Tesla Developments

JKenH

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

Let’s assume the CO2 manufacturing emissions of the both cars excluding battery are the same. 

Why are we assuming that ?  Has somebody invented a method of manufacturing IC engines that doesn't generate any CO2 ?  The battery may well generate more but to include that whilst excluding the bits an EV doesn't have seems rather silly.

Because I am attempting to explain a principle. Albeit not managing to make the 'explanation'   clear "


I could just as easily have said “let’s assume that the additional CO2 cost of manufacturing an EV is 5tons of CO2”. 
Only if you have found out that 5 tons is an appropriate figure.

Apparently I need to include 10 characters outside the quote block.

I tried to pick a figure (5tons) that I didn’t think would present a problem even if it was on the low side. MIT Climate looked at 4 papers rejected one and gave a range of 2400 kg to 16000kg depending on country of manufacture for an 80 kWh battery https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries The 16000kg figure referred to China where I hypothesised the battery might be made as the majority are so on this basis a 50kWh battery might produce 10 tons of CO2. As I said I chose 5 tons to try and avoid argument (little chance) but can use the 10 ton figure if you prefer. 

I note you have criticised my figures and even called my simplifications “silly” but as I explained, it wasn’t the numbers per se that mattered rather the principle of accumulated carbon dioxide. You don’t like my figures but you don’t give alternative calculations and that type of criticism might be regarded as sniping.  

Perhaps as a metallurgist and presumably, compared to the rest of us an expert in these matters, you would like to explain the difference in weight between the ICE and EV Corsas/208s and give your calculations of the relative CO2 figures for manufacture. Do you still consider I was being “silly” suggesting we focus just on the extra CO2 cost of the battery?

As for your comment “Albeit not managing to make the 'explanation'   clear “, I apologise if my explanation wasn’t clear but for some it might be a difficult concept to accept. It is always easier to explain something to a receptive mind and I am well aware on this board that there may be a fundamental resistance (an objection in principle, if you like) to the principle I am trying to explain, so it was never going to be easy. Your reaction, therefore, doesn’t really surprise me

Not sure why you think I might be a metallurgist ?  In fact I spent my career as a chemist/chemical engineer in the cement industry although reasonably familiar with other heat generating processes.

If your research shows a range of 2400 kg to 16000kg depending on country of manufacture for an 80 kWh battery,  alarm bells ought to be ringing !  How on Earth could a similar manufacturing process give results differing by a factor of 6.67 ?  I believe Magnitio has already explained that the apparent difference in weight between a Corsa and a Peugeot e208 stems from misreading the respective specs !   It might have been more thorough to use either the Vauxhall or Peugeot  websites to compare either conventional Corsa vs e-Corsa or conventional 208 vs e-208.

But don't overlook the small (but not zero) amounts of extra iron/steel used in an ICEV for the engine block, fuel tank & lines etc.  It's absolutely pointless trying to explain a concept by plucking numbers out of the air rather than researching them properly.

Excellent diversion tactic - move the discussion away from the core concept being discussed - the immediate CO2 impact of EV manufacturing compared to the deferred benefit of saving emissions in use. 

No problem.  I’ve made my point. Anyone who wants to think about it will. Anyone who doesn’t won’t. It’s not about being proved right or wrong but rather opening up our thought process to explore alternative points of view. I’ve put forward my thoughts. You’ve challenged them. Whether or not I’ve made anyone think about it, other than @Grumpy_chap who actually addressed the concept with his reply, I won’t know but they will. 

Edit: PS it was MITClimate who did the research that gave the wide range of CO2 figures for battery manufacture - not me. I am a little surprised given your background, that you cannot understand how two different manufacturing processes can yield such widely different CO2 outcomes but I can. It’s all about the energy source which is frequently discussed on this board in the context of other energy intensive industries and a little lateral thinking would take you there or you could even open the link.

The lowest estimates typically come from studies of U.S. and European battery manufacturing, while the highest come from studies of Chinese and other East Asian battery manufacturing—which is consistent with the different energy mixes in these regions.

michaels

Nissan Pulsar 1330kg Nissan Leaf 1533kg hth

However there are numerous fully researched papers on relative lifetime co2 of evs vs ice which are probably the best place to start.

I can sort of buy the idea that the average small car may have a lower mileage on scrapping than larger cars so the benefit from co2 savings may be proportionately smaller and perhaps a private buyer looking to buy a vehicle and run it until it dies and also only travels a few miles could be an example of where the lifetime co2 of an ice is less than that of an ev.

JKenH

michaels said:

Nissan Pulsar 1330kg Nissan Leaf 1533kg hth

However there are numerous fully researched papers on relative lifetime co2 of evs vs ice which are probably the best place to start.

I can sort of buy the idea that the average small car may have a lower mileage on scrapping than larger cars so the benefit from co2 savings may be proportionately smaller and perhaps a private buyer looking to buy a vehicle and run it until it dies and also only travels a few miles could be an example of where the lifetime co2 of an ice is less than that of an ev.

Yes, it will vary case by case and a high mileage EV driver will payback the carbon debt much quicker. 

It’s not one size fits all but unfortunately most government policies fail to recognise this and perhaps a more nuanced approach would be more productive. I have previously suggested that a higher level of tax on petrol/diesel would do more to encourage us to move to EVs as it penalises the biggest CO2 emitters, whether they be high mileage drivers or the owners of big SUVs. I really can’t see a case for allowing a high mileage company director to pay minimal BIK on something like the new BEV Range Rover and yet (eventually) banning ultra efficient ICE cars and hybrids like the Toyota Yaris. Make petrol £3 a gallon and do away with the BIK scheme and you would soon get results. 

