Fossil Fuel Powerplant Efficiency

[SoonerAviator]

With some of the discussion centered around EV's (both auto and aircraft), I have tried to search out some info on end-to-end efficiency at extracting energy (kW) out of fossil fuels but it's been a bit tough to sort the wheat from the chafe. My primary question I was searching out, was an answer to the question: what percentage of fossil fuel energy is lost in the production of electricity by the time it reaches your home? Anyone have any useful links or data that lay it out? I have read that most of the modern natural gas power plants are something like 55% efficient, so I suppose that means you lose 45% of the total energy available per unit volume of natural gas. I assume there's some traditional loss of energy via transmission lines/etc. to the home (maybe 10%?). So, ultimately what amount of the energy made it to the home to charge an EV? It's fairly well-accepted than an ICE's only convert around 35% of the fuel into usable energy as the bulk is lost to waste heat/friction. So I was trying to sort out what the difference was in energy burned at the power plant vs burned in the ICE.

Secondary to that, is refinement of natural gas more energy-intensive than refinement of liquid petroleum products like gasoline/diesel? Obviously they both go through very different processes as @Mikey B and @PaulMillner have discussed in the 100LL vs Jet Fuel thread.

Note: none of this is a question about how "green" anything is in terms of carbon output and whatnot. Just a discussion of end-to-end efficiency with petroleum products, specifically.

 

[Crashnburn]

From what I've heard, and no sources to cite, ICE vs. EV is pretty much a wash after all the conversion in-effiency is factored in. Couple that with the ballpark figure of 80,000 miles of extra pollution from the electric content of each car produced, and EV vehicles are actually less green than ICEs.

IBTL.

 

[FancyG]

Isn't it about the amount of work being done?

Work is a known quantity regardless of energy source. Then solve for efficiency?

X gals gasoline/diesel/jet a
X kw/h

 

[Bell206]

what percentage of fossil fuel energy is lost in the production of electricity by the time it reaches your home?

FWIW: you may want to separate the different types of losses then you might be able to "add" them up and quantify the result to something useful.

I assume there's some traditional loss of energy via transmission lines/etc. to the home (maybe 10%?).

Its my understanding the entire US grid loses 5% of the total electrical generation through transmission and distribution. However, this loss is measured in billions of kilowatt hours which could have powered entire countries. And considering the electricity on the grid is fluid as it is moved around on a regional basis it might be hard to get a loss value specific to EV charging.

is refinement of natural gas more energy-intensive than refinement of liquid petroleum products like gasoline/diesel?

In general, no. NG is basically purified once it leaves the ground by removing various other gases and solids. Once those impurities are processed out it is ready for transport or consumption. However, there are some cases where the NG is "dry" straight out the ground to be used right then.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Isn't it about the amount of work being done?

Work is a known quantity regardless of energy source. Then solve for efficiency?

X gals gasoline/diesel/jet a
X kw/h

The problem is that we don't generally power electric plants with gasoline or diesel. We do know how much energy (in kW) is in a gallon of gasoline, but we aren't burning gasoline to make electric power to your home. So we have a given amount of work to be done (say to make a car travel 100 miles), but we have two entirely different methods of providing the power to do so. Is refining petroleum products into gasoline and burning them in an ICE more efficient than burning natural gas in a power plant and charging an EV? Both fuel sources require drilling to extract.

Dunno. It's one of the muddied areas I tried to find unbiased data on, but wasn't able to easily decipher. Especially since most of the EV stuff is looking at it from a carbon output viewpoint or mixed fuel sources for power generation (coal/ng/hydro/wind/etc.)

 

[FancyG]

The problem is that we don't generally power electric plants with gasoline or diesel. We do know how much energy (in kW) is in a gallon of gasoline, but we aren't burning gasoline to make electric power to your home. So we have a given amount of work to be done (say to make a car travel 100 miles), but we have two entirely different methods of providing the power to do so. Is refining petroleum products into gasoline and burning them in an ICE more efficient than burning natural gas in a power plant and charging an EV? Both fuel sources require drilling to extract.

Dunno. It's one of the muddied areas I tried to find unbiased data on, but wasn't able to easily decipher. Especially since most of the EV stuff is looking at it from a carbon output viewpoint or mixed fuel sources for power generation (coal/ng/hydro/wind/etc.)

Was thinking point-of-use for each and maybe find the answer at your specific location.

Trace that electron and fuel back through your local supply chain best you can to their sources.

