Who’s going to Tesla after their current TDI?

[nwdiver]

The power plants themselves are not significantly more efficient then cars are.

They actually are. Numerous studies have been done showing that even if the energy source is coal EVs are still better overall. Also keep in mind that it's not diesel that comes out of the ground. It's oil. ~20% of the energy in that oil is lost refining it into diesel while coal is coal and natural gas is natural gas.

 

[turbobrick240]

For cities where vehicle emissions are a problem electric vehicles certainly address that problem. For everyone else current tech is MAYBE marginally better than an ice before taking into account the mining and geopolitical issues associated with (current) battery tech. Obviously, all energy sources have their own geopolitical issues as can easily be seen in Eastern Europe.

Future battery tech and renewable energy will hopefully change the equation.

You think the geopolitics of Li ion battery supply is sketchy? Have you seen the news lately? Europe is so hooked on Russian oil and gas that they are supplying Putin's regime with billions of dollars every week, so that he can pay his army to murder Ukranian civilians. Our addiction to fossil fuel energy sources has become a cancer on human civilization.

 

[Nerdkiller]

Who’s going to Tesla after their current TDI?

Not me! I just took a chance going from coal-fired steam to Diesel. Not ready to jump again.

That was hilarious!

 

[Nerdkiller]

They actually are. Numerous studies have been done showing that even if the energy source if coal EVs are still better overall. Also keep in mind that it's not diesel that comes out of the ground. It's oil. ~20% of the energy in that oil is lost refining it into diesel while coal is coal and natural gas is natural gas.

In addition to what you are saying, An engineer figured out the fuel efficiency of a Tesla model 3 in equivalent gasoline and it is getting 116 mpg if it was running off gasoline.

EV’s are vastly more fuel efficient.
Let’s all throw out the buzz words!

EV’s are electric go carts. This is not new technology people. This is all just an evolution of technology. Remember we ALL used to ride horses.
People get needlessly excited about old technology that has been repackaged.

 

[wxman]

According to the GREET model, the well-to-tank (mine-to-plug) efficiency of a coal-fired EGU is 32.1%, while the efficiency of petroleum-based diesel fuel (ULSD) is 83.6%.

 

[nwdiver]

According to the GREET model, the well-to-tank (mine-to-plug) efficiency of a coal-fired EGU is 32.1%, while the efficiency of petroleum-based diesel fuel (ULSD) is 83.6%.

Per unit energy. An EV will travel ~3x further per unit energy. So if you start with 100kWh of coal and 100kWh of oil an EV would get 32.1kWh good for >96 miles while diesel would get you 83.6kWh (~2 gallons) good for <90 miles.

And that's assuming 100% coal power. Which pretty much doesn't exist anywhere anymore.

 

[turbobrick240]

Right, coal supplies less than 20% of US electricity use today. Renewables supply over 20% and are increasing rapidly, as they are now the cheapest way to add capacity. The economics alone are pushing us toward a cleaner, safer EV future.

 

[wxman]

I don't disagree, just making the point that coal EGUs are not very efficient.

It also depends on the EV range, which effects battery size. In the coal EGU example, a 300 mile-range EV would consume ~4500 BTU/mile (89 kWh battery), while the comparable diesel vehicle would consume ~4900 BTU/mile per GREET. A 400-mile range EV (135 kWh battery) would consume ~5100 BTU/mile.

 

[wxman]

Coal generation increased to about 22% in 2021, after <20% in 2020.

Alternative Fuels Data Center: Emissions from Electric Vehicles

 

[nwdiver]

I don't disagree, just making the point that coal EGUs are not very efficient.

It also depends on the EV range, which effects battery size. In the coal EGU example, a 300 mile-range EV would consume ~4500 BTU/mile (89 kWh battery), while the comparable diesel vehicle would consume ~4900 BTU/mile per GREET. A 400-mile range EV (135 kWh battery) would consume ~5100 BTU/mile.

4500 BTU/mile? That's 1.31kWh/mile when the energy use is ~0.3kWh/mi. Is that lifecycle? How many miles defines a 'lifecycle'? What percentage of the material is recycled? You're comparing apples and oranges.

Coal might be rebounding in terms of grid-mix but EVs don't use grid-mix. They use off-peak energy and that's a higher percentage of wind or solar everyday.

What exactly is the point here? We're so far past the point of EVs being better this is just silly. You have to go to the extreme of nonsense and even then they're still better. Look at SPP. ~90% of the time for the next week if you add demand to the grid that additional load is being met by wasting less wind energy. 100% clean. Yes, a higher percentage of energy is met by coal instead of gas because gas is more expensive now but there's also more wind.

