Living Car Free - A sober read on how we will travel

I posted this here as the topic will affect how we travel.........

This is a VERY sobering read. Many points about what is happening today
is cleared up by this opinion.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-12.htm

No offense towards the OP, but that article is complete drivel. It completely ignores the primary/economic basis for our oil use, profit. I wouldn't be surprised if doomerism regarding the peak in crude was being flamed by oil companies so there won't be as much resistence to securing foreign oil supplies to pad the profits of western oil companies using the West's military, primarily the US'. If people feel we have no alternatives, they aren't as critical of our actions regardin this product overseas.

It completely ignores the primary/economic basis for our oil use, profit. Not at all. It simply uses the euphemism, "greed".

Perhaps it goes without saying but it deserves repeating anyway: oil is the sine qua non of “industrial” civilization—the one thing without which such civilization cannot exist.
energy (and the availability of high density energy storage in the form of oil) is the one thing. doesn't matter squat where you get that energy, just that you've got it. Industrial civilization was doing a decent job with coal-fired railways 50 years before oil was ever discovered. (not that I'm saying to go back to coal for everything...that would be ludicrous)

I second the notion that the greed problem needs to be changed, and the energy problem.

Not at all. It simply uses the euphemism, "greed".
In comparing our use of oil to a monkey's greed, I suppose the point is that we won't stop using it because we're greedy, but it neglects to mention that we aren't presented with other options that are just as functional so that the minority can maximize profits. Besides, with lines like this...

Perhaps it goes without saying but it deserves repeating anyway: oil is the sine qua non of “industrial” civilization—the one thing without which such civilization cannot exist.
How can anyone take this seriously?

lyeinyoureye

what determines when an oil company will no longer pursue extracting oil from a reservoir?

the world is using 85 million bpd per day, thats 3570 million gallons, unless the alternatives can provide that kind of energy, no, modern industry such as we know cannot exist in its current scale and form, thats a no brainer

best guesses ive seen, we might if we work super hard and quit quibling over stupid things and work together as nations on the problem alternatives might cover 15-30% of the energy we use these days, I havent seen any real good guesses at how much conservation can be done to help out, and its probably the most effective way, just use less, but my feeling is there will be a sizable gap, meaning we will be using less whether we like it or not

I don't dispute the details of the article, but think its conclusions are a bit too pessimistic. Yes, running out of oil will suck; we've all read the dire predicitions. But human beings, even the current generation of Americans, tend to be pretty inventive when push comes to shove, and I'm pretty sure that most people, when forced to choose between their SUV and continued civilized existence, will reluctantly choose the latter. Whether or not we'll be able to save democracy in the process is another question, though... (Too bad we're currently cursed with such corrupt and incompetent leaders. Where's John Adams when you need him?)

What's this have to do with bikes? I dunno...

In comparing our use of oil to a monkey's greed, I suppose the point is that we won't stop using it because we're greedy, but it neglects to mention that we aren't presented with other options that are just as functional so that the minority can maximize profits. Besides, with lines like this...

Perhaps it goes without saying but it deserves repeating anyway: oil is the sine qua non of “industrial” civilization—the one thing without which such civilization cannot exist.
How can anyone take this seriously?
I take it seriously because it's self-evident. Can you seriously believe that our civilization can survive without vast amounts of energy? Or do you suffer from the delusion that there is some source for this energy other than oil? No, for clearly, we need energy to make profits, and we have no source of it other than fossil fuel.

As for the monkey--it's a form if inattention blindness, like when the cager is so busy looking for other cars that he crashes into the cyclist: "I just didn't see him until he was right in front of me and then it was too late to stop." We fail to see the real dangers facing our society because we look only at the oil-fed profits that we want so badly.

@okpik
Offhand I'd say profit is the limiting factor in terms of extraction. As for energy, you can isolate the usage of oil in order to estimate how much of whatever it'd require to replacement. The first place to look is personal transportation, and in the U.S. we use something like ~400 million gallons of gasoline a day. Assuming each gallon of gasoline contains 82kwh/gal of gasoline we would need ~33 billion kwh of energy to replace gasoline usage per day, and ~12 trillion kwh/year. This seems to be problematic because we only make ~4 trillion kwh/year... But, and it's a big but, gasoline cars are built to be inefficient.

I'm not sure if you know about Tesla's new electric roadster but if you don't, check it out. In any event, it uses a 50kwh battery pack to go ~250 miles during the EPA combined cycle. Since there are 82kwh per gallon of gas, and the roadster has a 50kwh battery pack, it uses the energy equivalent of .61 gallons of gas to go ~250 miles, so the EPA rating in miles per gallon is ~400mpg. In other words, a well built, not terribly aerodynamic electric supercar is ~16 times as efficient as the average gasoline car. Since EVs are so efficient, we're down to ~2 trillion kwh/year, about half of total production. Still a big amount. But, and here's a but that isn't quite as big, if the Tesla roadster is an electric supercar and gets 110wh/km or ~400mpg equivalent, everyday commuter cars will probably be more efficient than this.

