fast charging station in San Diego
Electric cars offer no clear fuel cost savings relative to efficient internal combustion engine (ICE) options, writes independent researcher Schalk Cloete. CO2 and tailpipe emission benefits are also insignificant relative to efficient ICEs. As a result, notes Cloete, ICE vehicles will remain highly competitive with battery electric vehicles (BEVs).
Electric car mania is sweeping the globe and people are predicting the imminent death of the internal combustion engine (ICE) with increasing vigor. Even The Economist recently got in on the act. However, some simple objective analysis quickly shows that there is limited substance behind all the hype.
I should establish right up front that I do not dispute that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) will see impressive growth over coming years. The only point I wish to make is that their potential for achieving the rapid and economical emissions cuts the world so badly needs is very low. Money spent on electric car technology-forcing is therefore, in my opinion, a bad investment at a time when we really cannot afford bad energy investments.
This article will outline the most important arguments in this thesis.
Fuel costs
One of the primary arguments for electric vehicles is lower fuel costs. Yes, the electric motor is inherently much more efficient than the internal combustion engine (ICE), but the generation and distribution of electricity is also much more expensive than the production and distribution of gasoline.
And no, the fuel costs of electric vehicles should not be compared to the woeful American average fuel economy of 25 mpg. Electric vehicles are built for maximum efficiency so that they can get more range out of a given battery pack. They should therefore be compared to ICE cars that are built for maximum efficiency such as the Toyota Prius and the Hyundai Ioniq (both pushing 60 mpg). Obviously, these highly efficient ICE cars present the best benchmark for electric cars, given that they are also promoted as eco-friendly solutions with low fuel costs.
For example, comparing the fuel costs for the Hyundai Ioniq hybrid and electric versions shows only a small advantage for the electric car (which is $5000 more expensive with a battery pack of only 28 kWh). If electricity was taxed the same as gasoline (to pay for things like road maintenance), fuel costs would be essentially identical. Besides, at these efficiency levels, fuel costs are typically about 10% of total car ownership costs. A 10% fuel cost advantage one way or the other will therefore translate to a negligible 1% ownership cost differential.
As discussed in a previous article, Â ICE and BEV drivetrains will probably end up with efficiencies around 50% and 80% (including charging losses) respectively in the long run. The following graph was created to show the electricity price where BEV fuel costs reach parity with ICE fuel costs for a range of BEV efficiency advantages. It is clear that BEVs enjoy no obvious fuel cost advantage under normal oil prices of $30-60/barrel.
Arguably, the comparison should rather be made to average oil production costs ($20-30/barrel), given that the difference between market prices and production costs funds a large chunk of public spending in many countries. In this case, from an overall global perspective, fueling efficient ICEs can be significantly cheaper than fueling BEVs.
Emissions
The CO2 emissions of BEVs relative to ICEs depends primarily on the electricity mix that fuels the BEV. In addition, the BEV battery leads to higher embodied CO2 of about 100 kg/kWh. Â The graph below calculates the electricity CO2 intensity required by BEVs to emit less CO2 than ICE cars for the same three efficiency advantages displayed above. Future battery embodied CO2 is assumed as 50 kg/kWh and calculated on a 60 kWh battery pack lasting 250000 miles.
Given that the latest IEA New Policies scenario projects an average global electricity carbon intensity of 0.42 kg/kWh by 2040 (currently 0.56 kg/kWh), it is clear that BEVs again don’t offer any fundamental advantage relative to efficient ICE cars. Beyond 2040, electricity carbon intensity will continue declining, but biofuels and synfuels will also reduce the carbon intensity of ICE fuels.
If the world finally manages to implement proper technology-neutral climate policies, CO2 intensity of electricity will fall faster. However, this will increase electricity costs, reduce oil prices and also accelerate the development of low-carbon fuels, thus keeping the ICE competitive.
In any case, at these efficiency levels, even high CO2 prices do not greatly impact car ownership economics. The graph below calculates the CO2 cost savings of BEVs at a CO2 price of $150/ton and a future BEV efficiency of 0.24 kWh/mile (including charging losses). Given that car ownership costs about $0.6/mile, potential BEV CO2 savings relative to regular gasoline are in the order of 1%.
The story is similar for other emissions. Local tailpipe emissions (e.g. NOx and PMs) from efficient ICEs are very low. For example, the graph below shows that only about 10% of total NOx and PMs of the Prius comes from the tailpipe. Incidentally, the total NOx and PMs tally for the Nissan Leaf is 75% higher than the Prius on the same site.
Scope for deployment
Battery electric drive is fundamentally best suited to vehicles driving shorter distances, i.e. commuting and general city driving. The longer the required range, the worse the economics get, especially for larger vehicles. A battery pack size estimate is given below for vehicles of different sizes with different range requirements.
At a cost of $100/kWh for batteries and $25/kW and $50/kW for a BEV and ICE drivetrain respectively, the resulting cost comparison looks like this:
BEV attractiveness fades quickly with greater range requirements due to large battery pack costs. In addition, a greater range requirement generally means highway driving at relatively constant speeds where the ICE is at its best. For example, state of the art diesel truck engines operate at 47% efficiency and can potentially reach 55% efficiency with improvements offering a relatively short payback period. Future specialized highway cars will offer similar efficiencies as discussed in an earlier article.  These applications within the ICE comfort zone will be responsible for most freight and passenger transport energy requirements by 2040 shown below.
Fast charging stations offer a partial solution, but will substantially increase fuel costs for BEVs. Fast chargers themselves are relatively expensive, Â imply peak-time charging with higher electricity prices, and may require expensive electricity transmission to remote locations.
For example, Tesla’s superchargers now cost customers in California about $0.20/kWh – a price equivalent to $3.36/gal (excl. taxes) in a current hybrid that is half as efficient as a BEV. Tesla claims that they will make no profit at this price and long queuing times at supercharging stations suggest that more expensive capacity buildouts are actually required. More pessimistic assessments easily arrive at substantially higher fast charging costs.
