaper.

Simply comparing efficiencies misses an important point...the cost of energy to begin with. If electricity and gas/diesel all come from the same fossil fuels, the greater efficiency of liquid fuels is a strong point. If they don't, but electricity come from clean, cheaper sources, even if petroleum based fuels maintain their greater efficiency, electricity may still be more cost effective. We are not there yet, but it may be coming.

Thoughtful points, and I do support building more nuclear power plants (and breeder reactors to reprocess the majority of the waste), but I still remember the promises of "too cheap to meter." The waste management issues and intense maintenance costs will continue to hobble nuclear power until some type of breakthrough is made that changes the math. I doubt we will see that until high electricity prices force an investment in research. That exact thing happened in the oil and gas world over the last 20 or so years. The development of improved extraction technologies (horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, better remote sensing and mapping/modeling of reservoirs) has dramatically changed the picture of our energy future - it's why natural gas and liquid fuels are so cheap right now and will continue to be well into the future. With the big investment of developing and proving those technologies on a large scale behind us (which could only occur when prices were sky high), the current low prices are forcing continued incremental refinements in order to stay in business. And the tech that we are seeing deployed in the North American oil and gas fields has hardly been implemented anywhere else in the world. Just imagine what future reserves are going to look like when our tech gets put to use in the rest of the world.

 

[Leo]

Personally I don't care what other people want to drive, but leadership shouldn't be subsidizing one sort car or another with my money. Car companies can make boutique cars and power companies can sell boutique electricity at an up charge to cover the additional costs if it's important to buyers. I expect to pay more for cars with high horsepower and sharp styling, but it's my money.

This is definately an issue

Jim Jordan says subsidy for the Volt averages out to as much as $250,000 a car | PolitiFact Ohio

So many of the trendy urban plans want the taxpayers at large to be forced to pay for the installation and maintenance of charging stations for the covenience of those who wish to drive electrics. How is that not social manipulation? Of course, Taxpayer subsidy of government objectives is not a new idea. Every private auto driver in Cook county, IL has been paying RTA and CTA subidy taxes on their license plates for years.


And if you study the true costs and the Federal subsidies , wind is not even close to the answer for charging, either.


That said, if some one wants to drive an electric car and is willing to pay for it, I celebrate his ability to do so.

 

[Leo]

There are many more variables to consider. I like the idea of electric vehicles, they may not be the solution for all users, but they have their place.

The technology is very simple and clean. They don't need the numerous parts an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) uses. No fuel pump, no exhaust system, no belts, no transmission, etc. etc. If you walk into an Auto Zone, most of the replacement parts you see there, are not needed on an electric car. Gas has to be trucked to the station, electricity travels on high voltage wires. Last time I checked, an electric vehicle cost to charge it was about the same as filling your car for about $2. Maintenance involves filling the windshield washer fluid. No oil changes, coolant changes, spark plugs, air filters, fuel filters, etc. etc. You have a battery, motor, and speed controller. The motor should be able to be replaced in about an hour if designed well. The motor wear should be in the bearings, so simply change out the bearings and you have an engine overhaul. Most electric vehicles have a shorter range unless you pay a lot for the larger battery like the Tesla model S. I do like how they offer the battery in different price points so you can buy what you need. The average person doesn't drive more than 100 miles per day and could plug in at night and be charged by morning. The electric car has some limitations, but they are trade offs.

https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/

The Bolt should be released soon too. Fast-charging a 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV electric car

You have never worked on maintenance of electric equipment, have you? Ever work on more powerful motors, and electronic speed controllers, like maybe a operator cab sized EOT crane? There are many places that repair motors, they would not be in operation if electrics are trouble free. Ever purchase an high tech 20 hp motor, say even a fairly common brushless DC? Not cheap either. Add regen braking, and another stack of money. Outside of the powerplant, an electric car has every other part that is on a conventional car. What are you going to do with the old battery? Don't underestimate the cost and complexity of HAZMAT disposal of such items. Electricity is cool, but it is not a free ride.

 

[HoughMade]

This is definately an issue

Jim Jordan says subsidy for the Volt averages out to as much as $250,000 a car | PolitiFact Ohio

So many of the trendy urban plans want the taxpayers at large to be forced to pay for the installation and maintenance of charging stations for the covenience of those who wish to drive electrics. How is that not social manipulation? Of course, Taxpayer subsidy of government objectives is not a new idea. Every private auto driver in Cook county, IL has been paying RTA and CTA subidy taxes on their license plates for years.


And if you study the true costs and the Federal subsidies , wind is not even close to the answer for charging, either.


That said, if some one wants to drive an electric car and is willing to pay for it, I celebrate his ability to do so.

