Little Green Lies: Why Electric Cars Won’t Save the Environment

[Joe Wooten]

Nearly all hydrogen used in the US is produced by steam reforming natural gas.  There are no more toxic byproducts than that of a natural gas engine.

The entire line losses including transmission, transformer and distribution systems is only about 8~9% losses.  Replacing the transmission system with a magic system of no losses would gain 4~5% of the energy.  No big change at all.

Producing hydrogen from electrolysis is about 1/3 of the energy loss.  Nearly double that for compression and transportation of the hydrogen.  I have worked in hydrogen systems in refineries.  The losses are immense in compression due to the low specific gravity and the consequential heat gains in compression.

Just like magic perpetual motion machines.

No.  You are talking about immense cost for a 5% savings of energy.

Not enough losses to make a difference.  Far greater advantages in chasing better generation efficiencies.

Game, set, match......

[uglybiker]

I prefer to use the highly technical term, "Majick."

I think Voodoo would be more appropriate.

[LateForLunch]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding denoted by some of the replies.

Comparatively speaking with electrolysis there are zero harmful emissions and one of the byproducts of steam-production is carbon monoxide ( albeit at the same general level as natural gas combustion). Another is carbon dioxide but that is only a pollutant in the minds of ecoparanoids (and significant therefore only in terms of PR).

The central misconception in the above posts is that the significant conservation of energy is in the alternative means of production of hydrogen. The heart of the issue (and it's a little troubling that this was missed) is that increase of efficiency of the ENERGY GRID, which would be massive, especially when projected out over time.

 Super-conducting power lines are much more efficient (both in practice with prototypes and in theoretical projections) than conventional power transmission lines. WAAAAAAY more efficient than +5%. 

I am not a proponent of AGW by any means. The advantages of promoting a means of transportation which has zero harmful emissions in public relations (since a significant part of the population DOES believe that fossil fuel by products harm the environment) are great. The real appeal from my POV is that the fuel would be readily available, does not rely on fossil fuels (leaving that to be used for other things such as second-tier  and third-tier economic development until they could be brought online with the hydrogen grid)

I must believe that nobody who replied above actually read much of the article linked in my own post, which discussed in some depth how the national energy grid is nearly maxed-out relative to population.

The question then becomes whether to expand the current system of conventional distribution (with a large investment and without any viable plan at this point for long-term expansion without SC grids to meet demand) or to consider investing super-conducting technology as a means to create a virtually limitless horizon for expansion and distribution to match need, which also has a byproduct of low-cost hydrogen production as an inherent part of the basic design.

All due respect and not wishing to diminish anyone's freude an der zerstörung of Bucky Fuller's (et al)  concept, this is most decidedly not some sort of game.

[Just_Victor]

@LateForLunch

You realize you are arguing with engineers, several of whom who earn their living in the power industry, right?

[LateForLunch]

@LateForLunch

You realize you are arguing with engineers, several of whom who earn their living in the power industry, right?

I am not intending to "argue" with anyone my brother, (in the sense of being overtly contentious) I am seeking to engage in a topical discussion.

BTW, my step-father was an electronics (optics) engineer so I am well familiar with the average competency level (and tendency to tunnel vision) of some engineers. Let me remind you that it was engineers (proverbial "rocket scientists") who built, deployed and crashed a billion-dollar spacecraft recently because they forgot to convert miles to kilometers. So you see, engineers are not infallible nor are they some sacred, anointed group never to be questioned nor disagreed with. That being said and Just Victor's admonishment notwithstanding, I have scarcely done that at all in any posts above but rather engaged, as I said, in a topical discussion.   

My focus here is not so much on advocacy but on rescripting information and opinions from an article  in Scientific American ( by engineers) and the writing of R. Buckminster Fuller who may be considered a competent engineer in his own right, I believe. So I am not endeavoring to present nor defend (arguing) ideas from my own writing or conceptualizations - merely lofting those of people smarter and more creative than I.

