Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

Martyn1981

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

Hardly a shock, but always nice to see support/confirmation.

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

Fossil fuel cars waste hundreds of times more raw material than their battery electric equivalents, according to a study that adds to evidence that the move away from petrol and diesel cars will bring large net environmental benefits.

Only about 30kg of raw material will be lost over the lifecycle of a lithium ion battery used in electric cars once recycling is taken into account, compared with 17,000 litres of oil, according to analysis by Transport & Environment (T&E) seen by the Guardian. A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars.

To be scrupulously fair,  if we're going to count the litres of oil used by an ICE car,  we ought also count the (rather smaller) amounts of 'our share' of the oil/coal/gas etc used to generate the electricity used to power the EV.  Or, if the 17,000 litres of oil is purely that used to produce the ICE vehicle (incidentally,  does that figure relate to one car or the grand total of all cars produced or something else again ?)  ,  it's hard to believe there wouldn't be quite a lot of oil used to produce the parts of an EV that are common to FFVs.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that there aren't huge environmental advantages  to EVs,  just that this sloppy bit of reporting doesn't give an accurate understanding.

It's the oil consumed by the ICE as stated in the article:

“Over its lifetime, an average fossil-fuel car burns the equivalent of a stack of oil barrels 25 storeys high. If you take into account the recycling of battery materials, only around 30kg of metals would be lost – roughly the size of a football.”

It would appear that a 'storey' in this example is approx 2.65m.

Yes, to be scrupulously fair we should include any FF's consumed in producing the leccy, and of course also the FF's consumed by the extraction equipment, pumping equipment, tankers, oil refining process, and road tankering of the oil/ICE fuel.

EVandPV

Elon Musk's Tesla 'gigafactory' in Somerset rumours - all we know so far

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/elon-musks-tesla-gigafactory-somerset-5054914.amp

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

Hardly a shock, but always nice to see support/confirmation.

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

Fossil fuel cars waste hundreds of times more raw material than their battery electric equivalents, according to a study that adds to evidence that the move away from petrol and diesel cars will bring large net environmental benefits.

Only about 30kg of raw material will be lost over the lifecycle of a lithium ion battery used in electric cars once recycling is taken into account, compared with 17,000 litres of oil, according to analysis by Transport & Environment (T&E) seen by the Guardian. A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars.

To be scrupulously fair,  if we're going to count the litres of oil used by an ICE car,  we ought also count the (rather smaller) amounts of 'our share' of the oil/coal/gas etc used to generate the electricity used to power the EV.  Or, if the 17,000 litres of oil is purely that used to produce the ICE vehicle (incidentally,  does that figure relate to one car or the grand total of all cars produced or something else again ?)  ,  it's hard to believe there wouldn't be quite a lot of oil used to produce the parts of an EV that are common to FFVs.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that there aren't huge environmental advantages  to EVs,  just that this sloppy bit of reporting doesn't give an accurate understanding.

Perhaps we should also count the cost of building the power stations and wind turbines to produce the extra electricity to power our electric cars. 😉

Yes we should. Plus of course the oil exploration, extractions (rigs etc), oil tankers, refineries, road tankers too.

Definitely, we need objectivity. There are way too many “studies” presented by both sides of the EV debate which are selective in the assumptions they make as to which costs/resources they include both in terms of production of EVs/ICEVs, the cost/source of fuel, the mileage covered, the size and the lifespan of the vehicle, and the theatre of operation (composition of the grid) etc.

This particular study (by an organisation described by the Guardian as a campaign group) is as useful as an article by the Daily Mail. It is just biased commentary that actually discredits the genuine, powerful, argument for EVs. What’s more it is sloppy as @EricMears said

Take this statement from the article (my bold):

 “A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars.” Seriously?

Posting this sort of article from an EV campaign group with the comment “nice to see” portrays us as EV fanatics who can’t think critically, and are interested only in promoting views that provide support/confirmation of our biases.

Let’s be objective about it. I love electric cars but not every electric car is more environmentally friendly in every situation than every ICE car. If my wife was replacing her Kia Picanto which now averages 2000 miles a year would it be more environmentally friendly to buy an EV or another Picanto? I actually want her to get an EV to replace it (she disagrees as she worries about range) but if you look at it environmentally it would be the wrong decision.

I do about 5000 miles a year in my 40kwh Nissan Leaf. At what point does my Leaf become better for the planet than the (post Dieselgate) sub 100g/km Golf it replaced? You may say these are edge cases but in reality a lot of us (not all) do relatively low mileages in our EVs.  

So let’s look at China which is a pretty major market for EVs.

65% of the Chinese electricity grid is coal powered (2019 stats). Is it better for the planet for the Chinese to buy electric cars? In ten years time maybe when the grid is cleaned up, then yes, but today? EVs are front end loaded in terms of emissions because of the resources used in battery production.  In year one an EV is worse for the environment than a modern ICE car. At some point after quite a few tens of thousands of miles, depending on the composition of the grid, the EV becomes cleaner but in a country like China that may take quite a few years. In the short term we are adding to the CO2 problem in that situation.

