Energy Conversion and Management 203 (2020) 112246

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Thermodynamics and energy usage of electric vehicles T

Efstathios E. Michaelides
Dept. of Engineering, TCU, Fort Worth, TX 76132, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The global number of electric vehicles is exponentially rising, due to strong marketing efforts and governmental
Electric vehicles incentives that significantly lower the price of new vehicles. This shift of consumers from internal combustion
Batteries engine vehicles to electric vehicles is actually a shift from petroleum to the primary sources that generate
Exergy electricity. The motivation for this paper is the holistic analysis of electric vehicles and the determination of their
Transportation
benefits and detriments. Starting with an exergetic assessment for all road vehicles, this paper determines the
Carbon dioxide emissions
electricity needed for the propulsion of electric vehicles. When the heating and cooling requirements of the
vehicle’s cabin are included, the range of the vehicles decreases significantly. The electricity requirements of the
vehicles are abridged to primary energy sources using the concept of well-to-wheels efficiency. Based on the
regional mix of electricity generation, the effect of the shift to electric vehicles on greenhouse gas emissions is
determined. Because the charging of the batteries of electric vehicles requires significant power, it was con-
cluded that the simultaneously charging of a number of vehicles will strain the capacity of the electricity grid.
The paper also examines the effects of electric vehicles on the further utilization of renewable energy sources.

1. Introduction
The use of electricity for passenger transportation is not new. Its
first known application was in 1839, when sir William Grove invented
the first fuel cell and demonstrated its use in a small tractor. Centrally
generated electricity has been successfully used for more than a century
in rail transport – primarily in underground (subways) and above-
ground railways (intercity trains) as well as in the trolleys and trams of
several cities. In the 21st century environmental concerns with CO2
(carbon dioxide) emissions and other combustion pollutants, in com-
bination with improved battery technology have ushered the new era of
electric battery-powered vehicles. Governmental incentives in several
countries (tax credits and rebates) have been adopted to promote the
substitution of internal combustion (IC) engine passenger cars with
electric vehicles (EVs). The incentives are most generous in countries
with high renewable energy availability, such as Norway [1]. In parallel
a network of publicly available EV charging stations is rapidly being
constructed in most countries: while in 2008 there were only 47 char-
ging stations, in 2018 this number mushroomed to 143,502 [1].
EVs are often portrayed as a panacea that has very high energy ef-
ficiency; will alleviate the global dependence on energy; will sig-
nificantly reduce the emissions of the greenhouse gases (GHG) that
contribute to the Global Climate Change (GCC); and would lead the way
to sustainable development. While most of the information on EVs is
derived from commercial and marketing publications, there are few
scientific and engineering studies that document the energy require-
ments of EVs, their environmental impact, and their effects on the re-
gional electricity grids. Among the few scientific assessments of EVs, a
recent study presented a methodology to estimate the energy use in
EVs, based on data measured with an on-board portable laboratory [2].
The methodology, which is based on real-world data, has the potential
to establish needed benchmarks for the performance of EVs that are free
of untested commercial hyperbolae.
The effects of EVs on electricity usage and the electric power grids
were examined in simulations [3] that proposed a parallel optimization
framework as a power-demand-unit-commitment problem. The study
concluded that, if the charging of the EVs from fossil fuel sources is
optimized, their proliferation will significantly benefit the efficiency of
energy use (the capacity factor of the units) and will reduce the fossil
fuel cost. A more recent study [4] looked at the impact of EVs on the
energy mix of countries and the electricity grids and determined that
the widespread adoption of EVs requires that strategic decisions be
made on the development of sufficient generating capacity and the
distribution networks.
The pollution reduction benefits of EVs in urban settings and the
replacement of urban pollution with (perhaps lesser) pollution in the
vicinity of electricity generation units has been the subject of another
study [5], which also examined policies to encourage the adoption of
EVs as the primary means of urban transportation. The environmental
effects of EVs in general and the increase of a country’s vehicle fleet fuel

