Could it be true????

[NateB]

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

I hope this is right place to put this. I am not trying to ruffle feathers. Just offering a different point of view.

 

[begreen]

This is an opinion piece. There are lots of ways to look at the transportation issue and its environmental impacts. The author ignores health benefits from dramatically reduced emissions. There's no mention of longer lifespan for components like brakes, less components too.

Are there other solutions? Yes, more rail freight and less cars on the road are options.

Moving to the Green Room for objective discussion as long as it doesn't get political.

And a rebuttal
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...er-for-the-environment-than-gas-powered-ones/

 

[jebatty]

I focused on the opinion that the wealthy are the ones that benefit from the electric car to the detriment of the less wealthy. That brought me back to 1963 and 10th grade in high school, 55 years ago, and just 16 years after the invention of the transistor. That's when I bought my first battery operated transistor radio. Maybe you recall the vacuum tube, battery operated (A and B batteries, expensive), portable radios. My new transistor radio operated for months on two D cells, and the now nearly impossible to find carbon-zinc D cell. And that same transistor radio in 1965 became the amp-speaker output for one channel of my jerry-rigged stereo system, the other channel being from my also jerry-rigged vacuum tube plug-in table radio.

Now, I was by no means one of the wealthy ones, nor was my family. But I clearly was an early adopter, and a person who had a passion for technology. That transistor morphed into the multi-layer microprocessor of today, many other kinds of semiconductors, and even the solar PV cells of today. Marvels of technology. And truly penny cheap compared to the price of the first semiconductors.

All of this leads to the fact that even nearly the poorest among us not only have semiconductor radios, but also TVs, computers, monitors and the ubiquitous smart phone, along with the myriad of other devices and IOTs that affect (or infect) people's lives world-wide. So for the EV, I too am an early adopter. I look at the EV as a step towards a more innovative transportation system, which in its final iteration likely will be radically different from four wheels rolling down a highway, and one which likely also will be quite minimal in its environmental impact.

By the way, my Bolt is mostly powered by our PV system, which either makes me double not good or double good, depending on a person's perspective from the POV of the Politico article. What's next on the early adopter agenda?

 

[woodgeek]

Poorly reasoned hit piece by a think tank shill.

Says very misleading things like...

'coal is the second largest supplier of electricity' 'will be for some time' without any numbers, CO2 emissions from the US electricity sector are falling rapidly while the transportation sector is still rising (and now higher). CO2 emission per mile for EVs with the current electricity generation mix are already much less than for fleet average new ICE cars. The factor is about 50-60% lower CO2 emissions per mile today, contra the thesis of his headline.

'EVs subsidies benefit rich people only'. Class warfare. Early adopters of tech are always wealthier, and tax benefits have always been used to get new technology that benefits society off the ground. The point he elides is that EVs are getting cheaper as batteries get cheaper. So total cost of ownership of (short range) EVs is already lower than median price new ICE cars. And long range one should be there (according to many analysts) in a few years. So the EV industry will lead to cheaper car and transportation options for everyone.

Not to mention reduced tailpipe emissions helping everyone, especially people living in cities. Car and truck exhaust causes cardiovascular disease and cancer (#1 and #2 killers) and is implicated in Alzheimers.

'EVs will only reduce emissions by x% by 2030'. Mostly true. Projections vary a lot. EIA and the oil majors are on the low end, independent analysts project much higher adoption. But the nature of exponential growth is that is starts out low....you can always pick an early enough time to make it look small. We don't need to get rid of all emissions by 2030, 12 years from now, when many new 2018 cars will still be on the road. We need to cut emissions by 80% by 2050 or so. And with light transport being 30% of emissions (and rising) that won't be possible without EVs.

'todays cars only emit 1% as much pollution as older cars', which references non-CO2 emissions only, and which still sounds overstated....modern cars emit lots of smog forming pollutants until the catalytic converters 'warm up'...what fraction of miles are driven with the CC still 'cold'?

Good Morning

 

[NateB]

Jebatty what do you see as the semiconductors of the EV car development?

