23 ms·

Electric vehicles are way more energy-efficient than internal combustion

188 points by bilsbie 4y ago

johnohara 4y ago
I realize this article focuses primarily on comparative energy efficiency, but missing from the discussion is an equally important comparison of powertrain reliability, complexity, performance, and long-term cost of ownership.
- bb88 4y ago
  I have bought two cars new in my life, and held each for ~12 years. The second is on it's 12th year, and still going strong. Also there's really no reason that I won't be able to keep my car another 8 years, making it a 20 year car. If I buy a 60k electric vehicle today, how long will it be until I replace the batteries? 10 years? 20 years? At what point does the maintenance cycle, render the car worthless? Even after 12 years, the Saturn SL1 I had still worked as a car. There would still be maintenance cycles (oil, brakes, etc). But if you took that into the cost of ownership, it's still relatively cheaper than buying a new car.
  - markvdb 4y ago
    > Also there's really no reason that I won't be able to keep my car another 8 years, making it a 20 year car. In northwestern Europe, the reason would be low emission zones. "Sorry, this type of car is not allowed here anymore." is a real thing here.
    - oynqr 4y ago
      In reality I have only seen this happen to old/bad cars with equally bad diesel engines.
      - markvdb 4y ago
        Take Brussels, the EU capital. Euro 4 diesel cars are forbidden there now. Euro 5 became mandatory for new car registrations in 2011 [0]. That means 11 years old cars could still be Euro 4. These are not old or bad cars to a lot of people. Many are not able to afford car mobility anymore due to low emission zone restrictions on these cars. It's easy for the upper middle class or above running society to develop a blind spot for this. "Just buy recent a second hand car or a new Dacia Spring" is not the answer if the money for that is missing. Has enough attention been paid to this social side of the low emissions zones? I'm not so sure. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Em...
      - _ph_ 4y ago
        Paris is going to lock out parts of the city for ICE cars in 24.
        bb88 4y ago
        In the US there are large areas where gas powered vehicles are going to be needed for at least 3 or 4 more decades.
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      Only for diesel cars and only in certain cities and you can still drive there if you pay a fine. It's perfectly reasonable.
    - bb88 4y ago
      Where I live, we have to do emissions testing. And it passed this year. The emissions testing was a result of the 1970s/1980s smog crisis.
  - enraged_camel 4y ago
    In the US, electric vehicle batteries are required by law to be under warranty for 8 years or 100,000 miles. In California, it is 10 years and 150,000 miles.
    - bb88 4y ago
      If the average ownership of a car is 12 years, that doesn't help for the next owner.
  - jeffrallen 4y ago
    Renault has found, to it's surprise, I guess, that 10 year old Zoes are keeping minimum 85% battery capacity. The BMS babies the batteries. Forget what you think you know about LiPo from laptops and cellphones. For example: you can't get a Zoe without A/C. Why not? Because the battery is air cooled, by the A/C. If there is capacity left over AFTER ensuring the battery is comfortable, it is shared with the human occupants. :)
  - sgt101 4y ago
    How many components have you replaced on the Saturn? If you put 200k and 20 years on it then I am guessing you will need two new clutches, at least one pump and a bunch of sundries. Tyre wear can be heavy in EV's if you put your foot down a lot, brake wear is a lot lighter. At about 200k the battery may well go - but at 200k you can expect something major in your ICE drive chain to go. A new gearbox can set you back $6k - that's pretty similar to the cost of a tesla battery replacement.
    - bb88 4y ago
      These are what I can recall on the top of my head. Starter $800 (on warranty). AC $400. Transmission service $1500 at 70k. Coolant flush $400. 2 set of brake pads @ $400 a piece. Timing belt $200. Battery $100. Oil changes at $30 every 3k miles. Lets call it $1k total. Cabin Air filter change every 15k miles $20 Bottom heat shield $100 Shocks @100k miles $250 Sundries sure, but spread out over time.
  - jillesvangurp 4y ago
    Most ICE cars that age are either falling apart or long retired to the junk yard. They get nowhere near the fuel economy they might have had when they left the factory. Also, cumulatively the amount of maintenance, parts, and hours tinkering with the vehicle adds up. A battery replacement is an economical choice for an EV. You could buy a new vehicle or buy a life extension of another decade plus. That's how long the battery lasts and there's very little else in the vehicle that is very likely to start falling apart. Electrical engines last a long time. Drive trains are much simpler. And parts for that are relatively cheap. So even if the engine were to fail, replacing it would be pretty straightforward and cheap probably. E.g. a Nissan Leaf battery replacement will set you back around 7000 dollars. A lot of money for sure. But it will last quite long and when there's really nothing else wrong with the vehicle, it's a perfectly rational decision to make. Lots of original Nissan Leafs from 12 years ago are still driving around and quite a few will survive into their second and third decade. As it is one of the older EV models available, that's a great benchmark. We're talking first generation technology. The batteries and drive train were more primitive. Cooling and battery management were not a thing yet. Etc. Just great little vehicles. And a 7K battery doubles their original range (from 20kwh to 40kwh).