 

[tspear]

This is much harder than it looks. To attempt to be accurate you actually want to measure the amount of energy to perform a specific task. e.g. for a car, compare the amount of energy needed for a Tesla model 3 to drive from NYC to Miami. Then do the same for Honda Accord and a BMW 3 series. (Those three cars are similar in size, but the Honda is less powerful and not as fun to drive but more efficient...)
The reason this matters is that EVs are significantly more aerodynamic with much lower drag ratios. This is why you can even see threads on a few forums about how a headwind affects the range the EV, while this will usually barely show up as a factor in an ICE.
Another place to see examples of this are when you compare Pipestrel Elektro versus the Rotax version of the same plane. The Elektro has a significantly smaller engine, yet the cruise and climb are very close (range is much better on the Rotax).

When I did consulting to the Navy and interacted with multiple power companies, I was told line loss for the USA is actually closer to 2-3%; while spinning reserve fluctuates between 2-3% for a total loss across the whole grid around 5%. The closer power is generated to usage, combined with the ability of the generation to react means some places in the country run as low as 1% line loss and 1% spinning reserve for a total loss of 2%. While others that get power from far away, and have slower responses can push 7 or 8% total loss. It was for this reason multiple power companies were evaluating community energy storage systems (think of some type of battery at the local 25kw or 50kw pad, usually about 1mwh in size) which reduces spinning reserve requirements. However, these systems rarely pencil out financially...

In any case, you also need to differentiate about when you are charging the EV. Peak power at 4pm in the afternoon might be coming from a single stage natural gas turbine, that might hit 20% thermal efficiency while night time load could be coming from a multi-stage coal plant pushing 30% or even a gas multi-stage system which can hit 60%.

Basically too many assumptions, and very easy to game it so you get the answer you want.

Tim

 

[SoonerAviator]

This is much harder than it looks. To attempt to be accurate you actually want to measure the amount of energy to perform a specific task. e.g. for a car, compare the amount of energy needed for a Tesla model 3 to drive from NYC to Miami. Then do the same for Honda Accord and a BMW 3 series. (Those three cars are similar in size, but the Honda is less powerful and not as fun to drive but more efficient...)
The reason this matters is that EVs are significantly more aerodynamic with much lower drag ratios. This is why you can even see threads on a few forums about how a headwind affects the range the EV, while this will usually barely show up as a factor in an ICE.
Another place to see examples of this are when you compare Pipestrel Elektro versus the Rotax version of the same plane. The Elektro has a significantly smaller engine, yet the cruise and climb are very close (range is much better on the Rotax).

When I did consulting to the Navy and interacted with multiple power companies, I was told line loss for the USA is actually closer to 2-3%; while spinning reserve fluctuates between 2-3% for a total loss across the whole grid around 5%. The closer power is generated to usage, combined with the ability of the generation to react means some places in the country run as low as 1% line loss and 1% spinning reserve for a total loss of 2%. While others that get power from far away, and have slower responses can push 7 or 8% total loss. It was for this reason multiple power companies were evaluating community energy storage systems (think of some type of battery at the local 25kw or 50kw pad, usually about 1mwh in size) which reduces spinning reserve requirements. However, these systems rarely pencil out financially...

In any case, you also need to differentiate about when you are charging the EV. Peak power at 4pm in the afternoon might be coming from a single stage natural gas turbine, that might hit 20% thermal efficiency while night time load could be coming from a multi-stage coal plant pushing 30% or even a gas multi-stage system which can hit 60%.

Basically too many assumptions, and very easy to game it so you get the answer you want.

Tim

But I'm not trying to justify one car vs a Tesla. I'm trying to calculate how much energy is lost from natural gas going into a power plant until it arrives at the wall plug. It's a fair assumption that most EVs will travel 100 miles on about 1/3 of the energy that a 25mpg car would use to travel the same distance. So, the issue becomes which is the more efficient use of the fuel to begin with: power plant or straight to the gas tank? I mean, i could even run the numbers with a NGV like a Honda Civic CNG, but I'm still left trying to figure out the total net energy coming from the NG-burning power plant.

This is all just my curiosity; I don't have a dog in the fight and no need to know how efficient my local power plant is specifically.

 

[Dan Thomas]

It's a fair assumption that most EVs will travel 100 miles on about 1/3 of the energy that a 25mpg car would use to travel the same distance.