An additional very important trend is that telecommuting, small electric vehicles and doorstep delivery services will steadily displace short-distance car travel over coming decades. People will eventually realize just how silly it is to haul 2 tons of metal over 50 miles of roadway day after day to go and do computer work that could be done just as efficiently from a home office.
I have previously estimated the truly enormous economic benefits of telecommuting and small electric vehicles in this article. Â The shear magnitude of these advantages and the great attractiveness of car-free neighborhoods and city centers will eventually take away most of the short-trip BEV sweet spot.
Autonomous vehicles
The greater capacity utilization potential offered by autonomous vehicles has led to great optimism regarding synergies with BEVs. Unfortunately, this optimism is unfounded because no clear fuel cost advantage exists relative to the highly efficient ICE options that would certainly be deployed for such high-utilization applications.
If anything, full autonomy will favor ICEs because traffic flow will be much smoother, greatly enhancing ICE efficiency and longevity. The clear BEV advantage of strong and efficient acceleration will be negated because autonomous vehicles will strive to minimize g-forces. In addition, high-utilization autonomous vehicles will regularly travel more than 300 miles per day, requiring either a costly large battery pack or lots of costly fast chargers that increase daytime peak load.
The future for ICE drivetrains
My next article will describe how ICE and (potentially) fuel cell vehicles might adapt in the longer term future to maximize efficiency, while minimizing costs and emissions. As a result, these vehicles will remain highly competitive with BEVs even as battery costs come down. The current deployment of BEVs in the US at a time when subsidies cover the entire battery pack cost gives a rough idea of how this could turn out: Good performance in the luxury/performance segment where battery pack costs are moderate compared to overall vehicle costs and rapid acceleration is highly valued, but poor performance in the mass-market where customers are mainly interested in low costs and convenience.
Editor’s Note
Schallk Cloete describes himself as “a research scientist searching for the objective reality about the longer-term sustainability of industrialized human civilization on planet Earth. Issues surrounding energy and climate are of central importance in this sustainability picture and I seek to contribute a consistently pragmatic viewpoint to the ongoing debate. My formal research focus is on second generation CO2 capture processes because these systems will be ideally suited to the likely future scenario of a much belated scramble for deep and rapid decarbonization of the global energy system.”
This article was first published on our sister website The Energy Collective and is republished here with permission.
First assumption with no reference “the generation and distribution of electricity is also much more expensive than the production and distribution of gasoline” – has the author factored in the oil wars in the middle east? This statement is premised on the idea of central generation of electricity which will be shattered by low solar and battery costs resulting in a distributed network. Then there’s embodied energy in battery production – no mention of clean energy being involved in battery production. No mention of electricity being generated from roof top solar to power the BEV. And battery costs of $100kWh – this assumes battery costs will remain at this magic number – in seven years battery costs will be half that (without any ‘major battery breakthrough’). And ICE longevity – BEVs are currently good for half a million miles and will be good for 1 million miles in the short term – best hope for ICE vehicles will be around 300,000 miles. Then there’s charger costs –
in the real world most BEV owners charge at home. Seems the author is assuming ICE technology will keep improving while BEV technology will be at a standstill. Sorry too many holes in this assessment to be worth digging in further.
The author has been pushing his disingenuous arguments about BEVs for some time – stating back in 2016:
“BEVs will have to achieve a range exceeding 200 miles as standard before broad consumer acceptance can be achieved. As a result, future BEVs will have to come equipped with a battery pack of about 80 kWh which will cost a hefty $8000 even assuming optimistic future Li-ion battery pack costs of $100/kWh. This $8000 is a good proxy of the expected price difference between an ICE vehicle and a BEV which will be accepted by the mass market.”
The GM Bolt travels 238 miles with a 60kWh battery. The average US car price is $33,000 – the Tesla Model 3 costs $35,000. The new Nissan Leaf, the Renault Zoe and the Hyundai Ioniq are alI priced under $30,000. And that’s just 18 months after the author’s comment regarding batteries. The price of batteries is falling rapidly – on the current cost curve they will be $50kWh by 2024. I could go on but you get the point – for some reason he assumes technology has stopped development in regards to energy density and production costs. It must also be noted in his costing that the externalised costs to the health of people in cities is conveniently omitted even though it’s in the hundreds of billions of dollars globally. [derogatory comments censored].
“has the author factored in the oil wars in the middle east?”
There hasn’t been an oil war since the 1970s and there is unlikely to be one now the world is awash with oil and the OPEC cartel is toothless facing declining sales.
“No mention of electricity being generated from roof top solar to power the BEV”
As you say most EVs will be charged at home. UK studies show that EVs will be charged at home overnight when system demand is low and networks can cope better. So low solar prices will not be material in Europe. Solar is not much good either during the winter in the northern hemisphere.
“BEVs are currently good for half a million miles and will be good for 1 million miles in the short term”
Highly unlikely any car will reach that mileage as mechanical components will be worn out and who wants to drive an old banger. Replacing a Tesla battery costs around $20k currently too. Why waste money on a battery replacement for an old EV to keep it running for so many miles? People will scrap the EV and buy new.
It’s appearing that EV batteries, at least Tesla’s, will outlast most car bodies. The highest mileage Tesla S has now passed 250,000 miles and stills holds 93% as much charge as when new.
Tired bodies will be recycled but the batteries may spend some time as grid storage before they are recycled.
Tesla batteries are approaching $100/kWh and should drop lower. That will make a new 85 kWh battery about half what you state.
All the wars in the Middle East where big powers were involved (Britain, US, Russia,…) where about the oil: Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, …
“There hasn’t been an oil war since the 1970s ”
Gulf War I – 1990 to 1991
Gulf War II – 2003 to 2011
GW II was not totally an oil war, but mainly an offshoot of GW I. “Unfinished business” and started by a president and vice president with very oily feet.
The US maintains a large (and expensive) military presence in the Middle East for the purpose of keeping the oil flowing.
Gulf War 1 was to remove a dictator from Kuwait. The US (and UK) presence in the ME is to contain Iran and defend countries on Iran’s doorstep.
And the reason they did and do all these things is to keep the oil flowing. Without oil the western countries would not get their hands dirty dealing with htese countries.
