”REAL (TOTAL) EFFICIENCY OF Electrical Vehicles” Global overall feasibility study. February, 2024 Hirsch Vivat P.Eng. M.Sc. Auto-transport & mobile equipment.
That article discusses total overall energy efficiency of Electric car (EV) vs. Gas powered (ICEV) based on CO2 pollution.
There are worldwide registries of 1.47 billion cars and only 3% are EVs. (Jan. 2024) EV sales is rapidly increasing.
The Total Energy Efficiency of EV vs. Gas-powered vehicles (ICEV) will be calculated by using identical fuels, which can be defined as an ‘’Apple to Apple approach’.’
Efficiency of the Refinery producing Fuel oil for Power Plant and Gasoline for the cars is about equal components with the small different of 1.137 which will be added in equation. Fuel from refinery for EV is delivered to the Power Plant. Fuel from refinery for ICEV is delivered to the gas tank.
-The Total Energy Efficiency of EV is a sum of three components: Efficiency of the Refinery, plus the efficiency of the Power Plant and Power Grid combined, plus the EV car efficiency or “Refinery -- to Power plant and Grid -- to the wheels”
-Total Energy efficiency for the gas-powered vehicle is a sum of two components: Efficiency of the Refinery, plus the ICEV car efficiency or “Refinery -- to the wheels”
- In both cases the “Well” to - “Oil supply”- to “Refinery” are equal values and it cancel each other. ; Calculations will start for both vehicles equally, from “Refinery” to- "the Wheel”.
Efficiency vs. energy consumption on gas-powered vehicle is RELATIVELY STABLE, when efficiency vs. energy consumption of EV is VARIABLE and it depends on the weather temperature, battery age, power plant fuel source, electrical grid and added non-fossil energy. In all published work EV study and testing a brand new EV is selected? 6 years old EV with original 6 years old battery with 70000 mi mileage should be used for calculations and testing! The average age of a car on US roads is now 12.2 years.
Average Power plant efficiency running on oil is n= 0.39; it happened to be about the same value as the average world efficiency of power generation n=0.40; power generation in USA n=0.40 Ref.16 U.S. Renewable Energy Factsheet | Center for Sustainable Systems (umich.edu)
Scope, calculation & summary. “Efficiency” in engineering is measured by “ratio of useful output to total input” and designated in percentage or ratio coefficient (n=1 is equal to 100%). In most articles you may find non-engineering efficiencies which are measured in miles, watts, hours, MPGe, gas prices vs. electricity price; it is misleading and cannot be used for engineering assessment.
TOTAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CALCULATION OF EV can and should be done by using the “SYSTEM OF MULTIPLE COMPONENTS” : (Regeneration breaking is not included as it can be used with on-off at selected conditions , not used at low temperature, little benefit on highway.)
1) For purpose of “apple to apple” comparison Total efficiency of power plants is taken n=0.40
2) Efficiency loss of electrical transmission through the electrical grid is 7 % or efficiency factor is n=93;
3)Efficiency loss of electrical car battery is 10% when is charged. Charging efficiency factor is n= 0.9;
4) Efficiency loss of an electrical car battery when discharged is 10% or efficiency factor is n= 0.9;
5) Efficiency loss of an electrical battery when temperature falls below -20c is n=0.60-0.65 for a 6 years old battery. Ref.#2 For calculation we will take n= 0.85 (not everywhere and not all the time is winter.)
6) Efficiency loss of 15% of electrical power for the car heater or A/C efficiency n=0.85;
7) Mechanical efficiency: only n=0.90;
8) Finally efficiency of an EV electrical motor is n= 0.90 (.80 -.94) Ref #6
9) Battery efficiency for 6 years old battery is n=0.85 (Battery life is about 10 -12 years).
10) EV “Charging invertor’’ from AC to DC has efficiency factor n=0.95;
Ref#13 Battery degradation results for our base EV and AEV for the composite... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)
Efficiency calculations are made without adding 10-14 metric ton of the CO2 emission as a result of manufacturing the lithium-ion batteries; However CO2 battery footprint emission will be added for obtaining the TOTAL EFFICIENCY based on CO2 EMISSION on a page 4.
NOW WE CAN CALCULATE THE TOTAL GLOBAL EFFICIENCY OF ELECTRICAL CAR, BASED ON OIL POWER PLANT GENERATION. (Apples to apple approach): Total energy efficiency calculations based on global electric power generation:
1.137 x 0.40 x 0.93 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.85 x 0.85 x 0. 90 x 0.90 x 0.85 x 0.95= 0.16 It looks that gasoline powered car today is a bit more efficient device than 6 years old EV when is driven using the same fuel at winter (to generate electricity) as ICEV. Most of the EV efficiency studies are done within speed range from 0 to 100km/h. Only in a few studies you may find that additional energy of 40% is required to reach speed to140km/h or 25% additional energy more than gas-powered car. That means that EV efficiency on high speed will drop even farther down. Using the same approach but for a brand new EV with an ideal conditions without using A/C or heater EV efficiency may reach 0.28-0.32, it is the same efficiency as for latest ICEV models (diesel 0.37). Ref #12 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/ehicle-energy-economy-at-different-speeds_fig1_326822085
EPA is testing only till 104 km/h , very low!
