Is converting to electric vehicles powered by green energy even feasible? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15172539
At the end of the math below, to convert all cars to run on green energy, it requires a 772 times increase in our power generation, and that's only counting the cars.


The average electric vehicle consumes 30KWh/100 miles.
The average American driver drives 13.5K miles per year.
There are approximately 210 million drivers in America.

Thus, if the goal is to electrify the personally owned vehicle (POV) fleet and go to zero emissions...
210Mvehicles x 13.5Kmi/vehile x 30KWh/100mi = the power requirements of the Green New Deal (GND) in regards to POV

Expanding that equation in scientific notation:

2.1 x 10^8 x 1.35 x 10^4 x 30 / 100 = KWh (KiloWattHours of electricity)

The required electricity for entire replacement of the American POV fleet is 8.5 x 10^11 KWh, or 850,000,000,000 KWh.

At the end of 2020, the US had about 1.1 x 10^9KW of electrical generation capacity, so electrification of the entire POV fleet would take...

At the end of the math it requires a 772 times increase in our power generation. JUST TO POWER THE CARS.



The reality is that it doesn't make any sense to be using electric vehicles while the power grid still uses fossil fuels.

In their rush for trying to advance their "green" agenda and replace all those old "bad" cars with trendy new electric ones, they've completely ignored logic. It's become emotionalism pushing policy.

40% of the country's electric power comes from natural gas. Wouldn't it be better to just directly burn that natural gas in cars?

Because otherwise you would be adding unnecessary efficiency losses at four different points: efficiency loss converting gas powered motion to electricity (1) and then transmission of that electricity over distances (2), and then battery charging inefficiencies (3), and finally converting it to back to physical motion (4).


Coal generates 20% of the country's electric power, and nuclear another 20%.
#15172540
It is. But the cars should have solar arrays either at the charging point(drain the storage battery first then use the power grid) and/or in the car to help directly charge the battery itself while you're out and about.

You're failing to consider the full adoption rate is not going to be fast. It's probably 50+ years at least. They're "pushing it" mainly as a Marketing strategy, same way they pushed Hybrid cars (still not many of them).
#15172550
colliric wrote:It is. But the cars should have solar arrays either at the charging point(drain the storage battery first then use the power grid) and/or in the car to help directly charge the battery itself while you're out and about.

It has been proven to be theoretically possible, but I still very much think you are not being practical about it. A look at the math shows that solar panels that could cover the surface of a car barely provide much energy compared to how much energy it takes to move a normal car. It just wouldn't even be worth it, in most situations.
#15172551
Puffer Fish wrote:It has been proven to be theoretically possible, but I still very much think you are not being practical about it. A look at the math shows that solar panels that could cover the surface of a car barely provide much energy compared to how much energy it takes to move a normal car. It just wouldn't even be worth it, in most situations.


It would save some power costs, and so would help lower emissions. And obviously using them at the home charging point with a storage battery would be more effective. Of course they would still be using the Grid and need plug in charging as well.

Obviously the technology will improve over the years and that's what most people are expecting I believe.

Hyundai already used solar panels in the Sonata Hybrid to help charge the battery.
#15173057
Puffer Fish wrote:
At the end of the math below, to convert all cars to run on green energy, it requires a 772 times increase in our power generation, and that's only counting the cars.




Nope.

We will need to make a lot more electricity, but not that much more.

One more thing, natural gas powers a lot of electricity, and that produces less carbon emissions than gasoline.

But your underlying point is correct. We will need to expand our use of hydro, nuclear and solar, and it won't be cheap.

That's one of my disappointments with the Biden plan. He's proposed about 200B, and my guess is a trillion is what we need to get things going properly. That's just the tip of the iceberg, we need nuclear power to be part of the transition to a carbon free economy. We will need to declare an emergency to make that happen.

We should also start in on building the Smart Grid, it doesn't make sense to run blindly into all this without a plan on how it's all going to work and fit together.
#15173720
At the end of the math it requires a 772 times increase in our power generation. JUST TO POWER THE CARS.

@Puffer Fish
That makes no sense.
Combustion engine cars are generating power already, each one of them is a small power plant. Replacing a gas car for an electric car does not increase the overall energy production, it just displaces the need for energy production by the car, to energy production outside of the car (e.i solar panel, nuclear plant, coal plant, etc.) The overall amount of global energy production might change a bit because of the different modalities, and the calculations are certainly much more complex than what can be done with "napkin math" but it is within the same order of magnitude and I suspect it will favor the electric car due to efficiency of electric motors, not needing to transport large amount of fuel (gas to gas stations) etc.


It is easy to make mistakes when you start with the conclusion before you analyze the situation. Throw in a few "green new deal" zingers and voila.
Physics, chemistry and biology does not care about your political affiliations, if we continue to burn fuel, CO2 will continue to accumulate. Period. you don't get a pass on physics and chemistry based on your political ideation.

The real issue with the next generation of power generation is going to be power storage and not power generation. Make no mistake, this is not an unsurmountable hurdle either, the fuel storage capacity for combustion engine cars did not appear out of thin air either, we built it over a century of work, my guess is that the transition to electric will take much less than a century and will be easier.

Energy storage is going to be the real issue. The problem that you are suggesting is not really a problem, the real problem would be to create a battery pack for every single one of those cars, in addition to our already high demand for batteries for cellphones, laptops, powerwalls for homes and perhaps large industrial-grade battery packs for grid regulation and/or grid power storage. If we could store a lot of power in a common material... for instance salt water... we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Last edited by XogGyux on 23 May 2021 09:47, edited 1 time in total.
#15173721
late wrote: That's just the tip of the iceberg, we need nuclear power to be part of the transition to a carbon free economy.


I agree with this statement. Unless we can figure out a way to use a common element for cheap, volume/weight efficient energy storage I don't see a path forward without significant push on nuclear fission, and hopefully some research and eventual substitution in nuclear fusion power generation.
It is possible that if we make significant advances in carbon nanotube/graphene supercapacitors and batteries we could bypass need for nuclear as carbon is readily available, in theory we could suck it from the CO2 in the atmosphere, that would be epic. But realistically, we will need to crawl before we run. Nuclear is readily avaiable, safe, efficient. The major drawback which is the waste can be mitigated and newer plants have significantly less waste and shorter lifespan of the residual radiation product.
#15175680
I think the maths is off.


"The required electricity for entire replacement of the American POV fleet is 8.5 x 10^11 KWh, or 850,000,000,000 KWh.

At the end of 2020, the US had about 1.1 x 10^9KW of electrical generation capacity, so electrification of the entire POV fleet would take..."

The US currently uses 3800TWh so 850TWh for cars is a 22% increase.
CRT

You tell me. Is it true that standpoint theory wa[…]

US Supreme Court Watch

No Unthinking I am very clear on who is responsib[…]

That's nice, also not relevant. So, tell me, do […]

The G7 Picks Up The Gauntlet.

In addition, the U.S. Congress has passed on a bip[…]