Wall Street Journal Article

Ford Focus Electric Forum

Help Support Ford Focus Electric Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

michael

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
1,113
Location
Los Angeles, CA
There was recently a Wall Street Journal article on EVs,

http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-you-buy-an-electric-car-1416777176?mod=trending_now_7


There were hundreds of responses, mostly from EV haters whose reasoning ranged from "Grab of tax money..." to "my Diesel truck is efficient and works for me"

But there was one specific objection that caught my attention.

A Joesph Rizzo wrote:

Do the math. If all automobiles were electric, here is what would happen.

One gallon of gasoline has the equivalent power of 33.7 kw of electricity.

There are 368.5 millions of gallons of gasoline sold every day. This equals a requirement of 12,418,450,000 KWh of additional power to be generated every day. Divide by 1,000 to get mega watts and it is 12,418,450 megawatts of additional power to be generated every day. Divide that number by one of the largest generators built today, 1600 megawatts, and you have the need for 7,761 additional generators that must be installed....



Basically, he was saying there's no way to keep the cars charged. Nobody disputed his reasoning. I think it deserves a response.

Let's for a moment ignore the underlying error that all gasoline consumption could be replaced by electricity. Let's ignore airplanes, boats, lawnmowers, etc, and imagine that tomorrow morning the EV fairy would replace every gas burning motor vehicle with a 300-mile capable Focus Electric with a fast charging port.

In that case, it would be close enough to say that 368 million gallons a day (12 TeraWattHours per day) worth of energy would be avoided. Here he makes his first mistake. Since EVs are between two and three times more efficient than gas cars (100 MPGe typical vs 30 MPG typical, 50 MPG for the best hybrids) the energy requirement would immediately drop to perhaps 4 to 6 TWH/day. Let's be pessimistic and say 6 TWH/day.

Here Mr Rizzo makes his big faux pas. He goes from 12 TWH/day to 12 TW, forgetting that there are 24 hours in a day.

US generating capacity is approximately 1 TW, not including sources less that 1 MW. On a hot summer afternoon, this capacity may be utilized at up to 80%, a national usage of approximately 0.8 TW. As we all know, usage is less late at night and early mornings, and it is less in cooler months. However, running continuously at 80% utilization, our existing generating capacity can produce 0.8 x 24 = roughly 20 TWH in a 24 hour period. Over the entire year, the average daily consumption is about 11 TWH/day. Obviously more in the summer, less in the winter. Summer months maybe 16 TWH per day.

So we could generate 20 TWH/day (by running our existing capacity 24/7), we need about 16 TWH/day in the summer, so there are 4 TWH/day left over which is almost enough to charge every single gas burning car, truck, airplane, boat, and lawnmower in America (if converted to electric), even in the summer, provided only that they charge off peak hours.

Obviously all gas consumption won't be replaced, and the process of conversion is pretty slow. If you consider a dream scenario where half the gasoline consumption is replaced by electricity in 10 or 20 years, it will be easy to find the capacity.

The point is that even without adding any generating capacity, just by running our existing capacity more fully, we could do far more than we will actually need to in the forseeable future.

Everybody has a reason why EV's won't work, but almost everybody who tries one finds that they do.
 
Something needs to change before wide spread acceptance of electrics. The driving range of the vehicles need to increase. The cost of manufacturing needs to be competive gas powered vehicles. They also need to be proven to consumers as viable purchase option. It took a while for hybrids to gain a strong market share.
 
michael said:
A Joesph Rizzo wrote:

One gallon of gasoline has the equivalent power of 33.7 kw of electricity.
Firstly, Mr. Rizzo used the wrong unit. The correct unit is kWh (amount of energy), not kW (power level). A gallon of gasoline holds the equivalent of 33.7 kWh of electrical energy.

Aside from that mistake, the fundamental flaw here is that Mr. Rizzo has taken the energy equivalency between gasoline and electricity and erroneously concluded that an EV must consume 33.7 kWh to perform the equivalent work a gasoline car does consuming one gallon of gasoline.

Of course, this conclusion is utterly wrong. Mr. Rizzo has ignored the manner in which the two types of vehicles convert their on-board energy into useful motion.

A gasoline car in fact wastes -- as heat -- the majority of the energy in each gallon it consumes. Very little of the total available energy in the gasoline is actually used to propel the car -- yet each gallon is completely consumed, and forever lost. An EV, on the other hand, converts the majority of the energy stored in its battery into useful motion. Plus, it can convert some of the motion back into electricity when slowing down, and store it for later re-consumption.

