Here’s How Electric Cars Will Cause the Next Oil Crisis

[gerntz]

"A shift is under way that will lead to widespread adoption of EVs in the next decade."

An analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance

Here?s How Electric Cars Will Cause the Next Oil Crisis

I think the headline is a bit over the top, but there are some pretty thorough numbers in that article.

I take it the writer thinks an oil price crash is a crisis. Not me. It's a godsend. Ask the lower economic 75%. Why high prices for anything useful escapes me.

 

[Chuckanut]

And in most cases, almost all the energy used to charge EVs is fossil fuel. As I've discussed, a fleet of EVs is an added load on the grid, and that takes

This reminds me of a news show I watched a few years ago about a husband/wife pair of environmentalists. She was lobbying to close down the coal generation plants that her community used to get electricity. In the mean time her husband was converting a formerly ICE powered car to be an all electric vehicle. !?!?!?!?!!?

 

[Zathras]

I was thinking that regular rapid charging would significantly degrade the battery, but this real-world test indicates it's not a huge factor (but it's a good news / bad news story):
...

Keep in mind, this is a worst case scenario and can't be generalized to all EVs or even newer Leafs.

The study was of 4 2013 Leafs in Pheonix.
Most EVs have a better battery management system than the Leaf, and Leafs in more temperate or even less sunny areas have much less battery degradation.

In addition, Nissan has adapted their batteries due to capacity loss in hot climates.

For our Tesla, with 65,000 miles we have lost less than 10% range.

Was the 22%/25% loss a serious issue? Certainly. It was not typical then and is less of an issue now. For other brands, it is non-existent.

 

[Lsbcal]

I'm just wondering about all this focus on the Energy industry and fuel costs. I looked up the share of Energy in the Total Stock Market Index and it is 6%.

Now autos are perhaps in the consumer cyclicals which is another 12%. But although the energy source controls the car design to a good degree, it is still just an input I would think. Ditto for airlines, just an input although certainly a critical one. See sector percentages here:
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=VTSMX®ion=USA&culture=en-US

So how to think of this? Is it merely a 6% issue? Or is there another way to size it up?

P.S. Apologies is this is OT. I'll create a separate thread if the OP wants me too or others think it should be done.

 

[Htown Harry]

A bit off topic but...I'm not that old (63) but I can remember when I was a young'un there was an old couple in my town who had an original electric car! It was maroon, was an open carriage and open spoke wheels. I can still see the old guy driving it with a straw hat and navy blue blazer.

Maybe a 1902 Waverly?

 

[M Paquette]

Oh boy. Don't forget to remind us that no matter what happens, all current costs, market factors, and tech will remain stagnant for all eternity, and besides, electric power is the worst polluting energy source.

Ox carts are the real next wave in transportation, other than those nifty chairs carried by a team of indentured servants. Let's bring back the good old days!


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Walt34]

Why do you think there is no rapid recharge? It's a bit underwhelming for shorter-range cars, but both range and charge time are continually improving...

Oh, there's little doubt they will continue to improve and at some point electrics may well be good enough and cheap enough to replace petroleum fueled vehicles. But I don't expect to see that happen in my lifetime. Maybe I'm mistaken - I'd actually like to drive one, but they're not "there" yet for me.

 

[HFWR]

Oh, there's little doubt they will continue to improve and at some point electrics may well be good enough and cheap enough to replace petroleum fueled vehicles. But I don't expect to see that happen in my lifetime. Maybe I'm mistaken - I'd actually like to drive one, but they're not "there" yet for me.

When electricity is "too cheap to meter"...

 

[travelover]

When electricity is "too cheap to meter"...

Ha! That will never happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/b...ers-a-nighttime-special-free-electricity.html

 

[ERD50]

Keep in mind, this is a worst case scenario and can't be generalized to all EVs or even newer Leafs.

The study was of 4 2013 Leafs in Pheonix.
Most EVs have a better battery management system than the Leaf, ...

And most EVs are far more expensive as well. I suspect that some of that better battery management comes at a cost?

... Was the 22%/25% loss a serious issue? Certainly. It was not typical then and is less of an issue now.

I realize it isn't typical for the average customer. But the context of my post had to do with the article talking about EVs for Uber-like or fleet services. A car for hire will have much greater than average miles per year, and much greater need for fast charging. But the 22% from standard charging in 40,000 miles is significant, and pretty bad if that doubles by 80,000 miles.

