This analysis shows that Electric vehicle technologies INCREASE CO2 compared to this New Engine Type (NET) technology by 2.4 to 11.3 times depending on factors with 3.2 likely.
To know how much CO2 an EV makes, the path of the energy from the source to the wheel needs to be known. There are four (4) ways electricity can get from the source to the electric Motor in the car:
1) Grid -- Battery in car -- Motor in car,
2) Grid -- Battery in building -- Battery in car -- Motor in car
3) Solar PV/wind from building -- Battery in car -- Motor in car,
4) Solar PV /wind from building -- Battery in building -- Battery in car -- Motor in car.
Grid electricity in the USA is ~ 550 grams CO2/kwh, which is ~ twice the 273 grams CO2/kwh found in Gasoline. By using grid electricity the energy used causes twice the CO2 as would gasoline for the same energy amount.
By using the battery to store energy, the energy (CO2) used to manufacture it is approximately equal to the amount of energy found in gasoline that would drive a car with the New Engine Type engine in it.
In other words, you could run the car on gasoline making oil based CO2 for the same CO2 to make the battery. In short, Gasoline CO2 = Battery CO2= 272 grams CO2/kwh.
The New Engine Type (NET) power system is approximately EQUAL in EFFICIENCY to an EV power system at around 60% to 75% on the highway where the motors are worked harder than in the city. An EV can be as low as 30% efficient in some cases in city driving compared to 50% for the NET car, particularly around 25 mph in stop and go traffic.
The efficiency of an old piston engine car to an EV is around 4-5 to 1 for EV/Piston. An old piston engine is 4-5 times less energy efficient than an EV. With the grid twice the CO2 as gasoline, the 4-5 ratio is divided by 2 to get a ratio of 2-2.5 more CO2 for old piston engines running on gasoline compared to EVs. Some say in studies that the break even point for CO2 ratio is 68 mpg for a car. 68/2.5=30 mpg or about what a Buick gets Highway and a Ford Fiesta gets combined.
The energy consumption in the EV is MORE than the NET car due primarily to the lower weight of the NET car (no battery) and better efficiency at low power. Not having to haul around a 1050 lb battery makes the economy go up by about 1.5 times when the NET system is exchanged for the Electric motors and battery. The exact amount depends on speeds and weight ratio, with all else, such as body shape and aerodynamics, the same.
The MPGe of a NET car compared to a Battery EV car is 1.2 times MORE MPGe Highway and 1.8x MPGe city, 1.5x combined driving, with a total weight of 4400 lbs for Tesla and 2800 lbs for NET car (1600 lbs less), in this example. Each car has 400 lb of people.
If Active drag reduction (1/2 aerodynamic drag gone) is included via the NET system in a car, which an EV cannot do, the ratio increases to 1.68 times highway and 2.25 time city, according to computer models.
Combined driving for a Tesla is 130 mpge per EPA data, and the model says 148. The NET-car having a combined rating of 222 without active drag reduction and 275 with. The factor would be 222/148=1.5 without and 1.85 with active drag reduction.
When heating/cooling is used with surface cooling in the EV, about 1 HP is needed. This gives a heating/cooling factor of ~ 1.12 for an EV. The power used is around 8.5 hp. ((8.5+1 cooling)/8.5=1.12 factor)
If we assume 50% cooling/heating (winter and summer, but not spring and fall) the factor is 1/2 x 1.12 or a 1.06 factor for combined heating/cooling.
This analysis assumes 1.2 highway, 1.8 city and 1.5 combined driving with NO active drag reduction. This is an extra measure of fairness should any estimate of CO2 be too high for renewable sources, thus making this analysis "beyond reasonable doubt" as it were.
The energy to drive the EV comes from the battery as a source vs fuel as a source in NET-car. The battery sources electricity from the grid or Home PV panel or battery. Each time the energy is used on average it consumes an amount of CO2 in the manufacture of the PV panel or battery equal to approximately 1 unit of fuel to run a NET-car on gasoline. This adds to the CO2 disadvantage of an EV and renewable sources.
Moving energy around costs CO2 in terms of life cycle. It is NOT free of CO2 increases, plus the energy into and out of a battery is a 20% loss! If the car battery were charged by the grid, the CO2 amount would be two units for the grid (550 grid vs 273 gasoline) and one for the use of the battery in the car, for a total of 3 units of CO2 to supply the Electrical motors compared to one for fuel to supply energy to the NET Car.
A Tesla at 65 mph consumes as drive loads around 17.3 hp, and at 25 mph only 3 hp. In cold or hot weather the thermal loads can be 1 HP with heated surfaces or 3-5 HP with air.
