Shocking Factoid of the Day: Gas cars use more electricity to go 100 miles than Electric Cars do!

[grahamhgreen]

"There is no exact calculation for how much electricity it takes to drill, transport and refine a gallon of gasoline, but the accepted amount is around 8 kWh. So, for 8 kWh, you can go around 22 miles (using the U.S. average; we know you can go over twice that if you drive a Toyota Prius). That means that a gasoline car uses just under 40 kWh to go 100 miles. An EV, on the other hand, uses around 30 kWh to go 100 miles " (from: http://www.green.autoblog.com/2011/10/14/how-gas-cars-use-more-electricity-to-go-100-miles-than-evs-do/)

Photo taken at the LEAF booth at an auto-show:



From the DOE:

"Subject: Energy to refine gasoline

Dear Mr. Armstrong,

Thank you for your December 4, 2009, electronic mail requesting a reputable source to calculate the energy required to refine a gallon of gasoline. The energy required to refine a gallon of gasoline can be estimated based on the energy content of crude oil and the refinery efficiency of the facility performing the energy conversion; I can provide you a reputable source for both values.

In a 2008 report, Argonne National Lab estimated that the efficiency for producing gasoline of an “average” U.S. petroleum refinery is between 84% and 88% (Wang, 2008), and Oak Ridge National Lab reports that the net energy content of oil is approximately 132,000 Btu per gallon (Davis, 2009). It is commonly known that a barrel of crude oil generate approximately 45 gallons of refined product (refer to NAS, 2009, Table 3-4 for a publication stating so). Thus, using an 85% refinery efficiency and the aforementioned conversion factors, it can be estimated that about 21,000 Btu—the equivalent of 6 kWh—of energy are lost per gallon of gasoline refined:" MORE: http://gatewayev.org/how-much-electricity-is-used-refine-a-gallon-of-gasoline

So, every time we buy a gallon of gas, it seems we are not only paying for what it would cost for us to drive an EV 30 miles, but are paying a huge premium on top of that for oil company profits. Additionally, we pay with increased cancer rates, pollution, and endless wars for oil. Further, I think it's safe to assume that it will take EVEN MORE electricity to refine the shale oil for the Keystone pipeline. It's really time to end this farce. Build a bunch of wind, solar and other unlimited energy plants, and win our future like a civilized country!

[Lionessa]

1. That's only fair if you compare the energy it takes to make the batteries

and all the chemical compounds, and solutions therein.

Apples and oranges, so why read past the first paragraph? So me a real comparison. I'm all for getting off oil, but I'm always most on the side of reasonable data properly presented. This is propaganda.

[grahamhgreen]

2. That energy is already calculated in the energy it takes to build the vehicles, building an electric

vehicle requires roughly the same amount of energy as building a gas guzzling, pollution spewing, cancer machine.

If you remove the "This is propaganda" comment, I won't accuse you of working for a big oil think tank.

[TheWraith]

6. Really? Got a link for that? I doubt you do.

Particularly since your first response to a very reasonable objection is to call the person a paid shill.

[grahamhgreen]

22. No, the fact that it will take about as much energy to make a gas guzzler as an EV is common sense

and, no, i don't have a link for that.

She accused me of disseminating "propaganda" although who i am trying to propagandize about what, is the question.

[TheWraith]

52. No, it's not. It's a fairly large and unsupported assumption.

Particularly given the serious gap in technologies between machining an engine and producing several thousand lithium-ion batteries wired into a pack.

[Lionessa]

7. I'm pretty sure the batteries are not made on site but by battery manufacturers and then shipped for

assembly. If I'm wrong and they are made fully at the plant and not just installed in the alloted compartments, then one still gets to see the required energy for creating the chemical makeup of the batteries that they are making since that isn't naturally come by.

[Fumesucker]

11. That's true for a great many components of automobiles, the majority in fact..

Auto assembly plants are just that, places where autos are assembled, the components for the most part are actually made lots of somewhere elses.

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. Correct. Prius batteries travel a great distance before placement into the cars themselves.

Mined in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Google Superstack +Sudbury and see how badly the mining operation has damaged the environment.

