When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[nctnico]

Your numbers are way off -as usual- for an efficient ICE. These do reach 30% to 40% nowadays because they have small engines with a turbocharger to make sure there is a wide RPM and load range where the engine is efficient. Ofcourse you can find an old Ford model-T which is very inefficient but nobody drives these any more.

[DougSpindler]

Do you understand chemistry and the chemical reactions involved in cracking crude oil to make diesel and gasoline?  If you know your crude oil history gasoline was considered a waste product.  No one knew what do to with it so it was dumped into rivers as a waste product. 

What allows diesel engines to operate based on how much fuel is injected? One reason is the ability of diesels to operate within a very wide range of air/fuel ratios. Gasoline engines generally operate within a range of about 12 to 18 parts air to 1 part fuel (by mass). Usually, this ratio stays pretty close to 14.7:1, as at this ratio all of the fuel and oxygen is completely used up. A diesel engine, however, generally operates from 18:1 to as high as 70:1, and is capable of operating in super lean ratios. When you press the accelerator pedal in a diesel engine, this drops the air/fuel ratio. Significantly more fuel is injected relative to the air ingested, which increases horsepower. Soot is created when diesel engines operate in low air/fuel ratios, which is why you may see black smoke from diesel trucks when they floor the throttle pedal. Ultimately, while the four major strokes are the same for both diesel and gasoline engines, the finer details reveal the highly unique characteristics of each engine type.

And then there is engine braking.

https://youtu.be/rXVJG9n6BAs

https://youtu.be/C1uM3GtzHTU

[gildasd]

That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.

That's still much too optimistic.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.

The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.

And there is volumetric efficiency, all things being  equal, a smaller engine has lower max possible efficiency:
For example, more of the combustion is close enough to the cylinder wall to lose energy as heat, and as the piston goes down during the power stroke, the difference just lets bigger until it’s not even fun anymore.
FYI, a 667kW per cylinder engine gets about 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, in its sweet spot and with good fuel (we adjust injection to density and other factors).

[DougSpindler]

That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.

That's still much too optimistic.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.

The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.

And there is volumetric efficiency, all things being  equal, a smaller engine has lower max possible efficiency:
For example, more of the combustion is close enough to the cylinder wall to lose energy as heat, and as the piston goes down during the power stroke, the difference just lets bigger until it’s not even fun anymore.
FYI, a 667kW per cylinder engine gets about 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, in its sweet spot and with good fuel (we adjust injection to density and other factors).

True, but when do ideal conditions exists when driving a motor vehicle.  NEVER.

[gildasd]

That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.

That's still much too optimistic.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.

The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.

And there is volumetric efficiency, all things being  equal, a smaller engine has lower max possible efficiency:
For example, more of the combustion is close enough to the cylinder wall to lose energy as heat, and as the piston goes down during the power stroke, the difference just lets bigger until it’s not even fun anymore.
FYI, a 667kW per cylinder engine gets about 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, in its sweet spot and with good fuel (we adjust injection to density and other factors).

True, but when do ideal conditions exists when driving a motor vehicle.  NEVER.

That’s my point, getting a 6MW generator to 40% is allready pushing thermodynamics (and combustion chemistry, the only methods to higher efficiency on these engines entail more NOX than legal) so forget about it on a small ICE engine with variable rpm and constantly varying loads...

[TheNewLab]

ah, getting back to the main topic..
BMW now has an all-electric released in the US.
there's a cult following of people who have converted Prius's into pickup truck..they call them Pruck's or Trius's
An outfit in Illinois has taken over an old Mitsubishi plant and are producing their own brand of all-electric pickups.
All US sold Prius's are sold as hybrid, except there is a face-plate cover over the hole where the "electric first" switch is in japan. (lower left of steering wheel). by simply adding back a switch, a little CAN-bus re-programming, and it becomes the same Prius sold in Japan and elsewhere. (power of the OIL lobby)

California keeps getting more and more charging stations.

