ICEs and EVs

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes,

But electric production efficiencies, Transmission losses, Heat loss in charging/discharging.

The whole story is a whole lot closer than that simple graphic. Yes Electric vehicles are more efficient, just not not as much as many think.

Most modern ICE engines are getting 28-38% thermal efficiencies (gas/diesel). However there are still a lot of older engines driving around.
 
Yes,

But electric production efficiencies, Transmission losses, Heat loss in charging/discharging.

The whole story is a whole lot closer than that simple graphic. Yes Electric vehicles are more efficient, just not not as much as many think.

Most modern ICE engines are getting 28-38% thermal efficiencies (gas/diesel). However there are still a lot of older engines driving around.

The graphs I posted are from Mototrend and Yale, not my own guesses. They can help lead you to the whole story. If you have more numbers from somewhere else, feel free to post where they're from.
 
80% of the US electrical power comes from non renewable sources. Natural gas and coal produce over 50%. Year 2020.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

Natural gas fired generators are about 60% thermally efficient.

http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-sources/fossil-fuels/natural-gas/
Long distance electrical power transmission losses average 8-15%.

https://blog.se.com/energy-manageme...l losses between the,range between 8 and 15%.
Lithium ion batteries are about 95% efficient in storage and charging losses.

http://www.windandsun.co.uk/information/batteries/battery-lifetime,-efficiency-and-care.aspx
Add up all the losses and just getting power to charge the car and use it add up.

Down to about 45% efficient. Take out the 11% loss from your chart brings you down to approximately 35%, At the high end of ICE.

This is all a quick and dirty assessment, but it should end up very close.

So yes, Electric cars are more efficient, but the total energy cycle to generate the power, get the power from the generating plant to the car, and charge/use it reduces the total efficiency much closer to the ICE.
 
So yes, Electric cars are more efficient, but the total energy cycle to generate the power, get the power from the generating plant to the car, and charge/use it reduces the total efficiency much closer to the ICE.
Same applies to fossil fuels. Extracting the fuel, refining and processing it, transporting it to the final destination all involves using energy.
 
And the same for the 80% of electric power generation.

Not to mention the energy involved in the battery production.
 
Not to mention the energy involved in the battery production.
True, but then to be fair there is the energy in forging, casting, machining, and assembling a gasoline engine as well. Which I somehow feel is more energy intensive than battery production.
The efficiency standard should apply to both sides of the coin.
I'm sure there probably have been studies to quantify energy efficiency of fossil fuel vs. electrical production. And I think it would vary depending on the type of fossil fuel and the method of electrical production. But would be interesting to look at the numbers, not just the efficiency of the vehicle at the user end.
 
Same applies to fossil fuels. Extracting the fuel, refining and processing it, transporting it to the final destination all involves using energy.
You mean the fossil fuels used to generate the electricity?
 
Or the electricity used to run the refineries that produce fuel?
Yes indeed. The same fuel used to help build and transport wind turbines or solar panels or mine and ship coal to the power plants. The same fuel used to mix and transport cement to build the dams that produce electricity or build the vessels to contain nuclear fission for producing electricity. The same fuel that mines and transports the copper and aluminum used in transmission lines to move that electricity from where it is produced to where it is used. We can play this game forever. The world is a long way away from reducing the use of fossil fuels. A very long way.
 
You mean the fossil fuels used to generate the electricity?
Electricity can be generated without fossil fuels, using green, carbon neutral renewable energy sources.
SOLAR
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2022...s-is-currently-producing-electricity-on-oahu/
WIND
Hawaii Wind Generation Capacity by Year
1663475511925.png
Megawatts of Installed Generating Capacity[8][9]

GEOTHERMAL
https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/cl...rces/geothermal/puna-geothermal-venture-(pgv)
WASTE TO ENERGY

https://www.covanta.com/where-we-are/our-facilities/honolulu


The world is a long way away from reducing the use of fossil fuels. A very long way.
Is 23 years "a long way?"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawaii-aims-for-100-percent-renewable-power-by-2045/New York, California and Delaware have similarly set goals of cutting carbon emissions and increasing use of renewables in the near future.
And you might have a difficult time finding the ICE of your choice by 2040 or so:
https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/automaker-ev-plans/Not to mention gas stations and ICE repair shops.
EV charging stations and repair shops should be plentiful though.
Is that a "long way" off?
 
