"EV's simply move the tailpipe to Coal" Answer

Gasoline is energy-intensive to produce. I've seen an estimate that gasoline accounts for 68% of the refining energy per barrel despite that fact that a barrel only produces 19 gallons of gasoline.

Gasoline is a waste of petroleum.

 

...let's see, 19 gallons is 19/42 gal per barrel = 45% gaso yield so OK I agree that it might take some extra energy (68%) to make the gasoline compared to diesel, kerosene etc. But the energy-intensive thing is pro-EV rhetoric that can back-fire if the public realizes it is not true.

 

Except it is true, it's just that the blog misses the actual point, which is that it's not so much PEV vs GICEV but GICEV v DICEV, plastics and every other use of petroleum but gasoline.

Output is 45 gallons. 68% is used for 19/45, 32% is used for 26/45.

Then per gallon, gasoline is 68%/19 = 3.58% and other fractions are 32%/26 = 1.23% of the energy. That's a big difference.

 

I am taking the position that a relatively small amount of elec/energy is needed in refining process per gallon, national average. I think you are saying of the of energy used, we should prorate more to gasoline than other products. I can concede that point to you.

In general what I try to recommend, as a first approximation, there is not a lot of hidden energy cost cost to make a gallon of gasoline. What you see is what you get. However, for political advantage, some EVangelists like to imply there is enormous electric use to make a gallon of gaso. I've given up on arguing the point, but in this post the OP is pointing out the public is not buying into some of the pro-EV arguments, and I am saying, no wonder.

 

I would like to get to the bottom line of this number. Definitely the 6kwh quoted by DOE is average allocated and energy not electricity. Even if you assigned 100% of the electricity used to gasoline it would be less than 1 kwh.

Now some of this energy is in the form of natural gas, and it could used to generate electricity. Let's say it was used in newer 55% efficient combined cycle power plants, then we should take as an upper bound (natural gas * 0.55 + electricity)/19 gallons as the fairly direct electricity equivalent. The other sources from the oil to produce gasoline would not be available. Note using the oil sands is more natural gas intense, so this number should be used. I'm not sure what the number is though. My guess is that worst oil would still leave us with less than 3kwh of electricity / gallon of gasoline. I would love to see better figures. Oil sands may be much more natural gas intense in extraction than this.

I would say the strongest pov on developing alternatives to gasoline are sustainability, national and economic security, and unhealthy point sources of pollution.

 

2011 Chevrolet Volt vs 2011 Nissan Leaf vs 2011 Toyota Prius - CO2 Emissions - Motor Trend

 

Yes I agree exactly above. In addition, lets add smog reduction efforts in CA coastline cities. A little fuzzy for me if imports is actually a problem, but at least it's a bi-partisan agreement and a rationale for spending extra $$$ on alternates. Any alternate that is better, cheaper on its own merits can bubble to the top on its own as well.

 

Another factor never covered is that manufacturing EVs on a large scale will take decades. These decades are very necessary for getting the manufacturing and cost issues improved for the mass market. While there is a "here and now issue" of how much "instant" improvement in pollution occurs, the numbers of EV's involved is a rounding error on the ratio of SUVs to Hybrids. I'm a much bigger fan of having EVs being available on a large scale as the sustainability of power generation continues to improve over the next hundred years.

 

Point sources of polution in my post were meant to account for CA coastline, as well as other place like houston where cars and refineries make the air unhealthy, as well as things like the bp spill, etc.

If you study the history oil politics caused major recessionary pressure at least 3 times.

America's trade deficit: Oil and the current account | The Economist

 

Gasoline is not inherently any more expensive than any of the other petroleum distillates. When petroleum is refined, it is divided into its components by a distillation process, and gasoline is one of the components naturally produced.

Prior to the introduction of the internal combustion engine, gasoline was considered a nearly useless byproduct of petroleum. It was sold in hardware stores as a brush cleaner. In this situation gasoline was considered inexpensive to produce, since it was a byproduct.

Gasoline is now more expensive to produce because of demand. Because of the huge demand for gasoline, petroleum refiners use a cracking process to artificially increase the yield of gasoline. In this process petroleum molecules are split apart, or cracked, and then reassembled into gasoline. This makes more gasoline for a given amount of petroleum, but increases production costs and production energy requirements.