Do you have any data at the level that I presented ( a controlled, rigorous study), to show that this is less of an issue for Uber-like or fleet mileage for newer models?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Oh boy. Don't forget to remind us that no matter what happens, all current costs, market factors, and tech will remain stagnant for all eternity, ...

ummm, who is that straw-man being directed at?

... and besides, electric power is the worst polluting energy source.

Well, since you brought it up, I've shared this chart before from the National Academy of Sciences:

It does show that under many scenarios, powering a car with electricity from the grid is far worse than powering a car with fossil fuel using an ICE/hybrid.

Even using the present 'average grid', total pollution is far worse for an EV. And as I mentioned, averages are not even relevant - EVs add demand to the grid, we won't have enough renewables to power all of the grid for the foreseeable future, so that means the added EV demand must be met with other power - likely fossil and/or nukes. We don't seem to be bringing more nukes on line, so that leaves fossil. EVs powered by NG electric provide a modest improvement over present ICE/hybrids (but hybrids are not standing still either), but mix just a wee bit of coal in there, and you are negative again. Even at that, it's just a modest improvement.

If you have data to the contrary, I'd be interested. But I see far too many Pollyanna articles about the grid turning green overnight, or that mistakenly apply averages to the power mix, where marginal power generation (just like marginal tax rates) is the key metric.

clip from: Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States

-ERD50

 

[Gone4Good]

The Model S is extremely competitive in its class (large luxury cars). It is outselling the Mercedes S class, BMW7 series, Audi A8 (and I believe A7).

Indeed. Maybe we'll see how that translates to the mainstream one day.
#1 Large Luxury Car In US = Tesla Model S (2015 Sales Comparison) | CleanTechnica

So according to the link above Tesla's Model S outsold ever other luxury car in the U.S. by a wide margin; selling 14% more vehicles than the Mercedes S Class and 170% more units than the next closest competitor (BMW 7) in 2015.

Now what's shocking about that is the Model S was only introduced in June 2012. So it went from 0 to outselling the 60-year luxury leader in 2.5 years.

And Tesla itself has only been selling cars for about 8 years.

That is beyond impressive.

Meanwhile, they're slated to introduce a $35,000 coup as early as next year. That's still in the "luxury" category but it will compete with other mass market luxury vehicles like the Audi A4. So we'll soon have a test as to whether EVs have broader market appeal.

 

[Gone4Good]

No, they won't work well for everyone. They don't have to though, they only have to work well for enough people to lower demand for gasoline by a similar amount as the supply glut, which is the whole point of the article.

Absolutely. EV's won't work for everyone, but they will work for a shockingly large part of the population. Most folks don't drive 8 hours per day or live in areas with -40 degree temps so mentioning those factors is a bit of a red herring.

In fact, according to the 2015 census "Cities are home to 62.7% of the population, but comprise just 3.5% of land area."

And because commodity prices are set at the margin, even if half the population keeps driving gassers the half that doesn't can still clip a huge amount off of peak oil prices.

 

[Gone4Good]

Well, since you brought it up, I've shared this chart before from the National Academy of Sciences:

It does show that under many scenarios, powering a car with electricity from the grid is far worse than powering a car with fossil fuel using an ICE/hybrid.

Even using the present 'average grid', total pollution is far worse for an EV. And as I mentioned, averages are not even relevant - EVs add demand to the grid, we won't have enough renewables to power all of the grid for the foreseeable future, so that means the added EV demand must be met with other power - likely fossil and/or nukes. . . .

That's an interesting chart and an eye opener to boot.

But I'm wondering if your analysis that follows is quite right. I agree that using the "average grid pollution" isn't the right approach to measure the impact of all-electric EVs unless the grid and utilization stays constant. But that isn't what's happening.

My thinking is that the environmental impact of new electricity demand from EVs should be measured by the new power supply that is installed to meet that demand. And newly installed capacity is decidedly more green than legacy infrastructure.

In 2015, electric generating companies expect to add more than 20 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale generating capacity to the power grid. The additions are dominated by wind (9.8 GW), natural gas (6.3 GW), and solar (2.2 GW), which combine to make up 91% of total additions. . . .Nearly 16 GW of generating capacity is expected to retire in 2015, 81% of which (12.9 GW) is coal-fired generation.

So if you're comparing the marginal impact of new EVs powered by the marginal production capacity added to meet new electricity demand, the result looks a lot more like the EV / WWS bar in your graph than the EV / Grid Average one.

 

[ERD50]

That's an interesting chart and an eye opener to boot.