The econoboxes will probably be something like vw's 1L concept car, and return the equivalent of something like ~1000mpg, with the average sedan getting something like 600mpg equivalent. If we all switched to econoboxes, on the surface we'd need an approximate doubling of nuclear capacity. Assuming we use the current transportation ratios of econoboxes/sedans/sports cars, maybe 1.5-2 times our current nuclear capacity would suffice. But, and I bet you're getting tired of these buts, we waste a lot of electricity during off peak generation, enough to power quite a few electric cars.

Check out the CA system status (http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html). The difference in available and used is pretty big, and illustrates how much capacity is available off peak, especially at night, when most EVs would be in the garage charging. We wouldn't need nearly as much as I just mentioned, I've seen estimates that we wouldn't need any additional generation capacity at all due to the huge difference in peak and off peak generation.

Now, something I haven't mentioned is the cost of these cars, which seems to be high. Enough batteries to take you ~250 miles will cost ~$6-15,000. We can't add $15,000 to the cost of every car. But, we know that every car doesn't go 250 miles per day, the average car goes ~30-35 miles per day, and would only need ~$700-2000 worth of batteries on average, for most use. As for extended range, the addition of a small gasoline or diesel genset allows much more range at some fixed speed with fuel consumption of ~50-120mpg depending on genset type and driving speed. All told, reverse hybrids (small gasoline engine/bigger battery pack/plug-in) would cost the owners something like a tenth of what gasoline cars cost to operate, and we'd recoupe the extra purchase cost in a few years. The electric motor would never break down, the batteries would only get cheaper/better (they last over 100k miles now) with mass production, and the genset would probably cost under a grand to replace. This car would be cheap to drive, and cheap to own. No or fewer oil changes, tune ups, or problems with the emissions system. Because they're modular they lend themselves to cheaper ungrades, instead of replacing the entire car. They are bad for oil companies, auto dealers, the auto service industry, and potentially the electricity industry because with a EV, solar panels or a wind mill start looking pretty nice...

The only crisis we have has to do with the fossil fuel industry saturating the transportation and power generation markets. They were there first and they are going to stay there for as long as possible so they can sell as much possible, to hell with the consequences. If we pay more, that's better for them, and why should they care if ~3 million people per year die from fossil fuel pollution? With the kind of cash they're making, they can live where they want.

@roody
A mole of urnanium has ~10,000 times more energy than a mole of fossil fuel. Electric vehicles are more efficient than fossil fuel vehicles. We have vast amounts of energy with or without fossil fuels. A nuclear baseload with distributed renewables can provide much more energy than we get from fossil fuels, in a much safer manner. We are not looking at oil fed profits, those who own oil are. They're not going to let it get to the point where civilization disintigrates, but they will squeeze us for as much as they can. God bless facism.

If anyone needs clarification, hit me up.

If anyone needs clarification, hit me up.

Your numbers look accurate at a glance, but I have a couple of questions about the nuclear power option (which, I agree, is preferable to making electricity with fossil fuels):

1. Would we have enough nuclear fuel on hand to produce that much extra capacity? I mean, without resorting to breeder reactors, of which we have none right now?

2. What do we do with the waste, esp. if we do, in fact, resort to breeder reactors, which are pretty darn "dirty"?

3. Who's going to pay for the extra nuclear plants? Building, maintaining and decommisioning nuclear plants is several times more expensive than other ways of boiling water.

4. Wouldn't it be saner to give up on the idea of a personal car for everyone, and settle for a more modest increase in generating capacity that relies on cheaper, cleaner energy technologies? Civilization did pretty well for millenia without cars of any kind, and I don't see why we can't imagine life without them now.

@roody
A mole of urnanium has ~10,000 times more energy than a mole of fossil fuel. Electric vehicles are more efficient than fossil fuel vehicles. We have vast amounts of energy with or without fossil fuels. A nuclear baseload with distributed renewables can provide much more energy than we get from fossil fuels, in a much safer manner. We are not looking at oil fed profits, those who own oil are. They're not going to let it get to the point where civilization disintigrates, but they will squeeze us for as much as they can. God bless facism.

If anyone needs clarification, hit me up.I would like clarification of three points, please:


1. How many nuclear plants will we need to replace fossil fuels?

2. How many years will it take to get these plants on line. Please consider the social and political opposition to nuclear power, as well as economic and technical considerations.

3. What will the climate be like by the time fossil fuel combustion is phased out in favor of nuclear power?

I would like clarification of three points, please:


1. How many nuclear plants will we need to replace fossil fuels?

2. How many years will it take to get these plants on line. Please consider the social and political opposition to nuclear power, as well as economic and technical considerations.

3. What will the climate be like by the time fossil fuel combustion is phased out in favor of nuclear power?

for number 1, assuming no use of fossil fuels for transportation AND using electric cars AND no drop in current usage of cars, about 8-900 in the US alone----this isnt going to happen

for number 2, who knows, another issue along with this is what happens when you try to do this WHILE fossil fuel supplies decline, hard to build huge capital projects when costs increase exponentially at the same time

for number 3, bad, violent, and different, deserts in places they shouldnt be, no ice where there should be, cold where it is normally temperate---and much more stormy

im all for electric transportation, but it makes much more sense to do electrified rail and rip up the existing exurbs and suburbs which are essentially worthless, not all to be certain, but lets face it, exurbs and suburbs 20-30 miles from downtown and far away from what makes a city functional is ludicrous

it isnt just oil/natural gas issues we face, but also many commonly taken for granted commodities, we are systemically screwed all the way around

We (the UK) appear to have pretty much decided to go down the nuclear route for a large percentage of our future energy needs. The one question that I have not heard an answer to is what are we going to use when the top-grade uranium is gone? From what i have read, within a couple of decades it will cost more energy in the extraction process of lower quality nuclear material than we will get back from the power stations!



