Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

EV Myths From ‘Our Side’

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
EV myths abound. Most of them spread by EV detractors have been covered in these forums in great detail – some, perhaps, in too much detail.

Just for a change of pace, I’d like to open a little discussion on some EV myths that I often hear uttered by EV advocates. I’ll suck some of the fun out of it right off the bat by saying that most of these might not really be best described as “myths.” Perhaps a more accurate description would be “mis-applied principles, technical misunderstandings, unwarranted assumptions and inadvertent exaggerations,” but I think you can see why I didn’t use that in the title.

I care less about what they are called, and more about accuracy – no matter which “side” you are on, and regardless of your intentions. When talking about EVs, I think we all want to make sure that we are clarifying agents. There is already too much mud in the waters.

MYTH: EV owners and supporters are left-wing environmentalists

11010053294_a2d96daff4_z.jpg
This is not often stated outright; but is often a clear implication of another statement. For example, posting an article about possible future leaks from a proposed oil pipeline in an EV forum with a comment like “I know everybody here wants to see this dirty thing stopped.” I see a statement like this several times a week.

Yes, EVs are far better for the environment than gas cars, and this is one of the great social benefits of their general adoption. Many buyers and supporters are environmentalists; in the early days, it is likely that most were.

But it was never all of them; and things have changed. Numbers differ widely in surveys based on wording, but it is pretty clearly not true that most current buyers are primarily purchasing for environmental reasons. Nor is it likely true of others in the space, such as industry, government and NGO employees and volunteers. As we advocates have been saying for a long time, there are many good reasons to support EVs; so it is not helpful to assume that all of us have the same motivations or place the same weight on all of the benefits.

This is a complicated topic so I’ll just barely skim here, but the blanket assumption that EV owners and supporters are all environmentalists is not just incorrect – it is slowing down EV adoption. Some people really don’t like being associated with environmentalists, or in seeing environmentalist causes succeed. Even those that largely root for them don’t generally make their car purchases based on it, as a quick look at the market share of various types of ICE vehicles will tell you. The blanket, unexamined assumption that EVs are “for the environment” is behind a lot of the pushback from both the far right and the far left. And it is likely the main driver behind the following myth.

MYTH: EV detractors are right-wing shills for Big Oil

oil-106913_960_720.jpg
This is the most common dismissal I see EV advocates use when somebody mentions a downside to EVs (even when the downside happens to be a real one; though that is not often).

The most annoying part of this is that many conservatives are EV owners and fans – and why not, as there is much to appreciate including performance, convenience, TCO savings, national security implications, savings from air and water mitigation efforts and health effects, and local economic benefits. The idea that only liberals like EVs is absurd (as noted with the previous myth).

But it is also plain incorrect to state that most detractors are big oil fans, paid or not. Yes, oil companies have been caught paying think tanks for friendly white-papers and op-ed placements, and some oil executives have made statements about EVs that display a startling lack of understanding (or a disappointing disingenuousness). But the quantity of this pales in comparison to the efforts of some of the other detractors: TSLA shorts, executives of alternative companies (power-dense batteries, H2, CNG, etc), liberals afraid that EVs might slow progress towards bicycles and buses, gearheads that are unaware of electric performance implications, free-market purists or economic justice advocates that are unaware that petroleum has huge subsidies, auto dealers trying to avoid a tectonic shift that may not include them, auto manufacturers trying to slow down a risky transition, etc. Or, regular consumers that have seen some of these arguments but have not examined them in detail.

Incorrectly assuming the motivations of detractors derails the conversation, and muddles the opportunity for education about EV benefits. I find it more effective to focus on the message than on possible motivations of the messenger.

MYTH: Most trips are under 40 miles, so there is no reason for anybody to not buy an EV now

2013_Red_Nissan_Leaf_SL.jpg
Yes, it is true that most trips are under 40 miles. And in fact, UCS and CR did a study that determined that 42% of car buyers could buy a short-range battery electric vehicle and not change ANY of their driving habits or require public charging – there are that many people in the new car market that have electricity where they park, and NEVER carry more or go farther than a LEAF is capable of. It is definitely true that more of the existing plug-in electric vehicles could be sold.