But I'm wondering if your analysis that follows is quite right. I agree that using the "average grid pollution" isn't the right approach to measure the impact of all-electric EVs unless the grid and utilization stays constant. But that isn't what's happening.

My thinking is that the environmental impact of new electricity demand from EVs should be measured by the new power supply that is installed to meet that demand. And newly installed capacity is ....

So if you're comparing the marginal impact of new EVs powered by the marginal production capacity added to meet new electricity demand, the result looks a lot more like the EV / WWS bar in your graph than the EV / Grid Average one.

Thanks for that reasoned response, but I still feel strongly that my original point holds. Look at it this way:


Let's say that all the new power coming on to a grid is green. That's good. And just for numbers, let's say that particular grid went from 20% RE to 40% RE over some time period. And lets also say (just for simplicity, it really doesn't matter much), that the demand for electricity (outside of EVs) remained static.

So now we add in the demand for EVs (let's say 10% to demonstrate the numbers). That grid gets 40% of it's average power from RE. But now, we add demand - how does that demand get filled? There is no more RE available - it is all accounted for. RE is always used first, as there is no marginal cost to it, no fuel costs. It's all used, so they need to crank up other sources to charge those EVs.

As I said earlier - it's a little more complex than that. There may be occasional times with an excess of RE on the grid (wind power at night), so that could go to charging EVs. But I think we are a very long way from that happening on a regular enough basis to make much of a dent in the average fossil power that an EV would consume.

When we get to the point of having a regular, reliable excess of RE power available, then things change. But that is so far out that much could change before then I think.

And to un-simplify my earlier statement, now that the point is made - even if demand on the grid changes, EVs will always be an added demand, and must be evaluated on that marginal power basis. So if my hypothetical grid had the demand from other sources drop in half, it would still be 'only' 80% RE, and the added demand for an EV fleet would still need some non-RE sources, right?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

...
My thinking is that the environmental impact of new electricity demand from EVs should be measured by the new power supply that is installed to meet that demand. ...

Just another way to think about what you are saying - if you try to mentally allocate the new green power to the new demand, then you also have to do the opposite, and say you have not made any improvement to the current demand. So it's just a shell game, moving the allocation from one area to the next. If you help one area you hurt the other. Does it really make sense to say that EVs are keeping my A/C and lights from being any cleaner as RE comes on-line? You get to claim all the 'credit'?

But it just isn't reality. Put yourself in the control room of a power grid. You have everything set to use all the RE that is available. Then 10,000 people come home and plug in their EVs - what do you do? You already are using all the RE, you can't just 'turn on' any more, it doesn't work that way.

So you probably kick in the NG peaker plants. And as this EV load becomes larger and more predictable, you might decide to keep the coal plant running at a little higher level overnight, as coal power in an existing plant is cheaper than NG.

At any rate, I just don't see any reason to promote EVs now, based on some future grid mix that might not even happen. If people want to buy them, fine, but it shouldn't be for environmental reasons, as they are a negative now and for the foreseeable future.

-ERD50

 

[btdt22]

Like many couples, we have two cars. I suspect our next small shopping/around-the-town car will be electric while we keep the SUV for long trips

 

[Gone4Good]

Thanks for that reasoned response, but I still feel strongly that my original point holds. Look at it this way . . .

My disagreement with how you've constructed your example is that you have two independent things happening simultaneously. 1) We add renewables to the power grid and 2) we add EV demand. In your example Thing One is independent of Thing Two, and that can't be right.

Under the same scenario where electricity growth is zero, there's no need to add net new capacity at all. So "Thing One" mostly never happens. The reason we're adding net new capacity is because demand is growing.

But lets keep the assumption of zero organic electricity growth for simplicity. And we'll also assume the same composition and usage of the utility grid.

Under those set of assumptions we'll generate X amount of pollution. And we expect to pollute the same X amount forever and always. That's our baseline.

Now we add EVs. So demand for electricity goes up. What we're trying to understand is what is the impact on pollution directly attributable to this EV led increase in electricity demand.

If we use the existing infrastructure to meet the demand we'll pollute at X plus the marginal pollution factor of the grid we have. If, instead, we meet that demand 100% with new renewable power plants, we'll pollute at X plus the marginal pollution factor of the renewables we've added.

The reality will naturally be somewhere in between those two scenarios because the new capacity we add won't exactly match the new demand we've created. But as a first order approximation, I'd say it's correct to assume that the new demand has the pollution profile of the new capacity that's added to meet that demand.