...most people, when forced to choose between their SUV and continued civilized existence, will reluctantly choose the latter...
But aren't they faced with this choice now, with many still choosing the latter?

@bragi
1) We may not need any additional capacity, but assuming we do, we should have plenty of fuel from military and civilian sources. Currently the military has 174 tons of HEU that is slated for disposal. Most of it will be converted to LUE for use in reactors, so assuming we use ~150 tons of HEU for nuclear fuel, which equates to ~4,000 tons of LEU, this should be enought to power a nuclear program twice as large as the one we have right now for a couple decades, give or take. It seems we also may be reprocessing spent fuel to extract uranium for use, as opposed to the current cycle we use where we send it through a reactor once and stick it in big barrels someplace. This allows us to extend the usefulness of nuclear fuel, while reducing the volume of the waste by something like 95% and further increases fuel availability. We are having trouble with nuclear waste storage because most of our nuclear waste isn't actually waste, but it still takes up space, reprocessing helps in this respect as well.

2) Like I mentioned before, reprocessing reduces the volume of waste by leaps and bounds, the downside being we're left with small amounts of highly radioactive waste. To address this waste, some of which can be radioactive for large time intervals, seperation and transmutation is being looked into by most countries with large enough nuclear programs. This will not eliminate nuclear waste disposal, but it results in nuclear waste that can be interred underground and will only be radioactive for a few hundred years, instead of thousands.

3) Nuclear power competes economically with fossil fuels without including the external costs into the picture, once these are taken into account, the only electricity source that's cheaper than nuclear is wind power in select locations. Wind power is statistically more dangerous to human life than nuclear power, but it's also much cheaper in terms of initial capital. As for the specific cost, the AP1000 is expected to cost ~$2.2-2.7 billion per pair, with a pair generating ~2200mw. We generate ~100,000mw from nuclear power today, if we spent ~$300 billion on nuclear power instead of the Iraq war, we would have ~265000mw in new capacity, and could eliminate all coal electricity generation. Nuclear power, like electric cars, and distributed renewable power, is only expensive to the corporations operating it. It's cheap for the consumer. Unlike fossil fuels, which are going to peak in a few years, or a few decades, nuclear fuel has no foreseeable peak, which means there is nothing to drive prices up and maximize profits.

4) Ehh, that's more a matter of personal opinion than anything else. We have the resources to do what we want to do, be it localize around cities, continue to spread out, or somthing in the middle. Pick the one that suits you best.

@Roody
1) About $450 billion, give or take. The details are above in No. 3.

2) My crystal ball is a bit hazy... ;)
Social and political opposition isn't something I'd wager on considering we could vaporize ourselves in a nuclear war at any time, or we could instantaneous transform into a large telepathic human conciousness and live in a utopia forever. Who knows? In terms of construction time, "The AP1000 has a site construction schedule of 36 months from first concrete to fuel loading." Last time we were worried about PO (70s) we built quite a few reactors very quickly, then stopped once it became apparent there was still money to be made off of oil.

3) Crystal ball again. There are various estimates that take into account different levels of GHG production, but the problem with comparing climate to weather is that we don't know what exactly will happen locally. So far we've seen hotter summers and cooler winters with a relatively small increase in climate temperature, who knows what we'll see in the future. The best time to stop GHG emissions is now.

@pedex
Where are you getting the 8-900 nuclear power plant number? An electric sports car that wipes the floor with every other comparable gasoline powered sports car only uses ~110wh/mile, so assuming we travel ~2,000 billion miles per year in the US, that's only ~220 billion kwh per year, or about 6% of current generation which is ~4 trillion kwh per year, so we'd need 30-40 new reactors. Looking at it from a household POV, 110hw/mile going ~30 miles per day would only require ~3.3kwh per day, or ~100kwh per month, which seems to be about 10% of the average American's electric bill. The only way that 8-900 figure would hold true is if everyone drove electric double decker H3s always going 80mph (not literally). As for the rest, can I borrow your crystal ball, mine seems to be malfunctioning? :p

My kids are going to be growing up in a much different world than I did, that's for sure. Hopefully it won't be too severe.

