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

[Daemon64]

Additional Thoughts:

Because I like to torture myself with math and wanted to see what the long term environmental impact of this is:

My TDI --- My Fuelly Data

Best MPG Ever - 32.8 MPG --- CO2 per mile 305.94 grams
Average MPG - 27.3 MPG --- CO2 per mile 367.46 grams
Worst MPG - 23.8 MPG --- CO2 per mile 421.49 grams

PHEV 55e ( Extrapolated from 3 Owners of 2020 Q5 PHEV on fuelly )

Best MPG Ever - 84 --- CO2 per mile 104.61
Average of 3 - 53.7 --- CO2 per mile 163.54
Worst of all users - 35.5 --- CO2 per mile 247.4 grams

Now I understand CO2 figures don't count the electricity. ( Our electricity in our city is 100% renewable sourced ). But assuming for easier math that the electricity is carbon free, even the worst case is a 32.67% reduction in CO2 over my average, and the avg vs the avg is a 56% reduction.... thats amazingly good. I guess it all comes down to if you manage the battery and such... I mean if you take a highway trip in it, and it gets the rated 29 mpg, and you go 49 miles, that assumes you got 20 miles of electric range and 29 miles of batterty range... that means you averaged around 49 mpg... so not really far off the average of the 3 users... so as long as you recharge the capacity this seems like a win win, and even over what looks like longer trips their getting good mpg figures....

 

[turbobrick240]

The groundbreaking at Gigafactory Austin has begun! I think it will be the most amazing auto plant the world has seen. I'm tempted to buy some land in the area. One of my cousins lives right next to the airport- just a couple of minutes from the Tesla site. Very exciting!

https://youtu.be/hHpewRm-brE

 

[joyjoy22]

What are your thoughts about Nissan Ariya?

 

[turbobrick240]

Other than the unfortunate name, it looks like it might be decent. It'll have a tough time up against the Model Y for sure.

https://cleantechnica-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/cleantechnica.com/2020/07/18/implications-of-the-nissan-ariya-and-no-its-not-a-tesla-killer/amp/?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D

 

[Tin Man]

The groundbreaking at Gigafactory Austin has begun! I think it will be the most amazing auto plant the world has seen. I'm tempted to buy some land in the area. One of my cousins lives right next to the airport- just a couple of minutes from the Tesla site. Very exciting!

https://youtu.be/hHpewRm-brE

While applauding highly subsidized EV production is somewhat problematic, its still something of an achievement and will potentially be bigger than the HD Ford truck plant in Louisville KY.


This is more interesting and gives Elon Musk/SpaceX more credit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP2l2oJUJY4

 

[turbobrick240]

Yeah, that is more interesting. I'm 100% ok with the discussion drifting into space exploration at any time.

Doug and Bob are coming back quite soon. The mission won't really be a success until they are back on Earth. Wishing them well. It'll be quite a ride!

 

[Tin Man]

Uh, back to some previous topics: in a nutshell https://www.facebook.com/JohnStossel/videos/652367732225333/

 

[turbobrick240]

Fully electric BEV's are dominating sales over PHEV's globally. This chart shows the top 20 EV sales figures for the first half of 2020: https://cleantechnica-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/cleantechnica.com/2020/08/02/tesla-model-3-had-more-sales-than-2nd-3rd-4th-5th-6th-best-selling-plugin-vehicles-in-1st-half-of-2020/amp/?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D

 

[AntonLargiader]

Interesting; thanks for posting. Two vehicles that could be on that list if the manufacturers made enough of them would be the Pacifica Hybrid (~7000 per year but supply-limited) and the i3 (39,500 in 2019 but practically no production in 2020). But their numbers wouldn't really disturb the dominance of BEVs.

 

[Tin Man]

Still, world average and US average estimated at 2.1% of vehicle sales in 2020. Not exactly "dominance" is it.


https://www.iea.org/reports/electric-vehicles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country#cite_note-110

 

[turbobrick240]

It was 1% just a couple of years ago. At that rate of growth, 2/3 of new car sales could be EVs by 2030. That's probably why Tesla is now the world's most valuable automaker.

 

[Tin Man]

Nah. Battery tech has likely already hit a wall, so we will get small improvements in tech and cost. The quality problems will be expensive to fix. Musk needs to have the capacity to produce volume. You will see how others' quality developed (aka Ford) with this approach, historically.


As far as Tesla stock, isn't Musk still on the hook for manipulating the market? Isn't Tesla still dependent on direct government aka state subsidies? Do you really believe there will be accelerating market share with the upcoming Covid super-recession?


Dunno. Wishing everyone on the Tesla train luck and good fortune. But not from a liberty point of view: https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-revenue-model/?s=1

 

[nwdiver]

Nah. Battery tech has likely already hit a wall, so we will get small improvements in tech and cost.

???

Tesla's 2170 Battery Cells To Receive 20% Energy Density Improvement: Report

If anything the rate of improvement is accelerating... and getting cheaper.