I don't think so. The ICE car's 35% efficiency means it loses 2/3 of the energy to waste heat. But electric cars are not 100% efficient either. Heat is generated in the motors, and in the batteries during charge and discharge.

Like others have said, it's difficult to compare. Oil needs to be drilled for and extracted and refined and transported; much of it's energy is lost that way. I believe the worst example is ethanol; it takes 60% of the ethanol's energy to refine more ethanol. You're starting out with a fuel that is already only 40% efficient.

Can't remember where I read that.

 

[AKiss20]

Abstract:

The tremendous growth in the transportation sector as a result of changes in our ways of transport and a rise in the level of prosperity was reflected directly by the intensification of energy needs. Thus, electric vehicles (EV) have been produced to minimise the energy consumption of conventional vehicles. Although the EV motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, the well to wheel (WTW) efficiency should be investigated in terms of determining the overall energy efficiency. In simple words, this study will try to answer the basic question-is the electric car really energy efficient compared with ICE-powered vehicles? This study investigates the WTW efficiency of conventional internal combustion engine vehicles ICEVs (gasoline, diesel), compressed natural gas vehicles (CNGV) and EVs. The results show that power plant efficiency has a significant consequence on WTW efficiency. The total WTW efficiency of gasoline ICEV ranges between 11-27 %, diesel ICEV ranges from 25 % to 37 % and CNGV ranges from 12 % to 22 %. The EV fed by a natural gas power plant shows the highest WTW efficiency which ranges from 13 % to 31 %. While the EV supplied by coal-fired and diesel power plants have approximately the same WTW efficiency ranging between 13 % to 27 % and 12 % to 25 %, respectively. If renewable energy is used, the losses will drop significantly and the overall efficiency for electric cars will be around 40-70 % depending on the source and the location of the renewable energy systems.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...S704Ysu3RQ7wUoC1fo7H-VKKFdkfzd1Te6ei_w&_iepl=

 

[SoonerAviator]

I don't think so. The ICE car's 35% efficiency means it loses 2/3 of the energy to waste heat. But electric cars are not 100% efficient either. Heat is generated in the motors, and in the batteries during charge and discharge.

Like others have said, it's difficult to compare. Oil needs to be drilled for and extracted and refined and transported; much of it's energy is lost that way. I believe the worst example is ethanol; it takes 60% of the ethanol's energy to refine more ethanol. You're starting out with a fuel that is already only 40% efficient.

Can't remember where I read that.

Yes, ethanol is a very poor conversion because of how energy intensive it is to refine, much less combine with gasoline in usable quantities. Pretty sure ethanol laced fuel was just a kickback for corn farming states, but I digress lol. As far as I understand it, most EV motors are around 90% efficient, but the EV as a whole is 80% efficient at turning what came out of the wall into work.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Abstract:

The tremendous growth in the transportation sector as a result of changes in our ways of transport and a rise in the level of prosperity was reflected directly by the intensification of energy needs. Thus, electric vehicles (EV) have been produced to minimise the energy consumption of conventional vehicles. Although the EV motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, the well to wheel (WTW) efficiency should be investigated in terms of determining the overall energy efficiency. In simple words, this study will try to answer the basic question-is the electric car really energy efficient compared with ICE-powered vehicles? This study investigates the WTW efficiency of conventional internal combustion engine vehicles ICEVs (gasoline, diesel), compressed natural gas vehicles (CNGV) and EVs. The results show that power plant efficiency has a significant consequence on WTW efficiency. The total WTW efficiency of gasoline ICEV ranges between 11-27 %, diesel ICEV ranges from 25 % to 37 % and CNGV ranges from 12 % to 22 %. The EV fed by a natural gas power plant shows the highest WTW efficiency which ranges from 13 % to 31 %. While the EV supplied by coal-fired and diesel power plants have approximately the same WTW efficiency ranging between 13 % to 27 % and 12 % to 25 %, respectively. If renewable energy is used, the losses will drop significantly and the overall efficiency for electric cars will be around 40-70 % depending on the source and the location of the renewable energy systems.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...S704Ysu3RQ7wUoC1fo7H-VKKFdkfzd1Te6ei_w&_iepl=

Awesome reference. Very interesting thatbat the top of the efficiency range, the diesel ICEV ranked right at or slightly higher than an EV powered from a Natural Gas electric plant. However, gasoline and CNG vehicles were less efficient in WTW from the same source. I assume much of that has to do with the overall energy content of those fuels, especially CNG compared to diesel, and possibly some from the type of combustion mechanism itself.