Discussion: Based on above calculation efficiency for 6 years old EV at the cold winter or hot summer is 0.16 . For gas-powered Cars (fuel tank- to- wheels) efficiency is reaching to 0.28 for new models (diesel powered is reaching 0.37). See Ref#15 Where the Energy Goes: Gasoline Vehicles (fueleconomy.gov). The efficiency of gas-powered cars is relatively stable in any weather or vehicle age condition. However there are substantial disadvantages of EV when plugged to the Grid powered by fossil fuel Power Plants. The EV CONS are: high initial and maintenance cost of the vehicle, battery replacement cost, power loss by aging, less efficiency on the higher speed, additional weight of 1000 lbs, charging time, blackouts and loss of efficiency at heavy traffic at winter or hot summer. Travel for long distances on EV is not recommended. Ref#2 (See axle overload to asphalt pavement and EV tire wear Ref#14 . One of the most noticeable PROS of EV is reduction of the LOCAL CO2 pollution reverting it to the power plant chimney and CO2 reduction when renewable portion of energy is added. Based on above calculation, actual and total CO2 emission from fossil fuel should be the main concern when buying an EV or Hybrid.
Total worldwide electricity production consists of 27% renewable, 10% nuclear and 63% of fossil fuel. 37 % of non-fossil is divided by: 1/3 from “other sources”, 1/3 from nuclear and the rest from hydro plants build 10-70 years ago. It took more than 20 years to build up energy generation from “other resources “(solar, wind, thermo). The new “project” is to convert worldwide remaining 63% of fossil fuel generation to renewable for 20 -30 years! Entire Electrical Grids (Globally) would be reconstructed and also expended to generate additional electricity to operate EVs. 6 out of 8 billion people are inhabitants of the relatively poor countries and would not be able to contribute funds for such mega-project. All western countries are responsible for 25% CO2 emission. For the next 12 years a HYBRID vehicle would be a better choice. Hybrid car is more reliable with lower CO2 emission. It may take another 10-15 years to produce a reliable EV car with a better charging system. EV battery is very expensive to produce and dispose. EV Battery last about 10-12 years or 200000 mi with a loss of the efficiency to 0.65 on the end of battery life. Cost of the EV battery is $16000 plus replacement cost. Disposal of lithium batteries can be hazardous for the environment. Ref#4. https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-footprint-of-lithium-ion-battery-production/
In the future EV market may be divided by two groups: one being able to afford a new expensive EV and another group would be left to buy used EVs with replaced batteries. So far the industry is in process to find sustainable batteries which will last 16-20 years.
Conclusion: (My statement is valid only if all undersigned countries of the Paris Climate Agreement will be in compliance of all requirements). My TAKE: The future (20-25 years) of the Global auto transportation: The larger part of transportation sector will be taken by HYBRID vehicles ( ref# 17 Ensuring greenhouse gas reductions from electric vehicles compared to hybrid gasoline vehicles requires a cleaner U.S. electricity grid | Scientific Reports (nature.com) ) , next will be the vehicles with high efficient turbocharged gas or/and diesel powered engines, the rest will be shared by HYDROGEN and light (class 1-2) EVs. (EV HUMMER and EV F-150 are not going to save the planet). A hydrogen vehicle does not require charging, it would not overload the Grid to some degree. Refueling of Hydrogen vehicles will take couple minutes and would be performed on already existing gas station. Total transportation sector is contributing 15% pollutions globally; Cars, motorcycles and vans are contributing only 7.6% pollutions globally. As it is projected, 25 years from now 7.6% will drop down to 4.0% globally by implementing EVs. Landfill and water pollution from the battery manufactories and disposal will become in some countries unmanageable. Semi-trailers responsible for 2% of global pollution temporary would be and can be left as it is. Last models of semi-trailers powered with new diesel engines are significantly more efficient and with fewer pollutant. Ref#11. However maritime shipping is responsible for 3% of the global pollution would be difficult to convert to electrical; new mega-large vessels may become nuclear powered. Aviation is 2.5% of the world CO2 emission. The necessity and demands to achieve the 3.6% reduction of CO2 pollution for the passengers cars are stated bellow: there are 280 million registered vehicles in USA and 1.47 billion cars worldwide for now and that amount will grow. It is projected worldwide electrical energy will double up for the next 30 years. It would be very