Amount wasted on gas vs going hybrid or EV?

[Dalko43]

I'm interested to see when the first person strips a Tesla and builds a buggy out of it. It could be really effective if done right. Opens up a world of design options with no drive shafts, weight can be put anywhere you want, clearance can be as much as you want, you can use gear reduction hubs to get any gearing you'd like. Lots to like.

I like the idea of electric vehicles too, but there are still several hurdles to overcome before those become a viable replacement for ICE or hybrid vehicles.

1) Battery life and recharge time

2) System durability (high/low temps, driver abuse)

3) Cost of manufacture

4) Energy Source for the Electric vehicles - until we revise our energy grid (find a way to transition from fossil fuels to renewable or more eco-friendly sources) the whole argument to switch to electric vehicles is almost a moot point. Re-charging an electric vehicle off of a grid that is mostly fueled by fossil fuels is putting just as much, if not more, emissions into the atmosphere as ICE tailpipe emissions. An interesting article on the subject...Are Electric Cars Really That Polluting? - Forbes

 

[Jetboy]

The problem with the article is that it assumes a few things incorrectly. First is that the cars are being charged with average grid energy. That's not the case. They are generally charged at night with very low cost energy from generation sources that would be running anyway. You can't shut off a coal plant at night. Wind energy at night is often free. Many states have so much wind energy at night that the market inverts - ie they literally pay the grid to take the energy. And Solar is growing very quickly due to low prices and tax incentives. For these reasons IMO charging batteries at night or off of a solar source is not even close to the same emission profile as assuming average grid power.

The clean power plan rules will also make significant changes to generation fleet. In 10 years there are going to be fewer coal plants, and the ones that do survive will be cleaner. In 20 years I don't think we'll have any or very few coal plants.

And if electric cars can be used on demand to reduce peak energy generation (5-7pm), they can have a significant net reduction in system emissions and system costs. They will allow more solar integration into the grid without overloading transformers and things on a distribution level. They will provide reserve margin capacity so there can be less spinning reserves (generators running that aren't actually producing energy). And they are likely to offset the need for new power plants. All of these add up to a pretty compelling case for electric cars and a dynamic smart energy grid. It takes a while to get there, but I think the direction we're going is to electric cars.

 

[SD G-Mote]

I work in the environmental industry and live in California where everyone likes to call themselves and environmentalist. What is not being talked about is the batteries that are in many of these vehicles. The first generation of them are slowly starting to lose the capacity to hold a charge and will require replacement. Then we have a dead battery that must be disposed of. Unlike the oil, gas, grease, etc from a conventional ICE, virtually nothing can be recycled from these batteries. Like other dead batteries they go into a landfill. They are filled with acid and heavy metals which can be major pollutants if not handled properly. Sure the newer batteries have gotten better with this issue and there are some recycling programs for these batteries, but the technology is a long ways away from perfect.

Second point, most electricity in the US is derived from some generation plant that has emissions. Some are very efficient, but many are pretty significant polluters. So to say they are truly zero-emissions is incorrect. The emissions are just from a different source.

All of this aside, I drive a 4Runner to camp in, to get off the beaten path, and to enjoy the environment. A Prius and many other hybrids owners have and never will camp or set foot into a remote area off the beaten path. It is politically correct for them to call themselves environmentalist.... so they do. Off my soap box....

 

[Jetboy]

I believe the batteries are almost 100% recycled. Edit: according to the EPA 99.2% of the lead acid car batteries are recycled. I'm guessing hybrid batter packs are higher than that because the materials are more valuable.

 

[1engineer]

Look, in my mind there are three reasons people buy fuel efficient vehicles:

1. Posers - They buy them for the same reason some of you buy 4Runners... the look and the image they project to others. They still over consume energy in all other areas but they look good to their peers.

2. Eco friendly - These people buy them thinking they are helping save the world, having no clue about the realities of energy consumption and the effect (or lack of) their vehicle as it pertains to the global energy consumption from manufacturing to end use.

3. To save a bit of money on fuel costs - These people buy a Prius to commute instead of a Suburban and save money on fuel. To me this is fine. They have a family budget and have calculated that, in their specific situation, the fuel efficiency of a Prius will save them money.