I'm no fan of government subsidies, but those reports are from 2012 when there were only 6,000 volts built and they added up every dollar of every subsidy that directky or indirectly benefit the Volt, even including conditional subsidies that were not completely used. It also included research that will benefit the Volt and countless other models for decades to come. That's not a plausible way to calculate the actual government money spent on the Volt...unless you are a political opponent of the program. the actual number is probably well under $50,000 per car....but that is still too much by well under $50,000 per unit.

It's just that I don't like hyperbole. I like facts.

 

[edporch]

Say the owner had some solar panels or a wind turbine at their home to charge the batteries, it would be fine to use an electric car for short local trips.
The big loss of efficiency comes from using the electric grid to charge it.

 

[HoughMade]

Say the owner had some solar panels or a wind turbine at their home to charge the batteries, it would be fine to use an electric car for short local trips.
The big loss of efficiency comes from using the electric grid to charge it.

Agreed but loss of efficiency, on an energy basis, does not necessarily mean it is less cost effective.

You can get close to 100% energy efficiency from an electric resistance heater in that almost 100% of the energy fed to it is converted to heat, but I'll take an old 80% gas furnace any day when it comes to paying the bill.

I know, I know, i cut out the part about how the electricity is made, but i think the point is clear- high efficiency does not automatically equal lower cost unless you are using the same power source or a source with the same cost per unit of energy.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Edison built a Electric car in 1895.Ford was advised by Edison to build his car.Ford built them cheap,which killed the Electric car .100 years later,nothing has changed.

 

[Paul30]

You have never worked on maintenance of electric equipment, have you? Ever work on more powerful motors, and electronic speed controllers, like maybe a operator cab sized EOT crane? There are many places that repair motors, they would not be in operation if electrics are trouble free. Ever purchase an high tech 20 hp motor, say even a fairly common brushless DC? Not cheap either. Add regen braking, and another stack of money. Outside of the powerplant, an electric car has every other part that is on a conventional car. What are you going to do with the old battery? Don't underestimate the cost and complexity of HAZMAT disposal of such items. Electricity is cool, but it is not a free ride.

Yes, I have worked on large electric motors and electric equipment. Electric motors are far easier to recondition than an ICE. If you design one in an electric car, then it should be very easy to remove and replace vs an ICE. The old batteries are rebuilt, no worries. The real question is who wants to kill the electric car to keep their revenue coming in. The oil industry, the vehicle manufacturers, etc. etc. The movie "Who Killed The Electric Car" shows this very well. GM was required to produce an electric car. They did, due to a government requirement, then they only leased them so they could get them back and destroy them when the requirement was gone, and that is exactly what they did. Those who owned them tried to buy them from GM and release them from any obligations in the future, GM told them to turn them all in, they were being crushed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AU3_2IT8k8

 

[KittySlayer]

Maintenance involves filling the windshield washer fluid.

So I no longer have to flush and fill my Blinker Fluid?

Yeah! Sign me up.

YOU said electric-electric.
I displayed electric-electric.

Aren't you our local submariner?

What was the reason for the transition from battery/diesel to nuclear? Was it all about stealth and extended dive times or were there efficiencies beyond combat tactics involved? Please comment if relevant, but if totally off base and derailing the discussion ignore my question.

 

[churchmouse]

So I no longer have to flush and fill my Blinker Fluid?

Yeah! Sign me up.



Aren't you our local submariner?

What was the reason for the transition from battery/diesel to nuclear? Was it all about stealth and extended dive times or were there efficiencies beyond combat tactics involved? Please comment if relevant, but if totally off base and derailing the discussion ignore my question.

Man that is a long long list you just asked for.

 

[actaeon277]

So I no longer have to flush and fill my Blinker Fluid?

Yeah! Sign me up.



Aren't you our local submariner?

What was the reason for the transition from battery/diesel to nuclear? Was it all about stealth and extended dive times or were there efficiencies beyond combat tactics involved? Please comment if relevant, but if totally off base and derailing the discussion ignore my question.

Yes, slightly off topic.
But, 2 comments about this.

1st comment.
Nuclear became the fuel of choice due to combat considerations.
A sub on electric power is one of the quietest subs out there.
Till the battery runs out.
There have been multiple systems designed to attempt to hide the noise of a diesel, most of them though can be identified by a sonar system as, "someone trying to mask a diesel".
On a sub, noise is death.
We picked up a sub while playing "cat and mouse" games, I think it was the USS Lapon. We picked them up at FIVE miles, just because someone shut a hatch.
Nuclear power is louder than electric, but there is no diesel (not including the emergency backup genny).
Some of the biggest noises are condensing steam, reduction gears, main feed pumps, reactor coolant pumps.
There have been alternative sources considered, most of them have problems, such as a dangerous reaction with water, which can be dangerous on a sub.