    - bb88 4y ago
      > E.g. a Nissan Leaf battery replacement will set you back around 7000 dollars. A lot of money for sure. But it will last quite long and when there's really nothing else wrong with the vehicle, it's a perfectly rational decision to make. Lots of original Nissan Leafs from 12 years ago are still driving around and quite a few will survive into their second and third decade. This is better than Tesla which charges $12-20k + labor + parts to change the battery pack. But $7k is still a big chunk of change. That will set a price cliff on the car. Basically if it is worth $13k, but you're going to need a battery change in the next year, the true price of the car will be worth $6k on the market. Cars that are less than $7k become effectively worthless as the new buyer will be guaranteed to have to replace the battery pack on them. This happens with home sales. Like if a house needs a new roof, the buyers will ask the home owners to discount the price of the new roof off the house. https://www.way.com/blog/tesla-battery-replacement-cost/ https://www.way.com/blog/tesla-battery-replacement-cost/
  - clysm 4y ago
    > the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that today’s batteries may last 12 to 15 years in moderate climates (8 to 12 years in extreme climates). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62813.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62813.pdf
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      "Today" being 2014 for this particular source. I wonder if we have any newer information that doesn't rely on predictions?
- djaychela 4y ago
  On all those areas, an EV is better. Modern ICE vehicles are hugely complex because its they only way they can meet emissions targets. EV power trains are much simpler in comparison, and electronics are much more reliable. Batteries are not the issue that the naysayers say they are - lasting much longer than an ICE engine (which usually die around the 250k mile mark) , and at similar replacement cost at that point. And in the meantime you've saved hugely on servicing and maintenance costs - youd have changed the clutch and DMF at least twice by then, something that people like to leave out when they say "what about my iPhone battery, that dies in months".
  - artificialLimbs 4y ago
    Would like to know where you get those numbers. I just changed the clutch in my 2010 Toyota Yaris at 260,000 miles and it’s the first repair I’ve ever done on the car.
    - sgt101 4y ago
      You have been very lucky. Many years of buying cheap used cars taught me that clutches tend to last less than 90k miles when driven by normal people. In addition you can expect at least one of the pumps on an ICE to fail in less than 100k and there is a small risk of an electrical component like the alternator going as well.
    - djaychela 4y ago
      I've owned maybe 150 cars (personal ownership plus buying and selling). 100k miles is the usual point. Ive never owned one that had made it past 150k without needing a clutch. Many much sooner (town use only cars, maybe 50k?). Dual mass flywheels are always changed at the same time due to labour costs. A friend has a 2013 T5 van that needed it doing at 50k, bill was £1300. He never loads the van up (it's a people carrier really), and has done some long road trips as well. Id suspect you do lots of highway miles with no gear changes (hence no clutch wear). Manufacturers now aim for ideal 150K life on a clutch, but that's aspirational, not the median by any means.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  The article is nonsense. It magically claims that regenerative braking makes up for losses from friction and heat. There's no way 87-91% efficiency can be achieved when 10% is lost just charging the car.
  - jeffrallen 4y ago
    Bringing a car to a halt without regen uses only friction brakes. Bringing it to a halt with regen uses some regen and some friction. Both cars always have friction loss from rolling friction and drag. What's not to understand about such a simple comparison?
    - mlindner 4y ago
      > Bringing it to a halt with regen uses some regen and some friction. To clarify, most EV cars use only regen braking until either the pedal is pressed (Tesla regens automatically by letting off the accelerator) or when the pedal is pressed hard (most other EVs).
      - varjag 4y ago
        I owned 3 different makes of EVs, this is incorrect for all three. On a Nissan Leaf, mild regenerative is always engaged in Eco mode unless you touch gas. Otherwise when you put on the brake it's regenerative + extra braking with pads if necessary. On BMW i3 it brakes regeneratively once you slip the gas. If you use the brake pedal hard it's still regen + pads. On VW id.4 it's quite like on the Leaf. On all three it's pads only braking only when the battery is fully charged.
        mlindner 4y ago
        > On all three it's pads only braking only when the battery is fully charged. So they don't encourage only charging to 90% like on Tesla to maintain good braking action?
        4y ago
- princeb 4y ago
  > cost of ownership some of the cars that i've seen have EV equivalents that are so significantly more costly that the gas savings only start to work out at around 1.25-2x the average driving distance of a personal vehicle owner. it makes no sense for example for me to replace my glc300 with a eqc. and if you don't drive at least 10k miles/yr, the kona electric is more expensive than the kona ice. a lot of discussions revolve around downgrading from an expensive ice to a cheap ev to make the cost work but that seems a bit disingenuous. of course getting a cheaper car is cheaper. when we do like-for-like, a lot of the advantages disappear.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Cost efficiency is where the money is. Quite literally. Miles per $ is the metric you need to apply to transport. You can fold the life time cost of the vehicle into that metric as well. All the interest, maintenance, inspections, etc. In short, that's why a lot of commercial fleets are transitioning to electric. Dollar per mile is the only relevant metric there. ICE vehicle technology is basically going obsolete rapidly. Commercially, that game is over. And the gap is widening every year. We've had a period where the tax incentives were important, helpful and necessary. But that is increasingly just a nice to have thing. Fundamentally, it's not technically hard to build much lighter and efficient electrical vehicles. So, if the current ones are cost effective now, imagine how much more cost effective they could be.
