Electric vehicles (EVs), their emissions, and future viability

nwdiver said:

Not sure about the smaller batteries but I've got 110k miles on my S and I'm still at >90% of the original capacity with ZERO degradation in the last year.

Click to expand...

The battery has degraded, you just don't notice it. It's happening, but the buffer is masking it.

The original Volt had nearly 50% of the battery reserved as buffer. That's why owners were able to turn 150K miles without noticing battery degradation. My car has a buffer ~30%, while most of the 24 kWh cars are 20% or less.

You also have a 85 kWh battery, and as such, have a lot less cycles on your battery than Vdub and I do with our cars. I'm also pretty sure that you're absolutely anal about taking car of the battery, which has helped extending it's life.

Oilerlord said:

The battery has degraded, you just don't notice it. It's happening, but the buffer is masking it.
The original Volt had nearly 50% of the battery reserved as buffer. That's why owners were able to turn 150K miles without noticing battery degradation. My car has a buffer ~30%, while most of the 24 kWh cars are 20% or less.
You also have a 85 kWh battery, and as such, have a lot less cycles on your battery than Vdub and I do with our cars. I'm also pretty sure that you're absolutely anal about taking car of the battery, which has helped extending it's life.

Click to expand...

My car only has 13,000 miles on it right now, so about 123 full cycles, compared to nwdiver's ~430 cycles. It's still a baby.

(To calculate the number of full cycles, take total miles driven, divide by average consumption, divide again by battery size. Two half cycles add up to one full cycle in the battery world.)

I was at the Electric Vehicle Association of DC meeting last night and talked to a 2008 Tesla Roadster owner who just got the battery upgrade. After 100,000+ miles, his range went from 240 miles down to 220. I know some people think that Tesla is "hiding" degradation in the buffer, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that beyond internet speculation.

The battery upgrade cranked his range up to 340 (!) miles, by the way. Sounds pretty sweet.

VeeDubTDI said:

Don't forget to factor in the reduced maintenance costs of an EV over an ICE car. Some of those things include oil changes, spark plugs, DPFs, turbochargers, mufflers, or timing and accessory belts that need to be changed. These savings will offset the cost of an eventual battery replacement. Of course, EVs have their own systems that ICE cars don't have, so we will have to wait and see how things like inverters, chargers and electric motors hold up over time.

Click to expand...

I haven't. I just like to keep things somewhat real instead of setting unrealistic expectations.

Also to be fair, those savings might offset the cost of an eventual battery replacement - depending of course if low-cost salvage battery packs are available for the EV you own. Nissan Leaf replacement batteries are very affordable, probably because volume has something to do with it.

I doubt that you or I are going to replace the batteries in our cars anyway. When that time comes, we're both probably going to pick up a used $10,000 Bolt EV or some other used 60 kWh car because the battery replacement numbers likely aren't going to add up for us.

VeeDubTDI said:

The battery upgrade cranked his range up to 340 (!) miles, by the way. Sounds pretty sweet.

Click to expand...

$29,000 of sweetness.

I've driven a Roadster, and for that money, I'd buy a used Boxster S. Clearly I'm missing the point about saving the world one tiny sports car at a time.

I'll admit it's a cult car, and while it was fun to drive for an afternoon, I could see how it's eccentricities would wear on me. They really should have put power steering in the thing.

Oilerlord said:

$29,000 of sweetness.
I've driven a Roadster, and for that money, I'd buy a used Boxster S. Clearly I'm missing the point about saving the world one tiny sports car at a time.
I'll admit it's a cult car, and while it was fun to drive for an afternoon, I could see how it's eccentricities would wear on me. They really should have put power steering in the thing.

Click to expand...

I'm certainly not saying that it made any sort of sense for this gentleman to upgrade his battery - either in terms of "saving the world" or because it was economical. He did it because he wanted to and I figured the statistics of his battery degradation on a nearly 10-year old EV were worth sharing.

So I have this straight...he decided to blow $29,000 on a new battery - even though his existing battery still had 92% of it's original capacity remaining after 10 years and 100K miles?

Either something's a little fishy, or you just may have met Bruce Wayne.

We're talking about the kind of person that bought a Roadster.

They tend to have disposable income to blow.

Oilerlord said:

So I have this straight...he decided to blow $29,000 on a new battery - even though his existing battery still had 92% of it's original capacity remaining after 10 years and 100K miles?

Either something's a little fishy, or you just may have met Bruce Wayne.

Click to expand...

It wasn't really a replacement... it was an upgrade. 220 to 340. And as was mentioned... $29k is chump change to a lot of Roadster owners. Those cars sold for $140k new.... for a two seater with enough cargo space for an overnight bag and maaaaybe a toothbrush.