Also, if Mr. Rizzo understood anything about what he was so strongly opining, he would know that most contemporary EVs store somewhat less than 33.7 kWh on-board, and yet they are somehow capable of traveling 70-80 miles on a single charge (for examples, the Leaf and FFE). If he simply "did the math", he would be able to conclude that charging the average EV with 33.7 kWh of electricity (assuming it can store it on-board) is actually equivalent to filling the average gasoline car with at least 4 gallons of gasoline.
 
WattsUp said:
Aside from that mistake, the fundamental flaw here is that Mr. Rizzo has taken the energy equivalency between gasoline and electricity and erroneously concluded that an EV must consume 33.7 kWh to perform the equivalent work a gasoline car does consuming one gallon of gasoline.

Of course, this conclusion is utterly wrong. Mr. Rizzo has ignored the manner in which the two types of vehicles convert their on-board energy into useful motion.

A gasoline car in fact wastes -- as heat -- the majority of the energy in each gallon it consumes. Very little of the total available energy in the gasoline is actually used to propel the car -- yet each gallon is completely consumed, and forever lost. An EV, on the other hand, converts the majority of the energy stored in its battery into useful motion. Plus, it can convert some of the motion back into electricity when slowing down, and store it for later re-consumption.

Also, if Mr. Rizzo understood anything about what he was so strongly opining, he would know that most contemporary EVs store somewhat less than 33.7 kWh on-board, and yet they are somehow capable of traveling 70-80 miles on a single charge (for examples, the Leaf and FFE). If he simply "did the math", he would be able to conclude that charging the average EV with 33.7 kWh of electricity (assuming it can store it on-board) is actually equivalent to filling the average gasoline car with at least 4 gallons of gasoline.


Well put!
 
People like to be ignorant....sour grapes / sweet lemons....this has been going on for centuries. It is no use to argue. Do what you want and be happy with your decision. I like to tell people how much I like my FFE but never tell them to buy one or make them feel bad about not making the selection I would. I will admit that I'm a bit ignorant regarding the environmental impact from the manufacture and disposal of lithium batteries and cannot fathom that the impact would be more than burning 6000 gallons of fossil fuel. Currently lithium batteries don't contain enough valuable reusable material to justify recycling them...even after the cost of lithium has increased. Anyway, I'll keep my eye on it and see how this progresses; but as people consume more and more of the same thing, recycling may begin to be more viable.
 
davideos said:
Currently lithium batteries don't contain enough valuable reusable material to justify recycling them...even after the cost of lithium has increased.
It is true that, currently, it not ecomonically worth extracting the lithium from EV batteries for use in making more EV batteries, but it is wrong to say the batteries are "not recycled".

The "batteries" (meaning, the whole object... its metal casing, wiring, electronics, etc.) are certainly worth recycling, just like the rest of the valuable raw materials (mostly metals) in any car are, once the car has reached end-of-life. And, they are recycled.

It's not like entire automotive "battery packs" are thrown into the dump because they contain lithium that nobody wants for making more batteries. It is simply that the lithium is not currently extracted in a form useful for that purpose. (Though this may change as demand for lithium increases.) However, it is extracted for other uses.

Also, cells from "used" EV battery packs can also be re-purposed for off-grid power storage, or other applications, where a lower performance threshold is acceptable.

http://www.waste-management-world.c.../the-lithium-battery-recycling-challenge.html
 
I don't know what you do about misinformation, or people saying things as if they know the facts and are actually wrong. Dogma is a hard thing to argue.

There was a recent CBC article about the new Tesla show room / service center opening in Canada. The "journalist" talked about a lot of things that were just not the story - although factually they may have been true, they were irrelevant (two cars caught on fire - true fact - you are supposed to believe the cars spontaneously combust and be afraid).

The comments were incredibly bad - a lot of Canada is great, the US sucks, I won't buy one of those until they are less expensive, that's stupid to buy one of those, the range won't work, it won't work where I live because...

I think the general public just doesn't understand the cars. They don't get it that they don't drive 200 miles every day. They go someplace and come back during the day. The cars are great to drive, they are so quiet, and they don't smell.

