Energy requirements of FF versus EVs

Our transport is heavily oil-based. What are the alternatives?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

vtsnowedin
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Little John wrote:So, if a completely replaced ICE fleet of EVs is only going to raise electricity consumption levels by 10%, then this must mean that the existing ICE fleet is only using a similarly very small fraction of hydrocarbon fuel...right? In which case, why go to all of the infrastructural upheaval of changing the fleet when there are obviously many more more larger, low hanging fruit in the economy to grab hold of?
The number is only 10% because the baseline of current electric production and consumption is so high. And of course some of that electricity production is already renewable production.
Currently the UK consumes some 36 million tonnes of petroleum a year powering ICE cars and trucks.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... tables-env
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8771
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote:
Little John wrote:There is a lot of vague, "green" bullshit floating around and that's for sure.
Indeed - the key point to remember though is that EV don't actually use much electricity. Running half the cars in the UK would require approximately 10% more electricity than we currently generate, not as much extra as we were generating a decade ago.

First step to sensible analysis needs to be ball park understand of the magnitudes involve. Most people have a poor understanding of ball park magnitudes, not just regarding EVs and the energy system, but in many walks of life. Rosling's Factfullness being an recent example of this.
So, if a completely replaced ICE fleet of EVs is only going to raise electricity consumption levels by 10%, then this must mean that the existing ICE fleet is only using a similarly very small fraction of hydrocarbon fuel...right? In which case, why go to all of the infrastructural upheaval of changing the fleet when there are obviously many more more larger, low hanging fruit in the economy to grab hold of?
The 10% figure refers to half the car/taxi miles. No one is seriously suggesting penetration rates approaching 100%, or electrifying a significant amount of trucks and vans any time soon. The point is that the grid isn't an impediment to the projected take up of EVs this decade.
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

clv101 wrote:
Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote: Indeed - the key point to remember though is that EV don't actually use much electricity. Running half the cars in the UK would require approximately 10% more electricity than we currently generate, not as much extra as we were generating a decade ago.

First step to sensible analysis needs to be ball park understand of the magnitudes involve. Most people have a poor understanding of ball park magnitudes, not just regarding EVs and the energy system, but in many walks of life. Rosling's Factfullness being an recent example of this.
So, if a completely replaced ICE fleet of EVs is only going to raise electricity consumption levels by 10%, then this must mean that the existing ICE fleet is only using a similarly very small fraction of hydrocarbon fuel...right? In which case, why go to all of the infrastructural upheaval of changing the fleet when there are obviously many more more larger, low hanging fruit in the economy to grab hold of?
The 10% figure refers to half the car/taxi miles. No one is seriously suggesting penetration rates approaching 100%, or electrifying a significant amount of trucks and vans any time soon. The point is that the grid isn't an impediment to the projected take up of EVs this decade.
So, of it is not even the whole fleet and the proportion of total electrical consumption is so small, in turn meaning the total amount of hydrocarbon consumption that is replaced will be equally small, again I ask, why go to all of the infrastructural hassle of changing a portion of the fleet? Nobody has answered this question yet. Why not?
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

LJ"
in turn meaning the total amount of hydrocarbon consumption that is replaced will be equally small,
You again miss the point or the math.
That 36 million tonnes of oil powering the ICE transport sector translates to 109 million tonnes of CO2 out of the UK total of 375Mtonnes/ year. The power generating sector has already made major reductions in total CO2 emission while the auto sector has not. So no cutting that 109 down to 55 will not be small and is about the only place you can cut without destroying the economy.
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

vtsnowedin wrote:LJ"
in turn meaning the total amount of hydrocarbon consumption that is replaced will be equally small,
You again miss the point or the math.
That 36 million tonnes of oil powering the ICE transport sector translates to 109 million tonnes of CO2 out of the UK total of 375Mtonnes/ year. The power generating sector has already made major reductions in total CO2 emission while the auto sector has not. So no cutting that 109 down to 55 will not be small and is about the only place you can cut without destroying the economy.
I understand the mathematics quite well thank. What I do not have in my possession, since no-one who is making the claims that an equivalent EV fleet will be massively more carbon efficient, has yet presented the actual numbers involved. So, let's have a direct comparison then.

That is to say, the total carbon emissions from the existing ICE fleet versus the total carbon emissions of an equivalent EV fleet. You should be able to produce this numerical comparison since it is you (and other's) who are making the claim...right?
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

While the carbon footprint of producing an EV auto chassis will be different then that of a similarly sized ICE car I can't say if it is more or less. All that copper wire in the motors vs. the cast iron of the ICE engine blocks. At any rate that carbon foot print of both of them is a small fraction compared to the lifetime fuel consumption of the ICE vehicle.
If you want facts and figures the internet is at your fingertips.
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

vtsnowedin wrote:While the carbon footprint of producing an EV auto chassis will be different then that of a similarly sized ICE car I can't say if it is more or less. All that copper wire in the motors vs. the cast iron of the ICE engine blocks. At any rate that carbon foot print of both of them is a small fraction compared to the lifetime fuel consumption of the ICE vehicle.
If you want facts and figures the internet is at your fingertips.
I'm not the one making the claims. What I see, here, is an implied assumption that EV's are defacto, more carbon efficient or, for that matter, more energy efficient irrespective, than ICE vehicles. In order for that assumption to be anything other than nonsense, the following needs to be quantifiably known:

The total energy/carbon consumption, from cradle to grave, of the two alternative vehicles including;

EROEI of the feed stock fuel energy source at extraction, plus losses incurred in energy conversions, where they occur, plus all energy losses via transportation/distribution from the initial energy source to the respective vehicle, plus the energy consumed in manufacture, maintenance and eventual disposal of respective vehicles.