The smelted nickel is then shipped to Europe on container ships to be refined.

The refined nickel is then sent to China on container ships and turned into "nickel foam".

Then it is shipped on container ships to Japan to be made into batteries which are then shipped on container ships to the United States for placement into cars.

I don't the OP wants to say this out loud though...

[grahamhgreen]

23. About the same thing that happens with the oil. But over and over again, every time you fill your

tank. That is, assuming what you say is true of all batteries.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. "About"?

It's weird that the OP has direct, concise, exact statistics then the defense of the OP relies on vagaries and assumptions.

AND I FAVOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES!

[ShadowLiberal]

9. The energy to make the batteries is a 1 time expense, energy to make a gallon of gas is per gallon

Think of it this way, it may cost a couple thousand dollars to buy and install solar panels or wind mills to generate power for your house, but assuming it doesn't break down too soon the expense of purchasing and installing the solar panels will be paid for long term.

[Lionessa]

13. You have a point, but batteries don't last forever, even if there corrosive chemicals do.

[grahamhgreen]

31. Batteries can be recycled.

[PavePusher]

53. Those "corrosive chemicals" do not last forever.

That is inherent in the word "corrosive". Basic chemistry.

And "their".

[NCTraveler]

28. Batteries have to be charged as gas tanks have to be filled.

Not a one time expense.

[joshcryer]

15. The question isn't that focused. It's an energy-side question.

However, I highly doubt that making a battery is going to be any more energy intensive than mining ore for heavy car engines and transmissions. I figure it will be a wash if a bit more energy intensive. These vehicles have small, powerful motors (Tesla Motors don't even use rare earth elements, and given the difficulty with procuring them most electrics won't in the future), and no all electric has a transmission (not needed, electric motors do their own torquing).

The energy-side question appears answered, and it does appear that electric vehicles use less electricity than gasoline based engines. I do not consider this propaganda in the least.

And it is something I hadn't considered before and is almost counterintuitive (though I should know better).

[hughee99]

50. What about the energy it takes to provide the fuel

for the powerplant that provides the electricity to charge the car?

The electricity usage of the fuel for the regular car is calculated from ground to car. For the electric car, it magically comes out of an outlet?

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. For the purposes of this discussion it is not useful to measure energy in kwh

Watts aren't a depletable resource. There aren't any kilowatt trees, nor any megawatt deposits.

Does the total footprint of ownership of an EV consume more or less fossil fuels.

The surefire conservation strategy is to drive less.

[grahamhgreen]

5. Far less. Every time you drive a Gas car 30 miles, you use a gallon of gas PLUS whatever

resources you used to generate the electricity to refine the gasoline. With the EV, you are only using the electricity.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. You're looking at this backwards.

How much resource does it take to cart us and our larvae 10 miles?

Gas car = 1/2000th of the resources required to make the car, plus the resources to maintain the car plus the resources to deliver fuel to the tank.
EV car = 1/1000th of the resources required to make the car (including the lithium for the batteries) plus the resources to maintain the car plus the resources required to deliver a charge to the battery.

Finite resources don't start out as electricity. Electricity is only an energy delivery mechanism.

If it requires less coal to power the car directly by burning than it does if you turn the coal into electricity to charge the car's battery,... then from a resource standpoint you're better off with the former.

[joshcryer]

19. Eh, while true, it's not particularly useful.

You might be able to make a ridiculous coal power car that directly mechanically converts the energy in the coal into useful work at 30% or so. A power plant can get 30% or so, too. Transmission line losses are about 7%, electric cars are about 80% efficient, in the end the electric car is about 20% efficient at converting coal into useful work.

A bargain when you consider that the coal based car is fantasy land, and coal gasification is itself going to require energy input, and I'd be surprised if it's less than what you'd use simply to refine oil as this study is discussing.

So you aren't wrong. Until you have your mass marketed coal powered car, it's a pointless discussion.

Meanwhile the cars that do exist, which run on fossil fuels, are less efficient than electrics.

[antigone382]

17. The electricity comes from some source of fuel as well.

If that source is solar, wind, or even some types of hydro power, maybe it is less (though I am nowhere close to being enough of an expert to assert that. If that source of electricity is coal, natural gas, or nuclear (as most electricity is), then you have to factor in the energy used to extract, process, and transport those resources.