E-mail address: E.Michaelides@tcu.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112246
Received 21 August 2019; Received in revised form 29 October 2019; Accepted 30 October 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.E. Michaelides
economy are recognized in [6]. This study also warns that encouraging
consumers, who would otherwise purchase other types of fuel-efficient
vehicle, to purchase EVs is not advisable as a national policy, because it
does not lead to significant GHG emissions reduction. Another recent
study examined the ecological effects of the batteries used in EVs and
presented a more skeptical opinion based on the availability of rare
earth metals and the heavy metals used in all the batteries [7]. A po-
sition paper summarized the costs and benefits of the high penetration
of EVs in the national markets and outlined the effects this would have
on electricity generation corporations and the needed changes in the
infrastructure and the regulatory environment and public policy [8].
Several studies have also examined the energy usage of EVs. A ra-
ther general study [9] advocated the use of the exergy method (instead
of an energy balance method) to improve the efficiency of several
electric power technologies, including that of urban EVs. A subsequent
study used the exergy method to analyze the thermal management
system of EVs and hybrid cars (before the thermal engine engages). The
exergy destruction and exergetic efficiency of several parts of EVs were
to determine high irreversibility components that may be improved
[10]. The thermal management system of EVs was also analyzed more
recently using an exergy analysis [11] and recommended the replace-
ment of resistance (called “positive temperature coefficient”) heaters
heat pumps that have higher coefficient of performance. The thermal
management of the cabin of EVs (for both heating and cooling) is the
subject of another recent study [12] suggested the adoption of high
efficiency Heating Ventilation and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) systems
with a Tesla turbine1 replacing the expansion valve. This turbine, which
will add to the complexity and cost of the system, recovers part of the
exergy lost by the working fluid during the isenthalpic expansion pro-
cess.
While previous studies examined particular aspects of EVs (the
HVAC system, the environmental effects, etc.) there has not been a
study that examines in a holistic way the total energy usage of EVs,
starting with the question: “Where is the energy (of fuels or batteries)
used or dissipated?” This paper aims at a holistic analysis of the EVs
from a thermodynamics point of view and starts with the friction/re-
sistance forces that must be overcome by all road vehicles. The rate of
exergy dissipation for road vehicles is first calculated and this yields the
minimum amount of mechanical energy required for the operation of
vehicles. Since EVs operate with electric energy, a tertiary form of en-
ergy, the well-to-wheels efficiency is introduced as the figure of merit of
EVs that connects the exergy dissipation in all vehicles to the primary
energy source consumption. Based on the mix of the primary energy
sources used for the generation of electricity in several countries, the
CO2 emission reductions are calculated when IC-powered vehicles are
converted to EVs. Finally, the effects of charging a fleet of EVs on the
electric power grid and the possible use of a large number of EV bat-
teries for utility-level energy storage are examined.
2. Power requirements for road transportation – exergy
destruction
The global transportation sector consumes approximately 36% of
the Total Primary Energy Sources (TPESs) and is dominated by the road
vehicles – primarily passenger cars and freight trucks. Road vehicles
account for 89% of the global transportation energy use; air transport
accounts for 7%; and water and rail transport together account for
approximately 4% [13,14]. Liquid hydrocarbons (primarily gasoline
and diesel) supply most of the energy used in the transportation sector.
From the environmental point of view, the number and usage of pas-
senger cars and freight trucks has been steadily increasing since the
1
A centripetal flow turbine without blades that was patented by Nikola Tesla
in 1913. The patent has expired and the design of the turbine is now in the
public domain.
2
Energy Conversion and Management 203 (2020) 112246
early 20th Century. Based on the 2019 data and the uses of petroleum
products, it was estimated that road vehicles emitted 31% of the global
CO2 emissions, the main constituent of GHGs [14].
The total force, FT, which keeps a vehicle in motion on any type of
terrain, is the sum of the friction forces (aerodynamic and road fric-
tion), the gravitational force (when the motion is on an inclined terrain)
and the acceleration (when the vehicle velocity varies) [15]:
dV
FT = FF + mg sin(ϕ) + m ,
dt (1)
where FF is the friction/resistance force; m is the mass of the vehicle; g is
the gravitational acceleration; ϕ is the angle of the road with the hor-
izontal – the “grade” of the terrain; and V is the velocity of the vehicle.
The last two terms correspond to the changes in the potential and ki-
netic energy of the vehicle and are conservative forces. The total power
supplied by the engine of the vehicle is [16]:
dV
Ẇ = FT V = ⎛FF + mg sin(ϕ) + m ⎞ V
⎝ dt ⎠ (2)
In principle, the reversible operation of vehicles would recover all
their kinetic and potential energy when they complete a circuit and
return to their original coordinates (a round trip). Modern vehicles
equipped with regenerative brakes (all hybrid vehicles and most EVs
have this system) recoup part of the potential and kinetic energy when
they complete a circuit and come to a stop. For this reason, this study
will concentrate on the non-conservative force FF, which is dissipative
and is imposed on the movement of the vehicles by the terrestrial en-
vironment. All the power and energy associated with this force are
dissipated in the environment.
When vehicles are cruising at constant speed on level roads (ϕ = 0,
dV/dt = 0), the mechanical power consumed is spent to overcome the
rolling friction with the ground and the air drag of the vehicles. These
two resistance forces are modeled as follows [15, [17]:
1
FF = FR + FD = CR mg + CD ρAV 2,
2 (3)
where CR and CD are the rolling friction and the aerodynamic drag
coefficients respectively; ρ is the air density; and A is the cross-sectional
area of the vehicle. The rolling friction coefficient depends on the
surface of the road and the tires of the vehicle [15]. The drag coefficient
is a function of the Reynolds number of the moving vehicle [17]. Ty-
pical ranges of the two coefficients for cars are 1–2% for the rolling
friction and 30–60% for the aerodynamic drag coefficient. Because the
two forces are resistance forces, all the power consumed by the vehicles
during round trips is dissipated as heat in the environment. The exergy
dissipation (work lost, Ẇlost ) and the entropy production, Θ̇, during
cruising are given by the expression [16]:
1
Ẇlost = T0 Θ̇ = V ⎛CR mg + CD ρAV 2⎞
⎝ 2 ⎠ (4)
Eq. (4) shows that the power dissipation of vehicles is a mono-
tonically increasing function of their speed. Fig. 1 depicts this re-
lationship for a sedan-style road vehicle that weighs 1500 kg and has a
frontal area 1.75 m2. For the calculations the rolling coefficient was
constant at 0.018 and – because the flow becomes turbulent at this
range of vehicle velocities [18] – the aerodynamic drag coefficient was
also constant at 0.45.
Vehicles powered by IC engines are subjected to Carnot limitations
and, typically, have lower thermodynamic efficiencies – in the range
10–30% with the efficiency of some hybrid vehicles being as high as
45% [19,20]. The efficiency of the vehicle depends on the type of the
vehicle (the so called “sports cars” have very low overall efficiencies).
Fig. 2 depicts the effect of the cruising speed on the fuel con-
sumption and the time of arrival for a road vehicle with the char-
acteristics of that in Fig. 1. The overall thermal efficiency of the IC
engine is taken to be constant at 21%, a typical value of mid-size sedan
E.E. Michaelides Energy Conversion and Management 203 (2020) 112246

Fig. 1. Power requirements of a cruising vehicle as a function of the cruising velocity.