That said, there is still a majority of new car buyers (plus all the people that typically don’t buy new cars) that are not well-served by the current offerings. Some people really need a pickup truck, or a minivan, or something with a lot of clearance. Most can’t afford Tesla’s current offerings but may still need six seats or AWD. There are plenty of good reasons to not buy one of the existing EVs.

Just as important, people don’t buy cars based on statistical averages, especially averages that are not their own. Many people DO regularly take trips well over 40 miles (I take a 100-mile trip almost every week; a LEAF won’t work for me). Or even if it’s not regular – say they only take it once every three months – that is still four times per year. If a car sharing service parks vehicles on your block, no problem – but such services only cover small parts of the country. Renting a car four times a year is a considerable burden for many buyers.

The biggest issue I have with this, really, is that I have never seen it be effective as an argument. So why use it? I think a far more useful argument is that any ICE driver can switch to a PHEV with no change in driving habits. That can be good enough to switch most of their driving to electricity so the discussion could end there. But note that once a PHEV is accepted, it is usually easier to argue for the merits of BEVs, or explain how a two-car household with a BEV and an ICE can be similar to a PHEV.

MYTH: It takes 6kWh of electricity to refine a gallon of gas

640px-Oil_refinery_004.jpg
It does take an enormous amount of energy to refine petroleum, and 6kWh seems to be a reasonable guess. That is not even counting energy used to locate, extract, transport (at least twice), and pump it. Refineries are the second-largest electricity consumers in California. Petroleum is FAR less efficient than electricity for transportation.

But “6kWh of electricity” is simply not correct – the energy is indeed needed, but much of it (exact amounts are elusive) is not grid electricity, but rather a byproduct of the refining process. Also, petroleum refining typically produces multiple products (i.e. diesel and gasoline) that muddles the amount of energy per gallon.

I understand the desire to use this number – it sounds like you can take the petroleum middleman out of the equation and just power the car directly on that electricity, which would render all further arguments about cost and emissions moot. But while electricity is far superior to petroleum on both counts, I am afraid that this shortcut to explain the difference doesn’t really work.

MYTH: An EV is cleaner than any gas car even when the electricity is generated from 100% coal

coal-1521718_960_720.jpg
This is kind of close. EVs are way cleaner than gas cars on the current U.S. grid. The grid is getting cleaner, enabling EV owners to choose cleaner sources of electricity.

It is true to say that the average EV is better than the average ICE even with 100% coal, or that an EV is better than a comparable ICE with 100% coal. But the average EV is not as good as the best hybrid with 100% coal.

According to UCS, the US-sales weighted-average EV consumption can be as low as 35mpg (based on 2012 data; it is probably better now, but still likely less than a Prius).

MYTH: The $7,500 federal tax credit is to make EVs more affordable

Tesla_Roadster_charging_port_DSC_0313.jpg
Many people seem to think that the $7,500 federal tax credit is in place to help poor people afford an electric car. Or at least to get middle-class people that might be stretching to be able to finally make it.

The government has no particular interest in selling EVs to people with little money; and the poor don’t buy new cars. New cars – especially expensive cars with new technology – are almost always purchased by people with lots of money, and the government is fine with leveraging their dollars. The tax credit is a buying incentive, designed to help shift the balance so that somebody thinking about buying an ICE might decide on an EV instead.

The public benefits of EVs – better national security, lower trade deficit, a cash injection to the economy, less fouling of air and water, fewer carbon emissions – don’t depend on who buys the cars. In any event, poor people are rarely able to take advantage of a large tax credit, or float the cash until tax refund time even if they could. Sure, there are some buyers on the edge that are enabled by the tax credit, but the objective is to alter buying behavior, not subsidize the poor. That is why it is a tax credit, and not subject to income or vehicle price limitations. Having rich people buy new technology is the best way to increase volumes, reduce prices, and create a used market – those are how the poor will eventually afford EVs.