[grahamhgreen]

32. The point is that it requires 7.5 kwh of electricity to make a gallon of gas; so

with a gas car, you are using the electricity PLUS the gas to drive the same distance as the EV drives on only the electricity.

[joshcryer]

16. Erm, if you're consuming less energy, and that energy is still fossil fuel based...

...you're consuming less fossil fuels.

As a total energy-side question it uses less energy. This is uncontroversial even without the article, because electric vehicles are themselves more efficient at converting energy to useful work.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. No. If I buy electricity to generate kinetic energy...

it matters how the electricity was made and how efficiently it can be delivered to my car's wheels.

A Chevette diesel arguably consumes less fossil fuel than a Nissan Leaf plugged into the midwest grid.

[joshcryer]

21. Nah, even if you take the nuclear plants in Lousiana and California...

...which make up a pithy 10% of the electricity produced in both states, you're still coming out using less fossil fuel energy to go a given number of miles. Take off 20% of Norby's numbers and you're still coming out ahead.

[IDemo]

36. You'd lose the argument, and by quite a bit

The chart below is from Argonne National Labratory, I believe from the earlier GREET study. The second bar from the left, marked "ICEV: Crude LSD", indicates the petroleum use per mile of about 3800 BTU for the diesel powered car (the study compared vehicles of comparable size and weight). On the far right, we find "EV: U.S. kWh", showing only a tiny fraction of the energy use. Even if you factor out the clean energy portion of the grid and replace the car used in the study with a Chevette, it should be plainly obvious that a battery electric will consume far less fossil fuel per mile than any ICE vehicle, diesel or otherwise.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. It all depends on where you live.

The amount of pollution created by electric vehicles depends mostly on the source of the electricity used to charge them. This makes it impossible to determine if electric vehicles pollute less than internal combustion engine vehicles without considering where they are to be deployed and by what sources of electricity they are to be powered. An electric vehicle that is charged with energy from a clean source, like hydroelectric power, will produce very little pollution, while one charged with energy from an unclean source, like coal or oil, may produce more pollution than an internal combustion engine vehicle. The sources of energy for most regions fall somewhere between these two extremes. The use of electric vehicles will allow new possibilities in pollution control and management that may outweigh some of their potentia.l failings. While not ready to be used everywhere, electric vehicles have the potential to pollute much less than internal combustion engine vehicles.

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Samples/policy/voytishlong.html

The image you posted (which I can't reconcile with the link) appears to arbitrarily limits the fossil fuel consumed to petroleum. It is irrelevant to the argument I proposed. Of course an EV burns little petroleum since very few electric generating facilities use it. I could as easily make a really convincing looking graphic showing how much more environmentally friendly a gasoline car is because it uses so little coal.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

4. Won't THIS piss off the hybrid-bashers on Craig's List?

[tabasco]

10. Hybrids cause more greenhouse gas emissions in many areas

The trouble with plug-in hybrids (and electric cars, too) is that electricity isn't always cleaner than gasoline. More than 45 percent of electricity in the U.S. is generated by coal-powered plants [source: EIA]. According to another Argonne National Laboratory report, if a plug-in hybrid charges from coal-generated electricity, it could be responsible for emitting up to 10 percent more greenhouse gasses than a conventional vehicle and up to 60 percent more than a standard hybrid [source: Elgowainy].

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits2.htm

[grahamhgreen]

26. You're missing the point of the post - the gas powered car uses the electricity PLUS the gas.

[tabasco]

35. No, you're missing the point.

Electricity does not come from electricity fairies in lala land. All of it, where I live, comes from coal-burning plants.

Recharging plug-in hybrids in an area where more than half of electricity comes from coal results in MORE greenhouse emissions than a gasoline-powered car.

[IDemo]

37. This tired old myth pops up on each and every EV thread online

And it needs to be buried in a deep abandoned coal shaft.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201202080012

http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/01/electric-car-myths

[tabasco]

44. The "tired old myth" comes from Argonne National Laboratory

PHEVs recharging from a mix with a large share of coal generation (e.g., Illinois marginal mix) produce GHG emissions comparable to those of baseline gasoline ICEVs (with a range from -15% to +10%) but significantly higher than those of gasoline HEVs (with a range from +20% to +60%).