To each their own, but it isn't just about disposable income. There is a difference between smart and stupid money. I get the 120 mile range bump, but dumping $29K into a 100K mile car to replace a battery that (apparently) doesn't need replacing makes little sense to me. A Roadster isn't exactly the car I'd choose to take on a 220 mile road trip, much less 340 miles.

Oilerlord said:

So I have this straight...he decided to blow $29,000 on a new battery - even though his existing battery still had 92% of it's original capacity remaining after 10 years and 100K miles?

Either something's a little fishy, or you just may have met Bruce Wayne.

Click to expand...

Wealthy dude with a Roadster, early adopter who is passionate about EVs. Tesla offered him an opportunity to upgrade and he took it. If I owned a Roadster, was presented with that opportunity, and had the funds to do it, I'd probably do it, too, just so that I could keep a rare iconic vehicle on the road that much longer.

Also, you said it was $29,000, not me. I don't know how much he paid for it or if he had referral code credits that he cashed in.

Oilerlord said:

To each their own, but it isn't just about disposable income. There is a difference between smart and stupid money. I get the 120 mile range bump, but dumping $29K into a 100K mile car to replace a battery that (apparently) doesn't need replacing makes little sense to me. A Roadster isn't exactly the car I'd choose to take on a 220 mile road trip, much less 340 miles.

Click to expand...

For a lot of Tesla owners/investors it's not just about a car it's also about the mission. Without the Roadster there would be no Model S. Without the S there would be no 3. At one point Tesla was ~$300k away from insolvency. If 3 or 4 S owners hadn't converted their $4k reservations into a $100k purchase Tesla could have failed and instead of talking about the EV revolution we'd likely be having a slightly different conversation.

It's not just $29k spent on a larger battery. It's $29k invested in moving a few steps further away from our addiction to fools fuel. It's no secret that the R&D for the $35k model 3 is heavily funded by people willing to pay $140k for a 2 seat car and $29k for a range upgrade....

Another amazing day for Mr. Musk. I have to think that the phenomenal success of SpaceX is somehow beneficial to Tesla.

nwdiver said:

For a lot of Tesla owners/investors it's not just about a car it's also about the mission. Without the Roadster there would be no Model S. Without the S there would be no 3. At one point Tesla was ~$300k away from insolvency. If 3 or 4 S owners hadn't converted their $4k reservations into a $100k purchase Tesla could have failed and instead of talking about the EV revolution we'd likely be having a slightly different conversation.

It's not just $29k spent on a larger battery. It's $29k invested in moving a few steps further away from our addiction to fools fuel. It's no secret that the R&D for the $35k model 3 is heavily funded by people willing to pay $140k for a 2 seat car and $29k for a range upgrade....

Click to expand...

So you are trying to save the earth by buying a toxic $29,000 battery....

turbobrick240 said:

Another amazing day for Mr. Musk. I have to think that the phenomenal success of SpaceX is somehow beneficial to Tesla.

Click to expand...

meh... it's not gonna 'save the world' or humanity

nwdiver said:

For a lot of Tesla owners/investors it's not just about a car it's also about the mission. Without the Roadster there would be no Model S. Without the S there would be no 3. At one point Tesla was ~$300k away from insolvency. If 3 or 4 S owners hadn't converted their $4k reservations into a $100k purchase Tesla could have failed and instead of talking about the EV revolution we'd likely be having a slightly different conversation.

It's not just $29k spent on a larger battery. It's $29k invested in moving a few steps further away from our addiction to fools fuel. It's no secret that the R&D for the $35k model 3 is heavily funded by people willing to pay $140k for a 2 seat car and $29k for a range upgrade....

Click to expand...

You're going off the deep end again. Reality check time:

- EV "revolution" = Less than 1% market share...and that's WITH enticing buyers with big tax rebates and crazy low lease incentives. Without the EPA, CARB, and government subsidies, EV's probably don't exist.
- "Fools fuel" - While you may not put it in your tank, guess what...you're "addicted" to fossil fuels too. Your 5000 pound monster car isn't made of bamboo...try making it without the use of petrochemicals, or burning fossil fuels during it's manufacturing process. Every product you buy off a store shelf, or online was likely transported by a diesel semi.
- R&D for the Model 3 is heavily funded by Wall Street, not the handful of cars that were sold nearly a decade ago.
- Spending $29K on a battery you don't need isn't an "investment"...it's lighting money on fire.

The "fools fuel" catch phrase just serves to alienate people. It's much more effective to show the benefits of renewables without being (or seeming) condescending.

Pretty sure the guy is a troll at this point....

I don't think so. He is clearly a very bright guy. I just think he could be a more effective advocate for renewables by using less abrasive language.

turbobrick240 said:

I don't think so. He is clearly a very bright guy. I just think he could be a more effective advocate for renewables by using less abrasive language.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

turbocharged798 said:

Pretty sure the guy is a troll at this point....

