Just thinking about the 10 MW flow from a gas pump, that's in the range of a jet engine...so while in a jet, you can visualize a gas pump continuously flowing, into the engine and out as CO2.
Also it puts into scope the challenge for battery electric flight. Here's a 1 megawatt aviation motor:
Great article! We need to get the physics of this stuff out to the public more to make better decisions about energy infrastructure. One thing I'd like to point out is how you mentioned a few times that the waste heat from a combustion engine heats the exhaust gasses and goes out the tailpipe. Technically, most of the heat goes out the car's radiator, not the tailpipe. Every heat engine requires a cold sink to function, which is the primary source of heat rejection to the environment. In a car, the cold sink is the radiator. This doesn't change the conclusion of your article, just a technicality.
Normal hybrids are definitely more efficient than non-hybrids b/c they capture some of the breaking energy. But they're still inefficient compared to all-electric. Plug-in hybrids are great options for people that drive that far on their normal commute, but you need to be able to charge them every day. So may not be great for apartment dwellers.
That should be braking energy! A hybrid is basically an electric but you're hauling around a heavy and expensive gasoline engine with you everywhere you go. Can only make sense as a transitional compromise until there's a fast reliable charging network.
Unless you're impatient and don't want to stop driving every 4 or 5 hours a combustion engine just adds complexity, maintenance issues and weight better carried as batteries.
Cambridge professor Michael Kelly FRS had an article in the NZ Listener a few years back pooh-poohing the rate of energy-uptake of EVs vis-a-vis petrol cars that resulted a flurry of nonsensical letters - nobody understood the numbers or the arithmetic - which gave even more ground to climate deniers. Maths professor Robert McLachlan and I tried to answer to no avail, basically Kelly was right but his conclusions irrelevant - motivated reasoning at its finest as befits a consultant or trustee of the GWPF.
Thanks for reading Kelly's motivated reasoning so we don't have to, Dennis. My habit is to simply not read anything associated with the GWPF. That well has long since poisoned itself!
It's fine to debunk the "primary energy fallacy" but I'm not sure I've ever seen the fallacy out in the wild, being used to bolster an argument against electrification. Where's the best example of it?
More generally, the concept of "overall energy consumed" is pretty arbitrary. For some purposes it would make sense to say a solar farm "consumes" all the solar energy that lands within its boundaries—but then we would have to admit that solar farm efficiencies rarely exceed 5%. This is not a reason to stop building solar farms! But it is a reason to avoid using abstract "energy consumed" as a metric in decision making. The relevant metrics are tangible things like emissions, cost, land use, and other environmental impacts.
I don't think this is a response to a particular argument being made by renewable energy deniers. It's just a few things I thought were interesting.
As far as the important concept, I think that final energy is really the thing that matters here. If we decarbonize and electrify, we can replace car transportation with a lot less energy than you'd think if you just looked at the energy content of gasoline.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say final energy is really the thing that matters. As you've explained, final energy use decreases when end users switch from a combustion fuel to electricity. This means we can't point to current final energy use and say that's how much we need to supply with carbon-free sources. But at the same time, decreasing final energy consumption isn't an end in itself.
If everyone on the planet switch to electric vehicles it's not to Quincy Michigan energy fossil fuel savings. You cannot replace one industrial complex paradigm with another and think you are accomplishing anything sustainable. The transportation answer is renewable Lee powered nationwide high-speed rail integrated thoroughly with local light rail. All powered by renewables. The individual cars being manufactured from plastic that was recovered from the environment.
The following is a small portion of a transcript from an investment firm’s round table discussion in March 2022. The person speaking is the head of the firm. What is incorrect in his comments which would seem to refute some of what you’re pitching here? I have zero educational background in engineering or other sciences, but am interested in learning. Thanks:
“At this point, I usually give the example of how much in the way of hydrocarbons are needed for a solar panel. Maybe some people on this call haven’t heard it, so I’m going to give that example. I just want to show you the educational process, or absence of it, in this generalized discussion. If you want to see what’s inside a solar panel, you’d first take the cover off. That cover is Plexiglas, it’s pretty heavy, and it’s made from petroleum. Remove it, and you’ll see a silicon substrate. But how do you get silicon? Basically, you’ve got to heat quartz. That’s necessary because quartz is silicon dioxide, and the oxygen has to be removed. By heating, we mean something like 2,150 degrees Centigrade, and to get that intensity of heat, what do you use? Either coal or natural gas.