I am still searching for an old VW Rabbit pickup, that I can convert to all electric. Granted It will be no monster heavy hauler,only the work I do, the equipment is big and bulky, but lightweight.
So in a way, they are almost mainstream

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Easy. One litre of gas oil/diesel has 9.9 kWh (*), and a modern diesel car can easily do 100 km with 4 litres, that's ~40 kWh of energy. So the efficiency isn't too far away from 50%.

(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

[boffin]

Also, the increase in energy consumption running the AC is identical EV or ICE, so in the context of the EV vs ICE argument, AC is a non-issue at all.

6.4 kW is ~ 1/3 of the power needed to move the car, I wouldn't call it a non-issue, EVs (unlike ICEs) have an already poor range and this makes it even worse.

As I keep pointing out, you are using absolutely worst case scenario numbers (again), and not real world number; nor are you considering the equivalent performance of an ICE car.

Boffin, you know very well that the heat for the cabin heater of an ICE comes from the water of the radiator, it's heat that's dumped into the cabin that would otherwise be dumped outside, and therefore means exactly zero additional kilowatts, so why you keep trying to prove otherwise is beyond me. Please stop behaving like the typical EV fanboy, you can do better I'm sure.

I said "AC" in the above statement, AIR CONDITIONING; not heating.  An AC compressor in an ICE car uses engine horsepower, which consumes hydrocarbons from tank.

[nctnico]

That’s my point, getting a 6MW generator to 40% is allready pushing thermodynamics (and combustion chemistry, the only methods to higher efficiency on these engines entail more NOX than legal) so forget about it on a small ICE engine with variable rpm and constantly varying loads...

That also depends on what kind of ignition / injection / turbo charging / internal friction reduction technologies are used in the engine. Read about Ford's Ecoboost engines for example. They used some very clever engineering in there to push the boundaries of a commercial ICE engine further. AFAIK Ford invested somewhere around US$150 million into the development. Engines for generators don't see that kind of technological push forward because the market for these is much smaller.

And development doesn't stop. F1 engines use even more clever fuel injection / ignition systems to reduce the fuel consumption.

[CatalinaWOW]

That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.

That's still much too optimistic.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.

The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.

This thread has an amazing amount of mixing non-comparable numbers - on both sides of the aisle.

14% efficiency number for ICE is IMHO, the efficiency through the drive train, and includes parasitic loads like power steering and alternator in addition to friction losses in the transmission, drag from the brakes and also friction losses in the tires.  The numbers in the 30-50% range are measuring engine only efficiency.  The manufacturers who throw these numbers around are often carefully ambiguous about things like this because the only reason for publishing such figures is marketing and for much of the audience bigger is gooder is the level of comprehension.

Some of these losses are common to EV, some are intrinsically different and some are different because of different markets. 

Transmission losses are generally lower in EV due to the need for fewer gears, but there is a large variation due to layout.  There is no real need for an alternator, so no comparable parasitic load in EV. 

Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency. 

It takes a lot of effort to make an apples to apples comparison, and that effort is often clearly missing.  The 14% efficiency number would be meaningful in a range discussion if a few other conditions were met.  1.  The starting point for using the number was the total number of Joules available in the gas tank (from full to effective empty, even if that left a few liters in the tank).  2.  The comparison EV was somewhat similar in market aim (small sedan vs small sedan, or ultra compact vs ultra compact).  3.  A number for to the wheels efficiency for the EV were available.  I don't have such a number, but assume that it is in the 60-90% range, probably on the lower half of that range.  4.  The number of usable Joules in the battery were known.

Numbers on both sides of this fence could be checked by comparing the known ranges of the vehicles with the calculated values.  There shouldn't be any large discrepancies.

Without such comparable numbers all these figures have as much meaning as the meaningful range extension claimed by an apparently defunct planned maker of electric vehicles through some solar panels embedded in the roof of the passenger compartment.  The kindest thing you can say about such a claim is that an ignorant marketeer didn't know any better.

[nctnico]

Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency. 

NO! Definitely wrong. EVs are heavier than comparable ICE cars due to the batteries. Just look up the data! For example an EV with a very small battery like the e-Golf is 400kg heavier than it's ICE counterpart (and I didn't choose the model with the smallest ICE engine to compare against). A Tesla model S with the biggest batteries fitted has a weigth of around 2200kg. A BMW 3 series sits around 1600kg. The weight of an EV is a clear disadvantage!

