Fuel VS Battery VS Grid

Electro Fuels or OIL can be less than $2/gallon of gasoline equivalent ($0.53/Liter) or 6 cents/kwh retail, and 1/2 that amount wholesale.  

The grid WITHOUT ANY renewables is 10-11 cents/kwh, retail, 5.5 wholesale (what grid pays home PV solar panels).

The grid WITH 35% renewables (Germany) is 30 cents/kwh.

100% renewable grid might be 60-160 cents/kwh with wind/solar and low hydro amounts.  Note there is no real way to store excess power via batteries like one can with fuels.  This requires many more devices to be spread out over distances to back up local loss of solar or wind.  This costs at least 2x more over Germany's rates.  Charging an EV in England is reported to be 90 cents/kwh = $30.33/GGE...insane.

Basic base line retail costs are:  

Fuel = 6 cents/kwh fuel or $2/gal

Electricity = 10 to 60 cents/kwh or $3.37 to $20.22/GGE grid

Energy ratio:

1 Fuel vs 1.66 to 7.5 electric.

A 55 gallon (207 Liters) plastic tank costs around $20 and stores 1853 kwh of energy as gasoline.

A Li-ion battery costs $370,000+ to store the SAME (1853 kwh) energy.

Ratio is over 18,000 to 1 in costs. 

Fuel is the best and cheapest way to store energy known.

A fuel tank is like a farmer's grain bin.  Basically to get to 100% Renewable energy, a person needs to "farm" renewable energy year round and store excess energy for winter and nights just as a farmer does with crops.    

With fuel storage, renewable supply can  equal the yearly AVERAGE demand and NOT the peak demand, which can be over 1.75 times the average.  Heating loads can be 5 times electrical loads in winter, for example, as shown in this graph. http://www.lolo.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/images.png

In order to make a grid that can supply winter heating load peaks on demand, fuel storage is needed to avoid costly over building of renewable energy or nuclear supplies that end up being wasted or shut down in the summer.

In essence, the day and night thermal load shifting found in a house must be done on a yearly basis with excess heat and solar/wind from summer being stored for winter AS FUEL.  

Batteries cannot store this enormous amount of energy, but fuels can.  Without fuels, a renewable energy system is at least twice as expensive, if even possible.  There are times when wind and solar do not work over vast sections of land for extended periods.  Fuels are the only cost effective means to bridge the variation of supply and demand.  

With fuels there is no need for a "smart grid" either, nor the associated management costs that can exceed the costs of base wind and solar.   

Li-ion is now in 2020:

200 wh/kg

450 wh/Liter

Li-Air in 2040 could be:

500 wh/kg

1000 wh/Liter

Gasoline (regular):

12,356 wh/kg=5617 wh/lb

8903 wh/L = 33.7 kwh/gallon gasoline equivalent (GGE)- EPA figure.

Note: 9500 wh/L is high energy value quoted by many, which  gives 36 Kwh/Gallon.  The EPA uses the lower value of 33.7 kwh/gallon for car sales.  Each value below is therefore biased to Batteries to be more than fair.

Ratios 2020 battery/gasoline

Energy/weight = 12356/200= 61.8

Energy/volume = 8903/450=19.8

Ratio 2040 Battery/gasoline

Energy/weight = 12356/500=24.7

Energy/volume = 8903/1000= 8.9

Ratio of Battery improvement claims 2040/2020;

500/200=2.5

1000/450=2.22

Any vehicle powered by New Engine Type would be ~2x better economy over an EV of the same body due to Active drag Reduction, boundary layer, 100% brake recovery and 1/2 car weight.  This ratio would be much higher for airplanes.

The energy/weight/distance= 24.7 x 2 =~50:1

The energy/volume/distance = 8.9 x 2 = 17.8

Notice that the improvements in battery technology will result in ~ 2.2 times better range for an EV.  If it now gets 260 mpge (Tesla Model 3) on 80% charge, then it would be 2.2 x 260 =572 mile range when volume is considered.  If weight is the issue then 2.5 x 260 = 650 mile range.  Full charge would be 650/0.8=812 miles.  

In comparison, a New Engine Type in the body of a Tesla would get 10 times the above with 20 gallons.  If the current volume (2020) of battery were used as fuel it would be 2.52 x 19.8=49.9=~50 gallons.  If an EV got 130 mpge, the New Engine Type in same body would get 1.5 times or 195 mpg.  50 x 130 x 1.5=9750 mile range.  Compared to 650 for EV in 2040 time frame...9750/650=15 times further.  

In the extreme low volume fuel case for 650 mile range, it would only take 3.33 gallons of fuel in a plastic tank in the NET engine car to go the same distance as the 2040 EV.  (650/195=3.33) 3.33 gallons of fuel and tank is  ~ 20 lb.  A 3 gallon tank would cost $2 to make in plastic compared to a battery at $8500 in 2040.  

