Electric Car Economics

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

That only works if you trade similar vehicle for similar vehicle. In other words one SUV for another SUV.
But if you trade for a vehicle that consumes 1/3 the power whether gas or electric, then it’s no longer true.

I think your missing the point. The statement has nothing to do with trading anything.

If you consider total energy and resource impact on the system -- mining, smelting, manufacturing, transport to the dealer (perhaps sea and land), operation and service, parts replacement, parting out and disposable -- the least impact to the entire resource/energy system comes from driving the vehicle you currently have, even if it gets 12 mpg.

I'll post a link to the study.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by StuM

I assume that is properly oriented, angled rooftop panels, not horizontal panels on a boat?

I assume so too, but we were discussing terrestrial mounted panels, not ones on a boat.
I assume however his location is a good one for Solar, where I also assume that Northern Europe is not during Winter months, when we were in Germany I remember weeks of no sun and very short days, Summers were glorious though.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by GordMay

New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to Get Cleaner
“New data from the US EPA on power plant greenhouse gas emissions are in, and electric vehicles (EV) in the US are even cleaner than they were before. The climate change emissions created by driving on electricity depend on where you live, but on average, an EV driving on electricity in the U.S. today is equivalent to a conventional gasoline car that gets 80 MPG, up from 73 MPG in our 2017 update.”
➥ https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmu...to-get-cleaner

Those are interesting numbers because I always hear from proponents that they are zero emission, carbon neutral etc. where of course anything that consumes power can’t be, it’s why I keep harping on the efficiency thing, being electric is great, but it’s going to fail to some extent if it’s electric Pickup trucks and SUV’s

Anyway 70 MPG is easily achievable from a hybrid, but they wouldn’t sell, it’s not what people want, they don’t want to reduce emissions.
Even back 10 yrs ago the Gen III Prius could easily have been mid 60’s MPG, but that’s not what the public wanted, so Toyota built a bigger, heavier Prius with a significantly larger motor and greater acceleration etc. and that’s for the few that wanted efficiency, the majority laugh at it.

But right now mid to low 70’s is easily achievable in a four door four adult passenger auto, just it’s not what would sell, and auto manufacturers of course build what will sell.

What it will take to make the desire to increase efficiency is for energy costs to rise to a level where people don’t want to pay it, there will be cries for more efficient transportation.
History shows that, the oil embargo of the 70’s shows it quite well, and we have had a couple more instances since then, but the moment prices ease, every time the average consumer demands ever larger and heavier and less efficient vehicles.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

What it will take to make the desire to increase efficiency is for energy costs to rise to a level where people don’t want to pay it, there will be cries for more efficient transportation.
History shows that, the oil embargo of the 70’s shows it quite well, and we have had a couple more instances since then, but the moment prices ease, every time the average consumer demands ever larger and heavier and less efficient vehicles.

The current affection for trucks and SUVs is a confluence of desire, cheap gas and marketing.

Trucks and SUVs still enjoy relaxed CAFE standards. And they are far more profitable than straight vanilla cars. Compare the sticker prices of garden-variety minivans with same-sized crossovers, which are almost identical except for a token amount of extra ground clearance, AWD, "ruggedized" styling, trim levels named after parks and trails etc. Pickups look like upsized versions of the stuff we played with as kids, but with added steroids and testerone.

So, yes the public seems to like them, but it's partly the response to hard marketing. (I was associated with the ad agency for a major automaker for 10 years. Don't hate the player, hate the game )

An interesting read on current CAFE standards and auto trends.

[DeepFrz]

I just came across this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7As3818lTg

[DeepFrz]

Tesla Model 3 has an EPA rating of 123 to 133 mpg, depending on model , so far above the quoted 70 or 73.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Guess again. I mentioned the total energy it takes to produce, run, and dispose a car. Not just carbon emissions but the cradle-to-grave cost to society. In the big picture, it's most efficient to drive the wheels off the car you have now, no matter what it is.

Except that it's not. This is an urban legend, a thoroughly debunked myth, based on an old discredited article by an automotive industry marketing company, CNW Marketing Research, called "Dust to Dust". The assertion was that 85% of the total energy consumed in the making and using of a car is consumed and making it, which is about the wrong way around -- it's actually about 15% on average.


