[BigJohn043]

Um…did he figure it out though? Tesla cars are repeatedly catching on fire and exploding, killing people in the process. The self-driving system also has a history of crashing and killing/injuring people. They’re currently under federal investigation because of it. Oh and also Tesla factory workers recently filed cases with the Department of Labor alleging multiple workplace violations (wage theft, workplace injuries, fraudulent OSHA training certificates for training that never happened, among other complaints). So, what exactly did Elon Musk figure out?

One of the dirty little secrets (among many) about electric cars is that the batteries are super flamable.  There really isn't much that Tesla or any other electric car company can do about that right now.  Another dirty little secret is electric cars don't reduce GHG emmisions.  This is because the the batteries are really heavy so you need a lot more steel in the car which takes large amounts of GHGs to produce.

And show me a big company that doesn't have all sorts of these kinds of lawsuits.....

[BigJohn043]

Um…did he figure it out though? Tesla cars are repeatedly catching on fire and exploding, killing people in the process. The self-driving system also has a history of crashing and killing/injuring people. They’re currently under federal investigation because of it. Oh and also Tesla factory workers recently filed cases with the Department of Labor alleging multiple workplace violations (wage theft, workplace injuries, fraudulent OSHA training certificates for training that never happened, among other complaints). So, what exactly did Elon Musk figure out?

One of the dirty little secrets (among many) about electric cars is that the batteries are super flamable.  There really isn't much that Tesla or any other electric car company can do about that right now.  Another dirty little secret is electric cars don't reduce GHG emmisions.  This is because the the batteries are really heavy so you need a lot more steel in the car which takes large amounts of GHGs to produce.

And show me a big company that doesn't have all sorts of these kinds of lawsuits.....

[TheWildJacko]

Um…did he figure it out though? Tesla cars are repeatedly catching on fire and exploding, killing people in the process. The self-driving system also has a history of crashing and killing/injuring people. They’re currently under federal investigation because of it. Oh and also Tesla factory workers recently filed cases with the Department of Labor alleging multiple workplace violations (wage theft, workplace injuries, fraudulent OSHA training certificates for training that never happened, among other complaints). So, what exactly did Elon Musk figure out?

One of the dirty little secrets (among many) about electric cars is that the batteries are super flamable.  There really isn't much that Tesla or any other electric car company can do about that right now.  Another dirty little secret is electric cars don't reduce GHG emmisions.  This is because the the batteries are really heavy so you need a lot more steel in the car which takes large amounts of GHGs to produce.

And show me a big company that doesn't have all sorts of these kinds of lawsuits.....

Whataboutism isn't a great argument. "Other companies are also abusing workers" just means the problem is bigger than Tesla/Musk. It doesn't mean Musk isn't a major problem.

[TheWildJacko]

Um…did he figure it out though? Tesla cars are repeatedly catching on fire and exploding, killing people in the process. The self-driving system also has a history of crashing and killing/injuring people. They’re currently under federal investigation because of it. Oh and also Tesla factory workers recently filed cases with the Department of Labor alleging multiple workplace violations (wage theft, workplace injuries, fraudulent OSHA training certificates for training that never happened, among other complaints). So, what exactly did Elon Musk figure out?

One of the dirty little secrets (among many) about electric cars is that the batteries are super flamable.  There really isn't much that Tesla or any other electric car company can do about that right now.  Another dirty little secret is electric cars don't reduce GHG emmisions.  This is because the the batteries are really heavy so you need a lot more steel in the car which takes large amounts of GHGs to produce.

And show me a big company that doesn't have all sorts of these kinds of lawsuits.....

Whataboutism isn't a great argument. "Other companies are also abusing workers" just means the problem is bigger than Tesla/Musk. It doesn't mean Musk isn't a major problem.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/lookner/status/1593693036982292482?s=20&t=7CxnMjaFau23KeX0Jt2B9Q[/tweet]

LMAO

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/lookner/status/1593693036982292482?s=20&t=7CxnMjaFau23KeX0Jt2B9Q[/tweet]

LMAO

[Goose]

One of the dirty little secrets (among many) about electric cars is that the batteries are super flamable.  There really isn't much that Tesla or any other electric car company can do about that right now.

Actually Tesla owes it's existence to the fact they created a battery geometry that was less likely to catch fire if one cell got hotter than it's neighbors. It obviously isn't perfect but it is much better than previous designs. Of course, Musk didn't do that technical task. It is certainly true, and always will be true, that batteries are super flammable/explosive/toxic. However fossil fuels are as well. Good engineering is necessary to use either power sources with reasonable safety. Some approaches are easier than others.