  - dreamcompiler 4y ago
    This. At $5 per gallon, my 30 mpg ICE car can go 6 miles on $1. My Tesla can go 4 miles with 10 cents worth (1 kWh) of electricity, or 40 miles per $1. Obviously there can be mitigating factors, but even if you drive a 50 MPG ICE car, or your electricity is unusually expensive, or you drive your Tesla at 85 mph and only get 2 miles per kWh, it's still no contest.
    - jillesvangurp 4y ago
      The kicker is what happens if you get your kwh at the expense of a one time investment in solar and batteries. The grid or fast charging rate is the worst case in terms of pricing. You can actually charge smarter way cheaper than that. Many fast charging setups essentially only rely on the grid to top off the batteries if solar is not providing enough energy. Basically, if you charge using solar panels that you own, the miles per dollar is a function of maintenance, and purchase cost of the vehicle and panels. The efficiency of the panels or vehicles are not a factor at all since the variable cost is 0$/mile. You only have variable cost when you charge the vehicle somewhere else. The non variable cost is basically the ownership of the vehicle and panels. Which you might simplify via e.g. leasing constructions.
dgan 4y ago
Can we finally promote electric vehicles that don't weight +1000kg, and as aerodynamic as a brick? There is no way this is sustainable. We need something like vélomobiles
- fastball 4y ago
  Weight is partially related to the fact that our existing battery chemistries are relatively heavy. Also not sure why you think electric vehicles are not aerodynamic – the Tesla Model S Plaid has a drag coefficient of 0.208.
  - ianai 4y ago
    https://aptera.us/ https://aptera.us/ .13 but I really need to drive around fewer behemoths to feel safe in it. Maybe a 4 wheel will make up for it?
    - fastball 4y ago
      Yeah I was gonna mention that one as well but didn't because AFAIK it's not really in production yet. Regardless, the lowest drag coeff cars in the world seem to be electric ones so GC's point is still... strange.
  - hot_gril 4y ago
    Yeah, the more avoidable weight is the SUVs.
- cjrp 4y ago
  Absolutely. BMW, for example, have built really heavy EV SUVs and then slapped on huge batteries in order to get the 300+ mile range people expect. Miles per kWh is the metric cars should be optimising for, not just absolute range.
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  This. But the problem is regulatory. China already has a number of under $5000 city cars that are perfectly fine for driving around. Problem is that they're completely illegal in Europe or US. We utterly need a category of city vehicles that are barred from highways, can be driven in cities, and lack 90% of all the newer and ridiculously expensive safety features. We're moving in a direction where new cars are mandated to read the speed limits indicators and follow them. Honestly I'm hoping this particular piece of news is bunk, but it definitely wouldn't surprise me - regulators love regulations, car manufacturers love having extra features to sell, and it's fool-proof protection against cheaper alternatives. A city car needs safety belts, and a built in speed limit. That's it.
arkit3kt 4y ago
Like most of these puff pieces, the destructive mining and limited volume of all the precious metals like copper, lithium & nickel are ignored. Until iron-sulphide can effectively produce the same results, it's still trading rats for snakes. Then there's the whole tire problem...
- herghost 4y ago
  Yeah but we risk “perfect” being the enemy of “progress” if we think that way, and people invested in the status quo will surely co-opt and fund this thinking too.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    Usually the pursuit of perfection is FUD. In my area, a local republican committee is very concerned about the fate of bunny rabbits, birds of prey and riverbank erosion. Amazing and inspirational, except the catalyst is that a bunch of land was cleared to build a factory, in an polluted industrial park, to manufacture wind turbine components. Even though said turbines will be installed ~200 miles away, windmills attract a lot of ire in some circles.
    - elcritch 4y ago
      Yah its a bummer when "tribalism" wins out over consistent ideals (e.g. the pro-business and US manufacturing party suddenly dislikes those things).
- cantaloupe 4y ago
  An article is not a puff piece simply because it casts something in a good light. This article is largely a transcription of the images from the linked report, and also addresses a common counter argument, “the power plants are dirty”. Batteries as energy storage/source are a related but entirely separate concern from the ratio of energy in to energy out (the focus of the article). I also find it interesting to replace “precious metals” in your comment with “fossil fuels”, which also require destructive mining and have limited volume.
- 4y ago
rightbyte 4y ago
Essentially like if every car was a ICE BEV hybrid, but the ICE in some power plant somewhere. The reving and idling or low power output of the ICE can be avoided if it is in some power plant somewhere.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Except building mild hybrids to avoid that problem might be more efficient than us building the mass production of lithium metals needed to make mass BEVs. If we are battery constrained today, we need to consider the most efficient use of our limited battery supply. Start/stop idle technology is much cheaper than 1000lbs of lithium batteries in each vehicle. ---------- It looks like the most efficient solution involves like 50lbs of batteries, rather than the gross 1000+lbs of batteries that BEV fans want to use per car.
  - kiba 4y ago
    Or just use more trains and streetcars.