I recently engaged in a rather contentious discussion on a comments section somewhere else, with a retired engineer (an ecoparanoid AGW proponent) who swore that I was an ignoramus because I disagreed with his statement that recycled steel was used in manufacturing new automobiles. I pointed out to him that unless he was talking about car frames built with rebar of which I was not aware, no new cars in the United States used remanufactured steel in their frames. He never acknowledged nor apologized for his error, even after I posted technical publications from automotive steel manufacturing organizations fully documenting his error.

[Cyber Liberty]

I am not intending to "argue" with anyone my brother, (in the sense of being overtly contentious) I am seeking to engage in a topical discussion.

BTW, my step-father was an electronics (optics) engineer so I am well familiar with the average competency level (and tendency to tunnel vision) of some engineers. Let me remind you that it was engineers (proverbial "rocket scientists") who built, deployed and crashed a billion-dollar spacecraft recently because they forgot to convert miles to kilometers. So you see, engineers are not infallible nor are they some sacred, anointed group never to be questioned nor disagreed with. That being said and Just Victor's admonishment notwithstanding, I have scarcely done that at all in any posts above but rather engaged, as I said, in a topical discussion.   

My focus here is not so much on advocacy but on rescripting information and opinions from an article  in Scientific American ( by engineers) and the writing of R. Buckminster Fuller who may be considered a competent engineer in his own right, I believe. So I am not endeavoring to present nor defend (arguing) ideas from my own writing or conceptualizations - merely lofting those of people smarter and more creative than I.

I recently engaged in a rather contentious discussion with a retired engineer (an ecoparanoid AGW proponent) who swore that I was an ignoramus because I disagreed with his statement that recycled steel was used in manufacturing new automobiles. I pointed out to him that unless he was talking about car frames built with rebar of which I was not aware, no new cars in the United States used remanufactured steel in their frames. He never acknowledged nor apologized for his error, even after I posted technical publications from automotive steel manufacturing organizations fully documenting his error.

I think your points are well reasoned, so don't give up.  Don't let "credentialism" get you down. 

[LateForLunch]

I think your points are well reasoned, so don't give up.  Don't let "credentialism" get you down.

hah hah Much appreciate the support CyberLibertry!!  BTW love the wonderful screen name and disturbing, flaming avatar! Rest assured that if my step-father's stern rule could not get me down while living under his administration, nothing posted on this thread could either (he was very authoritarian and not often wrong about anything). Engineers are dear to my heart and are in my estimation generally deserving of highest regard in the echelons of the meritocracy. Their watchword is often "the simpler the design, the better the design" which is the epitome of common sense. Theoreticians think/dream, engineers plan/build.

But as all highly-competent people possessed of a high degree of intellect, they sometimes find it difficult to accept that they might have been less than brilliant about things or even (Heavens forbid!!!) incorrect in some regard.

Reminds me of a joke about engineers:

A doctor, a lawyer and an engineer are being executed by guillotine. The doctor is put onto the apparatus, the executioner pulls the lever and the deed is done. Next, the lawyer is placed in the restraints, the lever is pulled and once again, chops off the man's head. The engineer lies down on the bench facing upward toward the blade suspended above and the wooden bracket is lowered into place over his neck. The executioner pulls the lever- and nothing happens. The blade stays in place unmoving. The claviger announces that by law, if the blade fails to drop, the condemned must be released...but he is interrupted by the engineer who is staring at the blade mechanism and cries, "WAIT A MINUTE! I think I see the problem!"

[Just_Victor]

...

Super-conducting power lines are much more efficient (both in practice with prototypes and in theoretical projections) than conventional power transmission lines. WAAAAAAY more efficient than +5%. 

...

Lets just deal with this very simple statement.  According to the EIA total losses in the US electrical grid is ~ 5-6%.

It is not mathematically possible to recover more than 5-6% by improving transmission since that is the total lost in transmission.  If you did perform this miracle you would have created a transmission system that generates electricity from nothing, defying both mathematics and physics.  This isn't arguable.

[LateForLunch]

Lets just deal with this very simple statement.  According to the EIA total losses in the US electrical grid is ~ 5-6%.