Start invesing in alternative energy companies now...

from the eia website:
2002 numbers:
transportation fuel consumed=167,730 million gallons fuel=13,753,860 million kw/hrs
average vehicle mileage=17 mpg
******************
projected 2006 electric consumption=3677 billion kw/hrs from eia website
***************************
so to convert to pure electric and assuming no drops in consumption your looking at about 20k billion kw/hrs per year, no changes in efficiency assumed, more later
************************************
eia website shows 1 barrel of oil=584kw/h or about 13.9kw/h per gallon


+++++++++++++++++++++
I will be back to add to this, gotta go do more runs

Np, add more as you can. The only problem with your projection is that electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline cars. If you want to look at EVs, it's best to start with the most inefficient, and go on from there. The Tesla roadster gets ~400mpg equivalent (EPA cycle), and it's a sports car. We're talking ~400-1000mpg equivalent for a range of EVs, so assuming we all drive the equivalent of a gas guzzling Bugatti, BMW, or Chevy sports car, then these EVs roadsters are ~25 times more efficient than gasoline vehicles on a mpg basis, and will consume 25 times less energy. When looking at your ~13.7 trillion kwh/year requirement, it's valid if we assume all EVs are as efficient as the average gasoline powered car, but EVs designed as EVs are at a minimum, 25 times more efficient. So we're talking ~.5 trillion kwh/year, maybe 15% of current production, if everyone had an EV that's faster than a 2006 vette, much less assuming a similar distribution of vehicle types.

Industrial civilization was doing a decent job with coal-fired railways 50 years before oil was ever discovered.

Oil History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#History)

Actually, oil was known by the ancient greeks and employed as weapon. The Chinese were mining for it by 347. In the 8th century, the streets of Baghdad were paved with tar and Persians used oil for medicine and lighting.

lyeinyoureye has the right of it: the efficiencies of the newer electric cars are pretty mindboggling when you first look into the subject. Some of the billions the US government has poured into nanotechnology research has actually paid off, in the form of a new battery technology from MIT being licensed by A123 systems which will double capacity over existing lithium ions while eliminating dangers from charge overload, oh, and extending the service life to be comparable with lead-acid, plus it charges much faster than any existing battery. Not bad!

Of course, I'm mostly happy about this because it means a longer-range Stokemonkey. But it will also lead to all sorts of usable electric vehicles. Also, love that someone took on the nuclear option, but the truth is that the united states has loads and loads of coal, more than enough to power electric vehicles until we all roast. Time to start investing in some other generating options, sure, but I don't know about nukes, necessarily.

Here's one: how about a 500 million dollar prize to the first consortium to produce a better Tokamak reactor than has been produced so far, with a billion even to go to the first group to produce positive power outputs? The X prize worked, for an easier goal but for an order of magnitude less money.

Np, add more as you can. The only problem with your projection is that electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline cars. If you want to look at EVs, it's best to start with the most inefficient, and go on from there. The Tesla roadster gets ~400mpg equivalent (EPA cycle), and it's a sports car. We're talking ~400-1000mpg equivalent for a range of EVs, so assuming we all drive the equivalent of a gas guzzling Bugatti, BMW, or Chevy sports car, then these EVs roadsters are ~25 times more efficient than gasoline vehicles on a mpg basis, and will consume 25 times less energy. When looking at your ~13.7 trillion kwh/year requirement, it's valid if we assume all EVs are as efficient as the average gasoline powered car, but EVs designed as EVs are at a minimum, 25 times more efficient. So we're talking ~.5 trillion kwh/year, maybe 15% of current production, if everyone had an EV that's faster than a 2006 vette, much less assuming a similar distribution of vehicle types.

Tesla roadster hasnt been mass produced and likely wont be, and on top of that gasoline to electric conversion numbers are very very optimistic and also DO NOT include what happens with temperature nor do your claimed efficiency gains deal with the upstream energy supply and infrastructure needed to deal with the increased load needed. Also, your also neglecting the issue of what happens when you have to start dealing with the absolutely massive amount of batteries involved here. There are logistical constraints and matters of practicality.

Now, I will be back here in awhile and we can take a better look at this with some real numbers based on the energy needed to move the vehicle independent of BS and made up numbers and get a better look at what we can expect. It isnt too hard to determine how much power it takes to move a vehicle based on its mass and average numbers that gas vehicles use now, it will give a better gasoline to electric conversion factor.........for exampe you claimed 82, while the eia is saying 33.x, thats more than a twofold difference !! I used the 82 number in the fuel used to electricity needed calculation, and its way way wrong.

lyeinyoureye has the right of it: the efficiencies of the newer electric cars are pretty mindboggling when you first look into the subject. Some of the billions the US government has poured into nanotechnology research has actually paid off, in the form of a new battery technology from MIT being licensed by A123 systems which will double capacity over existing lithium ions while eliminating dangers from charge overload, oh, and extending the service life to be comparable with lead-acid, plus it charges much faster than any existing battery. Not bad!



Until you take a hard look at the system as a whole yes. Much of the inefficiency of electric cars is hidden by the sins hidng behind the upstream energy supply which these electric cars rely on. As far as coal goes, bzzzzzzzzzzt, not likely, not if we intend to replace IC engines with electric.

1) The roadster uses a sealed, regulated, battery "box", as would any large manufacturer.


Even the battery box is self-regulating and protecting. It's programmed to prevent overcharging, and will shut itself down should it ever become immersed in water, detect smoke, or if it detects that the car's airbags have deployed.

2) We're talking about supply and capacity, not upstream efficiency or infrastructure. If you'd like to talk about those things, bring some numbers.