 

[kyleb]

Steam generation plants (coal or nuke) are ~38% efficient. You lose another 2% of the 38 (5% x 38% = 2%) in transmission and another 6% (of the 36) in the charging phase, so you've got a 30% conversion rate to your storage medium (the battery). Then you lose another 3% (10% of 30%) due to motor losses. So you net out in the high 20's for the efficiency of an EV's propulsive system.

Conventional IC motors have efficiencies in the low/mid 20's, so on a relative basis, you're only getting a 10 or 20% more efficient engine package with EV's. (note: The Mercedes powerplant used in F1 is ~52% efficient, which is an indicator of the possibilities of hybrids).

That said, EV's generally use braking action for energy recovery and also have better aerodynamics because they have much smaller cooling needs. Meaning EV's net substantially better efficiency than the efficiency of the propulsive system would indicate if considered in isolation.

At the end of the day, I'd estimate EV's are 50% more efficient (depending on aerodynamics, usage, and a bunch of other factors).

 

[AKiss20]

Awesome reference. Very interesting thatbat the top of the efficiency range, the diesel ICEV ranked right at or slightly higher than an EV powered from a Natural Gas electric plant. However, gasoline and CNG vehicles were less efficient in WTW from the same source. I assume much of that has to do with the overall energy content of those fuels, especially CNG compared to diesel, and possibly some from the type of combustion mechanism itself.

The energy content of a fuel has very little to do with the tank to wheel efficiency (i.e. thermodynamic * drive train efficiency) of a given vehicle. As you said yourself, there may be small changes in combustion efficiency associated with the different fuel chemistry due to the way the combustion occurs, but these are much higher order effects. The higher efficiencies of diesel ICEVs compared to gas and CNG ICEVs seen in the paper most likely is a pretty straightforward fact that the thermodynamic efficiency of most diesel cycles in use are higher than their otto counterparts. In practice the thermodynamic efficiency of a diesel cycle will be higher than an Otto cycle because they can achieve higher compression ratios (for a given compression ratio, however, the diesel cycle is actually less efficient than the Otto).

The EV tank to wheel efficiency has a low end of 50% in the paper which seems quite low tbh. Im sure there are EVs out there with such a low electric drive train efficiency, but my guess is they are, and will grow evermore, rare. It's really the powerplant efficiency that drops the WTW efficiency of the EV, as evidenced by the factor of 2 higher efficiencies for EVs powered by renewable resources.

 

[PaulS]

I think one of the best ways to estimate the comparative efficiency of a motive type is to compare the energy cost to move the vehicle 100 miles. When you start comparing those numbers I think EVs blow the others out of the water. The many inefficiencies in ICE cars that are not present in EVs. One obvious one is the need of the ICE to consume energy when it is doing no work. Idling at a stop light, still consuming energy when it is slowing, people warming them up before they go, the need to use extra fuel for emissions equipment. The EV has none of these parasite consumptions, and will even regain some energy back normally lost to braking heat.

I love the ICE engine and have had a fascination with it my whole life. But there is a focused effort to eliminate it from personal transportation. I think those reasons are BS, but since EVs are becoming a viable alternative, I think it's time to phase ICE automobiles out. The best reason I can think of is to starve murderous autocrats from easy cash.

 

[tspear]

I love the ICE engine and have had a fascination with it my whole life. But there is a focused effort to eliminate it from personal transportation. I think those reasons are BS, but since EVs are becoming a viable alternative, I think it's time to phase ICE automobiles out. The best reason I can think of is to starve murderous autocrats from easy cash.

Ignoring the domestic impact, I really do wonder about how the international impact of a shift away from O&G will affect economics, power and trade. There are dozens of countries that depend on O&G for budgets, and have done so for fifty years or more. At the same time, the population of the countries have expanded rapidly, with O&G what happens?

Tim

 

[SoonerAviator]

I think one of the best ways to estimate the comparative efficiency of a motive type is to compare the energy cost to move the vehicle 100 miles. When you start comparing those numbers I think EVs blow the others out of the water. The many inefficiencies in ICE cars that are not present in EVs. One obvious one is the need of the ICE to consume energy when it is doing no work. Idling at a stop light, still consuming energy when it is slowing, people warming them up before they go, the need to use extra fuel for emissions equipment. The EV has none of these parasite consumptions, and will even regain some energy back normally lost to braking heat.