Does it work? Do people really save money buying a plug in or hybrid or did they buy it just to feel good about themselves and impress all their green friends? Who knows. I think a few actually save money because their Prius is their only vehicle and they drive it everywhere. The problem is most of these people are part time environmentalists. They save with their vehicle and waste energy in other areas of their life. In my mind people who choose to be green and save money should do it across the board, not pick and choose. The very few who do that have my respect.

 

[Dalko43]

[MENTION=118321]Jetboy[/MENTION] There's quite a bit that you said which I disagree with (respectfully of course), so I'll address each issue by section:

The problem with the article is that it assumes a few things incorrectly. First is that the cars are being charged with average grid energy. That's not the case. They are generally charged at night with very low cost energy from generation sources that would be running anyway. You can't shut off a coal plant at night.

The author of the article I linked (who, in case you didn't catch his vibe, was definitely in favor of electric vehicles and their technological advances) was pointing out, and correctly so, that there is no such thing as free energy. A 3500lb car requires the same amount of energy to move (whether it be by ICE or electric battery) and as a result that energy production will result in waste (emissions) if we are talking about fossil fuel energy plants (whether it be ICE or a power plant).

I don't know how a fossil fuel plant will produce less emissions during the night versus the day (some data points would help your case here)? The energy demand is what dictates the emissions level, not the time of day. If everyone decides to charge their appliances at night, then the energy demand and corresponding emissions level goes up at night. If 15 years from now, all ICE vehicles are replaced by electric ones, their energy consumption needs would require much more power output from said fossil fuel plants, and thus produce proportionally greater emissions.

Wind energy at night is often free. Many states have so much wind energy at night that the market inverts - ie they literally pay the grid to take the energy. And Solar is growing very quickly due to low prices and tax incentives. For these reasons IMO charging batteries at night or off of a solar source is not even close to the same emission profile as assuming average grid power.

You are right that using renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, to charge electric vehicles (EV's) produces much less in terms of emissions. But the big issue with those energy sources is that they make up a tiny fraction of our country's overall energy grid:

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Over 65% of our energy comes from fossil fuels. The next biggest source is nuclear at 19%, followed by hydro-electric at 6%. Renewable sources only account for 7%. In theory, an EV could recharge itself with little to no emissions impact, but in reality, most parts of the US still rely heavily on fossil fuels and thus EV charging still has a significant pollution impact.

Also, I fear renewable sources, like solar and wind, will only be able to provide so much energy before we squeeze the proverbial "lemon" dry. For example, the amount of landscape required for solar panel arrays big enough to totally replace a modern day fossil fuel or nuclear plant (in terms of energy output) would be astronomical and unrealistic. A much more logical choice for long-term, nearly pollution-free energy source, is nuclear, but few people in the eco-circles really want to talk about that for a variety of reasons.

The clean power plan rules will also make significant changes to generation fleet. In 10 years there are going to be fewer coal plants, and the ones that do survive will be cleaner. In 20 years I don't think we'll have any or very few coal plants.

The clean power plan rules are aspirations, not necessarily the way things will be in the future. Everyone talks about getting off of fossil fuels, and yet no one has come up with a viable and commonly available source to replace them (except for nuclear). What will we be using in 20 years in place of fossil fuels?

And if electric cars can be used on demand to reduce peak energy generation (5-7pm), they can have a significant net reduction in system emissions and system costs. They will allow more solar integration into the grid without overloading transformers and things on a distribution level. They will provide reserve margin capacity so there can be less spinning reserves (generators running that aren't actually producing energy). And they are likely to offset the need for new power plants. All of these add up to a pretty compelling case for electric cars and a dynamic smart energy grid. It takes a while to get there, but I think the direction we're going is to electric cars.

I'm afraid you totally lose me here. How will more EV's create less of demands on our existing energy grid? It will do the exact opposite. Just like iphones, computers, and TV's, more people using EV's = more energy consumption = more power that needs to be generated = more plants (likely fossil fuel or nuclear) being constructed.

 

[Dalko43]

Look, in my mind there are three reasons people buy fuel efficient vehicles:

1. Posers - They buy them for the same reason some of you buy 4Runners... the look and the image they project to others. They still over consume energy in all other areas but they look good to their peers.