questionable to achieve that without adding Nuclear Power Plants. FAST Supercharging stations for trucks (350 KW 480V) may cost $50,000 per charger or more with additional high cost connecting them to the Electrical Grid; EV would require 50 KW per one FAST charger or slow overnight car charger only 10kw at home. Fast charging stations (level 3) require 4-5 times more energy demand from the Grid than SLOW charging stations (level 2). Fast charging systems will require additional Grid enlargement to fasciculate that demand. When only 20% of all registered vehicles in USA will be converted to EV a charge during one or two days would require, 28 million home chargers and 3 million public charging stations would be installed. That might not happen in other countries where citizens do not own detached homes with double garages. Other countries will need more public chargers. The cost of the global grid upgrading for 2035 is estimated to reach 2.5 trillion dollars (IEA). There are a lot of approximate not approved estimates by 195 countries including USA. Industry is trying to solve the inefficient battery performance by introducing new and better battery storages for EV. New inexpensive energy storages will make EV more attractive for consumers and better for environment; however it would not lower the pollutions emitted by the Power Plants running on fossil fuel. Finely , when new high efficiency battery storages will be introduced and implemented by industry my “study” would not become obsolete, it would be updated to reflect the positive impact of the new technology. Crude Oil is a part of important human necessities. As a result, the initial refined products are responsible for production of 6000 essential various products. Starting from asphalt, bitumen, jet engine, fuel, plastic, drugs and so many others that it is not possible to list them all; only 40% as a by-product is gasoline. One of very feasible usage of gasoline would be used as a fuel for Hybrid cars and for high gas efficient vehicles. Ref#1 file:///C:/Users/hviva/Downloads/Comparing_Apples_to_Apples_Well-to-Wheel_Analysis_%20(1).pdf Ref#2 China YM POWER TECH LIMITED latest company news about Why Can Cold Weather Affect Lithium-ion Batteries? (libatterypacks.com) Ref #3 https://www.ieso.ca/en/Learn/Ontario-Supply-Mix/Ontario-Energy-Capacity Ref #5 Everything You Need to Know About the Fastest-Growing Source of Global Emissions: Transport | World Resources Institute (wri.org) Ref #6 https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/vehicle/electric-vehicles/ev-design-electric-motors/ Ref #7 IEA international energy agency. (Neither IEA or SAE international haven’t issued any standards for the total EV efficiency testing. SAE so far has only standards for charging (connective elements), battery energy consumption for 5 range cycles tests and EV vibration test. SAE is using only new EV components. Only EPA is providing a 5 cycle “fuel economy” test inside the building on dynamometer using maximum lower temperature -7C (20F) and max speed 104 km/hour (65m/h). In my opinion a 6 years old EV with 70000mi should be stored and tested at -20C (-4 F) at the speed reaching 140km/hour (87m/h) with the heater “on”. EV should be charged at -20C without preheating battery (manually or automatic); If preheating procedure selected, energy used for preheating should be added as an efficiency loss. Finally EPA conclusions are based on non-compatible comparison between “receptacle - to-wheels” of EV vs. “well-to-wheels” for a gas-powered car. Those misleading results are advertised without mentioning, that electric generation in USA is still originated from 79% of burning the fossil fuels. Test results by EPA are wrong and misleading. (See Page 4, USA). Electric cars are only as clean as their power supply.
Ref # 9 Fuel Economy and EV Range Testing | US EPA Ref#10 Comparison of the Overall Energy Efficiency for Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles and Electric Vehicles (sciendo.com)
Ref#11 Advantages of Diesel Engines | Cummins Inc.
TOTAL GLOBAL "ROAD TRANSPORTATION" SECTOR IS CONTRIBUTING 15.5% OF CO2. (statista) (CARS, MOTOCUCLES AND VANS are contributing only 7.6% ); ALL OTHER GLOBAL SECTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 79% CO2 EMISSION. It is predicted by UNFCCC that at 2050 year 700 million cars globally will be EV and WORLD power plants will be 80% non-fossil fuel effective; that will decrease CO2 and other greenhouse gasses emission. The “car” sector pollution will drop down to 4.0% from the 7.6% it is a great achievement and used by politicians as the most important subject for the public discussions avoiding or lessen conversations for remaining 79% CO2 pollution of the “other sectors”. REF #8 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-overview
.
RESULTS: PAGE 4 TOTAL EFFICIENCY based on CO2 EMISSION.