Fig. 2. Fuel consumption and travel time of a vehicle as a function of the cruising speed.

cars [19,20] that also includes the transmission losses. It is observed of the EV during a round trip is:
that the maximum fuel consumption drops from approximately 26 km/
1 ̇
L when it travels at 10 km/hr to 6.6 km/L when it cruises at 150 km/hr. ̇ + Q,
E ̇ = V ⎛CR mg + CD ρAV 2⎞ + Weq
It is also observed that the time to travel 1 km, which is related to the ⎝ 2 ⎠ β (5)
expected time of arrival at the destination, drops significantly. Despite where Weq ̇ is the power needed for lights, instruments and auxiliary
the higher fuel consumption at lower speeds, the time to travel one km equipment; Q̇ is the absolute value of heat added to the interior of the
(close to 5 min at the optimum speed) is very long and inconvenient for vehicle by the heater (or removed by the air-conditioner in the
most vehicle operators who will choose higher speeds for the con- summer); and β is the coefficient of performance of the heating/cooling
venience of earlier arrival. equipment. The power Weq ̇ is typically 50–70 W [21] when the vehicle
engine produces 8000–20,000 W while cruising at speeds 60–100 km/
3. Power requirements for electric vehicles ̇ is at least two orders of magnitude lower than the
hr (Fig. 2). Since Weq
other exergy requirements it may be neglected.
Other expenditures of engine power are vehicle acceleration; When the ambient temperature is low, the rate of heat transfer and
changes in altitude; power for instruments, lights, and other equipment, the additional power required for the heating of the vehicle are sig-
such as air-circulation fans; and heating and air-conditioning. The first nificant. The absolute value of the rate of heat that enters or leaves any
two are included in Eq. (2) and the last ones need to be modeled. In segment of the vehicle may be calculated from the equation [22]:
conventional IC vehicles heating is provided by the waste heat of the
Qi̇ = UAi |Tin − T0|, (6)
engine. This rate of heat is plentiful, always sufficient to keep the in-
th
terior of the vehicle at a comfortable temperature, and does not burden where Ai is the area of the i segment; Tin is the desired cabin tem-
the fuel requirements of the vehicle. The EVs lack a thermal engine that perature; T0 is the outside (ambient) temperature; and the overall heat
produces waste heat and all the heat for the cabin must be supplied by transfer coefficient, U, is given by the expression:
the stored energy in the battery. The most efficient method to supply 1 1 Δx 1
the needed heat for the cabin (and for the battery itself if this is needed) = + + ,
U hin k hout (7)
is with the use of a heat pump, which doubles as air-conditioner in the
summer. In this case the total rate of exergy, necessary for the operation where hin is the inside heat transfer coefficient, typically due to natural

