Natural gas good for EVs, but not cars and trucks?
Natural gas is a good coal replacement, but not foreign oil?
Time to look at the big picture
Because electric cars are three times more efficient than conventional vehicles, their excess CO2 emissions from coal-generated electricity are balanced out compared to gasoline powered vehicles. Likewise, any new power generation required by electric cars will produce less CO2 than gasoline-powered cars because it will be “either natural gas or renewable,” according to Mark Duval of the Electric Power Research Institute.
So why is natural gas good for electric cars, but not for conventional vehicles?
Today, light duty trucks account for more than 50 percent of US car sales, and coupled with medium and heavy duty trucks, such vehicles suck up the majority of petroleum consumed by the US transportation sector.
Unfortunately, when it comes to plug-in vehicles, the focus is compact cars because the extra costs of the batteries needed for large vehicles wouldn’t just cause sticker shock, but a heart attack. Thus, it will be decades before batteries wipe out US foreign oil dependence if batteries are the key to trucks as well.
Yet, if more and more natural gas is going to be used to power electric cars, why not also use it to power conventional vehicles as an interim solution to foreign oil dependence and more cost-effective battery technologies? Might not the savings and job creation, for instance, help the US fund tax credits and other subsidies for electric cars and the US battery industry?
Because of the legacy effect, America can be certain that US dependence upon foreign oil will last for decades if batteries are the solution.
Ironically, however, some South American countries have begun countering the legacy effects of gasoline technologies in their countries with cost-effective after-market natural gas conversions.
Why can’t the same be done in the US? Is it that dangerous and dirty? Why is natural gas OK for EVs as a coal replacement, but not for gasoline cars as a foreign oil replacement? Is it just politics and money?
Moreover, Toyota has demonstrated that natural gas can be coupled with hybrid technology with far less consumer concessions than what electric cars demand today. And, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, today’s hybrid cars do more to fight CO2 emissions than do today’s electric cars. Add natural gas to these hybrids and even far greater emission’s reductions are possible – today – all while also developing and investing in battery technologies. Furthermore, full hybrids such as Toyota’s natural gas hybrid vehicles could be converted into natural gas plug-in hybrid vehicles as battery technologies become cost-effective.
Talk about a legacy effect killer.
Without any doubt natural gas has drawbacks and cleaner renewables need to be the long term focus, but significant amounts of research suggest that most drawbacks can be mitigated along the long and winding road to these renewables. Likewise, not only can natural gas be used as an instant legacy effect killer, while advancing batteries via natural gas hybrids, but it could also help kick start a hydrogen infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles.
Wouldn’t such diversity, such competition, be good?
What? Is that too quickly disruptive to the status quo? Ensuring the viability of the conventional, gas-guzzling US auto industry is more important than rebuilding a new US auto industry around clean foreign oil independence and a long term plan to a domestic, renewable energy paradigm? Is a comprehensive plan to fight foreign oil dependence anti-American?
If we step back and look at the big picture, shouldn’t the goal – and America’s best plan forward – be the quickest, cleanest path to foreign oil independence and CO2 emission reductions, period?
I think it makes sense larry. it’s consumer expectations that are the problem. we want power and we want it in every driving scenario. that makes such a solution a bit problematic.
you hit on this all the time. our transportation could easily be made much more fuel efficient based on today’s technologies alone. it’s changing the expectations of consumers that is critical. do that and then you also need less batteries, increase EV range etc.
today, we want to take our inefficient auto sector and plug it in. it’s still going to be inefficient. we’re hell bent on doing things the hard way.
so …think about a small honda-type generator. could a generator that size produce enough electricity to power a hybrid electric engine and if it would – all you need is a bigger fuel tank.
any of this make any sense?
but why not? All you’re doing with a hybrid verses a plug-in is that with a hybrid you are generating your electricity on-board – and in theory would not even need any more battery than a conventional ICE – right?
So you’d just need an fossil-fuel ICE engine – just large enough – to provide sufficient electricity to power the drive train – no?
you know..like a diesel-electric locomotive. The size of the engine is just big enough to be able to generate sufficient electricity to power the locomotive.
The advantage of doing this with a car (presumably) would be – the smaller the ICE engine the less fuel it would use.
OK. I think I see what you’re getting at Larry.
Hybrid engines could be downsized and that’s probably going to happen, not just for hybrids but all vehicles and they’ll be supplemented with turbo-charging, etc.