Money = CO2.  

If $8500 is the cost of the battery in 2040, or 1/2 today's price of $17000, then 1/4 of that is close to the CO2 to make it as 1/4 of all products is CO2.  Rough figure here.

8500/4=2125 gallons.  A New Engine Type car could drive over 414,375 miles (195 mpg  x 2125 gallons= 414,375 miles) on gasoline for the amount of CO2 it takes to make the battery.  This is over 27 years of driving at 15,000/year, far beyond the life of any known battery now or in the future 50 years.  

Think of a battery as prepaid CO2 equal to 414k miles.  If the car crashes driving out of the showroom floor, the fuel to drive it 414k miles has already been used up in the manufacture of the battery. 

If you consider fuel for a battery TODAY at a cost of 2x or $17000 /battery) the distance to break even would be over 800k miles.  Even if the battery were to get 800k miles, it would still have made in the manufacture more CO2 than to drive a New Engine Type on gasoline.  

This EV Battery tech makes NO sense when CO2 is the concern...  The CO2 is made at the factory quickly and not over the life of the car.  It loads 27 years of driving into the manufacture time (days), and thus makes much more CO2 today and not later.  This is exactly opposite to the stated sense of emergency in CO2 reduction TODAY.  

Again, if you want the CO2 gone, EVs can't deliver.

Wind and Solar renewable energy devices are now as low as 2.5-5 cents/kwh that are grid enabled for AC current without transmission or grid maintenance costs.  When they are connected to the grid a 15-30 cent/kwh charge is added to their costs due to the variability of the supply.

By making renewable devices DC without grid costs, they can be 1/2 the cost of grid able devices.  This makes the supply of DC power cost 1.25-2.5 cents/kwh.  This DC supply can then be made into fuels at 1.5 times costs.  If the engine is 75% efficient, the fuel can be turned into electricity on demand at the same cost as AC.   Experts in Electro-fuels claim that 10% loss is possible with ideal catalysts.  If the conversion is 1.2 then the fuel can be combusted at 60% (1.2/0.6=2) and be par to AC supply at 2.5-5 cents/kwh, which is equal to coal.   

The real result is a 2x saving (DC vs AC) and a 1.2-1.5 times cost (loss in fuel making) to making fuels. This makes fuels 60-75% the cost of grid electricity BEFORE transmission costs of 15-30 cents/kwh are added. 

This fuel is then used in cars/trucks/airplanes in the New Engine Type at 60-75% efficiency or par to electric systems, such as a Tesla EV.  

At no time would grid electricity be less costs than fuel making...never.  

The real cost of rewewable electricity is at least 20 cents/kwh ( 5 device + 15 grid fee= 20).  This  compares to 3.75 cents/khw  (2.5 (DC) x 1.5 (fuel making) = 3.75) for fuel making.  Retail fuel cost would be constrained by Oil prices or around 6 cents/kwh ($2/gal) retail and not 3.75 x 2 = 7.5 cents/kwh ($2.52/GGE) for retail.

The ratio of costs is 20/3.75=5.33, which is 5.33 times more for renewable grid electricity (best case) compared to fuel made from electricity via DC at the wind/solar farm.  

In reality, the costs of a 100% renewable grid will be 60-160 cents/kwh and fuel would be 6 cents/kwh, which is 10 times (60/6=10) what fuel would cost. 

Why does grid add to the costs so much?  

Grid back up and maintenance of frequency and voltage adds to the cost of grid renewbles by over 15-30 cents/kwh.  Part of this cost is to pay people to NOT produce when excess power is available from wind or solar.  Coal and nuclear have to pay to get rid of power, or shut down, costing large sums to start up again.  Base load power sources and renewables are NOT compatible due to the variability of renewables and grid demand.  Base load is ideal for fuel making....   

Total Grid costs with renewables below 50% is at least 20 cents/kwh.  Germany is 30-45 cent/kwh and has around 35% renewable.  A 100% renewable grid would be at least 60-160 cent/kwh due in part to the excess capacity needed and the existing contracts that pay renewables to not produce.    

A 100% renewable grid would always be at least 3 to 10 times MORE than a fuel based renewable system, or 18 to 60 cents/kwh compared to 6 cents/kwh for a fuel based system.

3 cents/kwh= $1.01/GGE (fuel based wholesale from nuclear, wind and solar)

6 cents/kwh = $2.02/GGE (fuel based retail from nuclear, wind and solar)

18 cents/kwh = $6.74/GGE (minimum wholesale cost of "renewable" grid with gas back up)  

30 cents/kwh = $15.16/GGE (Germany costs for a 35% renewable grid)

60 cents/kwh = $20.22/GGE (likely cost of a "Green New Deal" 100% renewable grid)

As Obama said, your electricity costs will "necessarily triple" with his "green" technology...  