 

[jebatty]

NateB, I wish I had that foresight. The wheel has been around for a long time. As population continues to grow, congestion increases, and transportation becomes more and more expensive, especially in lost time and cost of road and bridge infrastructure, both new and maintenance on existing -- something major has to give. Taxpayer reticence to fund roads and bridges grows. Paving over gardens and agricultural fields to build new roads and parking lots cannot be the answer.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

no mention that this atitcle is just shy of 5 years old. with today's changes in tech, it might as well be a light year behind us? just a thought

 

[semipro]

With fossil-fueled vehicles they get dirtier with time as the engine wears and parts fail.
With EVs there is the potential for them to "burn" cleaner with time as the grid gains more renewables, more efficient hydro, and cleaner fossil sources.
You also have the option to create the power for EVs at your house via solar/wind/hydro -- not so with fossil/liquid fuels (except bio-diesel).

 

[woodgeek]

Jebatty what do you see as the semiconductors of the EV car development?

The concept of an electric drivetrain is obvious (efficiency, simplicity, etc) but the necessary tech really wasn't there until quite recently.

1. Semiconductors are a big thing. Building a 10 Watt transistor for your stereo amplifier is one thing. My EV contains three >150 kW (200 hp) semiconductor amplifiers to drive the motor! The cost of this unit or 'inverter', which converts DC into multiple high current, high voltage waveforms that drive the motor is a significant portion of the EV cost. And it takes a LOT of silicon mass to make that work. It would have been cost prohibitive more than a decade ago, but the volume of semi production has gone through the roof with consumer electronics and PV rollout.

2. Battery tech is obviously the other. Lithium battery costs have been falling exponentially for years, and building the BIG cells for EVs is new tech. The cells in my car are the size of a hard-cover book, store several hundred Watt-hours, and cost about $200/kWh, and are good for >1000 full discharge cycles. Scale that to a 10Wh iPhone battery, and it would cost just $2. Right now the materials cost are only about 1/3rd of that...so there is still room to fall.

Both of these technologies getting cheaper leads to cheap/effective stationary energy storage (grid batteries) as a spinoff, which will be necessary as wind+solar power continue to grow. Wind+solar is currently at 10+2 = 12% of total US electrical energy, and on track to cross 20% in 4-5 years from now. Much beyond that....we'll need some grid storage to keep going.

 

[begreen]

A more recent and neutral study:
(broken link removed to https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2017_10_EV_LCA_briefing_final.pdf)

 

[CaptSpiff]

Jebatty what do you see as the semiconductors of the EV car development?

For me, the computer RAM and VLSI discussions of the 1980's sits in my mind as equivalent to the "transistor revolution" in the 1960's. There were very smart people at the time shouting "640K is all we'll ever need" for computer memory processing. They did not see, or did not want to see, the potential effects the price reduction of their technology would have in wide, if not all, areas of society. Today I have an advanced navigation system, voice & video conferencing system, personal time & fitness manager, and (although I don't use it yet) a personal purchasing, banking & accounting feature, all in a pocket sized smart phone. Who would have thought?

I think the advancements in Battery Technology is today's kernel that will lead to wide area societal changes which we do not even conceive today because of our personal historical paradigms. In example, smaller longer lasting batteries will transition our wrist worn FitBits into a tiny capsule injected under our skin for complete body health monitoring with 5-10 year trending. Some closer to now items we see are the batteries powering tools in our home centers. Who thought that we'd have 80v batteries powering lawn mowers and chain saws? Not me! And we are only on the first rung of the ladder.

And as for this article, the author argues that the rich advantage themselves to benefit from these technologies. I say it is that very path which brings the product out of the laboratory, into the boutique manufacturing environment (where EV's presently are at). Then, if there is demand, into mass market development, where the cost efficiencies enter to drive prices down to where all begin to afford the benefits. That is the time when BEV's will cost 60-70% of today's equivalent ICE stablemates (ie the future Nissan Rogue BEV will cost 60-70% of the present ICE version). And those ends scare a lot of people, many of them presently rich.

 

[Cast Iron]

Nice discussion, though there's no need for divisive class partisan polarization---"the rich", "the poor".
Think this: where is the $$$$ for infrastructure ( bridges, roads, etc...) that now comes from gas taxes with EV vehicles ?
Also, we never know what technology will develop in the next decade.; not just battery tech. A decade ago, SmartFons !
Last: when the concentration on only wind and solar don't fill the grid, then what ? It is now barely 10% of the need.