In terms of using an engine to create just electricity, that isn’t really what is happening with the volt, for instance, the engine is powering electricity to keep the battery charged in a sweet spot – the battery is never fully discharged. that’s one of the reasons the pack is so big, but the EV range isn’t that great. in my opinion, that’s why the volt isn’t a very cost-effective powertrain architecture.
CaTiC-
Actually, you didn’t read the whole article. Keep scrolling down. It states,”In the near term, people in heavily coal-dependent states would probably reduce emissions the most by buying conventional hybrid cars that don’t draw power from the electric grid but instead generate electricity from their own engine and braking power, said Deron Lovaas, vehicles campaign director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.”
At how much less cost compared to plugging in? And in other states using natural gas for electricity, why not use it to replace foreign oil in the interim to more electrification? it’s not as if automakers are going to start producing mostly EVs anytime soon. The supply chains and production lines for such production would take many years to develop even if mandated today.
Also, natural gas range is far greater than BEV range. So, why is range an issue on one hand, but not the other?
Finally, your BEV plan is fine long term, but it guarantees that the US will be dependent upon foreign oil for many more decades. 10 percent by 2020 does nothing to reduce foreign oil dependence and ensures that the decades long tentacles of the legacy effect keep America dependent upon foreign oil almost assuredly until about 2040 or so. Yet, today there is only one automaker that believes such penetration is possible. If an automaker doesn’t believe it’s possible, then they aren’t planning for it. If they aren’t planning for it, then they aren’t building the supply chains and production lines necessary – those things don’t happen over night.
Moreover, every consumer study has clearly shown that most Americans – Europeans as well – are not going to buy a $33,000 Nissan Leaf when they can buy a gasoline version – the Versa – for $14,000. More important, most Americans don’t drive vehicles the size of a Versa. Today, more than 50 percent of US auto sales are light trucks. Pickup trucks dominate the list of top ten US sellers. So, where are all the electric pickup trucks – the bread and butter of the US auto industry?
A Nissan Leaf isn’t going to appease these buyers and the additional upfront battery costs for producing an EV truck with the same range as a Leaf wouldn’t resonate with buyers. Force US automakers to stop building pickup trucks any time soon and they do out of business.
Thanks Dach… good stuff. My question about the Volt was more along the lines of how the technology works or could work.
For instance, on some modern ships now days – the engine produces electricity which drives an electric motor that powers the propeller as opposed to the ICE engine providing power to a propeller shaft.
So that allows them to have azi pods which allows the propeller to rotate 360 degrees.
So I was wondering in a car – what was more efficient.
Could you have a car that is driven by an electric engine that gets it’s power – all the time from a small gasoline or NG/propane engine?
( perhaps like a forlift or similar)?
Why do hybrid cars need a larger(er) ICE engine rather than just a small full-time ICE that generates electricity – no battery needed.
Larry-
It’s 39 mpg for the Volt when using just the engine according to the EPA, which is a good bit less than the Prius. Likewise, the Volt needs a massive battery pack.
In terms of natural gas in hybrids versus electricity to plug-ins I don’t care in the interim which is more efficient because of the legacy effect. The US is doomed to decades of foreign oil dependence without a cure to the legacy effect. for those of us primarily concerned with foreign oil dependence, the legacy effect is probably the most critical short term problem.
Additionally, increased natural gas production would lead to greater availability of propane as a by-product so why not diversify and use both? Likewise, while the numbers are sketchy, I’ve heard numbers that suggest that natural gas could be cost-competitive to gasoline at today’s prices, so I think it’s premature to assume $7 – $10. Moreover, natural gas wouldn’t replace oil, but displace a good chunk of oil, especially in vehicle segments that aren’t as battery-friendly, although why not use it in places like California, etc, immediately since its already widely used?
essentially, if we’re going to increase natural gas production to replace coal to power electrification, why not use it to move away from petroleum as well in the interim if it can be cost-effective, which is exactly what natural gas advocates claim is possible. and it’s not just energy players suggesting the potential of natural gas. a study by oxford university, for instance, recently suggested that natural gas could be a game changer in both oil dependence and in reducing CO2 emissions.
my point has been, why not declare war on oil dependence and utilize every resource possible to end foreign oil dependence as quickly as possible as part of a long term plan to even more sustainable energy independence.
on a side note, the natural gas that vertical drilling has opened up in the US is also suspected in china. they don’t have the technological know-how to tap it. that’s another revenue opportunity American companies would have in China.
well – we keep going around in circles on this.