    - landemva 4y ago
      Like Berlin and Munich and Prague and Düsseldorf and Warsaw and Amsterdam and The Hague. I lived there, without a car. I rented a few times when not on train or flight out of town. It's not for every city, though switch out trams for busses (Stockholm) and it could work in many places.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Yes, and you have to go even further and more general. The solution is actually urbanism. You can't just build trains and hope everything is gone be fine. Living in low or high density urban environments is far more efficient in pretty much every single way that we can measure. CO2, energy, land use, water use and so on, and not just by a little but by a huge margin. Transport can be electrified trains, trams, trolly buses, metros. This uses very few battery materials and essentially no new technology. All technology read to deploy in large numbers. This would also 'solve' the housing crisis as increasing density around transportation with mixed use is what leads to much cheaper living cost (housing and transportation need to be seen together). This talk by famous City Planner Peter Calthorpe is really good and goes into detail. He and his teams were charged with making a few projection plans for California and have really good numbers on all of these things (except the nuclear I mentioned): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUtdFbK4YG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUtdFbK4YG4 He has other great talks about his work in China as well, this is a bit more academic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqldZhxl86I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqldZhxl86I
blumomo 4y ago
The electric vehicles may be more energy efficient once they are ready for driving. But actually building all its parts not only consumes way more energy compared to combustion cars. It also needs rare earth metals which are mined by workers living the life of slaves.
- epups 4y ago
  Right... As opposed to oil, which is mostly sourced from free democracies right?
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    I've been running my car on E85 all year, US sourced ethanol. But yes, US gasoline is also sourced from the US primarily. (Texas and Alaska). With a terminal at Brent / Arkansas.
    - benj111 4y ago
      And what's the oil input required to produce that ethanol?
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        Oil? None. Natural Gas? A bit, for corn-based ethanol (the Nitrogen fertilizers used to make modern corn fields requires a surprisingly large amount of energy, of which is primarily given through Natural Gas IIRC). Various calculations I've seen however, suggests that Ethanol uses less greenhouse gasses than say Electric vehicles (since most of our power grid is still coal / natural gas based). Aside from that one guy who keeps making anti-ethanol research papers for the last 15 years. The bulk of energy going into corn is the sun, all natural solar energy. A bit of it is hacked together with Nitrogen fertilizers that must be accounted for, but still better than other methodologies. The other major greenhouse gas issue is the greenhouse gas costs of converting forested land into farmland, and this seems to be the biggest area of debate. ------------ Bonus points: Switchgrass based ethanol uses no fertilizers, meaning its 100% green. Since Switchgrass grows naturally in the US Fields (unlike Corn, which is a domesticated crop), Switchgrass is arguably better for the environment (or at least, more "natural"). The lack of fertilizers needed for it to grow is proof to how its a plant designed for our geography. So Switchgrass solves the fertilizer and land-conversion issues.
jtlienwis 4y ago
- bergenty 4y ago
  That’s really, really reaching. An ICE Camry weighs 3500lbs, a Model 3 weighs 4000lbs. You’re not even right.
  - curioushacking 4y ago
    I need to check again, but from my understanding the damage is exponential based on the vehicle weight, but also that real road damage is functionally nothing until you get to very large heavy vehicles
    - jtlienwis 4y ago
      (4000/3500)^4 = 1.70 so that 70% more road damage with a fleet of EVs. I don't know how high Vehicle Registration is in your state, and Fuel Tax, but it does add up to a surprising amount that mostly goes into rebuilding highway infrastructure. So it does need to be accounted for. Our transportation highway network is a system. ]
      - mperham 4y ago
        You’re assuming that most road damage comes from passenger cars. In fact most road damage comes from large semis weighing 20,000+ pounds. The worst roads are almost always freight corrridors
      - bergenty 4y ago
        I was wrong the Model 3 also weighs 3500lbs. With your thinking we shouldn’t have any trucks or pickups on the road. The Ford F-150 is the most selling vehicle of all time and it’s massive.
  - Andys 4y ago
    > The single motor Model 3 Standard Range Plus is the second-lightest Tesla ever at 3,582 lbs.
maxekman 4y ago
Really good diagrams illustrating where the energy is used.
- bsder 4y ago
  And, as, always, glosses over the fact that even if EVs are simply just equivalent to ICE vehicles, moving a million point sources of pollution (cars) to a small number of single point sources (power plants) makes the pollution problem much easier to solve and improves the air quality in cities dramatically. One number I challenge, though, is "0-4% for auxiliary use". My AC on an EV looks to be closer to 15% of cruising energy in a hot clime, and I know that my ICE cars always had a significant drop in MPG when I ran the AC, too. In addition, heating is "free" in an ICE car while it's probably a similar 15% in an EV car.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    I wonder if there are any EVs that combine the battery cooling system with the heater! There is still some waste heat in an EV though I don’t know if it’s being well utilized yet.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      In buses, the problem is so severe that there are some EV buses shipping with fossil fuel heat for cold climates.
      - cplusplusfellow 4y ago
        And those climates scoff at those of us in Texas and Arizona for needing air conditioning to survive.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Tesla already does that, all heat and cooling are in one system. Even the first Model 3 had a system for that. They do this with the Octovalve and a highly efficient (Tesla designed) heat-pump.
