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

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: AMERICAN THINKER

URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/little_green_lies_why_electric_cars_wont_save_the_environment.html

by: Larry Alton


Things don’t look good for electric cars these days -- but did they ever? Tesla experienced a series of recalls, even before the recent crash in Florida that put the company’s autopilot system in the spotlight. Apparently, watching a Harry Potter movie and letting your car drive isn’t exactly a safe practice.

But the real problem with electric cars is actually the problem they’re marketed to solve: pollution. While the left insists that electric cars are the only way to protect the environment, they’re actually damaging the oil industry while shifting money to liberal interests.

Meanwhile, electric cars have proven to be a greater source of pollution than traditional vehicles.

Charges against Car Charging

One reason why the polluting effects of electric cars are obfuscated is because their proponents point to charging stations as a sustainable alternative to gasoline. What these electric car cheerleaders don’t explain, however, is where the electricity for charging these cars comes from. When the answer is coal, environmentalists no longer have a leg to stand on when they advocate for electric vehicles.

Sourcing energy from coal results in nearly four times the number of pollution deaths than gas due to the soot and smog involved in burning coal. While it’s nice that liberals can separate themselves from this source of pollution, since they don’t see it firsthand when driving electric vehicles, its naïve and hypocritical to proclaim they’re taking care of the environment with these cars.

Furthermore, though the Obama administration rewards drivers of electric cars, the left is really playing both sides of the fence. Though many of these car charging systems rely on coal, Obama’s administration froze all coal mining on federal land earlier this year. Couple that with his Clean Power Plan and thousands of mining jobs, as well as a significant source of U.S. energy, have been decimated with a flick of Obama’s pen.

Production Pollutants

It’s not just charging electric cars that make them an enemy of the earth. These vehicles still come from traditional manufacturing facilities and are actually responsible for a greater per-vehicle quantity of emissions than traditional vehicles. Before they’ve even set tires to pavement, electric cars have already done more damage than their combustion engine counterparts, with the batteries in electric cars playing a big role in this.

Producing the batteries for electric cars means a lot of mining and environmental damage that you won’t hear admitted by electric vehicle proponents. And when those batteries die, do you think they’ll just disappear into thin air, leaving no impact behind? Of course not. Improper disposal of batteries can create lasting damage in the areas where they’re dumped.

Weight Repercussions

Among car owners, electric vehicles are often praised for needing less maintenance than their traditional counterparts, with owners and mechanics citing various fluid changes and part replacements in this figure. This argument, however, is blatantly false. The tires and brakes on electric vehicles in particular are prone to excess wear, more breakdown, and higher emissions than combustion engine vehicles. This is largely due to the fact that electric vehicles are heavier, putting more strain on tires and belts.

The reality is that in order to propel a non-combustion vehicle, there are a lot of heavy pieces needed, while improvements in the combustion engine in recent years have made traditional vehicles much more efficient than in the past. The breakdown in tires and other car parts also produces a variety of non-exhaust emissions that no one seems willing to admit are a result of choosing electric vehicles.

Exporting Their Pollutants

While liberals in major cities snap up electric vehicles -- which do perform better in cities than in rural areas, though still at a high cost -- they’re also exporting the polluting aspects of their choices to less wealthy areas, forgetting about the little guy who’s affected by their choices. Most of the coal used to fuel these vehicles comes from places where you won’t see many electric vehicles, such as West Virginia. These “environmental externalities” shift out of view, but they don’t go away.

Even if over 40 percent of U.S. drivers shifted to electric vehicles, studies have revealed that this would be an unrealistic approach to reducing pollution and improving air quality. Charging these vehicles would result in higher emissions and greater pollution, and that doesn’t even account for the waste involved in transitioning hundreds of thousands of combustion engine cars off the roads.

Where would all of these vehicles -- many of which now get excellent mileage -- go if they were replaced? Would they just be dumped? Manufacturing would also need to speed up to meet demand, causing massive quantities of emissions as electric vehicle plants enter high production mode. The costs, both fiscally and socially, would be astronomical.

It’s time to put an end to the specious argument for electric vehicles when the bulk of the evidence indicates that they aren’t holding up any part of the environmental savior promise. The reality is that electric vehicles are a pet project of the left with no real advantages for society, carrying with them only greater pollution and individual harm.

Keep your combustion engine vehicle. When everyone else catches on, you’ll know you were on the right side all along.

[Joe Wooten]

When the $7500/car federal subsidy ends, so will the electric car craze end.

[thackney]

[Just_Victor]

When the $7500/car federal subsidy ends, so will the electric car craze end.

