• Home
• Energy Economics

• ---

• Energy Links

• ---

• Introduction
• Primary Sources
• Economics
• Renewables
• SmartGrid
• Storage
• Transmission
• Ventures
• Projections
• Wayback Machine

Transport - Automotive Fuel Migration Factors Population of the US is 330 million people in 2008. There are about 250M vehicles including about 150M automobiles. These vehicles use about 80% of 6.96 QBTU = 5.6 QBTU of petroleum annually (net of thermodynamic loss). (Energy data from Energy Information Agency Annual Energy Review.) In order to significantly affect petroleum use in the US, most of this vehicle population of about 250 million would have to use a different source of fuel. In order for this to happen, the necessary amount of fuel must be produced; the fuel or energy must be distributed to usage endpoints; vehicles must be produced; and vehicles must be bought and operated by consumers. So consumers will need to see positive economics of use of these re-fuelled vehicles including vehicle cost and operating cost including energy over typical service life; and convenience of use must be broad enough to support the lives and livelihoods of 330M people. Energy producers will need to make multi-billion-, perhaps trillion-dollar investments in production plant and distribution infrastructure, much of it in advance of vehicle adoption. Investment of this magnitude requires a plan for positive net present value, with an internal rate of return above average commercial cost-of-funds. If vehicles are to be electric, note that automotive energy use is 50% incremental to current electricity production. US annual electricity generation in 2008 is 12.7 QBTU net of thermodynamic and distribution losses. To this would be added the 5.6 QBTU needed for vehicle use. (Internal combustion thermodynamic losses were removed from the petroleum usage estimate, so equivalent energy use is estimated regardless of fuel.) Several fuel scenarios are compared below.

Following, a good example of an end-to-end analysis and comparison over time of oil-powered vehicles vs. EV vehicles whose source of electric power is from Natural Gas, or from Coal. An EV unit may have zero tailpipe emissions, but its efficiency and emissions are really those of its power source and distribution system. The US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation & Air Quality reports that "EVs convert about 59%-62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%-21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels." The site adds that electricity from nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind cause no air pollutants. Natural gas conversion to electricity in a CCGT plant runs close to thermodynamic optimum of 60% for steam conversion. Coal energy conversion runs about 64% in a combined cycle conversion process and produces about double the emissions of natural gas. So combining generation efficiency with wheel power efficiency, EV energy conversion is about 40% from electricity produced from natural gas and 24% from electricity produced from coal, both to be compared to the 17%-21% efficiency stated for gasoline vehicles. The same EPA site further provides comparison on how vehicles use energy. This brings up the idea of a consumer comparison metric for EVs, and even better a metric that takes into account energy use from sourcing to the wheel, allowing energy use and emissions comparison across vehicles using different energy types (electric, gasoline, diesel, ... hydrogen?). Consumers today value the MPG metric on conventional vehicle window stickers, and extending that metric across fuel types with data specific to brand and model would drive manufacturer competition for efficiencies involving all vehicle types, and would provide a better tool for consumers to choose a vehicle than would qualitative ideology that might not be backed up in practice. How Clean is Electric Vehicle, by Balram Suman, published on LinkedIn July 9 2017. Paul Martin has published a series of fascinating articles providing more quantification and greater accuracy comparing well-to-wheel energy use for battery EVs, hybrid vehicles, and internal-combustion-driven vehicles, and for hydrogen fuel cell-driven vehicles. So: Exactly How Much Electricity Does it Take To Produce a Gallon of Gasoline? Energy Cycle Efficiency in Vehicles - Does the EV Really Win? The Hydrogen Fuelcell Vehicle - A Great Idea - In Theory My TLDR conclusions (although you should definitely read the reports!): EVs are quantitatively more benign in energy efficiency and emission by substantial margins over ICE vehicles, as long as the powering electricity source is not coal, which negates both. Efficiency of ICE vehicles is controlled by energy used in refining to gasoline, which is much less efficient than electricity generation to power EVs thereby making EVs the winner in useful cases. Finally, the physics and logistics of hydrogen fuel cells are much more complex than the hype around them addresses, and their cost and low efficiency will keep them un-economical except for specialized use cases. The articles argue on the basis of energy efficiency and thermodynamics which would be the basis for any energy-based comparison. Separate arguments could be made for cost comparisons, and some of that appears in commentary following each article. On one hand, no arguments are made on the basis of tax subsidies, which create truly artificial biases which can be based on ideology, politics or commercial motivations. On the other hand, usable cost arguments have to be made on "best available cost" of recovery, of distribution, of conversion and so forth; but best available cost of anything is itself an elusive quantity in markets that are not free of regulation and other economic biases, often biased for very good or practical reasons. Thus in the end comparisons in this space are about cost to society which inevitably has some subjective components. Starting the comparisons with thermodynamics seems to be the most solid footing. In any case, please read the author's case, data and conclusions, and don't stop at my broad generalized conclusions!

