So much for the "big oil killed the electric car" conspiracies. The electric cars were always a contender, and the companies producing them would have loved to kill petrol cars. They were simply unable to compete with the high energy density of dead dinosaurs gushing out of the ground to be burned carefreely.
My good friend is a material scientist for Exxon. He is employed to find "the next oil". As he says, its all about "joules of energy per $1 landed cost" everything else is just noise.
Currently, $1 (retail price) of gasoline delivers more joules of energy than any of the competition. The rise of fracking has made nat gas a contender, but gasoline is still dominates.
Most comparisons to electric vehicles are actually a comparison of a car that runs on gas vs a car that runs on coal, guess which one wins?
The vast majority (70%) of electricity in the US does not come from coal, and coal is even less used in states where electric cars are popular/encouraged. Over 99% of electricity generated in my state (NY) does not come from coal.
Not to mention that when you use gas in a car, a lot of it is wasted. When you use the grid to power electric means of transportation, like trains, that energy is evenly distributed as needed, and plants will increase or reduce production in accordance to estimated demand.
Another important consideration is pollution. If you burn a polluting fuel directly in the car, the pollution is released where the car is, which is generally where a lot of people are.
You can reduce the emissions by adding technology to process the combustion products to clean them up before emitting them, but you are limited by the fact that your cleanup technology has to be small enough and light weight enough to include with the car.
If you burn that same fuel remotely to make electricity, and use that electricity to power the car, now the pollution is being emitted at a fixed location.
We can pick that location to minimize the harm from the pollution that is emitted, and we can use far more effective cleanup technology at a fixed plant than we can on a vehicle.
At the expense of many layers of defensive mechanisms which a non-trivial number of people illegally modify, and I'm curious how close to "nil" it really is.
My understanding is that, at least in the context of local polution emissions (mostly smog related?) is that the difference between emissions between electric and gas cars is dwarfed by the pollution effects of rubber and concrete particulate matter created by driving.
I'm not entirely sure how accurate my knowledge is though, it's based on a few sort of tangential comments that connected some other data points I know, and not from any one source I can cite.
Also, the impression I got was this ignores things like leaking oil, which isn't measured by my state's emissions test. So I'm not trying to make claims about overall pollution effects between gas and electric.
Also as the energy mix in the grid gets greener, everything on the grid takes free advantage of the increased efficiency. If your state adds a giant solar array and spins down a coal plant, you don't have to do anything to get that overall cleaner energy into an electric car.
> Most comparisons to electric vehicles are actually a comparison of a car that runs on gas vs a car that runs on coal, guess which one wins?
At least for Europe, this is not true. Electricity source varies by country, but it's in general a mix of 30%-50% nuclear, the rest is thermal or renewable. For thermal power-plants, the large majority are natural gas. Renewable percentage varies wildly between countries, but breaching the 50% barrier on a given year is no longer newsworthy.
Isn't that gas $1 because it's heavily subsidized, though?
> Most comparisons to electric vehicles are actually a comparison of a car that runs on gas vs a car that runs on coal, guess which one wins?
Very true, but it depends on your energy provider to these actual numbers. For instance, if I were to buy an electric today and plug it in; 48% of it would be powered by coal, 12% wind, 1% hydro and solar, 7% nuclear, and 32% natural gas and oil (no idea on how much is NG vs oil). Efficiency in production of renewable resources and social pressure would bring this number down.
Or, if money were no object, an array of solar panels (and that price is dropping every year) could easily power my garage and all the things inside it. No coal, no emissions.
#1 Electricity delivers far more energy per dollar, especially off-peak. Local EV owners are complaining on social media that they're averaging five cents per mile in the below zero temps we've been having. Using offpeak energy and good weather, costs can drop below one cent a mile. At $3/gallon and 25 mpg, that would be 12 cents a mile in a typical gas vehicle.
#2 Coal is dying. Dropping natural gas and solar prices are killing it. Electric autos get cleaner as the grid does.
#3 Even if you got lots of energy per unit of gasoline, simply refining one gallon of gasoline uses enough power an electric car can travel >15 miles on the refining energy alone.
Well, depends on the country. In mine, it's Hydro, in others it might be Nuclear, but yes, most developed countries have a shocking amount of coal plants.
Because the batteries sucked. They take too long to recharge, don't hold enough charge, are heavy, are bulky, and cost too much.
As ugly as a gas engine is it does offer quick refueling, long range, and low cost. It's just more practical, especially with turn of the century technology.
Yep. Fast charging is still an unsolved problem for electric cars (15 minutes for a 85 miles is not fast enough IMHO) although some electric scooters have swappable battery packs which do fit the bill.
I do fully expect we will have these problems licked before the next turn of the century.
Although Tesla abandoned the idea because of lack of interest (which I do find strange), a swapping station solves this problem. A depleted battery can be swapped for a fresh one in less time than a gasoline fillup requires.
Piston engines are quite simple and can be extremely reliable.
There is typically a trade-off between maintenance and replacement. Piston engines require on-going maintenance, but can last a really long time. Electric motors require almost no maintenance but need to be rebuilt/replaced more often.
I recommend the follow up film as well, Revenge of the Electric Car. (It follows the launches of the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf, as well as the first production run of the Tesla Roadster.)
Somebody once pointed to me that the reason internal combustion engines vehicle require so little gas is because half of the energy in the combustion comes from the air around it, and therefore does not need to transport it.
70k of the EV miles I've put on have been with 93.3% non-fossil fuel based sources[1]. If you're in the PNW EVs are a clear win both from fuel sources and the fact that it costs me $6/300mi at $0.07/kWh.