 

[dallas27]

Maybe flying cars will bring oil back!


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[ERD50]

My disagreement with how you've constructed your example is that you have two independent things happening simultaneously. 1) We add renewables to the power grid and 2) we add EV demand. In your example Thing One is independent of Thing Two, and that can't be right. ...

They are independent. I don't see how you say that can't be right?

We are currently greening the grid far faster than we are adding EV demand, it really has no connection. "Thing One" - added RE is happening, and it works even better if we lower overall demand - it becomes an even higher % of the average!

The fact is, we have alternatives to EVs - if pollution reduction is the goal, a modern hybrid is the best alternative now and far, far into the future. That makes them independent, we don't have to add EV demand, it is optional.

[edit to add for more clarity]: You said "The reason we're adding net new capacity is because demand is growing." - That is only one reason. The other is there is some public outcry and legislation to increase the % of renewables on the grid. So renewables are adding capacity and replacing some older coal plants that are being taken out of service. But as RE becomes a larger % of the average, the intermittency issues become more and more of a problem/expense. [end of edit-add]​

Re-read my description of the power plant manager - how can that play out any differently?

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

Just another way to think about what you are saying - if you try to mentally allocate the new green power to the new demand, then you also have to do the opposite, and say you have not made any improvement to the current demand. So it's just a shell game, moving the allocation from one area to the next. If you help one area you hurt the other. Does it really make sense to say that EVs are keeping my A/C and lights from being any cleaner as RE comes on-line? You get to claim all the 'credit'?

But it just isn't reality. Put yourself in the control room of a power grid. You have everything set to use all the RE that is available. Then 10,000 people come home and plug in their EVs - what do you do? You already are using all the RE, you can't just 'turn on' any more, it doesn't work that way.

So you probably kick in the NG peaker plants. And as this EV load becomes larger and more predictable, you might decide to keep the coal plant running at a little higher level overnight, as coal power in an existing plant is cheaper than NG.

At any rate, I just don't see any reason to promote EVs now, based on some future grid mix that might not even happen. If people want to buy them, fine, but it shouldn't be for environmental reasons, as they are a negative now and for the foreseeable future.

-ERD50

Many who are buying them for environmental reasons are adding their own renewable energy to the grid, or paying for additional renewables.

My basic understanding is, that overnight when base power is running, power is stored (a very small fraction), or in some cases, such as coal plants, the generators are run at a lower, less efficient level so as to not overproduce.

Use of power overnight is not a 1 to 1 ratio in these cases. Power is generated more efficiently, thus less CO2/kWh. What is important is the difference between the pollution created without the EV load and with it.

As for battery capacity loss, the "study" you referred to was of four cars. Hardly a robust study statistically.

I made a full charge last night on my 2012 Model S with 65,000 miles. I have an 8% loss of capacity. To get a more accurate reading I should run it down close to empty and do another full charge. That would likely make it a 6-7% loss.
From others that I know, this is typical.
However, these were not done under a controlled study using only quick chargers or none at all.

As for high mileage conditions, there is a taxi company in Amsterdam that runs a fleet of Teslas. There are also Limo drivers that use Teslas. While I put about 19,000 miles on ours annually, there are others I know that put 30,000/year on.

The results of that study hold true for early Leafs in Pheonix.
It certainly doesn't come close to anyone else I know in Minnesota in a Leaf, Tesla, Volt, i3, etc.

 

[Zathras]

...

Do you have any data at the level that I presented ( a controlled, rigorous study), to show that this is less of an issue for Uber-like or fleet mileage for newer models?

-ERD50

While the conditions are not as tightly controlled, the sample size is much better.

Plug In America

Average annual mileage for this group was slightly less than 18,000.

 

[Midpack]

I am still looking for a conclusive study on the total environmental impact of EVs vs ICEVs and hybrids based on the utility structure in the foreseeable future vs a largely hypothetical RE assumptions. This is the closest I've found so far (with the embedded link), but not perfect by any means. EVs are much worse for the environment as produced, not the point for me, but lost on many car buyers. Some naively think EVs are zero emissions and producers are happy to let buyers believe it, nonsense of course.

Is The Electric Car Really Helping The Environment? | BERC

A major reason why EVs are gaining popularity is their claim to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to be more beneficial from the environment.