Electric vehicles are new technology that was starting off in small quantities, and in the auto market that means higher prices. In 2008 the Bush administration asked the DOE how much to subsidize EVs to help drive buying decisions. The US Government Accountability Office estimated that petroleum subsidies (payments and tax credits to petroleum companies only; this did not include pollution mitigation, health effects, patrolling Hormuz, etc) benefited the average gas car by about $12,000 over its lifetime. The $7,500 was calculated to be the net present value of that amount, and that’s how EVs got their tax credit.

MYTH: Other automakers can’t build a competitive car because they can’t duplicate Tesla’s technology

Model_S_Base.jpg
I am confident that engineers at any major automaker could make a great competitor to the Model S and X. Tesla has great engineers, and they do have some technical advantages that other automakers are not yet using, but engineering skill and technology are not why the Model S and X are in a class by themselves. Especially not since Tesla has said other automakers will not be sued for copying their technology.

Until Model 3 demand was demonstrated, many automakers didn’t really think there was demand for EVs. Perhaps they had convinced themselves of this, since they kept arguing so to keep governments from forcing them to make EVs. Even if they thought consumers wanted them, they are legally required to sell through dealers, and dealers have generally been happier selling gas cars (although this is changing). Plus, EVs have that refueling problem that all of their current cars don’t have – who wants to think through all that when they already have a solution? And once you have a solution, there’s the whole marketing problem about how to sell your new product as superior when you are still mostly moving the old product.

It might be short-sighted thinking. It might be waiting until the technology is ready. It might be misunderstanding how to apply the technology to best attract consumers. It might be waiting until somebody else proves the market and then following quickly to reduce the risk. But it’s not that they aren’t capable of building the cars.

TMC Member Chad Schwitters is a retired mobile software executive. He has been an EV driver since 2008 and a Tesla driver since 2009. Additionally, he served as Event Coordinator for the Seattle Electric Vehicle Association and as a board member for Plug In America.

Photo: Flickr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately the GAO's report to the DOE doesn't appear to have ever been published online. At least I can't find it.

I first heard about it at a talk by Jim Billmaier about the topics in his book. This was probably back around 2010. The book mentions it, but only briefly; there was a little more in the talk, and there was some email discussion about it in 2011 or 2012. Plug In America's former policy director was involved (the DOE asked him for advice); this was before I was at Plug In America, but he filled in the details on a call around 2013, and his details matched Billmaier's.

The DOE initially suggested $2,500; I think that was the amount of the last HEV subsidy. Plug In America briefly tried suggesting that petroleum subsidies to be removed instead, but of course that wasn't happening. So then Plug In America suggested starting at $2,500, but going up to the petroleum subsidy amount for larger batteries. So the DOE asked the GAO to calculate how much the lifetime petroleum subsidy was, then took the NPV of that value, and came up with $7,500 as the top value.
 
EV myths abound. Most of them spread by EV detractors have been covered in these forums in great detail – some, perhaps, in too much detail. Just for a change of pace,
Well done !

I could quibble with this
Renting a car four times a year is a considerable burden for many buyers.
because it is judgmental and portrays Americans as almost too lazy to breathe

but I'm not going to be petty.
 
Unfortunately the GAO's report to the DOE doesn't appear to have ever been published online. At least I can't find it.

I first heard about it at a talk by Jim Billmaier about the topics in his book. This was probably back around 2010. The book mentions it, but only briefly; there was a little more in the talk, and there was some email discussion about it in 2011 or 2012. Plug In America's former policy director was involved (the DOE asked him for advice); this was before I was at Plug In America, but he filled in the details on a call around 2013, and his details matched Billmaier's.