I love the ICE engine and have had a fascination with it my whole life. But there is a focused effort to eliminate it from personal transportation. I think those reasons are BS, but since EVs are becoming a viable alternative, I think it's time to phase ICE automobiles out. The best reason I can think of is to starve murderous autocrats from easy cash.

Absolutely. However, I think *most* of the EV vs ICE efficiency is more widely accepted. That's why I wondered if it was a better use of the petroleum products to funnel through a power plant, or just to burn directly simply from the energy loss for electric conversion vs the ICE. The study seemed to imply it was fairly close, although there was a fairly wide range in their efficiency estimates for EV (13%-31%), gas (11%-27%), diesel (25%-37%), and NG (12%-22%) vehicles. So depending on which efficiency estimate you use from their study it could sway the idea on the overall winner in this scenario.

 

[PaulS]

Ignoring the domestic impact, I really do wonder about how the international impact of a shift away from O&G will affect economics, power and trade. There are dozens of countries that depend on O&G for budgets, and have done so for fifty years or more. At the same time, the population of the countries have expanded rapidly, with O&G what happens?

Tim

I think adjustment will be painful for some, but I also think O&G have undue influence over our economy, and that is not good. The recent energy runup will have a chilling if not disastrous effect on our financial well being. We need cheap and abundant energy to prosper, it is a foundation of our economy. O&G have made it easy to get energy that used to require rerouting rivers to get. People just don't understand how important it is. I think O&G will be around for a long time, oil especially is such an important product for so many things other than energy. But I don't think batteries in their present state will be useful for heavy transport, air or sea travel. Countries need to diversify.

Absolutely. However, I think *most* of the EV vs ICE efficiency is more widely accepted. That's why I wondered if it was a better use of the petroleum products to funnel through a power plant, or just to burn directly simply from the energy loss for electric conversion vs the ICE. The study seemed to imply it was fairly close, although there was a fairly wide range in their efficiency estimates for EV (13%-31%), gas (11%-27%), diesel (25%-37%), and NG (12%-22%) vehicles. So depending on which efficiency estimate you use from their study it could sway the idea on the overall winner in this scenario.

I don't think it is close. I've looked at it before, but I need to do it again and it takes a little while to put together. When you compare the amount of energy it takes to move like vehicles a similar distance at similar rates of travel, I see EVs killing ICEs for efficiency every time. This is in respect to the amount of available energy IN THE VEHICLE at the beginning of the ride versus the end. I also agree that going back to the source of the energy the figures can be swayed from one source to another based upon the parameters you consider. That's why I think energy cost comparisons are probably the best metric we have right now to determine this. With the caveat that oil prices are artificially high right now due to supply being squeezed by jackass politicians with self serving agendas.

 

[tspear]

@PaulS

Actually, prices for O&G are market based. And that is what causes more price variation than anything. If politicians actually managed O&G prices do you think we would see such price spikes? Heck no. Look at the problems in many oil producing countries (Venezuela and Saudi Arabia for example) when they tried to raise the cost of gas locally.

I believe the last estimate I have seen was 40% of O&G is used for car/vehicle transportation. You remove 40% of the demand, and see where it goes. A 1% change in demand versus supply caused oil to go from $~30 to $~100.

Tim

 

[TCABM]

Y’all actually think O&G is only used as a fuel source? That’s cute.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Ignoring the domestic impact, I really do wonder about how the international impact of a shift away from O&G will affect economics, power and trade. There are dozens of countries that depend on O&G for budgets, and have done so for fifty years or more. At the same time, the population of the countries have expanded rapidly, with O&G what happens?

Tim

The thing is, unless they increase nuclear (which seems to be another battle that the green-energy people are against) the NG power plants are the next best option for base power load. Hydro is pretty much already in most of the places it can be in. Wind is sporadic, as is solar, so it's tough to use those for base load electricity generation. O&G will be necessary for gas production, not to mention the fact that they don't (and may never have) sufficient EV solutions for long-haul trucking, shipping, and other industrial needs. O&G isn't going anywhere.

 

[azblackbird]

My primary question I was searching out, was an answer to the question: what percentage of fossil fuel energy is lost in the production of electricity by the time it reaches your home? Anyone have any useful links or data that lay it out?

Here's a good start to answer your questions. Good luck as you can go easily go down the information rabbit hole on this site.