LinuxBender 4y ago
Semi-off-topic question: Have any government offices started programs to put out of work coal miners back to work mining the materials required for EV batteries and maybe also solar panels? In the off-chance that there is a blockade in China some countries may have to start mining these materials themselves.
- russdill 4y ago
  ... that's not how mining works. You don't get to just pick what comes out of the ground in a certain region.
  - earleybird 4y ago
    Not even in Minecraft :-)
  - lightedman 4y ago
    I use satellites all the time to isolate specific mineral beds for mining. You can just-about 'just pick' what comes out of the ground when it comes to certain things. I look almost exclusively for agates. ASTER has spectral data exactly geared to that, LANDSAT 7 can get you semi-close if you know your terrain type. I'm 100% successful at every location. I'm almost ready to start using them for Uranium before they get decom'd. I've trained myself on 7 years of this satellite data.
    - mlindner 4y ago
      Satellites don't let you see under the ground.
      - lightedman 4y ago
        I don't need to see under the ground, I just need to pinpoint specific IR spectral emission/absorption lines on the surface via satellite, and dig there.
        4y ago
amelius 4y ago
22% recapture depends on where/how you drive. I suppose when cruising on a highway (without much braking), it will be closer to 0%.
- kumarvvr 4y ago
  That is true for a good flat one. On one that curves and bends up and down, it is possible to capture back some energy, though, you do have to spend the energy required to go from point A to point B.
- dangrossman 4y ago
  If any segments of the highway drive are downhill, you'll recapture some energy even on cruise at constant speed.
  - amelius 4y ago
    True.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    It has to be a quite noticeable downhill for a car to net pick up energy at highway speed. Small downhills still require positive power consumption (to overcome rolling and aerodynamic drag). Obviously, there’s a point at which a downslope will offer regen, but these are the slopes where a manual transmission car would pickup speed if placed into neutral.
    - djaychela 4y ago
      That's not my experience in my renault zoe. Often on almost imperceptible downhill slopes it will be at zero consumption, and there have been many areas where I can't back off the throttle in my ice vehicles where the zoe will be regenning.
georgia_peach 4y ago
This is a rip-off of freelancer Karin Kirk's original article[0] on Yale Climate Connections. Her primary sources in that article are federal agency websites[1-4] and address the points of mass energy production & vehicle consumption by type. And going solely by that math, it's a slam-dunk. The problem--same as with any other modern system--is that there are far more variables to consider to arrive at total system-wide costs, many of these are "trust me" trade secrets of various manufacturers, and the feds themselves (thanks to regulatory capture) have also been known to fudge numbers in the favor of one private interest over another, so even those numbers aren't above cross-examination. This is not a pro or anti EV post as much as a humility one. I see a bunch of web developers nerd-sniping each other over personal recollections of industry PR (everthing in the media, pro or con, is somebody's PR, BTW). Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. TCO is going to be a fairly good approximation of overall system-wide efficiency. Companies can only loss-lead for so long before going bankrupt, and they can only externalize costs for so long before being sued into oblivion. If EVs truly are this superior, nothing is going to stop them. [0]https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-tran... [1]https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml [2]https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=9&f=A&s=0&start=2010&end=2023&map=&linechart=~MGTCPUSX&ctype=linechart&maptype=0&id= https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=9&f=A&s=... [3]https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=107&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=107&t=3 [4]https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html
userbinator 4y ago
...and way more boring.
- ganbatekudasai 4y ago
  You're downvoted, but I agree with you. EVs are so much more boring than the highly evolved, intricate design of ICEs. I marvel at the general principle, at what engineers continuously came up with to squeeze ever more out of them, even at such "simple" things as stroke order and cylinder configuration (V, inline...). That won't change the fact that EVs are and should be on the way out. All the engineering of the world has not made them come close to the relative (really just relative) simplicity of EVs. I also like ancient phone networks, CRTs, and mechanical calculators. And preserving small numbers of them as artifacts is invaluable, but only with a small number of enthusiasts or in a museum. There are a few Ford Model T still around...
  - ganbatekudasai 4y ago
    Let me make clear actually: I really think EVs are much more boring. To drive and to study. A part of my mind is sad that they are a dead end. But me nerding out about their engineering is not worth keeping them.
    - mlindner 4y ago
      There's more to nerd out about with EVs than ICEs in my experience. It's just requires a different kind of nerd.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    > EVs are so much more boring than the highly evolved, intricate design of ICEs. I marvel at the general principle, at what engineers continuously came up with to squeeze ever more out of them, even at such "simple" things as stroke order and cylinder configuration (V, inline...). EV powertrains aren't "simple" and are in fact "intricate", honestly to a higher level than ICEs. Even the motor itself is complex. But honestly, complexity is a bad thing. It means there's more things that can fail.
rr808 4y ago
I doesn't often say that CO2 emissions for a new EV are higher than an ICE. After 10-20k miles you're just breaking even. Over the life of the vehicle the EV does have fewer emissions but it isn't a huge difference. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifeti...
- schimmy_changa 4y ago
  I don't want to feed the trolls, but this requires a response as it is highly misleading. Cars last 100k+ miles now, and that 13k break-even number in your link is with the current US energy mix, which is rapidly decarbonizing. It is a big deal, and worth moving to EVs.