Even with $7500 tax rebate, the 100-mile range, ~2 hours of operation with an 8 hour charge time, makes the vehicle useless for most driving conditions.  You would do better to get an electric golf cart.

[thackney]

And for those that compare the efficiency of an electric car to the a internal combustion engine car, make sure they compare the complete efficiency of turning fuel into electrical power for that electric car.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And for those that compare the efficiency of an electric car to the a internal combustion engine car, make sure they compare the complete efficiency of turning fuel into electrical power for that electric car.

great graph.

Electric Cars are only bought by the well-to-do, which do not need a subsidy.

Wonder where all that govt cash contribution then goes?

[thackney]

great graph.

Slightly dated.

Current is at:
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electricity.pdf

[Joe Wooten]

And for those that compare the efficiency of an electric car to the a internal combustion engine car, make sure they compare the complete efficiency of turning fuel into electrical power for that electric car.

When you want to directly compare efficiencies of an electric car to an IC car you multiply the efficiency of electrical generation (average 40%) by the efficiency of the electrical motor (average 90% at full load) and line losses (about 6% for a multiplier of 94%)for an overall efficiency of ~34%. Modern IC engines have an efficiency of about 35%. 

[thackney]

When you want to directly compare efficiencies of an electric car to an IC car you multiply the efficiency of electrical generation (average 40%) by the efficiency of the electrical motor (average 90% at full load) and line losses (about 6% for a multiplier of 94%)for an overall efficiency of ~34%. Modern IC engines have an efficiency of about 35%.

Worse than that.

Add the efficiency of the charger, the battery, the inverter and the variable speed drive before you get to the motor.  The motor is rarely going to be operating at full load.

[Joe Wooten]

Worse than that.

Add the efficiency of the charger, the battery, the inverter and the variable speed drive before you get to the motor.  The motor is rarely going to be operating at full load.

I just gave the absolute best scenario for both types. Reality is always much worse. IC engine efficiency rarely is 35% itself.

[dfwgator]

[Cyber Liberty]

My commuter situation is perfect for an E-car, but I'll be damned if I do it.  The cost is insane, even if the Gummint is offering to pay some.  I have a Hybrid now, and I'm looking for an exit plan before the warranty runs out on the $10,000 battery.  I'd be in the same spot if I had an E-car.

[thackney]

Not only would we then have a distributed power line system that would be nearly impervious to line breaks

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.

[Cripplecreek]

Even with $7500 tax rebate, the 100-mile range, ~2 hours of operation with an 8 hour charge time, makes the vehicle useless for most driving conditions.  You would do better to get an electric golf cart.

Jay Leno nailed it when he said he loves his but recognizes that its a rich man's toy. He said he drives it to the studio where it charges for 12 hours and then he drives it home where it goes on the charger till the next day. He also noted the fact tat electricity is still being produced primarily by fossil fuels.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And if one road needs repairs, the other roads provide the electricity to homes and business.  It's not like their is usually only one road to and from anyplace.

And for the road itself, it's not like a break in the line suddenly de-electrifies the rest of it, so the cars can still drive.  Sure, there would be a momentary power loss at the point of break, but that'd be less than a second as the vehicle's momentum carries it past the break.

If you'd like we could have a small battery for short durations with a power loss.

All that seems to be an attempt to make the freedom we exercise on highways into another onerous mass transit system.

No thank you.  I like our freedoms.  I can see these being turned into control mechanisms by authoritarians to decide who goes where and when.  The current decentralization of transportation via automobiles is anathema to those who wish to control us.

[kevindavis007]

I prefer Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars..

[thackney]

I prefer Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars..

Hydrogen is a terrible fuel, except in terms of energy/mass.

Cost to produce, transport, store, etc just make it unreasonable, without justification for automobile transportation.

I've worked with several hydrogen systems for different refineries over the years.  The wasted energy in the production and compression is just immense.  Not to mention everything goes up significantly in costed compared to handling a fuel like natural gas: pipe and vessel alloys, gasketing material, electrical equipment rated for a hydrogen classified area, etc.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Hydrogen is a terrible fuel, except in terms of energy/mass.

Cost to produce, transport, store, etc just make it unreasonable, without justification for automobile transportation.

I've worked with several hydrogen systems for different refineries over the years.  The wasted energy in the production and compression is just immense.  Not to mention everything goes up significantly in costed compared to handling a fuel like natural gas: pipe and vessel alloys, gasketing material, electrical equipment rated for a hydrogen classified area, etc.

And pure hydrogen is not frequently found in nature unlike the abundant hydrocarbons like oil and gas.