So, this is the thing about the educational process: it is a process, not just a fact or two. Someone who hears this might not have known about the natural gas or coal requirement, but then people ask—and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked this question—‘Okay, I get it. They need to use coal, which is dirty, or natural gas, which is not so great, either, although it’s better than coal, but they’re only using it for one day to make the silicon. But, the solar panel can be on your roof for like 15 years, so you’re saving more carbon overall, right?’ It’s true that the production process that consumes carbon takes only one day and that the solar panel might last 15 years, but the conclusion is false. How so? Because the amount of energy used to make the silicon substrate is more than the amount of energy you’re going to produce with a panel that’s on your roof for 15 years. Why is that true? Because that’s the second law of thermodynamics: you can’t create energy.”
“climate safe energy sources like wind and solar”…..Let’s just say I follow others on this platform who would clearly disagree with such a simplistic phrase. I have a gut feeling those same writers might also point out your piece obviously lacks any kudos for nuclear.
Again, I repeat that I lack any formal education in this subject matter. However, I have several decades experience in investing, economics and finance. I could go on for hours about things which I see written or spoken on those topics which are ridiculous garbage. And often it’s from people with top notch pedigrees and huge followings. I view skepticism as necessary, and admit I’m highly skeptical of much that is pitched from the anti fossil fuel crowd.
I would encourage you to be more skeptical of the pro-fossil fuel crowd. Energy is undergoing a revolution right now and many of their arguments are a few years out of date, meaning they're completely wrong. The example you originally gave is a prime example (we can't generate heat w/ electricity). Many of these people don't know they're wrong, but some of the pro-fossil fuel propaganda is intentional and designed to mislead.
"I have a gut feeling those same writers might also point out your piece obviously lacks any kudos for nuclear."
"I lack any formal education in this subject matter."
"I’m highly skeptical of much that is pitched from the anti fossil fuel crowd."
Hmm. I would encourage you to be more skeptical of the pro-nuclear crowd also. Skepticism is useless when it's actually the Dunning-Kruger effect in disguise, however. Unless you're just here to bash greenies? "Anti fossil fuel crowd"? Just why do you suppose they're anti fossil fuel? You might learn something by finding out. Gut feelings aren't science, after all. If you find you can't follow Prof. Dessler's arguments because you lack formal education, why do you assume they're misleading? Do you think climate change is merely a stalking horse for a Progressive agenda? One more time: anthropogenic climate change is an "environmental" issue only in the sense that climate is everyone's environment. Nor is it simply a liberal preoccupation. No matter what Donald Trump thinks, conservatives will pay for it one way or another, too!
It is certainly possible to create very high temperatures for industrial purposes without using fossil fuels. Concentrated solar heating, electric arc furnaces, and hydrogen can all be used depending on which temperature is needed for an industrial manufacturing or refining process. It's not just about energy, it's about the entropy of that energy. Extremely high temperatures are extremely low in entropy (and high in exergy), and this has a significant exergy demand to achieve. That is one consequence of the Second Law. We often talk solely about energy in the economy, but exergy is the real thing we value. That is, energy in a high degree of disequilibrium with the environment.
Sorry…response #2…I see that you also post articles on Substack. I could guess immediately that I would agree with much of what you wrote on Advertising Based Overconsumption. Indeed that is a “thing”. My father passed away this year at age 97. About 10 years ago I was visiting my parents for Christmas and my dad wanted to show me something outside. As we were putting on our winter gear I looked at him and said “Come on. You’re wearing my high school stocking cap?” He looked at me with a straight face and replied “It keeps my head warm.” That piece of clothing would have over 40 years old at that point. Needless to say, that’s quite the opposite mentality which you describe in your article.
On your last point the conclusion is wrong. A solar panel does not create energy, it converts incoming energy radiated from the Sun into electrical energy here on Earth.
Despite the schoolboy math, pumping gasoline from an underground storage tank at the gas station into you car is not actually transferring energy at the rate of several MW. If it was, what about me driving a 6,000 gallon gasoline tanker truck down the road? How much energy am I transferring every mile? How many MW is that and where is that power coming from, eh?
I can tell you're interested in unsubscribing from the newsletter. Let me know if you're unable to figure out how to do it yourself — I'm more than happy to help you.