3) Have you read my previous posts? We don't need 50kwh of batteries per car, we only need a small fraction of that for everyday use, with small gasoline or diesel gensets in the back for longer trips. This reduces gasoline demand immensely, with little strain on the grid. Take a look at this graph showing the disparity between electricity used, and electricity available, especially during the wee hours of the morning.

http://www.caiso.com/outlook/ems_large.gif

Assuming we use the EPA's 82kwh/gallon number, we'll need ~15% of that total capacity, which will be used during off peak hours. If we use the ~33kwh/gallon number, we'll use ~37% of that capacity. If you notice the disparity between electricity available, and electricity used, you'll probably notice it's around 50%, meaning a 15% or 37% increase in consumption during off peak generation can be picked up easily.

Assuming we use 33kwh/gallon instead of 82kwh/gallon, ~15% versus ~37% can still be accounted for easily with off peak generation, or additional baseload generation if you'd like.

The EPA mentions both here (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2000/June/Day-12/i14446.htm).


PEF = 82,049 Wh/gal (if no petroleum-powered accessories are installed)
PEF = 73,844 Wh/gal (if any petroleum-powered accessories are
installed)

Dividing the PEF by the combined (city and highway) energy
consumption of an electric vehicle yields the petroleum-equivalent fuel
economy of that electric vehicle in miles per gallon:

mpg = PEF (Wh/gal) combined [electrical] energy consumption
(Wh/mile)

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and drop some figures on us? I bet you'll find that efficient electric vehicles with small IC engines for long range travel are way ahead of straight IC vehicles in terms of efficiency and emissions controls. Gasoline vehicles are deliberately inefficient to encourage consumption because once we split the atom, they went the way of the dinosaurs that power them. The only reason we still use them is the groups that sell fossil fuels weild enough influence to insure we continue to use their product, so all those "profits" they own in the ground don't get left there... and end up worthless to them.

er, I dunno pedex. There's really rather a lot of it, coal that is. As for the 'sins' of the electrical grid, nice thing about a battery powered anything is that it doesn't care where the juice comes from.

But, I'm sure you're right about everything you turn your steely gaze on, pedex. You have that insistent quality about you, which I associate with the consistently correct.

Same goes for usable nuclear fuel, but someone that insistent must be correct. Physics be damned. ;)

I read lye's EPA link. We can get to the bottom of this. PEF is the petroleum-equivalent fuel factor.


...The calculation procedure [for PEF] converts the measured electrical energy consumption of an electric vehicle into a raw gasoline-equivalent fuel economy value, and then divides this value by 0.15 to arrive at a final petroleum-equivalent fuel economy value which may then be included in the calculation of the manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy. Two additional factors are present in the equation, but these will usually have a value of unity and thus will not influence the value of the PEF...

Am I interpreting the EPA link correctly by saying 82,049 watt-hours of electricity into the battery of an electric car gives you the same number of miles out as one gallon of petroleum based fuel into the tank of an internal combustion car of the same weight?

I read lye's EPA link. We can get to the bottom of this. PEF is the petroleum-equivalent fuel factor.



Am I interpreting the EPA link correctly by saying 82,049 watt-hours of electricity into the battery of an electric car gives you the same number of miles out as one gallon of petroleum based fuel into the tank of an internal combustion car of the same weight?

Its more a fudge factor educated guess really, too many variables involved to be more specific with something like this, which is why at the moment I am looking at figuring out what the average baseline energy usage is to move an average vehicle for one year doing an average amount of driving. Once you have that number you can figure out how much gas that would take or how much electric energy it would take, the gasoline number would easily be checked, those kind of numbers are well known.

Another issue in this whole deal with trying to compare electric to gasoline is temperature, IC engines can handle a wide variety of temps, batteries dont, even lithium-ion batts lose like 75% of their energy in even moderately cold temps. You do this at freezing and you get way different results.

An electric motor these days can easily hit 92% efficiency, thats quite common. A gasoline engine these days hovers around 20% IIRC. This is nothing more than the measurement of energy in divided by energy out. Batteries arent 100% percent efficient so you lose a bit more there too. You also lose some in the charge controller and electronic speed control for the motor. Also lose a bit in the dc/ac conversion if its used, and a/c seems to be the norm from what ive seen.The electric generation at the other end also incurs similar losses. Seems to me after its all and said and done, electric might hit 60-70% overall efficiency ballpark guestimate, 3 times IC engines. So its not quite as simple as just looking at the electric car and the juice you put in it. Nor is it as simple as just counting the gallons of fuel either. For arguments sake you kinda have to go there anyway, at least to see what we can expect methinks. Ive seen all sorts of claims, but the EV-1 by GM despite its shortcomings was also a pretty good indication for what we can expect I think. Not like electric cars are new or anything, they have been around for awhile. Cold is still a problem. Logistics of dealing with 200 million cars with battery power is an issue. I dont see this as just a quick turnkey fleet change. I dont think the 20 million bpd of oil is easy to replace either, thats an enormous amount of energy we guzzle.

Whats an average car weigh these days? 3400lbs or so?
Average yearly mileage is like 15k/yr or so?
Average speed of this car is what?
CoD wont matter that much, nor rolling friction, the numbers can be checked against real world mileage numbers

need these numbers, some numbers for actual electrical losses/heat for the electric car would help too

Energy to energy, there are ~33kwh/gallon of gasoline, so in an energy to energy comparison, the Tesla roadster gets ~160mpg combined, compared to a gasoline car. The EPA goes through and includes average electricity efficiency, average transmission efficiency, and average gasoline refinery efficiency? Along with that crazy 1/.15 fuel content factor? It's just weird.