Iran as the great bogeyman. I recommend you read up on some history. Try Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes, The History of the CIA. For Iran specifically I recommend Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men. None of this is “conspiracy theories”. Just standard history. You will learn that it was not Iran that was aggressive but the US and UK which have been aggressive towards Iran. Later their role was taken over by – hey, yeah, that same dictator that had invaded Kuwait. He was backed by the US and UK as long as he fought Iran. They dumped him when he turned on Kuwait. As to defending countries on Iran’s doorstep, the US and UK have been backing Saudi Arabia indeed, not to protect it from Iran, but, as Hans says, to keep the oil flowing. Never mind that Saudi Arabia is a far worse dictatorship than Iran (which is much more democratic) and a far greater financial supporter of terrorism and fundamentalism. ISIS is not supported by Iran, Nigel.
S. Arabia has many faults for sure. The issue for the UK/US with Iran is the theocracy’s hatred of the US and threats to annihilate Israel – one made by Iran’s military head a few days ago. Also Iranian sponsored Hezbollah sitting in S. Lebanon as a proxy force. Earlier this year Iran threatened to destroy S. Arabia too. The Iran deal brokered by Kerry is awful (note his son-in-law is Iranian) and only delays Iran gaining nukes. The mullahs are not to be trusted either having concealed nuke facilities for decades.
I studied with Iranian students and they are fine and westernised and I have Iranian friends in the UK who came here to escape the theocracy.
Unfortunately even if oil flowing through the Gulf reduces in importance to the west, western forces will be needed in the Gulf to keep the religious factions apart to stop a conflagration engulfing the ME.
A can of worms this of course. Iran supports Hezbollah – yes, are people allowed to defend themselves against Israeli aggression? The apartheid system in Israel and the destruction of Palestinian society is a crime against humanity, aided and abetted by the West. Iran hides its nukes? Israel does not even admit it has nukes, and is not party to the non-proliferation treaty, as Iran is,, nor is it required to be by its US and UK backers. Ever wondered why Iran has a theocracy in the first place? After the US and UK deposed the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953, because he was a threat to British oil interests, they supported the savage regime of the Shah for 25 years. The US embassy was next to the prison of the Savak were political opponents were tortured. Hey, the people who finally threw out the Shah in 1979 were (in part) religious fundamentalists. Strange, isn’t it, that they weren’t admirers of America? They were then battered for 10 yrs by the evil regime of Saddam Hussein, again backed by US and UK, who sent representatives there. Now who is a threat to whom? Ever looked at it fro the other side? Mention to me another example of Iranian aggressiveness please? Yemen? Oh no that’s Saudi Arabia again. Ever looked at American foreign interventions over the last 50 years? Again, who is threatening whom?You even turn a blind eye to the evil the Saudi’s are causing throughout the western world, poisoning people’s minds in Europe, undermining our society. Iran does not do that.
Well, on the other hand israel is under permanent attack for 70 years now. Who would be so correct and just to always avoid all misbehaving towards neighbours under such circumstances? I dislike walls, and I dislike the incorret places where the wall is often built in detail in israel, but it might allow both sides to be a bit more seperated and calm down over time there. But time will be decades. Nethanjahu is a catastrophy for such a development on the other hand, Trumps wrong words too.
The US are big, and because of this doing a lot, and by doing so doing a lot of things wrong, too, especially the secret services. On the other hand, at least before Trump, they were also able to lend a helping hand again when things were setteled. Russia does simlar amounts of “wrong” but I could not see a helping hand from there. Wrongs can not be balanced by other wrongs, but it is important to keep perspective right. The world would not become a better place with the us doing nothing outside it’s borders, so far.
That oil is more a curst than a benefit can be seen threwout the world, the only big oil exporter where free living is easy is norway.
So getting rid of oil for fuelinig transport might improve a lot in the world. Might, not must.
Ùnder attack for 70 years? Well, they drove out the Palestinians first, after which the Palestinians have been vainly trying to get back what they owned for 70 years. They are now second-rate people on their own land.
I have no desire to get into this – but –
Didn’t the Jews basically buy up a lot of Palestine and some of the Palestinians left when the Israeli government was formed?
Just asking a history question.
Yes this is not the place to continue this discussion. Check this out if you are interested: https://mises.org/library/alienation-home-land-how-palestine-became-israel
well, there was a UN decision which established israel following the jewish immigration to palestina in the decades before. If this development before was good or bad is another question, it was triggered by the things happening in worlwar 2 and antisemitism in large parts of the world before.
Arabian palestinians became somewhat second class citicens over time, because the permanent attacks on israel naturally also separated the population groups more than neccesary, because naturally (but not good) jewish israeli are afraied of their arabian neighbours if they become toerrorists and start killing them. Pt yourself into the situation of a israeli, too, sometimes. There are a lot of organisations and states around israel who want to eliminate israel including jewish population. How should this help taht the israelis treat the palestinians friendly and as equals?
It is a histroical fact that now there is a jewish population in israel (again) as it is a historical fact that over the centuries before arab popullation moved there, and existing population was assimilated ba arab palestinians.
In liberal Europe we enjoy great freedoms of speech and religion. Those countries that share these values are few and far between in the ME. Many ME countries are lead by people who dislike/hate the west and our values and freedoms. Bashing and criticising Israel and the US who are our friends will not be good for Europe long-term.
This is just the point I am making! US and UK support people who dislike/hate freedom and rights! They don’t extend freedoms and rights to other people, e.g. the ones that they routinely bomb to death. The US has backed dictators in Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, the Gulf States, Guatemala, Nicaragua, many other Latin American and African countries. It has killed millions of innocent civilians throughout the world. Israel is a racist, apartheid regime that tramples on the freedoms and human rights of Palestinian people. By the way, Iran, bad as it is, is the most democratic country in the Middle East, much more democratic than the regimes supported by the US and UK. And by the way, the US has more people in prison than any country on earth, so I am not so sure about those “great freedoms”. They have tanks in the streets. I would not like run afoul of the US government. I fear you live in an Anglo-Saxon propaganda bubble.
“US and UK support people who dislike/hate freedom and rights! ”
It’s a lot more complex than can be summed up in a single statement, Karel.
