EV Discussion thread

silverwhistle

thevilla said:

I suspect the issue, if there really is one,  will be solved by advances in battery manufacture. 

That, and better charging. I've just been looking at a possible trip to Italy and not only has the charging situation in France improved so much in the last year but also I'm seeing prices at 28p, 32p, 50p a kWh for extra rapid chargers, not just slow AC.

michaels

JKenH said:

This article specifically refers to the American market where pick up trucks are now being fitted with 200+kWh batteries but the trend in the UK has also been to ever bigger batteries. (A small car like the MG4 is now available with a 77kWh battery). The bigger the battery the more front end loaded the CO2 consumption is from manufacture and that has not only a longer CO2 payback time but an immediate effect on CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Installing 80kWh instead of 40kWh batteries doubles the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere here and now. That is not additional CO2 for 1 year but 100 years. The bigger the CO2 blanket the more heat is retained and that heat build up doesn’t disappear when CO2 payback is achieved; it is baked into the atmosphere.  

The extra CO2 from the additional 40kWh of battery manufacture will NEVER be paid back. A 80kWh battery car can displace no more ICEV emissions than a 40kWh one; in fact the extra weight means the car it is in is less efficient which further aggravates the problem. By doubling the size of car batteries we are unnecessarily adding to the global warming problem, not only accelerating the rate of CO2 emissions but putting twice as much into the atmosphere as we need to to solve the ICEV problem. 

I am not arguing BEVs emit more CO2 than ICEVs, rather that by limiting the size of batteries we could halve the amount of CO2 we are emitting building BEVs and probably save the equivalent of 2-5 years ICEV emissions. 

No one in authority seems to get this.

I have always believed that bigger battery vehicles should be taxed more heavily than, say, sub 50kWh ones but as the article says the incentives in the US actually encourage bigger battery vehicles. 

Will super-sized batteries strain the supply chain?

As Bloomberg recently calculated, using EV models from the U.S., Europe, and China, the average pack size is now around 80 kwh, from in the vicinity of 40 kwh in 2018, and the growth trend is expected to continue for some years. 

Considering the expected growth in battery size per EV, along with the expected growth of the EV market, Bloomberg suggests that battery demand in 2030 will be 50-70% higher, and that will put a direct strain on lithium supplies, although a shift to LFP cells will help soften the effect on cobalt. Without proper planning, the supply pinch could play out like the price spike that happened in 2021 into 2022, interrupting what had otherwise been a longtime drop in battery prices and thus a boost in EV affordability. 

One simpler way to cut the dependence on super-size battery packs is by incentivizing vehicles that do more with less. 

Right now, that’s not what U.S. rules and incentives do—especially not the EV tax credit. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140506_will-super-sized-ev-batteries-strain-the-supply-chain

I think this is an important point but possibly overstated.

The co2 to manufacture the battery may be doubled but for the car overall the increase may be closer to 50%?

Of course part of the reason batteries can be larger is they are becoming more energy dense. I don't suppose the 62 leaf has 2.5 times the battery mass and manufacture emissions of the 24 for example.

It also plays into your point re charging, fast, reliable, no wait, reasonably priced charging availability would obvioculy reduce the demand for bigger batteries.

Not sure about the co2 now argument, sounds a bit like the I can't afford to lower my energy bills by fitting insulation mantra, it is the long view that matters here.

ABrass

Apparently LFP batteries have roughly 45% lower CO2 production costs than traditional NMC chemistries. So newer cheaper models have an even faster repayment period.

Or in other words, a current Tesla Model Y with a 55kWh has the same embodied CO2 in the battery as a current 30kWh (edited, was 24) Nissan leaf.

Martyn1981

ABrass said:

Apparently LFP batteries have roughly 45% lower CO2 production costs than traditional NMC chemistries. So newer cheaper models have an even faster repayment period.

Or in other words, a current Tesla Model Y with a 55kWh has the same embodied CO2 in the battery as a current 30kWh (edited, was 24) Nissan leaf.

