Oil Sands versus EVs

[woodgeek]

Came across an interesting article....

http://www.hybridcars.com/the-oil-sands-surprising-new-nemesis-plug-in-vehicles/

It points out that producing every gallon of Alberta's finest, syncrude gasoline, uses an amount of electricity and natural gas equivalent to 13 kWh/gallon (if the NG is converted to kWh).

The article then points out that existing EVs would travel ~40 miles using just the process energy required to make a gallon of syn-gasoline. (I'm no hypermiler, and my leaf would get >50 miles.)

So, from an energy services POV, you could get the same output (passenger car miles) just putting the elec and gas into powering the EV, while leaving the bitumen in the ground. And obviously, reducing CO2 emissions by 70% or so.

Makes sense to me, since the EROEI ratio for syncrude is ~3, and EV's use about 1/3 to 1/4 the energy per mile of gaswagons.

Given the low EROEI of corn ethanol, a similar argument might be possible there too...

 

[begreen]

Yup. Oil is still around, but it is requiring much more exotic and expensive means to extract it. Thus the rush to get it piped to coastal refineries ( Keystone XL) so that it can be sold overseas at the highest price.

 

[woodgeek]

Looked up corn ethanol....

If we assume the process heat is again NG, and converts to kWh at 40% eff, about 6 kWh of elec (equivalent) is needed per gallon of ethanol for current 'typical practice'. Of course, EtOH only has 2/3rds the BTU content of syn-gasoline, so the 20-24 driving miles I would get from their process energy might still be competitive with burning the EtOH in an ICE car.

So, not only does just using the process energy from making corn ethanol suffice to propel an EV car nearly as far as the ethanol does, if you switched, you would still have the corn to sell as feed afterwards. ( I am aware that byproducts of fermentation still have residual value as animal feed)

Why are burning food again now?

 

[semipro]

Why are burning food again now?

The enlightened of today ask that.
In the not-to-distant future I believe we'll be asking the same the same thing about fossil fuels, especially those that are particularly valuable as chemical feedstocks.

edit: this reminded me of something else: I wonder if we are capturing all the helium that is extracted with the natural gas. Once released to the atmosphere, helium is eventually lost to space.

 

[jebatty]

It gets even more interesting. Process energy of 13kwh/gal = 44,300 btus. One gallon of gasoline has 114,000 btu's, and the thermal efficiency of gasoline car engines is about 25%, which means about 28,500 of gasoline btus power the car and the balance is lost as heat. I assume the efficiency of the electric motors in an EV is in the high 90% range, which means about 40,000+ btu equivalent kwh power the car: a 40+% improvement in use of energy to motion.

The only real "benefit" of gasoline is stored energy density, and that benefit should disappear fairly soon as battery/storage technology continues to improve

 

[woodgeek]

The original link above described what we are doing now as akin to 'Feeding bread to cows instead of grain'. IIRC this actually happened sometimes in the ol' Soviet Union (bread was subsidized). Its only good for the 'baker', in this case the FF companies and ethanol refiners.

What we are doing is also pretty rough on the atmosphere, the climate, and the lands of Alberta and Iowa. For no technically necessary purpose re delivering more passenger miles.

Here's hoping that the efficient marketplace works this out in the next 10 or 20 years.

 

[woodgeek]

The only real "benefit" of gasoline is stored energy density, and that benefit should disappear fairly soon as battery/storage technology continues to improve

Indeed, we are effectively using syn-gasoline, syn-diesel and corn ethanol in ICEs as 'single charge' chemical batteries to store energy from NG and electricity. And both processes emit net CO2, nanocarbon pollution, and carcinogens while depleting or damaging some very large chunks of real estate.

Seems to make more sense to build/use actual batteries that can be recharged >1000 times with no vehicle emissions (and then recycled afterwards).

 

[woodgeek]

Along the same lines....

this video (from the UK) reports that merely refining a gallon of conventional oil requires something like 4 kWh of electricity.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So, I can get my (roomy, 5-seater) leaf about 16 miles using just the process electricity to refine a gallon of conventional gas (and perhaps not using the conventional crude oil at all), further perhaps than many vehicles (older F-150, suburban??) on the road would get effectively burning the oil AND consuming the refining process electricity.

On a more concrete level, some critics say that the grid would not be able to handle the additional loads produced by a significant switch to EVs. In fact, this thread suggests that the switch, if accompanied by a reduction in oil refining and ethanol production, could be net neutral to the (national level) grid re kWh load!

 

[Ashful]

On a more concrete level, some critics say that the grid would not be able to handle the additional loads produced by a significant switch to EVs. In fact, this thread suggests that the switch, if accompanied by a reduction in oil refining and ethanol production, could be net neutral to the (national level) grid re kWh load!

Most grid utilization bottlenecks are regional, not national scale. But I agree with your argument, even if not that last bit of reasoning.

I suspect the rising popularity of EVs will simply simply translate to a return of off-peak monitoring and pricing, which mostly disappeared from our area in the 1980's. Charge your car at 2am, as incentivized by lower kWh rates, when grid utilization is lowest.

 

[woodgeek]

Indeed. Turns out that Li-ion batteries age much faster when at 100% SOC than when <80%. So we use the timer built-in to the car to charge around 4-6 AM, which could add years to its longevity versus charging every day to 100% by 6PM.

Edit for @Joful: the last bit above should be 'nearly net neutral for grid energy at a national level', i.e. new plants would not have to be constructed, nor would existing plants have to run much more overall, if decreased petroleum refinery demands for kWh and NG were realized.

Peak power loads, especially on local residential grids, could change a lot...but would presumably be trivially manageable by having folks charge at night, with a 'random start' timer, etc.

 

[jebatty]

Can't cheer too much when comparing gasoline to electricity. Coal-fired electric averages only about 34% thermal efficiency in converting coal energy to electricity, although higher efficiencies are possible with advanced technologies. But even at 34%, electric motor efficiency likely does better than converting gasoline at 25% thermal efficiency. I didn't check to see the EROI for coal, nor did I include other losses, especially transmission line losses (10-15% in the US). And for gasoline, also have to add in pipeline, tanker, and storage tank costs. And for both coal and gasoline, have to add in the environmental costs, social costs, health costs, etc. So, I guess no matter how the pie is made or cut, electricity for vehicles comes out way ahead on all fronts -- especially as soon as storage technology improves.

 

[Ashful]

Jebatty, the increased load of high populations of EV cars charging at off-peak hours may result in a larger portion of overall usage coming from our existing nukes. As I understand it, they can't be throttled with a time constant of less than a day, so are currently run close to seasonal base load, with (locally) coal filling in the gap to peak load. If base load increases...

 

[woodgeek]

Can't cheer too much when comparing gasoline to electricity.

Indeed. E.g. Driving 23 miles in my gaswagon will require 1 gallon of gasoline AND 4 kWh of grid electricity (at the refinery). Driving 23 miles on my EV will use 23/3.9 = 5.9 kWh of electricity, only 50% more electricity than the gaswagon. And I can source my kWh from a RE source—I doubt the refinery does that.

 

[jebatty]

Coal remains primary in our area. WG, my point on electricity from coal was that to produce that 5.9 kwh of electricity, the coal fired plant burned another about 11.8 kwh equivalent of coal at the plant. We fully agree on sourcing from RE. Our home energy use now is about net-zero, and the next goal will be to get the transportation on its way to net-zero.

 

[woodgeek]

We agree. We could say that a gallon of gas also contains coal!