Charged up on electric cars (Chi Trib)

[jpak]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-electric-cars-16-may16,0,7672543.story

It took about six months, but Joe Downing finally broke free from the pump.

The Sugar Grove man recently converted his 1996 Ford Escort to run on electricity, shrinking the estimated cost of his weekly commute from around $32 to about $10.

With the average price of gasoline in the Chicago area topping $4 a gallon for the first time Thursday, electric car owners who once were mere curiosities on society's fringes are now viewed with renewed interest as they zip alongside motorists suffering skyrocketing fuel prices. The average price of regular, unleaded gasoline locally hit a record $4.027 a gallon Thursday, according to the AAA.

Downing spends less than $2.50 to recharge his car at home, but now he can do it for free at a charging station recently opened in Aurora, one of a handful of such places around Chicago.

<more>

[bhikkhu]

1. That's one step, but there is another one before it makes any difference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png

That's what he's burning now instead of gas: mostly coal and nuclear. The vast majority of new power coming online is coal, and many are lobbying for a serious return to nuclear power. To switch transport to electric, we'd need a huge amount of new power generation. If it were not from fossil fuels, and clean, that would be the next step.

[tanstaafl]

2. Solar or Wind would be a good option

Saw an article on Sierra Clubs website regarding home charging with solar panels. Also, Chicago is not called the windy city just because of its politics. Lived there for a while and it is quite windy on a regular basis.

[bhikkhu]

3. Its not the large scale solution that is needed, but it could do well for individuals

If I had an electric car I'd be happy to recharge with solar or wind power...so its something that individuals can do that does have a small but real impact. The scale of the problem remains, however: the amount of fuel burned for transportation in this country can't be replaced by wind and solar.

A change in the consumption habits and lifestyles of the entire country is what would make solar and wind more valuable and complete as solutions.

[kristopher]

4. We don't need to "replace the amount of fuel burned in this country".

All we need to do is replace the amount of power that is used to propel the vehicles of this nation down the road. There is a huge difference.
Internal combustion engine: 12% efficient.
Battery electric drive: 90%+ efficient.

It matters.

We consume 40,000,000,000,000,000 (40 quadrillion) BTUs per year of refined petroleum.

Our personal transportation infrastructure is about 75% of that.

How many quads to we have to add to the grid if we shift our personal transportation to battery electric drive?

[bhikkhu]

5. fuel burned "by transportation", of course that's a given.

as it is by far the largest use of petroleum.

Ok, so using some of your numbers and some from Wikipedia: 75% of 40 quadrillion is 30 quadrillion.

According to Wikipedia "most engines retain an average efficiency of about 20%" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine ) so the effective energy use would be 6 quadrillion.

If we just assume that all of these 20% gas engines get replaced by 90% electric engines, the extra demand on the electric grids should then be about 7 quadrillion BTUs.

According to the Encyclopedia of the Earth, "In 2004, the United States generated 3,953 billion kilowatt-hours (Kwh) of electricity, including 3,794 billion Kwh from the electric power sector plus an additional 152 billion Kwh coming from combined heat and power (CHP) facilities in the commercial and industrial sectors. For the electric power sector, coal-fired plants accounted for 52 percent of generation, nuclear 21 percent, natural gas 16 percent, hydroelectricity 7 percent, oil 3 percent, geothermal and "other" 1 percent. During the first half of 2005, electric power generation was about flat year-over-year." ( http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_the_United_States )

Here I have to pause, as I don't know how to convert BTUs to Kwh, or whether they are usefully comparable. I am interested in the figures though, if you have the means?

[kristopher]

6. Do the entire thing in btus.

Check the Energy Information Agency ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/ )and look for total consumption, and by sector. We consume total about 100 quads/year, all in.

I'd do it for you but I'm on dial up and it takes too long to download the excel files.

You can also do conversions but for this, the Btus are probably best. Once you get the final amount, you might want to convert to watts in order to determine the amount installed capacity needed to meet the requirement.

BTW, I stick by the 12% number, no matter what wiki says.

[bhikkhu]

7. Thanks for the link. And some numbers....

According to the EIA figures, if we are looking at the same thing, the electric power sector produced 40 quadrillion btus for 2007. According to the same source, the transportation sector consumed 28 quadrillion btus for 2007.

I can see how a pessimist would simply say electric power generation would have to nearly double to power the transport sector, and that is possibly a source of error in what I have been reading. I'll have to go back and look things over, and it will be good to do with a better idea of primary sources...

With that said, the basis for your argument lies in the much greater efficiencies of the electric engine, arriving according to your figures at something like 4 quadrillion btus additional electrical generation capacity needed. That's only a 10% increase. And then there is the V2G potential, which seems like a great deal of trouble for a little efficiency, except that it could free up that 4 quads of power through improvements in grid utilization.

So I see what you are saying - we could go to all electric vehicles more or less for no cost.

I don't want to get too far into the problems with this without a better understanding than I have, but it should be clear that any loss of efficiencies across the 12% to 90% gap quickly turns the 4 quads to 8, or 10, or 12. I've followed this stuff for 30 years, but there is always more to learn...

[diane in sf]

8. Even burning coal and nukes, it's still less energy and carbon intensive to run

a plug-in car.

[bhikkhu]

9. Probably right.

But still, and again, a change in our lifestyle of massive consumption is needed. If electric cars and transitional technology make this more comfortable, then that is a good thing.

[kristopher]

10. I believe the lifestyle is a reflection of energy costs

The values of excess are a product of cheap, abundant energy. When our costs for energy rise, then the values behind the lifestyle will also shift, leading to satisfaction with an altered lifestyle. I view it as a sort of "sour grapes" effect, except the change in values is real and natural.

[bhikkhu]

11. Personally, I stay at home more and very much enjoy gardening

and cooking, and spending time with my kids. Driving around on a whim for various energy-intensive enjoyments no longer has much attraction...I know that things were much different when I was a kid, but they have certainly changed. But life is good and we smile and laugh still...