American Physical Society Article on Batteries and Electrified Vehicles

The article address the key issues but presents them poorly.

The burning of fossil fuels to produce work, is not that efficient, no matter which type of output. However, its not appropriate to compare burning to produce electricity to refining, and one is producing work, the other just transforming chemical state. One could just as easily discuss the transformation of 10,000 transmision power to 120V usable power, which is about 99% efficient.


The efficiency of electricity production, from fossil fuel themrodynamic processess, is not that efficient.. 30% (old coal), 34% newer coal, 45% newer NG, upt to 60% NG Co-gen.
The production of gas from crude is about 85% thermo efficient, but is not the "burning". When its burned in the vehicle its from 20%-30% efficient. But the article put that in a different paragraph.

 

...seems to be advocating for physics-related R&D ...thanks for posting

 

Gasoline and Diesel engines are only 30% efficient with most of the energy blown off as heat.

If solar or wind power electricity to car battery to wheels is only 1% efficient, it it much less overall cost than oil which is a killer in so many ways.

 

When a solar power plant has a spill it is called 'a nice day'

 

It brought up the issue only a few wants to discuss. Generating electricity from "burning" fossil fuel is very inefficient, just like combusting gasoline in the engine in cars and trucks.

EPA MPG and MPGe measures only at the vehicle level. Therefore, anything that runs on electricity gets a boost in the number because the inefficiency of burning/combustion is ignored.

For that reason, EPA has Beyond Tailpipe Emission site that takes account of both tailpipe and upstream (fuel production) for comparison with one plugin to another (with different EV ratios) or to a gas-only vehicles. They included everything from drilling, refining, transporting/transmitting fuel to your pump/plug.

67% of our electricity is still from fossil fuel, as of 2011 data. It is important for EV or PHEV to use electricity efficiently so the emission does not increase over a regular hybrid. That's the only sensible way to move forward/progress.

 

I agree with you USB...

 

Th3 article kind of confirms my suspicions, battery development is still in embrionic stage.

DBCassidy

 

It doesn't sound too good but keep in mind in the world of R&D, the first step is always to condemn the current technology and say it is like using stone knives and bearskins (to quote Spock)...

 

Progress keeps occurring because of continued production sales, not "lab investment". Remember way back when the "safety" of LiIon was considered to be a dramatic hurdle. I do not hear that mentioned anymore. Most of those safety issues were resolved by total vehicle integration needs as opposed to just some laboratory findings. Now the major hurdles are economic and have a lot of room for improvement (Thankfully!). That is no reason to wait. If it works for you now, then it works!

The phrase "....as there is a false perception among the public and policymakers that present battery performance is adequate for widespread acceptance of battery-electric vehicles." was applied just as emphatically to the Prius in 2001. Now all the serious Prius owners know exactly how silly it is to complain about battery limitations. If it works great and reliably for the price, what exactly is inadequate?

I found it interesting that GM sells significantly more Volts than Corvettes. Does the Corvette lack "widespread" acceptance?

 

How many EV miles does the 'Vette get before switching to ICE mode?

DBCassidy

 

But your "upstream" is not really upstream, its only part of it. A better measure to look at for full lifecycle is the energy returned on energy invested, i.e. how much energy we recover from the amount of energy we invest.

You should check out this paper http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/ITO/GG410/EROI_Future_Energy_Sources/Murphy_EROI_AnNYAcSci10.pdf

For Oil discovery the EROI is 8:1, and then for processing (in 2007) it was 12:1
So overall for oil EROI is now down to about 1/(1/8+1/12) = 4.8:1

Tar sands and Shale oil have EROI between 2 and 5:1 (which is part of why they are now cost competitive competitive as oil becomes more costly in EROI).


In comparison coal EROI is 80:1 (There is virtually no "discover" costs, the mining is easier, shipping by rail is very efficient and minimal added processing). Even if you consider only 33% efficient when it is converted to electricity its net as electricity is 26:1, way better than gas.

Natural gas has an EROI of 10:1

Nukes are at 5-15:1 (depending on their age/design.. the new ones being built in GA are expected to be 12:1)
The EROI for wind-based electricity is 18:1 and for PV is 6.8:1

Also note the WTW study/model from argonee (which drives EPA) does NOT include discovery or drilling, they presume the well exists and is pumping crude. They also don't include the energy usage of gas-stations, only refining and transport to the station. They also ignore the other costs (oil wars use a lot of energy and spill a bit of blood, etc) but so does the EROI computations.

Overall the sources of electricity are far more efficient in terms of EROI than oil, even considering the losses in electricity production. So using EV and MPGe is only hiding more advantage behind the full upstream data.

 

Well, If you forgot to push in the clutch while cranking the starter on older models, I expect about .00001 miles.