You're thinking of ICE tech. ICE tech hit a wall ~20 years ago... that's why VW had to lie... remember?

 

[Tin Man]

???

Tesla's 2170 Battery Cells To Receive 20% Energy Density Improvement: Report

If anything the rate of improvement is accelerating... and getting cheaper.

You're thinking of ICE tech. ICE tech hit a wall ~20 years ago... that's why VW had to lie... remember?

Hope you are right. I'm not so sure.


Tech is tech. 20 years ago? Sure.

 

[Tin Man]

???

... that's why VW had to lie... remember?

Both diesel and gasoline cars had the same standards for NOx, Hydrocarbon, CO, and now small particulate emissions. EPA/CARB/European Union rules were met easily by gasoline cars because they were designed with them in mind. Diesels were 10+ times better at Hydrocarbon and CO but worse for NOx. Never mind that diesels created less CO2 at the time. New diesel tech helped make new ones very clean. No data exists on how dirty “cheating” VW diesels actually are compared to anything.


From In Harm's Way: Admiral Nimitz: "Well, we all know the Navy's [VW] never wrong. But in this case, it was a little weak on bein' right."

 

[Tin Man]

Tesla's 2170 Battery Cells To Receive 20% Energy Density Improvement: Report

... in 5 years. That's 4% a year about, eh?


ICE development?: how about 800 HP from a Mustang?

 

[bhtooefr]

I mean, the WVU tests found results that would've been on par with 1970s diesels on NOx emissions, so...

Also, 800 hp engines are old hat. Granted, actually putting them in production cars isn't, but it's really easy to make an 800 hp engine - get enough oxidizer and fuel into an engine - whether that's through increasing displacement, increasing RPM, adding boost, using nitrous oxide, or any combination - and you get 800 hp.

If you look at thermal efficiency numbers, an actual real mark of ICE development... yes, there's been development, but it's been incredibly slow.

 

[Tin Man]

I mean, the WVU tests found results that would've been on par with 1970s diesels on NOx emissions, so...

I did, and the results were more like "up to 40% more NOx" without mentioning the very low number it was up to 40% more than.

Same as a sales pitch....

Why were 1970's diesels so bad? NOx? or was it black soot (large airborne particles that fell to the earth before entering the lungs only to be biodegraded....?) Finding studies of unmolested diesels is hard when nobody believes they might actually have been at most as bad as 1970's gassers....

 

[Tin Man]

800 hp engines are old hat. Granted, actually putting them in production cars isn't

Yeah easy. That was why we had, uh, (?) 300 hp "supercars" 20 years ago....

 

[bhtooefr]

I did, and the results were more like "up to 40% more NOx" without mentioning the very low number it was up to 40% more than.

Same as a sales pitch....

Why were 1970's diesels so bad? NOx? or was it black soot (large airborne particles that fell to the earth before entering the lungs only to be biodegraded....?) Finding studies of unmolested diesels is hard when nobody believes they might actually have been at most as bad as 1970's gassers....

40x, not 40%.

Or, in other words, 4000%.

And yes, it's up to 4000% of the 0.05 g/mi standard they were certified to... which is 2 g/mi. Which is the 1970s standard, IIRC (and IIRC it was reduced to 1 g/mi in the early 1980s, which is where it stayed - in practice, anyway - for diesels until model year 2004).

 

[Tin Man]

40x, not 40%.

Or, in other words, 4000%.

And yes, it's up to 4000% of the 0.05 g/mi standard they were certified to... which is 2 g/mi. Which is the 1970s standard, IIRC (and IIRC it was reduced to 1 g/mi in the early 1980s, which is where it stayed - in practice, anyway - for diesels until model year 2004).

Oh, that's not okay, but the statement was "up to" so averages etc. and comparisons to, say, gas guzzling trucks/SUV's were not published.


The bottom line was the bureaucratic mind-set: not allowing for the advantages of diesel combustion to offset the disadvantages. The pollution levels for cars seemed to be the goal of putting a square peg (diesel) into a round hole (gasoline).

 

[Tin Man]

40x, not 40%.

Or, in other words, 4000%.

And yes, it's up to 4000% of the 0.05 g/mi standard they were certified to... which is 2 g/mi. Which is the 1970s standard, IIRC (and IIRC it was reduced to 1 g/mi in the early 1980s, which is where it stayed - in practice, anyway - for diesels until model year 2004).

The 1975 "standard" was apparently 3.1 g/mi https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/light-duty-vehicle-emissions


One would have to argue, and maybe succeed, that NOx was worse than the order of magnitude higher CO and HC emissions that gassers had, with similar enough particulates and CO2.

