Hyundai IONIQ Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I never thought of the Ioniq EV this way, but my son who drives a gas powered truck and is home from Engineering School reminded me today. 1 gallon of gas has 33.7 kWh of energy. So the 2019 EV has the equivalent of a .83 gallon fuel tank! That’s pretty incredible considering you can go 120 miles with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Please, "kWh" 🙏. Anyhow, interesting comparison. Reveals the ICE's (in)efficiency well, somewhere below 40% at best.
You are very kind to day-to-day ICE, I think the efficiency is at best around 30%, even current F1 hybrid turbo engine can only achieve just over 50% efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
I never thought of the Ioniq EV this way, but my son who drives a gas powered truck and is home from Engineering School reminded me today. 1 gallon of gas has 33.7 kWh of energy. So the 2019 EV has the equivalent of a .83 gallon fuel tank! That’s pretty incredible considering you can go 120 miles with it.
My PHEV has a 1 gallon EV tank (approx 37 miles) as it can go as far as my old diesel used to go on 1 gallon.
It takes around 3.5kWh (or 4kWh for an UK/imperial gallon) to refine a gallon of fuel in a refinary, without including all the energy used to drill, pipe and transport the fuel to the pumps. An efficient EV would drive 15-20 miles on that energy.
So where is all the electricity going to come from for the EV revolution? Simply "stop refining and you have the energy to drive half the EV's".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Ioniq ICE engine is right at 40% efficiency, neck and neck with current Prius.
Is the 40% efficiency base on the ICE alone or a combination of ICE + hybrid system?

Another consideration is that when an efficiency percentage is quoted for an ICE, it is usually quoted during the maximum torque output at a certain revs. In real life situation, the ICE would rarely be able to be kept within such revs range, hence even poorer efficiency than the quoted rate.

Not questioning your logic, just want to get a bit more clarity on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
So where is all the electricity going to come from for the EV revolution? Simply "stop refining and you have the energy to drive half the EV's".
You have hit the nail on the head for the US. Where is the energy going to come from for Carbon Zero, especially in the US? There is not enough US grid capacity for the goals of Carbon Zero set by the politicians (2030 and 2045) for the first issue. EV's are just the start of the electrical load. I know folks will hate me but Wind and Solar will not save the day and do not have the capacity factors needed for a Carbon Zero America. Even on the residential side. France has a good mix where 70% of their power comes from nuclear. I recently did a study for a Nuclear Plant vs Solar in equal capacity 2245 MW somewhere in the US. Solar was twice the capital cost, 1/2 the life and in the end produced electricity at 25% higher per KWH than new Nuclear. The battery farm was huge and costly too. It would need 185 square miles of clearcut land to equal capacity. Nuclear is the only carbon zero power generation (other than Hydro which has been Poo Poo'd in the US too) that will carry us into Carbon Neutrality and EV's every where.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,308 Posts
You are very kind to day-to-day ICE, I think the efficiency is at best around 30%, even current F1 hybrid turbo engine can only achieve just over 50% efficiency.
Is the 40% efficiency base on the ICE alone or a combination of ICE + hybrid system?

Another consideration is that when an efficiency percentage is quoted for an ICE, it is usually quoted during the maximum torque output at a certain revs. In real life situation, the ICE would rarely be able to be kept within such revs range, hence even poorer efficiency than the quoted rate.