I beg to differ. The efficiency of a car equipped with a modern diesel engine is around 45%, gasoline engine it typically is 30%. If you take all losses during charging into account the efficiency of an electric car is about 65%, without it is 80%. But these two numbers don't include the efficiency of power generation. Best you can do with fossil fuels is 60%, which means the real efficiency of an EV is 39% if the power don't come from wind or solar.
I think Jacobson says we can reduce energy 56%, or use 44%, not that we need 56% of current energy
I remember the primary energy fallacy being used twenty years ago. As projections of needed renewable energy improved it became clear that primary energy was not a correct argument. Deniers have long stopped using it
Thanks for illustrating those energy density figures; I’ve wanted to know them for a long time. It’s hard to imagine cramming that much energy into a battery in a short time without exploding it! But as Transportation Secretary Buttigieg explained, you don’t need to top up your battery every time (and the process slows as you approach saturation), you just need a comfortable amount to get to the next charging opportunity - which might save quite a bit of time.
Andrew thank you for your many comparisons and conversion factors. If I had the money to buy a new car I would buy a hybrid. Although I live where hydropower is predominant, winter snowpack are on decline and drought are increasing the probability of reduced capacity for power production. Unless power producers keep in lock-step with EV demand, can they accommodate EV and domestic-industrial demands with increasing temps?
I think the answer is yes, if the charging is done intelligently. They should price energy so that people charge their cars when energy is most plentiful and least expensive.
You can surely take down my last point, but here is another small comment. Fossil fuel engines shed heat overwhelmingly through the talepipe, but also by convection from the radiator + all the surfaces of the engine.
Just thinking about the 10 MW flow from a gas pump, that's in the range of a jet engine...so while in a jet, you can visualize a gas pump continuously flowing, into the engine and out as CO2.
Also it puts into scope the challenge for battery electric flight. Here's a 1 megawatt aviation motor:
https://news.mit.edu/2023/megawatt-motor-could-help-electrify-aviation-0608
Good information clearly explained. Thank you.
Looks like ai decided that a charging cord would probably be plugged into the hubcap lol
Great article! We need to get the physics of this stuff out to the public more to make better decisions about energy infrastructure. One thing I'd like to point out is how you mentioned a few times that the waste heat from a combustion engine heats the exhaust gasses and goes out the tailpipe. Technically, most of the heat goes out the car's radiator, not the tailpipe. Every heat engine requires a cold sink to function, which is the primary source of heat rejection to the environment. In a car, the cold sink is the radiator. This doesn't change the conclusion of your article, just a technicality.
Thanks again for the great article!
Yes, thanks, others have pointed that out. Doesn't change the essential message about wasted energy, but it's always good to be more correct.
Seems like a hybrid car is a good solution?
Normal hybrids are definitely more efficient than non-hybrids b/c they capture some of the breaking energy. But they're still inefficient compared to all-electric. Plug-in hybrids are great options for people that drive that far on their normal commute, but you need to be able to charge them every day. So may not be great for apartment dwellers.
That should be braking energy! A hybrid is basically an electric but you're hauling around a heavy and expensive gasoline engine with you everywhere you go. Can only make sense as a transitional compromise until there's a fast reliable charging network.
Yes, I meant braking. Why can't AI fix things like that for me?
Unless you're impatient and don't want to stop driving every 4 or 5 hours a combustion engine just adds complexity, maintenance issues and weight better carried as batteries.
Cambridge professor Michael Kelly FRS had an article in the NZ Listener a few years back pooh-poohing the rate of energy-uptake of EVs vis-a-vis petrol cars that resulted a flurry of nonsensical letters - nobody understood the numbers or the arithmetic - which gave even more ground to climate deniers. Maths professor Robert McLachlan and I tried to answer to no avail, basically Kelly was right but his conclusions irrelevant - motivated reasoning at its finest as befits a consultant or trustee of the GWPF.
Thanks for reading Kelly's motivated reasoning so we don't have to, Dennis. My habit is to simply not read anything associated with the GWPF. That well has long since poisoned itself!
It's fine to debunk the "primary energy fallacy" but I'm not sure I've ever seen the fallacy out in the wild, being used to bolster an argument against electrification. Where's the best example of it?
More generally, the concept of "overall energy consumed" is pretty arbitrary. For some purposes it would make sense to say a solar farm "consumes" all the solar energy that lands within its boundaries—but then we would have to admit that solar farm efficiencies rarely exceed 5%. This is not a reason to stop building solar farms! But it is a reason to avoid using abstract "energy consumed" as a metric in decision making. The relevant metrics are tangible things like emissions, cost, land use, and other environmental impacts.