3
E.E. Michaelides
Fig. 3. Energy requirements for a cruising EV when ΔT = 25 K for different coefficients of performance of the heating system.
convection; hout is the outside heat transfer coefficient, due to forced
convection because the vehicle is moving in the ambient air, and is a
strong function of the vehicle velocity; Δx is the thickness of the ma-
terial (glass, metal, composite, etc.) that comprises the vehicle segment
and k is the thermal conductivity of this material. The total rate of heat
that enters or leaves the vehicle is obtained by summing over all the
segments of the vehicle that are exposed to the ambient air.
Calculations were performed for the energy requirements of a ty-
pical sedan-style EV with the characteristics of the vehicle in Figs. 1 and
2, when the difference between the interior cabin and ambient is 25 K.
The results of the calculations are shown in Fig. 3, which depicts the
power requirements when zero heat is supplied (Q = 0) and also when
heat is supplied by resistance heating (β = 1) and by a heat pump
(β = 2 and β = 3).
It is observed in this figure that the addition of heat consumes a
significant fraction of the stored electric energy, especially when re-
sistance heating is used for the interior of the cabin. At the typical
cruising speed of 100 km/hr, the additional heat is 37.5% of the pro-
pulsion energy when resistance heating is used (β = 1) and 12.5% when
a heat pump with coefficient of performance β = 3 is used.2
For the convenience of travelers and the improvement of the vehicle
range, it becomes apparent that the use of heat pumps is the most de-
sirable method for EVs. When a relatively efficient heat pump with
β = 3 is used, Fig. 4 depicts the absolute value of the additional power
the battery must supply as a function of the cruising speed. The tem-
perature difference between the interior cabin and the ambient is the
parameter in this figure.
It is observed that the heating and cooling of the EV imposes sig-
nificant power requirements that must be met by the battery. This
would decrease the distance travelled by the vehicle between two
charging processes.
The additional rate of exergy that must be supplied to the vehicle for
heating and cooling has a significant effect on the range of the vehicle,
the distance it may travel on one charge. All additional power ex-
penditures reduce the range of the vehicle. Table 1 shows the results for
the range reduction of a vehicle, in km, for four temperature differences
between the interior and the exterior of the vehicle, ΔT, and the coef-
ficient of performance of the heat pump, β, when the cruising speed is
100 km/hr and the vehicle is fitted with a, 80 kWh battery.
It is apparent in this Table that the traveling range of the vehicle,
given in km, is significantly reduced in cold weather trips, when a great
deal of heat must be supplied to the cabin. It is also apparent that
2
Low temperatures also have a deleterious effect on the ability of the battery
to provide power. This effect may be neutralized by supplying additional heat
to warm the battery system.
4
Energy Conversion and Management 203 (2020) 112246
significant range improvement is achieved when a heat pump with
β = 3 is used for the heating instead of resistance heating (β = 1).
4. Supply of exergy – the well-to-wheels efficiency
IC-powered vehicles receive their energy from fossil fuels (gasoline,
diesel, compressed natural gas, and synthetic gas), which is derived/
produced from a primary energy source, typically petroleum or natural
gas. Relatively low amounts of energy and exergy are lost – typically on
the order of 10% – during the transportation and production of the IC
fuels in chemical refineries [23]. Electric vehicles run on electricity,
which is a tertiary energy source and is produced from primary energy
sources by a variety of processes [20]. Significant amounts of energy
and exergy – from approximately 70% in nuclear power plants to 25%
in hydroelectric power plants – are lost in the conversion of the primary
energy sources to electricity [24], 20]. Additional losses occur in the
electricity transmission process to the consumers as well as during the
charging processes of the batteries [25]. Any comparison between IC-
powered vehicles and EVs should adopt the primary energy sources as
reference for energy. This implies that figures of merit must take into
account the consumption of exergy during the entire chain of processes
that powers the wheels of the vehicles starting with the primary energy
sources. Such analyses are referred to as well-to-wheels (WTW) analyses
and are frequently performed to assess the operation of vehicles [26],
20]. The chain of energy conversions that power the EVs and the range
of efficiencies of these processes are:
1. Fuel transportation to the power plant and conversion to electricity,
denoted by ηt. The efficiency of this process depends on the type of
unit that produces the electric power. Typical values of ηt are [20,
[27]: 18% for photovoltaics; 30% for nuclear and wind units; 35%
for gas turbines; 40% for coal units; 50–64% for combined cycle gas
turbines; and 75% for hydroelectric power plants.
2. The transmission of electric power from the power plant to the
consumer. This includes the losses in the step-up and step-down
transformers, the transmission lines, and the distribution network
and is denoted by ηtr. Typical values of ηtr are in the range 90–95%
in the OECD countries and slightly less (85%) in some developing
countries [28,29].
3. The charging of the battery, ηB, which also includes the losses in the
a/c to d/c converter. Batteries have an internal resistance, which
contributes to energy dissipation during charging. A recent study
[30] compiled the testing results of 1,896 batteries used in com-
mercially available EVs and examined four factors that affect the
charging efficiency of batteries: a) the charging voltage (120 V and
240 V); b) the state of charge; c) the temperature; and d) the char-
ging power. It was reported that the average charging efficiency at
E.E. Michaelides
Fig. 4. Energy requirements for a cruising EV when β = 3 and for different ΔT.
Table 1
Range reduction, in km, of an EV, fitted with an 80 kWh battery, at different
temperature differences and coefficients of performance when V = 100 km/hr.
β=1 β=2 β=3
ΔT = 0 428 428 428
ΔT = 20 329 372 389
ΔT = 25 311 360 380
ΔT = 30 295 349 372
120 V is approximately 83.8%, while at 240 V the efficiency in-
creases to 89.4%. The starting state-of-charge (SOC) of the battery
plays an important role in the charging efficiency with batteries that
started at 10% SOC having efficiencies close to 90% and several
batteries that started at 85% SOC having efficiencies less than 10%.
For the entire charging process typical values of ηB are range from
70% to 90%. It must be noted that the testing results in this com-
pilation were at very low power (less than 0.2 kW). The fast char-
ging processes – on the order of tens of kW to charge a 50–100 kWh
battery at a reasonable time – entail higher thermodynamic irre-
versibilities and the charging efficiency may drop significantly. This
is a consequence of the generalized force-generalized flux relationships
of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics and has been observed in
other independent studies on the charging-discharging efficiencies
[31,32].
4. The supply of power from the battery through the motor to the
wheels, which includes the battery discharging losses and any fric-
tion in the motor and the gear box, ηM. EVs typically have one gear
only and do not need a complete transmission to operate. Typical
values of this combined efficiency are in the range 85–90%.
When all these processes are taken into account, the well-to-wheels
efficiency for EVs is:
ηww = ηt ηtr ηB ηM . (8)
With the ranges of efficiency values in the energy supply chain
given above, the WTW efficiency of EVs is in the range 9–58%; and
5.4% if a solar PV array is used for the generation of electric power.3
The lower part of this range is comparable to that of the powerful (and
less efficient) sports cars and the upper part is slightly higher than that
of hybrid vehicles. A glance at the values that determine the WTW ef-
ficiency proves that the efficiency of the electricity production is the
3
It can be argued that, since the solar insolation would have been dissipated
in the environment if it were not used, the lower efficiency related to the PVs is
not a disadvantage because it does not lead to primary energy consumption and
dissipation.
5
Energy Conversion and Management 203 (2020) 112246
main determinant of the ηww for EVs, especially when the electricity is
produced from thermal power plants that are subjected to the Carnot
limitations. When the electricity is generated from both conventional
and renewable sources, the overall efficiency of EVs is comparable to
those of conventional IC-powered vehicles.
It must be noted that a few publications separate the well-to-wheels
efficiency in two parts: the well-to-tank efficiency and the tank-to-
wheels efficiency. The product of the two is equal to the ηww.
Conventional and hybrid vehicles have high well-to-tank efficiency and
low tank-to-wheels efficiency. On the contrary, EVs have low well-to-
tank efficiency and high tank-to-wheels efficiency.
5. Effect on greenhouse gas emissions
One of the principal attractions of the marketing of EVs is the public
perception that they do not emit any pollutants. While this is correct for
the actual vehicles that move in urban areas without emitting pollu-
tants, the generation of electricity at the power plants that supply the
motive power for these vehicles entails significant pollutant production.
Fossil fuel combustion is still used in most of the countries for the
production of a very high fraction of their electric energy demand: of
the entire global electricity demand in 2016, 38.4% was generated by
the combustion of coal, 3.7% by liquid hydrocarbons, and 23.2% by
natural gas [13]. The combustion of these three fossil fuels emits carbon
dioxide, which is the principal GHG, as well as other pollutants that
must be accounted in any environmental assessment of EVs.
It is apparent that, whether or not the substitution of IC-powered
cars results in environmental benefits, depends to a large extent on the
method of electricity production: if the electricity supplied to EVs is
produced by non-carbon energy sources – nuclear, hydroelectric, solar,
wind, biomass and waste products – there is significant CO2 avoidance
by switching the transportation fleet to EVs. On the other hand, if a very
high fraction of the electricity is supplied by coal and heavy liquid fuels,
the substitution of IC-powered vehicles with EVs entails a net increase
of CO2 emissions [20].
Because electric power production is a national affair and varies
among countries and larger geographical regions, calculations were
conducted for the CO2 emissions avoidance (or increase) for several
countries that are global leaders in EV registrations. The calculations
are based on the fact that, since the CO2 is emitted by the combustion
process, one may calculate the heat supplied to the IC engines as well as
the equivalent heat supplied to the fossil fuel power stations that gen-
erate the fraction of electricity supplied by the fossil fuels. The principal
results of the calculations are shown in Table 2. The first column of the
Table indicates the country and the next four columns show the fraction
of electric energy generated by coal, natural gas, petroleum, and non-
carbon emitting sources [33]. Biofuels were included in the non-carbon
E.E. Michaelides Energy Conversion and Management 203 (2020) 112246