The two Soyu class Japanese submarines are super-paranoid about fire in the battery well. Historically all conventional submarines have been paranoid about their battery emitting toxic or flammable gases, but lithium-ion batteries are a different problem altogether. It has been rumored that the fire suppression systems on these boats are really only for show. Filling the battery well with inert gasses won't stop the fire. Maybe you can emergency blow and abandon ship before you explode, but that is about it. It is interesting that when Edison invented the alkaline battery he believed he had overcome the battery fire/explosion/toxic gas problem. He sold some to the US Navy to replace the conventional lead-acid batteries. A few months later the E-2 where they were installed suffered a battery explosion. Some things don't change. Reading https://ethw.org/Edison%27s_Alkaline_Battery shows history does at least rhyme.

[Goose]

One of the dirty little secrets (among many) about electric cars is that the batteries are super flamable.  There really isn't much that Tesla or any other electric car company can do about that right now.

Actually Tesla owes it's existence to the fact they created a battery geometry that was less likely to catch fire if one cell got hotter than it's neighbors. It obviously isn't perfect but it is much better than previous designs. Of course, Musk didn't do that technical task. It is certainly true, and always will be true, that batteries are super flammable/explosive/toxic. However fossil fuels are as well. Good engineering is necessary to use either power sources with reasonable safety. Some approaches are easier than others.

The two Soyu class Japanese submarines are super-paranoid about fire in the battery well. Historically all conventional submarines have been paranoid about their battery emitting toxic or flammable gases, but lithium-ion batteries are a different problem altogether. It has been rumored that the fire suppression systems on these boats are really only for show. Filling the battery well with inert gasses won't stop the fire. Maybe you can emergency blow and abandon ship before you explode, but that is about it. It is interesting that when Edison invented the alkaline battery he believed he had overcome the battery fire/explosion/toxic gas problem. He sold some to the US Navy to replace the conventional lead-acid batteries. A few months later the E-2 where they were installed suffered a battery explosion. Some things don't change. Reading https://ethw.org/Edison%27s_Alkaline_Battery shows history does at least rhyme.

[BostonCard]

I'm reluctant to get into this because here Musk was being used as a metaphor for our own fearless leader (Shaw) [other mods, feel free to shut this thread down].

Musk is a complicated person, and we can acknowledge that he's done some great things and some not so great things.  I think it really stretches the imagination to think that bringing a new car company into being the first to really mass produce electric cars isn't a major accomplishment.

Saying that electric batteries are flammable (they are) is true but not relevant.  You know what else is flammable?  Gasoline (https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-e...car-fires/).  It is kind of inherent to the system that any stored source of energy, whether it is in a battery or a hydrocarbon or some other mechanism, has the potential to release that energy in an uncontrolled way.  It turns out that ICE cars are more likely to catch fire but that battery electric cars that do catch fire are harder to put out.

You are correct that manufacturing electric cars takes more energy than manufacturing ICE cars.  However, over the course of the car's lifecycle, battery electrics release fewer greenhouse gases than ICE cars: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/...ce-vehicle

You can see that the actual emissions building the vehicle itself are comparable, but there are additional emissions from mining and assembling the batteries that are incurred by battery electric vehicles and not ICE vehicles.  But the emissions generated from electricity generation, which vary greatly, generally fall enough below the GHG generated by burning fossil fuels so that over the entire lifecycle, BEV's emit fewer greenhouse gases.  That difference depends a lot on how dirty the electricity generated is, but even in the worst case (top of the bar, where the emissions from generating electricity are 800 gCO2-eq/kWh) it is less than burning gasoline over the life of the car (200,000 km, 125,000 mi).

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm reluctant to get into this because here Musk was being used as a metaphor for our own fearless leader (Shaw) [other mods, feel free to shut this thread down].

Musk is a complicated person, and we can acknowledge that he's done some great things and some not so great things.  I think it really stretches the imagination to think that bringing a new car company into being the first to really mass produce electric cars isn't a major accomplishment.

Saying that electric batteries are flammable (they are) is true but not relevant.  You know what else is flammable?  Gasoline (https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-e...car-fires/).  It is kind of inherent to the system that any stored source of energy, whether it is in a battery or a hydrocarbon or some other mechanism, has the potential to release that energy in an uncontrolled way.  It turns out that ICE cars are more likely to catch fire but that battery electric cars that do catch fire are harder to put out.