2. Eco friendly - These people buy them thinking they are helping save the world, having no clue about the realities of energy consumption and the effect (or lack of) their vehicle as it pertains to the global energy consumption from manufacturing to end use.

3. To save a bit of money on fuel costs - These people buy a Prius to commute instead of a Suburban and save money on fuel. To me this is fine. They have a family budget and have calculated that, in their specific situation, the fuel efficiency of a Prius will save them money.

Does it work? Do people really save money buying a plug in or hybrid or did they buy it just to feel good about themselves and impress all their green friends? Who knows. I think a few actually save money because their Prius is their only vehicle and they drive it everywhere. The problem is most of these people are part time environmentalists. They save with their vehicle and waste energy in other areas of their life. In my mind people who choose to be green and save money should do it across the board, not pick and choose. The very few who do that have my respect.

Well said...Holy Crap! I just gave a like to my arch rival! And he gave me a like as well! What's this world coming too?!?

 

[Jetboy]

With respect to charging at night - if a generation resource is running, whether you're charging a car or not - it's not reasonable to assign those pollutants to the car charging. If a coal power plant is going to run all night anyway (they generally run for 11 months at a time and shut down once a year in march or april for maintenance) - there's no additional pollution if we use that electricity to charge a car. In much of the country this is the case. So whether the energy is essentially wasted or used to charge a car makes no difference in emissions. In effect, the charging is merely capturing wasted energy, not driving the creation of more.

Additionally if you use average grid generation, you're assuming the average generation profile. That's simply not accurate. Generation units that are used to meet peak demand are often significantly less efficient in energy use and pollution than units that are base load power. For example a combined cycle gas turbine is a lot cleaner than a simple cycle gas turbine that might only run 2 hrs a day to meet the peak load. Ultimately energy at night is not the same as energy during the peak day hours and using average grid generation is an inaccurate assumption.

While I agree that wind and solar make up a small portion of the generation - it's very location dependent - they make up a much higher percentage at night. In somewhere like Texas or Iowa with maybe 20% wind on average, at night that might be 50% or greater. That's why electricity is free in a lot of Texas at night. They have so much wind energy they can't use it all.

The clean power plan is a proposed EPA rule. It will be a final rule. And it will be a major impact on power plants. I think this is a near 100% probability. The only questions are how the EPA will interpret the rule as far as pooling generation resources and regional compliance. Coal is dead. There's no way around that. Prediction: A new coal power plant will never be built again in the USA and existing coal plants have 20 years or less of life.

With respect to reducing demand it's the storage and feed back ability that matters. Electric cars batteries can be used to reduce the system costs by reducing peak demand. Peak demand is by far the most important. The entire system is basically designed to meet the peak hour each year. The entire rest of the year there is excess capacity in generation, transmission, and distribution systems. If you can use the batteries to feed back into the grid at peak hours, you can significantly reduce the costs of the system. If we could store energy for free or cheaply in large quantities, you could both add a lot more solar and wind that cannot be integrated right now because the system cannot manage the intermittent power delivery, and even without those you could still eliminate around 50% or more of our generation fleet. (can you guess which 50%... hint it's coal). A few electric cars won't get there, but a whole bunch might get closer.

 

[Engineer]

I just like saving money and having the piece of mind of independence. I'm certainly no "eco hippie"

Nothing wrong with that! Certainly was not trying to direct the "eco hippie" comment on prius drivers, or wind mill owners, etc etc just that in general the people that I group into "eco hippie" don't really have any science or data behind there lifestyle or goals they just try to bully others!

 

[Dalko43]

With respect to charging at night - if a generation resource is running, whether you're charging a car or not - it's not reasonable to assign those pollutants to the car charging. If a coal power plant is going to run all night anyway (they generally run for 11 months at a time and shut down once a year in march or april for maintenance) - there's no additional pollution if we use that electricity to charge a car. In much of the country this is the case. So whether the energy is essentially wasted or used to charge a car makes no difference in emissions. In effect, the charging is merely capturing wasted energy, not driving the creation of more.