Electricity can be generated without fossil fuels, using green, carbon neutral renewable energy sources.
SOLAR
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2022...s-is-currently-producing-electricity-on-oahu/
WIND
Hawaii Wind Generation Capacity by Year
View attachment 538074
Megawatts of Installed Generating Capacity[8][9]

GEOTHERMAL
https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/cl...rces/geothermal/puna-geothermal-venture-(pgv)
WASTE TO ENERGY
https://www.covanta.com/where-we-are/our-facilities/honolulu



Is 23 years "a long way?"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawaii-aims-for-100-percent-renewable-power-by-2045/New York, California and Delaware have similarly set goals of cutting carbon emissions and increasing use of renewables in the near future.
And you might have a difficult time finding the ICE of your choice by 2040 or so:
https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/automaker-ev-plans/Not to mention gas stations and ICE repair shops.
EV charging stations and repair shops should be plentiful though.
Is that a "long way" off?
Political goals and marketing hype meant to placate a certain segment have a history of falling well short of reality. The reality today remains, this world runs on fossil fuels.
 
80% of the US electrical power comes from non renewable sources. Natural gas and coal produce over 50%. Year 2020.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php
It won't be easy to reduce that number but many are working hard at it. It's not to hurt anyone, quite the opposite.

Long distance electrical power transmission losses average 8-15%.
Makes me wonder how transmitting 1 kWh via power line from a plant to a car, would compare with transmitting 1 kWh of gasoline from a refinery to a car. I know it wouldn't really matter, but it'd be an interesting number.

This is all a quick and dirty assessment, but it should end up very close.
I posted many reports in this thread from various sources for anyone who needs a more accurate assessment. All those I found point to the same conclusion.

Yes indeed. The same fuel used to help build and transport wind turbines or solar panels or mine and ship coal to the power plants. The same fuel used to mix and transport cement to build the dams that produce electricity or build the vessels to contain nuclear fission for producing electricity. The same fuel that mines and transports the copper and aluminum used in transmission lines to move that electricity from where it is produced to where it is used. We can play this game forever. The world is a long way away from reducing the use of fossil fuels. A very long way.
People are already reducing ff in all those applications, and keep working towards further reduction. The common goal is to maintain a decent quality of life for as many people as possible over the longest time, not to use a particular energy source over another.

Political goals and marketing hype meant to placate a certain segment have a history of falling well short of reality. The reality today remains, this world runs on fossil fuels.
Nothing wrong with aiming to reduce dependency. There is not 1 thing the world runs on. As Mach7 said, they are used mining and making batteries, and I can point out that batteries are used to start ICEs and make them more efficient.

⚡ 🔥 ⚡ 🔥 ⚡ 🔥 ⚡ 🔥

https://www.motor1.com/news/602256/ford-sold-more-mach-e-vehicles-than-mustangs-in-july-2022/
 
Political goals and marketing hype meant to placate a certain segment have a history of falling well short of reality.
Rather than making a blanket statement without support can you provide links and facts to back up your statements?
The fact is that the Hawaii goal of 100% electrical production from renewables by 2045 has met its' 2020 milestone of 30% production from renewables. This is up from 5% in 1997. There are 19 projects in the pipeline scheduled to produce some 500 megawatts of electricity in the next couple of years. The last coal fired plant in the state was shut down just a few weeks ago.

The reality is that renewables are increasing yearly and fossil fuels are declining as a percentage of world electrical energy production. China, besides getting the jump on us in EV production, is again leading the way in renewable utilization. Have you noticed the balsa wood shortage and jump in prices? This is because of the use of it in wind turbine blades in China.
No, this is not political or marketing hype. These plants are producing terawatts of electricity worldwide right now as we speak.
The facts speak for themselves.
 
China, besides getting the jump on us in EV production, is again leading the way in renewable utilization. Have you noticed the balsa wood shortage and jump in prices? This is because of the use of it in wind turbine blades in China.
No, this is not political or marketing hype. These plants are producing terawatts of electricity worldwide right now as we speak.
The facts speak for themselves.
Well here’s a fact that speaks volumes. According to the Helsinki Center for Research on Energy & Clean Air in 2021 China started construction on 33 gigawatts of coal fired power plants. The most undertaken since 2016.

Facts do indeed speak for themselves.
 
Well here’s a fact that speaks volumes. According to the Helsinki Center for Research on Energy & Clean Air in 2021 China started construction on 33 gigawatts of coal fired power plants. The most undertaken since 2016.

Facts do indeed speak for themselves.
"China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.[1] China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity, and is expected to contribute 43 percent of global renewable capacity growth.[2]"

Agree, the facts do indeed speak for themselves.

EDIT: And you fail to mention that while China's energy needs are so great that electricity production from coal has been slowly growing from year to year, the electricity production from OIL has been drastically cut from 10,367 gigawatts in 2016 to just 1300 gigawatts in 2019.