My take is that the US (I’ll leave the UK out of this) has done both good and bad.
Helping defeat Hitler is something that I would consider good. Helping to stop the Balkans War was was good, IMO.
Invading Iraq was bad.
Getting involved in Vietnam was thought to be good but turned out bad.
Sometimes we find ourselves in a lose/lose worse situation. Do you support a “mild” dictator or do you open the door for a much crueler government come into power?
Here’s the bottom line, Karel. If other countries don’t like the decisions the US makes then they need to step up and take on some of the world’s problems rather than leaving them to the US.
The authors arguments are weak. Busses are going EV because cost of operation and maintenance are lower, to the tune of 50 to 60k per year. Semi’s are next. Power isn’t the problem, Tesla has proven well that a motor can power a car faster than just about the highest performance ICE vehicle. Battery weight and size and cost are obviously an impediment, but his is being removed rapidly as economies of scale grow and billions are now pouring into research leading to faster technology advancement in and industry that has halved the weight, size and capacity per $ in just 6 short years. Expect the same to occur in the next six if not faster. This is typical of technology just as we are seeing accelerating drops in the price of solar and wind technology. As for emissions, EV’s are 3x the efficiency of gas powered cars, natural gas which has similar power conversions as gasoline is much more efficient when generating electricity at a large power plant (much less waste), than gasoline is in your car, which has about an 80% energy waste.
Finally it’s all about the economics. For myself, I now have a electricity supplier offered through my Utility company that is 100% renewable energy and which varies pricing per time of day. If I charge my EV at night, the cost is only 2.5 cents per KW. In other words, I can drive 100 miles for 75 cents. Why the Author doesn’t mention that reality I don’t know. EV’s = independence from big oil. And how you decide to get your electricity is up to you, but the cost of producing renewable electricity in many parts of the world is now less than using coal and natural gas. And unlike fossil fuels, the more demand for renewables, the faster the price drops. I think any investor knows which side of the equation they want to be on, which is why billions of private equity are flowing away from fossil fuels and into renewables. There’s no arguing the facts, unless of course you work for big oil.
P.S. The author is comparing a Prius to a Tesla. Enough of the nonsense already. The plug in Prius gets about the same MPG.
And the Ford 350 is more powerful than a Tesla,
Therefore since ICE vehicles have more power and get better mileage they are better.
Nice argument. Next he’ll say planes require gas to fly and EV’s will never be able to fly on batteries so that means ICE cars are better.
“For myself, I now have a electricity supplier offered through my Utility company that is 100% renewable energy and which varies pricing per time of day.”
The grid is supplied by a mix of gen. sources. So your supply is not 100% renewable. Likely around 30% renewable on average. Also if you charge at night when there is no solar it will be even less.
That’s not how things work over here, Nigel.
One can subscribe to purchase all their electricity from renewable sources and as many kWh as you use will be put on the grid by your supplier.
Yes, your electrons will be mixed in with nasty old coal electrons and glow in the dark nuclear reactor electrons but we look at the origin where you purchase.
None of the money you spend on electricity will go to a fossil fuel or nuclear plant.
@Bob, does your electricity supply fail on a cloudy windlesss day ? That is the time when no renewables are supplying, if you still have an electrical supply under those circumstances your supply is not 100% renewable, it is propped up by Nuclear and coal (reliables, not renewables). Every renewable source needs 100% backup from conventional source, and a German energy expert said that (although it is obvious because renewables are just so unreliable in their output).
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
monitor this site, it may surprise you…
The UK happens to have grid connections to France, the Netherlands, Ireland, a connection to Norway is underway. Even with your silly Brexit there is no need for the UK to be self-sufficient in power every moment of the day.
Those connections have only a small capacity compared with 45GW required by UK, and that is without EV needs which will be in addition to that.
And Brexit was inevitable and not silly, United States of Europe is the silly thing, a 1950 idea that has passed its use by date. UK may be part of Europe by geographical accident but our thinking is completely different.
The interconnectors under construction / in advanced planning state sum up to about 15 GW, which is not insignificant compared to 45 gW of consumption. The doggerbank star in the north sea, as planned by Tennet and other utilities will multiply this exchange capacity.
P.S. in case you would accidentally cross the border to outside the UK you woud find that the way of thinking, and even the language (local dialects) is quite similar on the other side of the water compared to almost any other place in the world.
“about 15 GW, which is not insignificant compared to 45 gW of consumption”
The UK does not need a 45 GW connection to Europe.
The UK needs some storage just to fit their wind and solar production to demand.
There will be periods when national wind and solar are not providing 100% of the daily demand. At that point an amount smaller than 45 GW can be fed in, used directly when needed, and used to recharge local storage when demand is lower.
Even if the UK intended to purchase 100% of its electricity from Europe it wouldn’t need a 45 GW line. What would be needed is a “30” GW line and on-island storage.
Import the average demand. Use storage to distribute between high and low peak demands.
The question is : what is cheaper- power lines or storage. Usually – unless you go down to very small time variations – power lines are cheaper. Also to export extra wind power for a good price to customers elsewhere. UK can produce tons of tWh of offshore wind power for good prices. See it as a export industry like oil and gas in the 1980’s
“what is cheaper- power lines or storage”
That is a question that cannot be answered at this time. We don’t know how much storage will cost a decade or two from now when it’s time to add a bunch.
And we don’t know how well a European grid might integrate to minimize storage.
This is why cost estimates are used – for bth directions because any planning needs a significant time, so decisions have to be made while some things are not yet totally sure. Something which was obvious for our fathers and grandfathers, but is something new for most people today, as it seems to me 🙂 For longer term power shifts, lasting days, weeks or months, power lines are below any prediction for small to medium scale storage, and big storage (TWh) is only possible a some places – and most likely still not competitive, and would also need a huge grid.
Since entsoe is working on the neccesary grid expansions in europe, I guess it will be there. Maybe a bit late but still in time 🙂
Wind and solar do need back up, or more precisely, fill-in. When they are not generating enough electricity grids will have to use another source.