Not questioning your logic, just want to get a bit more clarity on this.
40% is engine efficiency. Nothing to do with hybrid systems, rolling resistance or anything else. As far as I know, these are manufacturer claims only and there is not independent testing. However, the mpg on these cars make the claims credible when you parse out other variables on mpg. 30% to mid 30% is more common on run-of-the-mill non-Atkinson cycle car engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
You have hit the nail on the head for the US. Where is the energy going to come from for Carbon Zero, especially in the US? There is not enough US grid capacity for the goals of Carbon Zero set by the politicians (2030 and 2045) for the first issue. EV's are just the start of the electrical load. I know folks will hate me but Wind and Solar will not save the day and do not have the capacity factors needed for a Carbon Zero America. Even on the residential side. France has a good mix where 70% of their power comes from nuclear. I recently did a study for a Nuclear Plant vs Solar in equal capacity 2245 MW somewhere in the US. Solar was twice the capital cost, 1/2 the life and in the end produced electricity at 25% higher per KWH than new Nuclear. The battery farm was huge and costly too. It would need 185 square miles of clearcut land to equal capacity. Nuclear is the only carbon zero power generation (other than Hydro which has been Poo Poo'd in the US too) that will carry us into Carbon Neutrality and EV's every where.
Is the 185 square miles for all the batteries required to store the electricity?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
You have hit the nail on the head for the US. Where is the energy going to come from for Carbon Zero, especially in the US? There is not enough US grid capacity for the goals of Carbon Zero set by the politicians (2030 and 2045) for the first issue. EV's are just the start of the electrical load. I know folks will hate me but Wind and Solar will not save the day and do not have the capacity factors needed for a Carbon Zero America. Even on the residential side. France has a good mix where 70% of their power comes from nuclear. I recently did a study for a Nuclear Plant vs Solar in equal capacity 2245 MW somewhere in the US. Solar was twice the capital cost, 1/2 the life and in the end produced electricity at 25% higher per KWH than new Nuclear. The battery farm was huge and costly too. It would need 185 square miles of clearcut land to equal capacity. Nuclear is the only carbon zero power generation (other than Hydro which has been Poo Poo'd in the US too) that will carry us into Carbon Neutrality and EV's every where.
Solar isn't great though to be fair, it's more viable in equatorial regions though. Wind is far more cost effective and in the UK at least proven to beat the wholesale cost of nuclear by quite a large margin, and it will get cheaper.
Wind could quite easily power most of the electric grid, but the bigger issue is home heating mostly served by gas. Electric has a long way to go to replace gas in the UK, it would need massive ramp up of air source or ground source heat pumps.
Seeing as most households require around 4 to 8 times more energy for heating than electric, it is certainly a challenge. If every house used electric for heat then the grid absolutely could not cope, heat pumps would reduce the demand though by a factor or around 2.5/3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
I recently did a study for a Nuclear Plant vs Solar in equal capacity 2245 MW somewhere in the US. Solar was twice the capital cost, 1/2 the life and in the end produced electricity at 25% higher per KWH than new Nuclear.
I bet you externalized costs such as possible nuclear disasters and thousands of years of waste storage, ongoing national safety costs etc, right?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,822 Posts
Ioniq ICE engine is right at 40% efficiency, neck and neck with current Prius.
yep, due to use of the modified Atkinson cycle engine, instead of the more common otto cycle engine (which is currently closer to 30% efficient)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I bet you externalized costs such as possible nuclear disasters and thousands of years of waste storage, ongoing national safety costs etc, right?
I actually included long term on site storage in my calcs as well and all operating and maintenance costs for the plant for 30 years in the calculations. This includes safety. Please remember, fuel can now be reprocessed which minimizes much of the long term storage issues. I did not escalate the costs to include inflation. The disaster part must be managed and in the US our plants are very safe. Safety is the main reason a plant is billions of dollars and takes 8-10 years to plan and build. An interesting history to look up is the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant. Built in 1972 and operated until 1996. Decommissioned in 1997. Total cost of power generated from design to complete decommissioning was $0.025/kWh. If you get a chance, all the waste is stored on it's original site, look it up on google earth. The building is smaller than a Maine high school for 24 years of 900 MW of power. No carbon and no GHG emissions either. The equivalent solar farm in capacity would be a clear-cut of about 90 square miles with a only a 20 year life. Maine Yankee's site was 1.2 square miles of which 80% was forested. Finally, it employed over 500 jobs at a today's average pay of $77,800 per year (that is in the cost too). I just read that Canada has must entered in to an agreement to look at regional nuclear for three provinces including Ontario and New Brunswick. 72% of France's power is generated by nuclear.