You are correct that manufacturing electric cars takes more energy than manufacturing ICE cars.  However, over the course of the car's lifecycle, battery electrics release fewer greenhouse gases than ICE cars: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/...ce-vehicle

You can see that the actual emissions building the vehicle itself are comparable, but there are additional emissions from mining and assembling the batteries that are incurred by battery electric vehicles and not ICE vehicles.  But the emissions generated from electricity generation, which vary greatly, generally fall enough below the GHG generated by burning fossil fuels so that over the entire lifecycle, BEV's emit fewer greenhouse gases.  That difference depends a lot on how dirty the electricity generated is, but even in the worst case (top of the bar, where the emissions from generating electricity are 800 gCO2-eq/kWh) it is less than burning gasoline over the life of the car (200,000 km, 125,000 mi).

BC

[BigJohn043]

I'm reluctant to get into this because here Musk was being used as a metaphor for our own fearless leader (Shaw) [other mods, feel free to shut this thread down].

Musk is a complicated person, and we can acknowledge that he's done some great things and some not so great things.  I think it really stretches the imagination to think that bringing a new car company into being the first to really mass produce electric cars isn't a major accomplishment.

Saying that electric batteries are flammable (they are) is true but not relevant.  You know what else is flammable?  Gasoline (https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-e...car-fires/).  It is kind of inherent to the system that any stored source of energy, whether it is in a battery or a hydrocarbon or some other mechanism, has the potential to release that energy in an uncontrolled way.  It turns out that ICE cars are more likely to catch fire but that battery electric cars that do catch fire are harder to put out.

You are correct that manufacturing electric cars takes more energy than manufacturing ICE cars.  However, over the course of the car's lifecycle, battery electrics release fewer greenhouse gases than ICE cars: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/...ce-vehicle

You can see that the actual emissions building the vehicle itself are comparable, but there are additional emissions from mining and assembling the batteries that are incurred by battery electric vehicles and not ICE vehicles.  But the emissions generated from electricity generation, which vary greatly, generally fall enough below the GHG generated by burning fossil fuels so that over the entire lifecycle, BEV's emit fewer greenhouse gases.  That difference depends a lot on how dirty the electricity generated is, but even in the worst case (top of the bar, where the emissions from generating electricity are 800 gCO2-eq/kWh) it is less than burning gasoline over the life of the car (200,000 km, 125,000 mi).

BC

Thanks for sending your source.  As usual, the answer depends on your assumptions.  Some thoughts:

This analysis assumes EV and ICE vehicles have the same carbon footprint to manufacture.  This is just factually wrong.  EVs are 25-50% heavier due to the battery pack, regenerative braking systems and the extra steel due to the first two.  All of that steel is pretty carbon intense.

This analysis assumes you drive the EV 200K.  ICE vehicles in Europe and the US are driven on average 133K.  And EV vehicles are generally believed to be driven less than ICE vehicles.  Here is some data:  https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/02...-nber.html  There are some studies that show different numbers.  Finally, as batteries decay their range will go down so it seems less likely that these cars will be kept as long or you need all new battery packs which have big carbon footprints.

Note the errors bars in the analysis you cited.  The high end of those bars is the current carbon intensity of electricity generation.  And given the time it takes to shift electrical generation it won't get even close to the low or even the median case over the life of cars produced today.

Some of this could change over time.  We can get less carbon intense in generating electricity.  We can get less carbon intense in producing battery packs.  But EV vehicles produced today will not have significant impacts on GHG generation.

The sad thing is that Hybrid vehicles have a brobdingnagian impact.  Hybrid drives aren't that much more expensive than ICE.  They don't have brobdingnagian battery packs.  And they can double your fuel millage with no investment needed in a whole new infrastructure.....

[BigJohn043]

I'm reluctant to get into this because here Musk was being used as a metaphor for our own fearless leader (Shaw) [other mods, feel free to shut this thread down].

Musk is a complicated person, and we can acknowledge that he's done some great things and some not so great things.  I think it really stretches the imagination to think that bringing a new car company into being the first to really mass produce electric cars isn't a major accomplishment.

Saying that electric batteries are flammable (they are) is true but not relevant.  You know what else is flammable?  Gasoline (https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-e...car-fires/).  It is kind of inherent to the system that any stored source of energy, whether it is in a battery or a hydrocarbon or some other mechanism, has the potential to release that energy in an uncontrolled way.  It turns out that ICE cars are more likely to catch fire but that battery electric cars that do catch fire are harder to put out.

You are correct that manufacturing electric cars takes more energy than manufacturing ICE cars.  However, over the course of the car's lifecycle, battery electrics release fewer greenhouse gases than ICE cars: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/...ce-vehicle

You can see that the actual emissions building the vehicle itself are comparable, but there are additional emissions from mining and assembling the batteries that are incurred by battery electric vehicles and not ICE vehicles.  But the emissions generated from electricity generation, which vary greatly, generally fall enough below the GHG generated by burning fossil fuels so that over the entire lifecycle, BEV's emit fewer greenhouse gases.  That difference depends a lot on how dirty the electricity generated is, but even in the worst case (top of the bar, where the emissions from generating electricity are 800 gCO2-eq/kWh) it is less than burning gasoline over the life of the car (200,000 km, 125,000 mi).