Table 2
Fraction of electric energy produced by fossil fuels and non-carbon sources and CO2 avoidance when gasoline-powered cars are substituted by EVs.
Country Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Non-carbon % CO2 avoidance % CO2 avoidance 1.25 higher efficiency % CO2 avoidance, 1.67 higher efficiency

Australia 0.636 0.196 0.022 0.146 −18.89 4.89 28.67

Belgium 0.031 0.262 0 0.707 73.41 78.73 84.04
Brazil 0.045 0.098 0.026 0.831 81.97 85.58 89.18
Canada 0.093 0.093 0.012 0.802 76.34 81.07 85.80
Chile 0.381 0.149 0.037 0.433 23.58 38.87 54.15
Estonia 0.838 0.006 0.021 0.135 −34.89 −7.91 19.06
European Union 0.226 0.188 0.018 0.568 46.85 57.48 68.11
France 0.019 0.063 0.005 0.913 91.24 93.00 94.75
Germany 0.422 0.127 0.009 0.442 21.97 37.58 53.18
India 0.748 0.048 0.016 0.188 −23.64 1.09 25.82
Japan 0.337 0.392 0.082 0.189 5.52 24.42 43.31
Norway 0.001 0.017 0 0.982 98.43 98.75 99.06
P.R. China 0.682 0.027 0.034 0.257 −13.44 9.25 31.93
Russia 0.157 0.478 0.01 0.355 34.57 47.65 60.74
UK 0.093 0.422 0.005 0.48 49.84 59.87 69.90
USA 0.314 0.329 0.008 0.349 22.37 37.90 53.42
Global Average 0.384 0.232 0.037 0.347 16.24 32.99 49.74

emitting primary energy sources because they absorb their carbon
content from the atmosphere and are, therefore, carbon-neutral. For the
calculations of the CO2 emissions avoidance the low-heating value
(LHV) data was used for the gasoline and the average of the low- and
high- heating values (HHV) was used for natural gas and petroleum
[34]. This because the emissions of all IC-powered vehicles comprise
water vapor (hence the LHV) while a fraction of the gas turbines that
operate with natural gas and petroleum increasingly use combined
cycles with preheaters that exhaust liquid water and not water vapor
[27]. The first column on CO2 avoidance pertains to the substitution of
IC-powered vehicles with EVs that have comparable WTW efficiencies.
Negative values in this column indicate CO2 emissions increases.
The numbers in this Table indicate that, if IC-powered vehicles in
Norway are substituted with comparable EVs, there will be on the
average 98.3% CO2 emissions avoidance, primarily due to the fact that
a very high fraction of electricity in this country is generated from
hydroelectric energy.4 On the contrary, in a country like Estonia, which
generates approximately 84% of its electricity from carbon (tar sands)
such a substitution would result in 34.89% increase of CO2 emissions.
The values for the entire world were obtained from the averaged global
data in [33]. The data indicate that, on the average, 16.24% CO2
emissions avoidance is achieved when IC-powered vehicles are sub-
stituted with EVs.
The last two columns in Table 2 show the result of calculations
when the WTW efficiencies of EVs are significantly higher than those of
the IC-powered vehicles by factors 1.25 and 1.67%. Such efficiencies
may be achieved in the future by a continuation of the following trends
that have been observed in the last decade:
1. Manufacturing EVs with lesser weight.
2. Developing more efficient battery charging and discharging pro-
cesses.
3. Improving the overall efficiency of the electric power production
units by increasing the fraction of combined cycle units.
4. Improving the carbon footprint of the electric power industry by the
substitution of coal power plants with renewables and combined
cycle gas turbines [20,35].
The energy comparison of IC-powered and EVs notwithstanding, at
present there are significant monetary savings in favor of purchasing
EVs. The prices of liquid fuels (gasoline and diesel) are higher than the
4
Norway, which has a great deal of unused hydroelectric capacity, is also
actively promoting the use of electric cars by offering significant monetary
incentives to the owners.
equivalent electricity prices, primarily because the liquid fuels are en-
cumbered by higher local taxes. Table 3 shows the cost comparison of
two similar vehicles when they travel on trips of 1000 km, the first with
an unleaded gasoline engine that performs on the average 12.2 km/L
(28 mpg) and the second with an electric engine that performs 19 km/
kWh. The annual savings of running the two vehicles, calculated for
15,000 km, is also shown in the Table, as well as the ten-year present
value (PV) of the annual savings for two discount rates, r, 5% and 8%.
The unleaded gasoline and electricity prices were obtained from [13]
and pertain to the first quarter of 2018 (the price for electricity in Japan
was obtained from the 2016 data of the same publication).
It is observed in Table 3 that – at the current prices regime – the
monetary savings from the substitution of gasoline-powered cars with
comparable EVs results in significant monetary savings. When these
savings are combined with the other monetary incentives – primarily
tax credits and rebates offered by governments that range from $4000
in Sweden, to $8000 in the USA, and up to $20,000 in Norway [36] –
that are available in most countries, the total monetary benefits offset
the original price premiums of new EVs and make them competitive in
the vehicle market-place. It must be noted, however, that the govern-
mental incentives are not always guaranteed and may be faced out. For
example, in the USA, the higher incentives will be faced out when
200,000 EVs are sold.
6. Effects on renewable energy utilization
A salient conclusion from the data of Table 2 is that the environ-
mental advantage of replacing a fleet of IC-powered vehicles with the
equivalent fleet of EVs depends very much on the electric power mix of
the country (or the region, if electricity grids are regional). The en-
vironmental benefit is much higher in countries with high fraction of
nuclear and renewables – e.g. France, Belgium, Norway, and Canada.
On the contrary, the benefit is diminished (and may, actually, become
an environmental detriment) in countries that heavily rely on coal and
other fossil fuels for their electric power generation. When a great deal
of renewable energy is unused and available, it is beneficial to use part
of this energy in the transportation sector. Norway, where the hydro-
electric energy resources by far exceed the current power generation, is
an example of a country that could readily substitute a high fraction of
the IC-powered vehicles with EVs and achieve significant CO2 emissions
avoidance in the process.
Hydroelectric energy is readily available to be harnessed at any time
there is demand. In addition, and because of the very high mass of
water stored in the reservoir and the potential energy of water (mgΔz),
hydroelectric power plants are capable of providing very high quan-
tities of power, with the larger hydroelectric power plants having power

