EVs bad for the environment?

The place to discuss everything else..
User avatar
goron59
Posts: 5788
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:15 am

Post by goron59 »

An interesting video with some numbers and cited sources on whether an EV (or hybrid) is better for the environment than an ICE vehicle.

Covers manufacturing [environment] costs, running costs and the power source variations.
Quite interesting, and an amusing comment on Tesla around around 8 mins :)



TL;DW
  • Cars with smaller batteries are considerably better for the env than those with larger batteries.
  • Yes, it's worth selling your ICE and getting a EV if it's practical for you to do so
  • Don't live in West Virginia
Used to have 2016 Macan Turbo PHCKCL70
Previously a 2014 Macan Turbo.
Now a 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR

Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

This shows how important it is to manufacture batteries as efficiently as possible, which Tesla is taking seriously with its largely solar powered Gigafactory.

Size of battery is also important and I've noticed a lot of Tesla owners (especially in the US) will tend to choose the bigger battery option even if they never use the range. They argue that the battery should last longer because they don't need to use its full capacity, but there is little evidence to support that theory. I thought the 75 kWh battery was a good compromise in range, weight and performance in a large SUV and it still has the same 8 year unlimited mileage warranty. In a smaller car I would be happy with a 50-60 kWh battery for a similar 200 mile range. The Tesla Model 3 has 50, 60 and 75 kWh battery options, which seems perfect.
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

One small flaw in this analysis was the assumption that an ICE car would produce exactly the same emissions to manufacture as an EV minus its battery. In reality the EV would produce less emissions as there is no complex engine to manufacture, just a couple of electric motors. But I don't think this would have changed the conclusions, it would have simply made the total emissions break-even point even shorter.
User avatar
Col Lamb
Posts: 9360
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:38 pm
Location: Lancashire

Post by Col Lamb »

Interesting.

The problem with emission comparisons and statistics is that they do not consider the whole life cycle, from raw materials to raw materials state and everything in between.

Remember how Nuke Power Stations were pushed as being environmentally the least pollutant option, everyone now knows or at least should know that they are an environmental and financial disaster. This is what I am pointing out, emissions start with the extraction of raw minerals used in the build and only finishes when the dismantled components are returned to their base elements which can then be reused, everything in between has an emission component that should be included in the data.

So one basically flawed assumption is in vehicle production emissions excluding batteries being the same irrespective of motive power unit

Take the power and gearbox units of both ICE and EV, it should not take a degree in Engineering to see that one is vastly more complex due the thousands of components it takes to build an ICE and a gearbox.

The first time the word assumption is used in any dataand statistical comparison paper/video etc then the seed of doubt should be planted and I am not talking a seed from a dandelion I am talking about a Jack and the Beanstalk seed.

Take it as an amusing and light hearted attempt at getting the fat assed Yanks to be more environmentally aware.
Col
Macan Turbo
Air, 20” wheels, ACC, Pano, SurCam, 14w, LEDs, PS+, Int Light Pack, Heated seats and Steering, spare wheel, SC, Privacy glass, PDK gear, SD mirrors, Met Black, rear airbags
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

Col Lamb wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:31 am
So one basically flawed assumption is in vehicle production emissions excluding batteries being the same irrespective of motive power unit
I see you spotted the same flaw in this analysis!
To be fair he was trying to favour ICE as much as possible in his analysis to show that it still looks less green anyway. I think only oil drinkers would still argue that EVs are worse for the environment overall and there are plenty of those around! That's not to say EVs don't have environmental issues, but they are a step forward from our ICE dominated world on many levels. Even if they were equal on total emissions I'd still be driving an EV and that is probably what will ultimately drive the future demand for EVs rather than the environmental factors that really should!
User avatar
goron59
Posts: 5788
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:15 am

Post by goron59 »

Peteski wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:56 am ... They argue that the battery should last longer because they don't need to use its full capacity, but there is little evidence to support that theory. I thought the 75 kWh battery was a good compromise in range, weight and performance in a large SUV and it still has the same 8 year unlimited mileage warranty. In a smaller car I would be happy with a 50-60 kWh battery for a similar 200 mile range. The Tesla Model 3 has 50, 60 and 75 kWh battery options, which seems perfect.
Yes, I think this is going to be the next big focus. Not just persuade people that range anxiety is just that - anxiety - but that you can get away with having a tiny battery.

Recently I found I can have a home charge device at home, even though I'm in an apartment building, so I did a lot of thinking and calculations and concluded that a small battery Leaf would just about be perfect for around 90% of my motoring needs[1], then renting something else for longer journeys (or flying then renting).

And once I go down the path of an EV, I lose all interest in having a car for fun, so I save a huge amount of money :)


[1] Most of my journeys are short (5-15 miles). Infrequent (4-5 times a year) journeys tend to be 500-800 miles.
Used to have 2016 Macan Turbo PHCKCL70
Previously a 2014 Macan Turbo.
Now a 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

goron59 wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:23 pm And once I go down the path of an EV, I lose all interest in having a car for fun, so I save a huge amount of money :)
I think there will be plenty of fun EVs coming along in the next few years. The Tesla Model 3 Performance looks like a lot of fun with 450 hp and instant torque and yet still very practical as an everyday car. I'm sure there will always be some nostalgia for glorious sounding multi-cylinder petrol engines but I don't think 4-pots and diesels will be greatly missed in an EV world. I can't wait to get rid of our last one!
User avatar
goron59
Posts: 5788
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:15 am

Post by goron59 »

Yea, I prefer my engines to be V shaped, lots of cylinders (min 8) and normally aspirated. There's not much emotional connection to the Macan, for example. Even 911s mostly leave me cold.

Pure performance is not really my thing, especially when all the clever electronics is doing all the work for you. I wonder if we'll see some enthusiast-oriented EVs with manual gearboxes and clutch pedals. Never going to be mainstream, but still leaves the driver something to do :)
Used to have 2016 Macan Turbo PHCKCL70
Previously a 2014 Macan Turbo.
Now a 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR
GMAN75
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed May 09, 2018 11:21 am

Post by GMAN75 »

Until I can fill my car's battery within the timeframe it takes to fill my car's petrol tank, and with the same convenience and locations, they will need to pry the keys of my ICE vehicle from my cold, dead, mitts.
davetronic
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 11:53 am

Post by davetronic »

CE23C5A7-5C1F-4778-B83D-0902FFBB22F2.jpeg

Present: Macan S 2019 (PK1QF9N7), Audi Q3 S-line Quattro
Previous: Maserati Ghibli, 944, 911, Cayman, many Benz & BMW coupes. Sahara Beige Capri with brown vinyl roof. And a Renault R4L. (I'd like another).
Post Reply