Energy cost calcs: all gas vs. all electric

Awl--

Even tho "gasoline mpg's" may be obsolete with the advent of electric cars, I thought it would be interesting to see at least what the upper limit of gasoline mpg's are. The calcs reveal an additionally compelling feature about electric cars, namely that in addition to a myriad of other electric car advantages, they operate under a *fundamentally higher thermodynamic efficiency*, because the efficiency of a charging cycle of a battery is double-triple that of a Carnot-limited heat engine.

My calcs and values follow--would be interesting to see what others might get.

The drag equation (

formatting link
is Force = .5 p v^2 Cd A p = density of air, v = velocity, Cd = drag coeff, A = net frontal area of object.

F x 1 mile is the energy needed to overcome aerodynamic drag for one mile.

A gallon of gas has about 131 megajoules. Net engine efficiency is about 32% (about 60% thermodynamic/Carnot eff, and we realize about half of that).

Aerodynamic drag supposedly accounts for 60% of the energy needed to propel a car, at highway speeds.

Using a CdA of about 5.5 for my Honda Fit (auto), at 65 mph, and the 60/40 energy apportionment, I get a "theoretical" mpg of about 54.

On an upstate drive, I was thrilled to achieve 46.4 of those 54 mpg's, much better than Consumer Reports results. City driving, however, esp. with Yonkers hills, is not much better than

25-30. Hummers have a CdA of about 25, which means they consume 5 times the aerodynamic energy of my Fit.

As stated above, perhaps the biggest energy hit occurs from middling gas engine efficiency, where 67% of the energy in a gallon of gas goes right out the radiator/tailpipe--up the proverbial chimney. wow....

And, another 40% of the paltry energy extracted from said gallon goes to sundry mechanical inefficiencies, likely consistent with the large difference between crankshaft hp and rear-wheel hp: Transmission losses, driveline losses, sundry power-assists, etc.

So from a pure energy pov, the comparison between gas and electric looks like this:

Gas: 131 Megajoules x 32% (thermo) x 60% available for aero drag = 25 megajoules applied to aero drag. Electric: 131 x 80% (batt/elec motor eff) x 85% (assuming only 15% loss for car internals) = 89 megajoules applied to aero drag. Of course, the electric is not using a gallon of gas, this is just supplying a 131 megajoule "initial equivalent".

Thus, an electric car can be 350% the energy efficiency of an IC engine driven car. Mebbe more.

One can fudge the numbers quite a bit either way, but it is unlikely that an electric will fall below 200% the total energy efficiency of gas.

In addition, the energy/resources consumed in the mfr of an electric car are likely a small fraction of that of a gas car, esp. if we dispense with the

300 hp bullshit. VWs did fine with 42 hp.

If we factor in the overall lower-power of an electric, say, 40 vs 200 hp, we have *another* factor of 500%.

Overall, the energy savings of automotive transportation could drop to 1/5 to 1/10 of current usage, which is pretty astounding.

Also, the automotive service industry will be revolutionized--or destroyed, depending on your perspective. "Check the brushes on your permanently lubed DC motors, sir?" Might not even have brushes!

Yeah, batteries are still a problem, but proly not for long. With a small good hub motor on each wheel, even lead-acid batts are viable, at least in-town.

If all this indeed happens, I guess guys will have to go back to wearing decorated/bejweled codpieces, instead of their Vettes, Vipers, and Carreras. :)

Info for the above calcs:

p = rho = 1.293 (metric units); v = 65 mph; CdA = 5.5 sq ft Conversions: .447 mph to m/s

10.76 sq ft to sq m 1610 meters/ mi .6 = fraction of energy applied to aero drag 131,000,000 joules/gal .32 gas engine eff.

All data from the below peer-reviewed sources: :)

formatting link
formatting link
60%
formatting link
formatting link
CdA's
formatting link
enginen eff
formatting link
95% batt eff.

Reply to
The Pre-Meltdown Kid
Loading thread data ...

Oh, might should have mentioned the overall strategy of the previous calcs:

Notice that there is no mention of engines, cylinders, or any other specifics. The calculation of *theoretical mpg's* hinges on just a few general variables, some of which we can't do much about: gas engine eff, energy content of gas, the CdA, and internal losses of the car. Oh, and the the speed at which one drives.

Only the CdA (wind resistance factor) can be manipulated to realize greater theoretical efficiences. And driving slower in top gear. Altho a previous thread on this topic suggested that this was not always the case, ie, slow speed in top gear = best mpg's, but likely "second order" diffs.

In *actual* efficiencies, the specifics of engine design of course come into play.

In my Honda Fit, the only way to raise the "theoretical max mpg's" of 54 is to lower the driving speed, or further reduce the CdA.

It seems, tho, that for bitty cars like the Honda Fit genre, 50-60 mpg is about the max mpg's that can be realized in a gas powered car--not the 100+ that some ballyhoo about.

However, for all electric cars, the equivalent of 200-500 mpg's seem realistic--barring calculational errors.

Reply to
The Pre-Meltdown Kid

I didn't see where you created the electricity, or an accounting for the transmisison losses for sending he electricity to the charging location, or the cost of building the extra generating capacity needed to supply the electricity, or the energy lost becasue batteies self discharge, etc.

Ed

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" wrote in message news:47b27932$0$25060$ snipped-for-privacy@cv.net...

Reply to
C. E. White

formatting link
CdA's

Remember, that thirty percent or so efficiency number is only at nearly full throttle.

When you are driving at part throttle it is not anywheres near as efficient.

Reply to
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.