Not to create an argument because everyone has opinions and I do not mean to start one or step on toes. To have a carbon zero and GHG free economy (including great Ioniq EV's everywhere) the only way will be with the high density power generation of nuclear power plants and major grid infrastructure upgrades. Wind and solar can certainly supplement and be present and are all good, but they simply do not have the capacity factors needed to keep us electrified.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Not to create an argument because everyone has opinions and I do not mean to start one or step on toes. To have a carbon zero and GHG free economy (including great Ioniq EV's everywhere) the only way will be with the high density power generation of nuclear power plants and major grid infrastructure upgrades. Wind and solar can certainly supplement and be present and are all good, but they simply do not have the capacity factors needed to keep us electrified.
At the moment. That is because most of the funding is going into constructing conventional power plants. Unfortunately, governments tend to be near sighted and blinkered. If they already have methods of generating electricity, they will continue until the resources run out and only then will they look at alternatives.

Near where I live in the UK, they are constructing a nuclear power plant, and the cost has increased by £2,900,000,000 already and no firm date on when or if the project will be completed. (There are 2 similar plants in Europe which are still uncommissioned.) Wind turbines on the other hand would cost roughly twice as much for the same MWh generation capacity. However, the jobs created in constructing wind farms would be all over the country, not just in one area where a power plant is being constructed. Once in operation, they will generate electricity using a free, clean, safe fuel. (Unlike nuclear.)

Twice now you have mentioned land area when talking about solar. I presume you are referring to solar farms spread out over the landscape. What is wrong with all the roof space? In the UK, if two thirds of all the roof space had solar panels, we could be self sufficient in electricity. (And that is not on sunny days!) Admittedly, we would need some methods of storing the electricity produced, and I think that is where governments should be investing our taxes. There are a number of cheap energy storage technologies being developed which do not use lithium or colbalt.

The problem at the moment is that governments are still thinking in terms of large power plants supplying a national grid network. (With all the associated power losses through the cables over distance.) The future will be small community generation with export of excess to the grid. The island of Orkney in Scotland is a small scale example of how it would work if it was scaled up to the whole of the UK. http://www.orkneywind.co.uk/

I hope people will add their 2 cents and give us an interesting debate without the usual right and wrong points of view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
You are spot on.The US politicians try to legislate carbon zero and GHG free with some carbon Zero goals of 2030 (impossible) and 2045 but has no idea about existing power infrastructure and what that really means for the US economy and overall infrastructure. Trillions! New fossil fueled plants are opening all the time here (fracking powered, uugh) and no one wants to tell them, that they will have to shut down in 10-25 years or compensate them for lost revenue. A lot of folks think it's simply as easy as buying "green offset" credits, not really. As far as solar and roofs, Maine is a very rural state. 1.38M people over 35,385 square miles. Yes, rooftops are an option in some locals but we are still 90% forested, which is good, and I would hate to see that clear-cut. We also have a aging power grid that no one is updating for the future. Finally, as we are a northern tier State, Solar is only about 8.5% efficient over a full years generation. Thanks for the conversation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
And thank you for introducing the topic. Power generation is horses for courses. No good having solar panels in the arctic circle, they would lie idle for 6 months of the year. We need a mix of solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biomass, (and maybe thorium fast breeder) all in the right environment to efficiently provide for the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Decommissioned in 1997. Total cost of power generated from design to complete decommissioning was $0.025/kWh.
That's very close to what solar costs at the moment: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/24/tucson-utility-inks-deal-solar-power-costs-less-3-cents-per-kilowatt-hour/

And from what I read that $0.025 cost does not include the centuries of storage and the risk calculations in case of a disaster.