BC

Thanks for sending your source.  As usual, the answer depends on your assumptions.  Some thoughts:

This analysis assumes EV and ICE vehicles have the same carbon footprint to manufacture.  This is just factually wrong.  EVs are 25-50% heavier due to the battery pack, regenerative braking systems and the extra steel due to the first two.  All of that steel is pretty carbon intense.

This analysis assumes you drive the EV 200K.  ICE vehicles in Europe and the US are driven on average 133K.  And EV vehicles are generally believed to be driven less than ICE vehicles.  Here is some data:  https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/02...-nber.html  There are some studies that show different numbers.  Finally, as batteries decay their range will go down so it seems less likely that these cars will be kept as long or you need all new battery packs which have big carbon footprints.

Note the errors bars in the analysis you cited.  The high end of those bars is the current carbon intensity of electricity generation.  And given the time it takes to shift electrical generation it won't get even close to the low or even the median case over the life of cars produced today.

Some of this could change over time.  We can get less carbon intense in generating electricity.  We can get less carbon intense in producing battery packs.  But EV vehicles produced today will not have significant impacts on GHG generation.

The sad thing is that Hybrid vehicles have a brobdingnagian impact.  Hybrid drives aren't that much more expensive than ICE.  They don't have brobdingnagian battery packs.  And they can double your fuel millage with no investment needed in a whole new infrastructure.....

[BostonCard]

I could be wrong here, but my interpretation of the IEA data is that the additional GHG cost of BEV's is shown in the two green bars, which represent the emissions cost of mining the metals that go into the batteries that power a battery electric and the emissions associated with assembling the battery.  So, while manufacturing of an ICE vehicle emits 6 tCO2e, the manufacture of a BEV emits 8.0 - 9.4 tCO2e (5.4 tCO2e for the car itself, 1.4 - 2.8 tCO2e to mine the battery minerals, and 1.2 tCO2e to assemble the battery).  I could be wrong, but I don't think BEV's have more steel than ICE equivalents; virtually all of the extra weight comes from the batteries, and a lot of electric car makers try to reduce the amount of steel that goes into the car because the cars are already heavy (for example, the brobdingnagian glass roof that Tesla's have is mostly a way to save weight).

The analysis assumes the cars will be driven 200,000 km, which is 124,000 miles, which I think is pretty close to what you said (I don't think the 133,000 k you quoted is km as that is only 82,000 mi, but correct me if I am wrong).  Fair point as to whether electric vehicles are driven as much as ICE.  If they don't, it reduces their total lifecycle carbon footprint, but if divide it by vehicle miles traveled, then on a per mile basis, electrics won't look as good.

Where on the bar you land depends on the electricity mix where you live.  PG&E quotes 0.524 lbs CO2 per kWh for their electricity (https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/a...ptions.pdf), which converts to 237 g CO2/Kwh.  The range the IEA shows for BEV represents a best case of 50 gCO2-eq/kWh and a worst case of 800 gCO2-eq/kWh.  So, at least in CA, if you drive a BEV, you will be closer to the bottom than the top of the range, which would put the car's lifecycle CO2 emissions well below a typical ICE car.  Note that they are pretty generous with the ICE's fuel economy (6.8 L/100 km = 34.5 mpg).  The fleet average fuel economy in the US is only about 25 mpg (https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/avera...pa-report/).  You are right that a hybrid or PHEV ought to easily beat that; the newly unveiled Prius gets 57 mpg, which is only 4.1 L/100 km, and which would cut the yellow bar from 35.9 tCO2e to 21.6 tCO2e, which would put it just about even with a BEV in California, and well ahead of BEVs in states with a more carbon intensive electricity mix.


BC

[BostonCard]

I could be wrong here, but my interpretation of the IEA data is that the additional GHG cost of BEV's is shown in the two green bars, which represent the emissions cost of mining the metals that go into the batteries that power a battery electric and the emissions associated with assembling the battery.  So, while manufacturing of an ICE vehicle emits 6 tCO2e, the manufacture of a BEV emits 8.0 - 9.4 tCO2e (5.4 tCO2e for the car itself, 1.4 - 2.8 tCO2e to mine the battery minerals, and 1.2 tCO2e to assemble the battery).  I could be wrong, but I don't think BEV's have more steel than ICE equivalents; virtually all of the extra weight comes from the batteries, and a lot of electric car makers try to reduce the amount of steel that goes into the car because the cars are already heavy (for example, the brobdingnagian glass roof that Tesla's have is mostly a way to save weight).