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

Whether or not I’ve made anyone think about it, other than @Grumpy_chap who actually addressed the concept with his reply, I won’t know but they will. 

Like @EricMears I am a Chemical Engineer.

One of the areas of study that I have spent a great deal of interest and time in study is Lifecycle Analysis. 
Many years ago (30 or more), that included a spell assessing the lifecycle impact of the automotive industry and assessing the break even point for modern latest technology ICE versus continuing to drive an older ICE.  It was quite surprising that the biggest environmental impact by far of an ICE was in the use rather than the manufacturing (assuming the end of life vehicle was responsibly managed).
What was assessed 30 years ago may well have changed now (the marginal gains in fuel efficiency are less) and I have never been close enough to the subject matter to give a fully informed comment on EV versus ICE.

In the more recent years, I have focused on water efficiency (and associated embedded energy), so I am not current on lifecycle analysis for the automotive industry.

jeffuk

. Make petrol £3 a gallon  

those were the days

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

That’s a fair point regarding company cars but not everyone drives a company car and many people buy EVs as second cars or are retired like I was and don’t do big miles. Out of curiosity it would be interesting to take a straw poll on here of EV miles driven pa, but as the sample would be self selecting, it wouldn’t prove anything, one way or the other . 

I was thinking more about this, and the propensity for low mileage drivers to buy a brand new / nearly new car.

A certain logic would suggest that spending a large amount of capital on a brand new car is more likely to indicate a higher mileage.  It makes limited money saving sense to spend on a brand new car if it will not then be used that much.

Then I was thinking about cohorts that might well spend more on a car even though their mileage is lower.  There are a surprising number of groups where this might be the case and still apply a certain amount of logic to the decision:
 - Retired, pension lump sum, get a brand new car and it will last many years.  Some will be used to brand new cars if exiting a company car role.  Some will opt for the brand new car because this might be the first time in their lives they have been able to afford a brand new car.
 - Second car, but want and can afford a brand new / nearly new car

I am sure there are other cohorts of lower mileage drivers that will spend more capital on a car than a purely analytical decision would suggest.

I don't have any reference to back this up.  My instinct still suggests that the majority of brand new / nearly new car sales will do a higher than average mileage.  There are clearly a lot of cohorts where that brand new / nearly new car will do a lower mileage.

Martyn1981

Also need to be careful using those 60k to 110k kilometre figures for the breakeven, which seem a bit dubious.

Transport and the Environment suggest a figure for a coal heavy grid of 70k km, so most of Europe will be much lower. Though China, at the moment has estimates as high as120k km.

In the US, the current estimate is around 41k km, with a 2030 estimate of 21k km.

EricMears

Martyn1981 said:

Also need to be careful using those 60k to 110k kilometre figures for the breakeven, which seem a bit dubious.

Transport and the Environment suggest a figure for a coal heavy grid of 70k km, so most of Europe will be much lower. Though China, at the moment has estimates as high as120k km.

In the US, the current estimate is around 41k km, with a 2030 estimate of 21k km.

Ken's (or MIT's ?)  6 fold spread might stem from comparing the 1980 Chinese figures with the 2030 USA ones ?

1961Nick

JKenH said:

An explanation of the EV battery supply chain which might help give some indication of the time frame involved. It is the earl6 stages of mining and processing which generate the most CO2.

What is the EV battery supply chain?

The term supply chain describes the process by which a product is made and delivered to a consumer.

The steps involved in producing and using an EV battery fall into four general categories:

• Upstream: Mines extract raw materials; for batteries, these raw materials typically contain lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite.
• Midstream: Processors and refiners purify the raw materials, then use them to create cathode and anode active battery materials; commodities traders buy and sell raw materials to firms that produce battery cells.
• Downstream: Battery manufacturers assemble the battery cells into modules and then pack and sell them to automakers, who place the finished batteries in EVs. Some automakers like Ford and Stellantis have formed partnerships with battery manufacturers to produce their own batteries for the vehicles they sell.

https://rmi.org/the-ev-battery-supply-chain-explained/

The supply chain for EV batteries is very immature & probably at it's peak in regards CO2. China mines, refines & assembles batteries with the primary energy sources being diesel & electricity generated from coal. If that energy was sourced from renewables, then the embedded CO2 would drop by around 80%.

Rather than looking at EV CO2 emissions today, it's probably more relevant to picture where they will be in 20 years time.  

Magnitio

According to Carbonbrief, a Tesla Model Y could pay off its carbon debt from manufacture in as little as 13,000 miles - https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-21-misleading-myths-about-electric-vehicles/

There have been substantial improvements in batteries, inverters, motors etc. over the past few years and these will continue. More new cars are being designed specifically as EV's; they tend to be lighter and more efficient than those that can be powered by ICE or hybrid. The grid in the UK is also continuing to be decarbonised and more people are charging off-peak. 

There may be a carbon debt from the mining and manufacture of an EV compared to an ICE, but not only is this easily offset during the vehicle's lifetime, but the majority of the materials in the EV can be recycled. Recycling the petrol/diesel once it's been burnt is more challenging. There is also the concern about the environmental impact of the drilling, fracking or whatever methods are used to extract, refine and transport the fuel. There are 10's of thousands of oil wells and many of the abandoned ones are now causing environmental damage through leaks of oil, methane and other toxins. The ones that are active extract over 100 million barrels of oil a day; how long can that continue when oil is a finite resource? As oil becomes more difficult to find/extract, what will happen to the price? Then there is the issue of the countries where the bulk of this oil is extracted, their record on human rights, their investment of oil revenue in weapons, invasion of other countries etc.

There are so many reasons why we need to reduce our reliance on oil and transition to more sustainable forms of transport. The debate should be about how we improve efficiency, infrastructure, recyclability, safety and help people with this transition.