Those fill-in sources can be a mix of storage and dispatchable generation. The need for fill-in can be lowered with load-shifting.
100% renewable grids have been modeled multiple times. There’s no “We can’t do this” issue. It’s all about how we get a low carbon grid at the best price.
The other low carbon option is nuclear. Nuclear, unlike wind and solar, needs spinning backup because one cannot predict when a reactor might suddenly quit operating.
Each year the US’s ~100 reactors have, between them, around 100 unscheduled outages. Sometime we lose more than one reactor at the same time. There has to be backup that can step in immediately to replace those large plants elsewise the grid goes down.
So, what are our options?
1) Wind and solar, which have become quite inexpensive, plus storage and dispatchable generation.
2) Nuclear, which costs more than the retail rate. Plus spinning backup. Plus some amount of storage in order to fit supply to demand as reactors can’t ramp fast enough to keep grids stable.
Consider your pocketbooks. The UK is going to have to replace aging out reactors. Do some honest math. Have some objective, knowledgeable people work out a long term cost for a renewable grid and a nuclear grid.
And include, that large grids (interconnectors, etc) replace storage, the bigger and stronger the grid, the less storage is needed.
No need to factor anything. Transferring electricity is cheap, but hasn’t been done because there is no need. Electricity is easy to produce almost anywhere, doesn’t need to be transferred. Once the need exist, the price to transfer electricity 3000 miles will be 100 times less than transferring oil or gas. We’re talking electrons vs. molecules here folks, not to mention the safety issues with transferring explosive molecules and of course the environmental cost when things go wrong.
Next power efficiency. Simple argument, if gas is so good, how come I don’t have a gas powered vacumn cleaner? Wouldn’t it be cheaper. Ain’t no different for cars, trucks, etc. The issue has always been battery storage capacity and weight and cost. As those have come down, the reality of lower cost electric transportation is viable. Economies of scale are now set to drive down technology cost in half every 5 to 6 years for a number of generations. Internal combustion engines have been around for how many years, gas prices have been high since the 70’s. Why no major efficiency improvements, other than smaller lighter cars. That’s not efficiency engines. So the reality is opposite of what the author believes, or perhaps were all going to be driving diesel powered vehicles to gain a small advantage in power and efficiency. Please with the b.s. oranges to apples analogies already.
The author has cobbled together data comparing apples and oranges to make arguments that bypass logic. For safety, cost of transporting energy, efficiency, and cost electricity is far superior to fossil fuels. If this wasn’t true, you vacuum cleaner, washer and dryer, etc., would be gas powered.
What fossil fuels have historically had an advantage is the cost of storage, a tankfull of gas can get you 3 to 400 miles. A gas station can fill hundreds of vehicles. Now that storage cost are coming down, the car is going to be just like a electric vacuum cleaner when compared to ICE powered vehicles, faster, better, safer, and cheaper to operate. And now Tesla with the Model 3 and Nissan with the 2018 Leaf are proving lower purchase price than comparable vehicles as well.
It’s game, set, match and the biggest factor of all is now in play, as demand for renewables increases, prices drop faster, just the opposite of what happens when demand for fossil fuels increases. EV demand is going to drop prices rapidly as well, as automakers pour billions in to this market in order to out compete each other.
Vacuum cleaner with a gas engine, 10,000 parts, electric vacuum cleaner less than 1,000 parts. ICE vehicle more than 30,000 parts, EV, less than 10,000 parts. Those are the facts that matter.
Great reply Leo. They author is an EV denier. Fossil fuels are subsidised to the tune of Trillions of Dollars each year according to the IMF. Electricity can be generated and stored (in recycled car batteries) locally. As a leased EV driver I am astonished that ICE drivers don’t know the true costs and impact of their vehicles.
One of the criticisms leveled against internal combustion engines concerns the high particulate (PM) levels ascribed to diesel automobiles. It is commonly assumed that electric automobiles would eliminate the resulting imperilments of human health.
A 2014 study by the German Environment Aid (DUH), however, determined that 44 percent of the airborne particulates in city traffic had resulted from tire and brake lining friction. The type of motor employed in individual vehicles is correspondingly irrelevant to this component of municipal air pollution.
You’re right – EVs will not eliminate all particulate matter however the study you refer to has not taken in to account regenerative braking. If you’ve driven an EV you soon realise you rarely touch the brakes (try it if you don’t believe me). The study did not mention that fact. So I’m not sure what percentage of the 44percent is due specifically to brake lining friction but I would imagine it would be close to half. EVs will decrease PM levels significantly more than what the study suggests.
A report I’ve now found refers to the copper in brake linings being the principal cause of concern.
The tire manufacturers for their part have apparently been successful in reducing most toxic substances in the rubber they use.
All cars, however, will raise the dust already present on road surfaces. For that reason, some cities regularly wash down their main thoroughfares.
that’s good to know Jeffrey 🙂
You are quoting from an unspecified 2016 article when responding to thjis article? That does not sound very convincing.
Battery costs $100/kWh – we are not anywhere close to that yet. Tesla was reportedly at $190 at the beginning of the year and McKinsey was predicting $100 by 2030 – see https://electrek.co/2017/01/30/electric-vehicle-battery-cost-dropped-80-6-years-227kwh-tesla-190kwh/
I am personally an EV fan and this author may have it wrong, but I think it’s worth taking his arguments seriously.
Here’s the article Karel : https://energypost.eu/can-battery-electrics-disrupt-internal-combustion-engine-part-1/
Yes McKinsey – that would be the same McKinsey that predicted for AT&T that mobile phone growth (their 15 year prediction) would result in 900,000 subscribers by 2000. The actual number was 109 million – a 120 times mistaken prediction.
If you consider lithium ion battery costs have come down 80% since 2010 from $1,000kWh to $200kWh today (Tesla have claimed to be below $190 since 2016 and are predicting a 35% decrease ($135) with the Gigafactory ramping up). Elon Musk has also stated he’ll be disappointed if they aren’t at $100 by 2020. GM have said their cell price is $145kWh but the pack itself is around $225.
