Electric Car Economics

[DeepFrz]

Another Quartz article about 2 of the largest coal fired generating plants in the US shutting down this month. They shut down not because of regulation but because of economics.

https://qz.com/1749023/two-of-americ...ed-this-month/

[a64pilot]

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.

Thats true for almost everything from fast food, cigarettes, and alcohol and just about anything else you buy

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

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.

Your talking equalivent MPG and God knows how those numbers are calculated as there is no comparison, how many MPG does my TV get?
Gord‘s number had nothing to do with MPG, but with how much greenhouse gases are produced, assumption is from the generation of the electricity.
It’s interesting in that a gasoline car can equal those numbers even though I don’t think any actually do.
There is a cost in “green house” gases from just about anything, even our Solar panels on our boat, there were green house gases produced in their manufacture and transportation, same for the boat themselves too of course, I’d even bet me just living causes some green house gas emissions.
So bottom line, electric cars are not carbon neutral, nor are they emission free, nothing is.
That is why, in my opinion that efficiency is important even in an electric vehicle, they need to be efficient auto’s like I assume a Tesla is. They do not need to be pickup trucks and SUV’s, which is what the public will want, and I’m sure what they will get.

I remember the GM Hybrid either Tahoe or Surburan, had the word HYBRID on both sides about a ft. high you couldn’t miss it. Anyway it got something like 18 MPH instead of the normal 12, yes that’s great, a whopping 33% improvement, but still, 18 is a joke.
Note, those numbers are made up, point is that the whole idea was a joke. It was efficient for a monstrous vehicle for some Soccer Mom to drive around, but compared to an automobile it still consumed many times more.
https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/...-enough-260370

[RaymondR]

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.

You can't just apply the negatives.

Balanced against the issues you state is efficient mechanized farming, eapid world wide trading systems, reductions in food wastage because of efficient logistical systems. etc, etc, etc.

For various reasons we are going to have to make the transition away from fossil fuels and I believe we are good enough at technology to solve all the problems associated with this. It will not be done by celebrities big noting themselves, it will be done by thousands of folk who have taken care to properly educate themselves and get out of bed every morning to go to work in labs.

The potential for the cost reduction of electric vehicles is massive. At the moment they tend to be novelty items aimed at the early adopter market. It will not be long before we begin to see models aimed at the mass market. and I suspect that within a couple of decades we'll all be driving them.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dave9111

I still find it creepy to see cars moving in parking lots almost totally silent.

Last week we were leaving a football tailgate (I know how redneck earth hating)...Gave the wife the car keys as I was finishing a conversation.

Got in and turned the key to start the engine....oops, the F250 was already running when I walked up and got in.

Modern cars are really quiet already. Mostly wind and tire noise...which EV's still have.

Also, the idea that there is drastically less maintenance...other than an annual oil change...I haven't had engine work on a vehicle in the last 10yrs including significant miles towing a 5ton trailer. Key point being ENGINE work. Suspension, non-engine electrical glitches, body rust...sure but EV doesn't solve those issues.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Quartz has an article on EV economics and how one small fleet of Teslas is driving their cars beyond 1/2 million miles. 17,000 miles a month per car. They also talk about cities in the US that are converting and they talk about the economics.

This is called "cherry picking" data.

Semi-Tractors often hit a million miles and do so in a very short time frame. Dropping the same motor in a pickup and you won't see anything close to the same durability for the TYPICAL user because the use pattern is drastically different.

If we want to talk about durability/life span of EVs we need to talk about average users and compare them to average ICE users. Comparing average use ICE to cherry picked EV doesn't tell us much of anything.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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.

In most ways, it's the opposite. People don't want econoboxes. Due to CAFE standards, auto companies heavily subsidize the sale of econoboxes to boost CAFE averages.

Econoboxes typically sell at cost, sometimes at a loss because people don't want them but auto manufacturers are mandated to meet CAFE standards.

It's better in Europe (I believe mostly due to parking issues not MPG) but even there I have noticed a move towards larger vehicles over the last 20yrs.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Another Quartz article about 2 of the largest coal fired generating plants in the US shutting down this month. They shut down not because of regulation but because of economics.

https://qz.com/1749023/two-of-americ...ed-this-month/

Correction: Regulations distorting the economics. You can argue that the distortion is a good thing...

But if you take away the recent heavy regulation changes and the threat of near future regulations, you would still see coal plants being built.

Just because there is a current slow down in additional regulations, doesn't mean the eco-faithful aren't still pushing for more and companies looking at economics, take that into consideration when building a plant with a 50yr lifespan...so claims that there are no regulation impacts is a falsehood.

PS: The Australia battery backup articles I've read gloss over, the fact that regulation drove traditional power plants out of business drastically raising peak demand prices...than they pointed out how battery backup was a savings even though it was drastically higher than prior to the regulations being implemented.

If you want to claim it's needed to save the earth, we can have that discussion but claims that EVs or green energy are anywhere close to the same price are disingenuous.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Your talking equalivent MPG and God knows how those numbers are calculated as there is no comparison, how many MPG does my TV get? ...