The analysis assumes the cars will be driven 200,000 km, which is 124,000 miles, which I think is pretty close to what you said (I don't think the 133,000 k you quoted is km as that is only 82,000 mi, but correct me if I am wrong).  Fair point as to whether electric vehicles are driven as much as ICE.  If they don't, it reduces their total lifecycle carbon footprint, but if divide it by vehicle miles traveled, then on a per mile basis, electrics won't look as good.

Where on the bar you land depends on the electricity mix where you live.  PG&E quotes 0.524 lbs CO2 per kWh for their electricity (https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/a...ptions.pdf), which converts to 237 g CO2/Kwh.  The range the IEA shows for BEV represents a best case of 50 gCO2-eq/kWh and a worst case of 800 gCO2-eq/kWh.  So, at least in CA, if you drive a BEV, you will be closer to the bottom than the top of the range, which would put the car's lifecycle CO2 emissions well below a typical ICE car.  Note that they are pretty generous with the ICE's fuel economy (6.8 L/100 km = 34.5 mpg).  The fleet average fuel economy in the US is only about 25 mpg (https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/avera...pa-report/).  You are right that a hybrid or PHEV ought to easily beat that; the newly unveiled Prius gets 57 mpg, which is only 4.1 L/100 km, and which would cut the yellow bar from 35.9 tCO2e to 21.6 tCO2e, which would put it just about even with a BEV in California, and well ahead of BEVs in states with a more carbon intensive electricity mix.


BC

[Goose]

Finally, as batteries decay their range will go down so it seems less likely that these cars will be kept as long or you need all new battery packs which have big carbon footprints.

There are two other important considerations with battery packs that IMHO are not getting appropriate consideration. First is the disposal/recycling of these battery packs. As of now, there isn't a significant industry in recycling them AFAIK. The elements in these batteries are pretty gnarly. They are difficult and expensive to work with. The material in the battery is potentially useful when recycled, but right now the environmental impact of doing so is very significant, so it isn't much happening. There is obviously an attendant cost and carbon footprint that has to be added to the above analysis.

The second problem is that many of the elements in the new battery technology are relatively rare. We have discussed this on the board previously, but in any case the extraction and purification of these "rare" elements is problematic. Right now, there is no "rare earth" purification going on in the US because you can't get permits to do it. Australia has a fairly large supply of these materials and had hoped to start refining them "soon". As of now, there are regulatory roadblocks that are supposedly making it "impossible". China is the major refiner of these ores. The Mountain Pass mine in the US ships there (when it is operating) because there is no alternative. If the world is going to use "a lot" of these batteries, this issue must be addressed IMHO.

[Goose]

Finally, as batteries decay their range will go down so it seems less likely that these cars will be kept as long or you need all new battery packs which have big carbon footprints.

There are two other important considerations with battery packs that IMHO are not getting appropriate consideration. First is the disposal/recycling of these battery packs. As of now, there isn't a significant industry in recycling them AFAIK. The elements in these batteries are pretty gnarly. They are difficult and expensive to work with. The material in the battery is potentially useful when recycled, but right now the environmental impact of doing so is very significant, so it isn't much happening. There is obviously an attendant cost and carbon footprint that has to be added to the above analysis.

The second problem is that many of the elements in the new battery technology are relatively rare. We have discussed this on the board previously, but in any case the extraction and purification of these "rare" elements is problematic. Right now, there is no "rare earth" purification going on in the US because you can't get permits to do it. Australia has a fairly large supply of these materials and had hoped to start refining them "soon". As of now, there are regulatory roadblocks that are supposedly making it "impossible". China is the major refiner of these ores. The Mountain Pass mine in the US ships there (when it is operating) because there is no alternative. If the world is going to use "a lot" of these batteries, this issue must be addressed IMHO.

[BostonCard]

Goose, there was just a WSJ article on this very topic (battery recycling):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/battery-rec...1663115377

Ultimately, we will see, but I do think the relative high costs of mining the metals, coupled to the challenges disposing of the used batteries, will lead to a viable battery closed loop cycle, but we will see.

BC

[BostonCard]

Goose, there was just a WSJ article on this very topic (battery recycling):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/battery-rec...1663115377

Ultimately, we will see, but I do think the relative high costs of mining the metals, coupled to the challenges disposing of the used batteries, will lead to a viable battery closed loop cycle, but we will see.