I don't quite understand your perspective on this issue. Power plants dont create an infinite source of energy for everyone to hook up their Iphones to...Rather they create finite pools of energy. If the energy demanded of them increases beyond their output, the options are to:
A) increase energy output (which increases emissions)
B) build more power plants (which also increases emissions)
C) not meet the energy requirement, which means that someone's EV or iphone won't get charged.

The clean power plan is a proposed EPA rule. It will be a final rule. And it will be a major impact on power plants. I think this is a near 100% probability. The only questions are how the EPA will interpret the rule as far as pooling generation resources and regional compliance. Coal is dead. There's no way around that. Prediction: A new coal power plant will never be built again in the USA and existing coal plants have 20 years or less of life.

The EPA rule will be final, pending legislative and Judicial oversight. The EPA, and many other executive agencies, have been called out quite frequently for overstepping their legal boundaries in the past few years.

As for coal being dead in 20 years...AGAIN! What will do you think will replace coal? I am not trying to be snarky or rhetorical. I am genuinely interested in hearing what power sources will be available in enough quantity to replace coal (and fossil fuels in general).

With respect to reducing demand it's the storage and feed back ability that matters. Electric cars batteries can be used to reduce the system costs by reducing peak demand. Peak demand is by far the most important. The entire system is basically designed to meet the peak hour each year. The entire rest of the year there is excess capacity in generation, transmission, and distribution systems. If you can use the batteries to feed back into the grid at peak hours, you can significantly reduce the costs of the system. If we could store energy for free or cheaply in large quantities, you could both add a lot more solar and wind that cannot be integrated right now because the system cannot manage the intermittent power delivery, and even without those you could still eliminate around 50% or more of our generation fleet. (can you guess which 50%... hint it's coal). A few electric cars won't get there, but a whole bunch might get closer.

So you're saying that in the near future, energy feedback (from EV's, solar, wind, renewable sources) will reduce our fossil fuel requirements by 77%?

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean by energy feedback, I agree with trying to be more energy efficient, I like renewable energy sources....I just think you're being overly-optimistic on this issue.

Energy feedback may allow us to recycle otherwise wasted energy, but transitioning our entire auto fleet from ICE's to electric will also place a much higher energy consumption burden on our grid. As it is, our grid is barely able to keep up with the energy demand. States like California actually have to outsource their energy providers (from other states) because of how high the demand is.

And yet somehow, magically, within the next 20 years, we will develop a energy system that nearly eliminates its reliance on fossil fuel (and nuclear?) and can cope with significantly greater energy demand? I'd like to see a logical argument, with numbers, actually proving that hypothesis.

I think fossil fuels will be around for a while longer, and nuclear will once again be revisited, since its the only energy source, besides the sun, which we are anywhere close to developing into a nearly perpetual energy source.

 

[Engineer]

Well said...Holy Crap! I just gave a like to my arch rival! And he gave me a like as well! What's this world coming too?!?

Wait.....were do we get to pick our arch rivals?......... I choose [MENTION=65614]Antman[/MENTION] :50cal:

 

[wadle5]

While I do see where other guys are flambointaly waving their man card about a prius=castration. I do see the benefit of a higher mpg vehicle if you drive often. Personally I was driving my 4Runner daily until I realized the offset of gas as my new job required more driving. And while I did look at hybrids for a brief moment it is true that most sedans and/or even diesel sedans can get comparable if not BETTER mpgs then a Prius.
In regards to a cheaper option the only other thing I could thing which I have actually done is bought a cheap daily that gets double the mileage of my 4runner. And while others would argue that is a massive expensive. My daily was less than a 5th the cost of my runner. And I can tell you replacing tires on my little 16s and basic components on a smaller car are definitely cheaper than replacing the 32s on my 4runner. Also I get to keep my 4runner for a fun car or weekend get away.
Here in the midwest I would always get questioned and asked about with gas prices and why buy a 4wd. Then we winter and inclement weather and people freak out and here I am feeling safe and secure.
I had fast cars and while they dont do great on mpgs, one thing I love about the 4wd is I am less likely to get into trouble with it, and also it more useful. You can only go so fast so many times before something happens to you. But say you want to make your own parking spot at the ball game or the mall, good luck on doing that in your little sedan. The practicality/security/safety of an SUV I think greatly offsets the gas consumption of these vehicles. Also you may have to take into an account that just like music everyone has their own taste, and someone who isn't into the activities I do in my vehicle will never understand and be completely content in their car. I on the otherhand have figured out my priorities and I will not just drive "a car" it should be purposeful and like they say "you know you have the right vehicle when you turn it on, and it returns the favor"

4Runner on.


end rant

 

[Bevo]

Well said...Holy Crap! I just gave a like to my arch rival! And he gave me a like as well! What's this world coming too?!?