Secondary to that, is refinement of natural gas more energy-intensive than refinement of liquid petroleum products like gasoline/diesel? Obviously they both go through very different processes as @Mikey B and @PaulMillner have discussed in the 100LL vs Jet Fuel thread.

As previously mentioned, natural gas requires very little refinement before it reaches the end user. In fact when I was in the oil industry, most of the pumping units in our basin were natural gas powered straight from the well head. Nowdays most are electric powered.

 

[PaulS]

@PaulS

Actually, prices for O&G are market based. And that is what causes more price variation than anything. If politicians actually managed O&G prices do you think we would see such price spikes? Heck no. Look at the problems in many oil producing countries (Venezuela and Saudi Arabia for example) when they tried to raise the cost of gas locally.

I believe the last estimate I have seen was 40% of O&G is used for car/vehicle transportation. You remove 40% of the demand, and see where it goes. A 1% change in demand versus supply caused oil to go from $~30 to $~100.

Tim

The government used to regulate oil prices up until the first oil crisis in the 70s, it was a disaster.

The government does not regulate the price, but oil is a speculative commodity very sensitive to regulation. The government has recently worked very hard to stop new leases on Federal land and is generally hostile to drilling, pipelines and oil in general. The powers in charge have openly said that high oil prices are necessary to meet their end objectives which is no more oil. The rest is just noise. Yes it is a market, but a highly regulated market.

I think there will always be ICE cars, but wouldn't it be nice to knock that usage down from 40% to 20% or less? I'm tired of politicians, oil companies, foriegn dictators having such a huge impact on how I get around and heat my house.

 

[tspear]

@PaulS

Actually, regulation was on the final price, not the whole commodity chain. That is why it failed. Same issue with rent control and why it eventually runs into issues with a lack of investment.
The Federal O&G leases is a red herring argument. O&G leases take years, if not decades before drilling starts. In fact O&G companies have millions upon millions of acres of O&G rights acres under lease which have not been developed.
The problem right now is that O&G companies ignored shareholders and investors back on the run up to 2014. After been ignored for years, Wall Street and investors in general cracked the whip, and cracked it way to hard. Now O&G companies are way to conservative on the exploration side due to being afraid of the shareholders. This over reaction is a fairly typical pendulum swing in human nature; and unfortunately exacerbates the boom bust cycle of the O&G industry.

I would prefer to see the Federal government take a completely different approach. Last I read, across the Federal government we consume roughly a little over 2 million BBLs a day on average. Instead of buying a finished product on the market, I would like to see the Fed's pay a company to drill the oil on federal land , refine it, ship it and use it; with a constraint. If the price per BBL gets below X (I would pick $40 bucks) the Fed would switch to buying on the market as they do now, and pump all the oil from those proposed wells directly into the SPR. The reason I like this approach, is it will create a roughly 2 million BBL demand/supply slush fund to help provide price a price floor without any regulation.

Reminder: a swing of 500K BBLs can cause price changes over $50 bucks.

Tim

 

[tspear]

The thing is, unless they increase nuclear (which seems to be another battle that the green-energy people are against) the NG power plants are the next best option for base power load. Hydro is pretty much already in most of the places it can be in. Wind is sporadic, as is solar, so it's tough to use those for base load electricity generation. O&G will be necessary for gas production, not to mention the fact that they don't (and may never have) sufficient EV solutions for long-haul trucking, shipping, and other industrial needs. O&G isn't going anywhere.

I do not pay enough attention to intelligently debate the energy source mix on nuclear or not. I know some "marketing" points, I also know that the predicted energy imbalance and issues caused by solar/wind have never occurred. As such, I am much more doubtful about the people who keep screaming the sky is falling if we depend on renewables.

Tim

 

[TCABM]

…wouldn’t it be nice to knock that usage down from 40% to 20% or less?.

I don’t share that opinion, and in the end you’re just swapping one kind of pollution for another. There is no self-licking ice cream cone.

… I'm tired of politicians, oil companies, foreign dictators having such a huge impact on how I get around and heat my house.

Then you need to generate your own energy by going off grid entirely. There will be limitations you will face but problem solved, problem staying solved. #RLTW

 

[azblackbird]

@PaulS
Last I read, across the Federal government we consume roughly a little over 2 million BBLs a day on average.

You might want to do some more reading.