It is not mathematically possible to recover more than 5-6% by improving transmission since that is the total lost in transmission.  If you did perform this miracle you would have created a transmission system that generates electricity from nothing, defying both mathematics and physics.  This isn't arguable.

"Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997[20] and 6.5% in 2007." -Wikipedia

So it's closer to 6-7% - albeit not a large difference from, "5-6%", but possibly significant when calculating annual costs in trillions of dollars.
 
What is arguably the larger issue is capacity and maximum load, which nobody has addressed so far. The capacity to distribute power with the current system has an upper limit, if I understand correctly. That means regardless of cost issues, a system with a near-term upper limit is a deal breaker for long-term planning, as long as population increases and concurrently capacity demands increase along with regional population.

Superconducting hydrogen grids have a much higher upper limit of load as I understand it, because the limitations on conventional distribution systems are at least partially demarcated by heat, which is not a critical factor in superconducting high temperature superconducting grids.

Also HTSC grids allow transportation of power over long distances so that regions with high load demand may receive immediate relief from regions with low demand. Since brown-outs /black-outs are another real concern of the electricity distribution issue, this could not be easily fixed by simply increasing deployment of existing conventional technology.

Admittedly engineers with expertise in these areas could clarify some aspects of approach to ameliorating the concerns mentioned in the article I posted, (max load and local over-demand, etc.) which would be interesting to learn about.

[Just_Victor]

"Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997[20] and 6.5% in 2007." -Wikipedia

Not a large difference from, "5-6%, but possibly significant when calculating annual costs in the hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars.
 
What is arguably the larger issue is capacity and maximum load, which nobody has addressed so far. The capacity to distribute power with the current system has an upper limit, if I understand correctly. That means regardless of cost issues, a system with an upper limit is a deal breaker for future planning, as long as population increases and concurrently capacity demands along with it.

Superconducting hydrogen grids have a much higher upper limit of load as I understand it, because the limitations on conventional distribution systems are at least partially demarcated by heat, which is not a critical factor in superconducting high temperature superconducting grids.

I saw the Wiki article, and the citation [20] for their number is the EIA faqs, so I went directly to the source and used their most recent numbers from 2014 rather than 2007.  Makes sense that we have improved efficiency slightly.

Higher capacity won't effect the transmission efficiency.  The sci-am article only address efficiency by saying that the supergrid will be "almost perfect," probably 99.??%.  But what are you going to end up spending to gain that few %?  The liquid nitrogen costs alone are going to be huge.  I don't have the resources to calculate the heat transfer from -320°F to ambient, but I'm betting the LN2 will be boiling off at a rate of ? gallons per hour per mile of line.  I'm betting the LN2 usage rate would rival our ability to produce the stuff.  You won't be able use standard transmission towers , the lines will have to be run in an insulated dewar conduit, probably buried for safety reasons.  The costs just seem astronomical.  I can't see how it's offset by 5% savings from transmission losses.


Considering that the article is from 2006, and in 10 years nothing has come of this, and they state in the article that all the technology exists (i.e. they aren't waiting for a technological breakthrough), demonstrates that there are no cost savings in the idea.  Otherwise someone would be building this right now.

[Sanguine]

Speaking of Sciam, I noticed this, among other articles the other day, for all us "climate deniers" out there.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/8-cartoons-that-expose-climate-denial-slide-show/

And, this one was cute, too:  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/

They've totally abandoned science.

[Cyber Liberty]

Speaking of Sciam, I notice this, among other articles the other day, for all us "climate deniers" out there.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/8-cartoons-that-expose-climate-denial-slide-show/

And, this one was cute, too:  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/

They've totally abandoned science.

No wonder SA abandoned its comments section.

[Just_Victor]

No wonder SA abandoned its comments section.

SciAm was getting hammered for their complete abandonment of scientific principles.

[Cyber Liberty]

SciAm was getting hammered for their complete abandonment of scientific principles.

Then the fools posted an editorial explaining the policy..lol

[thackney]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding denoted by some of the replies.

