# Why Electric Cars Won't Be Taking Over Any Time Soon



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

In common with an Uber/Lyft IPO, there are lots of false claims, highly dubious numbers and unrealistic expectations being bandied about by proponents of electric cars. Uber's end visions, for example, would be attractive - a profitable company in a world where everyone travels by pilotless flying cars - except that nobody has yet laid out a credible path to this objective. Unfortunately, the same holds true for electric cars. The vision is clean transportation for all, an end to our dependence on fossil fuels, and eventually cheaper costs than gasoline cars to boot. However, there is still no credible path to this vision, either. There are several important barriers to the mass adoption of electric vehicles. The most important barriers are related to technology, distribution infrastructure and generation infrastructure. Warning - facts and math will be used in this thread.

Technology and Distribution

An important technological problem related to electric cars is the low energy density of the batteries. Gasoline has approximately 100 times the energy density of a lithium-ion battery. Of course, gasoline engines consume energy at around a 15% efficiency rate while electric motors consume at 80% efficiency, but even so the difference is vast. Given that vehicle weight is a large consideration in vehicle design, this means that electric vehicle range per charge is limited; to approximately 150 miles on real-world average among the current models currently available for sale. This compares poorly with the typical 400 mile tank range of a gasoline car.

Another technological limitation of batteries is the time taken to charge the battery. The Tesla Model 3 takes one and a quarter hours to fill its battery with a high-amperage charger. In contrast, it takes 5 or 6 minutes to fill the tank of a gasoline powered car.

How fast it takes to fill a gas tank and the range of gasoline vehicles are factors in the demand for gas stations. The quicker it takes to fill up and the longer the range, the fewer gas stations are required. Conversely, the longer it takes to fill up and the shorter the range, the more gas stations are required. To illustrate this, here are some numbers. There are currently 270 million cars registered in the US. Average mileage per car is 13,500 miles per year. Multiplying the two gives total car miles travelled per year of 3.6 trillion miles. If we assume that average mpg is 20, and that each tank has a capacity of 20 gallons, that is an equivalent of 9.1 billion tankfuls of gasoline consumed by cars per year in the US. If we also assume that these fill-ups are evenly distributed around the clock, that gives us an average of 1.04 million fill-ups per hour.

On the supply side, there are approximately 117,000 gas stations in the US. If we assume that each station has 8 pumps on average and that it takes 6 minutes on average to fill a tank, then that gives a total capacity of all of the gas stations in the country of 9.36 million fill-ups per hour.
If we then divide the 9.36 million fillups capacity by the 1.04 million fillups demand, we get a capacity ratio of 9.0. That is, the average total capacity to supply gasoline at the pumps is 9 times the average amount of gasoline demanded. This is evidenced in the real world - in the vast majority of cases a driver can pull up to any gas station and immediately find a pump available without having to wait. One of the reasons for this overcapacity is that gasoline sales do not occur regularly around the clock - there are demand spikes around the rush hours and at weekends for example. However, gas stations operate in the free market and it is reasonable to conclude that market supply and demand is responsible for effecting the capacity ratio of 9.

Let's apply the same numbers to electric cars. Assume that all of the 270 million cars in the US are replaced by electric cars and that all of the gas stations are converted to electric charging stations, each with the same capacity to refuel 8 vehicles at once. The average annual mileage remains at 13,500 and total miles travelled will therefore also be the same at 3.6 trillion miles. If we assume a 150 mile average battery range, that gives us a total number of full battery recharges of 24.3 million per year. Applying the same calculation as above, this is equivalent to an average of 2.7 million charges per hour.

We saw above that the current number of gas stations is capable of providing 9.36 million fill-ups per hour on average. So 2.7 million charges per hour of electric vehicles would be no problem, right? Wrong - a gasoline vehicle takes minutes to fill, while electric vehicles can take over an hour. If all of the 117,000 gas stations were converted to electric charging stations, and assuming that it takes 75 minutes to charge an average battery, that gives an average total charging capacity of just 749,000 charges per hour, way short of the 2.7 million charges per hour required. This is a capacity ratio of 0.27, meaning that the total charging capacity of all charging stations would meet only 27% of charges demanded. And these are just average numbers. Just as gas stations have excess filling capacity to cope with demand spikes during peak times, electric charging stations would also have this need. In order to reach just half of the 9.0 capacity ratio that gas stations have, an additional 1,833,000 charging stations would have to be built. The total number of electric charging stations required would be over 16 times the number of gas stations that currently exist. Average gas station construction costs range from $500,000 to $2,000,000 depending on area, and if we assume that each new electric charging station would cost $1,000,000 then the total cost to build all of the stations required would be $1.83 trillion. Yes, sports fans, that's trillion with a T.