2nd comment.
In the 70s, when the Navy was considering replacements for the Permit and Sturgeon class attack subs, they had two types of drive trains to consider.
The standard drive train uses mechanical reduction gears to reduce the turbines high speed to the propeller's low speed. But, drive train reduction gears are a source of noise, and a possible failure point.
The alternative method was demonstrated by a submarine built to demonstrate/prototype, I think it was the USS Lapon (previously mentioned). It actually was like a step back in time for submarine propulsion. Prior to nukes, diesels drove generators, the generators drove the shaft. The demo sub used nuclear power to generate steam, which drove the turbines to make electric, the electrical power in turn drove the propeller.
The electric method was quieter, without the reduction gears.
But it gave up top speed.
At a time the Navy was needing subs that could keep up with carrier battle groups, and the Russians were coming out with Alpha Class submarines.
So, they went with the 688 Los Angeles class design.


Note:
The USS Lapon Captained by Whitey Mack holds the record for the longest trail of a Russian "boomer", 47 days.


Also, the "snorkel" was a German invention. In WWII German subs were being caught while running the diesel to charge batteries. It was a SERIOUS problem. Look up German submarine losses.
The snorkel allowed them to run the diesel, with the submarine submerged just below the surface.
But, it doesn't cover up the noise. A sub running on a diesel is like a bright fog light, everyone knows where it is.
It's so loud, that we use the diesel sometimes to cover up the "noise signature" when leaving port and find a Russian AGI (surveillance boat that's a fishing trawler, with millions of dollars of antennas).


Post WWII, the Navy lost the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cochino_(SS-345). because it had to surface in rough weather.

 

[actaeon277]

Man that is a long long list you just asked for.

Nice way of saying, Actaeon's sub stories are LONG.

 

[churchmouse]

Nice way of saying, Actaeon's sub stories are LONG.

No. They are complete. Big diff.

The list he asked for is a long one for sure.
Just the stealth ability is huge +++++
Staying submerged for extended length's of time++++++
Unlimited (time) available power +++++
Submerged speeds++++

Ha....guess I should have read your response before responding...

 

[actaeon277]

Then, you have to add in some benefits such as...


Potable water.
Make an evaporator, to purify seawater to potable water. Need power. That's what nukes have.


Oxygen generation and atmosphere control.
Besides relying on electric power that you "canned", diesels have to rely on compressed air to keep the oxygen levels up, and chemical reactions to remove CO2.
Nukes have electro/mechanical scrubbers and burners to remove CO and CO2. But they need power, which nukes have in abundance.
As for oxygen generation... Use some of that potable water, stick electrodes in it, zap it with electric, causes the water to separate to oxygen and hydrogen. Throw the hydrogen over as fast as possible. Store the oxygen in storage banks.
You get more out of it, because you're storing pure oxygen instead of air. So your storage banks get more bang. Good since there are more people on board, and spend more time underwater.


Also, increased electrical generation.
Modern subs have WAY more electric loads than their WWII forefathers. Modern sensors, computers, increased crew size, etc.

 

[actaeon277]

Thanks mouse, I forgot about speed.
With the modern albacore hull design, subs of any type can be fast.
But, a rule of thumb is, to double your speed requires 4 times the power.
So, going faster means sucking up that power at a greater and greater rate.

 

[BugI02]

Did you read the article? [snip]

Yes, I did read the article. This was the first part I found amusing and why I posted what I did

Electricity does not scale up properly to the transportation level due to its miniscule nature. [FONT=lucida_granderegular]Sure, a whole lot can be used for something, but at extraordinary expense and materials.[/FONT]

I also see the common fallacy of making a big deal of the large investment in infrastructure necessary to support increasing numbers of electric vehicles, as if Keystone XL and Dakota Access have nothing to do with supporting ICE infrastructure and have no government support and component whatsoever. You should not conclude that you and I paid/pay nothing for the existing architecture to support IC automobiles and its continuing add-ons. The only advantage is that the existing architecture is already paid for, not that Big Oil has stopped coming to that well

Subsidy Gusher: Taxpayers Stuck With Massive Subsidies While Oil and Gas Profits Soar | Taxpayers for Common Sense [I do not agree with all the politics of the posting organization, but skim this article if you think oil is unsubsidized]

 

[BugI02]

Locomotives use electric motors for the final drive mainly because of the torque profile that electric motors provide. Easier control of multiple drivers is a nice side benefit. It is NOT because of any type of increased efficiency.

ETA: I knew someone would ask that

You keep using that word, efficiency ...