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/argonne_phev_evaluation_report.pdf

Where I live, and anywhere coal provides more than half of electricity, plug-in hybrids cause MORE greenhouse gas emissions.

[grahamhgreen]

40. Look at it this way, refining one gallon of gas requires 7.5Kwh of electricity. So,

just the process of refining that one gallon of gas creates the same amount of greenhouse emissions as driving an EV 30 miles. Then, when you burn that gallon of gasoline to drive the 30 miles, you are creating even more greenhouse gases. Does that make sense?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. I want an electric car but can't afford one

what should I do?

I try to win one.

[grahamhgreen]

25. Mitsubishi Imiev or the Prius-C (under 20K)??? Me, I ride a bike.

[Honeycombe8]

38. I can have only one car. So my car can't be electric.

I can't have my only source of mechanized transportation be something that relies on the power grid. If my power goes out & my car isn't fully charged, I may not have any transportion to get to work or wherever. I also can't use my own car to take a long car trip; I'd have to rent a gasoline vehicle. Etc.

I didn't get a hybrid 'cause they cost more than regular, and I don't drive enough miles to justify it (plus I didn't find one that had things I was looking for in a car). So I bought a small hatchback that gets good gas mileage (a Honda Fit). A good compromise, I think. I get about 30mpg in the city with the combination city/tollroad driving I do (drops down to 27mpg with a/c which is most of the year).

If I could have two cars, I'd love my 2nd one to be a small electric vehicle.

[former9thward]

14. The problem with these type of calculations is they ignore the power plant.

The electric car off loads its carbon footprint to the power plant producing the electricity which supplies it.

[grahamhgreen]

24. No, the gallon of gas uses NOT ONLY the electricity, BUT ALSO the oil!!!

[Zalatix]

27. Really? Got a link for that? LOL just kidding.

Gotta love all this resistance to alternative energy.

[grahamhgreen]

29. Thank you! I don't understand why they want to use the electricity AND the gas to go the same distan

[NYC_SKP]

30. K/R and DAMN, there's a LOT of misinformation in this thread...

I'm an energy guru, it's sad to see how little people know.

You are correct...

[Scuba]

33. K&R

[Art_from_Ark]

34. Damn, only 22 miles per gallon average?

Twenty years ago, I had a Chevy Sprint that got 50 miles per gallon on the highway, and that included both local and cross-country driving.

[FarCenter]

39. The calculation is wrong -- 21000 BTU can generate about 2.4 kWhr of electricity

Converting 21000 BTU to 6 kWhr is just a conversion of energy units.

However, if you have 21000 BTU of oil, you need to actually burn it in a generating plant to generate electricity.

A really efficient generating plant may get as much as 40% efficiency. Hence you can get 6 * 0.4 = 2.4 kWhr of electricity from your 21000 BTU of oil.

Conversions between heat, mechanical and electrical forms of energy must be done taking into account the thermodynamic and other limitations on the efficiency of practical devices.

[grahamhgreen]

41. It takes 7.5 kWh of electricity to just to REFINE one gallon of gas; the car still has not moved.

That same amount of electricity can drive an Electric Vehicle 30 miles. The gasoline is redundant.

[FarCenter]

42. No, it takes 21000 BTU of chemical and heat energy

"Thus, using an 85% refinery efficiency and the aforementioned conversion factors, it can be estimated that about 21,000 Btu—the equivalent of 6 kWh—of energy are lost per gallon of gasoline refined:"

The 85% is refinery efficiecy, which reflects that 15% of the energy in the crude is lost in the refining process. This is 21000 BTU of chemical energy which can be turned into heat.

Although electric motors are used in some applications for driving pumps, they use nowhere near 6 kWhr of electricity per gallon. Most of the 21000 BTU is consumed as process heat for cracking and distilling the crude, and some is used to fuel diesel engines used for running various processes.