 

[SoonerAviator]

. . . I don't think it is close. I've looked at it before, but I need to do it again and it takes a little while to put together. When you compare the amount of energy it takes to move like vehicles a similar distance at similar rates of travel, I see EVs killing ICEs for efficiency every time. This is in respect to the amount of available energy IN THE VEHICLE at the beginning of the ride versus the end. I also agree that going back to the source of the energy the figures can be swayed from one source to another based upon the parameters you consider. That's why I think energy cost comparisons are probably the best metric we have right now to determine this. With the caveat that oil prices are artificially high right now due to supply being squeezed by jackass politicians with self serving agendas.

The energy cost in $$ is easier to calculate based off of local electric rates vs price at the pump. I was only curious about the efficiency of the fuel source itself. Since you are pumping petroleum out of the ground in either case, which one makes the "most" out of the product when used for transportation. The cost to the end user was of no importance for my question. I know that EVs typically cost ~$.05 on average per mile to operate, and ICEs average somewhere around $0.15. The EVs win in the $/mile debate, but that didn't necessarily mean that the energy used to make the electricity was greater from well-to-wheel when the fuel source was petroleum-based. I'm sure that lower drag coefficients and maybe some small improvements to EV tech can widen the gap, but the same goes for some modern ICE engines which push above 40% efficiency.

 

[PaulS]

@PaulS

Actually, regulation was on the final price, not the whole commodity chain. That is why it failed. Same issue with rent control and why it eventually runs into issues with a lack of investment.
The Federal O&G leases is a red herring argument. O&G leases take years, if not decades before drilling starts. In fact O&G companies have millions upon millions of acres of O&G rights acres under lease which have not been developed.
The problem right now is that O&G companies ignored shareholders and investors back on the run up to 2014. After been ignored for years, Wall Street and investors in general cracked the whip, and cracked it way to hard. Now O&G companies are way to conservative on the exploration side due to being afraid of the shareholders. This over reaction is a fairly typical pendulum swing in human nature; and unfortunately exacerbates the boom bust cycle of the O&G industry.

I would prefer to see the Federal government take a completely different approach. Last I read, across the Federal government we consume roughly a little over 2 million BBLs a day on average. Instead of buying a finished product on the market, I would like to see the Fed's pay a company to drill the oil on federal land , refine it, ship it and use it; with a constraint. If the price per BBL gets below X (I would pick $40 bucks) the Fed would switch to buying on the market as they do now, and pump all the oil from those proposed wells directly into the SPR. The reason I like this approach, is it will create a roughly 2 million BBL demand/supply slush fund to help provide price a price floor without any regulation.

Reminder: a swing of 500K BBLs can cause price changes over $50 bucks.

Tim

Yeah, it's not a simple issue and leaving it up to politicians who can barely run their own lives and are essentially thieves doesn't seem like a smart strategy to me.

 

[Bob Noel]

Another datapoint, a way to look at part of the ICE vs EV efficiency is to consider fuel efficiency of the gas-electric hybrid (not the plug-in hybrid) vs the similar model of straight ICE.

My Ford Escape gas-electric hybrid (not a plug-in) gets much better gas mileage than the same model non-hybrid. All of the energy to the drive comes from gas. This better mileage doesn't depend on the car being more aerodynamic (it's isn't), it's about the same weight, it has more low-end torque. And the purchase price difference was $1200, It'll still take me a while to save that much in gas (I now use less than 300 gallons per year).

 

[PaulS]

You might want to do some more reading.

Yes, I stopped for a second on that figure too, but he's talking about the Federal government usage, not the whole country.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I do not pay enough attention to intelligently debate the energy source mix on nuclear or not. I know some "marketing" points, I also know that the predicted energy imbalance and issues caused by solar/wind have never occurred. As such, I am much more doubtful about the people who keep screaming the sky is falling if we depend on renewables.

Tim

I don't think there's a "sky is falling" component to relying on renewables for electric production, but they certainly are less reliable since the amount of sun/wind are at the mercy of mother nature's whims. I don't have a problem at all with renewables, but I do believe nuclear/nat gas are more consistent ways to provide most of the electric load, with renewables able to flex or store energy when it's not immediately needed. O&G will be needed for many things like heating homes (unless the entire nation converts to electric heating) and the TON of products/distillates made from petroleum that are used in the production of wind turbines and solar panels.

 

[PaulS]

I don’t share that opinion, and in the end you’re just swapping one kind of pollution for another. There is no self-licking ice cream cone.


Then you need to generate your own energy by going off grid entirely. There will be limitations you will face but problem solved, problem staying solved. #RLTW

It is a much more efficient way to move from point A to point B, so I don't believe it is wash for pollutants, I think it is less polluting.