 

[blades]

Storage of wind or solar is the limiting factor, Do not know that batteries per say are the optimum solution, Perhaps Capacitors might eventually become the top storage function. Then again there is always the possibility of a completely different energy source and transmission ( think something along the line of microwaves) an area the just beginning to be explored, or maybe something to do with ion generation & proportion. Maybe the prospect of cold fusion will become a reality. Just thinking a bit out side the box.

 

[begreen]

Think this: where is the $$$$ for infrastructure ( bridges, roads, etc...) that now comes from gas taxes with EV vehicles ?

Our state has gone from incentivizing electric vehicles to penalizing them. Starting last year we have been paying a $150 excise tax for our electric vehicle at license renewal. If this was a gas vehicle then the equivalent gas taxes would be $64. About 17 or 18 states now charge an electric vehicle fee. Of course funding needs to be raised to support roads and bridges and transit, but penalizing electric vehicles is not the best way to solve the problem.

when the concentration on only wind and solar don't fill the grid, then what ? It is now barely 10% of the need.

There is also hydro in some areas. Tidal and geothermal power are still underutilized. Other areas with abundant solar/wind can use pumped storage for overnight demand. Battery tech is also starting to show faster improvement and could very likely be a preferred storage medium in the future. Nothing is going to happen overnight, but incrementally working toward shedding the fossil fuel yoke has to happen.

 

[Cast Iron]

Until the problem with storage and battery tech is solved, the race to the only two "renewables" wind and solar, will never provide 100%, 24/7 grid needs. EV vehicles may make some feel virtuous but it ain't the solution to demand.
Biomass and wood, tidal, hydro, and the most carbon-free source of electricity have been foolishly ignored. In New England for example, the total hydro potential is all but ignored as is nuclear.
Forgotten is the total carbon use of solar and wind turbines in manufacturing....and yes, EV vehicles..
Excerpt in Iceland, large scale geothermal can never provide cost effective power.
The issue of class division and affordability is rarely discussed.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

I agree. The potential of tidal, and micro hydro would lead to a stable and very decentralized power supply.

 

[begreen]

The US is a world leader, generating about 3,800 megawatts of geothermal power with good potential for growth, especially in the west. The University of Utah just got a grant to develop practical working solutions for more plants across the country.
(broken link removed)
DoE is also investing in the development of new drilling technology for geothermal.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.co...-for-innovative-geothermal-drilling-tech.html
Canada is also moving forward in geothermal.

 

[Cast Iron]

Hydro.
Nuclear.
Tidal.
Biomass.
Fact: wind and solar ALONE can never supply anywhere close to the needs of the civilised world. The concentration of what is an in reality intermittent source of power is non science.
Iceland.

 

[bholler]

Hydro.
Nuclear.
Tidal.
Biomass.
Fact: wind and solar ALONE can never supply anywhere close to the needs of the civilised world. The concentration of what is an in reality intermittent source of power is non science.
Iceland.

So because they cant do it alone they should be ignored?? And you are right in part. With our current tech those surces cannot do it alone. But if we keep working at it they may be able to. Especially if we add in geothermal hydro tidal etc. Many said ic motors would never replace horses as well. Or clean burn stoves would never work. The fact is these sources can contribute allot of power to our grid and if we keep at it we can be the innovators in the feild which would be good for everyone here. So why so much resistance?

 

[begreen]

Hydro.
Nuclear.
Tidal.
Biomass.
Fact: wind and solar ALONE can never supply anywhere close to the needs of the civilised world. The concentration of what is an in reality intermittent source of power is non science.
Iceland.

Can be done. Iceland is a small case. Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Costa Rica all have reached 100% renewable power generation. A country or region uses what is available. Geothermal might not make sense in VT, just like tidal doesn't make a bit of sense for the mid-west. In the west there is abundant geothermal potential and it works 24/7.

Point being, the US is way behind here in comparison to the rest of the world. This because we have allowed the fossil fuel industries to dominate our energy supply and politics.

 

[woodgeek]

Not buying it Cast Iron. Study after study and the low costs of actual mega-projects are contrary to your flat assertions.