Two comments that I loved:
When people ask how long it takes to charge my car I say, 5 seconds to plug it in when I get home, 5 seconds to unplug it when I leave. (honestly, that comment got it exactly right - that's how long you spend charging your car every day - way less time than filling up the tank).

People will look at the specifications for a car and then decide one step outside of what is available right now will change their mind. (this was in response to somebody that said, if only the car had AWD, got 300 miles range, charged in 5 minutes, could haul 7 people, cost $30,000, yada yada yada - then I'd buy one - well no you wouldn't).

I don't think there is anything we can do, except keep talking nice about our cars. Misinformation will eventually go away.

I still don't buy the whole niche market nonsense. Just about everybody building EVs can sell as many as they build. They aren't selling in the numbers ICEs are, but yet they haven't really been around as long. Hybrids took some time to catch on, and look how foolish they are.
 
You also have to keep in mind some of the latest research that shows when people are shown evidence that contradicts their position they just dig in deeper and find a way to dismiss the evidence (even if its true).
Here is one example study:
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-they-are-wrong-analysts-may-dig-their-heels
(although that is stock market analysis it applies to other areas of "belief")
This is termed: "The Backfire Effect":
http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/
 
Great analysis Michael! It's true that we must keep fighting through the misinformation and half-truths to show people how great BEVs are!

EVA - I love your line about how long it takes to charge! I think that's what I'll start telling people too!
 
One tactic I use is to give rides to others in our BEV, and I am quick to offer to drive for carpools to events (partly to skip the pollution by their ICE vehicles).
Even when the riders are not in the market themselves, it seems likely they share their impressions with other people they know.
(I assume that many who contribute to this site act similarly.)
 
Another common complaint from the WSJ readers was what they considered a grab of their tax money to subsidize EVs, which, they claimed, were not economical on their own.

To this I would answer that the tax money serves to prime the pump, get more EV's out in the world in view of others and in anticipation of more widespread adoption. My little FFE has "sold" seven Volts and a RAV-4 EV among my friends and family. Had it not been for the tax incentive, there is little likelihood any of these cars would be on the road.

I can also say that the additional $1500 or $2500 offered in California seems to be a huge incentive. When I travel, I see very few EV's compared to what I see here.

In the early days of hybrids, they too received tax incentives (and in California, car pool benefits). Once their value became recognized, they sold well and the incentives were removed.
 
michael said:
Another common complaint from the WSJ readers was what they considered a grab of their tax money to subsidize EVs, which, they claimed, were not economical on their own.

To this I would answer that the tax money serves to prime the pump, get more EV's out in the world [...]
I agree. Could also point out that our EV's leave more fuel available for their ICE cars, and improve the air for everyone. Economically, my EV has been not great, because I got one of the early ones, with lease terms much worse than available now. But I am happy that our driving does relatively little harm to the world's atmosphere (and the fuel + maintenance costs are so low, but that just helps me).

Might also refer to benefits that have been handed out to the fossil fuel industry for decades, like the intangible drilling cost deduction and the depletion deduction. Both of these reduce tax paid by those producers to our government, making the budget balance worse for the whole country. There are probably other fossil fuel benefits I have not heard about (aid to refiners? transporters?).
 
JTCalif said:
Could also point out that our EV's leave more fuel available for their ICE cars, and improve the air for everyone.
Right now in Minnesota we're under an air quality advisory. Because of how much ICE cars pollute all the overhead signs on the freeways are telling people to drive less to reduce pollution and improve air quality. Once this heavy cloud cover moves out next week the air quality should improve. But those signs are a great talking point for promoting EVs right now while we're under the air quality advisory.
 
The WSJ readers repeat the mantra about how all EV's do is move the pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant. It is inconceivable to me that a car which uses 1/3 the energy and has it provided from a large stationary power plant could cause remotely as much pollution as a conventional ICE vehicle.
 
michael said:
The WSJ readers repeat the mantra about how all EV's do is move the pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant. It is inconceivable to me that a car which uses 1/3 the energy and has it provided from a large stationary power plant could cause remotely as much pollution as a conventional ICE vehicle.
Its even better than that: For those who charge at night that pollution would be generated anyway.
 
The points above make sense.
Also, the large well-regulated stationary power-plants are more efficient than the small highly-variable ones in cars ... but still not as clean as the power from the solar PV panels on my roof.
 
Which is another good point....electricity can be more and more generated from clean sources as things progress. Gasoline cannot ever become clean.
 
Back
Top