If the battery cost curve continues at the rate it has enjoyed over the past 7 years then we hit around $40kWh around 2024. But …. it looks like that cost curve will accelerate further due to economies of scale as more large scale battery factories come on stream.
McKinsey’s prediction of $100 by 2030 like just about all previous ‘expert’ technology predictions about lithium ion batteries is ridiculously conservative.
It’s both economies of scale and faster technology improvements as demand drives companies to spend billions in order to grab market share, which hastens the technology advancement.
While there are arguments for both types of motive power, the recent decision of Los Angeles to buy electric-powered police cruisers, street sweepers, and trash haulers speaks for the advisability of using electrified service vehicles that make frequent stops. A number of European cities are currently testing electric buses, and several have already placed them into regular service. The German electric Streetscooter originally developed for the post office has a waiting list of private customers and commercial delivery services.
Apart from all technical considerations, compulsory vehicle electrification within cities would eliminate the current exposure of baby carriages to close-proximity motor exhaust fumes on sidewalks and at pedestrian crossings.
I recall someone once remarking that placing car exhaust pipes at the front of each motor vehicle would submit the driver directly to the pollution he was causing. While that sounds drastic, is there any fundamental difference from inhaling the exhaust fumes of the car immediately ahead in city traffic?
GM is paying LG Chem $145/kWh for cells for their Bolt. Turned into packs the cost is likely in the $175 to $190 range.
Jeff Evanson, VP of Tesla Investor Relations, stated that Tesla’s all-in pack cost was below $190/kWh in April, 2016.
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/27/tesla-model-3-pricing-battery-pricing-unveiled/#comment-2645763009
It’s frustrating that we don’t get to learn battery prices in a direct fashion but have to cobble together the information we do find into a narrative. Working back from the $180/kWh pack price Tesla is probably paying less than GM for cells at this point. A common assumption (based on a statement in a Tesla video) is that the Gigafactory will lower cell price by 30% or better. That would mean cell prices around $100/kWh.
By the way Karel – McKinsey predicted in 2012 battery prices would be $200 by 2020 – http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/battery-technology-charges-ahead
Then in 2016 they predicted that battery prices would be …… wait for it: $200kWh by 2020 (at a time – 2016- when Tesla was already at $190kWh) – here’s the link: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/the-new-economics-of-energy-storage
There were three authors in that last report – all I can say is, pretty damn sloppy.
The author is right about the direction cities and traffic should take and is qualitatively right that the CO2 advantage of EVs is overestimated by enthusiasts, although that will be improving. These are not reasons to hold back with the EV developments. We need to get the ICEs out of the cities and we need to start shrinking the role of petroleum in our society, and the EVs will play a big role for both. These are enormous long-term projects and we can’t wait for someone to fix the cities first. I think it more likely that expenditures on EVs will encourage, rather than displace other CO2 reduction measures (the issues blocking them are more psychological and political than financial).
Agreed, lower demand for gasoline should mean prices remain low so ICE ownership remains competitive. Another significant factor to consider in comparing fuel/electricity costs is tax. E.g. UK Government takes c. ÂŁ30bn/year in road fuel tax – over 50% of the price of petrol/diesel is tax/duty. Whereas electricity used to charge cars at home is only taxed at 5%. Government can’t afford to lose that revenue. If they eventually tax BEVs to make up for lost revenue through reduced sales of road fuel, BEVs could quickly lose their sparkle…
On emissions, this article begs the question, have Governments planning to phase out ICE cars really thought through the benefits. Because it’s clear EVs will not be much better for the environment than ICE vehicles.
It doesn’t matter if gasoline prices remain low – ICE vehicles are being legislated out of existence. The UK, France, Scotland, Norway, Holland, Denmark have all announced plans to rid themselves of petrol/diesel vehicles – the earliest of those by 2025 and the latest by 2040. Cities including Madrid, Athens, Paris and Mexico City plan to banish diesel by 2025. But the real nails in the coffin for ICE vehicles are the push by India to electrify their fleet by 2030 and the recent announcement of the intention of the Chinese to rid themselves of ICE vehicles altogether. The dominoes are falling – oil can become as cheap it can possibly be and still not be competitive. Each iteration of technology becomes better and cheaper – ICE is analogue – EVs are digital. ICE vehicles will be unable to compete on sticker price by 2025 or sooner. It is arguable BEVs are already cheaper than equivalent ICE vehicles in total cost of ownership.
As far as loss of revenue goes for governments – that will not be an issue – governments are extremely creative in finding ways to tax their citizens. It will be quite easy to tax any vehicle by the number of kilometers travelled.
As ex Saudi oil minister Sheikh Yamani predicted in the year 2000 – “Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil – and no buyers”. He thought it would be fuel cells that killed off oil – he got the technology wrong – it will be BEVs – whether you like them or not it’s simply unstoppable now.
” It is arguable BEVs are already cheaper than equivalent ICE vehicles in total cost of ownership.”
It’s not a hard argument to make. Tesla 3 vs. BMW Series 3.
Tesla
Base price $35,000
13,000 miles per year using US average $0.12/kWh electricity = $520/year
BMW
MSRP = $33,450
13,000 miles per year using US average $2.50/gallon gasoline = $873 plus $150 for oil changes = $1,028
Time to recover the $1,550 additional cost for the Model 3 = $1,550 / $508 = 3 years.
And that’s not even factoring in the much lower maintenance costs and aggravation for BEVs: less brake wear, no oil changes, no tune-ups, no belts or water pumps or transmissions to fail. Only the tires and the possibility that after 300k miles you will need a new battery, by which time, you have probably sold the car.
Spot on!
…and the quite drive with little vibrations, quick acceleration, never having to go to a gas station again, no starting problems, no poisonous/carcinogenic fumes,…
The maintenance procedures you describe are largely centralized in the generating plant supplying energy for a large fleet of electric vehicles. The power supply could alternatively be subdivided into a multitude of wind turbines and solar farms, for which correspondingly more individual attention will be required.
Automobile dealers nowadays earn their money in vehicle maintenance, so that many of them could be closing down in the future era of electric mobility. It should be possible to manufacture cars locally, however, as is already the case in suburban Asia. Automobiles with electric motors are delivered as knockdown assemblies and bolted together in neighborhood garages. Many people throughout the world need nothing more to meet their daily transportation needs.