I absolutely disagree with the statement that renewables cannot generate enough density to provide the world with power. See eg this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/22/we-could-power-the-entire-world-by-harnessing-solar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/

Or this: https://kval.com/news/local/osu-study-solar-panels-on-1-of-farmland-could-meet-global-energy-demands

Or this: https://energyinformative.org/potential-of-solar-energy/

And that's just PV alone. A recent study has shown that wind farms at sea could power the entire UK. Cannot find the exact link, but this'll do: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/08/wind-turbines-uk-electricity-dong-energy. Or this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7135930.stm

Then there's the storage issue. But more and more voices are saying that instead of storage, we should be thinking of creating surplus capacity so that you have to rely less on long term storage and have enough baseline to meet demands even in adverse conditions.

Nuclear takes forever to build, is always much more expensive than estimated and costs will not go down during a central's lifetime. Instead, PV and wind are getting cheaper every day, have zero waste and disaster risks and output and form factors still have years of improvement ahead of them. Investing in nuclear means extracting money from R&D in renewables and maintaining the model of a couple of behemoths that charge per kWh whatever makes their shareholders happy. I live in Spain and the day that household storage is affordable enough to go off the grid, Endesa and Iberdrola will get a collective kick in their wrinky behinds and will be out of business before you can say photovoltaic. Oligarchies are that bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
That's very close to what solar costs at the moment: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/24/tucson-utility-inks-deal-solar-power-costs-less-3-cents-per-kilowatt-hour/

And from what I read that $0.025 cost does not include the centuries of storage and the risk calculations in case of a disaster.

I absolutely disagree with the statement that renewables cannot generate enough density to provide the world with power. See eg this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/22/we-could-power-the-entire-world-by-harnessing-solar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/

Or this: https://kval.com/news/local/osu-study-solar-panels-on-1-of-farmland-could-meet-global-energy-demands

Or this: https://energyinformative.org/potential-of-solar-energy/

And that's just PV alone. A recent study has shown that wind farms at sea could power the entire UK. Cannot find the exact link, but this'll do: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/08/wind-turbines-uk-electricity-dong-energy. Or this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7135930.stm

Then there's the storage issue. But more and more voices are saying that instead of storage, we should be thinking of creating surplus capacity so that you have to rely less on long term storage and have enough baseline to meet demands even in adverse conditions.

Nuclear takes forever to build, is always much more expensive than estimated and costs will not go down during a central's lifetime. Instead, PV and wind are getting cheaper every day, have zero waste and disaster risks and output and form factors still have years of improvement ahead of them. Investing in nuclear means extracting money from R&D in renewables and maintaining the model of a couple of behemoths that charge per kWh whatever makes their shareholders happy. I live in Spain and the day that household storage is affordable enough to go off the grid, Endesa and Iberdrola will get a collective kick in their wrinky behinds and will be out of business before you can say photovoltaic. Oligarchies are that bad.
Hi Xinix. Nice counter-argument with good sources which give us hope for the future. I had to smile yesterday when President Trump withdrew cooperation with the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, and the US Congress said that they were fully behind it. Thank god someone has some sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
That's very close to what solar costs at the moment: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/24/tucson-utility-inks-deal-solar-power-costs-less-3-cents-per-kilowatt-hour/

And from what I read that $0.025 cost does not include the centuries of storage and the risk calculations in case of a disaster.

I absolutely disagree with the statement that renewables cannot generate enough density to provide the world with power. See eg this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/22/we-could-power-the-entire-world-by-harnessing-solar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/

Or this: https://kval.com/news/local/osu-study-solar-panels-on-1-of-farmland-could-meet-global-energy-demands

Or this: https://energyinformative.org/potential-of-solar-energy/

And that's just PV alone. A recent study has shown that wind farms at sea could power the entire UK. Cannot find the exact link, but this'll do: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/08/wind-turbines-uk-electricity-dong-energy. Or this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7135930.stm

Then there's the storage issue. But more and more voices are saying that instead of storage, we should be thinking of creating surplus capacity so that you have to rely less on long term storage and have enough baseline to meet demands even in adverse conditions.