""China has since become the world's largest investor, producer and consumer of renewable energy worldwide, manufacturing state-of-the-art solar panels, wind turbines and hydroelectric energy facilities" as well as becoming the world’s largest producer of electric cars and buses.[13]"

"Although China currently has the world's largest installed capacity of hydro, solar and wind power, its energy needs are so large that in 2019, renewable sources provided 26% of its electricity generation[3]—compared to 17% in the U.S.A.[4]with most of the remainder provided by coal power plants. In early 2020, renewable energy comprised about 40% of China's total installed electric power capacity, and 26% of total power generation. Nevertheless, the share of renewable sources in the energy mix had been gradually rising in recent years, and China has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060 and peak emissions before 2030.
 
Last edited:
And in 1900 the world moved on horseback. Automobiles?? The roads are too rough and where can you buy gasoline?
Great example. The move to automobiles (ICE ones at that) came from innovation in the private sector which produced a product (automobiles) that did not require government subsidies and mandates to become mainstream. It was such an innovative product that people craved a switch from horses to automobiles.
 
which produced a product (automobiles) that did not require government subsidies and mandates to become mainstream.
So I take it that you would favor the elimination of government subsidies to prop up a product and let the marketplace decide instead?
Absolutely agree! The $20 billion in direct subsidies yearly for fossil fuels should be eliminated at once. When the cost of gasoline for cars and coal, natural gas and oil to run power plants triples in price then the public will decide on the appropriate energy source to use.
Assuming that enough fossil fuels will be produced in the first place in the face of a lack of subsidies.
👍
 
It is crazy to me that some people are still rationalizing to themselves that burning gas isn’t necessarily bad. It reminds me of the 1980’s when half the population was saying smoking wasn’t bad for you. Ha. I smoked a pack a day back then, but I wasn’t naive or gullible enough to think it was healthy. I also drive an ICE vehicle (sometimes) and appreciate how important gas still is to society, but just because it is important doesn’t mean it isn’t incredibly harmful.

An average car puts out 4.6 TONS of C02 into the air annually, along with a bunch of other toxins. There are 1.4B cars on the road, most (outside the US) with little emission controls. An average human puts out .2 tons of C02 just breathing, plus all their other supply chain emissions from consumption. Since I was born we’ve added another 4B humans, so that is a s*** ton of extra C02 in our tiny thin atmosphere. Captain Obvious says that’s no bueno.

Anyone that lived in Los Angeles in the 70’s or 80’s knows first hand what it is like to experience this in a “concentrated” environment. The same is true for Mumbai, Delhi, Beijing, and many other big cities today. You don’t need to debate studies, just go hang out for a week in Mumbai and report back.

That said, everyone of us on the forum burn propellant as a hobby. So all of us driving electric cars and advocating for a clean atmosphere (myself included), are also a bit hypocritical. I am excited for the future. One without pollution. One that is healthier and more sustainable to support (an eventual) 9-10B people. ICE cars are at the end of their 100 year run. It’s game over for them. No major manufacturer is planning new ICE models out beyond 20 years.


Here is Los Angeles in the 70’s with an average of 160 days a year of smog alerts contrasted to today with less than five a year. Emission controls have helped. Pollution sucks.
69FC2FF2-651D-42FE-9C24-341D1ACB0A48.jpeg
 
So I take it that you would favor the elimination of government subsidies to prop up a product and let the marketplace decide instead?
Absolutely agree! The $20 billion in direct subsidies yearly for fossil fuels should be eliminated at once. When the cost of gasoline for cars and coal, natural gas and oil to run power plants triples in price then the public will decide on the appropriate energy source to use.
Assuming that enough fossil fuels will be produced in the first place in the face of a lack of subsidies.
👍
I have stated on here many times that I am against virtually all government subsidies. However, to be clear many so called “subsidies” are simply generally accepted accounting principals that apply to virtually all similar industries (depreciation, depletion, etc). Opponents to a certain industry are frequently dishonest in what they tend to label as a subsidy.
 
It is crazy to me that some people are still rationalizing to themselves that burning gas isn’t necessarily bad. It reminds me of the 1980’s when half the population was saying smoking wasn’t bad for you. Ha. I smoked a pack a day back then, but I wasn’t naive or gullible enough to think it was healthy. I also drive an ICE vehicle (sometimes) and appreciate how important gas still is to society, but just because it is important doesn’t mean it isn’t incredibly harmful.

An average car puts out 4.6 TONS of C02 into the air annually, along with a bunch of other toxins. There are 1.4B cars on the road, most (outside the US) with little emission controls. An average human puts out .2 tons of C02 just breathing, plus all their other supply chain emissions from consumption. Since I was born we’ve added another 4B humans, so that is a s*** ton of extra C02 in our tiny thin atmosphere. Captain Obvious says that’s no bueno.