We assume a factor of 2x for city driving with air (drive load 3 hp plus 3 hp cooling is 2x factor) as worst case and 1.06 for highway with surfaces as best case, as 1 HP gives a factor of 1.06 for highway ((17.3+1)/17.3=1.06).
Note that the NET-car uses waste heat and engine cycles to get "free" heating and cooling, unlike the EV that must use battery energy to do a thermal process. This is a key factor in city driving where drive loads are small and thermal loads are relatively larger.
The ratio of CO2 for EV/Net-car is found by multiplying above factors in ratios. Since there are many combinations, only the highest and lowest will be calculated here as well as the likely case.
The highest ratio or worst case for an EV is with: city, cooling/heating, and grid.
2x city cooling/heating
Total is 1.88 x 3 x 2 = 11.3x more CO2 for EV.
The lowest ratio or best case for an EV is with: highway, ambient temps and PV during day.
1 no cooling/heating
Total =1.2 x 2 x 1 = 2.4x more CO2 for EV.
The likely ratio is with: combined driving, cooling/heating with surfaces on 50%, and grid.
Total = 2 x 1.5 x 1.06 = 3.2
In summary, the range of CO2 ratios for EV/Net-car is as follows:
At NO time is an EV lower in CO2. Never. Round up and down for a 3-10 ratio as a good ball park figure to use. Note that 10 x makes an EV obsolete as a product with respects to CO2.
This pulls the rug out from under EVs as being the best way to get lower CO2. The lower CO2 option is clearly with the NET technology by a factor of 3.2 times to 1 over an EV.
In short, if CO2 is your reason or concern, then this new engine technology is "likely" on average over 3-10 times less CO2 than an EV such as a Tesla.
Some reference points and assumptions...
A gallon of gasoline is $2 (without road tax of 45 cents) in most USA State (Dec 2020).
Assume the NET engine is substituted for the Electrical system in a Model 3 Tesla at 60% of the weight or 2400 lb plus two people. 4400 lb for EV Tesla (EVT) and 2800 lb for New Engine Tesla (NET). (MPGE is miles per gallon equivalent to gasoline. This is what the EPA uses...)
Highway speed is at 65 mph MPGE,
City is 25 mph MPGE
Combined average is 40% of 65 mph MPGE plus 60% of 35 mph MPGE
Computer model shows the EV Tesla IDEAL economy at a CONSTANT 55% Electric system Efficiency at:
121 Highway 65 mph
180 Combined average
273 City 25 mph.
This is what a 4400 lbs Tesla 3LR would get if the electric motor system efficiency was always 55%. See this article for the 55% and 65 mph. Note 220 mpg at 25 mph (153 wh/mile) gives 44% when you solve for system efficiency. If you solve for the EPA city (25 mph) of 136 mpge you get 27% efficiency. The analysis here is more generous in favor of the EV Tesla. https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/22-tesla-model-3-performance-vs-rwd-consumption-real-driving-data-from-233-cars/
134 Highway 65 mph
220 at 25 mph
Actual EPA for Tesla is:
123 Highway 66%
130 Combined 43%
136 City 27%
Solve for efficiency with EPA numbers. Notice that City is much lower than expected.
A Tesla with New Engine Type (NET) in it without any changes to the weight of the structure and only the removal of the electric motors and battery systems would have a 3350 lb weight with two people in it (4400-1050=3350 lbs).
New Engine Type projection at the following efficiencies are:
148 Highway 60%
213 combined 54%
308 City 50%
Solve for MPG with projected efficiencies of engine system.
Ratio (Relative is key to this analysis)
148/123 = 1.2 Highway
260/130 =1.64 Combined
393/136 =2.26 City
Combine =~1.64x. This is the figure used for comparisons, as it is the "average" driving cycle.
The new engine would result in 1.64 times better MPGE for the Tesla car body due to 1600 lbs lower weight and better efficiency of 54% vs 43% for Tesla in combined driving. City driving would be 2.26 times, and this is because of 50% efficiency vs 27% for Tesla at low power per EPA rating.
These number clearly show that a Tesla DROPS from 66% to 27% in City at 25 mph when lightly loaded in city driving. The energy recovery is also very low or a combination of the two.
CO2 from cost perspective:
Current costs of Li-ion is $200/kwh. 85 kwh x 200 = $17000.
$17k/$2.26/gal (no tax) = 7500 gal.
If we assume 1/4 of all product costs made in USA is energy (national average, btw), then 7,500 gallons/4=1876 gallons.