In any event, 37% seems reasonable for a nation driving around high end electric sports cars. When comparing this to efficient two passenger commuters, built along VW 1L prototype lines, we can look at the CdA alone since that's responsible for the large majority of energy require to move a vehicle during the EPA combined cycle. Working backwards from the 110wh/mile figure (very close to the supposed ~125wh/mile seen in some homebrew electric sportscar builds) we can see that the roaster has a CdA of ~.5, compared to a CdA of ~.2 for the 1L protoype. If 90% of EVs were on the efficienct side, with 10% being the inefficient version, the weighted CdA would be .9(.2)+.1(.5)=.23. So we'd need ~.23/.5=.46 of the energy mentioned above, or ~17% of current production, assuming we use what appears to be the straight up energy content of a gallon of gasoline burned in an hour.

And yes pedex, you're absolutely right. A manufacturer would never place their battery pack inside of an insulated, climate controlled, battery "box". They're going to stick them on the body of the car and call them "speed batteries", makes the car go faster, and insures they only have 25% of available energy when it's cold, maybe even less if someone steals a few "speed batteries"?

Gasoline engine efficiency fluctuates depending on load. The transmission efficiency between the two is different. Bearings are bearings, tires are tires. An EV doesn't suffer from reduced efficiency with reduced load aka speed, the tesla roadster for example probably gets ~210mpg city, ~110mpg highway, ~160mpg combined energy to energy, EPA cycle/s. Weight plays a very small roll in efficiency, yearly mileage was ~10k per car, a decade ago, average speed depends on EPA highway or city cycle, it's on the net, CoD matters a whole lot. If it didn't a 80,000lb semi wouldn't get 4-8mpg while a 8,000lb Hummer got 10mpg, CdA, the product of reference area and drag coefficient is responsible for the majority of energy requirements when driving.

If you want actual numbers for the electric Roadster, take the 110wh/mile figure and go find the graphs of EPA city and highway. You can use the average speed to determine the energy needed to overcome the sum of rolling friction and fluid friction, and average the kinetic energy required to accelerate the car to the various peak speeds over the two different courses (city and hwy) for the average energy required to accelerate the car in watts. Don't foret regen braking, although it doesn't matter much, even for city, the largest energy requirement stems from fluid drag. W=~1225kg, Crr=.015, the EPA charts are out there, work backards to find CdA. The EPA figures are off for all vehicles, some people get better, some get worse. Happy birthday.

I guess I don't understand that EPA link then. It looks like some very intelligent people tried to compare electric and internal combustion cars and the answer they got was 82,049 watt-hours per gallon. But if that's the answer I don't understand it.

I guess I don't understand that EPA link then. It looks like some very intelligent people tried to compare electric and internal combustion cars and the answer they got was 82,049 watt-hours per gallon. But if that's the answer I don't understand it.
Gasoline contains roughly 36,600 watt hours per gallon. Online Conversion (http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm) even has it listed. Considering a gasoline engine's efficiency, in comparison to an electrical drivetrain's efficiency, it looks a lot like the decimal point was misplaced. I guess the EPA needs an editor!

Pedex- The OEVA (http://www.oeva.org/) (Oregon Electric Vehicle Association) meets once a month in Portland. Although, I'd suggest treading lightly with energy production emissions, those guys live for questions like that. Some can get Very Educational. Otherwise, it's an interesting way to meet the friendly people and their EV's.
NEDRA Nationals are next week at PIR!!! That's a good chance to see what the hot rodders of tomorrow (and a few of today's) will be terrorizing the streets with!

Okay, that EPA link lye cited has a lot of industry comment. Some of the comments indicate that the 1/0.15 alternative fuel efficiency factor is not based on physical reality. It is also applieed to non-electric alternative fuels. It is crafted specifically as a legal incentive for the purpose of making any alternative fuel look better than gasoline or diesel. So the EPA link has no bearing at all on arguments from physics.

I'm trying to follow all the scientific discussions here. It would be nice if everyone explicitly states their assumptions about vehicle weight.

'oil is the sine qua non', i like this but look at this issue on the micro level...take your neighborhood or town...what like 90% or more of the inhabitants never ride a bike anywhere much less ever walk anywhere..shoot, people out here in calif walk thier dog or go get the mail driving thier car...every single errand uses an automobile

great article thanks

Well my general premise was looking at this from the perspective of using existing car standards and working from there assuming no sacrfices in lifestyle or consumption. Granted, we are gonna have to use smaller more efficient cars regardless. Less weight means better mileage no matter whats moving the vehicle down the road.

