ICE with kerb weight of 2295 kg compared to EV with kerb weight of 2148 kg
electricity consumption per 100 kilometres is 46.2 kWh compared to 16.4 kWh
I’m sorry I don’t see were those figures come from.
mark_m asked for real figures.
These are real figures from two of our vehicles (we track our kilometres and consumption)
1 Like
For local driving, people who have an EV plug it in at home or work (or even their favourite shopping centre). We plug in at home and as we already had solar PV which was always in credit and still is in credit we are paying nothing extra.
On road trips so far we have used DC chargers along major roads that are free to use, and AC chargers at accommodation etc places that are free for customers.
To be sure we knew how to use a DC charger that charges a fee we tried one out once; the cost was $0.40 per kWh (dearer than $0.2333 per kWh that electricity costs at home before it is offset by our PV).
If we were paying $0.40 per kWh (which we aren’t) our EV’s consumption rate per 100km would translate to $16.40 per 100km, compared to our similar size & weight ICE vehicle that costs $30.80 for petrol (average city price for RON 91 at the moment) to cover 100km (or costs more if we use higher RON fuel) and don’t forget the ICE also requires electricity to get the fuel to the tank (depending on location of the oil well some of the electricity may be consumed overseas or not, but globally it still is consumed to get the fossil fuel from-well-to-tank). The trend for fossil fuel prices is that they go up from year to year, compared to how electricity prices are now going down.
Real life situations and figures.
1 Like
I can point you to a e-vehicle that uses around 14.7 kWh per 100 km & weighs 1420 kg
or for a car that uses 16.7 kWh per 100 km and weighs in at around 1,650 kg
And a Commodore 3.6 litre engine vehicle uses between 9.3 and 10.9 L/100km and has a kerb weight between 1,690–1,825 kg (3,726–4,023 lb).
Then for conversion of L to kWh
From https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/oee/pdf/transportation/tools/fuelratings/2018%20Fuel%20Consumption%20Guide.pdf
“To help you compare vehicles that use electricity, a conversion factor is used to convert electrical energy consumption values, expressed in kilowatt hours per 100 kilometres (kWh/100 km), into gasoline litres equivalent per 100 kilometres (Le/100 km).One litre of gasoline contains the energy equivalent to 8.9 kWh of electricity.”
So a Commodore that weighs comparable to an e-Kona you have fuel to kWh usage per 100 km (using 9.5 L/100 km average) of 84.55
Using a more efficient small engine vehicle with an average of about 6 L/100 km (so more in the size of an Ioniq for comparison) you have around 53.4 kWh.
If a very efficient ICE with usage around 5 L/100 km you get 44.5 kWh
Even if you just use the the energy quoted by @vombatis just to get the fuel into the tank of the ICE of 2.1 kWh per litre in the same kerb side weight range of the e-Kona you have 19.95 kWh of energy (9.5 L/100km) just used to get it to the vehicle to drive the 100 km.
This does not take into account the amount of CO2 saved by using a BEV compared to an Carbon fuelled ICE, even if the BEV is recharged using Grid provided energy.
Smaller ICE vehicles could come in under the usage of BEVs per 100km when using the energy cost to get the fuel to the pump but they certainly would not be better environmentally. There are figures already showing the LCOD (lifetime cost of driving) of EVs starting to undercut ICE vehicles.
This from the Canadian Energy Regulator
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/snpsht/2019/06-01lvlzdcstsdrvng-eng.html?fbclid=IwAR25_1poBYQ6cg8fFgs7oOybtoTOFwBfGEHzzTpD88jb06KW4hhBdJ5j-zI
Our car uses much less petrol per 100km than yours it seems, are you sure the petrol cost is $30.80 per 100km or did you mean per tank??. Our average per 100km is $11.92 for petrol plus our 10,000 km service is flat fee at $220 so per 100km that adds $2.20 for a total of $14.12 per 100km.
By my calculations if you use 16.4 kWh per 100 km the electricity cost even at $0.40 per kWh would only be $6.56 per 100 km and at the $0.2333 rate it would be $3.83 (rounded up). My calculations were based on a usage of 7.4 kWh a day @mark_m calculated above and the equivalent a ICE car travelled a day ie 32.87 km or nearly 1/3 of 100 km so about 1.64 L/day for a 5L/100 km consumption (average figures used here for daily usages for both ICE and EV). This is why they are nearly a break even on a daily basis consideration. If your kWh usage is much less than 22 kWh per 100 km in an EV the savings are much greater. Tesla’s high performance vehicles eg Model S still use around that 22 kWh/100km. Of course if an ICE vehicle uses around 10 L/100 km then an EV starts to look marvellous as the 1.64 litres would become 3.3 L/day so a cost of $4.82 per day or $33.72 per 7 day week compared to an EV cost of $13.46 per 7 day week.
It appears there are two similar but different points of discussion here.
-
One is adding to the justification for a BEV a hidden component of electricity used in producing and delivering a hydrocarbon fuel. The suggestion is that the electricity used to produce and deliver the fuel is significant. It is suggest it is greater than an EV might use in travelling the same distance.
-
The second is a discussion of the relative energy efficiency and cost benefits of a BEV when compared with a conventional ICE hydrocarbon fueled vehicle.
Is it really worth a prolonged discussion of either?
The environmental comparison, assuming your BEV is recharged mainly at home from solar PV or when away from similar green energy sources is hopefully well understood. One is much worse for the environment than the other.
Discussion of Point One
For the first point, is it too easy to pick from a wide range of example vehicles?
The answer will be different in every instance. We could compare an Audi S4 with a Tesla Model S. An Audi S4 7.7-7.8 l/100km combined cycle fuel economy.
