• 3 minutes e-car sales collapse
  • 6 minutes America Is Exceptional in Its Political Divide
  • 11 minutes Perovskites, a ‘dirt cheap’ alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient
  • 1 day How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy
  • 6 days Natron Energy Achieves First-Ever Commercial-Scale Production of Sodium-Ion Batteries in the U.S.
  • 6 days Bad news for e-cars keeps coming
  • 5 days The United States produced more crude oil than any nation, at any time.
  • 8 days RUSSIA - Turkey & India Stop Buying Russian Oil as USA Increases Crackdown on Sanctions
Bullish Sentiment Has Taken Hold of the Oil Market

Bullish Sentiment Has Taken Hold of the Oil Market

Oil prices have been climbing…

China’s Renewable Energy Surge Strains Power Grid

China’s Renewable Energy Surge Strains Power Grid

China's rapid deployment of wind…

ESG Enthusiasm Wanes with U.S. Shareholders

ESG Enthusiasm Wanes with U.S. Shareholders

Despite the rising number of…

Andreas de Vries & Salman Ghouri

Andreas de Vries & Salman Ghouri

Dr Salman Ghouri is an Oil & Gas advisor with expertise in global / regional long-term forecasting, macroeconomic analysis and market assessments. He has developed…

More Info

Premium Content

Who Will Benefit From The Electrification Of Transport?

Electric Transport

The recent launch of the Tesla Model 3 has proven a massive global demand for electric vehicles. Thus, it is no longer the question if the electrification of transport will take place, but rather when exactly.

In an earlier article, “Wake up call for oil companies: electric vehicles will deflate oil demand”, we assessed how the oil industry could be impacted by such a development. The article concluded that even under the most pessimistic of assumptions, electric vehicles will substantially reduce crude oil demand in the medium term (2021 – 2030). This article looks at the implications of the electrification of transport for the electricity market.

The journey from internal combustion to electric

The Alternative Energy Outlook that we developed looks at the implications of the electrification of transport under three different sets of assumptions.

The reference case assumes a continuation of the current 50% annual growth rate in electric vehicle (EV) sales until the end of the decade, after which it slows down first to 30% per annum (until 2030) and then 15% per annum (until 2040). This would increase the number of electric vehicles on the road from 1 million today, to 8 million by 2020, 105 million by 2030, and 424 million by 2040.

The growth projections for electric vehicles in the low case are 42% until 2020, 25% until 2030 and 12% until 2040, which would increase the number of electric vehicles on the road from 1 million today, to 6 million by 2020, 54 million by 2030, and 167 million by 2040. Related: Russia Remains Determined To Stop Israel-Turkey Pipeline Deal

The high case, lastly, assumes a 60% per annum growth in electric vehicle sales until 2020, 36% thereafter until 2030 and 18% thereafter until 2040, which would result in to 10 million electric vehicles by 2020, 227 million by 2030, and 1,188 million by 2040.

(Click to enlarge)

The implications for electricity demand

The Alternative Energy Outlook assesses the number of barrels lost from global crude oil demand due to electric vehicle penetration for each of three given scenarios, through assuming that every electric vehicle will take the place of a vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine. It also calculates what this penetration by electric vehicles of transport would mean for electricity demand.

In the reference case, 8 million electric cars will have taken the place of an internal combustion powered vehicle by 2020. By 2030 this will be 108 million. And by 2040 it will be 424 million. This would reduce growth in crude oil demand by 0.3 million barrels per day by 2020, 3.4 million barrels per day by 2030 and 13.8 million barrels per day by 2040.

As the energy content of a typical barrel of crude oil is some 5.5 million British thermal units (Btu), the energy value equivalent of these barrels can be calculated: 2,220 billion Btu per day by 2020, 18,874 billion Btu per day by 2030 and 76,608 billion Btu per day by 2040.

The electrification of transport will not increase electricity energy demand by the same amounts, however, as electric vehicles are some three times more energy efficient than vehicles with internal combustion engines. The increase in electricity demand would therefore be a third of the decrease in crude oil demand, meaning that the additional demand of power generation capacity in the reference case is 11 GW by 2020, 93 GW by 2030 and 378 GW by 2040. (Assuming 90% availability of power generation plants and 10% losses during transmission and distribution).

The same calculation under the assumptions of the low case results in an additional demand on power generation capacity of 8 GW by 2020, 47 GW by 2030 and 148 GW by 2040. In the high case the numbers are 11 GW by 2020, 203 GW by 2030 and 1,065 GW by 2040.

(Click to enlarge)

To put these numbers in to context, total global installed power generation capacity currently stands at around 5,600 GW.

Who will benefit?

