4 ms·

Pretty silly issue no? What’s the carbon break even point of an ICE car? If our energy generation and manufacturing technology matures for 50 years, how long wo

Pretty silly issue no? What’s the carbon break even point of an ICE car? If our energy generation and manufacturing technology matures for 50 years, how long would it take to break even then? Do you have any idea how far ICE cars have come over the past 50 years on efficiency and pollution? If we give up at the start of any new technology because it doesn’t instantly solve problems we wouldn’t have anything to show for ourselves. Progress starts with making things somewhat worse first, then iterating. If it’s between 70k miles to break even or and infinite amount for an ICE I’d still take the electric Volvo. Also, I expect my cars to last 300k - 500k KM.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
Yup. Volvo is pointing out that the car breaks even within roughly the first lease period of 2-3 years. The average age of a car on the roads in the US is currently four times that. Electric vehicles tend to be more reliable, because of their dramatically simpler powertrains. Plus, every year, more and more energy comes from lower carbon sources. It's really frustrating that dialog on improvements in drivetrain systems is still regularly hampered by the same arguments we saw back when the first generation prius came out. Same with solar. There's always someone shouting about how they "take forever to pay back." Reality: one to three years, and their "lifetime" is 20-30. And "lifetime" means "time until they are producing less than 80% of their nameplate rating", not "time until they are useless."
- robomartin 4y ago
  > Reality: one to three years, and their "lifetime" is 20-30. No, that’s a fantasy. My 13 kW system will probably take 10 years, maybe more. A good friend of mine, with a similar system as mine but a few years older has already had three (quality, name brand) panels fail (the regulators). Most of my neighbors with the ~4 kW systems they were leasing to people years ago say it was a complete waste of time. Also, have you seen what power companies are doing with rates? Peak electricity is up to $0.65 per kWh. Good luck breaking even if you install solar under these conditions. When I did my system rates were less than half what they are today. I love solar, or I would not have made the investment. However, there’s the reality of solar and the fantasy or dream of solar. Most people don’t understand the realities of the technology and think of it as magical free power. That, it is not. Not even close. I can show you horrible looking power output graphs of what happens when a cloud flies by…which happens a lot. You can easily lose 50% of your output for an hour. And, like my neighbors, if you have a small system, you are getting screwed at $0.65 per kWh.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Most people are paying a lot more than they need to. In particular, Home Depot or Lowes, or typical solar installers, will charge 4x wholesale for a panel. You can get a pallet-load of 400W panels for well under $200 each, now, so 45 for well under $9000, generating up to 18 kW, but rarely less than 5 kW on a winter day. Putting up brackets has become quite cheap. The above does not count electrical work, and (optional) batteries.
  - kkfx 4y ago
    Well... Wait, I have a small (5kWp) system, in a region where is reasonable to have it (French south Alps), it pay back at actual (high, artificially IMO, but far lower than non-nuclear neighbor countries) energy prices but with a new home (insulation and equipment) it pay back in around 11.5 years ad current rate. That's because hot water can be entirely made with it ONLY (not all days but most) since I can get hot water normally heating it only once a day or once in two days (big reservoir, heat-pump + classic resistence, Daikin EKHHP to be more precise, cited because it's not on sale anymore substituted with a very similar unit), I can irrigate my garden only on solar, aircon thanks to local climate (fresh at nigh, hot during the day) run almost only on solar etc. Yearly self-consumption is around 50%, this month is around 72%. Surely it's not something universal: - you need to live in an area where solar is interesting, there are many in the world, but normally people do not migrate for that; - you need a new(-ish) home, well insulated, airtight, designed to consume the minimum possible with actual tech etc and that DO have a (far bigger) cost (than p.v. alone); - to maximize self-consumption you need automation, so far NOT that nice&easy since most commercial appliance are hard to integrate and limited, and/or WFH to being able to concentrate energy usage when the Sun shine; - perhaps you need an EV to recharge from the p.v. instead of the grid. Long story short: if you can't satisfy the above requirement p.v. is not that convenient BUT if you can it is, not so exceptionally but still interesting and if coupled with a bit of lithium storage (very HARD to pay back in monetary terms) it might offer protection good enough against blackouts. A thing to be considered these days. The EV for me have the similar purpose NOT for environmental or monetary terms but to ensure the ability to move by car if there are gas shortages around. It's hard to evaluate such guarantee in monetary terms, but it's still a thing to be considered...
