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

Teslie: EVs make no sense

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
But we were discussing transportation usage, not grid storage.

CNG can pretty easily be used as transportation fuel for road transportation, particular for larger vehicles, which are the hardest ones to meet usage with for BEV. Existing gasoline vehicles can be modified.

Globally there are about 25M vehicles using or capable of using natural gas.
(Current Natural Gas Vehicle Statistics | NGV Global Knowledgebase)

NGVs tailpipe emissions are low.

While BEV + renewables is a good target, it's far from certain how close we'll get.

Given the unknowns with batteries, and the knowns on cost and abundance with PV and wind power, it makes sense to me that there's a significant potential value for fuel synthesis, including in transportation.
 
CNG can pretty easily be used as transportation fuel for road transportation, particular for larger vehicles, which are the hardest ones to meet usage with for BEV. Existing gasoline vehicles can be modified.

Not efficiently, and CNG is a double whammy for greenhouse gasses with methane and CO2 release. Also Tesla might disagree with you that larger vehicles are harder to replace with EV's, you might have heard of the Tesla Semi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Esme Es Mejor
Hopefully this will stay as it is. Environmentally BEVs don’t make much sense. And there is not enough electricity capacity (fossil or regenerative) to cover the need of millions of electric cars.

For me they do. I generate well over 3 times the electricity required to power our 3 EVs.

I can't by law set up a petroleum refinery in my yard.
 
Not efficiently, and CNG is a double whammy for greenhouse gasses with methane and CO2 release. Also Tesla might disagree with you that larger vehicles are harder to replace with EV's, you might have heard of the Tesla Semi.

They're _trying_ to build the Tesla Semi, which will _maybe_ _at some point_ have high-powered chargers that will charge the vehicles fast enough for freight. The logistics _might_ work to be able to have enough of those chargers such that it won't negatively impact operations.

There's a lot of uncertainty and assumptions about delivery of the technology that people are making. If we know that renewables are cheap but we don't know that batteries will ever be cheap or very energy dense, and we know that seasonal challenges exist even for battery storage, I think it's crazy to ignore fuel synthesis And if we have improvement in fuel synthesis then we'd have fuel available for other uses.

And I'll repeat: efficiency doesn't matter if the energy is free. It's the conversion process that matters. If you're synthesizing methane you make it from water and carbon dioxide and the carbon intensity would be related to fuel loss.
 
Small mobile fuel burning engines are extremely inefficient. In every single application, batteries already beat them on TCO. This is why city bus operators are replacing CNG buses with battery buses. Dump trucks, mining tucks, excavators, motorcycles, everything.

There is probably a future for fuel synthesis, but not for mobile engines. For heating fuel, most likely. For stationary generators, perhaps. Not for mobile engines. This is a settled question. Even for airplanes and ships the batteries have better TCO. (The ships have reduced cargo capacity which makes it a close thing and the larger airplanes simply can't fly with enough batteries, but small increases in volumetric and gravimetric energy density respectively will fix that. And I do mean small increases; they will happen soon.)
 
Small mobile fuel burning engines are extremely inefficient. In every single application, batteries already beat them on TCO. This is why city bus operators are replacing CNG buses with battery buses. Dump trucks, mining tucks, excavators, motorcycles, everything.

There is probably a future for fuel synthesis, but not for mobile engines. For heating fuel, most likely. For stationary generators, perhaps. Not for mobile engines. This is a settled question. Even for airplanes and ships the batteries have better TCO. (The ships have reduced cargo capacity which makes it a close thing and the larger airplanes simply can't fly with enough batteries, but small increases in volumetric and gravimetric energy density respectively will fix that. And I do mean small increases; they will happen soon.)

Every article I read about buses includes the word "grant". As far as I know, Shenzhen's buses were all subsidized as well. It's grants and subsidies that are making BEV buses cheaper for now.

So the answer is _maybe_. We don't know what the costs of batteries will be in 5, 10 or more years time. We don't know how energy dense they will be. Even if we have dense or cheap batteries, we don't know how much dense and cheap batteries will be.

And, we still have the overall energy supply problem, which it what currently seems likely to need some fuel synthesis, and we don't know how much the synthesis will cost.

And let me repeat: if the energy is free, it doesn't matter if it's inefficient. Cost = energy price x efficiency + cost of process. So if the energy is very cheap (and there is very cheap energy available and likely to be available in a renewable-heavy future) it's the process cost that matters. We don't know what the process cost would or will be.

