Why electric cars are not green machines?

[bholler]

They're all similar articles. Read the car and driver earlier today.

This paragraph hit home for me

"Hyundai offers a similar battery warranty for its EV of the Year-winning Ioniq 5, with coverage of 10 years or 100,000 miles. It also covers battery degradation, with Hyundai expecting the Ioniq 5's pack to lose no more than 30 percent of its original charge during the warranty period."

To me, 70% in 100k is the expectation from Hyundai. IMHO, I expect it sooner.

Why would you assume that??? They are guaranteeing it will do better than that. They aren't going to cut it very close on that bet at all of things could get very very expensive for them. Why did you ignore the other parts of the article giving actual lifespans?

And if all the articles say about tgevsame thing why are you not trusting that data instead of assuming based on the warranty

 

[bholler]

At no point did I say the battery (or powetrain) will fail.

You just won't consider an alternative viewpoint. Which is ok, while you're on hearth.com.

But you said most batteries will need replaced by 77k.

 

[StoveInNH]

Why would you assume that??? They are guaranteeing it will do better than that. They aren't going to cut it very close on that bet at all of things could get very very expensive for them. Why did you ignore the other parts of the article giving actual lifespans?

And if all the articles say about tgevsame thing why are you not trusting that data instead of assuming based on the warranty

Because that's how I interpret it. 70% is my number. We'll see in 10 more years.

 

[StoveInNH]

But you said most batteries will need replaced by 77k.

Not because of failure. Because at 70% capacity the EV range is too small.

 

[StoveInNH]

Not because of failure. Because at 70% capacity the EV range is too small.

And I made it to 100 posts today. Woo hoo!

Honored.

 

[SpaceBus]

At no point did I say the battery (or powetrain) will fail.

You just won't consider an alternative viewpoint. Which is ok, while you're on hearth.com.

I do consider alternate viewpoints, just not one of some random internet person. Even if I didn't I'm entitled to do that whenever I please and I don't need your permission.

So a replacement under warranty is not a failure?

Human never cease to amaze me with their powers of projection.

 

[bholler]

Because that's how I interpret it. 70% is my number. We'll see in 10 more years.

Many many evs are already way past your guess of 77k and still going strong. You said yourself all of the articles say about the same thing. The car and driver one says tesla model 3s are averaging 90% at 150000. So why are you randomly guessing 70% by 77k?

 

[StoveInNH]

I do consider alternate viewpoints, just not one of some random internet person. Even if I didn't I'm entitled to do that whenever I please and I don't need your permission.

So a replacement under warranty is not a failure?

Human never cease to amaze me with their powers of projection.

But, you are a random internet person.

Correct. The warranty states that they consider 70% a replacement - worthy failure.

I consider 70% the point at which the car has minimal value and requires battery replacement to restore battery.

 

[StoveInNH]

Many many evs are already way past your guess of 77k and still going strong. You said yourself all of the articles say about the same thing. The car and driver one says tesla model 3s are averaging 90% at 150000. So why are you randomly guessing 70% by 77k?

Nope..that's the model s. And those aren't typical EVs that the masses are buying. The model 3 is a better example.

 

[StoveInNH]

bholler we've gone as far as we can. I appreciate the back and forth.

See you on the next thread!

Peace

 

[EatenByLimestone]

This Impossibly Clean 500,000-Mile Toyota Prius Is Probably Nicer Than Your Car

Buying this high-milage hero will set you back nearly $11,000

jalopnik.com

300,000–500,000 Miles In A Tesla — How Does A Tesla Hold Up? - CleanTechnica

It’s no secret that most owners love their Teslas, but not many can say from experience how they hold up over the really long haul. One that can is Tesloop, a shuttle service in Southern California that operates a small fleet of Models S, X, and 3. Each of Tesloop’s vehicles logs around 17,000...

cleantechnica.com

“There have also been some major repair issues — Tesloop has replaced six batteries, all under warranty, and all because of factory or installation issues, not because of battery degradation. There has been some capacity loss, however — one Model X has lost about 23% of capacity after 330,000 miles, a reduction in range from 260 miles to 200 miles (according to Quartz,a pool of data from Tesla ownersshows an average capacity loss of about 10% after 155,00 miles).”

This Tesla Model S P85 Just Surpassed 1,500,000 Kilometers

On January 6, 2022, a Tesla Model S P85 (the oldest performance version) reached an impressive mileage milestone of 1,500,000 km (932,256 miles).

insideevs.com

Talks about battery replacement.