Based on the 2.1kWh per litre electrical energy cost to provide the fuel, this minor input works out at just over 16kWh per 100km for that ICE example. Not that different to the BEV noted and perhaps less than some quoted data for a a Tesla Model S.
Does this matter to the average purchaser?
Irrespective of how or where the 2.1kWh per litre number comes from, if I could afford a BEV in place of an ICE vehicle; Can anyone give me for free for every 100km driven that 46.2kWh of electricity I just saved? I’d settle for the 16kWh free assuming it was the Audi S4 I refused to purchase.
Discussion Point Two
@grahroll has pointed out the running costs currently of a BEV, EG Tesla, Ionia, or Kona Electric, are definitely lower than a similar ICE vehicle. There is a range of running costs mainly due to different electricity supply options.
Note, there is currently no road usage tax to equalise for fuel excise tax. Even if such a tax was introduced a BEV has a significant potential cost advantage.
For now the principal practical consideration in choosing a BEV is the up front capital cost. The difference in cost between either of the Hyundai BEV models and a similar sized ICE vehicle can be between $20,000 and $30,000 or more. There are several ways to look at this cost difference in purely practical economic terms.
I’m not advocating anyone continues buying ICE vehicles. Anyone who can afford an Audi S4 or similar could alternately afford a Tesla Model S.
For many of us the option of hanging onto the current older ICE is a practical one. For a retiree with modest super and low annual travel. The difference in cost between a new ICE vehicle and BEV alternative could remain in super. It’s likely the earnings from the money left in super will more than cover the difference in running costs. Someone paying off a home loan faces a similar decision. BEV are close but still not close enough in cost to current ICE to be an easy buy decision.
An Observation
There is a much more complex discussion that could be had relating to the cost and impacts environmentally of primary energy. Against a global scenario for energy transition the added electrical energy in producing and delivering fuel, the relative overall efficiency of use of energy (savings in primary energy production), and the environmental consequences are significant factors.
They can all be quantified in some way. When anyone chooses to purchase a BEV there are clearly global flow on effects to the benefit of the environment. (Aside from any negative impacts of producing the technology in a BEV.)
In pure economic rational terms though these benefits do not flow onto the bottom line of the purchasing decision. They add moral capital, but not fiscal capital for the purchaser. Something an ETS or Carbon Tax would have gone a long way towards remedying?
1 Like
I can see how the EV figures are real but where did you get the number for the ICE? It would help me follow your reasoning if you supplied the details rather than just pop out numbers.
1 Like
Volkswagen is developing EV charging robots.
It does seem a little like double handling…and will it be one of these technologies which isn’t really needed.
1 Like
I’d like to think it is, but?
Not if it becomes the only way to recharge when using a paid parking station. We get ripped off just to park. Why tie up a dedicated parking space with a fixed charging station for 8-12hrs when the bot can service on demand. And at typical parking station profit margins, at what cost?
An article regarding a person pioneering EV charging in Australia.
1 Like
An article regarding Australian research into lithium sulphur batteries.
Almost a back to the future invention considering sulphur is in almost all ICE vehicle batteries.
2 Likes
In the race to see which tech might reign supreme the battery powered vehicle option is fast approaching one critical goal.
The US$100/kWh cost when achieved is likely to put an everyday EV in a price range many can afford. This represents the internal cost to the manufacture. The influence on the showroom drive away price remains an unknown.
There are other improvements still required for the perfect battery. Energy density, cycle life, charge times, ease of recycling.
P.S.
With home battery storage at around the AU1,000/kWh based on current Tesla Powerwall costs, it will be worth keeping tabs on the cost of home storage too.
4 Likes
If the hydrogen supporters don’t get busy pretty soon with available commercial models and more filling stations the charge time for EV batteries will be brought down and the charging station network will grow to the point that EVs will dominate and H2 will never get started. That doesn’t mean that H2 will never have other roles such as overseas export but that is more analogous to bulk hydrocarbon gas export replacement not to liquid hydrocarbon fuel replacement in road vehicles.
3 Likes
Hyundai and Kia in joint venture with Arrival to build electric vehicles.
1 Like
It does seem extravagant to have 100 kWh battery in a car when most is only required occasionally—our plug-in hybrid only has about 10 kWh but covers about 85% of our driving. It also seems extravagant that we have a sophisticated internal combustion engine that is only needed 15% of the time. Perhaps the solution will be a battery with about 100 km range and a light weight hydrogen fuel cell for the occasions when longer range is needed.
3 Likes
An article regarding complaints that over 100 Tesla vehicles have had incidents involving unintended acceleration.
1 Like
A perspective on range anxiety from the US:
A personal perspective about range anxiety - unintended.
I do not drive a lot. My previous vehicle showed about 10.4 l/100km on the trip computer over time, mostly short city trips. It had a 65l tank. I would fill about every 4 weeks and could comfortably play the fuel cycles, no worries, almost always at the absolute bottom.
The new vehicle gets 8.9 l/100km in the city but only has a 47l tank.
What was previously a leisurely monthly visit to the servo is now a stressful 3 weeks making the vehicle ‘fuel cycle hostile’. Unless I buy jerry cans full of fuel I will be using less fuel and paying the same or more for distance travelled.
Extrapolating this to alternative fuels; how much petrol, electricity, hydrogen, or whatever one uses is an environmental-sustainability aspect. But the economics as seen by the pocket could be poor depending on the costs of a ‘fill’ vs time between them, whatever that means in context.
A contrived example would be the ability to charge an EV from a solar system meaning it would be very cost effective, but if your reality is you have to drive every day during daylight hours you cannot do it, and recharging over night time results in paying full or off peak rates.
How range fits in with ones routine travels can be as much an economic issue as a range issue.
2 Likes