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    Both articles should simply state the lifetime carbon footprint of ICE cars and EVs. That is all that matters in this context - break even mileage and energy efficiency are secondary concerns.
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      GP’s point though is that the footprint of EVs is constantly changing. ICE cars can only ever work by burning fossil fuels, which inevitably results in a certain amount of emissions per gallon of gas burned. That’s not the case for EVs as the electricity needed for them can be generated in many different ways, some resulting in more emissions than others.
      - curmudgeon22 4y ago
        I wonder how much the footprint for ICE changes based on where the crude was sourced from, eg: - traditional well in the US - fracking in the US - offshore - Canadian tarsands Edit: This article has some interesting information on Energy Return on Investment (EROI) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
throwaway787544 4y ago
More energy efficient and also much slower to charge with a shorter range. Nothing we haven't known for 150 years. The reason we have had ICE vehicles for so long comes down to those two things.
- oplaadpunt 4y ago
  Altough the slow charging is changing. Newer models can use DC charging at 350kW, which should increase to 500kW in the future. This is unpracticle at every home, but it should lower highway stops to 5-10 minutes, which isn't significantly longer then with gas currently.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
What I don't understand is how we didn't have these efficiency numbers in terms of kwatts/mile with an ICE/EV hybrid drivetrain, and why we haven't had them for decades already. Why aren't hybrid drivetrains in Semis, RVs ... everything. Within 5 years of the Prius there should have been legislation mandating PHEVs for practically all consumer transport. With a hybrid you can run an engine in the Atkinson cycle which (apparently) enables diesel-level mileage out of gasoline. You get the regen braking that dramatically improves city driving. Every five years after the Prius is another travesty that we didn't have this legislation coming down the pipe. By now in 2022, 25 years after the Prius and Insight, we should have had 50% or more of new cars being PHEV hybrids with 50+ mile all-electric range. It would have brought Russia to its knees, the Saudis would be an afterthought in policy, and we'd be so much more resilient. And hybrids in addition to atkinson should enable other tricks for efficiency gains besides carnot output to reclaim heat from the engine and exhaust, like turbochargers do. Gas turbines at the utlity scale are at 60% efficiency. Oh well.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > By now in 2022, 25 years after the Prius and Insight, we should have had 50% or more of new cars being PHEV hybrids with 50+ mile all-electric range. The problem with PHEVs is that so many people never plug them in, unless the automaker does something to them like with the BMW i3 REx, in which case said people wouldn't want them.
  - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    This is education and habits. And when gas is at $5.00, an economic incentive.
    - pornel 4y ago
      It's also a practical difficulty. Small batteries in PHEV mean they charge slowly (makes public chargers less useful, EV road trips impossible). Their tiny EV range requires them to be charged daily, which makes at-home charging a necessity in practice. But having such a good access to charging is also a thing that makes BEVs convenient. From this perspective PHEV a poorly-performing BEV with a baggage that reduces its performance, range, and efficiency, and occasionally is a less-efficient ICE to potentially save 20 minutes of time after 2-3 hours of driving at highway speeds.
WalterBright 4y ago
The EV chart doesn't add up. 10% charging loss, 87-91% goes to the wheels? No other losses?
- dabinat 4y ago
  Not all the energy to power the car comes from charging. Some is generated from regenerative braking.
  - dawnerd 4y ago
    The chart even shows this.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      I know. The chart is wrong. The entire conclusion of the article is based on bad math in the chart. Losses due to friction, drag, and heat are NOT magically made up for with regenerative braking.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Um, all the energy recovered by regenerative braking was initially supplied by the charging input, which loses 10%. The overall efficiency simply cannot be 90%.
    - smt88 4y ago
      > all the energy recovered by regenerative braking was initially supplied by the charging input You're forgetting about gravity. People brake when traveling downhill, which is essentially using gravity to charge the battery (similar to hydroelectric energy).
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Do you drive downhill both ways to and from school?
    - 4y ago
seiferteric 4y ago
Well they better be since they typically only have the energy equivalent of about 1-1.5 gallons of gas in the batteries.
olivermarks 4y ago
This Motor Trend article is a weak regurgitation of Karin Kirk's 'Yale Climate connections' promo blog for green energy, which uses US government's https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml claims. There are a lot of very confident claims here but little substantiation other than academic postulations. ' The final loss of energy is from auxiliary electrical components like heated seats, lights, the audio system, and windshield wipers. Taken together, these accessories can consume up to 2% of the vehicle’s total energy intake.' Ironically the complete reliance in BEVs to run accessories off their batteries is one of the major reasons battery life is so poor. This sort of of vague proselytizing isn't helpful and arguably misrepresents BEV and to a lesser extent hybrid maturity IMO.
- sgt101 4y ago
  >major reasons battery life is so poor. I thought that we were seeing batteries retain 75% performance past 250k miles?
  - olivermarks 4y ago
    I was discussing live battery drain in BEVs, which rely on running all accessories off them.
vimwizard 4y ago
Is Tesla still the only fully electric manufacture worth buying? If it is, all this legislation and subsidization are creating a monopoly. Also I'd rather not have a vehicle that can be software locked, so I'll continue to buy old used cars until I can just get a fully electric car that isn't connected to the internet.