The next question is who would pay for this? The chance of Donald Trump releasing federal funds for the construction of privately owned charging stations is zero. There may be some subsidies, but I think it's fair to assume that these infrastructure costs will be borne by the end user. Assuming that it would take 10 years to fully transition from gas cars to electric cars, the capital required to build all of the charging stations would add $16 to the cost of every charge.

So, in terms of charging infrastructure, there is a long, long way to go before electric vehicles can take over. The lower costs to operate electric vehicles will be mitigated as adoption takes place and demand increases charging costs. Not to mention the question of whether people will be prepared to sit in their cars for the lengthy amounts of time required to charge them.

Generation

The very high energy density of gasoline combined with the massive amount of miles driven mean that car transportation consumes vast amounts of energy. In fact, transportation in general is responsible for 25% of the country's total energy use. If all cars were to be powered by electricity then all of this energy would need to come from the electrical grid, which does not currently have the capacity to supply anywhere near the level of energy required. In order to see how large the deficit is, here are some more numbers:

A typical electric car li-ion battery has a capacity of 60 Kw/h, and a charge efficiency of 85%. From the calculations above, a fully electric car fleet would require 24.3 million full charges per year. Multiplying these numbers, we get a total electric vehicle consumption of 1.715 billion Kw/h, ignoring the savings from lower refinery use. The electrical power consumption of the entire US in 2018 was 4.178 billion Kw/h of electricity. The additional load on the grid imposed by electric cars would therefore increase US electricity consumption by 41%.

If general electricity demand were constant with no variations, then a generation capacity of 478 gigawatts would be required to meet the US' electricity demand of 4.178 billion Kw/h in 2018. However, in 2017 the US had a generation capacity of 1,072 gigawatts. The reason for this apparent surplus is that electricity demand, and therefore generation, are not constant but feature regular spikes - there must be extra capacity available to avoid blackouts.

The extra 1.725 billion Kw/h required annually by electric cars would require an extra 196 gigawatts of generation capacity. However, the power demand from charging vehicles would also not be constant, so extra generation capacity would be required. If generation capacity were increased by 41% to accommodate this, this would be an additional 440 gigawatts. It costs $4,713 for each Kw/h of generation capacity in the build of new coal-fired plants. Building the required capacity would therefore cost a total of $2.02 trillion. Again, trillion with a T. Assuming that Trump isn't going to absorb this cost but pass it on to end users in the form of taxes, a 10-year construction plan would add $17 to the cost of each recharge during the construction period.

If all of the generation and distribution infrastructure costs are indeed passed on to the consumer, using the actual figures and the assumptions above, $33 would be needed to be added to the cost of each charge. So a $20 full charge at a future commercial recharging station just became $53. Companies like Tesla currently provide charging for free. However, due to the minuscule numbers of their cars on the road at present, they can afford to. But anyone thinking that this will continue indefinitely is very much mistaken.

With all of the technological and development challenges to overcome and the associated costs, suddenly electric doesn't look so good. Again, there's also the question of who is going to build the infrastructure? And when are they going to do it? Unless all of the above changes, we can look forward to a very slow and gradual transition. Gasoline cars will be around for decades to come.


----------



## badratings (Dec 24, 2018)

Regarding the number of charging stations:

The big difference between chargers and gas stations is that charging equipment can be installed anywhere, unlike gas tanks that take up lots of space and constantly have to be resupplied.

The basic charger - a simple 110v outlet - can be easily installed in most parking spots at home, office, or in shops/restaurants. The charge rate is so low that it can be offered for free: park 1 hour, get 4 miles of range back.
Level 2 chargers can be installed at key locations for a reasonable price in private property as well.
In the 99% electric scenario, there's no reason charging wouldn't be available at most parking spots.