The DOE initially suggested $2,500; I think that was the amount of the last HEV subsidy. Plug In America briefly tried suggesting that petroleum subsidies to be removed instead, but of course that wasn't happening. So then Plug In America suggested starting at $2,500, but going up to the petroleum subsidy amount for larger batteries. So the DOE asked the GAO to calculate how much the lifetime petroleum subsidy was, then took the NPV of that value, and came up with $7,500 as the top value.
I've always realized that the tax subsidy is less than externalized costs but the GAO study is new news to me. Thanks for sharing!

Your entire paragraph can be summarized after the GAO information as this: an EV costs the taxpayer way less than an ICE, even after considering the maximum tax credit. That should open some eyes.
 
Chad, I really enjoyed your article, thanks for taking the time to write it!

I remain curious about the electricity used in refining oil. I go back to what Elon said that was quoted upthread:
-----------------------------
Elon: Exactly. Chris has a nice way of saying it which is, you have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline. You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours. You basically have the energy needed to power electric vehicles if you stop refining.
------------------------------

So do you think his number is way off? Or is he looking at things in a different way? I would really like to understand this better.
 
Chad, I really enjoyed your article, thanks for taking the time to write it!

I remain curious about the electricity used in refining oil. I go back to what Elon said that was quoted upthread:
-----------------------------
Elon: Exactly. Chris has a nice way of saying it which is, you have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline. You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours. You basically have the energy needed to power electric vehicles if you stop refining.
------------------------------

So do you think his number is way off? Or is he looking at things in a different way? I would really like to understand this better.
So rare to see Elon be so wrong. Here is the story:

A Gallon has ~ 33.7 kWh of heat
About 17% of the energy in oil is lost in refining and losses upstream of the car and (perhaps) downstream from the oil-field
So upstream costs (33.7/0.83) - 33.7 = 5.73 kWh of heat per refined gallon. So far, so good.

The story breaks down here though, because you cannot run an EV on unprocessed oil heat. If you can run that oil through a power plant, transmit it to a home, send it though an EVSE and then through an OBC, you will have somewhere in the range of 1.54 kWh in the battery.

OK then, let's compare a Tesla Model S to a Prius. Unfair, but Elon said the EV miles are free so I give myself license here. A gallon of petrol started out at 33.7/0.83 = 40.6 kWh of heat. Passing it through the electricity processing and into the battery leaves us with 40.6*0.33*0.93*0.88 = 10.96 kWh in the battery. If we figure 250 Wh/mile from the battery, then the raw oil moves the car 44 miles.

Compare that to a 54 mpg Prius.
 
Last edited:
"Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1"
From UCS
Tar Sands have about 15% more lifetime carbon emissions than liquid oil, implying that the energy used to change from natural product to gasoline* is ~ 0.17*1.15 = 19.55%.

They also say that as of the article's writing, tar sands were 5% of US oil use.

*I've ignored the energy costs involved in pulling liquid oil out of the ground because I'm lazy and have read that it is low.
 
About 17% of the energy in oil is lost in refining and losses upstream of the car and (perhaps) downstream....So upstream costs (33.7/0.83) - 33.7 = 5.73 kWh of heat per refined gallon.
I think you get about the right result but that's not quite the right way to look at what is happening. About half of the energy used in refining comes from outside the refinery in the form of natural gas. For example, refineries in California use about 11% of the natural gas supplied by utilities.

Elon's scenario is that we stop refining and use the electricity that was previously used in refining to instead drive our electric cars. Since refineries only get about 5% of their refining energy overhead from purchased electricity that only provides us with 5% of 5-6 kWh or 250 to 300 Wh which is good for about a mile of driving...,However, we could take the ~3 kWh of natural gas energy that would have been used in refining and run that through a combined cycle generator at 55% efficiency to get another 1.5 kWh so now we have a bit less than 2 kWh or maybe 7 miles of driving. If you include the purchased electricity used in oil extraction you might get another 1.0-1.5 kwh of electricity since you don't need that oil anymore. Now we're up to 10-12 miles. Maybe.