In 2014, coal was responsible for some 39% of global electricity generation capacity, natural gas for 22%, hydro for 17%, nuclear for 11%, renewables for 7%, and oil for 5%. Related: Brazil’s New Foreign Minister Suspected Of Dubious Dealings With Chevron

Since electric vehicles tend to be charged overnight, it is highly likely that the electrification of transport will not require any additional investment in electricity generation capacity in the short- and medium-term. Electricity generation capacity is determined based on expected peak load, namely, which tends to be early morning when people leave home for school or work or early evening when they come home. At night a typical electricity network operates significantly below capacity, meaning that an increase in the number of electric cars on the road would increase demand during off-peak hours and thus lower the difference between demand during peak hours and off-peak hours. In other words, it would lead to a higher average utilization of the existing electricity generation capacity, rather than an increase in this capacity, which is a scenario that especially utilities companies would benefit from.

Were things to remain the way they are in the power generation industry, therefore, coal would win from the electrification of transport. However, the mix of fuels used for electricity generation is changing, with the share of coal under substantial pressure at least in part due to environmental concerns associated with coal based electricity generation, in particular its CO2 emissions. For this reason we do not expect an increase in electricity demand to trigger a large uptick in coal demand – while the global pool of electric vehicles will increase, coal’s share in power generation capacity will decrease.

Natural gas’ share of global electricity generation capacity has increased from 16% in 2000 to 27% at the end of 2013. The big oil companies are betting this trend will continue, as indicated by ExxonMobil’s and BP’s recent energy outlooks, as well as Shell’s acquisition of British Gas. If these companies are right, the additional electricity demand resulting from the electrification of transport would be met by natural gas. In the reference case of the Alternative Energy Outlook this would add 5.6 million metric tons per annum (MMTA) to global LNG demand by 2020, 47.2 MMTA by 2030 and 191.5 MMTA by 2040 – a 2%, 20% and 79% increase from the current global demand of approximately 241 MMTA. In the low case the increase in LNG demand would be 4.2 MMTA (2%) by 2020, 23.6 MMTA (10%) by 2030 and 191.5 MMTA (31%) by 2040, while in the high case it would be 5.6 MMTA (2%) by 2020, 102.7 MMTA (43%) by 2030 and 539.7 MMTA (224%) by 2040.

(Click to enlarge)

The electrification of transport could thus be the savior of the LNG industry, which at present is substantially oversupplied and is facing a further 130 MMTA (40%) increase in supply by 2022. The additional LNG demand from electric vehicles could absorb a substantial amount of this additional supply and remove some of the downward pressure on the LNG price. Related: Can Oil Prices Hold Onto Gains At $50 Per Barrel?

Lastly, if the electrification of transport is to be fueled by renewable energy, then substantial additional investment in wind and solar power generation capacity will be required. Since the running cost of renewable power generation is essentially zero, these capacities tend to be part of base capacity, meaning they are fully used during the day (gas turbines make up the bulk of back-up generation capacity). In the case of renewables, therefore, additional demand will require additional investment in capacity. At present wind turbines contribute 432 GW to global electricity generation capacity, with solar accounting for some 200 GW. Thus, in the reference case wind capacity would have to be increases by 25% by 2030, and solar by 50%.

All this means that coal and – especially – LNG stand to benefit most from electrification of transport. They would namely be the lowest cost solution for the additional power demand, since they could meet it with established capacity while renewables would require further investment.

By Salman Ghouri and Andreas de Vries for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • David Hrivnak on May 18 2016 said:
    Very well said and I believe it is true as someone with only plugin cars and rooftop solar
  • JHM on May 18 2016 said:
    One of the key opportunities that EVs offer utilities is dispatchable load. Consider the situation in Germany and other electricity market where there is high penetration of wind and solar. Baseload plants in these markets are exposed to net demand going so low as to depress spot prices, even taking them negative. Baseload plants need dispatchable load to soak up excess renewable energy. This is exactly the service that EVs can provide. Certainly charging in the early morning is doable in residential garages and aggregation can make this load highly dispatchable. Where solar penetration is high, late morning (8 to 12 AM) is the low spot for net demand. Workplace charging infrastructure can easily tap this market along with aggregation to yield precise control over dispatchable load. Shoring up these low net demand valleys will enable grid operators to maximize the use of both intermittent renewables and baseload generation.

    With this in mind, given the tremendous growth rates of solar and wind, it will be a trivial task for these resources to generate the energy needed for EVs. Managing the power load is the key issue. Fortunately, the batteries in EVs provide the essential assets needed to balance the grid for this purpose.

    EVs will reduce the cost of balancing grids and improve the utilization of baseload generation. But this is not good news for coal or natural gas. Using fewer baseload plants with higher utilitization actually reduces demand for both coal and natural gas. Wind and solar are already reaching PPA prices below $30/MWh, which puts enormous price pressure on coal and natural gas to go well below $4/mmbtu. Thus, solar and wind are becoming cheaper than the fuel cost alone of fossil fuels at profitable prices. The challah get for wind and solar is merely to stabilize the grid, and batteries both in EVs and stationary are key to integrating higher penetration of wind and solar. EVs just happen to be the lowest cost way for utilities to get access to the batteries they need, and that is why battery aggregation and dispatchable charging infrastructure emerge quickly as the EV fleet reaches critical scale. Such infrastructure will be the cheapest way for grid operators to obtain access dispatchable batteries.

Leave a comment

EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News