6
E.E. Michaelides Energy Conversion and Management 203 (2020) 112246

Table 3 Table 4
Cost of running comparable gasoline and electric vehicles, annual savings and Power generated (in kW/m2) and PV area necessary to charge with 40 kWh the
present value of savings over 10 years. r is the discount rate. batteries of 1 EV and 500 EVs in four cities of the USA.
Country Cost of Cost of Annual Present Present Power Generated per PV area for PV area for 500
1000 km, 1000 km, Savings, Value, Value m2, kW/m2 one EV, m2 EVs, m2
gasoline, electricity, $US per 10 years, 10 years,
$US $US 15,000 km r = 5%, r = 8%, Dallas-Fort Worth, 0.934 48.7 24,333
$US $US winter
Dallas-Fort Worth, 1.172 38.8 19,392
Australia 95.66 45.03 759 5398 4744 summer
France 146.97 35.72 1669 11,861 10,425 Los Angeles, winter 0.992 45.8 22,911
Germany 135.02 65.17 1048 7448 6546 Los Angeles, summer 1.626 28.0 13,977
Japan 108.76 48.07 910 6470 5686 Miami, winter 1.170 38.9 19,425
Korea 142.06 20.71 1820 12,938 11,371 Miami, summer 1.205 37.7 18,861
Norway 127.41 21.47 1589 11,295 9927 New York, winter 0.648 70.1 35,073
Spain 124.63 55.67 1034 7353 6462 New York, summer 1.004 45.3 22,637
UK 137.32 38.38 1484 10,548 9271
USA 61.78 24.51 559 3974 3493
of electric power is at a minimum [38]. This electric energy surplus may
be consumed by EVs that would be charged during the nighttime. Pri-
ratings in the thousands of MW [20]. This is not the case for solar and cing incentives – e.g. lower electricity prices during the nighttime
wind power, which are diffuse power sources; are not always available hours, which are already in effect in several regions, – will assist with
to produce power at demand, and require very large tracts of land for the nighttime charging of EVs by consumers and will facilitate the
their operation. Solar energy is periodically variable and wind power is substitution of fossil-fuel powered vehicles with EVs at least for the
essentially intermittent. For this reason these two power sources may shorter, commuting routes.
not be available when battery charging is desired by the consumers.
It is often publicized that the EVs of the future will be charged
during the workdays by PV panels in urban garages, while their owners 7. Other effects on the electric grids
are at work. However, this practice requires PV panel areas (and power
ratings) that are exceedingly high and are not available in an urban With 36% of the global TPESs spent on transportation and 89% of
setting: Typical multilevel urban garages have on the order of one this consumed by road vehicles, the latter currently consume 173 Quads
thousand passenger vehicles parked. Table 4 shows the PV area that of energy (174*1012 MJ), which is primarily supplied by liquid petro-
would supply with 40 kWh of electric energy the batteries of 500 of leum products. It becomes apparent that, even if a fraction of this en-
these vehicles if they were garaged between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm5 in ergy consumption is substituted with electric energy, the global elec-
four metropolitan areas of the USA: New York, Los Angeles, Dallas and tricity supply – currently at approximately 23,000 TWh (82.8*1012 MJ)
Miami. The PV panel area is calculated from two values of the irra- – must be significantly increased to satisfy the additional demand. With
diance in the cities, one for the winter months and the second for the the current mix of global electric energy production, which includes
summer. The irradiance data for the four cities were obtained from the thermal power plants, approximately 165*1012 MJ of primary energy
NREL’s National Solar Radiation Data Base [37]. The PV panels are sources should be diverted from the transportation sector to the elec-
stationary and facing south, at an angle equal to the latitude of the tricity sector in order to accommodate the shift to EVs. While this is a
region, the optimum angle for maximum annual energy production very substantial increase in electric energy production, adequate
[20]. The overall efficiency of the PV panels is 20% and the battery planning and market forces can support the transformation. Several
charging efficiency is 88%. In order to avoid weather-related fluctua- countries (the USA, Canada, Japan, and most European Union coun-
tions the averages of the same two weeks – first week of January and tries) already have the excess electric power capacity to supply the
first week of July – were calculated over six years of the insolation data. needed electricity during the nighttime, when the electricity demand is
The area required in other northern cities with lesser total (direct at the lowest. A study pertinent to the Japanese electric grid that used
and diffuse) irradiance – e.g. Boston, Detroit, Chicago and Seattle – is the MARKAL tool to project into the future, concluded that, while at
significantly higher. With the roof area of the typical multilevel garage present there is sufficient excess power capacity to charge the EVs
that houses vehicles in urban areas being on the order of 1000 m2, it is during the nighttime, by 2050 there will be sufficient installed solar-
apparent from the calculations of Table 4 that the needed PV area for generated electricity to facilitate the charging of EVs during four hours
the charging of a large fraction of the garaged EVs is not available in the middle of the day [39].
within the urban settings. The electric power for the charging of the EVs Significant grid problems would arise at present if a large number of
by solar power during the working day must be generated from solar EVs were to be charged simultaneously and, particularly, at fast rates of
farms outside the urban setting. The d/c-to a/c and back to d/c con- charging. Several popular publications flaunt the idea that EVs, used in
versions and the transmission of electricity in the urban centers would trips longer than their range, may be charged in stations along the way
entail additional and significant energy dissipation. while the owners have a meal. This implies a charging time of ap-
The other widely available form of renewable energy, wind power, proximately one hour and that the charging occurs within the habitual
is intermittent. While wind power may supply a fraction of the energy meal times – e.g. between noon and 2:00 pm for lunch. If it is assumed
to a grid, whenever it becomes available, it is not dispatchable and may that there is a sufficient number of charging stations and that 40,000
not be relied to supply daily, the urban garages with electricity. EVs (a very conservative number in most metropolitan areas of the USA
An option that would supply non-carbon generated electric power to and several populous countries) with average battery capacity 65 kWh
EVs is to increase the number of nuclear units that supply an electric are charged in the area served by an electric grid during the one-hour
grid. Currently, the addition of several nuclear power plants, which are lunch period. At charging efficiency 90% and transmission efficiency
base-load units, to an electric grid may create electricity generation 90%, the grid must generate and transmit to the consumers an addi-
surplus during the nighttime, when the residential and commercial use tional 3210 MW, during the hour of charging. This is a significant de-
mand fluctuation that many regional electricity grids will not be able to
meet. When the electricity demand is not met, brownouts and blackouts
5
This is the typical “working day” in the four cities that includes one hour for occur in the entire region served by the electric grid. In general, the
lunch. widespread deployment of EVs will cause significant problems to the