People would only go to superchargers at ex gas stations for fast charging if they drive more than 150 miles a day, but most people do not drive more than 150 miles every day. So even though the amount of demand for gas station from road trippers would increase, the demand for gas stations for people making local trips would drop to effectively zero.

Regarding electric car range:

If we are talking about the plausibility of going 99% electric, it is unreasonable to use the "150 mile average real world range" of current EVs for sale when there are multiple EVs in the current $35-40k range that easily achieve 200 miles of range, real world.
The longest range mass produced electric car is now the 370 mile Model S. It's easy to increase EV range to 400 miles of "real world" range, the only barrier is cost and availability of batteries. If the number of $200/kwh is to be believed, then the cost of the entire 100kwh battery pack is merely $20k, or about $55 per mile of range. It's still a lot of money but nowhere as expensive as naysayers (or Tesla's own price markup) would lead you to believe.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

badratings said:


> Regarding the number of charging stations:
> 
> The big difference between chargers and gas stations is that charging equipment can be installed anywhere, unlike gas tanks that take up lots of space and constantly have to be resupplied.


That's true. I had not taken into account the comparative ease of installing charging access points. However, for electric vehicles to become mainstream given the current technology available, drivers will have to be willing to shape and adapt their lives to the needs of their cars to quite an extent, rather than the current situation in which gasoline vendors have adapted their businesses to the needs of the driver.

Given the low ranges of current cars, and even when ranges improve, there will still be a need for charging stations. In the US, the chance of the government stepping in and paying for charging facilities is zero. That leaves the development of charging sites and the purchase and installation of charging equipment into existing parking lots down to private enterprise. This has not happened yet on any large scale, and it remains to be seen exactly who will pay for it.

Also to be taken into account are the millions of cars that are parked on the street, both during the day and overnight by people who own neither garages or driveways. Again, the government is not going to "electrify" the streets, and it is not clear who will.

There are still significant cost and practical barriers to be overcome.



> Regarding electric car range:
> 
> If we are talking about the plausibility of going 99% electric, it is unreasonable to use the "150 mile average real world range" of current EVs for sale when there are multiple EVs in the current $35-40k range that easily achieve 200 miles of range, real world.


I think that an average range of 150 miles is appropriate. There are certainly models from Tesla that are capable of 200 miles, however remember that an average by definition includes cars with ranges less than 150. An e-Golf tested by Green Car Reports found that their example had a real range of between 58 and 108 miles. The electric Ford focus is claimed to have 100 - 115 miles of range; real world reviews reveal that it's around 70 - 90 miles. So, overall when we average out the low performers with the higher performers, 150 is fair for right now.

Even when the distribution network is in place, this will have no effect on the fact that electrical power generation will need to be increased significantly, with the corresponding enormous capital expenditure required for the construction of new power stations and improvements to the power grid. As mentioned before, this will run into trillions of dollars.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

What’s missing from your analysis is solid state batteries. Which are probably 10 years away, then another 10 years for them to become cheap. 2040-2050 the market should be nearly all EV.


----------



## OldBay (Apr 1, 2019)

People without garages,the vast majority in cities, will not have home chargers. Cars left unattended will be unplugged, electricity stolen.

It's a shame.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

The cost to charge a car will increase due to the fact that charging stations will want to make a profit for the use of their equipment, someone has to pay for the equipment and maintenance. Electric vehicles may be the norm in 50 years, but right now it’s more a novelty then a practical means of transportation.
Another point, where are all the dead toxic batteries going to be disposed, these batteries have more toxicity then gas powered cars. As batteries degrade the toxic material will break down and find its way into the water supply, atmosphere and soil. Before anyone says that they be safely stored at an exorbitant cost some unscrupulous company’s will find a short cut and dump these batteries in an unsafe and dangerous manner, greed will prevail as it always does.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> What's missing from your analysis is solid state batteries. Which are probably 10 years away, then another 10 years for them to become cheap. 2040-2050 the market should be nearly all EV.


Agreed, EV will take over but it's still around 30 years out.



peteyvavs said:


> The cost to charge a car will increase due to the fact that charging stations will want to make a profit for the use of their equipment, someone has to pay for the equipment and maintenance. Electric vehicles may be the norm in 50 years, but right now it's more a novelty then a practical means of transportation.
> Another point, where are all the dead toxic batteries going to be disposed, these batteries have more toxicity then gas powered cars. As batteries degrade the toxic material will break down and find its way into the water supply, atmosphere and soil. Before anyone says that they be safely stored at an exorbitant cost some unscrupulous company's will find a short cut and dump these batteries in an unsafe and dangerous manner, greed will prevail as it always does.