(October 2019) A further article from Million Mile Secrets discusses cost-effectiveness of using an Electric Vehicle, from the point-of-view of a consumer. Topics covered include Road Trips Charging at Home Planning for En-Route Charging Destination Charging, and Perks Use Within Cities List of EV-Friendly Cities Driving Considerations for Cost-Effective Use Efficient Driving Limits to Consider Assistance on Battery Discharge This article is a good exposition of how an individual consumer can achieve cost-effective use of an Electric Vehicle, representing evolution of the technologies involved, and of practices individual users can follow to achieve that cost-effectiveness. The article is not quantitative. As I stated above, each step in the end-to-end process must be profitable, and the end-to-end process also must be profitable. So within my context, cost-effectiveness to individual consumers is a necessary step, and the article provides practical steps available to individual consumers to achieve that. Notwithstanding the articles above, each of which states a positive assertion addressing the overall problem I've stated for this site, some questions remain within the context I've stated. I'm still seeking quantitative analysis of questions around scalability, and cost thereof; and, although hopeful, I remain skeptical until there are operational answers to these questions. I'm seeking answers that are quantitative, and that provide methodology of practical implementation that motivates actual use. As illustrated by the matrix figure at the top of this page, my questions are around end-to-end cost-effectiveness (including quantitative comparison to gas/diesel - the existing infrastructure, already profitable as described by my context), consisting of several components of which consumer use is one of those components, each of which must be profitable to "operator" of the component. That question covers the path including electrical generation including acquisition of underlying fuel (derived energy production of gasoline vs. natural gas or solar production of electricity); energy distribution for charging to both concentrated charging stations and to distributed home charging (or alternatives of wind, or home-local panels); and ultimately cost-effectiveness of power-to-the-wheel (KWh cost per mile - an EPA-mileage-rating equivalent). What are the cost-effective scaled paths among these alternatives? Can my grid chart at the top of this page be addressed? A specific question about scalability of the grid, for charging of scaled use of EVs: The power distribution grid is a patchwork of locally-controlled networks that would have to scale substantially to cover effective scaled EV use. Could such scaling actually be accomplished given the distributed nature of ownership and funding? Even in California, the grid has not been funded to the degree of safety inspection and improvement sufficiently to avoid tragic consequences. Lawsuit liabilities have driven PG&E to bankruptcy, likely pushing scaling even further into the future. Such answers have to include subsidies involved, cost of construction of power distribution, and whatever physics drives total cost of power-to-the-wheel. The cost of gasoline at the pump already includes taxes, drilling and transportation costs; and standards for miles-per-gallon encapsulate physics of energy density, Carnot engine thermodynamics etc. I want to find the same level of analysis for EVs, end-to-end and point-by-point. The articles just above take steps toward this end although gaps remain. To re-state the goal, each step along the way must be profitable (or can be grouped with other steps such that that grouping can be profitable), and the process from end-to-end must be profitable as well. Taking taxes to fund these points is a non-productive cost to society; instead, profitability based from improved capability is the sustainable path.

More detailed, and quantified analysis of migration to Natural Gas, by Eamon Keane, Seeking Alpha Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part I Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part II Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part III Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part IV

Desirable Policy Highlights

If someone asked this site, what would we propose as a rational energy strategy?