The study showed that current production methods of EVs are significantly more environmentally damaging than the production of ICEVs. This is mostly due to the power mechanism manufacturing techniques, including battery manufacturing, in EVs that involve energy intensive processes. The high environmental cost of EV production, however, can often be offset by the lower GHG emission of EVs during their use-phase. The GHG footprint of EVs during their use-phase, however, depends highly on the electricity infrastructure in place for a given region and the benefits scales with the lifetime of the EV. Disposal and other end-of-life processes had nearly equal environmental impact for both EVs and ICEVs.

Under the European energy grid, EVs outperformed ICEVs by about 20% for gasoline ICEVs and 10% for diesel powered ICEVs in GHG footprint. For a natural gas dominated energy grid, EVs still outperformed gasoline ICEVs by 12%, but broke even with diesel ICEVs. In the case of a coal-dominated energy, however, EVs actually increased GHG emission by 17% when compared to ICEVs and 27% for diesel ICEVs.

So in this study EVs were worse for the environment than ICEVs as produced and ongoing in coal states, they never 'break even' in terms of environmental impact as several ER members have noted in earlier threads. Unfortunately we live amidst a bunch of coal fired power plants...

 

[ERD50]

...
As for battery capacity loss, the "study" you referred to was of four cars. Hardly a robust study statistically.

I made a full charge last night on my 2012 Model S with 65,000 miles. I have an 8% loss of capacity.

As for high mileage conditions, there is a taxi company in Amsterdam that runs a fleet of Teslas. There are also Limo drivers that use Teslas. While I put about 19,000 miles on ours annually, there are others I know that put 30,000/year on.

The results of that study hold true for early Leafs in Pheonix.
It certainly doesn't come close to anyone else I know in Minnesota in a Leaf, Tesla, Volt, i3, etc.

While the conditions are not as tightly controlled, the sample size is much better.

Plug In America

Average annual mileage for this group was slightly less than 18,000.

You're talking mainly about Teslas. I acknowledged that the Tesla very likely has a much more advanced (and $$$) battery management system. I'm not surprised that it outperforms the more modestly priced Leaf in that area as well.

The point is/was (again, in the context of the article - using them as fleet vehicles) that the Leafs in their study showed significant degradation in 40,000 miles, 22% with regular charging, 25% with fast charging. And yes, the sample size was small, but the fact that it was so consistent across the four vehicles does lend added credibility. It's tough/expensive to do this so rigorously on a larger scale.

While the expensive Tesla is an amazing vehicle, it is unlikely to be adopted in large numbers here in the US as a fleet/taxi vehicle. I'll guess that the Amsterdam company received a large subsidy on that purchase.

So the unanswered question is - have the current production Leafs seen improvements in battery degradation? Will the more modestly priced Tesla cars have the same specs in this area as their more $$$$ siblings? When will that car ship, and at what price (as is common with new products, their shipping dates and prices have crept out and up)?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Many who are buying them for environmental reasons are adding their own renewable energy to the grid, or paying for additional renewables. ...

"Many"? We've had this discussion before. I'll grant you that there are some people who added solar PV only because they also bought an EV. But not only do I think that is a small minority (do you have numbers?), I also think that it will decrease with wider adoption. For wide adoption, you need many more buyers who are not in the economic bracket of the kind of people who can afford a Tesla.Those buyers are less likely to be able to afford solar PV, may rent their homes/apartments/condos, etc. Just not going to make a dent in it.

My basic understanding is, that overnight when base power is running, power is stored (a very small fraction), or in some cases, such as coal plants, the generators are run at a lower, less efficient level so as to not overproduce.

Use of power overnight is not a 1 to 1 ratio in these cases. Power is generated more efficiently, thus less CO2/kWh. What is important is the difference between the pollution created without the EV load and with it. ...

Maybe I'm not following you - but this only seems to bolster my point.

The only storage on any meaningful scale that I know of is hydro. Sometimes actually reverse pumping at night, but more likely scaling back or shutting down hydro at night, so there is a reserve head for the peaks during the day. It's a zero sum game. Use it at night to charge EVs, and there isn't any left for the daytime peaks. Either way, you need to add power to the system for those EVs (likely from fossil). If there was more hydro available, they'd be using it now, it wouldn't just sit there unused.

Your comment regarding efficiency of the coal plant seems twisted. OK, it probably runs less efficiently throttled down. But increasing the output to charge EVs is still burning more coal in absolute terms. Maybe it shifts the 24 hour average efficiency a bit, but that graph for the damage that coal does extends wayyyyy out there - shaving a few % of it doesn't do much to the overall picture.

-ERD50