You can do the math yourself. In 2010, the Argonne National Laboratories did an extremely thorough and peer reviewed study of the energy and carbon inputs into the whole life cycle of cars. You can download the full report here: http://greet.es.anl.gov/files/vehicl..._manufacturing. An average 1532kg vehicle requires 33,924MJ of energy to produce (including smelting the iron etc etc etc). See page 18:





A gallon of gasoline contains about 132 MJ of energy, but gasoline also takes energy to extract, refine, and transport, so saving a gallon of gasoline actually saves anywhere from 160 to 200 MJ of energy.


Taking the lower number, the total energy embodied in manufacturing an average car amounts to the energy embodied in 212 gallons of gasoline (33,924/160=212.025).


So if you crush and recycle your '72 Le Sabre mpg and buy a 2020 Honda Accord, not even a hybrid but just normal one, getting 33 mpg, you will offset the energy used to manufacture the Accord in a little over 4,000 miles. If you drive 10,000 miles a year, that's just a few months.


So don't drive that Le Sabre into the ground -- crush it, and buy a more efficient vehicle. You will save energy, carbon emissions, and money. A lot of all of these.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

... What it will take to make the desire to increase efficiency is for energy costs to rise to a level where people don’t want to pay it, there will be cries for more efficient transportation.
History shows that, the oil embargo of the 70’s shows it quite well, and we have had a couple more instances since then, but the moment prices ease, every time the average consumer demands ever larger and heavier and less efficient vehicles.

Energy from fossil fuels is already very costly; but the price doesn't really reflect that.
Fossil fuels may appear cheap, in part because the costs of their environmental and health damage are not currently included in their price.
In truth, when the external costs to society and the environment are factored into the price, fossil fuels become considerably more expensive. Externalities are a type of market failure, in which the price of energy does not reflect its real cost to society, and the environment.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by StuM

It wasn't the Tesla power bank and it didn't actually provide "backup".


"The VPP detected the frequency drop and immediately injected power into the grid from residential batteries installed on SA Housing Trust properties across the state, contributing with other providers to return the system back to normal, said South Australia energy minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan in a separate statement."

How necessary/useful the actual contribution was is a moot point.

The usual suspects.

"said South Australia energy minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan in a separate statement"

the rejoinder being, he would wouldn't he.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Those are interesting numbers because I always hear from proponents that they are zero emission, carbon neutral etc. where of course anything that consumes power can’t be, it’s why I keep harping on the efficiency thing, being electric is great, but it’s going to fail to some extent if it’s electric Pickup trucks and SUV’s

Anyway 70 MPG is easily achievable from a hybrid, but they wouldn’t sell, it’s not what people want, they don’t want to reduce emissions.
Even back 10 yrs ago the Gen III Prius could easily have been mid 60’s MPG, but that’s not what the public wanted, so Toyota built a bigger, heavier Prius with a significantly larger motor and greater acceleration etc. and that’s for the few that wanted efficiency, the majority laugh at it.

But right now mid to low 70’s is easily achievable in a four door four adult passenger auto, just it’s not what would sell, and auto manufacturers of course build what will sell.

What it will take to make the desire to increase efficiency is for energy costs to rise to a level where people don’t want to pay it, there will be cries for more efficient transportation.
History shows that, the oil embargo of the 70’s shows it quite well, and we have had a couple more instances since then, but the moment prices ease, every time the average consumer demands ever larger and heavier and less efficient vehicles.

Just keep in mind that the comparison of carbon emissions between gasoline powered, hybrid, and pure electric vehicles is totally dependent on the source of the electric power.


The U.S. has a relatively terrible power grid with less than 20% nuclear, and more than 27% coal, and total 63% from fossil fuels.


That is not universal. I've cited the figures for Nordic countries; in Finland for example they use only 7% coal and 4% gas, so only 11% fossil fuels, and the rest of it is carbon-free. Norway has 98% renewable power; only 2% of electrical power there is produced by occasionally used peak-shaving natural gas fired plants. So electric cars powered from a grid like that will emit vastly less carbon than any gasoline powered car, even a 70mpg hybrid. In Norway, practically zero.



Note also that many electric car owners have their own solar or wind installations. Some years ago it was reported that 39% of California EV owners had their own solars; see: https://evobsession.com/39-of-califo...-solar-panels/.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Energy from fossil fuels is already very costly; but the price doesn't really reflect that.
Fossil fuels may appear cheap, in part because the costs of their environmental and health damage are not currently included in their price.
In truth, when the external costs to society and the environment are factored into the price, fossil fuels become considerably more expensive. Externalities are a type of market failure, in which the price of energy does not reflect its real cost to society, and the environment.