10 cent/kwh x 3 = 30 cents/kwh.  Obama was off by at least 2x, just like his Healthcare scam.  He should have said your electricity costs would go up 6 times (10 x 6 = 60) more.  

A fuel based system would be retail 6 cents/kwh.  Obama's grid would therefore be 10 times MORE, at 60 cents/kwh, than what it could be with a fuel based renewable technology and the New Engine Type...  

Fuel making requires DC current and is best if made at the plant.  It does not need a grid connection or the management costs of frequency/voltage maintenance.  This saves 15-30 cents/kwh or more in costs found on the grid.  Key.

The cost of wind and solar Electricity can be cut by 1/2 by eliminating all inverters, grid related expenses and connection fees.  By using DC current to the fuel maker, the supply of electricity is independent of the speed of the wind or solar generator. 

As renewable supply varies, the amount of fuel made varies.  This variability is not a factor when fuel is stored for later use, unlike the grid that is on demand.  

The key is to turn a variable supply (renewable energy) into a on-demand source by using fuels and engine tech.  

Fuel making is key to low cost renewable energy production and without fuels the costs are much higher by at least 2x, perhaps 10x.

A DC machine, wind or solar, could be 1/2 the cost of AC with grid connection ability.

If AC is 2.5 to 5 cents/kwh, then DC is 1/2 that price or 1.25-2.5 cents/kwh.  

Assuming 2 cents/kwh (average for simplicity in numbers) the cost to make fuel from renewable DC machines is:

1.5 x 2 cents/kwh = 3 cents/kwh.

3 cents/kwh x 33.7 kwh/Gallon gasoline equivalent is = to $1/gal.  About equal to raw unrefined OIL at $42/bbl!

Thorium nuclear can be 2-3 cents/kwh and make fuel at 3-4.5 cents/kwh or $1-1.5/gal gasoline.

New Engine Type engine system with solar thermal on a house can (potentially) make fuel for 1.5 cent/kwh in the day or 50 cents/GGE (NH3), or half the cost of Thorium.  (This keeps Thorium honest in cost!)

Cost range is: $0.50 to $1.5/GGE for renewable fuels.  This compares to grid at 12-60 cent/kwh ($4-30/GGE).  24 to 120:1 ratio  Not even close.

Fuel is ~6 lbs/gallon of gasoline (GGE) = 2.73 kg/gallon = 0.72 kg/Liter.

Li-ion battery is 416 lbs/GGE.  Tesla model 3, for example is 1050 lbs and 85 kwh.  1050/85=12.35 lbs/kwh.  12.35 kwh battery x 33.7 kwh/GGE = 416 lbs/GGE.  or 69 times MORE weight per energy than gasoline.  This does not include the added weight of the structure to carry the heavy battery which can be equal to the battery weight (50% useful load typical in vehicles)  

This battery weight requires structure to carry it, which results in twice the vehicle weight (2x) typically in a car compared to the New Engine Type in the same car optimized to the lower fuel weight.  A 4000 lb Tesla would weigh 2000 lbs for the same body and interior with the New Engine Type (NET) tech.

1050 lbs of fuel = 175 gallons.  In a car like a Tesla Model 3 with New Engine type instead, the fuel economy would be 200 highway, 260 average, 300 city with a small 20 gallon tank for a weight of 2120 lbs (2000 lbs + 120 fuel).  

A Tesla battery at 85 kwh is 2.5 GGE.  The volume of battery is 30+ times more than fuel.  2.5 x 30 = 75 Gallons of gasoline in the SAME volume.  75 x 200 = 15000 miles, compared to 250 miles.  60:1.  Notice that economy drops when the extra weight of fuel is accounted for.  Why carry 75 gallons when 20 or even 2 will do?

If a car had a 20 gallon tank as found in many gasoline cars today, it would have 5200 mile range, with 4000 highway and 6000 city ranges.  This is around 20 times more range than a Tesla at 80% Battery use.  

Also, it only takes 2 minutes to fill 20 gallons at 10 gallons/minute max flow, but it takes 1.36 hrs (80 minutes) to fill 80% of 85 kwh at 50 kw (0.8 x 85/50=1.36).   

80/2=40 times longer to fill 20 gallons fuel  vs 2 GGE electricity, or 10x more energy.  That is 400 times longer per energy.  If the New Engine Type car is 2x better economy (260 mpg vs 130 mpge) the time per distance is 400 x 2 = 800 times.  At 1.5x better, it takes 600 times longer.

It takes 800 times longer per distance to fill a Tesla EV than it would if that Tesla has the New Engine Type system instead of the Electrical system.  

800 times is game over folks... What is your time worth?  Nothing?  Clearly an EV says your time is WORTH LESS than someone with this New Engine Type technology....