Right now in most places, the only reason it would be more expensive to operate an ICEV or HEV compared to a BEV is additional fuel taxes and subsidies. If you were running vehicles on synthesized CNG pollution-based justification for the fuel taxes and subsidies would largely be eliminated.
 
All city buses are purchased with grants, even the diesel ones. Learn what you're reading about.

And how do the grants compare?

You are simply flat out wrong about the unsubsidized costs of ICEV vs. CNGV vs. BEV and I am not going to do your homework for you.

There are 25 million CNG vehicles in use around the world and they're used because they're cheaper to run on CNG than petroleum-based fuels. It's not because of subsidy.

CNGVs significantly reduce hydrocarbon, NOx and particulate emissions.

Some of the additional costs of CNGVs are because of economies of scale, which is one of the arguments people give for why BEVs will become cheaper over time.

Synthesized methane would be produced using CO2, which would leave leakage as the primary challenge.

I wish people would stop acting as if the success of BEVs is a done deal. It isn't.
 
They're _trying_ to build the Tesla Semi, which will _maybe_ _at some point_ have high-powered chargers that will charge the vehicles fast enough for freight. The logistics _might_ work to be able to have enough of those chargers such that it won't negatively impact operations.

It's not even a question, it's all happening. It's simply scaling up what has already been done with the S/X and supercharging network. Even easier because most trucking uses the same routes over and over again.
 
And let me repeat: if the energy is free, it doesn't matter if it's inefficient.
You can keep repeating it but that won't make it true. Energy is never free, there are always technologies involved in harnessing it and converting it to something useful. Inefficiencies in conversion increases the costs.
 
You can keep repeating it but that won't make it true. Energy is never free, there are always technologies involved in harnessing it and converting it to something useful. Inefficiencies in conversion increases the costs.

There are periods during which electricity prices are extremely low, even _negative_, _now_.
More cheap renewables will mean more oversupply, meaning more cheap energy available.
Cheaper energy lowers the cost of inefficiency. 2 x very cheap is still cheap.
It's not going to be the energy costs that will be the challenge.

BEV costs, particularly those of batteries, need to come much further, and longer-distance heavy road freight needs to overcome the limitations of slow refueling. Megachargers are a nice idea, but they'll need a lot of them, especially in colder conditions.
 
Hopefully this will stay as it is. Environmentally BEVs don’t make much sense. And there is not enough electricity capacity (fossil or regenerative) to cover the need of millions of electric cars.

Someone may have brought this up, but the grid is built to handle peak maximum demand. For large parts of the day, the peaking units sit idle waiting for demand to go up. If electric cars were mostly charging during off peak times, there is plenty of capacity to handle most if not all that will be on the road over the next decade or two.

Another thing that most people don't think about is it takes between 4KW and 12KWh of energy to refine 1 gallon of gasoline. The sources differ on the exact amount and it almost certainly varies depending on the grade of oil going in. With modern oil supplies, it's probably closer to 10 KWh on average. Almost all that energy comes off the grid. If we're refining less gasoline, that's around 10KWh per gallon available for something else, like charging EVs.

On top of that, there is a boom going on in renewable energy that will increase overall capacity faster than electric cars will be adopted. I don't believe renewables will completely replace older energy sources because the energy per sq m of space for all renewables except hydro is much lower than any conventional power plant and while solar panels on houses will help, there are places which are going to need more energy than can be generated on site. However, the dirtier, more expensive power plants will probably be shutting down in favor of better sources.

Robert Llewellyn's Fully Charged did an episode where he talked about the strain on the grid if every car in Britain was electric and when the numbers were run, it could be done with the existing grid as long as most cars charged off peak.

On the other side of the equation is the work of Caimbridge Physics professor David MacKay who unfortunately died, but he argued that while he was all in favor of maximizing renewables, they wouldn't be the answer for all our energy needs and we will need something to supplement. Modern civilization simply needs too much energy per person. He estimated it was 250 KWh/day/person in the US and about 150 KWh/day/person in the UK (and most of western Europe was similar). I've done some research on my own and the US is down to around 220 KWh/day/person. Americans currently burn about 50 KWh/day/person in gasoline (including refining). If Americans replaced gasoline cars with electrics and drove the same, it would probably drop us down to the 180-190 range. But it would shift some burden from oil to the grid.

MacKay does make the point that each country's energy situation is different. There is not enough open land or sunlight in the UK to go solar practically, but it's very feasible in the American Southwest where there is a lot of vacant land and lots of sunlight. Norway, Quebec, and the American Northwest have plentiful hydro power, but in places that are flatter and/or drier, that's not possible.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: replicant