This equals 365,820 miles with the NET engine in car without the battery at 195 mpg combined.
If a Tesla M3 gets 130 MPGe and uses 1870 GGE it will travel 243,880 miles, or about 2/3rd what the New Engine Type car would travel. (130/195=0.666 = 2/3)
CO2 from Manufacture of battery perspective:
One study said that a 100 kwh battery makes 20 metric tons of CO2 in the manufacture. Recall that one (1) Gallon of gasoline make 20 lb of CO2.
20 tons CO2/100 kwh x 2200lb/ton = 440 lb CO2/kwh ... x 1 GGE/20lb CO2 =22 GGE/kwh.
At 85 kwh, a Tesla M3 battery is ~equal to 1870 gallons of gasoline in terms of CO2 produced. (85x22=1870) or about what the cost estimate shows...
The warranty of a Tesla M3 is 120,000 miles and 8 years. The life cycle is likely over 240,000 miles or twice the warranty, or about what the CO2 would be to drive it with fuel at 130 mpg. In other words, if you used gasoline and got 130 mpg you would have the SAME CO2 as what it took to make the battery.
If the EV were used daily as a drone taxi, as some propose, it might get over 240,000 miles on the battery due to the high number of miles per year (60-80k) compared to a normal private owners. The 240,000 mile mark would be reached in 3-4 years at 60-80k/year instead of 20 years by a private owner.
240,000 miles at 12,000 miles/year is 20 years. The battery ages and will be at the end of life cycle in 20 years, regardless of the distance driven.
Therefore, a good assumption is that the CO2 used in the manufacture is close to the CO2 that would result from gasoline that would be used if the car got 130 mpg with a New Engine Type engine system.
Battery CO2 for EV = Gasoline CO2 for car at same MPG as EV.
Note: if a car crashes, the CO2 ratio can be much higher by the ratio of the years used to the full life cycle, as the CO2 is already spent in manufacture, whereas a gasoline car that crashes would NOT use the gasoline and therefore would be much less by the ratio of years.
For example, if the car crashes at 60,000 miles, 180,000 miles of gasoline (CO2) would not be used in the gasoline car, but would be in the EV as a sunk cost of manufacture in terms of CO2, assuming gasoline = CO2 cost to manufacture the battery. These ratios would go up accordingly when the EV does not go the design distance due to a crash or failed equipment.
It is therefore assumed that the fuel (CO2) to drive a NET car = CO2 to manufacture an EV battery. This is likely the case. Again, a NET car is NOT an old piston engine, which would be at least 4-5 times MORE CO2 than for the battery EV.
An Otto engine efficiency is:
13.5% average combined
A Tesla is 66% highway, 27% city, and ~ 43% combines using EPA numbers, but 55% from some studies,
Tesla/Otto = 66/15=4.4 times more highway, all else equal (which it is not, due to battery, etc.). If we assume other studies, the Tesla is 4 times better (55/13.5=4.07 =~4 x). The likely figure is 4.2 times, as assumed here in this analysis.
Grid CO2/gasoline CO2 = 550 /273 = 2x
During City driving in Summer/winter, the thermal loads can equal drive load when using blown air. Thus the ratio is 2x for Tesla with heated/cooled blown air, and 1.12x with heated/cooled surfaces. Heated/Cooled surfaces save a lot of energy. My former Boss invented the heated surface technology after they discovered the high thermal loads in city with their EV in 1990's before Tesla.
An EV uses 4.2/2= 2.1 more CO2 than a Gasoline engine with no heating from battery in the EV. This is simply due to the grid/gasoline ratio.
With heated surfaces in the EV the factor is: 4.2/(1.2 with surfaced x grid 2 factor)= 4.2/2.4= 1.75 with free heating from combustion engine waste.
A piston engine is 1.75 to 2.1 times MORE CO2 than a Tesla EV, winter to Spring/fall (no heat).
The figure of 2x more CO2 for piston over EV or 50% reduction of CO2 by using an EV is accepted by many in the "GREEN" movement...
The NET-car technology compared to Tesla EV is 2.4x to 11.28x less CO2.
NET-car compared to an old piston gasoline car, both using gasoline:
Weight factor for combined driving is 1.5x due to lower weight engine. Weight ratio of Old IC car vs NET car is 3600 lbs vs 2400 lbs
1.5 x 54/13.5=6 times MORE CO2 for old piston engine.