- ageitgey 4y ago
  It's really changing this year and Tesla is losing market share to the competition (though the market itself is growing). The competition has finally stepped up. Buyers are opting for other excellent cars like the Kia EV6, the VW ID.3/ID.4/ID.5, the Hyundai Ioniq 5, the Mercedes-Benz EQC, the Polestar 2 and the BMW iX. The number of excellent options is rapidly multiplying, which is good for everyone.
  - helf 4y ago
    Which is great. Some really nice ones coming out. I might be up for giving up my Volt in 15 years lol. I refuse to even consider a Tesla for a host of reasons but I'm keeping an eye on the other options.
occz 4y ago
And in turn, trains are far more energy efficient than all kinds of cars. Trains are subsequently beaten by both electric and non-electric bicycles, which are the most energy efficient mode of transport currently known to man. While phasing out ICEs entirely is clearly an urgent necessity, it would be wise to invest in a world where we move more towards these superior modes of transportation, instead of going for EVs, which are a slight improvement, but not at all as big of an improvement as we could realize with trains and bicycles.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  We’re not going to replace cars with trains in the timescales necessary to deal with climate change, even if we could convince everyone to upend their lifestyle. It just isn’t going to happen.
  - hot_gril 4y ago
    Yeah, would basically require demolishing most cities and rebuilding them around the train lines. Moving non-physical jobs to home has more potential.
    - occz 4y ago
      Cities were demolished to accommodate cars in the past, I see no reason why such a retrofit would be impossible in the other direction. There is some potential in reduction by moving jobs to WFH when possible, but this is not mutually exclusive with migrating to energy efficient means of transportation and urban development. Hence, I don't think it's relevant in the discussion.
      - hot_gril 4y ago
        In what way were they demolished? Cars allow for urban sprawl. People now have homes in places where they rely on cars to get to work. I also have a theory that widespread WFH makes dense cities obsolete. Dense cities seem to originate from big money appearing somewhere and everyone building around it, eventually reaching the typical situation where the highest-paid can afford to live there and everyone else commutes in and out. If the housing, roads, or public transit are expanded, more people come and saturate them again, because the commute is worth the pay. (If it's just roads, such commutes are super polluting.) But when the execs and higher-paid workers don't need to be there in person, it dominoes. There's no extra money to be made providing physical goods/services in that area, and no incentive for such a forced commute or crammed living quarters. Physical laborers end up working locally, and more isolated, less dense, lower-income but lower-cost-of-living cities form. I used to work in SF and observe these things closely, and now I'm watching what happens as many of the techies leave.
verisimi 4y ago
- krona 4y ago
  You appear to be climate hesitant. We are simply following the science.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    Re science, I did say: > Can we even be cognisant of the facts, or are even scientific institutions bent to political ends? Which of these parties - corporate, governmental, military - that sponsor research is the one that is interested in truth, rather than control and power? ... which is akin to religions of the past. I would say I'm 'climate alarmism hesitant' or 'governance narrative hesitant'. I don't trust the honesty of our institutions to act in a way that is beneficial for people, as opposed to gaining more power and control for themselves. From an anti-statist position, I think I can look at the provided narrative from a different perspective, without the heat or panic. I suggest to you the narrative is non-sensical and that you have no personal experience to support it. And that it should be ignored.
    - _ph_ 4y ago
      You are spreading misinformation. The nice thing about science is, that it is based on reviewable parts. It is "open source", if you want to look at it that way. Yes, there are always single actors, which might have an agenda and some parts of science are in active discussions. But most parts of science are not. So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. Feel free to demonstrate the opposite in an experiment. You don't? A good decision! The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. Arrhenius did the first calculations in the 19th century. This is very basic science, verified by experiments and observations over and over again. So why are you claiming it isn't? If you are into conspiration theories, try this: The oil industry is the richest. If there were any scientific evidence showing that humans with their CO2 emissions are not responsible for climate change or that climate change itself didn't exist, why wouldn't the oil industry finance research in this domain? A scientist, who could prove that could make millions if not billions. Yet there isn't any of those. Actually, it is on record that the scientists of Exxon in the late 70ies did correctly predict the global warming we experienced in the last 50 years. Because, well, the science is pretty simple and clear.
cbmuser 4y ago
Yes, but electric cars need electricity which has to be generated from primary energy sources like coal, oil and uranium while combustion engine cars directly burn gasoline which is a primary energy source. Thus, when you are comparing the efficiency of electric cars with combustion engine cars, you have to take into account the efficiency of the electricity generation process.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  And the amount of energy needed to get the raw oil, distill and distribute the gasoline. Not to mentioni that electric cars are ideal to be powered by renewables, as they bring a great storage with them. In Germany, you need about 10 solar panels to provide enough energy for powering the car.