7
E.E. Michaelides
functioning and operation of current power grids, such as power quality
issues, supply-demand mismatching, and overloading of distribution
transformers, if proper corrective actions by the grid management and
optimal charging of EVs by the drivers community are not implemented
at a national/regional scale [40].
The high energy capacity of EV batteries and the fact that a large
fraction of the EVs are idle (in urban garages) for several hours every
day has fostered the idea to use EV batteries for large-scale (utility-
scale) electric energy storage. This is a necessary condition for the
avoidance of the U-shaped demand curve (also referred to as the duck
curve) and the higher penetration of wind and solar energy in the
electricity generation mix of a region [41,31,42]. The use of EV bat-
teries for utility-level electric energy storage is, in general, accom-
plished with higher round-trip efficiencies than other large-scale energy
storage methods – e.g. pumped hydroelectric systems (PHS) and ad-
vanced compressed-air systems (CAES) [20]. The process is often re-
ferred to as V2G (vehicles to grid) process, and the vehicles are referred
to as Grid-Integrated Vehicles (GIVs). A recent experimental study on
the electric energy losses in the GIVs determined that the round-trip
efficiency of this method of energy storage is in the range between 53
and 62% [31]. While this range is slightly higher than the 50% typical
values for PHS and CAES storage, the energy losses are still significant.
A companion study [43] claims that the actual round-trip efficiencies of
V2G systems are lower because of unfavorable temperatures that were
not considered in the original testing [31]. The V2G is still an intriguing
subject for energy storage that requires additional research work and
optimization. It must be noted, however, that this is a short-term
(diurnal) storage method and not a long-term, seasonal storage (e.g.
spring, when wind power is at maximum, to summer) method that
would facilitate the higher utilization of both solar and wind power.
8. Conclusions
Cruising road vehicles require exergy expenditures to overcome the
road friction and aerodynamic drag, two resistance forces that dissipate
significant quantities of energy. EVs must store all this energy in their
batteries. In addition, the EV batteries must supply any heating and
cooling requirements of the vehicles and this significantly reduces the
range of the EVs in adverse weather conditions. The results indicate
that a significant part of the energy stored in the battery (37.5% at
100 km/hr) is spent on the heating of the vehicle with resistance
heating. This is reduced proportionately when an HVAC system with
higher coefficient of performance is used (12.5% with β = 3).
For the correct assessment of the exergetic requirements of EVs the
total consumption of primary energy sources is considered, a practice
that introduces the well-to-wheels efficiency as the proper figure of
merit for the performance of EVs. The study shows that the well-to-
wheels efficiencies of EVs are comparable to those of vehicles with IC
engines.
When a significant fraction of the electricity is generated from non-
carbon sources, the shift from IC-powered vehicles to EVs results in net
CO2 emissions reductions. On the contrary, in countries where a high
fraction of electricity is generated from coal combustion, a shift to EVs
may actually increase the associated CO2 emissions. Under the current
conditions, the average percentage CO2 avoidance for the entire world
is 16.24%. Finally, the charging of EVs with solar energy requires high
PV panel areas that are not available in larger urban centers, where
land is at a premium. With the current trends of electric power demand,
the charging of large numbers of EVs during the daytime will cause grid
problems, including blackouts. However, several countries currently
have sufficient unused electricity generating capacity during the
nighttime for the charging of large number of EVs. The shift of high
fractions of the current vehicle fleets to EVs would require additional
regulations, incentives for charging during low demand hours, and
optimization.
8
Energy Conversion and Management 203 (2020) 112246
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research was partly supported by the Tex Moncrief Chair of
Engineering at TCU.
References
[1] Global EV. Outlook 2019 – Scaling up the transition to electric mobility, 2019. Paris:
Int Energy Agency; 2019.
[2] Alves J, Baptista PC, Gonçalves GA, Duarte GO. Indirect methodologies to estimate
energy use in vehicles: application to battery electric vehicles. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;124:116–29.
[3] Wang Y, Yang Z, Mourshed M, Guo Y, Zhu X. Demand side management of plug-in
electric vehicles and coordinated unit commitment: a novel parallel competitive
swarm optimization method. Energy Convers Manage 2019;196:935–49.
[4] Zhuk A, Buzoverov E. The impact of electric vehicles on the outlook of future energy
system. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng 2018;315:012032.
[5] Van Wee B, Maat K, De Bont C. Improving sustainability in urban areas: discussing
the potential for transforming conventional car-based travel into electric mobility.
Eur Plann Stud 2012;20:95–110.
[6] Xing J, Leard B, Li S. What does an electric vehicle replace? Working Paper 25771.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureaus of Economic Research; 2019.