Lessons Learned From 10,000 Electric Cars And 100 Million Miles

We evaluated 10,000 electric cars covering some 100 million miles and the findings are indeed very eye-opening.

insideevs.com

Lots of datapoints.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Range concern would disappear if charging spots were as common as gas stations and fillup was just as fast.

 

[KDubU]

I'm being reasonable. If the range is 300 miles new, and a battery is at 70% capacity at 77,000 miles (arbitrary number), then the range is now 210 miles, and getting worse by the day, which is unacceptable for most people.

We can play with the numbers. Maybe 77k is 99k. Maybe it's not.

But the fact remains that EVs are not the green machines that most people think they are buying.

Combustion engines also degrade mpg over time. Things get old and wear out, happens to all of us.

I agree the article has some things to think about but the very same and more can be written about oil, coal, etc. I do not think there is any magic that will make “fuel” 100% clean. Here’s the thing though, many vehicles sold today have very poor mpg considering how long manufacturers have been selling the same old same old.

 

[semipro]

I just finished reading through this thread and this graphic/article just popped up in my news feed. Coincidence? I think not.
It relates well to the discussion here but does not really address the OP's original comments about the effects of battery wear. It does include data on FF production impacts though.
A few thoughts I'd add:

1. As the grid incorporates more renewable energy, EVs relying on it will get greener. Not so with ICE vehicles which trend the opposite way.
2. Although BEVs have been around for over 100 years, the improvement of the technology has really accelerated only recently. A lot of gains are expected in the near term. Again, not so with ICE vehicles.
3. BEV batteries that are no longer suitable for use in vehicles due to capacity loss are likely to see increased reuse for things like grid storage.

I suspect the bottom line numbers below will continue to diverge in favor of BEVs, especially as battery production and recycling technologies improve.

Our 7-year-old Nissan Leaf with 57K miles is showing minimal battery capacity loss (8%) but does eat front tires at an alarming rate which may relate to how fun the car is to drive.

Source: https://elements.visualcapitalist.c...ectric-hybrid-and-combustion-engine-vehicles/

 

[EatenByLimestone]

We could get more range out of both ICE and battery vehicles if we reduce weight. Emissions controls, luxury, and safety devices all add weight. I’m not suggesting we get rid of these, but only point out that increases and aerodynamic efficiency and engine technology have been hobbled by other additions to a vehicle.

An aerodynamic model T with a modern engine and tires could probably get much more than the 21 mpg that it was capable of when it was first introduced.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Throw a Miata engine into it and I bet it’d be a blast to drive… once!

 

[woodgeek]

I just finished reading through this thread and this graphic/article just popped up in my news feed. Coincidence? I think not.
It relates well to the discussion here but does not really address the OP's original comments about the effects of battery wear. It does include data on FF production impacts though.
A few thoughts I'd add:

1. As the grid incorporates more renewable energy, EVs relying on it will get greener. Not so with ICE vehicles which trend the opposite way.
2. Although BEVs have been around for over 100 years, the improvement of the technology has really accelerated only recently. A lot of gains are expected in the near term. Again, not so with ICE vehicles.
3. BEV batteries that are no longer suitable for use in vehicles due to capacity loss are likely to see increased reuse for things like grid storage.

I suspect the bottom line numbers below will continue to diverge in favor of BEVs, especially as battery production and recycling technologies improve.

Our 7-year-old Nissan Leaf with 57K miles is showing minimal battery capacity loss (8%) but does eat front tires at an alarming rate which may relate to how fun the car is to drive.

The graphic, and your summary, jibes with my understanding of things in the US, on average.

But the average obscures the details. Not all BEVs, ICE vehicles, grids and countries are the same. This granularity is addressed by the paper I linked, that projected grid greening in scores of countries, and came up with projections a bit better than your graphic for a new BEV bought today in the US, 50% of the lifecycle emissions, versus 39/55 = 70% in your graphic. The data there is probably pre-IRA.

In the EU the improvement was higher, in China less. And in India... very small indeed.

I can't replace an HEV Prius with a Hummer EV and tell myself that I have 50% or 30% lower lifecycle emissions. Of course it is higher! While that is a bogus example, Jevon's Paradox is real. I would never buy a gas SUV, but someday I might buy a larger EV, negating some of the CO2 savings.

As we say, your mileage may vary. In my case, I kept my BEV small, the pack not huge (66 kWh), I try to keep it efficient with cabin heaters and tire inflation, and I charge on my 50% nuke, 50% gas grid. By charging 2-5AM, I assume I am getting 70+% nuke kWh, and thus my CO2 savings are probably a good bit better than the US average today. My neighbor with the Tesla model 3 LR, charging when he gets home from work (5PM to 8PM) could have 2X the CO2 emissions per mile.