So why don’t “studies” such as the one quoted make that point? Because they aren’t really studies at all, just articles written by campaigners who are keen to promote their view of the world for the gullible to consume and promulgate without question. Just like tabloid newspapers, some might say.

Edit: I have been struggling to find figures for the carbon intensity of the Chines electricity grid but somewhere in the region of 65% (although I have seen 55% mentioned) comes from coal which is estimated to result in CO2 emissions of 1000g/kwh.  As far as the world is concerned I found this for 2019. 

Today the average carbon intensity of electricity generated is 475 gCO2/kWh, a 10% improvement on the intensity from 2010. 

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-co2-status-report-2019/emissions

With a typical consumption of 3miles/kwh this would equate to emissions of 150g of CO2 per mile or about 94 g/km.  if we assume charging losses of 10% then the global average would be about 104g/km which is more than the 95g/km target set by the EU for emissions. 

Well to tank emissions for Petrol and diesel are in the region of 25g/km ( https://gmobility.eu/what-is-well-to-wheel/  )so a modern ICE car will produce in the region of 120g of CO2 well to wheel.

There is therefore in the region of a 10-15% reduction in CO2 emissions from driving an EV compared to an ICE on a global basis. There will of course be regional variations and every EV will produce a different figure as will every ICE.

This does not of course take into account the  extra emissions from building a battery electric vehicle in the first place.

The point I am making is that the argument that EVs are better for the environment is not quite as clear cut as we sometimes like to think.

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

Posting this sort of article from an EV campaign group with the comment “nice to see” portrays us as EV fanatics who can’t think critically, and are interested only in promoting views that provide support/confirmation of our biases.

Nope.
On a BEV news thread on a G&E board, I think this is definitely nice to see, even if some fanatics are less than pleased.

The point I am making is that the argument that EVs are better for the environment is not quite as clear cut as we sometimes like to think.

You may not agree with me, but personally I believe BEV's are better for the environment than ICEV's, and given the pressure to transition, asap, all over the World, I don't think I'm going to have to change my position.

Superscrooge

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56245618
Volvo Cars to only sell electric vehicles by 2030, the Swedish firm has said

Martyn1981

No surprises, but hopefully PHEV's will help encourage drivers and manufacturers to switch to BEV's sooner than they might have, especially whilst BEV's are supply constrained..

Plug-in hybrid cars burn more fuel than tests record, says Which?

Plug-in hybrid cars burn significantly more fuel than official tests record, according to research that suggests pollution from the vehicles could be much worse than advertised.

Tests of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) by Which?, the UK consumer group, found that some popular cars achieved as little as a third of the fuel economy advertised in official tests.

PHEVs accounted for 58% of all rechargeable cars sold in the biggest 18 western European markets in January, according to data from Matthias Schmidt, a Berlin-based electric car analyst. Plug-in hybrids will remain popular over traditional internal combustion cars because of tax and subsidy advantages, he said.

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

No surprises, but hopefully PHEV's will help encourage drivers and manufacturers to switch to BEV's sooner than they might have, especially whilst BEV's are supply constrained..

Plug-in hybrid cars burn more fuel than tests record, says Which?

Plug-in hybrid cars burn significantly more fuel than official tests record, according to research that suggests pollution from the vehicles could be much worse than advertised.

Tests of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) by Which?, the UK consumer group, found that some popular cars achieved as little as a third of the fuel economy advertised in official tests.

PHEVs accounted for 58% of all rechargeable cars sold in the biggest 18 western European markets in January, according to data from Matthias !!!!!!, a Berlin-based electric car analyst. Plug-in hybrids will remain popular over traditional internal combustion cars because of tax and subsidy advantages, he said.

Which? was bound to achieve worse results than official tests as they drove the cars for longer on their petrol engines, so as you say no surprise there. 

Someone who uses a hybrid for a round trip commute of 20 miles everyday and charges overnight would get far better results than the government tests. PHEVS are perfect for the driver who wants to go electric but has range anxiety/is fearful of charging and needs to make the occasional long trip (aka my wife). Huge saving in CO2 achieved and as I think GA once pointed out you can fit 5 PHEVs with batteries for the £/environmental cost of one BEV.

I think it is the official test that is flawed not the results. The figures produced by official tests are meaningless to the car buyer. It would be better if two figures were quoted - range on battery and mpg/CO2 running on petrol.

The government tax regime on PHEVs is what is largely to blame for their misuse. You can use them purely on the ICE power train and still get huge tax benefits. The only way we are going to solve this is by scrapping the BIK advantages (or sticking a massive tax on petrol and diesel).

Edit: I should add that the ICE component does have advantages over batteries at high speed so for a driver with a mix of local journeys and occasional motorway use, (e.g. occasional holidays) PHEVs may actually be a better solution than pure BEVs in practical terms while giving away little in Lifetime CO2 because of the smaller battery pack. 