:shocked:

 

[Jetboy]

I don't quite understand your perspective on this issue. Power plants dont create an infinite source of energy for everyone to hook up their Iphones to...Rather they create finite pools of energy. If the energy demanded of them increases beyond their output, the options are to:
A) increase energy output (which increases emissions)
B) build more power plants (which also increases emissions)
C) not meet the energy requirement, which means that someone's EV or iphone won't get charged.

That's right. They are not infinite. But they are also non-zero. And many run at night spinning a turbine and don't actually generate electricity. The thermal energy is wasted because it is not economical to stop them. At night, currently, the energy demanded is significantly less than their output. And that's why electricity is free at night in a lot of the country.

The EPA rule will be final, pending legislative and Judicial oversight. The EPA, and many other executive agencies, have been called out quite frequently for overstepping their legal boundaries in the past few years.

As for coal being dead in 20 years...AGAIN! What will do you think will replace coal? I am not trying to be snarky or rhetorical. I am genuinely interested in hearing what power sources will be available in enough quantity to replace coal (and fossil fuels in general).

Coal will be replaced by natural gas, wind, and solar. Natural gas is already cheaper. The only reason coal power plants remain operating is because the sunk costs are not recoverable otherwise. A selective catalytic reduction system to meet regional haze requirements is about the same price as a NEW gas plant. A new coal plant is not economical anywhere in the USA to build. The existing ones will have reduced lifespans and be retired. Coal will not be replaced with coal.

If storage becomes available, wind is very cheap. So is solar. Utility scale solar in the southwest is getting really competitive as well. The intermittent nature of them make them hard to integrate beyond about 15%, but if storage becomes available reasonably cheap - like from electric cars - this changes.

So it will be a mix of gas, wind, and solar. Coal's days are numbered.

So you're saying that in the near future, energy feedback (from EV's, solar, wind, renewable sources) will reduce our fossil fuel requirements by 90%?

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean by energy feedback, I agree with trying to be more energy efficient, I like renewable energy sources....I just think you're being overly-optimistic on this issue.

Energy feedback may allow us to recycle otherwise wasted energy, but transitioning our entire auto fleet from ICE's to electric will also place a much higher energy consumption burden on our grid. As it is, our grid is barely able to keep up with the energy demand. States like California actually have to outsource their energy providers (from other states) because of how high the demand is.

And yet somehow, magically, within the next 20 years, we will develop a energy system that nearly eliminates its reliance on fossil fuel (and nuclear?) and can cope with significantly greater energy demand? I'd like to see a logical argument, with numbers, actually proving that hypothesis.

I think fossil fuels will be around for a while longer, and nuclear will once again be revisited, since its the only energy source, besides the sun, which we are anywhere close to developing into a nearly perpetual energy source.

I don't know where you came up with 90% from. I'm confident we'll reduce coal by 90% in 20 years as compared to today. Much of it will likely be replaced by natural gas. There are currently about 1,300 coal power plants in the USA. The projections for the clean power plan are to shut down about 60-70 per year. The math is pretty easy from there to end up at 1300 shut down in 20 years. AEO2014 projects more coal-fired power plant retirements by 2016 than have been scheduled - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) That's what the EIA predicts, although they reach the conclusion that roughly 10% might survive the next 20 years. I don't think any will.

If the battery storage capacity grows enough it could reduce reliance on fossil fuels by 90%, but I suspect it will be more like 50%. Either way - coal is still going away and electric cars are going to be less polluting than they are today.

 

[Dalko43]

That's right. They are not infinite. But they are also non-zero. And many run at night spinning a turbine and don't actually generate electricity. The thermal energy is wasted because it is not economical to stop them. At night, currently, the energy demanded is significantly less than their output. And that's why electricity is free at night in a lot of the country.