BC

[BigJohn043]

I could be wrong here, but my interpretation of the IEA data is that the additional GHG cost of BEV's is shown in the two green bars, which represent the emissions cost of mining the metals that go into the batteries that power a battery electric and the emissions associated with assembling the battery.  So, while manufacturing of an ICE vehicle emits 6 tCO2e, the manufacture of a BEV emits 8.0 - 9.4 tCO2e (5.4 tCO2e for the car itself, 1.4 - 2.8 tCO2e to mine the battery minerals, and 1.2 tCO2e to assemble the battery).  I could be wrong, but I don't think BEV's have more steel than ICE equivalents; virtually all of the extra weight comes from the batteries, and a lot of electric car makers try to reduce the amount of steel that goes into the car because the cars are already heavy (for example, the of immense proportions glass roof that Tesla's have is mostly a way to save weight).

The analysis assumes the cars will be driven 200,000 km, which is 124,000 miles, which I think is pretty close to what you said (I don't think the 133,000 k you quoted is km as that is only 82,000 mi, but correct me if I am wrong).  Fair point as to whether electric vehicles are driven as much as ICE.  If they don't, it reduces their total lifecycle carbon footprint, but if divide it by vehicle miles traveled, then on a per mile basis, electrics won't look as good.

Where on the bar you land depends on the electricity mix where you live.  PG&E quotes 0.524 lbs CO2 per kWh for their electricity (https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/a...ptions.pdf), which converts to 237 g CO2/Kwh.  The range the IEA shows for BEV represents a best case of 50 gCO2-eq/kWh and a worst case of 800 gCO2-eq/kWh.  So, at least in CA, if you drive a BEV, you will be closer to the bottom than the top of the range, which would put the car's lifecycle CO2 emissions well below a typical ICE car.  Note that they are pretty generous with the ICE's fuel economy (6.8 L/100 km = 34.5 mpg).  The fleet average fuel economy in the US is only about 25 mpg (https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/avera...pa-report/).  You are right that a hybrid or PHEV ought to easily beat that; the newly unveiled Prius gets 57 mpg, which is only 4.1 L/100 km, and which would cut the yellow bar from 35.9 tCO2e to 21.6 tCO2e, which would put it just about even with a BEV in California, and well ahead of BEVs in states with a more carbon intensive electricity mix.


BC

In terms of manufacturing the vehicle, that is the blue bar in the IEA analysis.  As you can see, it is the same for ICE and EV.  But EVs are much heavier.  That means you need more steel to maintain the structural integrity.  FWIW, all auto makers for the last 40+ years have been trying to make cars lighter and with less steel.  But more weight = more steel = bigger carbon footprint.  IEA misses this in their analysis.

I read the 133K somewhere but can't find it now.  It is for sure K but may have been the EU.  I have seen 150K in other places as well as 200K.  But given less driving with EVs and their lack of longevity the 200K assumption is quite aggressive.

You actually have to do this analysis on comparative models.  There is a pretty detailed report out of Jefferies if you want to look at it.

Others have mentioned other issues with EVs and the batteries.

The point is that Hybrids have none of these issues and a very clear improvement for almost no cost.  But Hybrids have lost out as auto makers invest in EVs that don't really help the problem.

FWIW, Detroit has never liked the BEV model for all of these reasons.  It isn't that they love the ICE engine, they are just more in tune with the overall issues.  The stock market value of Tesla however has forced them all to chase EVs.

I would also say that the smartest people in Detroit believe that Hydrogen Fuel Cells are the real answer...

Good discussion.

[BigJohn043]

I could be wrong here, but my interpretation of the IEA data is that the additional GHG cost of BEV's is shown in the two green bars, which represent the emissions cost of mining the metals that go into the batteries that power a battery electric and the emissions associated with assembling the battery.  So, while manufacturing of an ICE vehicle emits 6 tCO2e, the manufacture of a BEV emits 8.0 - 9.4 tCO2e (5.4 tCO2e for the car itself, 1.4 - 2.8 tCO2e to mine the battery minerals, and 1.2 tCO2e to assemble the battery).  I could be wrong, but I don't think BEV's have more steel than ICE equivalents; virtually all of the extra weight comes from the batteries, and a lot of electric car makers try to reduce the amount of steel that goes into the car because the cars are already heavy (for example, the of immense proportions glass roof that Tesla's have is mostly a way to save weight).

The analysis assumes the cars will be driven 200,000 km, which is 124,000 miles, which I think is pretty close to what you said (I don't think the 133,000 k you quoted is km as that is only 82,000 mi, but correct me if I am wrong).  Fair point as to whether electric vehicles are driven as much as ICE.  If they don't, it reduces their total lifecycle carbon footprint, but if divide it by vehicle miles traveled, then on a per mile basis, electrics won't look as good.