There is no reason whatsoever that solar can't supply most of society's energy needs in a sustainable way, with modest land use. The cost of solar (without storage) as primary energy is already competitive. The materials are all earth abundant.

The cost of storage is still falling. Earth abundance remains an open question, but there are multiple technologies.

Wind is complementary to solar on a daily and seasonal and geographic basis, the cost is even lower, and the ultimate size of the wind resource has expanded immensely in the last few years.

Light transportation can be electrified, the costs are still falling. The result is lower carbon even with current grid electricity. And EVs DO help with intermittency of wind and solar through demand management, and are synergistic with the declining cost of grid storage.

 

[CaptSpiff]

.... And EVs do help with intermittency of wind and solar through demand management, and are synergistic with the declining cost of grid storage.

I agree on the EVs with demand management, like turning their charging off similar to Utility controlled pool pumps and water heaters. What I'm disapointed about is the total lack of vision in the V2G (vehicle to grid) area. The more I try to learn about V2G tech and research, the more I see a clear willingness to punt it down the five year road.

The reason I'm bothered by that is I envision V2G being a significant revenue stream of the public/private charger buildout. Margins look thin to negative without it.

 

[woodgeek]

I agree on the EVs with demand management, like turning their charging off similar to Utility controlled pool pumps and water heaters. What I'm disapointed about is the total lack of vision in the V2G (vehicle to grid) area. The more I try to learn about V2G tech and research, the more I see a clear willingness to punt it down the five year road.

The reason I'm bothered by that is I envision V2G being a significant revenue stream of the public/private charger buildout. Margins look thin to negative without it.

I used to feel similarly, V2G is a no-brainer right?

The numbers are a little different. In round figures for 2018, the batteries in my EV cost $200/kWh and are likely good for ~1000 full discharge cycles (or their equivalent). This means that the lifecycle cost of each kWh to the motor is the cost of charging (with a 8% charging cycle loss) plus 20 cents/kWh. So if I was going to do V2G....why would I do that for less than 20 cents/kWh?

We can quibble on the math....2000 cycles at low power and gentle SOC, etc. but in the end, current V2G is just way too expensive.

Demand management....entirely different story. I'm going to charge, and if the battery is big enough, I can be really flexible with when.

Stationary solutions can use different chemistry, different charge controllers (to get more cycles), don't care about weight, etc. And they aren't really there yet either price-wise.

 

[Cast Iron]

No nation has 100% renewable power. Fact check please.

 

[sportbikerider78]

Can be done. Iceland is a small case. Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Costa Rica all have reached 100% renewable power generation. A country or region uses what is available. Geothermal might not make sense in VT, just like tidal doesn't make a bit of sense for the mid-west. In the west there is abundant geothermal potential and it works 24/7.

Point being, the US is way behind here in comparison to the rest of the world. This because we have allowed the fossil fuel industries to dominate our energy supply and politics.

View attachment 227478

What price is the rest of the world paying for electricity? One of the reasons we are are world power is our access to affordable power to make things.

I've rented homes across all of Europe. Few have AC. Few have a even medium sized refrigerator. Electricity is expensive, has massive taxes and you can be sure, stifles manufacturing/economy.

This site is mostly German.
(broken link removed)

Note Germany has had a 39% increase in 10 years.


Germans pay a 23% renewable surcharge on their bill + all of the other taxes and transmission fees before they even get to pay for the rest of the bill.

Isn't it a little disingenuous to say that a place like Costa Rica is 100% renewables when over 80% of that is hydro followed up by geothermal? Hydro gets fought tooth and nail by environmentalists because it changes the landscape, floods valleys and prevents normal aquatic migration. Now it is something that gets lumped into 'renewables' because wind and solar have (so far) been vastly inferior.
It leads people to believe that wind and solar have made vast strides in overall power generation, when they really are a very small amount of total grid energy supply. Sure seems like the environmentalists are taking credit for 'renewables' when in reality, they fight the best, most cost effective and best renewable out there.

Many of those countires you say are now 100% rewewables, have a GDP lower then one of our rural states. They don't make much.
Denmark: 2017 GDP = $306B
Ireland: 2017 GDP = $334B
Colorado: 2017 GDP = $342B
ect....

Something to chew on.