That's what you should compare to a 54 mpg Prius. So, no, in a future where we stop refining crude oil we cannot drive the same number of miles on the electricity saved from no longer refining gasoline.

OK then, let's compare a Tesla Model S to a Prius. Unfair, but Elon said the EV miles are free so I give myself license here. A gallon of petrol started out at 33.7/0.83 = 40.6 kWh of heat. Passing it through the electricity processing and into the battery leaves us with 40.6*0.33*0.93*0.88 = 10.96 kWh in the battery. If we figure 250 Wh/mile from the battery, then the raw oil moves the car 44 miles.
Compare that to a 54 mpg Prius.
Okay, we're agreed that is not what Elon was saying in that quote. He was talking about the "5 kWh" of electricity that supposedly is used to refine gasoline. You are making up your own scenario.

But for your scenario, I think you end up with about the right number. A more direct approach is to take the energy in a typical barrel of crude oil (5.8 million btu) and divide by the 42 gallons in a barrel and then convert the 123,810 btus into 36.285 kWh of energy. Now run it through a generator. Siemens makes an SGT-500 unit for oil field use that directly consumes crude and generates electricity at nearly 34% efficiency. So, 36.285 x 33.8% results in 12.26 kWh. Under ideal conditions.

Some other sources claim up to around 40% efficiency is possible using larger-scale generation.

Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1"
Yes, tar sand oil is extra terrible but it only represents a small fraction of the total crude oil refined into gasoline for US consumption.
 
Last edited:
Chad, I really enjoyed your article, thanks for taking the time to write it!

I remain curious about the electricity used in refining oil. I go back to what Elon said that was quoted upthread:
-----------------------------
Elon: Exactly. Chris has a nice way of saying it which is, you have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline. You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours. You basically have the energy needed to power electric vehicles if you stop refining.
------------------------------

So do you think his number is way off? Or is he looking at things in a different way? I would really like to understand this better.
I don't see how you can escape from the conclusion that Elon was "exactly" endorsing Chris Paine's very clear claim that refining a gallon of gasoline uses 4-6 kWh of electricity. Okay, Elon averaged that to 5 kWh but he was still talking about electricity. If he meant energy, instead of electricity, he would have accounted for needing to run it through a generator at 40-55% efficiency.

Elon's comment (and Chris' comment) was just plain wrong and based on misinformation that was being widely flogged at the time which was nearly 6 years ago. For example, Nissan was using this marketing sign at their early LEAF ride&drive public education events:
IMG_3557.JPG


Let's remind ourselves of what Chris Paine said right before Elon said "Exactly.":
Chris: It's funny they make that argument, because they're one of the largest users of electricity in the country, to refine gasoline. That's why the power cords go into refineries. Something like 4 to 6 kilowatt hours of electricity to refine every gallon of gasoline. They're pulling that electricity from the same source as they're critiquing on electric cars and they get much less result out of it.

I doubt that Elon would repeat his comment today.
 
Last edited:
The same document breaks down the energy used during refining by percentage with electricity averaging at 3.5% and natural gas at about 38%.

https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/hl9mw9i7

I've seen other, newer, estimates of 5.2% electricity and 51% natural gas. It varies by the design of the refinery and the kind of crude oil being refined. They can also tune the process to maximize diesel vs gasoline production etc. to some extent. Some refineries may purchase hydrogen and others may create their own from natural gas. Hydrogen is used to crack long hydrocarbon molecules into shorter ones that can be used to increase gasoline quantity and quality.

This document also says gasoline has a 1.28x multiplier on the energy used during refining versus other products. However, this may not apply to purchased electricity in the same way it applies to other energy sources used. I've also seen another study that estimated the gasoline multiplier was closer to 1.0x.

IMG_3587.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: GSP
But even so, it is clear that we are spending huge amounts of money and lives fighting over oil. Reducing the amount we import does not seen to have changed that.

We will always be at war in the Middle East.
It started with the British a few hundred years ago and we and other "developed countries" have continued the stupidity.