Now, from ive been able to gather thru google thus far an average US car these days is about 3400lbs, thats a bit high, econo boxes will bring that down about 5-700lbs. The same 3400lb car takes about 25hp to move down the road at 55mph, thats roughly 2.5 gals/hr of gas. The tesla roadster based on the little info on their site best I can figure uses about 17hp. But the speed is an unknown, it isnt listed to come up with their 110w/km/hr number, it may be in the EPA standards, dont know. But based on its 2500lb weight and what other electric cars do at 55mph the 17hp probably isnt far off. That puts it at 13310watt-hrs for 55 miles in an hour, or about 0.4 gals of gas---little under 3 times better than gas car of same size. Now, thats also at summer temps and no heat or a/c on in the car. Lithium ion batteries lose about 75% below 10C, thats a serious hit. So you insulate and heat the battery box, another hit. You turn on the inefficient electric heat when your driving too, another big hit. This is what the EV-1 ran into as well. It did fine in warm temps, but real bad in cold. As far as straight mileage comparison goes under optimal temps for the tesla vs something in its class gas wise, it does about 3 times better measuring just the energy input at the vehicle(s), and it should, electric is about 3 times more efficient. Still doesnt deal with the cold weather issue really. Can it be done, sure, the trade off is lots of range. The other issue is charging. Something like the tesla for its quick charge in a few hrs requires 240V/200 amp service, or with a 110 outlet your looking at like 36hrs to charge it up. Thats not a certain number either, the battery pack specs for the tesla arent exactly written in stone anywhere other than it uses laptop Li-ion batts and how many of them that ive been able to dig up,the pack is 1000lbs though(wow). Best guess, 36hrs probably isnt too far off methinks, saw that on a blog about the car. Which brings up the electric grid issue, imagine the existing carfleet of america plugging in each night sucking up 200amp service, ouch, off peak or not, its alot of juice.

Now, after looking at a whole bunch of electric car sites it seems to me, keep the horsepower under 10hp(dont let 10hp fool you, electric makes lots of torque), have at least 80miles of range at 55mph with the heat on plus about 20 in reserve and electric is doable for small passenger cars. But its been that way all along, just like 50-60mpg with gas cars has been available for decades.That gives you small 2 seater that weighs about 2000lbs, using technology from 30 years ago. 80 miles a day covers most people's driving habits. You would have to plug it in wherever you stop when its cold though if your gonna be there awhile. Its a tradeoff no matter which way you go. Doesnt make the fossil fuel issue go away either. Conservation will help more than anything but sooner or later using less and using something else is gonna have to happen.

Your estimates are off, by a significant amount. 25hp is more than what a full sized truck uses at 55mph, not a compact car. Take a full sized dodge ram 2500 for example, the approximate figures are Cd=.44, A=3.25m^2~35ft^2, W=2500kg~5500lbs, V=24.5m/s~55mph, Crr=.015, and Ro=1.2kg/m^3. We have two components needed to find out the approximate force required to move a car at some speed on flat ground with no wind (steady state, for comparison), rolling friction and fluiding friction.

Rolling friction is the product of the weight and frictional coefficient (Crr), while fluid friction is the product of air pressure (assuming sea level), velocity squared, drag coefficient, and area, divided by two.
(2500kgm/s^2).015+((1.2kg/m^3)(24.5m/s)^2(.44)(3.25m^2))/2=37.5N+515N=552.5N. To get the power consumption in watts we multiply by the speed, 552.5N(24.5m/s)=13536w~13.54kw~18.16hp.

So, a ~5000lb truck doesn't even need 25hp@55mph in steady state conditions, it only needs ~18hp! Which makes your comparison a bit... inaccurate, pedex. If you use the numbers for the Tesla Roadster, you'll find that it requires something like 6.4hp to cruise at 55mph (the 110wh/mile is the average during the EPA combined cycle). Something else to consider, the manufacturer insulates the box so they don't have to heat it very much. If it was not insulated, then the current draw from heating would be significant, but you can't have both. In the case of the roadster it's insulated! And of course, we're going to completely discharge our batteries everyday, and require a whole 36 hours of charging on a 110V outlet. Or... Wait a second, we'll use the average of ~30, no, lets say 35 miles per day, and only need ~4 hours of charging per day, during off peak generation.

Do you have any other straw men you'd like to throw out pedex?

Okay, the discussion is exactly at the point where I thought it would wind up. Can you adjust the analysis to assume let's say a 2000 pound car (including fuel and passengers). Also can you decide for purposes of comparison whether the analysis car is to be all electric or hybrid. The reason is that if it's not a hybrid the all-electric car will be range limited, therefore it will be mainly a city car, therefore the analysis has to be for stop & go driving and not steady state highway cruising.

Acceleration and deceleration are very small compared to fluid friction even at city speeds. Here's the EPA city cycle.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/city_histogram.gif
For a 2000lb vehicle, lets say ~2500lbs~1130kg with lots of people, it's mass is 1130N/9.8m/s=~115kg. From a stop to each maximum speed we can find out the change in kinetic energy. We have 23 accelerations to ~different speeds, which according to section, in m/s are [15,25,17,14,17,12],[12,12,11,13,15,13,13,13,11,10,13,10],[14,25,17,14,17]. The sum of the change in kinetic energy between a stop and these speeds is ~296522J, when considering regen braking (30% energy regained) it is ~207565J. The energy expended per second is 207565J/1874s=111W~.15hp over the entire time interval.
Now comparing this to the energy expended moving the vehicle at the average speed of 21mph~9.4m/s, assuming an efficient profile/CdA (Honda Insight/VW 3l Lupo/Tesla Roadster'ish),
(2500kgm/s^2).015+((1.2kg/m^3)(9.4m/s)^2(.5m^2))/2=37.5N+26.5N=64N, or 601W at 9.4m/s.