[7] Racz AA, Muntean I, Stan SD. A look into electric/hybrid cars from an ecological
perspective. Procedia Technol 2015;19:438–43.
[8] H. Lee, A. Clark, 2018, Charging the Future: Challenges and Opportunities for
Electric Vehicle Adoption, Harvard Kennedy School Report, August 2018.
[9] Rosen MA, Bulucea CA. Using exergy to understand and improve the efficiency of
electrical power technologies. Entropy 2009;11:820–35.
[10] Hamut HS, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Exergy analysis of a TMS (thermal management
system) for range-extended EVs (electric vehicles). Energy 2012;46:117–25.
[11] Zhang K, Li M, Yang C, Shao Z, Wang L. Exergy analysis of electric vehicle heat
pump air conditioning system with battery thermal management system. J Thermal
Sci 2019;28:1–15.
[12] P. Iora, A. Cassago, C. Invernizzi, A. Copeta, G. Di Marcoberardino, S. Uberti, D.
Fiaschi, L. Talluri, L. Tribioli, 2019, Assessment of Energy Consumption and Range
in Electric Vehicles with High Efficiency HVAC Systems Based on the Tesla
Expander, SAE Technical Paper, 2019-24-0244.
[13] International Energy Agency, 2018, Key World Statistics, IEA, Paris.
[14] International Energy Agency, 2019, Key World Statistics, IEA, Paris.
[15] Hibbeler RC. Engineering Mechanics – dynamics. ninth ed. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall; 2001.
[16] Kestin J. A Course in Thermodynamics vol. I. Washington DC: Hemisphere; 1977.
[17] Munson DR, Young BF, Okiishi TR, Huebsch WH. Fundamentals of fluid mechanics.
6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2009.
[18] Michaelides EE. Particles, bubbles and drops – their motion. New Jersey: Heat and
Mass Transfer World Scientific; 2006.
[19] Dunlap RA. A simple and objective carbon footprint analysis for alternative trans-
portation technologies. Energy Environ Res 2013;3:33–9.
[20] Michaelides EE. Energy, the environment, and sustainability. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press; 2018.
[21] Y. M. Tsui, 2005, The Physics Factbook – An Encyclopedia of Scientific Essays, in
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/YatManTsui.shtml, last visited October 10,
2019.
[22] Incropera F, DeWitt DP. fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. 3rd ed. New York:
Willey; 2002.
[23] Wang M, Lee H, Molburg J. Allocation of energy use in petroleum refineries to
petroleum products implications for life-cycle energy use and emission inventory of
petroleum transportation fuels. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 2004;9:34–44.
[24] El-Wakil MM. Power plant technology. New York: McGraw Hill; 1984.
[25] Sullivan JL, Gaines L. A review of battery life cycle analysis. Report, Argonne, IL:
Argonne National Lab; 2010.
[26] N. Brinkman, M. Wang, T. Weber, T. Darlington, 2005, Well-to-Wheels Analysis of
Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems — A North American Study of Energy Use,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Criteria Pollutant Emissions, ANL Report, May
2005.
[27] Langston LS. Anticipated but unwelcome. Mech Eng 2018;140(6):36–41.
[28] Electric power transmission and distribution losses (% of output), The World Bank,
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.LOSS.ZS last visited October 10,
2019.
[29] International Energy Agency, 2014, Electricity Transmission and Distribution,
Energy Technology Analysis Programme, Technology Brief E12.
[30] Kong N. Exploring electric vehicle battery charging efficiency. U-C Davis,
California: The National Center for Sustainable Transportation; 2018.
[31] Apostolaki-Iosifidou E, Codani P, Kempton W. Measurement of power loss during
electric vehicle charging and discharging. Energy 2017;127:730–42.
[32] Batteries, North America Clean Energy, 10, 3, 40–45.
E.E. Michaelides
[33] International Energy Agency. Electricity Information – 2018. Paris: IEA; 2018.
[34] Fuels - Higher and Lower Calorific Values, https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/
fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html, last visited August 2019.
[35] Leonard MD, Michaelides EE, Michaelides DN. Substitution of coal power plants
with renewable energy sources – shift of the power demand and energy storage.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;164(2018):27–35.
[36] International Energy Agency, 2016, Global EV Outlook 2016: Beyond one million
electric cars, Paris.
[37] Wilcox S. 2012. National Solar Radiation Database 1991–2010 Update: User’s
Manual, Technical Report NREL/TP-5500-54824, August 2012.
[38] Michaelides EE. Alternative energy sources. Berlin: Springer; 2012.
[39] Masuta T, Murata A, Endo E. Electric vehicle charge patterns and the electricity
generation mix and competitiveness of next generation vehicles. Energy Convers
Energy Conversion and Management 203 (2020) 112246
Manage 2014;8:337–46.
[40] Khan, AZ, Janjua, AK, Jan, ST, Ahmed, ZN. 2017. A comprehensive overview on the
impact of widespread deployment of electric vehicles on power grid. In:
Proceedings of 2017 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid and Smart Cities,
Singapore.
[41] Castillo A, Gayme DF. Grid-scale energy storage applications in renewable energy
integration: a survey. Energy Convers Manage 2014;87:885–94.
[42] Freeman E, Occello D, Barnes F. Energy storage for electrical systems in the USA.
AIMS Energy 2016;4:856–75.
[43] Shirazi YA, Sachs DL. Comments on Measurement of power loss during electric
vehicle charging and discharging – notable findings for V2G economics. Energy
2018;142:1139–41.