screye 4y ago
> I expect my cars to last 300k - 500k KM. Most non-japanese cars turn into crap-boxes post 100k miles. Assuming 10k miles/yr, that's expecting a 20-35 yr lifespan for a car. That is incredibly impractical. > Consumer Reports estimates the average EV battery pack's lifespan to be at around 200,000 miles This means that an owner's experience will begin to substantially deteriorate at the 100k+ mile mark. The whole electric cars as a solution for climate change thing is smoke-and-mirrors. The real problem is cars as a whole. If climate change is indeed an existential threat, then funding for public transport, bikes and dense neighborhoods must go up. Electric cars being heavier, lead to (mass squared) faster road wear and road costs. Their quietness, greater acceleration, greater momentum and worse braking distances will only lead to increased accidents. Their range obsession means that EV hatchbacks are simply infeasible, and the move towards trucks and giant cars is proceeding undeterred. I would have loved to see a more tiny-car / ebike driven electric revolution. Hell, we already had electrified transportation : it was called streetcars and trains. I do not particularly like the Ford F150 lightning and Model X version of electric car revolution that we're seeing today. Electric cars are great on paper, but their 2nd order effects will cause more damage than good. That being said, we might see some great moonshot 3rd order effects such as sufficient battery storage technology to counter grid instability due to renewables or the complete removal of domestic gas pipelines in public infrastructure. But, I think the harmful 2nd order effects are more likely to cause issues than the good brought in by electric vehicles and possible moonshot events.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  There are a lot of second-order effects. It is hard to predict all of them, or how large the impact of each will be. In particular, harder work than you probably did. Grid-scale storage will be built out after there is enough renewable generation capacity to charge it from. (Charging storage from NG would be... silly.) In the meantime, any capital available for that should be directed to building out the renewable generation capacity. By the time we need grid storage, it will be radically cheaper than today, same as putting up PV panels is radically cheaper than just a few years ago.
- spiderxxxx 4y ago
  > Most non-japanese cars turn into crap-boxes post 100k miles. Citation needed. >This means that an owner's experience will begin to substantially deteriorate at the 100k+ mile mark. So no different than an ICE, supposedly. However, where the engine might need to be replaced at 100k miles for an ICE, the motor of an electric car is expected to go to at least a million miles before needing replacement. >Electric cars being heavier, lead to (mass squared) faster road wear and road costs. Heavier than what exactly? An average SUV weighs more than an average BEV. >Their quietness, greater acceleration, greater momentum and worse braking distances will only lead to increased accidents. Citation needed. Not everyone floors it all the time just because they can, and with regenerative braking, more people are probably going to be driving slower and coasting to a stop instead of the 'floor it and slam it' of ICE, but we're both just making stuff up at this point. >Their range obsession means that EV hatchbacks are simply infeasible Whose range obsession exactly? many people already own BEV and or hybrids, and they're fine with the range. They're already "feasible". >I do not particularly like the Ford F150 lightning and Model X version of electric car revolution that we're seeing today. Me either, but they're better than those 10/20mpg or less vehicles of the past, it would be nice if people didn't have to haul or tow things, but life is what it is. >2nd order effects will cause more damage than good. again, Citation needed. re: "3rd order effects" https://arpa-e.energy.gov/ https://arpa-e.energy.gov/