Even in city driving, with twenty something stops and starts, the energy required to move the vehicle over the time interval is much more than the energy needed to accelerate the vehicle however many times over the same time interval. Now, the problem with gasoline engines is they exhibit maximum efficiency (~30%) at a significant portion of maximum load, so to maximize gasoline efficiency, the engine must be kept small, and power takes a hit. A corvette has a CdA of ~.6m^2, very close to the insight's ~.5m^2, but it gets ~1/3rd of the mileage because pumping losses for a naturally aspirated ~400hp engine are much larger than those a ~60hp naturally aspirated engine has to deal with. Gasoline engines are so inefficient due to pumping losses that they use the same amount of fuel at idle as they do cruising at ~35,45, or 55mph depending on engine and vehicle type. This is why hybrids increase city mpg so much, they take out the most inefficient engine operation. A small efficient car with a battery pack big enough to go ~30-35 miles, and a gasoline engine large enough to allow cruising at 55, 65, or 75mph on the freeway would allow the consumer to take advantage of the efficiency of *EVs, while having a small gasoline engine that'll always run at maximal efficiency for highway trips, since the energy density of batteries is their weak point. The cost would only be a few grand over current prices, so with mass production, they'd probably be cheaper to buy, as well as cheaper to operate and maintain.

*The cost of gasoline and electricity per kwh is about the same, thanks to the recent increases, but EVs are ~3-4 times more efficient, so a vehicle like this would cut the average cost for the average commute by that factor, or much more at low speeds, while ~doubling highway mpg during long trips.

So the specific analysis case you are talking about is something like a 2000 pound subcompact plug in hybrid passenger car, is that right?

That is, not an SUV or light truck?

Not quite. The analysis is for what's commonly called a *glider. It does not involve drive train efficiency, just the energy needed to move a vehicle with certain physical dimensions during certain conditions. This example was a small, efficient, ~2500lb glider. If you have the same, or very similar vehicles, there is no difference in energy required to complete the EPA combined cycle, but there may be a huge difference in energy used due to drive train efficiency.

For example, the Honda Insight and Tesla Roadster are very similar gliders, but, due to drive train efficiency, the Honda Insight only gets 60/66mpg, while, according to the approximate difference in energy required by the two cycles for the glider (one watt city, per two watts highway to cover the same distance), the Tesla Roadster probably gets ~270/135mpg. The huge difference in city mpg between the two is due to the large drop in gasoline engine efficiency with reduced load. Otoh, as the energy required increases with speed, the gasoline engine efficiency increases, while the electric car shows the full brunt of the energy increase because motor efficiency doesn't really change with load. Ideally, if the roadster were to cruise at ~20mph, it might have an ideal range of ~500 miles (AC/heating/whatever else would cut into this) because it does not exhibit decreased efficiency with decreased load. The downside is that at 50mph, range is only ~200 miles, and at 75mph, it's much less, probably a bit over 100 miles.

Now a pickup truck, or SUV glider requires proportionally more energy due to the increase in weight, and increase in CdA, which can be due to the increase in reference area (A), aka frontal area, or increase in drag coefficient (Cd). A 5000lb pickup/SUV with a CdA of ~1m^2 would probably require about twice as much energy during the city cycle (~1.4kw instead of .7kw).

*This can be used to approximate energy for most vehicles on asphalt... bikes, bents, velomobiles, cars, trucks, motorcycles, Semis, etc... Each one has different quirks that have to do with Cd or Crr depending on what the drag compared to the weight is, but they can usually be modelled pretty accurately.

What about trucks and other freight carriers? What about energy required for manufacturing processes--currently supplied largely by fossil fuels? I don't see any analysis of this, but my time is limited so maybe i missed something.

What about trucks and other freight carriers? What about energy required for manufacturing processes--currently supplied largely by fossil fuels? I don't see any analysis of this, but my time is limited so maybe i missed something.

Roody, It's true that vehicles of all types consume oil however the TOTAL CONSUMPTION
of oil is a "sphere of uses" that is multi dimensional in nature being all around us. In fact
that sphere is so large that few can even begin to see it or understand it.

This huge "sphere of uses" is the reason oil will be almost impossible to replace one for one.
The reason that most people simply can't grasp the magnatude of the issue of oil. So ready
or not here is comes.................

@Roody
Iirc trucking requires ~10% of transportation consumption, and ~4% of total consumption. I'm not sure about manufacturing, but I may be able to dig that up. Considering that we use ~9.13 million barrels of gasoline per day, and ~19.6 million barrels of oil per day, removing, or seriously diminishing automotive use should remove ~35-40% of current oil consumption. Not the whole sphere, but a really big chunk. Other uses can be dealt with similarly, like heating oil wrt insulation, or green plastics... etc. Here's (http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html) a nice picture. Now I'm not sure how much we can adjust the relative percentage of each refined product, but I do know we can adjust them. A chemist would be nice right now! :D

Many good point and many bad points of the article. The Writer is confusing too many areas of supply demand and american policy. If you try to summarize all these areas you will fail. Mostly the greed for oil is correct. The terrorsist as trying to explain their behavior is totally false and should be seperated out completly along with the Pat act. Too many topics and lots of assuptions.