I don't think this is a response to a particular argument being made by renewable energy deniers. It's just a few things I thought were interesting.
As far as the important concept, I think that final energy is really the thing that matters here. If we decarbonize and electrify, we can replace car transportation with a lot less energy than you'd think if you just looked at the energy content of gasoline.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say final energy is really the thing that matters. As you've explained, final energy use decreases when end users switch from a combustion fuel to electricity. This means we can't point to current final energy use and say that's how much we need to supply with carbon-free sources. But at the same time, decreasing final energy consumption isn't an end in itself.
If everyone on the planet switch to electric vehicles it's not to Quincy Michigan energy fossil fuel savings. You cannot replace one industrial complex paradigm with another and think you are accomplishing anything sustainable. The transportation answer is renewable Lee powered nationwide high-speed rail integrated thoroughly with local light rail. All powered by renewables. The individual cars being manufactured from plastic that was recovered from the environment.
Gasoline really does have some impressive attributes. No wonder it’ll take some time to transition to BEVs.
The following is a small portion of a transcript from an investment firm’s round table discussion in March 2022. The person speaking is the head of the firm. What is incorrect in his comments which would seem to refute some of what you’re pitching here? I have zero educational background in engineering or other sciences, but am interested in learning. Thanks:
“At this point, I usually give the example of how much in the way of hydrocarbons are needed for a solar panel. Maybe some people on this call haven’t heard it, so I’m going to give that example. I just want to show you the educational process, or absence of it, in this generalized discussion. If you want to see what’s inside a solar panel, you’d first take the cover off. That cover is Plexiglas, it’s pretty heavy, and it’s made from petroleum. Remove it, and you’ll see a silicon substrate. But how do you get silicon? Basically, you’ve got to heat quartz. That’s necessary because quartz is silicon dioxide, and the oxygen has to be removed. By heating, we mean something like 2,150 degrees Centigrade, and to get that intensity of heat, what do you use? Either coal or natural gas.
So, this is the thing about the educational process: it is a process, not just a fact or two. Someone who hears this might not have known about the natural gas or coal requirement, but then people ask—and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked this question—‘Okay, I get it. They need to use coal, which is dirty, or natural gas, which is not so great, either, although it’s better than coal, but they’re only using it for one day to make the silicon. But, the solar panel can be on your roof for like 15 years, so you’re saving more carbon overall, right?’ It’s true that the production process that consumes carbon takes only one day and that the solar panel might last 15 years, but the conclusion is false. How so? Because the amount of energy used to make the silicon substrate is more than the amount of energy you’re going to produce with a panel that’s on your roof for 15 years. Why is that true? Because that’s the second law of thermodynamics: you can’t create energy.”
I don't think this is right — e.g., you can generate extreme heat with electricity: https://www.carbonbrief.org/significant-shift-away-from-coal-as-most-new-steelmaking-is-now-electric/
So, no, you don't need coal or natural gas.
But more to the point, what does this contradict in my post?
“climate safe energy sources like wind and solar”…..Let’s just say I follow others on this platform who would clearly disagree with such a simplistic phrase. I have a gut feeling those same writers might also point out your piece obviously lacks any kudos for nuclear.
Again, I repeat that I lack any formal education in this subject matter. However, I have several decades experience in investing, economics and finance. I could go on for hours about things which I see written or spoken on those topics which are ridiculous garbage. And often it’s from people with top notch pedigrees and huge followings. I view skepticism as necessary, and admit I’m highly skeptical of much that is pitched from the anti fossil fuel crowd.
I would encourage you to be more skeptical of the pro-fossil fuel crowd. Energy is undergoing a revolution right now and many of their arguments are a few years out of date, meaning they're completely wrong. The example you originally gave is a prime example (we can't generate heat w/ electricity). Many of these people don't know they're wrong, but some of the pro-fossil fuel propaganda is intentional and designed to mislead.
"I have a gut feeling those same writers might also point out your piece obviously lacks any kudos for nuclear."
"I lack any formal education in this subject matter."
"I’m highly skeptical of much that is pitched from the anti fossil fuel crowd."