If you look closely at the energy usage of the various Tesla's you'll see that the lighter models with less batteries have a lower energy consumption. The e-Golf has a relatively low energy consumption for an EV but at the cost of relatively small (and thus light) batteries.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

This thread has an amazing amount of mixing non-comparable numbers - on both sides of the aisle.

14% efficiency number for ICE is IMHO, the efficiency through the drive train, and includes parasitic loads like power steering and alternator in addition to friction losses in the transmission, drag from the brakes and also friction losses in the tires.

[...]

If the efficiency of an ICE were 14%, you'd need about 18[kWh/100km]/0.14= 128.5 kWh to do 100km, and that's ~ 13 litres of gasoil. My own 2 litres 1.8 tons diesel SUV can do 100km with only 5 litres and it's not a hybrid and has no KERS.

0.14*13/5= 0.36 => 36% efficiency.

Why do I choose 18 kWh/100km as a ballpark number? Because it's what you can do on average with a two tons Model S, driving slowly. But... a Model S has KERS, and my SUV doesn't.

And there are other diesels better than mine.

[fsr]

The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.

Let's do the math. If the efficiency of an ICE were ~ 45%, and to move a car on average you need say 18 kWh/100km, it means an ICE dumps as heat 0.55*18/0.45 = 22 kWh/100km, even 1/3 of that is plenty enough to heat the cabin

That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
Take a look at this. Quite an analysis they have done on the entire vehicle: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

I think the point is that the very inefficiency of the ICE engine means that the wasted energy is available
free, & using it to heat the car interior means that energy doesn't have to be found from the engine's mechanical output.

Curious way of seeing it, as the efficiency is the energy employed for useful work vs the losses. That energy was already been stolen from the mechanical output because of the inefficiency to begin with.
I wouldn't call it "free" either, as you pay for the gas burned to produce it. However, when you use part of the otherwise useless heat to heat the cabin, you recover some of that heat for an useful purpose. You lose a little less.

[nctnico]

The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.

The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.

[DougSpindler]

The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.

The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.

Not sure I understand what your point is.

A fuel is any material that can be made to react with other substances so that it releases energy as heat energy or to be used for work.  Electric energy can be used to do work.

[ahbushnell]

The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.

The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.

Not sure I understand what your point is.

A fuel is any material that can be made to react with other substances so that it releases energy as heat energy or to be used for work.  Electric energy can be used to do work.

But electricity has to be generated from something.  Either wind/solar/coal/natural gas/geothermal.....

[apis]

.../nuclear/hydro.

Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency. 

NO! Definitely wrong. EVs are heavier than comparable ICE cars due to the batteries. Just look up the data! For example an EV with a very small battery like the e-Golf is 400kg heavier than it's ICE counterpart (and I didn't choose the model with the smallest ICE engine to compare against). A Tesla model S with the biggest batteries fitted has a weigth of around 2200kg. A BMW 3 series sits around 1600kg. The weight of an EV is a clear disadvantage!

If you look closely at the energy usage of the various Tesla's you'll see that the lighter models with less batteries have a lower energy consumption. The e-Golf has a relatively low energy consumption for an EV but at the cost of relatively small (and thus light) batteries.

EVs can use regenerative braking, so the weight matters less.

[apis]

Didn't everyone agree that efficiency doesn't matter yesterday? It's things like the amount of air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, convenience (range), cost, etc that matters. When it comes to air-pollution and GhG emissions EVs are better. When it comes to range ICEs are better.

[DougSpindler]

The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.

The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.

Not sure I understand what your point is.

A fuel is any material that can be made to react with other substances so that it releases energy as heat energy or to be used for work.  Electric energy can be used to do work.

But electricity has to be generated from something.  Either wind/solar/coal/natural gas/geothermal.....

And where do the energy contained in fossil fuels come from?  Solar, or mere precisely nuclear?  And if we go aback far enough isn’t all our energy from nuclear and the “The Big Bang”?