Home

spp.org

 

[gulfcoastguy]

Planning to travel 601 miles one way Thursday. Plan to charge 4 times counting the overnight charge before I leave and the just before I get there charge to top off my battery before I check in. All charges excep for the one Wednesday night will be at Electrify America stations and will cost me zero. Half the charges will be in the TVA region with its hydroelectric and nuclear power and the other half will be in areas that generate power with natural gas.

 

[wxman]

4500 BTU/mile? That's 1.31kWh/mile when the energy use is ~0.3kWh/mi. Is that lifecycle? How many miles defines a 'lifecycle'? What percentage of the material is recycled? You're comparing apples and oranges.

Coal might be rebounding in terms of grid-mix but EVs don't use grid-mix. They use off-peak energy and that's a higher percentage of wind or solar everyday.

What exactly is the point here? We're so far past the point of EVs being better this is just silly. You have to go to the extreme of nonsense and even then they're still better. Look at SPP. ~90% of the time for the next week if you add demand to the grid that additional load is being met by wasting less wind energy. 100% clean. Yes, a higher percentage of energy is met by coal instead of gas because gas is more expensive now but there's also more wind.

Home

spp.org

Yes, it's full life cycle. 183,363 miles defines the lifecycle (15 years useful life assumed).

I did a comparison between the Rivian R1T and diesel full-size light-duty pickup trucks (Ram Ecodiesel & GM 3.0 Duramax diesels) based on GREET output and using the PROJECTED 2029 grid mix (17% coal, 33% renewable). Based on that analysis, the much higher GHG emissions from the manufacturing phase would be offset in about 25,000 miles, but NOx would take 385,000 miles (more than assumed UL), and PM10, PM2.5 and SOx would NEVER be offset since the WTW emissions of each of these metrics is HIGHER for EV than diesel.

I don't understand why the EV supporters on this site (a DIESEL site) are so defensive about ANYTHING that's not 100% in support of EVs and 100% against anything ICEV. I just simply disagree that EVs are necessarily "better" in all possible scenarios.

 

[gulfcoastguy]

Well this is the general automotive section. One could argue that discussing VW Tdis here is wrong.

 

[nwdiver]

Yes, it's full life cycle. 183,363 miles defines the lifecycle (15 years useful life assumed).

I did a comparison between the Rivian R1T and diesel full-size light-duty pickup trucks (Ram Ecodiesel & GM 3.0 Duramax diesels) based on GREET output and using the PROJECTED 2029 grid mix (17% coal, 33% renewable). Based on that analysis, the much higher GHG emissions from the manufacturing phase would be offset in about 25,000 miles, but NOx would take 385,000 miles (more than assumed UL), and PM10, PM2.5 and SOx would NEVER be offset since the WTW emissions of each of these metrics is HIGHER for EV than diesel.

I don't understand why the EV supporters on this site (a DIESEL site) are so defensive about ANYTHING that's not 100% in support of EVs and 100% against anything ICEV. I just simply disagree that EVs are necessarily "better" in all possible scenarios.

I'm was just curious what your point was. I agree EVs aren't 'better' in all possible scenarios. I've often grudgingly admitted if you're going to buy a car to ~never drive an ICEV is the better choice

The situations you're outlining don't reflect reality. Right now SPP is 14% coal but if I added 10kW of load to the grid to charge a Rivian coal output would increase by 0kW but wind output would increase by ~10kW. What percentage of the energy the Rivian uses is ACTUALLY coming from coal? Also, using recycled materials reduces the embedded energy by ~90%. The vehicle is far more likely to be recycled than to end up in a landfill... how is that accounted for?

Even beyond that... would it really be accurate to assign the lifecycle cost of the wind turbine to the Rivian? It would be easy to adjust the charge rate to match wind output so only surplus wind energy is being utilitized.

 

[wxman]

That may be the case in SPP region, but not all EV are being charged in SPP.

Even gas cars are "better" in some regions of the country with respect to some criteria pollutants like PM2.5.

https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-regional_ld_bev

 

[nwdiver]

Even gas cars are "better" in some regions of the country with respect to some criteria pollutants like PM2.5.

Only if you look at 'grid-mix'. Which.... EVs don't use grid-mix. You have to look at the marginal energy use when most EVs charge.

Coal is 14% right now but wind is being curtailed. If I were to charge my car now what percentage is coming from coal?

There's 2GW of wind being wasted now. If 200,000 EVs started charging now to reduce that curtailment to 0GW the Argonne model would say ~13% of that energy was coming from coal. How does that reflect reality if there was no increase in coal consumption?

 

[turbobrick240]

I was just looking at a chart of US grid power source by state. A couple of states caught my attention- Iowa, which gets 57% of it's grid power from wind, and Nevada that gets 10% from geothermal. I don't know what the costs are for geothermal, and suspect it's highly variable, but believe it's very much underutilized. It's even better for baseload supply than hydro in many ways.