Plus, the vast majority of the country's electricity comes from burning coal. So, environmentally, all we'll be doing is switching from burning petroleum to power our cars to burning coal to power them. They're not electrically powered vehicles - the electricity is just an energy medium - the source of the power is still primarily fossil fuel; they're essentially coal-powered vehicles. Marketing doesn't care about facts, though, which is why we see things like this:










Anyway, there's a lot more coal left than there is petroleum in terms of number of years' supply, but that's at current burn rates. If we switch to coal-powered cars then this will change pretty quickly. Then, when the coal runs out, what then? Back to oil-fired power stations, probably.



OldBay said:


> People without garages,the vast majority in cities, will not have home chargers. Cars left unattended will be unplugged, electricity stolen.
> 
> It's a shame.


I'm pretty sure there are technological ways around that. I.e. using encryption to ensure that the electricity will only flow if the cable is connected to the right car. This is already in use in browser security in the form of HTTPS and SSL certificates to ensure secure connections.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

EV are a scam, just like rideshare was supposed to revolutionize the mass transit industry, a few hedge fund guys promote a concept and get rich, richer and we the suckers have to pay out of the anus to clean up the mess they leave behind.
Hydrogen powered vehicles would be more practical and efficient then the EV, the by product is water and far less toxic materials are used.
It would be easier to convert current gas stations to hydrogen then installing tens of thousands of charging stations.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but this won’t happen because Wall Street won’t see a great profit for years.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

peteyvavs said:


> EV are a scam, just like rideshare was supposed to revolutionize the mass transit industry, a few hedge fund guys promote a concept and get rich, richer and we the suckers have to pay out of the anus to clean up the mess they leave behind.
> Hydrogen powered vehicles would be more practical and efficient then the EV, the by product is water and far less toxic materials are used.
> It would be easier to convert current gas stations to hydrogen then installing tens of thousands of charging stations.
> Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but this won't happen because Wall Street won't see a great profit for years.


I also think hydrogen is a much better option. I think fusion-produced hydrogen could be the technology that eventually replaces fossil fuel -powered electric vehicles in many decades' time.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I also think hydrogen is a much better option. I think fusion-produced hydrogen could be the technology that eventually replaces fossil fuel -powered electric vehicles in many decades' time.


Hydrogen powered vehicles were shelved for EV, the technology is already available, but investors are very short sighted. Hydrogen powered vehicles also generate more power than EV's.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

peteyvavs said:


> Hydrogen powered vehicles were shelved for EV, the technology is already available, but investors are very short sighted. Hydrogen powered vehicles also generate more power than EV's.


Yep, it's easy enough to produce hydrogen from seawater; just dip a couple of electrodes into it and hook them up to an electricity source.

I think that long term, though, solar and wind etc are not going to cut it for power generation; other energy sources will need to be developed.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yep, it's easy enough to produce hydrogen from seawater; just dip a couple of electrodes into it and hook them up to an electricity source.
> 
> I think that long term, though, solar and wind etc are not going to cut it for power generation; other energy sources will need to be developed.


Wind power is too unpredictable, and solar power works in places with plenty of sun year round. Places like Northern cities that are cloudy half the time makes solar power impractical.
Hydrogen power solves not only the power issue but also its byproduct is water which can be used to irrigate arid regions of the world.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

peteyvavs said:


> Wind power is too unpredictable, and solar power works in places with plenty of sun year round. Places like Northern cities that are cloudy half the time makes solar power impractical.
> Hydrogen power solves not only the power issue but also its byproduct is water which can be used to irrigate arid regions of the world.


Hydrogen isn't an energy source. Like the electricity used in electric vehicles, it's just an energy medium. This means that an energy resource must be consumed in order to produce it. In the case of electric vehicles, coal and gas predominantly are burned in power stations to generate the electricity they consume. The vast majority of the hydrogen produced today also comes from fossil fuels; mainly coal (coal is a hydrocarbon from which it is easy to extract hydrogen. However, this extraction process itself requires energy, and carbon emissions are also produced.