• Current optimized energy supply and demand equilibrium comprises three principal paths. First, transportation based on petroleum fuels (an international market). Second, AC electricity generation from multiple sources (primarily domestic); AC distribution; and AC use. Third, natural gas (primarily domestic) used ubiquitously for heating, and for chemical production including fertilizer. World economic growth and evolution will drive new optimized equilibrium paths. Technologies and industry will organize around each new path as economic optimization of the path becomes tangible.
• World economies and oil recovery costs will make oil increasingly scarce, expensive, and contested, to a greater degree than any other energy source. This will drive transport systems through hybrid, natural gas and ultimately EVs; it will drive to greater use of rail and ship transport for distance trade. Agriculture and energy distribution will remain strong priority users of transport.
  • In the short term, gasoline hybrid deployment will dominate. Hybrids will have to expand to cover business-oriented utility vehicles, non-optional in commercial use.
  • Broader use of Natural Gas for transportation, first for fleets, then trucks, then cars. Development of natural gas fueling infrastructure within urban islands which expand into archipelagoes, much as cellular communications deployed through the early 2000's. Natural gas hybrids appear to have significant advantages. In the long run, use of natural gas for fixed-plant electricity generation will be seen as a waste of one of the few known transportable energy sources.
  • Railroad use will become much more prevalent for distance trade as well as for mass transit. Railroads are energy-efficient, they haul coal, and they haul agriculture products and agriculture chemicals. The same reasons will drive ship transport.
  • EVs can ultimately take us to independence from oil, but will be paced by infrastructure to generate and distribute electricity, as described in the table above.
    • EV evolution is likely through Hybrid-EV → Plug-in EV → NG-EV → Battery-EV and ultimately → Fuel-Cell-EV.
    • Source-to-use cost per mile of EVs must evolve to be competitive at all levels of the supply chain with gasoline and NG hybrids, in order for EVs to be virally adopted.
    • The critical issue for electric vehicles is not as much the vehicles themselves as it is cost-effective logistics to make electric power available to them in a manner that fits societal use of transportation. A related issue is adequacy of transportable power.
    • The logistics may involve charge distribution via the wide-area grid in which case common electricity-generation capabilities must grow substantially, about 50%, along with smart-grid scheduling of charge availability. This is the commonly-accepted view today, 2009. Climategate may result in lower bars to coal-generated electricity, which would give grid-enabled EVs some increased advantage.
    • Although grid-based and home-based charge systems are the popular concept today, this site believes that the charge stations that would be required for vehicles with captive batteries, will never become sufficiently ubiquitous (insufficient ROI, plus massive logistics) and that charging times will remain impractical to support ubiquitous use of EVs.
    • Rather, economies of scale, EV charging dynamics, and societal use of transportation will favor concentration of charging into common battery charging sites, battery distribution infrastructure and vehicle battery exchange. Infrastructure would include purpose-driven distributed recharge centers focused on charge and distribution of batteries.
    • Generating and maintaining power in DC with minimal conversions may be very helpful to achieve cost-effective infrastructure. It is possible that an equilibrium will evolve around PV-generated DC (although Climategate may give coal-generated grid electricity increased advantage), distributed via DC micro-grid to charge batteries; which are distributed to battery-exchange service infrastructure for use by electric vehicles.
    • Additionally, identification of broad sources of Li, Co and other battery materials, or research to utilize other broadly-available materials, will be a continuing necessity. Standards will be needed for batteries interchangeable in use and logistics systems.
• World energy use will double from 2009 by the decade 2040-2050. Larger GDPs will grow at a slower rate, but absolute magnitude of energy use will nevertheless grow substantially, as will need for energy technologies worldwide. Electricity generation and use must keep pace.
  • Broader use of EVs will require substantially increased electricity generation, on the order of a 50% increase.
  • Continuous improvement to use of coal will be a fact of life. Climategate will likely remove some anticipated restrictions on coal use. Drive clean coal technology to effectiveness and deployment. Optimize commercial economic viability. Use it domestically, and make it available to China, for broad and cheap electricity generation. Domestic and world diplomacy should be used to accomplish deployment in China. Coal is available domestically to large economies in great quantity. It is available to large international consumers, thereby reducing need for conflict. Find ways to use it satisfactorily. A key responsibility of government should be to make sure this will occur.