Click to expand...

turbobrick240 said:

I don't think so. He is clearly a very bright guy. I just think he could be a more effective advocate for renewables by using less abrasive language.

Click to expand...

This is why he has been on my Ignore list since the early days of the monster Dieselgate thread. In my opinion, he has contributed nothing to the threads he posts in and his agenda is not aligned with the TDI Club membership's objectives. My guess is, after personally being a Moderator on one of the largest international forums, he has been banned on other tech forums and only hangs here now.

turbobrick240 said:

The "fools fuel" catch phrase just serves to alienate people. It's much more effective to show the benefits of renewables without being (or seeming) condescending.

Click to expand...

Sorry... auto correct... fossil fuels

Oilerlord said:

You're going off the deep end again. Reality check time:
- EV "revolution" = Less than 1% market share...and that's WITH enticing buyers with big tax rebates and crazy low lease incentives. Without the EPA, CARB, and government subsidies, EV's probably don't exist.
- "Fools fuel" - While you may not put it in your tank, guess what...you're "addicted" to fossil fuels too. Your 5000 pound monster car isn't made of bamboo...try making it without the use of petrochemicals, or burning fossil fuels during it's manufacturing process. Every product you buy off a store shelf, or online was likely transported by a diesel semi.

Click to expand...

- In the span of ~5 years EV have gone from being virtually non-existent to comprising ~30% of sales in countries like Norway. Is everything extremes with you? Unless you're literally 'saving the world' it's not worth investing in? Unless you wake up one morning and every car is electric it's just a fade?



- There's a world of difference between stubbornly adhering to obsolete technology because that's what you're comfortable with and actively seeking out or pursuing other alternatives. When amazon offers a way for my next order to be delivered with out FOSSIL fuels (darn autocorrect) I'll sign up for that too. But I do feel like a fool whenever I can't find other options.....

nwdiver said:

Sorry... auto correct... fossil fuels



- In the span of ~5 years EV have gone from being virtually non-existent to comprising ~30% of sales in countries like Norway. Is everything extremes with you? Unless you're literally 'saving the world' it's not worth investing in? Unless you wake up one morning and every car is electric it's just a fade?

- There's a world of difference between stubbornly adhering to obsolete technology because that's what you're comfortable with and actively seeking out or pursuing other alternatives. When amazon offers a way for my next order to be delivered with out FOSSIL fuels (darn autocorrect) I'll sign up for that too. But I do feel like a fool whenever I can't find other options.....

Click to expand...

I live in Utah, and unless I spend all my time in downtown Salt Lake and never drive further than the closest coffee shop I couldn't use an EV. Even the best of them have nowhere near a useful range. You can hop from charging station to charging station if you have a Tesla, but it takes forever to get where you're going.

EVs may be viable someday, but they won't be battery powered. Batteries will always be too big and too heavy, and they will always involved expensive, Earth-destroying metals that often have to be sourced in foreign countries with hostile governments. Super-capacitors may make the difference.

And, of course, at this point most EVs run on COAL.

-mickey

turbobrick240 said:

The "fools fuel" catch phrase just serves to alienate people. It's much more effective to show the benefits of renewables without being (or seeming) condescending.

Click to expand...

That's the difference between "advocate" and "kook."

I work in the solar industry and I understand both the potential and the limitations of renewables. I love the fact that I have no power bill. But I also know that PV solar isn't going to replace grid power.

The future belongs to rooftop solar and a nuclear grid, supplemented to a much lesser extent by wind and hydro. (Wind will probably die out entirely, in fact.)

Electric vehicles will be viable for urban cars, but will never be long-distance cars. We keep hearing about what will happen with "battery technology breakthroughs" but the reality is there will be no huge advances in inorganic chemistry. That's like waiting for the Next Big Thing in ALGEBRA. It's a known quantity. Advances will be incremental, just as they've been with photo-voltaics. (Which have been around since the 1960s. Advances in efficiency have been modest.) The Periodic Table is finite. Unobtanium just isn't out there.

We worry about our dependence on OPEC for our energy needs, and the fact that most OPEC members are hostile nations, but is it really better to put our heads in the noose of Rare Earth element exporters? China? Russia? No thanks. The more we depend on ultra-high tech materials the more we depend on shady governments with nuclear missiles. At least Dubai can't nuke us.

-mickey

Well, I don't think we have yet reached the limits of battery technology. Ben Franklin would be astounded at the progression from Leyden jars to the lithium ion batteries that power our mobile devices (I'm sure he'd be impressed by the devices themselves too). From what I hear, solid state battery technology may be the next big breakthrough.