Hydrogen can be produced from water using electricity generated by solar or wind, but not in the quantities needed for the "hydrogenization" of transportation. Which means that, even using hydrogen as the energy medium, we still will need alternative energy sources. Again, I think fusion is probably the most promising.


----------



## badratings (Dec 24, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> This has not happened yet on any large scale, and it remains to be seen exactly who will pay for it.
> 
> Also to be taken into account are the millions of cars that are parked on the street, both during the day and overnight by people who own neither garages or driveways. Again, the government is not going to "electrify" the streets, and it is not clear who will.
> 
> There are still significant cost and practical barriers to be overcome.


That's just a chicken and egg problem. Enough people already own electric cars for businesses to install a few chargers on their own accord, once EVs reach 99% penetration a business would be stupid not to have EV charging available.



The Gift of Fish said:


> I think that an average range of 150 miles is appropriate. There are certainly models from Tesla that are capable of 200 miles, however remember that an average by definition includes cars with ranges less than 150.


I'm not saying 150 miles is not the average. I'm saying using current averages for a 99% scenario is completely laughable methodology. EVs are currently 1% of new car sales. By the time EVs reach 99% of new car sales, the vast majority of those sales will be of cars with EPA range of over 200 miles



The Gift of Fish said:


> Plus, the vast majority of the country's electricity comes from burning coal. So, environmentally, all we'll be doing is switching from burning petroleum to power our cars to burning coal to power them. They're not electrically powered vehicles - the electricity is just an energy medium - the source of the power is still primarily fossil fuel; they're essentially coal-powered vehicles. Marketing doesn't care about facts, though


Plain. Wrong. USA grid energy distribution is 28% coal, 35% natural gas, and 36% nuclear/renewables


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

badratings said:


> That's just a chicken and egg problem. Enough people already own electric cars for businesses to install a few chargers on their own accord, once EVs reach 99% penetration a business would be stupid not to have EV charging available.


No, within the parameters of my focus on what is necessary in order for EV to become mainstream, it's not a what-comes-first problem. Charging infrastructure is a prerequisite. There can be charging infrastructure without EV being mainstream, but EV cannot be mainstream without a charging infrastructure.


> I'm not saying 150 miles is not the average. I'm saying using current averages for a 99% scenario is completely laughable methodology. EVs are currently 1% of new car sales. By the time EVs reach 99% of new car sales, the vast majority of those sales will be of cars with EPA range of over 200


As stated, my analysis is based on the state of the electric vehicle industry now. The point of it was to illustrate all the changes that will need to happen in order to EV transportation to become mainstream. As you note, further advances in battery range are included in the necessary developments.


> Plain. Wrong. USA grid energy distribution is 28% coal, 35% natural gas, and 36% nuclear/renewables


Oops, yes, I lumped coal in with all the other fossil fuels. I hate it when that happens. Anyway, 63%, nearly 2/3 (vast majority) of electricity comes from fossil fuels, with only 17% coming from renewables.


----------



## badratings (Dec 24, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Oops, yes, I lumped coal in with all the other fossil fuels. I hate it when that happens. Anyway, 63%, nearly 2/3 (vast majority) of electricity comes from fossil fuels, with only 17% coming from renewables.


Fossil fuels are not all the same. Coal and oil plants are 37% efficient (about the same thermal efficiency of prius engine), while natural gas plants are 56% efficient, which, even accounting for transmission losses, gives NG powered EVs a small leg up over the best hybrids. It's almost like the specific fuel source matters.

I also like how you artificially deflate how clean grid-powered EVs are by ignoring nuclear energy. The combined 36% figure that includes nuclear power matters.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

badratings said:


> Fossil fuels are not all the same. Coal and oil plants are 37% efficient (about the same thermal efficiency of prius engine), while natural gas plants are 56% efficient, which, even accounting for transmission losses, gives NG powered EVs a small leg up over the best hybrids. It's almost like the specific fuel source matters.