My son just bought a house in NH with 5kw of solar panels. In Febuary he paid $22 for electricity. The house has 2 EV chargers, but he doesn't own EV cars. I really think he could be driving for free if he did, but time will tell.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Another datapoint, a way to look at part of the ICE vs EV efficiency is to consider fuel efficiency of the gas-electric hybrid (not the plug-in hybrid) vs the similar model of straight ICE.

My Ford Escape gas-electric hybrid (not a plug-in) gets much better gas mileage than the same model non-hybrid. All of the energy to the drive comes from gas. This better mileage doesn't depend on the car being more aerodynamic (it's isn't), it's about the same weight, it has more low-end torque. And the purchase price difference was $1200, It'll still take me a while to save that much in gas (I now use less than 300 gallons per year).

I thought about that, but had no way of knowing what the overall efficiency of a gas-electric hybrid like your Escape was compared to a natural gas power plant (and transmission losses). I mean, I can find info on a Honda gas generator to come up with efficiency numbers for that process, but gas-fed steam turbines are a different animal, lol.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Formula 1 likes to tout that their turbo-hybrid race cars get over 50% thermal efficiency. I had my best fuel economy experience with a Ford C-MAX, back when my company delivered time-sensitive documents on a daily basis. While the beast never got close to the sticker MPG (for which Ford compensated owners rather handsomely!) it still was at just about 41 mpg in 30K miles, more than double of our previous delivery vehicle, in the stop-and-go regimen.

 

[azblackbird]

I also know that the predicted energy imbalance and issues caused by solar/wind have never occurred.

You mean the Texas freeze in 2021 and the now seemingly regular summer rolling blackouts in California have nothing to do with any energy imbalances? Nahhhhh we all know that can't be true. My personal opinion was the magical renewable energy fairies were just taking a vacation with their unicorn buddies and couldn't keep the power flowing.

 

[SoonerAviator]

You mean the Texas freeze in 2021 and the now seemingly regular summer rolling blackouts in California have nothing to do with any energy imbalances? Nahhhhh we all know that can't be true. My personal opinion was the magical renewable energy fairies were just taking a vacation with their unicorn buddies and couldn't keep the power flowing.

To my knowledge, that had a little less to do with type of energy production than it did with TX electric authorities installing non-cold weather equipment for wind turbines and O&G/nuclear facilities which froze coolant towers/lines and made wind farms unable to operate. Even if the wind had been blowing, I don't believe it would have helped much since several traditional power plants went partially offline due to natural gas shortages and a nuclear reactor going offline when the cooling pipes froze.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Formula 1 likes to tout that their turbo-hybrid race cars get over 50% thermal efficiency. I had my best fuel economy experience with a Ford C-MAX, back when my company delivered time-sensitive documents on a daily basis. While the beast never got close to the sticker MPG (for which Ford compensated owners rather handsomely!) it still was at just about 41 mpg in 30K miles, more than double of our previous delivery vehicle, in the stop-and-go regimen.

I'm sure some of that F1 technology will trickle down to consumer vehicles at some point, but I'd imagine a lot of that high-efficiency is in a set of parameters that won't translate back down easily. (High octane/ultra-high compression/narrow operating band). I could be wrong on that though.

 

[azblackbird]

Yes, I stopped for a second on that figure too, but he's talking about the Federal government usage, not the whole country.

Well then... the Feds (especially with the current admin policies) should set an example for the rest of the world and immediately cease and desist all usage of any fossil fuel products. The world would be a much better place for our children and for those less fortunate.

 

[tspear]

You mean the Texas freeze in 2021 and the now seemingly regular summer rolling blackouts in California have nothing to do with any energy imbalances? Nahhhhh we all know that can't be true. My personal opinion was the magical renewable energy fairies were just taking a vacation with their unicorn buddies and couldn't keep the power flowing.

Texas was predicted decades ago, and had nothing to do with renewables. It has everything to do with Texas arrogance and belief that they did not need to plan for freezing temps. Some channels pushed the false narrative that the wind mills cannot handle the cold temps, when in fact the natural gas plants in Texas did not handle the cold temps either. Yet wind mills in North Dakota somehow work all year around... hmmmmm

As for CA, the rolling blackouts have nothing to do with production, that is a failure of the transmission and distribution systems; which in that case is a political question.

Tim