 

[wxman]

Only if you look at 'grid-mix'. Which.... EVs don't use grid-mix. You have to look at the marginal energy use when most EVs charge.

Coal is 14% right now but wind is being curtailed. If I were to charge my car now what percentage is coming from coal?

There's 2GW of wind being wasted now. If 200,000 EVs started charging now to reduce that curtailment to 0GW the Argonne model would say ~13% of that energy was coming from coal. How does that reflect reality if there was no increase in coal consumption?

You're assuming that sufficient wind energy is always available at all times. I know from experience as an operational meteorologist that wind flow is not always sufficiently strong at night or any other time of the day some days to produce wind-generated electricity (at least in the Southern Appalachians). What then?

For the record, I am in no way anti-EV. My son has an EV (Jaguar iPace), and he loves it. I just don't think EVs are always the best choice from an environmental perspective, and am an "all-of-the-above" supporter, even ICEVs in some cases.

 

[nwdiver]

You're assuming that sufficient wind energy is always available at all times.

You're assuming EV charging won't be biased to when wind energy is available. Front coming through at 2am? Ok... charging will start at 2am. Front coming through at 11pm? Ok... charging will start at 11pm. No wind tonight? Ok... wait until tomorrow night. Most people won't be troubled if they miss a night of charging.

EVs aren't just an energy consumer. They're energy storage. They can pick what time they store that energy. Each EV represents ~7kW of flexible load. If there's 1M EVs on the grid that's ~7GW of flexible load. Imagine how valuable that is to a grid operator. How is that accounted for? If wind output drops by 500MW instead of calling up a dirty peaker plant load can be reduced by 500MW. How is that accounted for?

 

[wxman]

There are times (particularly in summer months) when wind flow is weak for many days (persistent ridge directly over region). Weather systems tend to be sluggish during those times of the year.

 

[nwdiver]

(particularly in summer months)

If only there was a form of clean energy that peaked in the summer months Once it's discovered they should definelty call it 'summer power'. No wait.... SOLAR power

Bottom line is... do you really think it's accurate to assign grid-mix emissions to EVs when coal or gas are generally NOT going to be the energy sources that INCREASE their output to meet EV demand? Even if renewables are 30% of annual grid mix the energy ACTUALLY supplied to meet EV demand is going to be ~90% wind or solar due to the benefit of EVs ability to NOT charge when renewables sources are scarce relative to demand.

If I charge my car now while wind is being curtailed... what percentage is coming from coal?

 

[Abacus]

California has blackouts because generators can have trouble meeting peak demand. The great thing about EVs is that you rarely need to charge them during those peak periods and those peak periods only last a few hours per YEAR. If you're charging outside ~4pm - 11pm there's plenty of electricity.

You're right. PV is about math. Have you done the math? Just 10 ~370w (41"x70") solar panels will produce >5,000kWh per year. EVs get >3 miles/kWh. So that's enough energy to drive >15,000 miles/yr from just 10 solar panels. Then there's wind. The amount of surplus wind energy wasted is growing faster than consumption from new EVs. So energy is not an issue.

You're talking about watts whereas I'm talking about amperage, which is the load on the grid. So yes, I did THAT math, not the miniscule watts generated per day or year, but the amps required to charge them.

As to the 4-11PM cycle, that will change with EV charging as evidenced now with the current blackouts. I don't doubt EV's will have their day, but they're not there yet.

 

[nwdiver]

You're talking about watts whereas I'm talking about amperage, which is the load on the grid. So yes, I did THAT math, not the miniscule watts generated per day or year, but the amps required to charge them.

??? 'Watts' correlates to 'Amps' neither of which is a unit of ENERGY. An EV uses ~0.3kWh/mi. 3.7kW of solar will produce >5,000kWh/yr. That's the only math that matters..... what math did you do? What 'amps'? I guess ~14kWh/day produced by 3.7kW of solar is 'miniscule' but would not the ~12kWh/day used by the average EV be even more 'miniscule' because that's how numbers work?

Why would that change? Solar and Wind are being deployed FAR faster than EVs and at an accelerating rate. We're not going to slow the deployment of renewables anytime soon.

 

[Abacus]

Volts x Watts = Amps, which relates to CHARGING, since you need amps to charge, not watts. I know a few people out here with EV's and they are having a devil of a time charging off standard 110 volts, and even 220 volts needs multiple hours to charge. Superchargers are 400 volts at 250 Amps, a whole lot more than a standard household current. But let's forget about that for a minute, even their 240 volts at 80 amps is more than most households in the US, hence the 240v/50A versions for homeowners. Neck that down some more and you have to lengthen the time out. It's akin to filling a swimming pool with a garden hose compared to a fire hose, which is fine if you have the time.