Anyone that lived in Los Angeles in the 70’s or 80’s knows first hand what it is like to experience this in a “concentrated” environment. The same is true for Mumbai, Delhi, Beijing, and many other big cities today. You don’t need to debate studies, just go hang out for a week in Mumbai and report back.

That said, everyone of us on the forum burn propellant as a hobby. So all of us driving electric cars and advocating for a clean atmosphere (myself included), are also a bit hypocritical. I am excited for the future. One without pollution. One that is healthier and more sustainable to support (an eventual) 9-10B people. ICE cars are at the end of their 100 year run. It’s game over for them. No major manufacturer is planning new ICE models out beyond 20 years.


Here is Los Angeles in the 70’s with an average of 160 days a year of smog alerts contrasted to today with less than five a year. Emission controls have helped. Pollution sucks.
View attachment 538122
There is a lot of space between “burning gas is bad” and “burning gas is wonderful”. Understand that when someone is skeptical of claims that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are against something but instead may just have a healthy does of skepticism.
 
So I take it that you would favor the elimination of government subsidies to prop up a product and let the marketplace decide instead?
Absolutely agree! The $20 billion in direct subsidies yearly for fossil fuels should be eliminated at once. When the cost of gasoline for cars and coal, natural gas and oil to run power plants triples in price then the public will decide on the appropriate energy source to use.
Assuming that enough fossil fuels will be produced in the first place in the face of a lack of subsidies.
👍
In 2021 Americans used 335 billion gallons of gasoline. At $3 per gallon the spend would be around $1 trillion dollars. If all that $20 billion of direct subsidy was dedicated totally to gasoline (it is not), then Americans would spend $1,020,000,000,000 for those 335 billion gallons. The cost of gasoline would then be $3.04 instead of $3.00. HARDLY a tripling of price. Subsidies to fossil fuels is in the noise.

edit: End subsidies for fossil fuel and no one would notice (except politicians campaign funds). End subsidies for renewables and the industry disappears.
 
Last edited:
In 2021 Americans used 335 billion gallons of gasoline. At $3 per gallon the spend would be around $1 trillion dollars. If all that $20 billion of direct subsidy was dedicated totally to gasoline (it is not), then Americans would spend $1,020,000,000,000 for those 335 billion gallons. The cost of gasoline would then be $3.04 instead of $3.00. HARDLY a tripling of price. Subsidies to fossil fuels is in the noise.

edit: End subsidies for fossil fuel and no one would notice (except politicians campaign funds). End subsidies for renewables and the industry disappears.
Great! Then since by your own analysis fossil fuel subsidies are a drop in the bucket and do not keep fuel prices artificially low then you would have no objection to the complete elimination of all fossil fuel subsidies right?
😄
BTW subsidy amounts are not added to the retail cost of gasoline.as in your analysis. They go to the producers to keep oil prices artificially low.
More information on fossil fuel subsidies:
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidieshttps://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-proposals-to-reduce-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2021
Oh, and by the way, here's what a gallon of gasoline would cost in the US without the subsidies:
https://short-facts.com/how-much-do-oil-companies-get-in-subsidies/"How much would a gallon of gas cost without government subsidies?

Without subsidies we would all be paying roughly $12.75 per gallon for gasoline. The subject area of interest is how budget cuts might actually get rid of dirty fuel subsidies."

So I was wrong. It's a quadrupling of prices, not tripling.
 
Without subsidies we would all be paying roughly $12.75 per gallon for gasoline. The subject area of interest is how budget cuts might actually get rid of dirty fuel subsidies.
Rather than simply parrot what the web site says can you provide the math on how removing $20 billion in annual direct subsidies would equate to $12.75/gallon gasoline?
 
Rather than simply parrot what the web site says can you provide the math on how removing $20 billion in annual direct subsidies would equate to $12.75/gallon gasoline?

Current price for a barrel of crude oil (42 gallons): $88
I barrel of crude makes 19.5 gallons of gasoline.
Price of a gallon of gasoline, current US average: $3.70
19.5 X $3.70 = $72.15
Add in the prices of the other products of refining
Then subtract the costs of drilling, exploration, extraction, refining, transporting, etc.etc.
Then add in a reasonable profit margin.
Without subsidies the oil companies would be losing money for every gallon of gas they sell at current prices.
So yes, it is artificially low.
And while I provide numerous links supporting my statements, you don't provide any. Are we supposed to take you solely on your word?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top