Electric cars and power plants 120 years ago

What electricity mix did the first electric cars run on? Not only was it mostly coal-fired electricity, it was also coal-fired electricity generated with 5% to 15% efficiency.

What was it actually like with electric cars at the beginning of the 20th century? I experienced the drama myself, no not in 1905 but from 2006 to 2009 during my first endurance test of an electric moped. After a trip to Traunstein at -11° C, I praised the excellent cold weather properties of these Chinese lead-acid batteries. However, disillusionment soon set in when the range decreased at just 4,500 km. The endurance test ended when the 3rd battery pack also only had a range of 18 km with an economical driving style, at around 17,300 km. The batteries in the City-El lasted a little longer, typically 10,000 km. Perhaps the batteries in my E-Max S would have lasted that long if I had accelerated very gently and not ridden uphill. High-power output is lead-battery abuse. When I first looked into efficiencies and power generation in 1991, a coal-fired power plant was assumed to have a typical efficiency of 33%. The most modern coal-fired power plant, which was blown up with great fanfare in 2024, had an efficiency of 46%. However, this was far from the case at the time of the first electric cars, essentially from 1900 to 1910: 5% to 15% depending on the size. In 1925, 8 to 12% was typical for small power plants around 200 kW and 18 to 20% for large power plants. In the cities, where most electric cars were driven, there was a lot of coal-fired power in the electricity mix. A Ford T needed 11 to 18 liters/100 km. Typical were 14 to 16 liters 100/km. Depending on the year of manufacture and variant, the Ford T weighed only 570 to 750 kg. Lighter than my first car, a VW Beetle 1500, at 810 kg. Plenty of fuel consumption for a lightweight that was driven slowly. The electricity consumption of electric cars at that time was in the range of today's electric cars. At 30 km/h, aerodynamics played almost no role, slightly lighter, but there was no recuperation. There were extremely fuel-intensive gasoline cars compared to electric cars that were charged with an electricity mix of several kg of CO2 per kWh. Electricity was cheaper than gasoline, but replacing the short-lived lead-acid batteries increased the cost of the electric car to such an extent that it lost out. This is exactly my experience from 2006 to 2009 and the evaluation of the City-El forums: If I had had to pay for the replacement batteries myself back then, driving a Seat Alhambra is cheaper than an electric scooter. At around €6 diesel per 100 km back then, a battery change should only have cost less than €350.

Who killed the electric car? The lead-acid battery!

There was also the nickel-iron battery as an alternative to the lead-acid battery, but it was much more expensive and not widely used. People like to invent and spread conspiracy theories, but the end of the first generation of electric cars was clearly due to economic facts. With lead batteries, the Tesla Y would only have a battery capacity of 15 kWh 100 km range, and accelerating with 30 kW would already be a bad case of lead battery abuse. At the beginning of the 1990s, a new generation of electric cars with nickel-cadmium batteries was tested. I wrote a test report on the Peugeot 106 electric in 2005. With the nickel-cadmium battery, the Tesla Y would already have had a battery capacity of 25 kWh and acceleration with 50 kW would have been possible in the short term. A little better still, NiMh: 30 kWh battery capacity. These three failed battery chemistries are not only useless for the electric car but also have an insufficient raw material range; the available raw material deposits are not sufficient for worldwide use. The proven raw material reserves are sufficient for around 80 times more LFP (lithium iron phosphate) batteries than lead batteries. Sodium is like salt in the sea, so there is no limit to raw materials.

Maximum profitable grid connection costs

I'm currently writing my paper for the CORP.at conference. The term "maximum profitable grid connection costs" appears there. A purely solar power system with hourly yield data from 2005 to 2020 is simulated at various points around the world. First with 50% power to methanol and 35% generator efficiency for a decentralized system in the 100 kW to 300 kW range. Then with a much more efficient centralized system with 58% power to and 54% power generation efficiency. The simulation then calculates the efficiency in the conversion from electricity yield to 24×365 electricity. For example, 1 kW of photovoltaics in Kamapla has an annual yield of 1,363 kWh. The decentralized variant yields 915 kWh/a 24×365 electricity, the centralized variant 951 kWh/a 24×365 electricity. So a meager 5.1% more. The total system is 2 MW photovoltaics, 10 MWh sodium batteries, 100 kW power to methanol and a simple generator, which should cost around €1 million between 2030 and 2035. If the power to methanol plant and the power plant with centralized large-scale technology yield 5.1% more, then the decentralized plant could be built 5.1% larger instead. This slightly larger plant would cost 5.1% of a million, €51,000 more. These are the maximum profitable grid connection costs. These values are not the same everywhere. The other extreme was Aalborg in Denmark with maximum profitable grid connection costs of €302,000. But what did that look like 100 years ago? Small decentralized coal-fired power plants had 8 to 12% efficiency, large coal-fired power plants 18% to 20%. Significantly higher coal requirements, transportation costs and personnel costs lead to maximum profitable grid connection costs of €1,000,000 to €1,800,000, corrected for inflation. With the state of the art at the time, the high-voltage grid was a strong cost optimization. This leads to the topic of today's newsletter: what electricity mix did the first electric cars run on? Not only was it mostly coal-fired electricity, but it was also coal-fired electricity generated with 5% to 15% efficiency. From 1905 to 1925, power plant technology made considerable progress.

The planetary restoration mentality

Planetary cleanup back to 350 ppm CO2 means about 47,000 TWh of electricity to filter 1 ppm CO2 from the atmosphere and recycle it into carbon and oxygen. Who can afford that? Only a rich human race, 10 billion people in prosperity can do it. One million km² of energy-optimized settlement areas alone should contribute 150,000 TWh for the necessary electricity for world-wide prosperity and planetary restoration.

GEMINI next Generation AG will prove the contrary

It's not about whether the shares will be worth 100 times or 1000 times more in 20 years' time or whether they will only be worth a few cents. It's about the future of us all. Will there be a big showdown between eco-fascism and yesterday's fossils, or will it be possible to overcome the deep divisions in society and inspire supporters of both sides to work towards a great new goal? Global prosperity and planetary restoration instead of saving, restricting, renouncing and climate catastrophe or peak oil and a little more climate catastrophe. Both sides must be convinced that they have no solution that is even remotely viable. On the one hand, it must be shown that net-zero emissions are a completely inadequate target and that the goal must instead be a planetary clean-up back to 350 ppm CO2. The other side must be shown that solar power enables a higher standard of living than fossil energy. It's about survival! The social situation in 2025 compared to 2005, extrapolated to 2045, makes for a horror world! If we are successful and your shares are worth 100 times more, this is just an addition to all the other achievements. One new shareholder said "Me with my very modest investment", but €400 times €1,000 is also €400,000 for all investments up to the creation of the prototype. There is a reward program for recommending the share to others. Two of the new shareholders have become shareholders through this reward program. Here are the details.

GEMINI shares: time to buy - milestones

The situation has changed fundamentally since this company visited Slovakia. Necessary investment volume reduced by around 90%. Time to marketable product shortened by around one year. The 90% reduction in investment volume also means that each shareholder has significantly more shares. The share price is now lifted towards our targets at each milestone. These milestones can happen in all areas: Financial, new shareholders, new opportunities to attract new shareholders. Contracts to build the prototype, more houses and settlements. Cooperations for realization. Purchase, arrival and testing of important technical components.