Where on the bar you land depends on the electricity mix where you live.  PG&E quotes 0.524 lbs CO2 per kWh for their electricity (https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/a...ptions.pdf), which converts to 237 g CO2/Kwh.  The range the IEA shows for BEV represents a best case of 50 gCO2-eq/kWh and a worst case of 800 gCO2-eq/kWh.  So, at least in CA, if you drive a BEV, you will be closer to the bottom than the top of the range, which would put the car's lifecycle CO2 emissions well below a typical ICE car.  Note that they are pretty generous with the ICE's fuel economy (6.8 L/100 km = 34.5 mpg).  The fleet average fuel economy in the US is only about 25 mpg (https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/avera...pa-report/).  You are right that a hybrid or PHEV ought to easily beat that; the newly unveiled Prius gets 57 mpg, which is only 4.1 L/100 km, and which would cut the yellow bar from 35.9 tCO2e to 21.6 tCO2e, which would put it just about even with a BEV in California, and well ahead of BEVs in states with a more carbon intensive electricity mix.


BC

In terms of manufacturing the vehicle, that is the blue bar in the IEA analysis.  As you can see, it is the same for ICE and EV.  But EVs are much heavier.  That means you need more steel to maintain the structural integrity.  FWIW, all auto makers for the last 40+ years have been trying to make cars lighter and with less steel.  But more weight = more steel = bigger carbon footprint.  IEA misses this in their analysis.

I read the 133K somewhere but can't find it now.  It is for sure K but may have been the EU.  I have seen 150K in other places as well as 200K.  But given less driving with EVs and their lack of longevity the 200K assumption is quite aggressive.

You actually have to do this analysis on comparative models.  There is a pretty detailed report out of Jefferies if you want to look at it.

Others have mentioned other issues with EVs and the batteries.

The point is that Hybrids have none of these issues and a very clear improvement for almost no cost.  But Hybrids have lost out as auto makers invest in EVs that don't really help the problem.

FWIW, Detroit has never liked the BEV model for all of these reasons.  It isn't that they love the ICE engine, they are just more in tune with the overall issues.  The stock market value of Tesla however has forced them all to chase EVs.

I would also say that the smartest people in Detroit believe that Hydrogen Fuel Cells are the real answer...

Good discussion.

[cardcrimson]

Goose, there was just a WSJ article on this very topic (battery recycling):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/battery-rec...1663115377

Ultimately, we will see, but I do think the relative high costs of mining the metals, coupled to the challenges disposing of the used batteries, will lead to a viable battery closed loop cycle, but we will see.

BC

There are really interesting alternatives to lithium batteries, and eco-friendly too. Fair to share if I'm doing some work for a sister division?

[cardcrimson]

Goose, there was just a WSJ article on this very topic (battery recycling):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/battery-rec...1663115377

Ultimately, we will see, but I do think the relative high costs of mining the metals, coupled to the challenges disposing of the used batteries, will lead to a viable battery closed loop cycle, but we will see.

BC

There are really interesting alternatives to lithium batteries, and eco-friendly too. Fair to share if I'm doing some work for a sister division?

[BostonCard]

133,000 might be an underestimate…

https://shift.com/articles/how-many-mile...e-and-more

While there is a risk that the battery will die in an electric, wear and tear on other components is much, much lower, and the car itself should last longer.

BC

[BostonCard]

133,000 might be an underestimate…

https://shift.com/articles/how-many-mile...e-and-more

While there is a risk that the battery will die in an electric, wear and tear on other components is much, much lower, and the car itself should last longer.

BC

[Goose]

Goose, there was just a WSJ article on this very topic (battery recycling):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/battery-rec...1663115377

Ultimately, we will see, but I do think the relative high costs of mining the metals, coupled to the challenges disposing of the used batteries, will lead to a viable battery closed loop cycle, but we will see.

BC

Another along those lines:
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2022/03/0...on-startup

Unfortunately these battery recycling companies are all going to collide with the same environmental regulations that render rare earth processing in the US impossible. Battery recycling has some technical challenges but I believe these can probably be overcome. The regulatory ones cannot, at least with the current restrictions (no pun intended). Something is going to have to give here, as there is no question that battery powered "things", not just EVs, are becoming more common. Having our cake and eating it too just isn't possible in this instance. While to some degree one can trade off cost vs low environmental impact, battery recycling is inherently going to be "dirty". IMO we as a nation have to face that fact and agree on a regulatory approach that is "as good as possible".