“ICE vehicles are being legislated out of existence.”
The UK has not proposed a ban on hybrids. Legislation is years away and the form not known. Low emission hybrids can be controlled to prevent their ICE engines running in cities. A forced switch to BEVs only is not necessary.
I forced switch to solely BEVs could only be justified if and when the UKs electricity generation is largely emissions free. France is currently in the best position on low emissions from generation, but likely to spoil that by moving away from nuclear which will result in burning more fossil fuels.
If EVs are taxed in the UK, or current tax breaks removed, sales will stall.
“It is arguable BEVs are already cheaper than equivalent ICE vehicles in total cost of ownership.”
Not in the UK. Check out the VW Golf E at ÂŁ30k compared to the petrol version Golf S at ÂŁ18k.
What’s the typical lifespan of a car in the UK?
You’ve got some pretty expensive fuel prices, do you not?
ÂŁ12k / expected life = ?
(An 18 year lifespan = ÂŁ670/year)
Cost of fuel and oil changes, more frequent brake rebuilds per year = ?
Cost of charging per year = ?
Got numbers?
Most cars sold these days in the UK are on personal contracts. It’s attractive to lease a car for a small deposit then hand back after 3 years in exchange for a new one. Enables many people to drive cars they couldn’t afford to purchase. Hassle free motoring too as the cars are covered by a 3 year warranty. Also popular with car makers who sell more vehicles. Almost 1 in 3 sold here are German, the UK being their biggest export market. Government is concerned about the level of car debt and may clamp down on the industry making it more difficult to lease new cars. I believe the average length of car ownership in the UK is currently about 4 years. Although cars last much longer.
A new car covering 25k miles typically needs just one oil service in 3 years of ownership costing about ÂŁ300. Also a set of new tyres – ÂŁ500. Brakes depends on the driver. My car is over 4 years old and brakes still fine.
Petrol is around ÂŁ1.15p/litre. Domestic electricity costs 12p/kWh day rates, 7p/kWh off peak at night.
Math, Nigel. Do you need me to do it for you?
The question was not whether an EV costs more or less during a three year lease. It was over the life of the car.
Did you avoid answering the question because you realized that the result was not what you wanted to hear? Or ?
Bob, I haven’t run through the numbers. EVs don’t interest me. Possibly a hybrid though which are far more popular in Europe and were all the talk at the recent Frankfurt motor show.
However why would a buyer of a new car who didn’t intend to keep it beyond 4 years (the point where a first purchaser in the UK typically trades in a new car) be bothered about lower EV running costs over the life of the car? Typically a petrol car uses ÂŁ100/month in fuel. If the EV only cost ÂŁ10/month to charge so saving about ÂŁ4000 in petrol costs over 4 years, a Golf E compared to the petrol version would not be cost effective.
Note too that in the UK EV’s depreciate faster than ICE cars and cost more to insure.
The costs the cas has in his further life defines the price at which the car can be sold after 4 years.
If people find out taht a EV is as good as new after 4 years (“if”) , then the prices for sales will be higher than for cars with ICE after 4 years.
We know that electric motors have very long lifetimes with no maintenance needed.
At 250,000 miles driven a Tesla Model S is still showing 93% of original capacity. (It’s been doing taxi service.)
Normally it would take about 20 years of US driving to put 250,000 miles on a car.
A 20 year old car with a highly dependable propulsion system. No transmission, no engine problems, etc. That’s going to have a lot of resale value.
A 20 year old ICEV with 250,000 is generally a piece of unreliable junk.
In the UK the Tesla Model S car costs >ÂŁ60k rising to over ÂŁ100k. It’s way too expensive to buy outright for most people.
Expensive too on a 3 year lease starting at ÂŁ900/month for the base version to ÂŁ2700/month for the ‘Ludicrous’ version. Ludicrous performance -some would say on price too!
On the popular UK lease schemes buyers hand back the car after 3/4 years so are not concerned about the residual value. The lease company then sells the car.
An EV’s higher depreciation compared to an ICE car I expect is down to concern over battery life and the risk of needing a replacement costing perhaps ÂŁ5000 plus?
VW UK currently is offering a Golf e on finance for ÂŁ319/month and customer deposit is ÂŁ7200.
The petrol Golf S is on offer for ÂŁ199/month and deposit of ÂŁ5000.
The Golf E might make sense for drivers covering many miles – fuel cost savings. Although on a lease there are penalties for exceeding 10k miles/year. Likely high mileage drivers would buy a diesel.
It is down to concernes due to lack of experience with selling second hand EV vehicles. If the EV sells for a higher price than the ICE the lease rates will change accordingly.
[censored – no personal attacks allowed]
Lease rates incorporate the residual value of the vehicle post lease.
If resale value rises then lease rates should drop.
Resale value could increase for EVs due to their longer serviceable life and lower operating costs.
…..currently there is Government grant of ÂŁ4500 towards the cost of purchasing an EV. The Golf E qualifies for the grant.
The following on the barriers to the growth of electric vehicles might also be of interest
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/human-toxicity-potential-other-barriers-unlimited-growth-kalghatgi
No question that if EVs take over 100% of the current and growing car population that there will be associated problems, although I would guess that they pale compared to pushing oil extraction to the max. The issue is not 100%. The issue is that we have an opportunity to loosen the damaging stranglehold of the petroleum complex on our societies. We have momentum and enthusiasm right now, and we have to go for it. We need options.
That article is full of fail.
It assumes new electricity will come from fossil fuels when the world is moving to renewables and away from fossil fuels.
There are significant problems in the way cobalt is mined but that is not due to EVs. That is due to a lack of adequate worker protection in the countries where the mines are located.
Invest money in improving internal combustion engines? ICEs are a mature technology and there’s little more that can be squeezed out of them. The technological advances now being made are minor and complicated, making manufacturing more expensive.
How about a simple rebuttal?
EVs should be cheaper to manufacture and purchase than ICEVs within the next five years.