KennyBlanken 4y ago

Yup. Volvo is pointing out that the car breaks even within roughly the first lease period of 2-3 years. The average age of a car on the roads in the US is currently four times that. Electric vehicles tend to be more reliable, because of their dramatically simpler powertrains. Plus, every year, more and more energy comes from lower carbon sources. It's really frustrating that dialog on improvements in drivetrain systems is still regularly hampered by the same arguments we saw back when the first generation prius came out. Same with solar. There's always someone shouting about how they "take forever to pay back." Reality: one to three years, and their "lifetime" is 20-30. And "lifetime" means "time until they are producing less than 80% of their nameplate rating", not "time until they are useless."

robomartin 4y ago
> Reality: one to three years, and their "lifetime" is 20-30. No, that’s a fantasy. My 13 kW system will probably take 10 years, maybe more. A good friend of mine, with a similar system as mine but a few years older has already had three (quality, name brand) panels fail (the regulators). Most of my neighbors with the ~4 kW systems they were leasing to people years ago say it was a complete waste of time. Also, have you seen what power companies are doing with rates? Peak electricity is up to $0.65 per kWh. Good luck breaking even if you install solar under these conditions. When I did my system rates were less than half what they are today. I love solar, or I would not have made the investment. However, there’s the reality of solar and the fantasy or dream of solar. Most people don’t understand the realities of the technology and think of it as magical free power. That, it is not. Not even close. I can show you horrible looking power output graphs of what happens when a cloud flies by…which happens a lot. You can easily lose 50% of your output for an hour. And, like my neighbors, if you have a small system, you are getting screwed at $0.65 per kWh.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Most people are paying a lot more than they need to. In particular, Home Depot or Lowes, or typical solar installers, will charge 4x wholesale for a panel. You can get a pallet-load of 400W panels for well under $200 each, now, so 45 for well under $9000, generating up to 18 kW, but rarely less than 5 kW on a winter day. Putting up brackets has become quite cheap. The above does not count electrical work, and (optional) batteries.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Well... Wait, I have a small (5kWp) system, in a region where is reasonable to have it (French south Alps), it pay back at actual (high, artificially IMO, but far lower than non-nuclear neighbor countries) energy prices but with a new home (insulation and equipment) it pay back in around 11.5 years ad current rate. That's because hot water can be entirely made with it ONLY (not all days but most) since I can get hot water normally heating it only once a day or once in two days (big reservoir, heat-pump + classic resistence, Daikin EKHHP to be more precise, cited because it's not on sale anymore substituted with a very similar unit), I can irrigate my garden only on solar, aircon thanks to local climate (fresh at nigh, hot during the day) run almost only on solar etc. Yearly self-consumption is around 50%, this month is around 72%. Surely it's not something universal: - you need to live in an area where solar is interesting, there are many in the world, but normally people do not migrate for that; - you need a new(-ish) home, well insulated, airtight, designed to consume the minimum possible with actual tech etc and that DO have a (far bigger) cost (than p.v. alone); - to maximize self-consumption you need automation, so far NOT that nice&easy since most commercial appliance are hard to integrate and limited, and/or WFH to being able to concentrate energy usage when the Sun shine; - perhaps you need an EV to recharge from the p.v. instead of the grid. Long story short: if you can't satisfy the above requirement p.v. is not that convenient BUT if you can it is, not so exceptionally but still interesting and if coupled with a bit of lithium storage (very HARD to pay back in monetary terms) it might offer protection good enough against blackouts. A thing to be considered these days. The EV for me have the similar purpose NOT for environmental or monetary terms but to ensure the ability to move by car if there are gas shortages around. It's hard to evaluate such guarantee in monetary terms, but it's still a thing to be considered...

screye 4y ago

> I expect my cars to last 300k - 500k KM. Most non-japanese cars turn into crap-boxes post 100k miles. Assuming 10k miles/yr, that's expecting a 20-35 yr lifespan for a car. That is incredibly impractical. > Consumer Reports estimates the average EV battery pack's lifespan to be at around 200,000 miles This means that an owner's experience will begin to substantially deteriorate at the 100k+ mile mark. The whole electric cars as a solution for climate change thing is smoke-and-mirrors. The real problem is cars as a whole. If climate change is indeed an existential threat, then funding for public transport, bikes and dense neighborhoods must go up. Electric cars being heavier, lead to (mass squared) faster road wear and road costs. Their quietness, greater acceleration, greater momentum and worse braking distances will only lead to increased accidents. Their range obsession means that EV hatchbacks are simply infeasible, and the move towards trucks and giant cars is proceeding undeterred. I would have loved to see a more tiny-car / ebike driven electric revolution. Hell, we already had electrified transportation : it was called streetcars and trains. I do not particularly like the Ford F150 lightning and Model X version of electric car revolution that we're seeing today. Electric cars are great on paper, but their 2nd order effects will cause more damage than good. That being said, we might see some great moonshot 3rd order effects such as sufficient battery storage technology to counter grid instability due to renewables or the complete removal of domestic gas pipelines in public infrastructure. But, I think the harmful 2nd order effects are more likely to cause issues than the good brought in by electric vehicles and possible moonshot events.

ncmncm 4y ago
There are a lot of second-order effects. It is hard to predict all of them, or how large the impact of each will be. In particular, harder work than you probably did. Grid-scale storage will be built out after there is enough renewable generation capacity to charge it from. (Charging storage from NG would be... silly.) In the meantime, any capital available for that should be directed to building out the renewable generation capacity. By the time we need grid storage, it will be radically cheaper than today, same as putting up PV panels is radically cheaper than just a few years ago.
spiderxxxx 4y ago
> Most non-japanese cars turn into crap-boxes post 100k miles. Citation needed. >This means that an owner's experience will begin to substantially deteriorate at the 100k+ mile mark. So no different than an ICE, supposedly. However, where the engine might need to be replaced at 100k miles for an ICE, the motor of an electric car is expected to go to at least a million miles before needing replacement. >Electric cars being heavier, lead to (mass squared) faster road wear and road costs. Heavier than what exactly? An average SUV weighs more than an average BEV. >Their quietness, greater acceleration, greater momentum and worse braking distances will only lead to increased accidents. Citation needed. Not everyone floors it all the time just because they can, and with regenerative braking, more people are probably going to be driving slower and coasting to a stop instead of the 'floor it and slam it' of ICE, but we're both just making stuff up at this point. >Their range obsession means that EV hatchbacks are simply infeasible Whose range obsession exactly? many people already own BEV and or hybrids, and they're fine with the range. They're already "feasible". >I do not particularly like the Ford F150 lightning and Model X version of electric car revolution that we're seeing today. Me either, but they're better than those 10/20mpg or less vehicles of the past, it would be nice if people didn't have to haul or tow things, but life is what it is. >2nd order effects will cause more damage than good. again, Citation needed. re: "3rd order effects" https://arpa-e.energy.gov/ https://arpa-e.energy.gov/