Comparatively speaking with electrolysis there are zero harmful emissions and one of the byproducts of steam-production is carbon monoxide ( albeit at the same general level as natural gas combustion). Another is carbon dioxide but that is only a pollutant in the minds of ecoparanoids (and significant therefore only in terms of PR).

@LateForLunch

Electrolysis takes electricity and if you pull it from the gird, it takes more emissions than  you are counting.  If it takes a NatGas Power Turbine for your process, it has emissions.

The central misconception in the above posts is that the significant conservation of energy is in the alternative means of production of hydrogen. The heart of the issue (and it's a little troubling that this was missed) is that increase of efficiency of the ENERGY GRID, which would be massive, especially when projected out over time.

When the entire losses of the system from power plant to end us is only ~7%, and you only replace half the system with no-loss components, you must call 3~4% massive.

Super-conducting power lines are much more efficient (both in practice with prototypes and in theoretical projections) than conventional power transmission lines. WAAAAAAY more efficient than +5%.

If the transmission losses are less than 5%, how do you get massive gains removing the losses?  Perfectly zero loss is about a 3~4% gain in the system energy.

I am not a proponent of AGW by any means. The advantages of promoting a means of transportation which has zero harmful emissions in public relations (since a significant part of the population DOES believe that fossil fuel by products harm the environment) are great. The real appeal from my POV is that the fuel would be readily available, does not rely on fossil fuels (leaving that to be used for other things such as second-tier  and third-tier economic development until they could be brought online with the hydrogen grid)

I must believe that nobody who replied above actually read much of the article linked in my own post, which discussed in some depth how the national energy grid is nearly maxed-out relative to population.

The question then becomes whether to expand the current system of conventional distribution (with a large investment and without any viable plan at this point for long-term expansion without SC grids to meet demand) or to consider investing super-conducting technology as a means to create a virtually limitless horizon for expansion and distribution to match need, which also has a byproduct of low-cost hydrogen production as an inherent part of the basic design.

All due respect and not wishing to diminish anyone's freude an der zerstörung of Bucky Fuller's (et al)  concept, this is most decidedly not some sort of game.

I don't see you including the massive losses of the hydrogen production, nor the hydrogen transportation, which greatly exceed the electrical transmission line losses.

http://www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7043314.pdf

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen_gas_compression.pdf

[LateForLunch]

@LateForLunch

Electrolysis takes electricity and if you pull it from the gird, it takes more emissions than  you are counting.  If it takes a NatGas Power Turbine for your process, it has emissions.

When the entire losses of the system from power plant to end us is only ~7%, and you only replace half the system with no-loss components, you must call 3~4% massive.



If the transmission losses are less than 5%, how do you get massive gains removing the losses?  Perfectly zero loss is about a 3~4% gain in the system energy.

I don't see you including the massive losses of the hydrogen production, nor the hydrogen transportation, which greatly exceed the electrical transmission line losses.

http://www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7043314.pdf

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen_gas_compression.pdf

I'll address those after having some time to research the topics better.

In the mean time, I'm preparing to launch a separate thread to discuss this since the whole thing is somewhat peripheral to the discussion of electric cars as a solution to any current "problem" regarding climate change/AGW or any other.

It's clear that  electric cars using current technology are a dead end in terms of reducing pollution, even if one is insane and include carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Even though I think there is some strong evidence that a HTSC  grid would have so merit in consideration for a long-term solution to the larger energy problems of the nation and the world, that is likely best discussed on another thread out of courtesy to the original poster.

Again, I am not attempting to dodge the issues or information raised in Thackney's great post, but redirecting it to another thread.

[thackney]

I'll address those after having some time to research the topics better.

In the mean time, I'm preparing to launch a separate thread to discuss this since the whole thing is somewhat peripheral to the discussion of electric cars as a solution to any current "problem" regarding climate change/AGW or any other.

It's clear that  electric cars using current technology are a dead end in terms of reducing pollution, even if one is insane and include carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Even though I think there is some strong evidence that a HTSC  grid would have so merit in consideration for a long-term solution to the larger energy problems of the nation and the world, that is likely best discussed on another thread out of courtesy to the original poster.

