Electric vehicles cheaper than combustion by 2027, study predicts

[Cyber Liberty]

Well,DUHHHHHHH!

By the time they get through taxing gasoline and gasoline-powered cars and giving tax breaks to electric stuff,only the "Ferarri Class will be able to afford to drive gasoline autos,and they won't care about the additional costs because it will add to their "snob status" as "one of the privileged".

We all know how the goobermint works. They tax the hell out of what they ain't getting a cut of the profits from,and give federal subsidies to the businesses that "feed them" under the table.

Rest assured, the Auto companies will be doing their share of the feeding.

[sneakypete]

Where will all the additional electric power come from to power these cars?

@Kamaji

New powerplants built using your tax dollars and your monthly payments.

After all,where else are ya gonna get electricity?

BTW,I know of one golf course near a resort area that was sold a couple of years ago and turned into a solar farm,thanks to the subsidies/tax breaks. Last I heard,it is now up for sale and AFAIK,hasn't produced one silly kilowatt.

When was the last time any of YOU heard of a nice golf course going out of business in a resort area?

[sneakypete]

Fairy dust and unicorn farts will make all the electricity necessary to power the new electric  cars........

@Joe Wooten

Well,it will,of course,be necessary to restrict the sale of electric cars due to the shortage of electricity,but people willing to move into new urban high rise "neighborhoods" where they can walk or catch an electric bus to work or shopping will get tax breaks to abandon their suburban home that they can't sell anyhow.

Funny how stuff like that works out,ain't it?

History has a way of repeating itself,and when I first went to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union,there were still complete towns sitting empty outside of the suburban areas to big cities. The Soviets sent trucks and soldiers to the towns to help the people load up their possessions and move into the spiffy new 1 bath apartments in cement buildings.

I had Russian friends telling me it wasn't unusual to enter one of these "closed towns" and find houses with furniture,books,clothes and other possessions still in place because the former residents didn't have/weren't allowed the room to take it all with them,and were forbidden to ever return. I know of one Russian man that said he and his wife went "hunting" in them for antiques and other items to sell during the summer when they weren't teaching school. He said it wasn't even unusual to find antique gold and silver coins in the rural buildings because the peasants liked to hide their valuables under the hearth where the fires were. I sent the man plans to make his own metal detector,and he was over the moon with joy because since it was illegal for mere citizens to possess them,nobody in Russia had been manufacturing them but the military,and it was a crime to have one.

Coming soon to rural towns near you........

[sneakypete]

Exactly. Or pipe in oil from overseas to run those plants (since Biden killed our energy independence).

But I do think the extra electricity needed is a bit overstated - typically people charge cars in the evening, when the demand for electricity is lower. This actually lowers the ratio of peak to average power, which is a good thing for the power companies.

@BassWrangler

Maybe true now,but not in the Bold New Future. There will be charging stations in all public parking garages so people can charge their cars for the trip home. Providing,of course,that you can obtain a permit to own a car,and have enough money to pay to keep it charged.

[sneakypete]

The man with the data.  Exactly. And so far, I haven't heard "boo" about any new plans to start building power plants that could keep up.

Stupid liberals.

@Kamaji

And you and everyone else is assuming the EPA will issue the permits to build them.

[sneakypete]

My neighbor spent $60,000 on a 17kW system.  No batteries.

Even with the $27,000 tax credit, I see no way he breaks even in 20 years.

@thackney

Do me a favor and tell him I have some magic beans for sale that I will let go of for a VERY reasonable price if he acts soon!

[sneakypete]

Where will all the additional electric power come from to power these cars?

@Kamaji

Magic beans.

Wanna buy some? Contact me quickly,because they are going fast!

[BassWrangler]

@BassWrangler

Maybe true now,but not in the Bold New Future. There will be charging stations in all public parking garages so people can charge their cars for the trip home. Providing,of course,that you can obtain a permit to own a car,and have enough money to pay to keep it charged.

That's a good point, @sneakypete . Tesla already has those chargers.

[HoustonSam]

I overstated that as double.  The transportation energy input is more comparable to the energy input into the electrical system, rather than the delivered portion that I referenced.  Still massive, but not double in hindsight.

I read the chart the way you said it the first time @thackney  -  transportation demands twice as much energy as the electric system delivers.  And what's worse, the electric system delivers only a third of the energy it takes in (I didn't realize conversion to electric and transmission had that kind of unfavorable thermodynamics - what am I missing?).  Apparently we're going to save the planet by shifting to a less efficient overall energy delivery approach and having to produce even more energy.