The mpg-equivalent (MPGe) figure is how the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) converts the power used by an electric vehicle into a term that's familiar to most Americans: mpg. The agency's new mpg sticker for an electric vehicle (EV) has four key elements:
- kilowatt-hours per 100 miles (kWh/100m)
- mpg-equivalent (MPGe)
- annual electricity cost
- cruising range
To create the mpg equivalent, the EPA uses an established energy standard of 115,000 BTUs (British thermal units) per gallon of gasoline. Grossly oversimplified, this means that if you ignited 1 U.S. gallon of unleaded gasoline, it would generate that much heat. To create the same amount of heat, you would need 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity. For a battery-electric car, the distance it can cover on that amount of energy is used to determine its MPGe rating, which goes on the window sticker, in place of the traditional miles-per-gallon figures.
For EVs, which tend to do better in stop-and-go driving, where regenerative braking can help contribute to the battery's charge, city fuel efficiency is typically better than highway. That's the reverse of most gasoline vehicles.
For yearly electric cost, the EPA uses a national average of 12.5 cents per kWh, and the number can change each year. It assumes an annual driving average of 15,000 miles.

[poiu]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Solar is not the only renewable power source, and who said it would be produced on site? Jumping to conclusions!


I believe this is what DeepFrz was talking about:


https://www.geopura.com/


Seems kind of a Rube Goldberg way to do it -- why not just put the power into the grid?


But anyway, the idea is to transport by road in the form of "liquid hydrogen based fuel".


Siemens is involved in it, so I doubt if it's something idiotic. Those Germans are pretty hard-headed.

It is basically renewable energy storage. That is the biggest problem and cost burden on renewables, which otherwise would be the cheapest source of electricity. Hydrogen is not an energy efficient way of doing it, but at least it does work and where electricity generation is almost free then cost does not matter. There are times when electricity is almost free.

I think your assumption about Germans being hard headed is questionable. Look at their closure of the nuclear industry, that was soft headed in my view. Ditto their mad 2015 immigration policy and let’s not talk about their historical lunatic headed murderous politics.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

In most ways, it's the opposite. People don't want econoboxes. Due to CAFE standards, auto companies heavily subsidize the sale of econoboxes to boost CAFE averages.

If we could, most of us wouid want bigger and better everything. Affordability puts a cap on that. One irony of forcing automakers to improve efficiency is that bigger vehicles now become more affordable to run. And gas in the US is still pretty inexpensive.

As I said - the current affection for trucks and SUVs is a confluence of desire, cheap gas and marketing.

Small cars are still holding their own in bigger cities. Our Civic could take more people and cargo than a 2-door Jeep Wrangler. And most modern small cars are sporty and fun to drive, compared to a stamp'n'steer truck or SUV.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Correction: Regulations distorting the economics. You can argue that the distortion is a good thing...

But if you take away the recent heavy regulation changes and the threat of near future regulations, you would still see coal plants being built.

The "economics" you are referring to are themselves distorted because they don't price in the full cost of consuming the coal. Much of that cost - health effects, pollution, cleanup are foisted onto governments.

[svenskflicka]

Maybe this was answered already.

Without jumping into the total emissions debate and viability of the power grid...

We bought a Nissan Leaf for commuting and we LOVE it.

Driving fairly normally we are seeing about 4.5 Miles/KWH. Electricity is pretty expensive here ($0.19 per KWH). So it's costing us $0.042 per mile.

A car using gas at $3/gallon would have to get around 72mpg

I really like how smooth the car drives and feels. Starting up our XC90 feels positively antiquated.

An added benefit is there are way less, almost zero brake jobs and no oil changes, which are probably the two most normal maintenance items for regular cars.

That being said, this works great for us because we have a place to park the car and our own charger. I don't know how well it would work for city folk with no parking.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The "economics" you are referring to are themselves distorted because they don't price in the full cost of consuming the coal. Much of that cost - health effects, pollution, cleanup are foisted onto governments.

A team of experts at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) used climate and energy efficiency models to sketch out three scenarios for decarbonising the power sector by 2050.
Writing in the journal Nature Communications, they then combined their calculations with human health indexes and analyses of the emission levels throughout a power unit's lifespan.
They found that a scenario where the majority of energy is derived from solar and wind power could cut adverse health effects from electricity production by 80 percent, compared with our current fossil-heavy economies.
The PIK models predicted current energy trends would see six million years of life lost globally to air pollution by 2050. If the next three decades are dominated by renewables, that figure drops to about one million.

“Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies” ~ Gunnar Luderer et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13067-8

[KTP]

We drive a Ford F150 4x4 pickup truck which gets 21mpg and yet can haul 2200 pounds of cargo or tow 7,000+ pounds. We use this payload routinely though so it isn't just like a city person driving a F-350 with leather seats.

That being said, I am interested in the up and coming all electric trucks.


Another point though. We don't have kids. This means our carbon footprint is far smaller than any married couple who does have kids, even if they ride a bike.

If you want to reduce CO2 levels, reducing the earths population would be a really good way.