I like a gas-fired power plant as much as the next man, but the numbers don't really add up. Assuming a gas plant is indeed 56% efficient, to this we must first apply the typical charging efficiency of 85%. (Pumping a Kw/h into a battery does not mean that the charge level goes up by 1 KW/h - there are some friction losses that end up as heat, as anyone who has charged a phone while holding it will know). This brings a 56% efficiency down to 48%. Next, we have to take into account the fact that electric motors are 80% efficient. This takes the 48% efficiency down to 38%. Which you say is about the same efficiency as a Prius engine. And, as you also say, the specific fuel source matters - coal and oil burning plants, according to your numbers, would give efficiencies _inferior_ to gasoline cars. Given all the faffing about involved in having to build all the extra power plants to generate the electricity required, then building the infrastructure required, then generating all the electricity and charging the batteries etc etc only to achieve, at best, the same efficiency from hydrocarbons as a gas engine already achieves, one has to ask the question - what's the point?

The other issue with burning hydrocarbons, whether it be in order to power EV or gasoline cars is emissions, namely CO2. Switching the US car fleet to EV does not solve this problem.


> I also like how you artificially deflate how clean grid-powered EVs are by ignoring nuclear energy. The combined 36% figure that includes nuclear power matters.


I would never deflate cleanliness. But the word doesn't apply, in my opinion, to nuclear fission. Like a Taco Bell menu item, nuclear fission waste is pretty horrific, noxious stuff that takes over 1,000 years to biodegrade. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, would provide limitless clean energy with no harmful waste. Which is why I think that it will be the answer to the energy problem.


----------



## badratings (Dec 24, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I like a gas-fired power plant as much as the next man, but the numbers don't really add up. Assuming a gas plant is indeed 56% efficient, to this we must first apply the typical charging efficiency of 85%. (Pumping a Kw/h into a battery does not mean that the charge level goes up by 1 KW/h - there are some friction losses that end up as heat, as anyone who has charged a phone while holding it will know). This brings a 56% efficiency down to 48%. Next, we have to take into account the fact that electric motors are 80% efficient. This takes the 48% efficiency down to 38%. Which you say is about the same efficiency as a Prius engine. And, as you also say, the specific fuel source matters - coal and oil burning plants, according to your numbers, would give efficiencies _inferior_ to gasoline cars. Given all the faffing about involved in having to build all the extra power plants to generate the electricity required, then building the infrastructure required, then generating all the electricity and charging the batteries etc etc only to achieve, at best, the same efficiency from hydrocarbons as a gas engine already achieves, one has to ask the question - what's the point?
> 
> The other issue with burning hydrocarbons, whether it be in order to power EV or gasoline cars is emissions, namely CO2. Switching the US car fleet to EV does not solve this problem.


The point is to unlock potential. Switching to EVs now allow future upgrades to the grid to hugely decrease transportation emissions.



The Gift of Fish said:


> I would never deflate cleanliness. But the word doesn't apply, in my opinion, to nuclear fission. Like a Taco Bell menu item, nuclear fission waste is pretty horrific, noxious stuff that takes over 1,000 years to biodegrade. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, would provide limitless clean energy with no harmful waste. Which is why I think that it will be the answer to the energy problem.


Everything is relative. Buried nuclear waste does not contribute to the global co2 disaster. Nuclear is better than gas, better than coal, and essential until capacity of cleaner energy is sufficient to cover the entirety of energy needs


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

The future is Nuke with decentralized renewables. 

I have a small rural property that has a 1.5kwh system I cobbled together with used panels. I spent about $1,200 on it and did most of the work myself. The cost to run grid power was prohibitive. 

But in the end, nuclear is significantly more efficient with fewer downsides than fossil fuels. Renewables, as of now, cannot replace fossil fuels entirely.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

badratings said:


> The point is to unlock potential. Switching to EVs now allow future upgrades to the grid to hugely decrease transportation emissions.


That's quite a stretch.

The real reasons for the move to EV are many. First, there are governments. Countries such as the UK and other Europeans are heavily pressuring the motor industry to move to ultra-low emissions vehicles and then to so-called zero emissions vehicles. They'll be well aware that all they'll be doing is moving the pollution source from the roads to the power plants, but this is the best they can achieve at present. Most of the population lives in urban areas and by eliminating gasoline cars, governments can improve the health of urban dwellers.

Other reasons are consumer-led, such as the belief that EV are less harmful to the environment, that they are lower cost than gas cars, then there is the simple smug factor / show-off factor etc etc.


