EV Discussion thread

JKenH

Netexporter said:

The fossil fuel industry doesn't pay for the negative health and environmental impacts of their products. That is an enormous subsidy.

But offset against that the positive benefits of having heat and power either on a personal level or as a society. We take our current standard of living for granted but we would not have our home comforts if it were not for the fossil fuel use we have enjoyed.

Magnitio

Netexporter said:

The fossil fuel industry doesn't pay for the negative health and environmental impacts of their products. That is an enormous subsidy.

Instead, they pay huge amounts in bribes, lobbying politicians, advertising how wonderfully green they are becoming, trying to stall renewable energy alternatives, creating new markets for their damaging products in Africa etc..

JKenH

Comparison of the Overall Energy Efficiency for Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles and Electric Vehicles

Abstract

The tremendous growth in the transportation sector as a result of changes in our ways of transport and a rise in the level of prosperity was reflected directly by the intensification of energy needs. Thus, electric vehicles (EV) have been produced to minimise the energy consumption of conventional vehicles. Although the EV motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, the well to wheel (WTW) efficiency should be investigated in terms of determining the overall energy efficiency. In simple words, this study will try to answer the basic question - is the electric car really energy efficient compared with ICE-powered vehicles? This study investigates the WTW efficiency of conventional internal combustion engine vehicles ICEVs (gasoline, diesel), compressed natural gas vehicles (CNGV) and EVs. The results show that power plant efficiency has a significant consequence on WTW efficiency. The total WTW efficiency of gasoline ICEV ranges between 11-27 %, diesel ICEV ranges from 25 % to 37 % and CNGV ranges from 12 % to 22 %. The EV fed by a natural gas power plant shows the highest WTW efficiency which ranges from 13 % to 31 %. While the EV supplied by coal-fired and diesel power plants have approximately the same WTW efficiency ranging between 13 % to 27 % and 12 % to 25 %, respectively. If renewable energy is used, the losses will drop significantly and the overall efficiency for electric cars will be around 40-70% depending on the source and the location of the renewable energy systems.

http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SJRUE..24..669A/abstract

JKenH

Magnitio said:

Netexporter said:

The fossil fuel industry doesn't pay for the negative health and environmental impacts of their products. That is an enormous subsidy.

Instead, they pay huge amounts in bribes, lobbying politicians, advertising how wonderfully green they are becoming, trying to stall renewable energy alternatives, creating new markets for their damaging products in Africa etc..

And of course the renewables industry is whiter than white. 

Clean or dirty energy: evidence of

corruption in the renewable energy sector

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65173/7/Public%20Choice%202016.pdf

The Dirty Side of Going Green: Corruption and Human Rights Risks Within the Clean Energy Supply Chain

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=38dcab24-56fd-4748-ae38-bb2ed4e23b4d

Green Rush to Renewables – The Perfect Climate for Corruption

https://www.kroll.com/en/insights/publications/compliance-risk/green-rush-to-renewables-perfect-climate-for-corruption

HOW TO AVOID THE DIRTY SIDE OF CLEAN

ENERGY - BRIBERY PROSECUTIONS ON THE RISE

https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/corporate/publications/2013/04/how_to_avoid_side_of_clean_energy_bribery_prosecutions_on_the_rise.pdf

The $9 Million Renewable Energy Ponzi Scheme

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/9-million-renewable-energy-ponzi-scheme

Dirty deals in clean energy – the EU’s worst nightmare

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/dirty-deals-in-clean-energy-the-eus-worst-nightmare/

Martyn1981

Magnitio said:

Netexporter said:

The fossil fuel industry doesn't pay for the negative health and environmental impacts of their products. That is an enormous subsidy.

Instead, they pay huge amounts in bribes, lobbying politicians, advertising how wonderfully green they are becoming, trying to stall renewable energy alternatives, creating new markets for their damaging products in Africa etc..

Sounds like the tobacco industry!  

Magnitio

Martyn1981 said:

Magnitio said:

Netexporter said:

The fossil fuel industry doesn't pay for the negative health and environmental impacts of their products. That is an enormous subsidy.

Instead, they pay huge amounts in bribes, lobbying politicians, advertising how wonderfully green they are becoming, trying to stall renewable energy alternatives, creating new markets for their damaging products in Africa etc..

Sounds like the tobacco industry!  

Or the US meat industry.