EVs will be cheaper to drive because they will be able to charge with off-peak electricity. Gas would have to drop to around $1/gallon in order to be competitive. It costs $0.40 to $0.70/gallon to refine oil into gasoline. Transportation and distribution runs close to $0.30/gallon. Then there’s the cost of the oil and profits along the chain. There is no sustainable $1/gallon gasoline.
Charge time is not a problem. Most people drive more that the range of a long range EV (~250 miles) in a single day. When they do they can charge while eating a meal. People driving ICEVs will make 40 or so stops per year at filling stations and spend several hours in total filling up. Standing beside their cars in all sorts of weather or paying someone to stand there in their place.
The grid will clean. There is no way to clean a tailpipe. Even bio/synfuels would be dirty to some extent. (Plus too expensive.)
“The grid will clean. There is no way to clean a tailpipe. Even bio/synfuels would be dirty to some extent. (Plus too expensive.)”
plus having a very poor EROEI
The grid will not clean appreciably on renewables alone. Replacing coal and nuclear with gas and renewables will not result in a clean grid. Nuclear is needed too to clean the grid.
It will be, without nuclear. For the price difference between renewables and nuclear it’s possible to send the electricity around the world if there is too few of it locally.
“Nuclear is needed too to clean the grid.”
Nigel, hopefully you realize that claim is nonsense.
There is nothing nuclear can do that can’t be done by a mixture of renewables and storage.
Absolutely nothing.
Bob, I agree, nothing that nuclear can do that can’t be done by storage and renewables. You will know my view on this that the latter would be far more expensive than nuclear and is not feasible unless a country is rich in hydro.
So let’s not get into a disagreement on costs and feasibility arguments again……..
OK, Nigel. Let’s see if I have this right.
You believe that nuclear is cheaper than renewables and storage.
And you do not want anyone to post facts to the contrary.
You believe that nuclear must be part of a grid.
And you do not want anyone to post facts to the contrary.
You also believe, apparently, that hybrid ICEVs are better than EVs.
And you do not want anyone to post facts to the contrary.
Might I suggest Nigel, with all due respect, you should spend your time on a religious site where faith is given preference over facts.
Bob, you imply I am not scientific. Well, let us consider the late Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK’s Department of Energy and CC (DECC), Professor Sir David Mackay FRS. A professor of Physics at Cambridge, and author of the utterly, remorselessly fact-based book, “Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air”.
(https://www.withouthotair.com/).
He gave an interview 10 days before tragically passing away at age 48 from cancer in which, freed from responsibilities, he was able to be frank:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCyidsxIDtQ
Remarks about batteries (can never be anything like the required scale to be relevant to technologies that can’t reliably generate at peak) are at 9 minutes 50 seconds, also “batteries are not a realistic solution/the price would need to be 100 times less”
At minute 11.05 “… idea of powering the UK with renewable energy is an appalling delusion”.
At 9 minutes 10 seconds in “Pay attention to mathematics, the laws of physics, the realities of engineering”
Minute 9.40 “we need a plan that adds up” // “intermittency is a real problem”
Minute 9.50 “renewable proponents haven’t done the numbers to achieve proposed solutions”
Minute 10.10 12 minutes 50 seconds – asked what he prefers for GB generation mix, as he is at end of life and has, as he explains (and says why), avoided ever saying so directly previously; he says “I suppose the time has come”, and gives the answer, CCS’d-fossil-fired-power-stations and nuclear; almost zero wind and solar, they are in his view pointless, a waste of money if you have something reliable which is what you need, for the winter – you’d just have to turn down your nukes and CCS to make room for wind and solar. They can’t displace any fossil capacity at all.
At 16 minutes 10 seconds : he found on arriving at DECC (now BEIS) civil servants had clearly advised ministers not to subsidise solar, but ministers ignored them. “Britain is one of the darkest countries in the world”. Better to use solar where its output profile meets demand much better. But society always needs reliability. “So Las Vegas can have some solar”, but he jokes, “it will also need a nuke”.
Minute 21:40 – repeat from earlier, that “making the numbers add up” (pretending we can cope solely with a very high proportion of solar and wind) with unrealistic assumptions on energy efficiency and storage, is folly
“if you can get through the winter with CCS and nuclear, there is no point in adding any wind and solar”
Minutes 14 – 15 “society needs reliability in its electrical system” .
Sorry, Nigel.
I’m uninterested in Mackay’s opinion. He did not operate as a scientist but as someone who pushed an opinion.
I’d explain his errors but [censored – no personal attacks allowed].
Bob, that is a very weak reply. He was a top academic from Cambridge who used his skills to reach an informed position.
To state that a top UK scientist was just an ‘opinion pusher’ who made many errors is absurd. Particularly when spoken by a poster full of what are at best opinions and unfounded predictions. Please remind us, what engineering background do you have to credibly claim he made errors?
We could start with his incorrect claims about the amount of land it would take to install wind turbines.
I would bet the cost of storage is less in a few short years than building a high priced nuclear plant that takes decades from start to finish and which cannot be turned on and off as demand shifts during the day.
It’s likely to maintain a mixture of natural gas for some time, but when storage and renewable prices drop below natural gas in the next 10 to 20 years (quite possible less), it’s game, set, match.
See Stanford Prof. Tony Seba YouTube video on technology disruption in energy and transportation for a real understanding of what’s going on today that is just starting to rapidly change things as we know them.
You are mixing up two subjects. Grid scale storage with renewables, and BEVs.
Also you clearly don’t understand the huge feasibility issues and cost of providing a 100% WWS electricity supply system. This may help you to understand:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/business/energy-environment/renewable-energy-national-academy-matt-jacobson.html
Your article assumes the Clack paper to be accurate.
It is, in fact, fatally flawed.
The cost of a global RE energy supply? Cheaper than the alternative.
Over the next few decades every coal, nuclear, and gas plant will wear out. Everyone of those plants will have to be replaced with something and wind + solar + storage is the cheapest alternative.
The world spends $5 trillion per year on fossil fuel subsidies.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year
Trillions more on obtaining fossil fuels.
Financing our move to renewables will be not at all difficult. We’re going to save a fortune.