As I said, in the absence of at least a ball park set of figures on the above, any assumptions either way are nonsense.
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 5805
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

I have calculated that my eV, using average UK electricity production, emits one quarter of the CO2 mile for mile of my small efficient diesel car in real world driving. Just for good measure I invested in wind farm shares to the value of the price of my car, and I calculate my share of the windfarm generates 7 times the total electricity I use.

There needs to be relatively little additional generating infrastructure to power 50% of the UK car fleet as EVs. Charging infrastructure needs some investment, especially in crowded cities remote rural areas. EV batteries do have higher CO2 production costs, but that figure is falling as technology improves rapidly, per KWh.

It might be argued that investing in refitting insulation in our housing stock would be a better return on investment, but that has been as politically popular and successful as cold porridge, whereas Tesla has made EVs sexy, and that makes them very easy to sell to the market. Far more CO2 will be saved from EVs than from house insulation in the next decade for that reason alone.

This has all been discussed at length on the transport thread. There are many links to total energy studies there. The more recent ones are unanimous in giving EVs a much lower CO2 lifetime cost. Even in coal heavy counties.
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Post by adam2 »

Yes, and in addition the carbon intensity of UK grid electricity will continue to decline as more renewable generating capacity is installed.

EV charging should also increase the percentage of renewable generating capacity that can accepted by the grid.
Wind and solar are both intermittent. EV chargers can be designed to pause charging for say an hour at times of scarcity.
Postponing a few hundred megawatts of demand is as useful as adding a few hundred megawatts of storage, and much cheaper.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

PS_RalphW wrote:I have calculated that my eV, using average UK electricity production, emits one quarter of the CO2 mile for mile of my small efficient diesel car in real world driving. Just for good measure I invested in wind farm shares to the value of the price of my car, and I calculate my share of the windfarm generates 7 times the total electricity I use.

There needs to be relatively little additional generating infrastructure to power 50% of the UK car fleet as EVs. Charging infrastructure needs some investment, especially in crowded cities remote rural areas. EV batteries do have higher CO2 production costs, but that figure is falling as technology improves rapidly, per KWh.

It might be argued that investing in refitting insulation in our housing stock would be a better return on investment, but that has been as politically popular and successful as cold porridge, whereas Tesla has made EVs sexy, and that makes them very easy to sell to the market. Far more CO2 will be saved from EVs than from house insulation in the next decade for that reason alone.

This has all been discussed at length on the transport thread. There are many links to total energy studies there. The more recent ones are unanimous in giving EVs a much lower CO2 lifetime cost. Even in coal heavy counties.
I am quite aware that these issue have been discussed on the transport thread and I am as equally aware that the answers to my questions have been as equally non-forthcoming here as there.

I am also aware that electric motors are more energy efficient at point of use than internal combustion engines. But, as I have already outlined in my questions, that is only a part of the total picture. A part, I quite understand, owners and promoters of EVs wish to focus singularly on for a variety of reasons.
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

adam2 wrote:Yes, and in addition the carbon intensity of UK grid electricity will continue to decline as more renewable generating capacity is installed.

EV charging should also increase the percentage of renewable generating capacity that can accepted by the grid.
Wind and solar are both intermittent. EV chargers can be designed to pause charging for say an hour at times of scarcity.
Postponing a few hundred megawatts of demand is as useful as adding a few hundred megawatts of storage, and much cheaper.
How much capacity, in terms of renweables, does it take to entirely replace the carbon input into the national electric grid? Take any form of renewable you want for the comparison. Or, use a combination. So, for example, how much acerage of wind turbines or solar panels? Do you know?
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Post by adam2 »

The UK grid could accept a lot more renewable input than is used at present.
A doubling of both wind and PV capacity would greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production.

To completely eliminate fossil fuel input into the grid would be a vast challenge, and probably not achievable under present circumstances.

Grid scale battery storage would help, but is hugely expensive.
More interconnectors would help in order that we may import Norwegian hydro power in calm weather, and export UK wind power when available, thereby conserving water behind Norwegian dams for later use.

Biomass may have a part to play for peak demands.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Little John wrote:I am quite aware that these issue have been discussed on the transport thread and I am as equally aware that the answers to my questions have been as equally non-forthcoming here as there.
Apparently you are unable(or perhaps too lazy) to come up with your own figures to challenge the EV proponents. If you disagree with the premise bring forth your own numbers. We are not your minions to do the research for you.
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

vtsnowedin wrote:
Little John wrote:I am quite aware that these issue have been discussed on the transport thread and I am as equally aware that the answers to my questions have been as equally non-forthcoming here as there.
Apparently you are unable(or perhaps too lazy) to come up with your own figures to challenge the EV proponents. If you disagree with the premise bring forth your own numbers. We are not your minions to do the research for you.
You are bullshitting now. I don't have to come up with anything because I have not been given anything to refute. I am not the one making the claims. I am asking you to provide evidence for your claims. And what I am getting in return is a lot of hand waving.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Little John wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
Little John wrote:I am quite aware that these issue have been discussed on the transport thread and I am as equally aware that the answers to my questions have been as equally non-forthcoming here as there.
Apparently you are unable(or perhaps too lazy) to come up with your own figures to challenge the EV proponents. If you disagree with the premise bring forth your own numbers. We are not your minions to do the research for you.
You are bullshitting now. I don't have to come up with anything because I have not been given anything to refute. I am not the one making the claims. I am asking you to provide evidence for your claims. And what I am getting in return is a lot of hand waving.
Ok go away and let other more reasonable people discuss the issue.
Locked