Hiya. If you're interested, there is a very detailed report from Argonne National Laboratory, looking at the US numbers for ICEV's v's BEV's, and they also look at different size vehicle comparisons (such as small SUV, or midsize SUV) and the range of the BEV, be it 200, 300, or 400 mile.

The numbers are in appendix B from page 212 onwards, but this chart gives a rough idea. The 'future' numbers being based on 2030-35. Note that the US grid is improving, but still one of the higher grams of CO2/kWh grids out there, now and 2030(ish).



For now, the big issue is the fuel consumption part, for both ICEV's and BEV's. BEV's will improve in all areas over time, though the production of the vehicle itself, doesn't change much (ICEV or BEV). The big wins will be for BEV batteries and fuel (cleaner leccy generation).

Obviously, battery size and range will depend on the size of the vehicle, and the wants of the owner. So horses for courses, but currently, many people are concerned about vehicle range, and charging facilities, so it may take a larger battery to convert some people. Plus the reduced need to use public charging, especially where and when it's poor, may be a decider on battery size/range to make BEV ownership viable/suitable.

Personally, I've always thought the sweetspot for BEV range (with a good charging infrastructure), is probably 200-250 miles of real life range. For a second car, in a household, this probably varies much more, but for me (and Wifey), around 100 miles.

Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Analysis of U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle-Fuel Pathways: A Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment of Current (2020) and Future (2030-2035) Technologies

Grumpy_chap

So, a few weeks with the TM3 and Mrs G-C now says that when she changes her car, she'd like to go electric also.  Rather a sweet change as she was rather more reluctant than me.
She says she'd simply like an electric Fiesta, just like her current car but EV and for the same price.  She paid £14k in 2017, so that would be around £18k allowing for inflation.
Quite possibly, by the time she needs to change, that will be a realistic prospect.

1961Nick

michaels said:

JKenH said:

This article specifically refers to the American market where pick up trucks are now being fitted with 200+kWh batteries but the trend in the UK has also been to ever bigger batteries. (A small car like the MG4 is now available with a 77kWh battery). The bigger the battery the more front end loaded the CO2 consumption is from manufacture and that has not only a longer CO2 payback time but an immediate effect on CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Installing 80kWh instead of 40kWh batteries doubles the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere here and now. That is not additional CO2 for 1 year but 100 years. The bigger the CO2 blanket the more heat is retained and that heat build up doesn’t disappear when CO2 payback is achieved; it is baked into the atmosphere.  

The extra CO2 from the additional 40kWh of battery manufacture will NEVER be paid back. A 80kWh battery car can displace no more ICEV emissions than a 40kWh one; in fact the extra weight means the car it is in is less efficient which further aggravates the problem. By doubling the size of car batteries we are unnecessarily adding to the global warming problem, not only accelerating the rate of CO2 emissions but putting twice as much into the atmosphere as we need to to solve the ICEV problem. 

I am not arguing BEVs emit more CO2 than ICEVs, rather that by limiting the size of batteries we could halve the amount of CO2 we are emitting building BEVs and probably save the equivalent of 2-5 years ICEV emissions. 

No one in authority seems to get this.

I have always believed that bigger battery vehicles should be taxed more heavily than, say, sub 50kWh ones but as the article says the incentives in the US actually encourage bigger battery vehicles. 

Will super-sized batteries strain the supply chain?

As Bloomberg recently calculated, using EV models from the U.S., Europe, and China, the average pack size is now around 80 kwh, from in the vicinity of 40 kwh in 2018, and the growth trend is expected to continue for some years. 

Considering the expected growth in battery size per EV, along with the expected growth of the EV market, Bloomberg suggests that battery demand in 2030 will be 50-70% higher, and that will put a direct strain on lithium supplies, although a shift to LFP cells will help soften the effect on cobalt. Without proper planning, the supply pinch could play out like the price spike that happened in 2021 into 2022, interrupting what had otherwise been a longtime drop in battery prices and thus a boost in EV affordability. 

