Replies

Unless we embrace small modular nuclear reactors EV is a joke. Many types of the small modular reactors seem viable like thorium or pebble bed helium or molten salt, but try and get the public to accept them. The only viable renewable is hydro, and that relies on the primary flood control or water source reasons to build the projects, not the ancillary power generation.

Too much copper needed to widely distribute the huge amounts of power that will be needed for EV. Charging a car needs about the same amount of power 4 houses need for a day so lets do look at some facts.

286.9 million cars in the US. 750 KWH required to drive a Tesla Model 3 Standard 100 miles a day for a month.

35.74 quadrillion BTU's of electric production in the US per year out of a total of 92.9 qBTU of total energy produced.

1 kWh = 3412.14163312794 BTU so 2559106 BTU per car per month or 30,709,274 BTU per year (30 mBTU per car)

1 quadrillion = 1 with 15 0's 1 million = 1 with 6 0's

Look at the chart. Lets not ignore the electrical distribution losses of 65%. No matter how you slice and dice it when you add in the 65% distro loss it just does not work to move from ICE to EV unless you make a hell of a lot more electricity, and I mean an order of magnitude more.

I agree generally, especially that in the long run safe nuclear is going to be required. However, your chart, on digging into its source data, is somewhat misleading and does not support the claim that there are 65% transmission losses.

The chart was based on data from a government report
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf which
states ( Note 1, p50) “Most of these losses occur at steam‐electric power plants (conventional and nuclear) in the conversion of heat energy into mechanical energy to turn electric generators. The loss is a thermodynamically necessary feature of the steam‐electric cycle.”

In other words industrial generation and transmission is scored as 35 % efficient. For an apples to apples comparison, the internal combustion engine is typically 20% efficient, not even counting distribution energy use, e.g. powering the tanker trucks.

So they show gasoline engine fossil fuel use as a direct line from fossil fuel source to transportation use, and neglect the conversion inefficiency but the line that goes through the grid does include the thermochemical conversion losses of 80%.(20% efficient).

It should also be noted that the battery powered electric car requires an additional conversion of electrical to chemical stored energy and back which also wastes some energy which is also not scored. That step is 80-90% efficient for Li ion batteries.

But thanks for a good point and interesting data!

Here's an option.

Co-Gen power-generation unit aka kind of a Generac on Steroid's for your home. Natural Gas is prevalent in much of the country underground to your homes, distribution, check. Add said generator and liquid cool the engine and create a heat exchanger loop for the hot water heater, and if you want the turbocharger. A heat pump powered from the generator with a thermal mass (liquid) constant temp for the condenser vs it sitting outside for colder climates. It totally powers your home and charges your EV.

My engines of choice are the Erickson Engine or the Liquid Piston engine, although their low thermal losses would take my liquid cooling/turbo scenario and possibly make it less feasible .

http://ericksonmotors.com/

https://www.liquidpiston.com/

BTW I am very pro-Nuclear.

Keep an Eye on Canada, they are way ahead of us with Gen 4 Small/Micro Reactors. To many companies and different approaches to mention here, that's another thread.