New Mickey said:

I live in Utah, and unless I spend all my time in downtown Salt Lake and never drive further than the closest coffee shop I couldn't use an EV. Even the best of them have nowhere near a useful range. You can hop from charging station to charging station if you have a Tesla, but it takes forever to get where you're going.

Click to expand...

Give me a typical trip that you do, please.

New Mickey said:

EVs may be viable someday, but they won't be battery powered. Batteries will always be too big and too heavy, and they will always involved expensive, Earth-destroying metals that often have to be sourced in foreign countries with hostile governments. Super-capacitors may make the difference.

Click to expand...

If we're referring to the use of mined expensive metals, how about the emissions controls in modern piston engines? And, some of the higher-density super-capacitors are using a fair amount of lithium as well. That said, recycling of existing batteries can help a lot, too.

New Mickey said:

And, of course, at this point most EVs run on COAL.

Click to expand...

In your grid region, NWPP...

36.2% of the grid is coal-powered as of 2014. 0.2% is oil, 11.9% is gas, and 0.2% is other fossil fuels, for a total of 48.5% of your power coming from fossil fuels.

Of the remaining power, 2.8% is nuclear, and then the rest is either the 0.1% unknown sources, or the 48.5% renewable portion (39.7% hydro, 1.1% biomass combustion, 6.7% wind, and 1.0% geothermal). Yes, I know that adds up to 99.9%, I suspect rounding errors.

The problems still exist...EV is still 50% fossil fuel powered, and you also have line losses which can be significant.

Not saying EVs are great for urban drivers(which would help pollution in the cities) but for road warriors, its never going to happen.

Meanwhile my 18 year old oil burner is still going strong and costs me $20 a week for my 400 mile/week commute. You can buy a LOT of diesel for a cost of a EV battery.

nwdiver said:

- In the span of ~5 years EV have gone from being virtually non-existent to comprising ~30% of sales in countries like Norway.

Click to expand...

And in country's like Sweden, the sales of EVs have dropped to basically zero once the government removed the subsidies. As was mentioned, without the tax incentives, the sales of EVs would be so minor that they wouldn't even fit the niche category.

New Mickey said:

That's the difference between "advocate" and "kook."

I work in the solar industry and I understand both the potential and the limitations of renewables. I love the fact that I have no power bill. But I also know that PV solar isn't going to replace grid power.

The future belongs to rooftop solar and a nuclear grid, supplemented to a much lesser extent by wind and hydro. (Wind will probably die out entirely, in fact.)

Electric vehicles will be viable for urban cars, but will never be long-distance cars. We keep hearing about what will happen with "battery technology breakthroughs" but the reality is there will be no huge advances in inorganic chemistry. That's like waiting for the Next Big Thing in ALGEBRA. It's a known quantity. Advances will be incremental, just as they've been with photo-voltaics. (Which have been around since the 1960s. Advances in efficiency have been modest.) The Periodic Table is finite. Unobtanium just isn't out there.

We worry about our dependence on OPEC for our energy needs, and the fact that most OPEC members are hostile nations, but is it really better to put our heads in the noose of Rare Earth element exporters? China? Russia? No thanks. The more we depend on ultra-high tech materials the more we depend on shady governments with nuclear missiles. At least Dubai can't nuke us.

-mickey

Click to expand...

As I mentioned in an earlier post, if breakthroughs in chemistry are done, then I am out of a job. Working for a major global chemical corporation, my job and retirement are extremely dependent on those breakthroughs. Your everyday life and work is also dependent on those breakthroughs. The periodic table has been expanded in the 35 years since I've been out of school and anticipate that it will continue to grow.

Those rare earth metals that you're worried about? The largest uses are in catalytic converters, which are rarely, if ever, recycled. They are just left to rot with the rest of the cars in a junk yard somewhere. Or crushed and mixed in with the rest of the metal as it is melted to be recycled into something else.

turbocharged798 said:

The problems still exist...EV is still 50% fossil fuel powered, and you also have line losses which can be significant.

Not saying EVs are great for urban drivers(which would help pollution in the cities) but for road warriors, its never going to happen.

Meanwhile my 18 year old oil burner is still going strong and costs me $20 a week for my 400 mile/week commute. You can buy a LOT of diesel for a cost of a EV battery.

Click to expand...

The inherent efficiency of an EV powertrain over an ICE powertrain is FAR more significant than the line losses getting the power to the batteries. 1 kWh of battery capacity equates to FAR closer to 1 kWh of actual work done than the equivalent amount of fuel burnt in an ICE vehicle, even the most aggressive hybrids. Combine that added efficiency with the 50% that isn't fossil fuel powered, and it is very significant drop in fossil fuel use towards transportation.

The when you consider that they are just simpler cars, with less maintenance and potential points of failure - even at their relative low maturity level - and I really don't see a reason to NOT own at least one in each family.