Again, I am not attempting to dodge the issues or information raised in Thackney's great post, but redirecting it to another thread.

Please ping me for the new thread.

We are in a shutdown this week at the plant, so I'm likely late with responses.  It is tough to look up much with a phone.

[Joe Wooten]

I am not intending to "argue" with anyone my brother, (in the sense of being overtly contentious) I am seeking to engage in a topical discussion.

BTW, my step-father was an electronics (optics) engineer so I am well familiar with the average competency level (and tendency to tunnel vision) of some engineers. Let me remind you that it was engineers (proverbial "rocket scientists") who built, deployed and crashed a billion-dollar spacecraft recently because they forgot to convert miles to kilometers. So you see, engineers are not infallible nor are they some sacred, anointed group never to be questioned nor disagreed with. That being said and Just Victor's admonishment notwithstanding, I have scarcely done that at all in any posts above but rather engaged, as I said, in a topical discussion.   

My focus here is not so much on advocacy but on rescripting information and opinions from an article  in Scientific American ( by engineers) and the writing of R. Buckminster Fuller who may be considered a competent engineer in his own right, I believe. So I am not endeavoring to present nor defend (arguing) ideas from my own writing or conceptualizations - merely lofting those of people smarter and more creative than I.

I recently engaged in a rather contentious discussion on a comments section somewhere else, with a retired engineer (an ecoparanoid AGW proponent) who swore that I was an ignoramus because I disagreed with his statement that recycled steel was used in manufacturing new automobiles. I pointed out to him that unless he was talking about car frames built with rebar of which I was not aware, no new cars in the United States used remanufactured steel in their frames. He never acknowledged nor apologized for his error, even after I posted technical publications from automotive steel manufacturing organizations fully documenting his error.

Actually, most steel in cars is recycled. A large part of the steel made in us plants is taken from scrap steel and has been since WW2. The mini-mills use almost totally scrap iron/steel. The only metals recycled more than steel are copper and aluminum

[LateForLunch]

Actually, most steel in cars is recycled.

Nope. Not according to my information.'Not sure where you are getting yours. Re-manufactured steel is not as strong/pure as new steel, which is probably why it isn't used in automobile frames, engine-blocks, powertrains or bodies. To be strong, re-manufactured steel has to be very dense / heavy, which precludes much use in automobiles which have to be light (CAFE standards saw to that). From what I have read, re-manufactured steel is mostly used in applications that don't require much "cold working" such as rebar for reinforcing concrete, barrels, and lower-grade plates. The only recycled steel used in new cars is apparently in the fenders and the front undercarriage (the part that scrapes when you bottom out on a steep driveway). 

The information I am quoting comes from a Wikipedia article and a Steel Manufacturing Industry website. Where does your information come from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrous_metal_recycling

[The_Reader_David]

The "environmentally friendly" reputation of electric cars is an urbanite delusion.  Since no pollution is produced where the vehicle is being operated, they are arguably "environmentally friendly" in the context of a push to reduce smog in heavily populated urban areas (e.g. Los Angeles), but are environmentally harmful overall, and even fairly pointless in reducing emissions at the point of use in rural areas.

Rational policy would encourage their use in places where concentrations of motor vehicles produce air pollution levels harmful to human health (e.g Los Angeles) and provide no support for their adoption anywhere else.  Unfortunately the democratization of the Republic resulting from the horrid one-man-one-vote decision that made it impossible for the several states to follow the Founders' wisdom in having an upper house elected by state without regard to population (as was done for the upper house in many states prior to the 1960's with State Senates elected by county) concentrated power in cities, so we are now afflicted with urbanite delusions being the basis for policies implemented state-wide and nation-wide.

[Smokin Joe]

Was that a joke?

Have you never seen the amount of road repair down in this country every year?

 And no batteries? So every parking lot, driveway, rural county road along with rebuilding every highway I. The nation before the system can be used.

Rather foolish concept.  If down a significant pothole would disable use of the entire road.

Not to mention the losses involved with induction compared to direct electrical contact.

They'd have to change out all the deer crossing signs and put lightning bolts on them...