 

[El Dobro]

... in 5 years. That's 4% a year about, eh?
ICE development?: how about 800 HP from a Mustang?[/QUOTE
How about 1400HP from a Mustang.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-mustang-mach-e-1400-prototype-ev-drift-photos-video/

 

[Tin Man]

^^^:d:d

 

[wxman]

It appears that modern gasoline vehicles still have far higher HC emissions than diesels, especially after cold starts.

https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/2020/4/20/what-else-is-coming-out-of-our-tailpipes

 

[nwdiver]

... in 5 years. That's 4% a year about, eh?


ICE development?: how about 800 HP from a Mustang?

4% per year is a lot in terms of range, cost or efficiency. That's an EV cheaper and with longer range than ICE by 2030. What would be the point of ICE then? You seem to be forgetting/ignoring that adoption curves are never linear... they're exponential. They grow in the single digits until one day there's an inflection point and 4 years later ~everyone has an iPhone.

800HP Mustang? Sure, I totally agree that ICE is getting exponentially less practical but I don't think I would define that as 'progress'...

One would have to argue, and maybe succeed, that NOx was worse than the order of magnitude higher CO and HC emissions that gassers had, with similar enough particulates and CO2.

What time frame? 5 days? NOx is infinitely worse than CO2. 50 years? CO2 is worse. Why do we have to chose wether we ruin our quality of life or our grandkids?

 

[Tin Man]

nwdiver, you seem to think I'm putting ICE above EV in an ICE vs diesel comparison.

I certainly doubt EV's will be cheaper with their current trends/pricing as market trends should be through the roof with the end of the bull market not happening and, well, it isn't.

I also don't think EV tech is clean enough to beat diesel today, but who knows what we will have in the future. Probably higher quality EV's competing. 2030 is only 2 development cycles away.

I've also found that since the economy is driven by diesel 18 wheelers, gasoline as a byproduct of good diesel production will make it academic that we should burn the gasoline. We will achieve carbon neutrality when we successfully convert diesel heavy trucks to some form of carbon-free energy whether its electric or something else.

You've reinforced the notion that EV's are just like driving an iPhone, but I can assure you, Apple products have consistently been better than others since inception. I also stopped using my ICE powered phone a few years ago....

 

[Tin Man]

4% per year is a lot in terms of range, cost or efficiency. That's an EV cheaper and with longer range than ICE by 2030. What would be the point of ICE then? You seem to be forgetting/ignoring that adoption curves are never linear... they're exponential. They grow in the single digits until one day there's an inflection point and 4 years later ~everyone has an iPhone.

Is this some new form of Moore's Law? I'll call it "hockey stick math" OK?

800HP Mustang? Sure, I totally agree that ICE is getting exponentially less practical but I don't think I would define that as 'progress'...

Misquoting to make your point? "development" not progress per se. Progress would be to have a stop to environmental alarmism, stop virtue signaling/pandering, and to continue creating tech that quietly actually improves things in all areas.

What time frame? 5 days? NOx is infinitely worse than CO2. 50 years? CO2 is worse. Why do we have to chose wether we ruin our quality of life or our grandkids?

And the natural gas/coal-powered EV's at least make us feel they are "zero-emissions" eh? NIMBY

 

[nwdiver]

Is this some new form of Moore's Law? I'll call it "hockey stick math" OK?

Misquoting to make your point? "development" not progress per se. Progress would be to have a stop to environmental alarmism, stop virtue signaling/pandering, and to continue creating tech that quietly actually improves things in all areas.

And the natural gas/coal-powered EV's at least make us feel they are "zero-emissions" eh? NIMBY

Nope; History. Adoption curves are ~flat, then almost vertical to >90%.

By alarmism do you mean accepting physics? That's not 'alarmism' that's common sense.......

..... *sigh*.... for the ~131st time.... we're adding wind and solar >20x faster than EVs AND EVs help accelerate the deployment of wind and solar. It's synergistic. Enough with the FUD.

EVs Are Not A Problem For The Electric Grid, They Are The Solution

I also don't think EV tech is clean enough to beat diesel today, but who knows what we will have in the future.

???? I just drove ~70 miles and now all I need to recharge is ~4 hours of sunlight on my 800 sq ft roof. How..... explain to me how I drive a fools fuel powered POS 70 miles on ~4 hours sunlight hitting my roof......

 

[Tin Man]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

All variations explained well here.

"Failed diffusion does not mean that the technology was adopted by no one. Rather, failed diffusion often refers to diffusion that does not reach or approach 100% adoption due to its own weaknesses, competition from other innovations, or simply a lack of awareness. From a social networks perspective, a failed diffusion might be widely adopted within certain clusters but fail to make an impact on more distantly related people. Networks that are over-connected might suffer from a rigidity that prevents the changes an innovation might bring, as well.[44][45] Sometimes, some innovations also fail as a result of lack of local involvement and community participation."

Mentioning home solar panels and costly EV vehicles as if its a possible or even future "norm" is quite arrogant, IMO. Out of reach and government subsidized are definite limitations, as well as lack of home ownership by the majority of the population.