That may be the case now, but when energy demand goes up with an increasing number of appliances that require charging (like EV's) so too will the output (and emissions) required of existing power plants.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't realize you were referring to natural gas (which I consider a fossil fuel with its own pollution baggage) as the replacement for coal...I thought you were claiming that we would eleminiate the majority of our fossil fuel dependency in the near future. This most recent post provides a lot more context for what you have been saying. I agree coal's days may be numbered, though it still has some lifespan especially in developing countries.

I still think you greatly over-estimate how much solar and wind will be able to contribute to our energy grid in the future. Given that those "renewable" sources only account for 7% of our current energy grid, which is marginal compared to nuclear and fossil fuel sources, I think it will continue to play a marginal role, especially as energy consumption drastically increases across the world.

Edit: I also find it interesting that you never once mention nuclear as viable alternative to fossil fuel dependency. You consider natural gas, solar, and wind the way of the future, but not nuclear?

 

[Jetboy]

That may be the case now, but when energy demand goes up with an increasing number of appliances that require charging (like EV's) so too will the output (and emissions) required of existing power plants.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't realize you were referring to natural gas (which I consider a fossil fuel with its own pollution baggage) as the replacement for coal...That provides a lot more context for what you have been saying. I agree coal's days may be numbered, though it still has some lifespan especially in developing countries.

I still think you greatly over-estimate how much solar and wind will be able to contribute to our energy grid in the future. Given that those "renewable" sources only account for 7% of our current energy grid, which is marginal compared to nuclear and fossil fuel sources, I think it will continue to play a marginal role, especially as energy consumption drastically increases across the world.

Edit: I also find it interesting that you never once mention nuclear as viable alternative to fossil fuel dependency. You consider natural gas, solar, and wind the way of the future, but not nuclear?

I have a degree in physycs. I love nuclear. I just don't think it's a viable solution due to public perception as much as anything else. If I were king of the world I'd build nuclear reactors near the coasts, use the energy to separate water and pump hydrogen through our existing natural gas system and electricity through the grid to turn almost all of our energy nuclear and emission free. But alas I'm not. I just don't think it's gonna happen.

Natural gas is a lot cleaner than coal. It's no perfect source, but it's about 50% less carbon and like 99% less of the other pollutants. If you look at how we get it - the fracking isn't so eco friendly, but it's what we've go.

I actually thing coal will grow world wide. Just not in the USA. It's extremely cheap in Australia and Indonesia - and China doesn't give a shit. So it'll continue to grow both in China and Europe.

OTOH I can certainly envision a future of roof top solar and batteries being cheaper than grid power. Once that point is tripped there will be an avalanche effect as each person moves off the grid every other person bears a higher portion of the fixed costs and the incentives increase for them to move off the grid. It probably won't take long if that occurs for the model of large electric utility to fail and everyone will be off the grid. Just depends on battery and solar cell costs.

 

[Honu*]

good to hear still does not get rid of the mining and the chemicals and mess they use to create these in the first place ! also shows one does have to replace batteries in the car rather quick compared to gas which means more waste and mining to get new material for the new batteries and they are not being recycled just RE USED
and when they are dead ? then what ? hmmmmm

They are using old Hybrid Camry batteries as part of a solar system to power some of their buildings in Yellowstone Park.

 

[Antman]

Wait.....were do we get to pick our arch rivals?......... I choose [MENTION=65614]Antman[/MENTION] :50cal:

I eat engineers for breakfast.

It's on!:nerd::rip:

 

[sooperedd]

One thing I don't get is the solar roof. It serves no purpose in my opinion. If your close enough it turns on the a/c to cool the interior. It's also a $1,500 option too.

We didn't get that option because as you said the cost didn't justify it, but I think it only runs the fans and not the compressor itself.

 

[sooperedd]

The 4Runner and Prius both have traction control, but the 4Runner can be thrown into 4wd and the Prius can't. How does the Prius handle in the snow with just traction control.

It handles light snow and ice really good with the right tires. I was impressed with how well it does. The Prius is heavy for it's size due to the Hybrid battery so I think that's why it does so well.