[Kamaji]

@Kamaji

And you and everyone else is assuming the EPA will issue the permits to build them.

I'm not assuming that at all.  I'm asking where's the process?  Even if the EPA were to issue permits, it would take years just to get to the point of putting shovels in the dirt.  The EPA would just slow that up even further.

That's my point:  the process that has to happen for this amount of generating capacity to be available when needed - especially 2027 - simply hasn't even started, so this is a total bust.  The headline only works if gasoline is pushed up to $30 or more a gallon.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm not assuming that at all.  I'm asking where's the process?  Even if the EPA were to issue permits, it would take years just to get to the point of putting shovels in the dirt.  The EPA would just slow that up even further.

That's my point:  the process that has to happen for this amount of generating capacity to be available when needed - especially 2027 - simply hasn't even started, so this is a total bust.  The headline only works if gasoline is pushed up to $30 or more a gallon.

Distilled:  They're lying again.

[Hoodat]

My neighbor spent $60,000 on a 17kW system.  No batteries.

Even with the $27,000 tax credit, I see no way he breaks even in 20 years.

At 5%, you're looking at minimum $218/mo to recoup that investment.  And that assumes zero maintenance costs.

[BassWrangler]

My neighbor spent $60,000 on a 17kW system.  No batteries.

Even with the $27,000 tax credit, I see no way he breaks even in 20 years.

You should see some of the horror stories I've seen regarding Tesla's solar roof. They give an estimate and a time frame, then come back and push the time frame back and at the same time jack up the price. Imagine if you were deciding between the Tesla product and more traditional solar panels, and you passed on some deal on the solar panels to wait for Tesla, and then they pull this crap.

Here's an article that discusses their bait-and-switch.

[roamer_1]

IOW, regulatory demands will artificially cause the cost of fossil fuels and vehicles to become out of reach (which they already are), and favorable subsidies will bring the cost of electric vehicles artificially low.

That is not 'market'. that is manipulation.

[roamer_1]

Distilled:  They're lying again.

Their lips are moving, ain't they? 

[DB]

At 5%, you're looking at minimum $218/mo to recoup that investment.  And that assumes zero maintenance costs.

It also assumes zero failures over 20 years - which is highly unlikely.

[Joe Wooten]

I read the chart the way you said it the first time @thackney  -  transportation demands twice as much energy as the electric system delivers.  And what's worse, the electric system delivers only a third of the energy it takes in (I didn't realize conversion to electric and transmission had that kind of unfavorable thermodynamics - what am I missing?).  Apparently we're going to save the planet by shifting to a less efficient overall energy delivery approach and having to produce even more energy.

The efficiency of electrical generation plants vary. A nuke plant averages about 34%, a supercritical coal/gas fired steam plant about 45%, and a combined cycle gas fired plant about 60%. Almost all of the losses are thrown into the condenser. There are systems to get part of this energy, but the cost of installing them does not justify doing it. UT Austin had such a system installed in the campus power plant back when I was an engineering student there. A  gas turbine blowing into a recovery boiler powering two MW steam turbines and then a freon boiler in the condenser neck that drove 4 or 5 freon turbines used to pump chilled or heated water all over campus. Total cycle efficiency ran about 65%.

[sneakypete]

The efficiency of electrical generation plants vary. A nuke plant averages about 34%, a supercritical coal/gas fired steam plant about 45%, and a combined cycle gas fired plant about 60%.

@Joe Wooten

I don't mind admitting I am more than a little shocked to learn that. I have always been under the impression that nuke plants were the most efficient,or why would nations spend so much money and take so many risks to build them?

Is this my fault for not having paid attention,or were we,the public,purposely misled about nuke power plants?

[DB]

@Joe Wooten

I don't mind admitting I am more than a little shocked to learn that. I have always been under the impression that nuke plants were the most efficient,or why would nations spend so much money and take so many risks to build them?

Is this my fault for not having paid attention,or were we,the public,purposely misled about nuke power plants?

It is because there's a tremendous amount of energy in nuclear fuel even with the inefficiencies of converting it to electricity.

[thackney]

I read the chart the way you said it the first time @thackney  -  transportation demands twice as much energy as the electric system delivers.  And what's worse, the electric system delivers only a third of the energy it takes in (I didn't realize conversion to electric and transmission had that kind of unfavorable thermodynamics - what am I missing?).  Apparently we're going to save the planet by shifting to a less efficient overall energy delivery approach and having to produce even more energy.