Hmm. I would encourage you to be more skeptical of the pro-nuclear crowd also. Skepticism is useless when it's actually the Dunning-Kruger effect in disguise, however. Unless you're just here to bash greenies? "Anti fossil fuel crowd"? Just why do you suppose they're anti fossil fuel? You might learn something by finding out. Gut feelings aren't science, after all. If you find you can't follow Prof. Dessler's arguments because you lack formal education, why do you assume they're misleading? Do you think climate change is merely a stalking horse for a Progressive agenda? One more time: anthropogenic climate change is an "environmental" issue only in the sense that climate is everyone's environment. Nor is it simply a liberal preoccupation. No matter what Donald Trump thinks, conservatives will pay for it one way or another, too!
It is certainly possible to create very high temperatures for industrial purposes without using fossil fuels. Concentrated solar heating, electric arc furnaces, and hydrogen can all be used depending on which temperature is needed for an industrial manufacturing or refining process. It's not just about energy, it's about the entropy of that energy. Extremely high temperatures are extremely low in entropy (and high in exergy), and this has a significant exergy demand to achieve. That is one consequence of the Second Law. We often talk solely about energy in the economy, but exergy is the real thing we value. That is, energy in a high degree of disequilibrium with the environment.
Sorry…response #2…I see that you also post articles on Substack. I could guess immediately that I would agree with much of what you wrote on Advertising Based Overconsumption. Indeed that is a “thing”. My father passed away this year at age 97. About 10 years ago I was visiting my parents for Christmas and my dad wanted to show me something outside. As we were putting on our winter gear I looked at him and said “Come on. You’re wearing my high school stocking cap?” He looked at me with a straight face and replied “It keeps my head warm.” That piece of clothing would have over 40 years old at that point. Needless to say, that’s quite the opposite mentality which you describe in your article.
Just a quick question….Are there specific examples of the three alternative methods you mentioned currently being utilized?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/significant-shift-away-from-coal-as-most-new-steelmaking-is-now-electric/
On your last point the conclusion is wrong. A solar panel does not create energy, it converts incoming energy radiated from the Sun into electrical energy here on Earth.
Despite the schoolboy math, pumping gasoline from an underground storage tank at the gas station into you car is not actually transferring energy at the rate of several MW. If it was, what about me driving a 6,000 gallon gasoline tanker truck down the road? How much energy am I transferring every mile? How many MW is that and where is that power coming from, eh?
I can tell you're interested in unsubscribing from the newsletter. Let me know if you're unable to figure out how to do it yourself — I'm more than happy to help you.
I beg to differ. The efficiency of a car equipped with a modern diesel engine is around 45%, gasoline engine it typically is 30%. If you take all losses during charging into account the efficiency of an electric car is about 65%, without it is 80%. But these two numbers don't include the efficiency of power generation. Best you can do with fossil fuels is 60%, which means the real efficiency of an EV is 39% if the power don't come from wind or solar.
Mumbo Rumo Jumbo
I think Jacobson says we can reduce energy 56%, or use 44%, not that we need 56% of current energy
I remember the primary energy fallacy being used twenty years ago. As projections of needed renewable energy improved it became clear that primary energy was not a correct argument. Deniers have long stopped using it
Yeah, I think you're right. I've fixed the post to reflect this. Thanks!
Thanks for illustrating those energy density figures; I’ve wanted to know them for a long time. It’s hard to imagine cramming that much energy into a battery in a short time without exploding it! But as Transportation Secretary Buttigieg explained, you don’t need to top up your battery every time (and the process slows as you approach saturation), you just need a comfortable amount to get to the next charging opportunity - which might save quite a bit of time.
Andrew thank you for your many comparisons and conversion factors. If I had the money to buy a new car I would buy a hybrid. Although I live where hydropower is predominant, winter snowpack are on decline and drought are increasing the probability of reduced capacity for power production. Unless power producers keep in lock-step with EV demand, can they accommodate EV and domestic-industrial demands with increasing temps?
I think the answer is yes, if the charging is done intelligently. They should price energy so that people charge their cars when energy is most plentiful and least expensive.
Thanks for your reply. That's positive--- the key is "intelligently".
Have you considered solar panels to charge batteries?
This was great, thank you! Here from thanks to Climate Town.
Cheers!
I love Climate Town even more now!
You can surely take down my last point, but here is another small comment. Fossil fuel engines shed heat overwhelmingly through the talepipe, but also by convection from the radiator + all the surfaces of the engine.