Any petroleum distillate can be augmented in this fashion. It all comes down to supply and demand.

Tom

 

We might not have a hundred years. With population growth and continued accelerated release of carbon into the atmosphere, the next hundred years could see climate changes that make this a much less pleasant world to live in than it is now. I am glad I will not live in the world I expect it will be in a hundred years. I'm just hoping we can get through the next 25 years without food riots bought on by uncontrolled population growth and the collapse of agriculture as rain patterns change, and starvation becomes widespread.

 

The problem is, that number is just dead wrong, and the argument is wrong.

1: Don't compare a Leaf to an SUV as if they were equivalent. The US fleet average is not the right comparison. The Leaf interior volume is comparable to a Prius. You are commingling the improvement from converting the entire US fleet to Prius-sized vehicles, with the improvement from converting those to EV. (Not to mention that the leave gets 3 miles per KWH, so would go 18 miles on 6 KWH).

And the real question is, what is the incremental improvement of a Leaf relative to the next best alternative, which would be a Prius. EV advocates do this all the time -- compare a small EV to an average sedan. Whereas the marketing data show that the number 1 car traded for a Volt -- is a Prius.

So I'd accept comparison to the average Prius-sized conventional car, I'd prefer comparison to the next-best-available technology (a Prius), but comparing to the US fleet average is just wrong-headed.

2: The correct number for actual electricity use was already cited above, and its a tiny fraction of 6 KWH. The 6 KWH number was made up by somebody who took the entire value of energy and converted it to the equivalent KWH. That's not right. Per what the oil industry states, most of the 6 KWH is burning stuff that is too poor-grade to be sold.

The US NREL puts the total well-to-tank step at about 16% of the energy value of the gasoline, on average. If you take the energy in a gallon of gas, convert that, take 16%, that comes out to just about 6 KWH. So, based on the best available data I can lay my hands on, 6KWH of energy is the entire cost of the well-to-tank step.

It is hard (I'd say impossible) to find the equivalent numbers for coal, but they are probably much more favorable. At the minimum, it's a good bet that the transport of coal adds relatively little to the energy cost. Railroads say 1 gallon of diesel per 500 ton-miles. A ton of (bituminous) coal has energy equivalent to about 175 gallons of diesel.

2A): And if we're really looking for apples-to-apples, then that's 6WK of energy as delivered at the plug in your house. But for the US grid as a whole, far more primary energy than that was used to create that 6 KWH. So if we're not literally talking about electricity, but are only talking about the underlying energy values of the fuels used, then we'd need to take the 6KW to be used in the Leaf, and determine how much primary energy, on average, the US grid uses to produce that. And compare that to the primary energy used in the well-to-tank step for gasoline.

3: Do a reality check. If it really literally took 6 KWH of electricity to refine a gallon of gasoline (... look up total US gasoline refining, look up total US electrical generation ... ) then the roughly 170 US oil refineries would use nearly 25% of total US electrical output. (Which, if you have ever seen the chart of US sources and uses of energy, has to be just about right, because transportation fuels are a large portion of total US energy use.) And if it literally took 6 KWH (... do a little more math ...) that would mean an average 24/7 power draw of 0.6 gigawatts per refinery. Every oil refinery would need its own dedicated full-scale power plant. None of that is right. The 6 KWH number, if interpreted literaly as electricity used, is clearly off by orders of magnitude. Exactly as it says, when you actually look up the electrical use of the refining industry, as cited earlier.

4: Here's what I think the proper comparison is. How does a Leaf stack up against a Prius, accounting for the well-to-tank energy in addition to the gasoline itself? Take the Prius' 50 MPG, and penalize 16% for the well-to-tank step. So it gets 43 MPG, fully penalized. A gallon of gas produces 19.4 lbs CO2, just to name one byproduct. At 3 miles per KWH, a Leaf needs 14 KWH to go 42 miles. So if you are connected to the grid, and your local supplier produces less than about (19.4/14 = ) 1.4 lbs C02 per KWH, then you reduce you operating carbon footprint by trading the Prius for the Leaf. Otherwise, not. If you don't like any of those assumptions, then change them. If you think it really takes 32% not 16% in the well-to-tank step, fine. I don't see data to support that for the average gallon of gas, but why not. Then the 1.4 would rise to a bit over 1.5. Not radically different, if the quantity of interest is the net reduction in carbon footprint.