If you wish to compare various motor types just at the output, exclusive of infrastructure necessary to deliver the motive force to the engine/motor then electric motors are 90 - 98% efficient, most diesels fall around 40% and gasoline engines typically fall around 20 - 30%. One of the most fuel efficient gasoline engines currently running in laboratory and using a unique modified four stroke cycle tops out at 38% efficiency for a 1.3 litre turbocharged motor (its a Toyota product)

I expect most wont like the source of this info, but it puts a lot of generally reliable info in one place

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

 

[BugI02]

Because it is easier to transmit power to steel wheels on steel rails pulling more tonnage than we can imagine. Controlling the big servo motors and not direct coupling the diesels through a clutch and drive line.

Ding, ding, ding! ^^^^^^^

Electric motors have the torque profile to move millions of pounds starting from a standstill, they deliver peak torque essentially at zero rpm

Once you decide on electric propulsion, diesels driving high cap generators are the most efficient way of providing the needed current and voltages. The constraints on the system drive the solution, just like Act's unterseeboots

 

[BugI02]

There will always be petroleum powered cars in my lifetime as they can do things that electric vehicles can't do, easier- like go cross country and refuel in minutes. However, with wider use of nuclear power (if people can get away from their primitive superstitions) and some exciting things happening in geothermal, electricity may get even cheaper.

Simply comparing efficiencies misses an important point...the cost of energy to begin with. If electricity and gas/diesel all come from the same fossil fuels, the greater efficiency of liquid fuels is a strong point. If they don't, but electricity come from clean, cheaper sources, even if petroleum based fuels maintain their greater efficiency, electricity may still be more cost effective. We are not there yet, but it may be coming.

Well said. Only one quibble, its the energy density of liquid fuels that is their strong point, not their efficiency

For example, IIRC a gallon of gasoline has an energy equivalent of 33Kwh; the entire battery pack of a Tesla S, if you could drain it to zero, is only 85Kwh - the energy equivalent of less than 3 gallons

 

[Mikey1911]

Yes, slightly off topic.
But, 2 comments about this.

1st comment.
Nuclear became the fuel of choice due to combat considerations.
A sub on electric power is one of the quietest subs out there.
Till the battery runs out.
There have been multiple systems designed to attempt to hide the noise of a diesel, most of them though can be identified by a sonar system as, "someone trying to mask a diesel".
On a sub, noise is death.
We picked up a sub while playing "cat and mouse" games, I think it was the USS Lapon. We picked them up at FIVE miles, just because someone shut a hatch.
Nuclear power is louder than electric, but there is no diesel (not including the emergency backup genny).
Some of the biggest noises are condensing steam, reduction gears, main feed pumps, reactor coolant pumps.
There have been alternative sources considered, most of them have problems, such as a dangerous reaction with water, which can be dangerous on a sub.

2nd comment.
In the 70s, when the Navy was considering replacements for the Permit and Sturgeon class attack subs, they had two types of drive trains to consider.
The standard drive train uses mechanical reduction gears to reduce the turbines high speed to the propeller's low speed. But, drive train reduction gears are a source of noise, and a possible failure point.
The alternative method was demonstrated by a submarine built to demonstrate/prototype, I think it was the USS Lapon (previously mentioned). It actually was like a step back in time for submarine propulsion. Prior to nukes, diesels drove generators, the generators drove the shaft. The demo sub used nuclear power to generate steam, which drove the turbines to make electric, the electrical power in turn drove the propeller.
The electric method was quieter, without the reduction gears.
But it gave up top speed.
At a time the Navy was needing subs that could keep up with carrier battle groups, and the Russians were coming out with Alpha Class submarines.
So, they went with the 688 Los Angeles class design.


Note:
The USS Lapon Captained by Whitey Mack holds the record for the longest trail of a Russian "boomer", 47 days.


Also, the "snorkel" was a German invention. In WWII German subs were being caught while running the diesel to charge batteries. It was a SERIOUS problem. Look up German submarine losses.
The snorkel allowed them to run the diesel, with the submarine submerged just below the surface.
But, it doesn't cover up the noise. A sub running on a diesel is like a bright fog light, everyone knows where it is.
It's so loud, that we use the diesel sometimes to cover up the "noise signature" when leaving port and find a Russian AGI (surveillance boat that's a fishing trawler, with millions of dollars of antennas).


Post WWII, the Navy lost the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cochino_(SS-345). because it had to surface in rough weather.

I think that the nuclear-steam turbine-electric drive submarine was USS Tullibee (SSN 597).

And the real reason for submarine evolution from diesel-electric to nuclear propulsion: Hyman G. Rickover, USN