Indeed, and that's where carbon taxes and pollution taxes can reduce the market distortions produced by externalities. Even a fairly right-wing libertarian like me, who believes firmly in the primacy of markets for the regulation of economies, sees the need to deal with externalities. In fact we might even see the need more than others, knowing the damage which can be done by market distortions.



You have to be awfully careful how you do it -- an unreasonable calculation of the external costs can easily produce a much worse distortion of the market than you started with. But I think for sure some kind of carefully implemented and moderate carbon tax would be a good thing. There should not be tax breaks for driving heavy SUV's compared to efficient light passenger cars; that is crazy.



More than 10% of cars on the road in Norway are plug-in; this was achieved simply by exempting pure electric cars from VAT and import duties, and partially exempting plug in hybrids. Sometimes just a little push is all it takes.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Just keep in mind that the comparison of carbon emissions between gasoline powered, hybrid, and pure electric vehicles is totally dependent on the source of the electric power ...

While very important, the source of electric power is only 1 of 4 factors to consider when evaluating the impact of electric cars on the environment:
- tailpipe emissions
- well-to-wheel emissions,
- the car’s efficiency
- the energy source that charges the battery

When taking well-to-wheel emissions into account, all-electric vehicles emit an average of around 4,450 pounds of CO2 equivalent each year. By comparison, conventional gasoline cars will emit over twice as much annually.
Natural gas provides the majority of electricity in the United States, followed closely by coal. Natural gas is often considered to be the “cleanest” fossil fuel, because it emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide than coal. Coal is responsible for around 65 percent of carbon dioxide emissions by the electric power sector in the U.S.
That being said, even if your electricity is primarily from a coal plant, driving an EV will likely still overall have lower or similar well-to-wheel emissions when compared to a conventional car.
In most places in the United States today, the mix of resources used to generate your electricity mean that driving an electric vehicle will produce lower well-to-wheel emissions than a traditional car.
Outside of the resource used to produce your power, another reason why electric vehicles are considered more sustainable than traditional vehicles is because electric car efficiency is higher. When the gasoline in conventional vehicles combusts to power the car, approximately 17 to 21 percent of the energy is converted into power for the car. EVs, on the other hand, are able to convert 59 to 62 percent of the electric energy to power for the vehicle.
The EPA calculates MPGe by representing the number of miles a vehicle can go given the same (or equivalent) amount of energy that would be contained in one gallon of gasoline. The average MPG of a typical gasoline-powered car is around 24.7 miles per gallon. While that’s much more efficient than in the past, it’s not much when compared to the MPGe of electric vehicles on the market today. Electric vehicles available now can have a comparable “fuel economy” of as high as 100 MPGe – more than quadruple the efficiency of conventional vehicles.

In terms of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, electric cars and trucks are often cleaner than even the most efficient conventional vehicles. Exactly how clean depends on the type of vehicle and the source of the electricity. When battery electric EVs are powered by the cleanest electricity grids, greenhouse gas emissions from EVs are comparable to a car getting over 100 miles per gallon. When charged exclusively with renewable electricity like solar or wind, charging and operating an EV can be nearly emission free.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed, and that's where carbon taxes and pollution taxes can reduce the market distortions produced by externalities. Even a fairly right-wing libertarian like me, who believes firmly in the primacy of markets for the regulation of economies, sees the need to deal with externalities. In fact we might even see the need more than others, knowing the damage which can be done by market distortions.

You have to be awfully careful how you do it -- an unreasonable calculation of the external costs can easily produce a much worse distortion of the market than you started with. But I think for sure some kind of carefully implemented and moderate carbon tax would be a good thing. There should not be tax breaks for driving heavy SUV's compared to efficient light passenger cars; that is crazy.

More than 10% of cars on the road in Norway are plug-in; this was achieved simply by exempting pure electric cars from VAT and import duties, and partially exempting plug in hybrids. Sometimes just a little push is all it takes.

INDEED!

[jmorrison146]

The MIT study referenced by GordMay was done in 2000, projecting what might be automotive lay possible in 2020.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Tesla Model 3 has an EPA rating of 123 to 133 mpg, depending on model , so far above the quoted 70 or 73.

Oops. "That's given the 2020 Model 3 a chance to scoop up the crown, and per the EPA website, it did just that with the latest snapshot of ratings from the electric car. The EPA estimates the Model 3 will return 141 mpge combined. Not only does that best the new Ioniq, but it still takes the title from the outgoing model, too. "

Gord, that is more than a third higher than your quote.