5: One other thing that people consistently get wrong about this is the following. If you have grid-connected PV, where you can put your surplus power on the grid, then 4) above is still the correct answer. At least, as long as you work from the simple averages. For every KWH you produce, you can either not use it, put it on the grid, and avoid your utility's average emissions per KWH. Or you can use it, and not avoid that. Every KWH you use increases your utility's emissions, every KWH you don't use reduces them. If you have grid-connected PV in a state where the grid produces more than 1.4 lbs C02 per KWH (per my calculation above), you reduce your carbon footprint by driving a Prius, rather than a Leaf.

6: Afterthought: I drive a PHEV Prius (Hymotion conversion), so I put my money where my mouth is as far as being pro electric transport. But you have to be realistic about the benefits. I figure mine, for where I live, is a modest improvement over a stock Prius. Emphasis on modest. My best guess, over the 150,000 mile lifetime of the vehicle (with about one-third of miles being electrically powered), that conversion will spare about 2 tons of C02 emissions. If you calculate the cost per ton C02 avoided, you don't even want to go there. One order of magnitude less efficient than investing in PV.

As a benchmark, take an emission-free car that costs $10,000 more than a Prius, and calculate your cost per ton C02 avoided, over 150,000 miles, with 43 MPG for the Prius. It's about $300 per ton. That's good, that's a very reasonable thing to do. And that's comparable to a typical PV installation.

 

apples/oranges

I have seen estimates that about 10% of coal energy ends up as net work. TEN PERCENT !

The argument that petrol refining costs can move the EV fleet is uninformed drivel. You have to compare life cycles.

 

I stand partially corrected. Any use above the base distillation (I guess a lot and I guess it'll depends on the petroleum source) will be extremely wasteful. So, we'd still be better shifting away from gasoline so we don't waste petroleum or other limited energy sources.

 

Remember that being poor grade isn't important to this discussion. If they weren't using the energy for refining gasoline they could use it for something else. The question is ultimately how much the displaced energy could be used, directly or indirectly, to move an EV.

 

That's an indirect way to get to the answer, but that's fine. Take that sludge or low-grade natural gas or whatever it is, and burn it in the typical oil-burning power plant, run it over the grid, and use it to run a Leaf. Your 6KWH of primary energy will be something under 2 KWH delivered at the wall socket. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station). That'll move a Leaf about six miles.

So we've now accounted for the energy cost of the well-to-tank step. Give that to the Leaf as a free bonus. Accounting for the well-to-tank energy that way, one gallon of gas gets you 50 miles in the Prius. And we compare that to using the grid to power the Leaf for just (50 - 6) = 44 miles, because we're giving it the last six miles for free.

Whereas doing it the straightforward way as I did above, I was asking the leaf to travel 43 miles on electricity. Again, if you don't like the assumptions, change them. If you think you can burn low-grade hydrocarbons and move it over the grid with 50% efficiency, then you get 9 free miles for the Leaf, and you ask it to travel 41 miles, compared to a Prius burning a gallon of gas and going 50 miles. It's not materially different.

Its just tansstaafl. Do the calculation in any reasonable fashion, you'll see that there is no free lunch. Modest savings, sure. Free lunch, no.

 

50 years ago, massive starvation was predicted by many to be occurring as we speak right now. Fortunately, the "Green Revolution" resulted in vast improvements in rice productivity, so the world was granted either a temporary or permanent reprieve.

We have big problems now, just like they had big problems then. I don't want to minimize the impending problems at all, but technologies can be put in place to stave off the "collapse of agriculture". For example, solar distilling and piping of agricultural water to micro watering plant irrigation may be too expensive now, but workable in the future. What will it be? Too soon to tell.

 

The energy produced by burning the poor-grade stuff could be used to generate electricity. Therefor it needs to be included it in the total energy figure.

Tom