Nuclear takes forever to build, is always much more expensive than estimated and costs will not go down during a central's lifetime. Instead, PV and wind are getting cheaper every day, have zero waste and disaster risks and output and form factors still have years of improvement ahead of them. Investing in nuclear means extracting money from R&D in renewables and maintaining the model of a couple of behemoths that charge per kWh whatever makes their shareholders happy. I live in Spain and the day that household storage is affordable enough to go off the grid, Endesa and Iberdrola will get a collective kick in their wrinky behinds and will be out of business before you can say photovoltaic. Oligarchies are that bad.
That's very close to what solar costs at the moment: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/24/tucson-utility-inks-deal-solar-power-costs-less-3-cents-per-kilowatt-hour/

And from what I read that $0.025 cost does not include the centuries of storage and the risk calculations in case of a disaster.

I absolutely disagree with the statement that renewables cannot generate enough density to provide the world with power. See eg this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/22/we-could-power-the-entire-world-by-harnessing-solar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/

Or this: https://kval.com/news/local/osu-study-solar-panels-on-1-of-farmland-could-meet-global-energy-demands

Or this: https://energyinformative.org/potential-of-solar-energy/

And that's just PV alone. A recent study has shown that wind farms at sea could power the entire UK. Cannot find the exact link, but this'll do: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/08/wind-turbines-uk-electricity-dong-energy. Or this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7135930.stm

Then there's the storage issue. But more and more voices are saying that instead of storage, we should be thinking of creating surplus capacity so that you have to rely less on long term storage and have enough baseline to meet demands even in adverse conditions.

Nuclear takes forever to build, is always much more expensive than estimated and costs will not go down during a central's lifetime. Instead, PV and wind are getting cheaper every day, have zero waste and disaster risks and output and form factors still have years of improvement ahead of them. Investing in nuclear means extracting money from R&D in renewables and maintaining the model of a couple of behemoths that charge per kWh whatever makes their shareholders happy. I live in Spain and the day that household storage is affordable enough to go off the grid, Endesa and Iberdrola will get a collective kick in their wrinky behinds and will be out of business before you can say photovoltaic. Oligarchies are that bad.
Thank you for the great debate. Here are the numbers!
In the US, the construction cost (current market data) for a 2234 MW nuke is $11.6B plus operating and maint etc. All in this equates to a power generation cost of $0.0488/KWH ($0.033 for plant cost and $0.015 for Fix and Variable O & M) for power generated for 11 months per year . I assumed no escalation. This is over 20 years and the plant should be around for 30 or more so it will actually be lower on the base..

The cost of 2234MW total NET output equivalent large scale solar (assuming batteries are going to carry over the non-productive periods) to equate to the nuke production which was 13,742MW in capacity (again solar panel efficiency where I am is 8.25%). This cost is $23.4B first cost (with no batteries). A quick estimate on batteries was $3.6B (no data is available as no one has built a battery capacity of that size yet). This equates to a cost of $0.065/KW (not including the battery farm cost/etc) over 20 years.

Both were based on an equivalent 20 year life and zero % interest over the 20 years. If you want to run the numbers the total yearly power production of each option is 17,939,020,000 kWh/year. BTW I used the NREL PVWatts, a free solar calculator, to validate the solar output in our region.

It's all current data from the US Energy Information Admin which is based on real construction costs https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf. One final comment, the nuclear plant complex is 2 square miles of which 80% would be forested. The Solar array would be 185 square miles (if located in the Southern California desert). I am just providing facts, nothing more. These numbers also surprised me when I ran them a few weeks ago. I thought it would be close, but it was not. Throw in batteries at $.01/kWh and solar is nearly 65% more the cost per kWh of nuclear power production today in the US.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top