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

Comparison of the Overall Energy Efficiency for Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles and Electric Vehicles

Abstract

The tremendous growth in the transportation sector as a result of changes in our ways of transport and a rise in the level of prosperity was reflected directly by the intensification of energy needs. Thus, electric vehicles (EV) have been produced to minimise the energy consumption of conventional vehicles. Although the EV motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, the well to wheel (WTW) efficiency should be investigated in terms of determining the overall energy efficiency. In simple words, this study will try to answer the basic question - is the electric car really energy efficient compared with ICE-powered vehicles? This study investigates the WTW efficiency of conventional internal combustion engine vehicles ICEVs (gasoline, diesel), compressed natural gas vehicles (CNGV) and EVs. The results show that power plant efficiency has a significant consequence on WTW efficiency. The total WTW efficiency of gasoline ICEV ranges between 11-27 %, diesel ICEV ranges from 25 % to 37 % and CNGV ranges from 12 % to 22 %. The EV fed by a natural gas power plant shows the highest WTW efficiency which ranges from 13 % to 31 %. While the EV supplied by coal-fired and diesel power plants have approximately the same WTW efficiency ranging between 13 % to 27 % and 12 % to 25 %, respectively. If renewable energy is used, the losses will drop significantly and the overall efficiency for electric cars will be around 40-70% depending on the source and the location of the renewable energy systems.

http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SJRUE..24..669A/abstract

That seems to be a backward looking assessment based upon the abstract quoted.
I am sure the academics at Harvard have written a diligent piece, but (IMO) the strength of the "lifecycle" automotive efficiency is the future potential for EV to utilise the more efficient renewable energy sources.

JKenH

I am amused by some of the calculations adopted by some organisations to push the efficiencies of EVs. In this particular example 10% of the energy is lost in charging, another 18% in the drivetrain , 3% in power train and cooling and 0-4% in auxiliary electric use. Regeneration then recovers 22% leaving a net loss of 9-13%. 

Losses incurred in charging are lost forever as are drivetrain, powertrain and electrical losses. Regeneration cannot recover these losses. Those 31-35%losses are gone forever. Neither can regeneration recover losses due to rolling resistance or drag. Regeneration can only convert kinetic energy back into electricity, i.e. recharging the battery by deceleration or by converting the kinetic energy acquired descending a hill and to acquire that kinetic energy you have either had to use the battery to get the car up to speed or to the top of a hill. 

Electric Vehicles Are Way, Way More Energy-Efficient Than Internal Combustion Vehicles

https://www.motortrend.com/news/evs-more-efficient-than-internal-combustion-engines/

JKenH

JKenH said:

I am amused by some of the calculations adopted by some organisations to push the efficiencies of EVs. In this particular example 10% of the energy is lost in charging, another 18% in the drivetrain , 3% in power train and cooling and 0-4% in auxiliary electric use. Regeneration then recovers 22% leaving a net loss of 9-13%. 

Losses incurred in charging are lost forever as are drivetrain, powertrain and electrical losses. Regeneration cannot recover these losses. Those 31-35%losses are gone forever. Neither can regeneration recover losses due to rolling resistance or drag. Regeneration can only convert kinetic energy back into electricity, i.e. recharging the battery by deceleration or by converting the kinetic energy acquired descending a hill and to acquire that kinetic energy you have either had to use the battery to get the car up to speed or to the top of a hill. 

Electric Vehicles Are Way, Way More Energy-Efficient Than Internal Combustion Vehicles

https://www.motortrend.com/news/evs-more-efficient-than-internal-combustion-engines/

And even the EPA make the same mistake - an EV can be potentially 100% efficient despite losing 10% in charging the battery!

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml#:~:text=An%20EV%20electric%20drive%20system,All%2DElectric%20Vehicles%20for%20details.

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

I wonder whether that graphic takes competent source data and then mis-understands it in the attempt to simplify the presentation:

100% input energy
10% charging loss = cannot be recovered
3% cooling, steering = cannot be recovered
0.4% auxiliary electrical = cannot be recovered
That gives 86.6% (or the original input energy) that goes to the drivetrain
Drivetrain losses are 18% of that original input energy
Results in 68.6% as beneficial output

It is clear that the 22% recovery cannot be 22% of the original input energy as that would be greater than the drivetrain losses.
It seems likely that the 22% recovery refers to either:
"22% of the beneficial output".  68.6 * 0.22 = 15% of the original input energy recovered
or
"22% of the drivetrain losses"  18 * 0.22 = 4% or the original input energy recovered
I can foresee journey types where either of those recovery percentages *could* seem plausible.

Any outcome where the total energy to the wheels exceeds the original input energy less charging loss is not realistic (though I can also postulate a theoretical journey where it *could* happen).