As a side note, the problem with comparing piston engines to EV systems is actually in the nature of the two system performances. A low powered economy car can be much lower CO2 by 1/2 than a muscle car due to the nature of the efficiencies at low power loads in an IC engine.
The fuel to make a battery for an EV is equal to the gasoline to run it with a NET engine system. The CO2 for gasoline is 273 grams CO2/kwh.
Most PV panels = gasoline use in NET car = Same CO2 to run EV. Most PV panels do not recover the energy input to make the panels, install and maintain them. This means you simply are making the same CO2 as it would cost in terms of gasoline CO2 had you just used gasoline instead, but the CO2 is made during manufacture.
If you charge batteries during the day with PV roof panels and charge the car when at home at night, the battery use cost in terms of CO2 is equal to that of fuel to run the car with a NET engine for both the house and car battery, or twice (2x) the gasoline. Add in the cost of the car battery and you just spent 3x the CO2 that it would have taken to run the car the same distance on gasoline with the NET engine system.
If you charge the car during the day, you still have the battery CO2 cost in the car which is equal to the fuel to run the car on gasoline plus the PV panel, or twice (2x) the fuel to run the car with the NET engine system on gasoline.
It saves NOTHING in terms of CO2 or costs to use a PV panel and batteries...NOTHING. In fact it costs you 3x in fuel if charged at night. You might as well go buy gasoline instead.
In short, it take ~3x more CO2 to charge an EV at night from home batteries that are charged from a PV panel than to fuel it with gasoline and use the NET engine tech instead of the EV.
In essence, an EV is a delusional attempt to commit fraud when you are honest about CO2. The CO2 is hidden in the processes, all the while it is claimed they are CO2 free. This is a case of clear and open fraud by those promoting EV technology. Such should be a crime, but nobody has the courage to actual state the facts about this as done above.
If a New Engine Type (NET) car uses Ammonia (NH3) made from solar, the CO2 can be assumed to be that of nuclear at 20 gCO2/kw.
The fuel to make a battery for an EV is equal to the gasoline to run it with a NET engine system. The CO2 for gasoline is 273 grams CO2/kwh. Assume 1.5 times better MPG for Net compared to Tesla EV.
NET car would use 20 gCO2/kw x1.5 fuel making=30 = x
Tesla would use (273+20) x 1.5=14.65x charged in day
Tesla would use (273x2+20) x 1.5=28.3x charged from battery in house during day
In other words, when BOTH NET and Tesla are run on nuclear, the battery in the car at 273 DOMINATES the CO2 costs. The double use of the battery makes it 28 times MORE CO2 than the NET car.
In comparison to gasoline with a NET car at 273 =x
Tesla would use with grid (550 grid+273 bat) x 1.5=4.5x charged in day
Tesla would use (550 grid + 273x2) x 1.5=6x charged from battery in house.
Multiply these number by 1.2 or 2 for heating for city and you get 5.4-12x more CO2 compared to gasoline.
This is a simpler analysis than other analysis above, but may actually be more accurate.
An EV is on average over 3.2 times MORE (range is 2.4x to 11.3x) CO2 than the New Engine Type (NET) engine system in the same car optimized for the lower weights.
When an EV is charged by nuclear vs Ammonia from nuclear, the ratios of CO2 are 14-28 times more CO2 for an EV, due mainly from the battery use.
The key to lower CO2 is to eliminate the Battery...!
EV saves no CO2 by using PV panels and batteries as each uses CO2 in their manufacture, which adds to the total CO2.
If CO2 is your concern, This New Engine Type (NET) technology is YOUR ONLY KNOWN SOLUTION by at least 3 times over an EV, and depending on climate and driving mode, up to 12 times less CO2 in city during cold or hot weather.
Moreover, if combustion is banned in favor of EV technology by reason of lower CO2, it will backfire (pun intended). NET engine tech can mandate that EVs be banned in favor of this New Engine Type (NET) technology due to the lower CO2 that this combustion technology offers over EV tech.
NOTICE: This is a notice of caution to ALL GOVERNMENT officials in terms of using government to force EVs onto us all. The CO2 issue can and will be used to ban EVs if it can be used to ban this or similar Technology by way of any CO2 mandate.
You cannot force an EV solution that is 3-12 times MORE CO2 than NET tech using gasoline and up to 28 times more with Ammonia make with nuclear.
Careful in what you wish for when it comes to banning technology such as combustion.
Big picture: The CO2 game is over. The lowest CO2 is with fuels, such as NH3, and this New Engine Type. You have been given notice...
Why are people so gullible and ignorant about EVs and CO2?
Human nature...Beyond the scope of this engineering analysis.