[grahamhgreen]

46. I know that US refineries used 48,891,000,000 kWh of electricity in 2005.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_con_by_pet_ref-energy-electricity-consumption-petroleum-refineries


I assume that works out to somewhere near 7.5kwh per gallon of gas....

[FarCenter]

48. It works out to 0.35 kWHr/gallon of gas.

140,412,000,000 gallons of gas in 2005 per EIA. (Sum the barrels/month in 2005 and multiply by 42 gallons/barrel).

From http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGFUPUS1&f=M

48,891,000,000 kWHr / 140,412,000,000 gallons = 0.35 kWHr / gallon.

Of course, this neglects the fact that at least 50% more gallons of jet, diesel and other products were produced by the refineries.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_m.htm

[grahamhgreen]

51. There is a deeper discussion of how they arrived at the 7.5 kWh figure

here: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=820&start=110

one of the summations is:

"The 7.5kwh/gal of gasoline doesn't come from exploration, production and transport energy. It is mostly the thermal energy used in the refinery (attributed to gasoline only, even though there are other refined products).

Here's some different data that pretty much boils down to the same results discussed so far, from Profile of the Petroleum Refining
Industry in California (contains data for all of the US, too) It's 2001 data, but the relationships probably haven't changed much.

In 2001 US refineries consumed about 3.3 quadrillion Btus (Quads or 10^15 Btu) of primary energy to produce all their refined products. Primary energy for a refinery means natural gas and crude oil. Electricity purchased from the outside is converted to primary energy using the prevailing rate for the mix on the grid being considered (usually a factor of about 3 for the whole US). You can convert the 3.3 Quads to about 9.7x10^11 kWhs, but this is not electricity, just thermal energy of fossil fuels reported in kWhs. If it was electricity, at something better than 3 mi/kWh wall to wheel for an EV, you could indeed drive all the 3 trillion US vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although, a lot of those vehicle miles are heavy trucks that couldn't get 3 mi/kWh. Anyway, if you really wanted to take the primary energy consumed in oil refineries and turn it into electricity, you'd have to suffer the roughly 3 to 1 thermal to electrical efficiency of a thermal cycle plant, and you could now power about 33% of US VMT.

Still, it is striking that this is only the energy consumed in the refineries for their operation. It is not any of the energy of the refined products coming out. Nor does it include any of the energy of exploration, production or transportation, as many have already pointed out.

By the way, if you divide 9.7x10^11 kWhs by the roughly 1.3x10^11 gallons of gas a year consumed in 2001 your will get something pretty close to the 7.5kWh/gallon figure.

When it comes to electricity purchased from the outside by oil refineries, they use a comparatively small 34 billion kWhs, good for 100 billion miles of driving at 3 mi/kwh, or only about 4% of US VMT in 2001. Onsite co-gen facilities generate some of refinery electricity from process heat (about 25% of total electrical consumption).

This is no defense of the oil industry. I think these numbers point out that they use a shocking amount of energy to process gasoline fuels, not to mention all the other activities necessary to deliver this fuel, but I though it was worth trying to be more explicit about the particular number being discussed and what it really means, although it has already been pretty well beaten to death here and elsewhere. EVs are clearly a vast improvement over the this inefficient, oily morass of petroleum."

[spanone]

43. shocking factoid...we can MAKE electricity...we can't make oil

[coalition_unwilling]

45. K&R for an awesome discussion. The debate here is fascinating and

I'm going to need to read up a bit on the science, I can see.

[libtodeath]

47. Interesting

Would love to see more and more alternative energy cars on the road just wondring though if any calculations have been made about if we have the generating and transmission capacity to meet requirements as more electric cars hit the market.
If we had to build a bunch of powerplants and run a lot more lines then that will have an enviromental impact and also would maybe effect the values given.

[HarveyDarkey]

57. What's not factored into all of this

is that the majority of electricity is generated by burning coal, hardly "green". How much pollution are you responsible for when you charge your vehicle?

[HarveyDarkey]

54. Yes, but what if I want to go more than 100 miles

Most electric cars won't go much more than that without a long stop for recharging.

[grahamhgreen]

55. Well, if you can afford it, buy a Tesla...

http://www.teslamotors.com/models