One simpler way to cut the dependence on super-size battery packs is by incentivizing vehicles that do more with less. 

Right now, that’s not what U.S. rules and incentives do—especially not the EV tax credit. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140506_will-super-sized-ev-batteries-strain-the-supply-chain

I think this is an important point but possibly overstated.

The co2 to manufacture the battery may be doubled but for the car overall the increase may be closer to 50%?

Of course part of the reason batteries can be larger is they are becoming more energy dense. I don't suppose the 62 leaf has 2.5 times the battery mass and manufacture emissions of the 24 for example.

It also plays into your point re charging, fast, reliable, no wait, reasonably priced charging availability would obvioculy reduce the demand for bigger batteries.

Not sure about the co2 now argument, sounds a bit like the I can't afford to lower my energy bills by fitting insulation mantra, it is the long view that matters here.

A vehicle with a larger battery will be predominantly charged overnight when the energy mix favours renewables rather than during the day when the marginal generation is by fossil fuels. That alone should surely negate some of the extra CO2 required to manufacture the extra battery capacity. 

shinytop

1961Nick said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

This article specifically refers to the American market where pick up trucks are now being fitted with 200+kWh batteries but the trend in the UK has also been to ever bigger batteries. (A small car like the MG4 is now available with a 77kWh battery). The bigger the battery the more front end loaded the CO2 consumption is from manufacture and that has not only a longer CO2 payback time but an immediate effect on CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Installing 80kWh instead of 40kWh batteries doubles the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere here and now. That is not additional CO2 for 1 year but 100 years. The bigger the CO2 blanket the more heat is retained and that heat build up doesn’t disappear when CO2 payback is achieved; it is baked into the atmosphere.  

The extra CO2 from the additional 40kWh of battery manufacture will NEVER be paid back. A 80kWh battery car can displace no more ICEV emissions than a 40kWh one; in fact the extra weight means the car it is in is less efficient which further aggravates the problem. By doubling the size of car batteries we are unnecessarily adding to the global warming problem, not only accelerating the rate of CO2 emissions but putting twice as much into the atmosphere as we need to to solve the ICEV problem. 

I am not arguing BEVs emit more CO2 than ICEVs, rather that by limiting the size of batteries we could halve the amount of CO2 we are emitting building BEVs and probably save the equivalent of 2-5 years ICEV emissions. 

No one in authority seems to get this.

I have always believed that bigger battery vehicles should be taxed more heavily than, say, sub 50kWh ones but as the article says the incentives in the US actually encourage bigger battery vehicles. 

Will super-sized batteries strain the supply chain?

As Bloomberg recently calculated, using EV models from the U.S., Europe, and China, the average pack size is now around 80 kwh, from in the vicinity of 40 kwh in 2018, and the growth trend is expected to continue for some years. 

Considering the expected growth in battery size per EV, along with the expected growth of the EV market, Bloomberg suggests that battery demand in 2030 will be 50-70% higher, and that will put a direct strain on lithium supplies, although a shift to LFP cells will help soften the effect on cobalt. Without proper planning, the supply pinch could play out like the price spike that happened in 2021 into 2022, interrupting what had otherwise been a longtime drop in battery prices and thus a boost in EV affordability. 

One simpler way to cut the dependence on super-size battery packs is by incentivizing vehicles that do more with less. 

Right now, that’s not what U.S. rules and incentives do—especially not the EV tax credit. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140506_will-super-sized-ev-batteries-strain-the-supply-chain

I think this is an important point but possibly overstated.

The co2 to manufacture the battery may be doubled but for the car overall the increase may be closer to 50%?

Of course part of the reason batteries can be larger is they are becoming more energy dense. I don't suppose the 62 leaf has 2.5 times the battery mass and manufacture emissions of the 24 for example.