It is mostly the conversion of thermal energy into electricity.  Transmission, substation and distribution losses together are about 6.4% of the net generation or 2.4% of the total inputs.



https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/flow-graphs/electricity.php

[thackney]

I'm not assuming that at all.  I'm asking where's the process?  Even if the EPA were to issue permits, it would take years just to get to the point of putting shovels in the dirt.  The EPA would just slow that up even further.

That's my point:  the process that has to happen for this amount of generating capacity to be available when needed - especially 2027 - simply hasn't even started, so this is a total bust.  The headline only works if gasoline is pushed up to $30 or more a gallon.

Keep in mind we keep building power plants every year, just not coal plants anymore.  Natural Gas is the biggest portion of the growth.

Electricity Net Generation: Total (All Sectors)
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf
1950-2020

[thackney]

At 5%, you're looking at minimum $218/mo to recoup that investment.  And that assumes zero maintenance costs.

And that is based upon zero cost of maintenance? 

[Joe Wooten]

@Joe Wooten

I don't mind admitting I am more than a little shocked to learn that. I have always been under the impression that nuke plants were the most efficient,or why would nations spend so much money and take so many risks to build them?

Is this my fault for not having paid attention,or were we,the public,purposely misled about nuke power plants?

No, it's neither anyone's fault or the utilities purposely misleading folks. Things like this are of interest only to thermodynamics geeks like me. The reason for this has to do with the temperatures and pressures the different types of plants operate at. Nuclear reactors operate with core temperatures of about 600F in order to provide safety margins for control. The steam exiting the reactors/steam generators is usually slightly wet saturated steam running about 750 to 1000 psia which equates to a temperature of 530F to 550 F. The once through B&W plants run superheated steam at 1000 psia and 580F. Supercritical fossil plants run on superheated steam at pressures of 4500 to 5000 psia at temperatures of about 1050F. SInce they all have about the same temperature at the condensers, the initial temperatures account for the difference in efficiencies.

Combines cycle plants have a gsas turbine that runs at about 30% to 35% efficiency using its exhaust to make steam at about 1000F and 2000 psia to run a steam turbine and their combined efficiencies give the best overall efficiency of any type of power generation. Given that there is no practical way to use the low grade heat dumped into the condenser causes the efficiency losses.

[HoustonSam]

It is mostly the conversion of thermal energy into electricity.  Transmission, substation and distribution losses together are about 6.4% of the net generation or 2.4% of the total inputs.



https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/flow-graphs/electricity.php

Many thanks @thackney and @Joe Wooten.  My education was in chemistry, not engineering, so my understanding of these thermodynamics is nowhere near as advanced as either of yours.  Your explanations really clarify that we use "the grid" simply as a convenient means of *distributing* energy and applying it at the final point of use; the energy originates elsewhere and converting it to that conveniently-distributable form is costly in fundamental terms.  I suppose that's obvious to both of you but I had not thought of it clearly this way before.  It makes me wonder about the real sustainability of initiatives to convert a point-of-use application (such as an automobile) from any other source to electric, and that's not even considering the problems that come with batteries.

OTOH I suppose an electric vehicle generates less waste heat than an internal combustion engine during that final conversion to kinetic energy, so maybe it's just a question of bookkeeping where the unavoidable losses occur.  Is it possible that the 24 quadrillion BTUs consumed by transportation could be reduced if transportation were all done by electric vehicles, and would such a reduction be enough to pay the aggregate upstream penalty for converting to electricity?

[thackney]

Many thanks @thackney and @Joe Wooten.  My education was in chemistry, not engineering, so my understanding of these thermodynamics is nowhere near as advanced as either of yours.  Your explanations really clarify that we use "the grid" simply as a convenient means of *distributing* energy and applying it at the final point of use; the energy originates elsewhere and converting it to that conveniently-distributable form is costly in fundamental terms.  I suppose that's obvious to both of you but I had not thought of it clearly this way before.  It makes me wonder about the real sustainability of initiatives to convert a point-of-use application (such as an automobile) from any other source to electric, and that's not even considering the problems that come with batteries.

OTOH I suppose an electric vehicle generates less waste heat than an internal combustion engine during that final conversion to kinetic energy, so maybe it's just a question of bookkeeping where the unavoidable losses occur.  Is it possible that the 24 quadrillion BTUs consumed by transportation could be reduced if transportation were all done by electric vehicles, and would such a reduction be enough to pay the aggregate upstream penalty for converting to electricity?

Electric vehicle generates much less waste heat.  So much less that while a heater in a tradition car uses the waste heat for the inside cabin, the electric must turn on electric heaters and pull away more energy from the batteries.