> Everything is relative. Buried nuclear waste does not contribute to the global co2 disaster. Nuclear is better than gas, better than coal, and essential until capacity of cleaner energy is sufficient to cover the entirety of energy needs


There's no consensus as to the long term effects of burying nuclear waste in the ground. At the moment it's a matter of opinion. Some think it's a great idea. Others believe that irreparable damage is being don due to ground and water table contamination.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> That's quite a stretch.
> 
> The real reasons for the move to EV are many. First, there are governments. Countries such as the UK and other Europeans are heavily pressuring the motor industry to move to ultra-low emissions vehicles and then to so-called zero emissions vehicles. They'll be well aware that all they'll be doing is moving the pollution source from the roads to the power plants, but this is the best they can achieve at present. Most of the population lives in urban areas and by eliminating gasoline cars, governments can improve the health of urban dwellers.
> 
> ...


The pollution shift would not be 1:1. A power plant would produce less pollution than the gas cars it replace. Also a big chunk of the electricity is solar powered.

Also I work with both hydrogen and EV powered vehicles at my job. Both have pros and cons but the EV is stronger and have the longer range. The biggest advantage of hydrogen is being able to refuel in minutes.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> The pollution shift would not be 1:1.


That's right; it would not be 1:1. It seems intuitive that a power plant would produce less pollution than individual engines, but there is also the fact that going that route adds a lot more steps into the process; each one with its efficiency cost. A gasoline engine burns the fuel to spin the engine to move the car. Pretty straightforward. Whereas a fossil fuel power plant burns the fuel to turn water into steam to spin a turbine to spin a generator to generate the electricity that's then sent to the car to charge the battery to then spin the motor to move the car.

Then there's the mix of all the different fuels used in plants from coal to gas to clean renewables. Coal is particularly dirty and solar, wind etc are not.

Working out if there is a net pollution decrease or not would be a pretty complicated calculation.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Hydrogen isn't an energy source. Like the electricity used in electric vehicles, it's just an energy medium. This means that an energy resource must be consumed in order to produce it. In the case of electric vehicles, coal and gas predominantly are burned in power stations to generate the electricity they consume. The vast majority of the hydrogen produced today also comes from fossil fuels; mainly coal (coal is a hydrocarbon from which it is easy to extract hydrogen. However, this extraction process itself requires energy, and carbon emissions are also produced.
> 
> Hydrogen can be produced from water using electricity generated by solar or wind, but not in the quantities needed for the "hydrogenization" of transportation. Which means that, even using hydrogen as the energy medium, we still will need alternative energy sources. Again, I think fusion is probably the most promising.


The amount of money spent on extracting fossil fuels would be more the enough to extract hydrogen from water to operate vehicles world wide indefinitely. Electricity from nuclear power plants can be committed to this endeavor.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

peteyvavs said:


> The amount of money spent on extracting fossil fuels would be more the enough to extract hydrogen from water to operate vehicles world wide indefinitely.


Unfortunately, no - obtaining hydrogen by electrolysis is net energy negative. That is, producing the hydrogen takes more energy than is contained in the hydrogen produced.

If electrolysis were net energy positive then we would have a limitless free energy utopia and there never would have been any need to burn fossil fuels, use nuclear or develop renewables.

The other way of producing hydrogen requires the use of fossil fuels, and it is also a net energy negative process.


> Electricity from nuclear power plants can be committed to this endeavor.


Yes, it could. Only a medium term solution at best, though. Uranium is also a finite resource.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> That's right; it would not be 1:1. It seems intuitive that a power plant would produce less pollution than individual engines, but there is also the fact that going that route adds a lot more steps into the process; each one with its efficiency cost. A gasoline engine burns the fuel to spin the engine to move the car. Pretty straightforward. Whereas a fossil fuel power plant burns the fuel to turn water into steam to spin a turbine to spin a generator to generate the electricity that's then sent to the car to charge the battery to then spin the motor to move the car.
> 
> Then there's the mix of all the different fuels used in plants from coal to gas to clean renewables. Coal is particularly dirty and solar, wind etc are not.
> 
> Working out if there is a net pollution decrease or not would be a pretty complicated calculation.


That's not quite right. The power plant would be many times more efficient than the collective individual cars.

The collective of cars have many different variables as far as fuel consumption and pollution.

Power plants... let's just say things are more rigid. All energy and pollution produced is tightly monitored vs Elroy and his F100 pickup truck dodging emissions ?


----------