JKenH

FutureBridge Predicts Solid-State Battery Cost Will Match Lithium-Ion By 2025

In fact, Toyota wants to sell its first SSB-equipped EV within the next two or three years, while Volkswagen has announced its intention to make its own SSB packs by 2025 and Nissan is also on the SSB train, with plans to have a prototype up and running by 2028.

https://insideevs.com/news/491713/solid-state-batteries-here-in-2030/

silverwhistle

JKenH said:

If my wife was replacing her Kia Picanto which now averages 2000 miles a year would it be more environmentally friendly to buy an EV or another Picanto? I actually want her to get an EV to replace it (she disagrees as she worries about range)

2000 miles a year and worries about range?! You can't be very persuasive!:-)

The point I am making is that the argument that EVs are better for the environment is not quite as clear cut as we sometimes like to think.

It's pretty obvious they are, even if not as much as we would like perhaps. Why stress the Chinese situation so much? I'm pretty sure the cars EVs replace won't be scrapped, and if somebody is getting a new car far better that it be an EV. The 11 year old car I sold went to a learner driver, and that's here in affluent southern England. As for the Chinese use of coal, they are expanding wind and solar at a faster rate than anybody as a result of state intervention and the market. Basically you've presented a worse case scenario.

JKenH

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

If my wife was replacing her Kia Picanto which now averages 2000 miles a year would it be more environmentally friendly to buy an EV or another Picanto? I actually want her to get an EV to replace it (she disagrees as she worries about range)

2000 miles a year and worries about range?! You can't be very persuasive!:-)

The point I am making is that the argument that EVs are better for the environment is not quite as clear cut as we sometimes like to think.

It's pretty obvious they are, even if not as much as we would like perhaps. Why stress the Chinese situation so much? I'm pretty sure the cars EVs replace won't be scrapped, and if somebody is getting a new car far better that it be an EV. The 11 year old car I sold went to a learner driver, and that's here in affluent southern England. As for the Chinese use of coal, they are expanding wind and solar at a faster rate than anybody as a result of state intervention and the market. Basically you've presented a worse case scenario.

My wife uses her Picanto infrequently now we have the Leaf but does a long run to help out with the grandchildren. Having experienced the messing about with apps and out of service chargers when travelling with me she prefers to do those longer solo runs in an ICE car. The problem is (at least as I see it) she doesn’t use the charging infrastructure enough to be confident and where there is a no hassle alternative of an ICE she prefers it. Being an intelligent lady capable of independent thought, despite enjoying driving my Leaf and being aware of all the issues relating to emissions, I cannot persuade her that purchasing a new BEV would be better for her or the environment. 

As far as my quoting the China example, it is to demonstrate that there is another side to the coin. China may be building more renewables but they are still building coal fired stations and it is going to take some while before their grid is as clean as in Europe. It probably has a carbon intensity at best of at least 600g/kwh, but there are huge regional variations with some provinces being over 1000g/kwh. Depending where in China an EV is being charged will play a huge part in whether there is any environmental benefit. China is a massive market for BEVs and not just a worst case scenario - see graph below https://www.statista.com/statistics/244292/number-of-electric-vehicles-by-country/

As for your argument “I'm pretty sure the cars EVs replace won't be scrapped” then just what contribution to the environment has your purchase of an EV actually made. Were you in the market for a new car anyway? I don’t know what your annual mileage is but perhaps you will let me know when we will see a net benefit to the environment from your purchase, I.e. when the CO2 cost of manufacturing the car/battery will be repaid? I should make the point, here, that those of us who charge our cars using solar pv are not actually charging with zero emissions as our generation would otherwise be going back into the grid to run someone else’s kettle cooker, TV or washing machine. There will have to be a commensurate increase in generation somewhere else on the grid to make up for that.  It is nice to know it’s free but we shouldn’t kid ourselves there is actually any environmental benefit. 

My beef is not with EVs, rather it is with one sided reporting making outrageous claims when what we need is something a little more nuanced. Human nature is such that we tend to like to read those articles which confirm our own views and reject any that challenge them. As EV enthusiasts sold on their benefits we only want to read articles that praise EVs while the diehard petrolheads  lap up articles criticising EVs. There is a ready market for material on both sides of this (and indeed every other) debate but on here the only articles which tend to get shared (and liked) are pro EV. Now I understand why that is but if all we ever do is feed each other with views that we want to hear supporting one side of the debate it just becomes an echo chamber and we cease (or become reluctant) to think critically. As an example was I the only one who could see something patently incorrect with the claim in the article “A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars”?  Did nobody give it a second thought or do people accept that because it is a pro EV comment it is immune to criticism? 

As I have responded to you taking me to task for referencing China perhaps you will do me the courtesy of letting me have your thoughts on that claim (highlighted with bold italics in the paragraph above) in the article, that I felt seemed so unlikely to be true,.