Fresh cooked roadkill!

[Smokin Joe]

Nearly all hydrogen used in the US is produced by steam reforming natural gas.  There are no more toxic byproducts than that of a natural gas engine.

The entire line losses including transmission, transformer and distribution systems is only about 8~9% losses.  Replacing the transmission system with a magic system of no losses would gain 4~5% of the energy.  No big change at all.

Producing hydrogen from electrolysis is about 1/3 of the energy loss.  Nearly double that for compression and transportation of the hydrogen.  I have worked in hydrogen systems in refineries.  The losses are immense in compression due to the low specific gravity and the consequential heat gains in compression.

Just like magic perpetual motion machines.

No.  You are talking about immense cost for a 5% savings of energy.

Not enough losses to make a difference.  Far greater advantages in chasing better generation efficiencies.

Anyone who thinks crude oil, gasoline, and natural gas are dangerous hasn't lived until they have used Hydrogen under pressure. I ran FID gas detectors for years and that stuff is a pain.

[Smokin Joe]

The "environmentally friendly" reputation of electric cars is an urbanite delusion.  Since no pollution is produced where the vehicle is being operated, they are arguably "environmentally friendly" in the context of a push to reduce smog in heavily populated urban areas (e.g. Los Angeles), but are environmentally harmful overall, and even fairly pointless in reducing emissions at the point of use in rural areas.

Rational policy would encourage their use in places where concentrations of motor vehicles produce air pollution levels harmful to human health (e.g Los Angeles) and provide no support for their adoption anywhere else.  Unfortunately the democratization of the Republic resulting from the horrid one-man-one-vote decision that made it impossible for the several states to follow the Founders' wisdom in having an upper house elected by state without regard to population (as was done for the upper house in many states prior to the 1960's with State Senates elected by county) concentrated power in cities, so we are now afflicted with urbanite delusions being the basis for policies implemented state-wide and nation-wide.

Yep, and yep. Repeal the 17th!

[Just_Victor]

Nope. Not according to my information.'Not sure where you are getting yours. Re-manufactured steel is not as strong/pure as new steel, which is probably why it isn't used in automobile frames, engine-blocks, powertrains or bodies.

Almost all steel contains some recycled content.  The Basic Oxygen Process for making steel (in use since ~1908) uses 25% to 35% recycled scrap material.  That is in your wiki article as well as my materials engineering textbook.

To be strong, re-manufactured steel has to be very dense / heavy, which precludes much use in automobiles which have to be light (CAFE standards saw to that). From what I have read, re-manufactured steel is mostly used in applications that don't require much "cold working" such as rebar for reinforcing concrete, barrels, and lower-grade plates. The only recycled steel used in new cars is apparently in the fenders and the front undercarriage (the part that scrapes when you bottom out on a steep driveway).

First, plain carbon steel has almost no measurable change in density over the complete range of alloys.  Carbon content varies from 0.08 up to 1.0 % carbon, and that minute % change is not going to effect the weight/volume.  Stainless and other high strength low allow (HSLA) steels which will vary from plain carbon steel in density, have very limited use in the auto industry due to cost.  Your car is almost entirely plain carbon steel, at least where steel is used.

The recycled material used in the BOP (BOS in the wiki article) is completely remelted which resets all material properties that are based on mechanical working of the material, like cold working or heat treating.  Only altering the alloy at the molecular level can change the basic strength.  If they start with AISI 1040 steel to be recycled and end with AISI 1040 steel you will get a yield strength of ~60ksi (kilo-lbs/square inch) and an ultimate strength of ~90 ksi coming out of the furnace and initial processing.  Control of the carbon content determines the strength.  After producing the steel. the mill will heat treat and/or mechanically treat the material to obtain the final form (plate, sheet, bar, etc) and strength.  The recycled content doesn't effect anything here.

[LateForLunch]

It's possible that one of us misunderstood the article. It states clearly that the primary uses of remanufactured steel were rebar for construction, barrels, lower-quality steel plates and automobile fenders. It made no mention of use in automobile frames / bodies other than fenders.