I think these two points are contradictory. I don't believe middle east wars are over oil. The struggles there started way before oil was even an issue as you point out in your second comment and have more to do with religious philosophy dating back to the Crusades.

But I have never heard anybody dispute that making cheaper energy at home, and having many ways to make that energy, isn't better for national security than relying only on petroleum. That's all I was saying.

Then I think we agree.
 
I really like the first paragraph on refining petroleum. It's a great lead in to corrected Nissan's unfortunate PR gaff on the subject.

Chad Schwitters said:
It does take an enormous amount of energy to refine petroleum, and 6kWh seems to be a reasonable guess. That is not even counting energy used to locate, extract, transport (at least twice), and pump it. Refineries are the second-largest electricity consumers in California. Petroleum is FAR less efficient than electricity for transportation.

I was totally into it until I read the second paragraph...
Chad Schwitters said:
But “6kWh of electricity” is simply not correct – the energy is indeed needed, but much of it (exact amounts are elusive) is not grid electricity, but rather a byproduct of the refining process. Also, petroleum refining typically produces multiple products (i.e. diesel and gasoline) that muddles the amount of energy per gallon.

My corrections, in order, are...
  1. We have the exact amount of electricity and natural gas used by the petroleum extraction and refining industries from the California government (California Energy Commission/CEC) circa 2003 (https://web.archive.org/web/20030216044114/http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/indust/petro_industry.html).
  2. Most of the external energy needed for fuel production comes from natural gas, not from any byproducts of refining. Refining byproducts are used, but those aren't external sources of energy, and as far as I know don't contribute nearly as much energy as natural gas.
  3. We can easily ignore the multiple fuel/non-fuel outputs from refining and calculate the energy required per gallon of petroleum before it's even refined into anything.
Running the numbers shows that extraction and refining (E&R) require roughly .5kWh of electricity per gallon of petroleum, which is fairly small. Natural gas use on the other hand is substantial at 7+kWh/gallon. Where Nissan got in trouble is failing to distinguish between electricity alone and electricity+natural gas and only referencing refining instead of E&R. They tried to turn it into a soundbite and flubbed it up, drawing attention from the original (important and valid) argument.

We can't turn 7+kWh of natural gas into 7+kWh of electricity, but we can turn it into 3.5+kWh of electricity in a modern combined-cycle natural gas power plant. All told, not E&Ring a gallon of petroleum frees up enough energy to provide an EV with at least 4+kWh of electricity in California. That conclusion is from exact figures provided by the California government (CEC).

And again, as was said, this is only E&R. In reality, that figure is higher because...
When all is said and done, we can use a little electricity and a lot of natural gas to get a gallon of gasoline/diesel/etc, or we can use a little electricity and a lot of natural gas to power a Model S 90D at least 12+ miles (EPA) in CA. I say at least because in reality we certainly use more energy than what's required for E&R.

Other states with a lot of light sweet crude should use less natural gas for extraction, but because those figures aren't published, we don't know how much less. It's also possible for extraction and refining to become less energy intensive, but the industry hasn't published that information, probably because extraction becomes more energy intensive as we use more heavy sour crude/tar sands.

Anyhow, long story short, while I appreciate attempts to correct EV myths, we shouldn't replace an existing EV myth with another EV myth. In my opinion...

  • We should reference specific government figures (CA in this case) on E&R and establish a lower bound for energy with those figures in that region.
  • We should acknowledge that the E&R figures may be lower in other states, but also point out that the overall the total energy figures are certainly higher because we're just looking at E&R.
  • Last but not least, we should note that as we exhaust more light sweet crude reserves and use more heavy sour crude/tar sand reserves, the energy used to make gasoline/diesel/etc will increase proportionally.
When all is said and done, making gas/diesel/etc requires far more energy than the petroleum industry acknowledges, and that energy use is only going to increase as we use more heavy sour crude and tar sands.
 
Last edited: