Batteries VS Fuel

[nozferatu]

I was wasting time last night while watching TV and decided to run a few calculations in regards to fuel energy density, CO2 emissions per mile, etc versus a battery powered EV such as the Spark.

So the benchmark I used was my own car...a 2012 Fiat 500 Sport. I have 18K miles on it and have gotten 38.8 MPG overall.

Basic Information:

1 gallon of fuel = 33.7kwh
1 gallon of fuel = 20 lbs of CO2
1 gallon of fuel = 6.3 lbs

21 kWh battery pack for Spark EV
85 mile range on average for Spark EV

1-2 lb of CO2 per kWh in the US - so let's average it and say 1.5 lbs CO2 per kWh. (this will change considerably I suppose depending on your city and how it generates/gets electricity.

So let's start:

FIAT 500:

38.8 miles per gallon = 1.15 miles per kWh

38.8 miles per gallon = 145 g CO2 per KM

11.5 gallon tank = 388 kWh

SPARK EV:

85 miles per 21 kWh = 4.04 miles per kWh

4.04 miles per kWh = 136.1 miles per gallon

136.1 miles per gallon = 41.5 g CO2 per KM

However, to charge:

21 kWh charging creates 31.5 lbs CO2

In terms of grams CO2 per KM this translates to:

104.5 g CO2 per KM.

GENERAL COMPARISONS:

So in terms of energy expenditure to move the vehicles:

4.04/1.15 = 3.15 - EV is 3.15 times more efficient in using the same amount of energy.

In terms of energy density:

1 gallon of fuel = 6.3 lbs

So fuel has 5.34 kWh/lb density

In comparison, the Spark EV's batteries have:

21kWh/650lbs = 0.032 kWh/lb

Ratio of Fuel to Battery:

166

Per pound fuel contains 166 times more energy than these particular batteries do.

It is clear where the shortcomings of batteries lie.

However, it's also clear how much more efficient it is to propel a vehicle using electricity than burning fuel.

Of course the overall environmental impact of using an EV isn't as clear as it seems given where power generation to charge the vehicle may be coming from.

My city of Burbank does relatively well with a good mix of renewables, hydro, and the worst being coal. This doesn't factor in any losses. Perhaps someone can add/correct/whatever to these calcs. It was late so pardon the errors.

 

[Oberon]

With gas you also need to factor in the energy for production and transportation, ie the drilling, pumping, shipping, refinery, trucking etc. As I recall from other discussions this is on the order of 25%. I'd also add a certain amount for the millitary and the oil wars.

 

[nozferatu]

With gas you also need to factor in the energy for production and transportation, ie the drilling, pumping, shipping, refinery, trucking etc. As I recall from other discussions this is on the order of 25%. I'd also add a certain amount for the millitary and the oil wars.

That's true...but it's very hard to do so with that calculation as the factors are very numerous and difficult to measure.

Once battery energy density approaches or is similar to fuel, it will be a game changer...perhaps even then...a ratio of 10 or 20 to 1 will make a huge impact.

 

[buickanddeere]

Once battery energy density approaches or is similar to fuel, it will be a game changer...perhaps even then...a ratio of 10 or 20 to 1 will make a huge impact.[/quote]


The only way a battery will approach diesel fuel's energy per pound and volume. If if the Almighty re-writes the laws of physics and chemistry. Or somebody figures out quantum mechanics and extracts energy from the atom in a "non" nuclear way.

 

[nozferatu]

The only way a battery will approach diesel fuel's energy per pound and volume. If if the Almighty re-writes the laws of physics and chemistry. Or somebody figures out quantum mechanics and extracts energy from the atom in a "non" nuclear way.

It's already being done. It'll happen much sooner than you think and there's no need for an Almighty.

 

[gra]

The only way a battery will approach diesel fuel's energy per pound and volume. If if the Almighty re-writes the laws of physics and chemistry. Or somebody figures out quantum mechanics and extracts energy from the atom in a "non" nuclear way.

It's already being done. It'll happen much sooner than you think and there's no need for an Almighty.

Indeed, there's no need for a battery to equal the energy densities of gas or diesel, given the much higher overall efficiency of an electric powertrain. A specific energy of about 1-1.5 kWh/kg will be enough for almost all applications, vs, the ca. 12kwH/kg. of gas. We're nowhere near that yet. It will probably take something like Lithium-air to get us there, which is likely at least a decade away. But we seem to be within a few years of commercialization of considerable improvements via LiSi or LiS, probably making use of nanotubes.

Edited to correct "1-1.5 kW/kg." typo to 1-1.5 kWh/kg.

 

[nozferatu]

Indeed, there's no need for a battery to equal the energy densities of gas or diesel, given the much higher overall efficiency of an electric powertrain. A specific energy of about 1-1.5 kW/kg will be enough for almost all applications, vs, the ca. 12kwH/kg. of gas. We're nowhere near that yet. It will probably take something like Lithium-air to get us there, which is likely at least a decade away. But we seem to be within a few years of commercialization of considerable improvements via LiSi or LiS, probably making use of nanotubes.

Bingo...you hit the nail on the head.

Even in current form, comparing my Spark EV for example to what I was driving before...an Fiat 500 Sport, and driving in similar fashions for both vehicles (i.e. to conserve fuel per say), the Spark EV comes out to being about 500% more efficient than the Fiat, and I was getting almost 38 MPG with that thing overall.....1.1 miles per kWh versus 5.5 for my Spark.

I can't say how soon things will progress but just as in O&G, if enough money and investing and cahonas from the pioneers are thrown at this problem, I'd even say before the decade is up, we'll be seeing cars with 200 mile range or more at affordable prices.

 

[buickanddeere]

Decreasing vehicle rolling resistance, decreasing weight and improving aerodynamics improves diesel and gasoline mileage too.
Back to the topic of energy storage density. A pound of lithium has "x" number of atoms and electrons free to move. You can no more cram more energy into 1lb of lithium than you an jam 3 gallons of diesel fuel into a one gallon container.
We have passed the point of economical improvements in batteries. Further increases in energy density are rather small . at a great $$$ increase in materials andmanufacturing . higher energy densities can be achieved with highly toxic or molten metal batteries . That I would hesitate to sit upon or park in my garage.
More charging stations would be of benefit instead of making batteries five to ten times more expensive. Or hold ones nose and accept an onboard petrol powered range extender for emergencies.

 

[nozferatu]

Decreasing vehicle rolling resistance, decreasing weight and improving aerodynamics improves diesel and gasoline mileage too.
Back to the topic of energy storage density. A pound of lithium has "x" number of atoms and electrons free to move. You can no more cram more energy into 1lb of lithium than you an jam 3 gallons of diesel fuel into a one gallon container.
We have passed the point of economical improvements in batteries. Further increases in energy density are rather small . at a great $$$ increase in materials andmanufacturing . higher energy densities can be achieved with highly toxic or molten metal batteries . That I would hesitate to sit upon or park in my garage.
More charging stations would be of benefit instead of making batteries five to ten times more expensive. Or hold ones nose and accept an onboard petrol powered range extender for emergencies.

Batteries are going to be cheaper and cheaper and material costs going to go down. It's a fact of life....that's what's going to happen just like it's happened for just about everything else.

We've not even come close to the point of economic improvements in batteries...what on earth are you talking about? It's barely started and the breakthroughs in material technology are going to change the way batteries are made and designed. What's hit a wall is the efficiency of burning fuels...now we are down to incremental 1% improvements and even less...fuel advantages are going nowhere and the expenses and hazards of drilling and going to war are, and have, far outweigh and have outweighed, respectively, the benefits of using fuels.

Sorry but the battery world doesn't start and stop at litium...there are so many new and cool battery technologies emerging I've lost count. Power density means nothing without efficiency.

 

[buickanddeere]

Batteries are going to be cheaper and cheaper and material costs going to go down. It's a fact of life....that's what's going to happen just like it's happened for just about everything else.

We've not even come close to the point of economic improvements in batteries...what on earth are you talking about? It's barely started and the breakthroughs in material technology are going to change the way batteries are made and designed. What's hit a wall is the efficiency of burning fuels...now we are down to incremental 1% improvements and even less...fuel advantages are going nowhere and the expenses and hazards of drilling and going to war are, and have, far outweigh and have outweighed, respectively, the benefits of using fuels.

Sorry but the battery world doesn't start and stop at lithium...there are so many new and cool battery technologies emerging I've lost count. Power density means nothing without efficiency.

I some real life experience with various different types of batteries. I don't want to dampen anybody's enthusiasm but the latest and greatest lithium batteries were setting very expensive Boeing aircraft on fire.
I hear people all the time talking about the next great improvement in battery storage or photo voltaic panels. Sorry folks but the low hanging fruit was picked quit some time ago . There will be a few percent improvements here and there but no 50,100 or 300% improvement in storage density.
The improvements are at a point of diminishing returns where one has to weigh the high additional costs for small capacity increases.
Again many of these wonder batteries are very $$$, very toxic, made of rare compounds or are molten hot.
I'm not being a nay sayer, just trying to keep everybody's expectations within the laws of physics. Just because we see the tech on Star Trek doesn't mean in the real world it's just time and money in a research lab away.
Finding better batteries is like 1880 era farmers breeding better horses. There are limitations. We will have to find energy storage as different as a horse is different from a 57 Chevy.

 

[nozferatu]

Batteries are going to be cheaper and cheaper and material costs going to go down. It's a fact of life....that's what's going to happen just like it's happened for just about everything else.

We've not even come close to the point of economic improvements in batteries...what on earth are you talking about? It's barely started and the breakthroughs in material technology are going to change the way batteries are made and designed. What's hit a wall is the efficiency of burning fuels...now we are down to incremental 1% improvements and even less...fuel advantages are going nowhere and the expenses and hazards of drilling and going to war are, and have, far outweigh and have outweighed, respectively, the benefits of using fuels.

Sorry but the battery world doesn't start and stop at lithium...there are so many new and cool battery technologies emerging I've lost count. Power density means nothing without efficiency.

I some real life experience with various different types of batteries. I don't want to dampen anybody's enthusiasm but the latest and greatest lithium batteries were setting very expensive Boeing aircraft on fire.
I hear people all the time talking about the next great improvement in battery storage or photo voltaic panels. Sorry folks but the low hanging fruit was picked quit some time ago . There will be a few percent improvements here and there but no 50,100 or 300% improvement in storage density.
The improvements are at a point of diminishing returns where one has to weigh the high additional costs for small capacity increases.
Again many of these wonder batteries are very $$$, very toxic, made of rare compounds or are molten hot.
I'm not being a nay sayer, just trying to keep everybody's expectations within the laws of physics. Just because we see the tech on Star Trek doesn't mean in the real world it's just time and money in a research lab away.
Finding better batteries is like 1880 era farmers breeding better horses. There are limitations. We will have to find energy storage as different as a horse is different from a 57 Chevy.

It has nothing to do with Star Trek...it has to do with reality. Things are improving at rates that I don't think you are fully aware of. You are about 10 years behind the curve frankly.

 

[buickanddeere]

I have to ask with all due respect. What is your technical knowledge and hand on experience with batteries ?

 

[nozferatu]

I have to ask with all due respect. What is your technical knowledge and hand on experience with batteries ?

No worries. I was in the battery and electronics packaging field for 14 years as a mechanical engineer primarily in product development and R&D. I no longer design packaging and products as I left the field to do other things however.

 

[gra]

Decreasing vehicle rolling resistance, decreasing weight and improving aerodynamics improves diesel and gasoline mileage too.
Back to the topic of energy storage density. A pound of lithium has "x" number of atoms and electrons free to move. You can no more cram more energy into 1lb of lithium than you an jam 3 gallons of diesel fuel into a one gallon container.

Uh huh, you can attach far more lithium ions to each Si or S atom than is possible with the current Carbon anodes. For a popular account of what's happening in Li-Si, Li-S and Lithium-air (such as IBM's 'Battery 500' program) as of 2011, see "Bottled Lightning: Superbatteries, Electric Cars and the New Lithium Economy" by Seth Fletcher. Or look at the numerous articles you can find at green car congress on the battery link, such as:

"RPI researchers develop safe, long-cycling Li-metal rechargeable battery electrode; demonstrate Li-carbon battery"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/batteries/index.html

Of course, most of these will never make it out of the lab for one reason or another, but there's a tremendous amount of development underway, and we're already starting to see Li-Si appear.

We have passed the point of economical improvements in batteries. Further increases in energy density are rather small . at a great $$$ increase in materials andmanufacturing . higher energy densities can be achieved with highly toxic or molten metal batteries . That I would hesitate to sit upon or park in my garage.
More charging stations would be of benefit instead of making batteries five to ten times more expensive. Or hold ones nose and accept an onboard petrol powered range extender for emergencies.

Obviously, there are lots of labs and scientists who disagree that "we have passed the point of of economical improvements in batteries."

 

[buickanddeere]

As I said. The cost of production rises much faster than the storage capacity.
in order to store energy and be able to release and absorb that energy rapidly . The battery chemical composition must be very "reactive". Just how aggressive and reactive are the chemicals you are comfortable sitting on top of ? More current in a smaller package is a thermal problem. Less thermal inertia and how to dissipate that heat energy.
Performance comes at the cost of long term reliability as well. As an analogy.Battery compositions and construction vary from being as exciting and reliable as a pickup truck engine. To as powerful, long lived and as reliable as a Top Fuel Nitro Methane dragster engine.
Again energy density no mater how you interface the reactive anode and cathode plus the electrolyte. Capacity ultimately comes down to how many cubic feet of volume and how many pounds of reactive chemicals that are carried to store energy.
Once again, most folk see the technology on Star Trek and figure it's just a matter of time until we have everything Seven of Nine had at her disposal.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Obviously, there are lots of labs and scientists who disagree that "we have passed the point of of economical improvements in batteries."

Reminds me of a common quip, circa 1900:

"All the things that could be invented have been invented."

 

[StevesWeb]

Whether superior batteries are about to be invented or not is moot as far as I'm concerned. I bought the car I identified as least likely to harm my favorite planet, and your opinion of the technology it uses has no effect on the car I bought.

I have a giant lithium battery, it works. It has a warranty.

 

[nozferatu]

Whether superior batteries are about to be invented or not is moot as far as I'm concerned. I bought the car I identified as least likely to harm my favorite planet, and your opinion of the technology it uses has no effect on the car I bought.

I have a giant lithium battery, it works. It has a warranty.

LOL

 

[nozferatu]

As I said. The cost of production rises much faster than the storage capacity.
in order to store energy and be able to release and absorb that energy rapidly . The battery chemical composition must be very "reactive". Just how aggressive and reactive are the chemicals you are comfortable sitting on top of ? More current in a smaller package is a thermal problem. Less thermal inertia and how to dissipate that heat energy.
Performance comes at the cost of long term reliability as well. As an analogy.Battery compositions and construction vary from being as exciting and reliable as a pickup truck engine. To as powerful, long lived and as reliable as a Top Fuel Nitro Methane dragster engine.
Again energy density no mater how you interface the reactive anode and cathode plus the electrolyte. Capacity ultimately comes down to how many cubic feet of volume and how many pounds of reactive chemicals that are carried to store energy.
Once again, most folk see the technology on Star Trek and figure it's just a matter of time until we have everything Seven of Nine had at her disposal.

Once again, you are out of touch with reality and mixing Sci-Fi with what you think are the real limits.

I'm afraid it's just not the case.

 

[buickanddeere]

Whether superior batteries are about to be invented or not is moot as far as I'm concerned. I bought the car I identified as least likely to harm my favorite planet, and your opinion of the technology it uses has no effect on the car I bought.
I have a giant lithium battery, it works. It has a warranty.

Of course it works and has warranty. The design and manufacture is not on the ragged edge of possibilities :ugeek: . Just don't be expecting Star Trek tech until if or when somebody can harness the Higgs Bosom particles and its ilk.
As for saving your favourite planet, oh please..... :roll: Go plug a belching volcano,talk to the termites about their methane production and feed beano to cows :lol: . The tiny Minuscule bit of difference an electric vehicle makes as it's being charged from a fossil plant is mute. Still mute if charged via a wind turbine and PV panels.
The gain of an electric car is the low fuel cost and it's a great pickup line with ladies . As for the ecological self righteous waving their flag for attention and status above the ignorant polluting peasants. I know just the place for your flag :twisted: .
I'm just looking to cut $200 a week off the fuel bill from the household driving once the 2015 EV is on the market here. The warm fuzzy feeling and good intentions doesn't over come the laws of physics.
I already alluded earlier here and on other posts days ago. Of how a change in thinking :idea: is required in energy storage. Something different , at least as different as the horse is from the 57 Chevy is required. Your "everything was invented by 1900" is a line of silliness that I never said, believed or implied.