So all those 50A loads at one time is what I was referring to, not the total watts per year, which isn't really relevant except in sizing solar panels. Which, by the way, we're having solar installed at our house in Arizona, and the cheapest reputable price we could find is $36K for 10,000kWh per year.

 

[nwdiver]

Volts x Watts = Amps, which relates to CHARGING, since you need amps to charge, not watts. I know a few people out here with EV's and they are having a devil of a time charging off standard 110 volts, and even 220 volts needs multiple hours to charge. Superchargers are 400 volts at 250 Amps, a whole lot more than a standard household current. But let's forget about that for a minute, even their 240 volts at 80 amps is more than most households in the US, hence the 240v/50A versions for homeowners. Neck that down some more and you have to lengthen the time out. It's akin to filling a swimming pool with a garden hose compared to a fire hose, which is fine if you have the time.

So all those 50A loads at one time is what I was referring to, not the total watts per year, which isn't really relevant except in sizing solar panels. Which, by the way, we're having solar installed at our house in Arizona, and the cheapest reputable price we could find is $36K for 10,000kWh per year.

Um... no....

First; Volts x Amps = Watts (Power) and Watts / Volts = Amps

Second; 1kW (power) for 1 Hour (time) = 1 kWh (Energy)

Third; You don't 'need' to charge at 80amps or 50A or 250A. You need ~0.3kWh/mi. Wanna go 10 miles? You need ~3kWh. You can get 3kWh by charging at 3kW for 1 hour. Or 1.5kW for 2 hours. 1.5kW on 240v is a 'miniscule' ~6.3A. Lot's of people charge at 1.5kW. That provides >10kWh during the night which is plenty for a 30 mile commute because you only need 0.3kWh/mi

 

[Daemon64]

Um... no....

First; Volts x Amps = Watts (Power) and Watts / Volts = Amps

Second; 1kW (power) for 1 Hour (time) = 1 kWh (Energy)

Third; You don't 'need' to charge at 80amps or 50A or 250A. You need ~0.3kWh/mi. Wanna go 10 miles? You need ~3kWh. You can get 3kWh by charging at 3kW for 1 hour. Or 1.5kW for 2 hours. 1.5kW on 240v is a 'miniscule' ~6.3A. Lot's of people charge at 1.5kW. That provides >10kWh during the night which is plenty for a 30 mile commute because you only need 0.3kWh/mi

Also most houses now have a 200A service. We have a 70 amp breaker but it's oversized because the actual service max for the charger is 50A continuous or 12kw /hr. The car I have can take 11kw max on AC lvl2. So if my battery was 100% dead it would charge in 6h 45 minutes over night. Where basically nothing else in the house is active. 10%-80% on the 150kwh fast charger is 30 minutes.

I will say this you DO NOT charge an electric car on 120v. First of all its significantly less efficient, but secondly it would never work time wise. Invest in the charger. Even a 32A charger would charge my car from bone dead in 11hrs. Plug in at 7pm, unplug at 6am. But really unless your going 240 miles that's completely unnecessary and you don't charge the car past 90% unless your going on a road trip.

 

[Abacus]

I knew what it was, just got it backwards from being too tired working on the house.

 

[nwdiver]

I will say this you DO NOT charge an electric car on 120v.

I agree it's not ideal and also the bump to 240v is definitely worth the investment but for most people it would be sufficient especially if you have a DCFC nearby you can use in a pinch or charging at work. The efficiency hit isn't great but it's not terrible either. I think L1 is ~85% efficient vs ~90% with L2.

But I do agree L2 is the way to go.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

I listened to an interesting Freakonomics podcast the other day about the history of EVs. One thing the interviewee pointed out was that if EVs had become the dominant vehicle type back in the early 20th century, we would have had a different pollution problem since many electric plants were coal fired back then. The appeal of electric at that time was ease of use and reliability, not emissions. Being green wasn't on anyone's mind beyond getting rid of horse manure in cities.

I don't entirely agree that EVs are a fad as someone posted above, even though we've been down this road at least twice before. But I do think they will grow, maybe fairly rapidly, to a significant niche of our transportation fleet, but not go beyond that. First, they are still a luxury item. Second, despite what enthusiasts efforts to persuade us of otherwise, there are too many use cases where they are not the best propulsion choice. And third, I strongly believe there's a fairly large segment of the driving population that will want ICE vehicles for the foreseeable future.

The podcast pointed out that 17% of our CO2 emissions comes from automobiles. So even if we were able to pull off a worldwide fleet conversion to EVs, and if we were able to power all those vehicles with clean energy, we've only addressed a small percentage of the problem.

Personally, I'd make more of an impact on fossil fuel use if I could get the heating oil out of my house than if I switched my cars to EVs. I'd rather take the money I could spend on an EV and invest it there.

 

[El Dobro]