If NEW plants ARE natural gas then how would natural-gas generated electricity to a plug-in compare to a hybrid that uses natural gas fuel?
But in Virginia, we ARE building NEW Coal plants.. just FYI.
also – getting your electricity at night does not mean you get it for “free” in terms of emissions. All it means is that you get electricity at sometime other than peak demand times. You can bet that if enough plug-ins – plug-in that more coal will have to be burned to provide the additional electricity needed.
There’s one more thing about coal that gets overlooked and that is that it generates significant amounts of mercury – that rain down on the land below and eventually ends up in rivers and lakes and is a potent poison – to the point where most states warn women and kids to not eat “too much” fish with the advice with respect to how much – murky and shifting – better off to just say “no”.
Natural gas is less than half as energy-dense as gasoline where-as propane is 2/3 as dense.
I’m unclear to me if propane is a limited by-product or it’s possible to actually produce (more) of it than occurs natively but a propane car could conceivably be powered by twin outdoor grill containers with them “refueled” easily at the millions of locations that sell them already.
We would just swing by when one tank emptied and swap it out with a fresh one – for about $20 – which would be roughly equivalent to 5 gallons of fuel. You can see – this would not be cheap and you would be refueling more often. Natural Gas would be worse because it’s less energy dense.
I think we could wean ourselves off of “foreign oil” – for a price – that virtually none of us is willing to pay – probably in the $7 to $10 per gasoline gallon equivalent.
It basically comes down to money not feasibility.
but again we keep going around in circles.
we seem to constantly shift reasons – back and forth between – weaning ourselves off of “foreign oil” and “green” (less pollution) and no matter the reason – it’s going to cost substantially more to fuel vehicles using alternative fuels and technologies.
and all but the most dedicated “greenies” can’t abide the higher costs.
Of course, an optimist will look at all of this and say that the basic idea of an electric car – will spur the other cleaner technologies when perhaps otherwise we’d not.
I STILL like the idea of a minimally small engine to produce the electricity that a hybrid needs.
Why do hybrids need large fossil-fuel powered engines to generate electricity?
If the Chevy Volt can see a small gasoline engine to give that car a practical several hundred mile range – and an equivalent of 50+ mpg – where’s the downside?
The pointer you provided for “And, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, today’s hybrid cars do more to fight CO2 emissions than do today’s electric cars” points to a CNN article titled “Clearing the Air on Electric Cars” that concludes the opposite of your statement (!!!) and never mentions the Natural Resource Defense Council. Only in the Midwest where electricity is predominantly produced by coal does it make more sense for now to use conventional hybrids.
And even in this case there are arguments in favor of BEV’s and PHEV’s.
One problem with Natural Gas for cars is that it takes more space to store the same amount of energy, resulting in cars with a shorter range than with gas, specially in retrofits.
I continue to believe that the shortest path to oil independence is through the adoption of technologies that do not consume ANY oil. Today, the only commercially feasible technology is battery electric.
As I have demonstrated in a comment to one or your recent articles, I have figured out that a BEV with a range of 100 miles meets all my suburbanite driving needs without relying on recharging during the day. This means that the car battery can be recharged during the night when demand for electricity is at its minimum; therefore a large number of batteries can be recharged this way without taxing the current electrical infrastructure.
I had previously calculated that by replacing one of my 2 vehicles with a BEV would result in a reduction of my total yearly gas consumption by 80%. I consider I do more city driving than the typical father; so there is a large chunk of the population that could readily replace ONE of their vehicles to a BEV with today’s battery technology, as demonstrated by the Nissan Leaf.
I conclude that BEV’s are our best and fastest way to reduce our National oil consumption as a first strategy, relying on conventional hybrids in areas of the country where electricity is predominantly produced using coal.
‘nuf said!
Natural Gas has made inroads in fleet vehicles like UPS trucks and some city buses. Fuel-refill distribution and repairs are obvious barriers to doing the same for consumer vehicles. Perhaps if UPS or a similar business that fuels their own vehicles with natural gas throughout the country would be willing to sell direct to consumers then natural gas vehicles could become more mainstream. I’d rather see them do it than an oil company.
You make a good point about NEW power plants for electric cars will be either natural gas or renewables.
Opponents of electric cars argue that we will have to double or triple the number of coal plants to produce the electricity need for electric cars. That argument is simply untrue….