 

[begreen]

ICE vs. EV is becoming the new religion, à la Republican vs. Democrat, with clear party lines drawn toward each. What a shame.

History will not look fondly upon this time, and the claims made by some who choose to ignore simple math, or play fast and loose with hard numbers.

Sorry for the delayed response. I took some personal time to go camping. This is true. The point is that we should all be working as one on addressing the largest existential issue facing humanity. The issues have been studied in depth for years. We do not have the luxury of kicking the can down the road. It's going to take some major shifts because we have waited so long to address the issue. Disinformation makes this difficult. There may be some mistakes made, but let's get on the same page. For certain, there is a great deal of improvement happening that will continue to move the needle, not only in battery manufacturing but also in extraction and refining.

We're all in this together.

 

[semipro]

Sorry for the delayed response. I took some personal time to go camping. This is true. The point is that we should all be working as one on addressing the largest existential issue facing humanity. The issues have been studied in depth for years. We do not have the luxury of kicking the can down the road. It's going to take some major shifts because we have waited so long to address the issue. Disinformation makes this difficult. There may be some mistakes made, but let's get on the same page. For certain, there is a great deal of improvement happening that will continue to move the needle, not only in battery manufacturing but also in extraction and refining.

We're all in this together.

It's going to be tough to get everyone on the same page.
Not too long ago I recall someone here refuting CO2's role in atmospheric warming. I was stunned.
I didn't think that the established science behind the greenhouse effect was even being challenged.
I mean, if we can't get beyond agreeing on basic physical phenomena like greenhouse warming... sheesh!

 

[Ashful]

The reality is that a huge fraction of the population of this country still believes human-driven climate change is just a hoax. It’s not entirely their fault, a similar fraction of media sources fill their content with experts explaining why this is the case. Until everyone can at least agree on the problem, there’s little chance of finding any agreement on a solution.

 

[begreen]

 

[woodgeek]

The reality is that a huge fraction of the population of this country still believes human-driven climate change is just a hoax. It’s not entirely their fault, a similar fraction of media sources fill their content with experts explaining why this is the case. Until everyone can at least agree on the problem, there’s little chance of finding any agreement on a solution.

Meh. I teach college engineering. We have a seemingly neverending stream of smart young people, who understand global warming is real, and think they will be part of their solution.

Just bc there is a bunch of BS media in the US, doesn't mean its a global phenomenon. While there are still a few climate skeptics in the US, according to surveys climate skepticism is largely limited to the US, Russia and Yemen at this point.

And even in the US, the Green Vortex swirls onward, driven by good old capitalism, self-interest and money from Dark Brandon. The public policy, funding and technology to solve the climate crisis are _already in place_ while the denialists are still rocking to their misinformation.

 

[Ashful]

Definitely, WRT to the young people, especially young tech people. But I'd suggest you're so immersed in that side of the population that you're failing to see near equal numbers of the opposite extreme. I do believe age will win out, with that fraction shifting more away from the deniers with each generation.

I am aware it's a particular problem in the US and Russia, and not so much in Europe, although I don't know much about how Asian countries divide on this issue.

 

[woodgeek]

Oh, my work circle is very tech informed and younger. They like to lecture and correct me nowadays, assuming (grey hair) that I am not on board with all this newfangled green stuff.

My family is another story... parents were lifelong R voters, thought Nixon was framed, grandparents didn't believe in the moon landing, sis is a R elected official in her town, bro fancies himself an I and voted for Romney 3X and Nader.

But my point is 'what is the law of the land?' In the US and globally. Its looking a lot like a Paris COP 2°C world, and the US is not leading, but is keeping up. Compare to 10 years ago with Obama's (not v aggressive) power plan getting hung up in the courts and killed, and the media refusing to even ask a global warming question from the audience during the 2012 pres debates!

If there are still millions of climate deniers in 2050, but the climate work is done and dusted... does it even matter?

 

[SpaceBus]

The reality is that a huge fraction of the population of this country still believes human-driven climate change is just a hoax. It’s not entirely their fault, a similar fraction of media sources fill their content with experts explaining why this is the case. Until everyone can at least agree on the problem, there’s little chance of finding any agreement on a solution.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/

That huge fraction is thankfully still the minority. You can thank the fossil fuel industry for confusing everyone. Woodgeek has covered this in depth, but the short version is they are using Big Tobacco tactics to confuse everyone.