One of the main purposes of EV is reduction of harmful emissions. In subsequent calculations the non-fossil amount of efficiency will be assumed as 100% effective and not being added in calculations, only efficiency from the power plant to the wheels of EV will be calculated. However CO2 battery footprint emission will be added for calculations; it adds 27% of hazardous emission per year, based on the EV lifespan. Ref#4. ICEV yearly emission is 4.6 ton CO2 per year. EV may last 12 years. Annual emission of CO2 as a result of battery manufacturing (14 : 12) : 4.6 = 27%). As additional information to that study most likely that replaced battery may perform less than 12 years, in that case the annual added EV footprint battery emission would be increased to 40%. It would drastically reduce the TOTAL EFFICIENCY based on CO2.The subsequent calculations are conservative (the secondary battery is not added). EV tires wear is 30% higher (not added) Ref#14 Road Hazard: Evidence Mounts on Toxic Pollution from Tires - Yale E360
1) ONTARIO, CANADA ; 28% OF THE GENERATION IS PRODUCED BY FOSSIL FUEL (OIL AND GAS, ABOUT 50/50 with the plant efficiency of 0.415). THE CO2 EMISSION COMES FROM 29% OF FOSSIL FUEL. Adding numerical number of 27% to CO2 emission as a result of battery manufacturing will increase the total percentage to 55%. Calculation on the page 2 is based on 100% use of fossil fuel. Adding 45% of non-fossil fuel (1 – 55 = 0.45) will change the outcome of the equation as it is shown : for “non-ideal” condition: (0.16 x 0.55)+ (0.16 x 1/0.415 x 0.45) = 0.18 and “for ideal” condition: (0.28 x 0.55) + (0.28 x 1/0.415 x 0.45)= 0.47 The average will be (0.18 + 0.47) : 2 = 0.33 There some contribution of using an EV in Ontario; it will reduce pollution to 33% and it will totally eliminate the local CO2 emission at heavy slow moving city traffic. The plug-in Hybrid will reduce pollution by 25-35% just a little bit less than EV percentage but without larger demand of electricity from the Electric Grid. Consumer shell read CONS and PROS described on the page 2. (EV may require the battery replacement which may drastically increase the CO2 emission). Taking in account the high EV price and EV CONS the Plug-in HYBRID will become the first choice in Ontario, second choice would be EV or high eff. compact ICEV. However for BC and Quebec the EV will be the best choice for the reduction of harmful emissions. Alberta is using 89% of fossil fuel for electro generation; obviously EV would not be effective there at all. Canada is using at average 59% of fossil fuel.
2) California: 46.5% electricity is generated by natural gas; adding 27% of CO2 emission as a result of battery manufacturing will increase the total percentage: 46.5 + 27 =73% Calculating using the same approach as above, the efficiency responsible for CO2 emission will fluctuate from 0.20 to 0.39 or average 0.30. Plug-in Hybrids is justified in California. However EV will not be justified. .
3) USA is using in average 79% of fossil fuel to generate electricity (2021) , with the exception to Maine, Vermont, Washington state, partially California and South Carolina. Adding 27% of the harmful emission as a result of battery manufacturing will increase the total fossil emission closer to 95% per vehicle. Total efficiency based on CO2 emission will fluctuate from 0.15 to 0.27or average 0.2. EV and Plug-in Hybrid are not feasible to use in USA for now, a non-plug Hybrid and high efficient gas-powered vehicle will be a better choice.
4)France: 7% fossil, 70% nuclear, 23% renewable. EV in France (1.6%) counts as a clean car.
Efficiency vs. energy consumption on gas-powered vehicle is relatively stable, when efficiency vs. energy consumption of EV is variable, the final results by EPA should be also variable. The EV efficiency on the EPA “stick-on” label is wrong and misleading and obtained using “receptacle-to- wheels” approach. It is ignored that 79% of US energy is generated by burning fossil fuel (59% in Canada). Only “well-to-wheels” method will evaluate the total efficiency correctly. Additional QR code on the stick-on car label can be added and used for “well-to-wheels” method to evaluate efficiency of the EV at the location where QR code is scanned. It is amazing that the EPA has come up with a measuring unit MPGe that is based on converting an invariant unit to some arbitrary equivalent based on "equivalence" of energy; it is totally incorrect and misleading! (Only used by USA) Finally, measuring unit should be alike as at European Union and the rest of the world using EEA unit counting CO2 in g/km. However, in both cases EEA and EPA units don’t include the EV battery carbon footprint loss, which makes the data totally unreliable? EV is “certified” by EPA as a “Zero-emission-vehicle” (ZEV) which is totally wrong and misleading. (European Environment agency EEA and the rest of the world do not have such non-technical invalid “certifications”); there is no any Electrical Vehicles in USA or Canada which are not emitting CO2. EV pollutants are just reverted to the Power plant chimneys; also battery carbon footprint is a part of the EV pollutants and should be included in CO2 harmful EV emission. One of the main purposes of EV is reduction of harmful emissions, not how far it can run and pollute. When in the future renewable energy will overcome and replace the fossil fuel the EV will become justifiable.