It also plays into your point re charging, fast, reliable, no wait, reasonably priced charging availability would obvioculy reduce the demand for bigger batteries.

Not sure about the co2 now argument, sounds a bit like the I can't afford to lower my energy bills by fitting insulation mantra, it is the long view that matters here.

A vehicle with a larger battery will be predominantly charged overnight when the energy mix favours renewables rather than during the day when the marginal generation is by fossil fuels. That alone should surely negate some of the extra CO2 required to manufacture the extra battery capacity. 

That's not the point being made, which is that most batteries don't need to be large.  Most batteries, large and small, will be charged overnight and most will be topping up the few, or few tens of, kWh they've used the previous day.  

1961Nick

shinytop said:

1961Nick said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

This article specifically refers to the American market where pick up trucks are now being fitted with 200+kWh batteries but the trend in the UK has also been to ever bigger batteries. (A small car like the MG4 is now available with a 77kWh battery). The bigger the battery the more front end loaded the CO2 consumption is from manufacture and that has not only a longer CO2 payback time but an immediate effect on CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Installing 80kWh instead of 40kWh batteries doubles the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere here and now. That is not additional CO2 for 1 year but 100 years. The bigger the CO2 blanket the more heat is retained and that heat build up doesn’t disappear when CO2 payback is achieved; it is baked into the atmosphere.  

The extra CO2 from the additional 40kWh of battery manufacture will NEVER be paid back. A 80kWh battery car can displace no more ICEV emissions than a 40kWh one; in fact the extra weight means the car it is in is less efficient which further aggravates the problem. By doubling the size of car batteries we are unnecessarily adding to the global warming problem, not only accelerating the rate of CO2 emissions but putting twice as much into the atmosphere as we need to to solve the ICEV problem. 

I am not arguing BEVs emit more CO2 than ICEVs, rather that by limiting the size of batteries we could halve the amount of CO2 we are emitting building BEVs and probably save the equivalent of 2-5 years ICEV emissions. 

No one in authority seems to get this.

I have always believed that bigger battery vehicles should be taxed more heavily than, say, sub 50kWh ones but as the article says the incentives in the US actually encourage bigger battery vehicles. 

Will super-sized batteries strain the supply chain?

As Bloomberg recently calculated, using EV models from the U.S., Europe, and China, the average pack size is now around 80 kwh, from in the vicinity of 40 kwh in 2018, and the growth trend is expected to continue for some years. 

Considering the expected growth in battery size per EV, along with the expected growth of the EV market, Bloomberg suggests that battery demand in 2030 will be 50-70% higher, and that will put a direct strain on lithium supplies, although a shift to LFP cells will help soften the effect on cobalt. Without proper planning, the supply pinch could play out like the price spike that happened in 2021 into 2022, interrupting what had otherwise been a longtime drop in battery prices and thus a boost in EV affordability. 

One simpler way to cut the dependence on super-size battery packs is by incentivizing vehicles that do more with less. 

Right now, that’s not what U.S. rules and incentives do—especially not the EV tax credit. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140506_will-super-sized-ev-batteries-strain-the-supply-chain

I think this is an important point but possibly overstated.

The co2 to manufacture the battery may be doubled but for the car overall the increase may be closer to 50%?

Of course part of the reason batteries can be larger is they are becoming more energy dense. I don't suppose the 62 leaf has 2.5 times the battery mass and manufacture emissions of the 24 for example.

It also plays into your point re charging, fast, reliable, no wait, reasonably priced charging availability would obvioculy reduce the demand for bigger batteries.

Not sure about the co2 now argument, sounds a bit like the I can't afford to lower my energy bills by fitting insulation mantra, it is the long view that matters here.

A vehicle with a larger battery will be predominantly charged overnight when the energy mix favours renewables rather than during the day when the marginal generation is by fossil fuels. That alone should surely negate some of the extra CO2 required to manufacture the extra battery capacity. 