  • Prove feasibility of PBWR multi-fuel reactors such as thorium for commercial scalable use. Prove commercial economic viability. Climategate doesn't alleviate restrictions to nuclear electricity generation (i.e. climategate does affect restrictions on carbon fuels but does not affect nuclear), giving coal a relative advantage. Ensure safety and low risk of weapon-ization. Accelerate development of waste-disposal methods. Ensure domestic and international supply independence for a large extended time period. If feasible, deploy broadly. These will trade off against use of coal for electricity generation, depending on comparative energy cost and comparative impact.
  • Fund research to take solar and wind electricity-generating sources to subsidy-free source-to-use economic deployment, particularly for EV use. Distributed PV must become competitive with gasoline, to support broad deployment of electric vehicles. For sourcing to the wide-area grid, they must become economic relative to clean coal and nuclear energy.
  • Develop deepwater oil recovery in the Gulf of Mexico, following up such sources as Tiber and Thunderhorse. We can anticipate oil price to make this commercially viable in the time it takes to develop Tiber and to make more deep finds. Extending domestic and near-domestic oil recovery will reduce foreign dependency.
• Government funding should focus on research to feasibility and economical use.
  • Focus government spending on research to economic feasibility, and to break chicken-and-egg problems of supply vs. consumption. Each subsidy or grant must contain a horizon.
  • Withdraw and inhibit government subsidy of deployment. Subsidies give false positive indications of economic utility, and are either not sustainable, or sustain paths that are not economically optimal thereby inhibiting societal economic development.
  • Energy projects are typically large scale and highly capital-intensive, often putting them out of scope for typical Venture Capitalists because of total capital requirement, and dilution of private equity which lowers return. For projects of this scale, once it is determined that private sector venture capital is insufficient, it is possible that a large-project government-backed venture capital fund would stimulate deployment programs. These would have to be funded as ventures, and the fund would have to be managed for profitability net of anticipated project profitability failures, just as venture capital is managed, in order to prevent just another bankrupting government subsidy program. Management objective of such a fund must be that return on profitable projects, with capital returned, would need to cover failure of a number of hopeful but ill-fated programs, just as for venture capital funds in an area such as technology.
  • Businesses will organize naturally around net-profit-generating segments of an energy-delivery path.
  • Tax policy should enable and encourage the points above, facilitating profitability independent of long-term subsidy.
• Environmental effects
  • Accumulation of these policies will lower GHG emission: Cleanup of coal use particularly in China; increased substitution of nuclear and natural gas for electricity generation; lowered use of oil for transportation.
  • Dependence on foreign oil sources is reduced by these actions, lowering the likelihood of international conflict.
  • Broader availability of nuclear and clean coal energy sources enables continued healthy growth of GDP by all countries.
  • Work to ensure availability of energy to a growing world population universally driving to thrive, and mitigating problems with that path if any are truly encountered, is likely a more ethical proposition than energy use restriction policies that likely lead to to deprivation and disaster among a very large world population. Stated another way: given population growth, energy restrictions possibly prevent one disaster (environmental if AGW assertions are ultimately proven) but inevitably lead to others (economic collapse and consequences of that); whereas assurance of energy supply plus aggressive mitigation if real problems do occur, may lead to avoidance altogether of disaster.

Interesting areas to watch for research, or commercialization (non-subsidized and profitable, of course).

• Nuclear reactor deployment, multi-fuel/thorium nuclear generation technologies for broader electric generation.
• Increased use of natural gas for electricity generation.
• Increases to effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of coal emissions cleaning.
• Increased deployment and use of natural gas vehicles in fleets, trucking transport, mass transit, and personal use.
• Improvements in battery capacity, leading to EV range and ubiquity of use. This has to be coupled with grid capacity increase, and grid scheduling and management. Battery charge/change infrastructure.
• Low-cost high-efficiency high-power inverters for DC grid. Use of DC in either local distribution or grid distribution or both, for efficient use of PV generation charging Electric Vehicles.
• Increased economic efficiency of PV, $/Watt generated and $/Watt delivered.
• Accelerated atmospheric CO₂ sinks, both vegetation and chemical. Accelerated natural vegetation photosynthesis in both land and oceanic plants resulting in improved CO₂ removal from the atmosphere, or Photosynthesized CO₂ conversion to sugar, and subsequent conversion to fuel alcohol/methanol.