It is possible to have electric vehicles that use fuel cells as a power source. While not cheap, these cells can avoid the battery recycling problem. Not all fuel cells are carbon footprint free. The ones that use methane certainly are not. The hydrogen ones are if the hydrogen was produced by electrolysis of water. In the USA today that is not how hydrogen is usually produced. That needs to change. Fuel cells energy density is not great. Of course, for many years batteries were considered to have the same problem.

IMO, the best approach is to burn hydrogen in an ICE. There are problems with this approach, but they are clearly solvable. The cost of hydrogen needs to be low, because your "gas mileage" won't be great. You need to either use a low compression engine to keep NOx formation low or use a catalytic converter to allow higher compression engines. You need a strong gas tank to allow compressed hydrogen to have adequate mileage. Liquid hydrogen is just too hard, at least for the moment. So, make hydrogen using solar power and burn it to run our vehicles. We know how to do this. We just need the cheap hydrogen.

[Goose]

Goose, there was just a WSJ article on this very topic (battery recycling):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/battery-rec...1663115377

Ultimately, we will see, but I do think the relative high costs of mining the metals, coupled to the challenges disposing of the used batteries, will lead to a viable battery closed loop cycle, but we will see.

BC

Another along those lines:
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2022/03/0...on-startup

Unfortunately these battery recycling companies are all going to collide with the same environmental regulations that render rare earth processing in the US impossible. Battery recycling has some technical challenges but I believe these can probably be overcome. The regulatory ones cannot, at least with the current restrictions (no pun intended). Something is going to have to give here, as there is no question that battery powered "things", not just EVs, are becoming more common. Having our cake and eating it too just isn't possible in this instance. While to some degree one can trade off cost vs low environmental impact, battery recycling is inherently going to be "dirty". IMO we as a nation have to face that fact and agree on a regulatory approach that is "as good as possible".

It is possible to have electric vehicles that use fuel cells as a power source. While not cheap, these cells can avoid the battery recycling problem. Not all fuel cells are carbon footprint free. The ones that use methane certainly are not. The hydrogen ones are if the hydrogen was produced by electrolysis of water. In the USA today that is not how hydrogen is usually produced. That needs to change. Fuel cells energy density is not great. Of course, for many years batteries were considered to have the same problem.

IMO, the best approach is to burn hydrogen in an ICE. There are problems with this approach, but they are clearly solvable. The cost of hydrogen needs to be low, because your "gas mileage" won't be great. You need to either use a low compression engine to keep NOx formation low or use a catalytic converter to allow higher compression engines. You need a strong gas tank to allow compressed hydrogen to have adequate mileage. Liquid hydrogen is just too hard, at least for the moment. So, make hydrogen using solar power and burn it to run our vehicles. We know how to do this. We just need the cheap hydrogen.

[BigJohn043]

133,000 might be an underestimate…

https://shift.com/articles/how-many-mile...e-and-more

While there is a risk that the battery will die in an electric, wear and tear on other components is much, much lower, and the car itself should last longer.

BC

How many miles a car will "last" and how long it will really be driven are two different things....

[BigJohn043]

133,000 might be an underestimate…

https://shift.com/articles/how-many-mile...e-and-more

While there is a risk that the battery will die in an electric, wear and tear on other components is much, much lower, and the car itself should last longer.

BC

How many miles a car will "last" and how long it will really be driven are two different things....

[Mick]

133,000 might be an underestimate…

https://shift.com/articles/how-many-mile...e-and-more

While there is a risk that the battery will die in an electric, wear and tear on other components is much, much lower, and the car itself should last longer.

BC

How many miles a car will "last" and how long it will really be driven are two different things....

Man, no kidding. I've owned a dozen cars or so, and the one that lasted the longest -- despite the recalls and assorted problems -- was my first brand new car, a Ford Tempo. I drove it 160k miles and sold it -- and the guy I sold it to called me after eight months and told me it had just passed 170k with no problems and on the original gas engine. I did go through four starter motors; otherwise, it was a peach of a car.

[Mick]

133,000 might be an underestimate…

https://shift.com/articles/how-many-mile...e-and-more

While there is a risk that the battery will die in an electric, wear and tear on other components is much, much lower, and the car itself should last longer.

BC

How many miles a car will "last" and how long it will really be driven are two different things....

Man, no kidding. I've owned a dozen cars or so, and the one that lasted the longest -- despite the recalls and assorted problems -- was my first brand new car, a Ford Tempo. I drove it 160k miles and sold it -- and the guy I sold it to called me after eight months and told me it had just passed 170k with no problems and on the original gas engine. I did go through four starter motors; otherwise, it was a peach of a car.