That's not the point being made, which is that most batteries don't need to be large.  Most batteries, large and small, will be charged overnight and most will be topping up the few, or few tens of, kWh they've used the previous day.  

The only reason I've never had to use a public charger - or pay for a peak rate home charge - is simply because my car has a range of 250-300 miles. it also means that the emissions are extremely low & reducing further still since I moved onto Intelligent Octopus.

The CO2 "break even point" for an EV versus an ICEV is entirely dependent on the energy mix of the electricity used to charge it.  

JKenH

1961Nick said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

This article specifically refers to the American market where pick up trucks are now being fitted with 200+kWh batteries but the trend in the UK has also been to ever bigger batteries. (A small car like the MG4 is now available with a 77kWh battery). The bigger the battery the more front end loaded the CO2 consumption is from manufacture and that has not only a longer CO2 payback time but an immediate effect on CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Installing 80kWh instead of 40kWh batteries doubles the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere here and now. That is not additional CO2 for 1 year but 100 years. The bigger the CO2 blanket the more heat is retained and that heat build up doesn’t disappear when CO2 payback is achieved; it is baked into the atmosphere.  

The extra CO2 from the additional 40kWh of battery manufacture will NEVER be paid back. A 80kWh battery car can displace no more ICEV emissions than a 40kWh one; in fact the extra weight means the car it is in is less efficient which further aggravates the problem. By doubling the size of car batteries we are unnecessarily adding to the global warming problem, not only accelerating the rate of CO2 emissions but putting twice as much into the atmosphere as we need to to solve the ICEV problem. 

I am not arguing BEVs emit more CO2 than ICEVs, rather that by limiting the size of batteries we could halve the amount of CO2 we are emitting building BEVs and probably save the equivalent of 2-5 years ICEV emissions. 

No one in authority seems to get this.

I have always believed that bigger battery vehicles should be taxed more heavily than, say, sub 50kWh ones but as the article says the incentives in the US actually encourage bigger battery vehicles. 

Will super-sized batteries strain the supply chain?

As Bloomberg recently calculated, using EV models from the U.S., Europe, and China, the average pack size is now around 80 kwh, from in the vicinity of 40 kwh in 2018, and the growth trend is expected to continue for some years. 

Considering the expected growth in battery size per EV, along with the expected growth of the EV market, Bloomberg suggests that battery demand in 2030 will be 50-70% higher, and that will put a direct strain on lithium supplies, although a shift to LFP cells will help soften the effect on cobalt. Without proper planning, the supply pinch could play out like the price spike that happened in 2021 into 2022, interrupting what had otherwise been a longtime drop in battery prices and thus a boost in EV affordability. 

One simpler way to cut the dependence on super-size battery packs is by incentivizing vehicles that do more with less. 

Right now, that’s not what U.S. rules and incentives do—especially not the EV tax credit. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140506_will-super-sized-ev-batteries-strain-the-supply-chain

I think this is an important point but possibly overstated.

The co2 to manufacture the battery may be doubled but for the car overall the increase may be closer to 50%?

Of course part of the reason batteries can be larger is they are becoming more energy dense. I don't suppose the 62 leaf has 2.5 times the battery mass and manufacture emissions of the 24 for example.

It also plays into your point re charging, fast, reliable, no wait, reasonably priced charging availability would obvioculy reduce the demand for bigger batteries.

Not sure about the co2 now argument, sounds a bit like the I can't afford to lower my energy bills by fitting insulation mantra, it is the long view that matters here.

A vehicle with a larger battery will be predominantly charged overnight when the energy mix favours renewables rather than during the day when the marginal generation is by fossil fuels. That alone should surely negate some of the extra CO2 required to manufacture the extra battery capacity. 

That may be true at times but not always.

Today at 3.30pm emissions were 118g/kWh compared to 136g/kWh at 3.30 am. 

thevilla

But, if everyone who charged at 03:30 had charged at 15:30 what would emissions look like?

Time for bed I think.