[boffin]

The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.

The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.

Nor do your numbers include the energy of extraction/refining/distribution of hydrocarbons; but then you have never been about comparing like for like.

[CatalinaWOW]

Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency. 

NO! Definitely wrong. EVs are heavier than comparable ICE cars due to the batteries. Just look up the data! For example an EV with a very small battery like the e-Golf is 400kg heavier than it's ICE counterpart (and I didn't choose the model with the smallest ICE engine to compare against). A Tesla model S with the biggest batteries fitted has a weigth of around 2200kg. A BMW 3 series sits around 1600kg. The weight of an EV is a clear disadvantage!

If you look closely at the energy usage of the various Tesla's you'll see that the lighter models with less batteries have a lower energy consumption. The e-Golf has a relatively low energy consumption for an EV but at the cost of relatively small (and thus light) batteries.

Another illustration of the difficulty of getting like for like comparisons.  I was basing my comment on the more extensive use of lightweight materials (and omitting frills) that seems to be prevalent in EV. 

But as another post says, energy is an interesting theoretical property, but isn't what leads people to decide EV over ICE or visa versa.  Things like range, performance, comfort, price and ecological considerations are what make people decide.  None of those factors is directly related to efficiency, and the connection is loose and sometimes counterintuitive for the ones that have any connection at all.

[nctnico]

The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.

The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.

Nor do your numbers include the energy of extraction/refining/distribution of hydrocarbons; but then you have never been about comparing like for like.

Because that comparison is impossible to make. For example: You'd also have to factor in the CO2 emissions created during the building of the dam required to generate the electricity for your EV. However for mass produced items the price without taxes is a good indication. For mass production the energy (and thus CO2 emissions) it takes to make something (from ore to end product) will dominate the price.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I read somewhere on the interwebs that if tomorrow all the cars in the world were BEVs, global CO2 emissions would only drop by ~ 4%, so not a very big impact on GhG emissions.

The reasoning goes like this: cars (just normal cars, not including big trucks, buses, agricultural machines nor trains nor airplanes nor ships) consume only about 8% of total fossil fuels production (carbon+gas+oil), and the electricity production mix generates 50% as much CO2 per kWh as a car. 50% of 8% is 4%, so there you have it.

My google fu failed me, and I haven't been able to check the validity of the "cars consume only about 8% of total fossil fuels production (carbon+gas+oil)" claim.

The CO2 of the electricity mix claim sounds about right to me, but I doubt the electric system could cope with such an additional load as is without modification.

I say this because if you think we're going to save the planet with the Teslas, forget it.

[nctnico]

I read somewhere on the interwebs that if tomorrow all the cars in the world were BEVs, global CO2 emissions would only drop by ~ 4%, so not a very big impact on GhG emissions.

The reasoning goes like this: cars (just normal cars, not including big trucks, buses, agricultural machines nor trains nor airplanes nor ships) consume only about 8% of total fossil fuels production (carbon+gas+oil), and the electricity production mix generates 50% as much CO2 per kWh as a car. 50% of 8% is 4%, so there you have it.

I say this because if you think we're going to save the planet with the Teslas, forget it.

That is true. In the Netherlands -for example- transport causes only 12% of the CO2 emissions. The article Kjelt posted earlier shows where the problem is with the current approach to CO2 emissions. Governments try to avoid having to chase industry and jobs away so 100% of the burden of reducing of CO2 emissions falls down on the people where only a small amount of CO2 reduction can be achieved.

[fsr]

The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.

The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.

As others have said, they don't include the extraction, refining and distribution of gasoline, either. The energy source for gasoline is pure petroleum, which isn't easily accesible, nor cannot be used directly to power a car.
The total lifecycle emissions of an electric car depend on how was the electricity generated. Governments should have encouraged green energy sources a lot of time ago. It's ridiculous that they don't move faster to green energy, as petroleum isn't going to last forever, and even if it did, the CO2 emissions are a very big problem, anyways.
An electric vehicle with clean energy sources will have very low lifecycle CO2 emissions. An ICE car can't do that.