It is not called natural gas for nothing.

There are too many people who do not understand the hydrocarbons that are naturally found in the ground all around us are simply the best overall energy supply we could have.  A gift from God.

[LateForLunch]

And pure hydrogen is not frequently found in nature unlike the abundant hydrocarbons like oil and gas.

It is not called natural gas for nothing.

There are too many people who do not understand the hydrocarbons that are naturally found in the ground all around us are simply the best overall energy supply we could have.  A gift from God.

Bucky Fuller outlined how a superconducting hydrogen energy grid around the entire planet would be the most efficient for delivering low-cost energy to everyone. The beauty of his plan was that the surplus of local power available at low-consumption periods permits the power to be diverted to the creation of more hydrogen through electrolysis, which has no harmful byproducts, unlike chemical synthesis of hydrogen.

The key to a hydrogen energy car solution would be the need for massive amounts of hydrogen, which is solved only by converting the entire U.S. grid to a superconducting one. That would require a significant outlay of financial resources which would not be possible under the currently grossly mismanaged, insanely wasteful, corrupt government we maintain.

[thackney]

superconducting hydrogen energy grid around the entire planet

What the heck is that supposed to mean?  Superconducting refers to electrical power circuits.  Hydrogen is compressed and moved in pipes.

Neither is a source of energy, it is converted energy from another source.  Conversions to both are very inefficient.

[Sanguine]

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess it's because you still need to produce the energy to manufacture, transport, power and maintain the electric car.  Or, something along those lines.

[Cyber Liberty]

What the heck is that supposed to mean?  Superconducting refers to electrical power circuits.  Hydrogen is compressed and moved in pipes.

Neither is a source of energy, it is converted energy from another source.  Conversions to both are very inefficient.

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

[LateForLunch]

What the heck is that supposed to mean?  Superconducting refers to electrical power circuits.  Hydrogen is compressed and moved in pipes.

Neither is a source of energy, it is converted energy from another source.  Conversions to both are very inefficient.

hah hah sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. Fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen as the fuel. A reaction splits the molecules of hydrogen creating electricity, powering the motor. This process also creates a small amount of water and oxygen as by-products. There would not be enough hydrogen produced in the USA to fuel millions of such vehicles. Currently, hydrogen is produced industrially by primarily two methods - one involves chemicals and has toxic byproducts, the other requires electricity to produce but has no harmful by-products. 

If there were a superconducting energy grid in the nation, it would be so efficient that there would be a massive surplus of power available cheaply (especially at night when industries, which use the bulk of all power, are largely idle). With the extra power, hydrogen producing plants could run and make enough hydrogen fuel available to run millions of hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles.

The idea of a superconducting national or international energy grid is not new. It has been explored in articles in Scientific American magazine and elsewhere. Once established (albeit requiring a major investment in the tens of trillions of dollars) power would likely be much cheaper than it is now. The grid would theoretically be so efficient that it would be able to transport power around the globe without losing too much in electrical resistance "leakage" to make it cost effective.

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/SA_Supergrid.pdf

In essence, energy created in one nation would be able to circle the planet and unused power on one side of the planet in darkness, would instantaneously be transported to the day-light side of the planet.

Of course the initial investment of building the grid nationally (and internationally) and a hydrogen-fuel-cell-based auto industry would be enormous.

NOTE: The PDF article has some references to "greenhouse gasses" that can (and should) be ignored. The authors are obviously trying to make the strongest case for their proposal and in that effort, using some elements of argument that are designed to appeal to ecoparanoids who believe that fossil fuel power is "destroying the world". The article is mostly just information and the references to AGW-related nonsense are minimal and do not alter the basic core premises explored.

[Just_Victor]

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

Closely related to the scientific term, "pipe dream."

[thackney]

Currently, hydrogen is produced industrially by primarily two methods - one involves chemicals and has toxic byproducts, the other requires electricity to produce but has no harmful by-products. 

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.

If there were a superconducting energy grid in the nation, it would be so efficient that there would be a massive surplus of power available cheaply (especially at night when industries, which use the bulk of all power, are largely idle).

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.

With the extra power, hydrogen producing plants could run and make enough hydrogen fuel available to run millions of hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles.

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.

The idea of a superconducting national or international energy grid is not new. It has been explored in articles in Scientific American magazine and elsewhere.

Just like magic perpetual motion machines.

Once established (albeit requiring a major investment in the tens of trillions of dollars) power would likely be much cheaper than it is now.

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

The grid would theoretically be so efficient that it would be able to transport power around the globe without losing too much in electrical resistance "leakage" to make it cost effective.

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

[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.