- pornel 4y ago
  ICE engines convert less than 40% of gasoline's energy into movement, and the rest is lost as heat. This inefficiency is unfixable: the waste heat can't be avoided in a combustion engine. In cars there isn't enough space and carrying capacity for a steam turbine that could make a good use of the heat. In a stationary power plant, there is. Stationary power plants are incredibly efficient, to the point that burning gasoline and transmitting electricity to an EV is still way more efficient than burning gasoline in a car. You may be mixing up things with natural gas used for heating. Fuel -> heat is most efficient at the destination. But ICE cars don't run on heat, they radiate it away as waste.
- clysm 4y ago
  Well-to-wheels, EVs are better in any energy mix. https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html Getting cars on electricity also centralizes the problem of emission control and improvements.
csours 4y ago
Its natural and easy to find the bad parts of a new solution. EVs are not perfect. EVs definitely have problems. There are better solutions if you maximize for energy efficiency. People didn't buy ICE cars to be energy efficient, and they won't buy EVs to be energy efficient. They buy them because having a car is an integral part of a certain lifestyle. That lifestyle may not be equitable or sustainable; handling that problem is a different challenge. - but - We lack an intimate and personal understanding of the byproducts of ICE cars. We use a liquid fuel that we rarely actually see. The emissions are almost completely in gas form that we don't see. You don't have to "unload" bricks of CO2 and particulate from your vehicle. But imagine what it would be like if you did. Imagine if CO2 was sludge that you had to handle. For every 10 gallons of gas you put into a car (approximately 70 pounds) you would have to unload approximately 200 pounds of CO2 (not counting water or other byproducts). You would have to find a place to put that. Do you drop it off at the filling station? What do they do with it? How many trips would you have to make to unload it? A 5 gallon bucket of water weighs about 40 pounds, if our sludge had that density, it would be 5 of those 5 gallon buckets. Many people struggle to carry a 5 gallon bucket (not you dear reader, other weaker people). I don't think CO2 is actually toxic sludge, this is a mental exercise. I do think CO2 is a pollutant. I think if we had to personally and physically deal with CO2, no one would bitch about the minerals used in EV production.
- danuker 4y ago
  > I don't think CO2 is actually toxic sludge Judging by the fact that so far, we've been on the worst trajectory considered by the IPCC [1], CO2 has a good chance of ending humankind within a century. That is not directly "toxic", but it is dangerous. [1] - https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2007117117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2007117117
  - csours 4y ago
    I think the nuance is important here. If CO2 was toxic we would have handled it already. Obviously CO2 is an asphyxiant, but so is nitrogen and that's 70% of our atmosphere. No one complains about atmospheric nitrogen. Our bodies handle CO2 continuously as a product of metabolism. I view CO2 like I view processed sugar - if you have an energy deficit or energy balance, it's probably fine in small amounts; if you have a surplus, it's not ok. I've been thinking about the industrial miracles of the 19th and 20th century. Steel, Aluminum, Concrete, Gasoline, Natural Gas, Plastic, Glass, Integrated Circuits, Artificial Fertilizers, Air Conditioning, Automobiles. If you only look at the positive side, all of these are truly miraculous - they've provided humanity with incredible increases in productivity and happiness. They've let people live longer and in less hospitable places. They've supported a higher population level than people expected was possible. But those miracles have terrible side effects. I won't list them, it's too depressing.
irthomasthomas 4y ago
Only if you ignore manufacturing and battery replacement. "The emissions from Materials production and refining of the ICE are roughly 40 per cent less than for the BEV" https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/project/contentplatform/data/media/my23/xc40-electric-light/volvo-cars-LCA-report-xc40.pdf https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/project/contentpl...
- clysm 4y ago
  A BEV makes up the manufacturing emission difference usually within the first year of operation. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth5 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myt... https://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/29/electric-vs-gas-emissions-lifetime-break-even-point/ https://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/29/electric-vs-gas-emission...
- DoughnutHole 4y ago
  First - this article is entirely about engine vs motor efficiency (ie what percentage of energy used is actually converted to forward momentum). Second - your own source concluded that the studied BEV has lower lifetime emissions (including manufacturing) than the studied ICE car, albeit with a high uncertainty - they estimate that the the BEV has 27-54 tonnes of emmissions vs 58 tonnes for the ICE, or 47-93% of the ICE's lifetime emmissions.
Elizabeth0147 4y ago
tibbydudeza 4y ago
Energy density of gasoline > latest battery tech Really don't see the arguments when the bulk of electricity generation in the world comes from burning fossil fuels - EV's are just feel good measure for people like eating packaged food does not remind you of the abattoirs.
- msmenardi 4y ago
  Just because we currently burn fossil fuels in power plants (which are much more efficient than internal combustion engines btw) doesn't mean we always have to. Besides, development of electric vehicles increases development of battery technology, which is necessary for long-term sustainable energy generation.

188 points by bilsbie 4y ago

I realize this article focuses primarily on comparative energy efficiency, but missing from the discussion is an equally important comparison of powertrain reliability, complexity, performance, and long-term cost of ownership.

bb88 4y ago
I have bought two cars new in my life, and held each for ~12 years. The second is on it's 12th year, and still going strong. Also there's really no reason that I won't be able to keep my car another 8 years, making it a 20 year car. If I buy a 60k electric vehicle today, how long will it be until I replace the batteries? 10 years? 20 years? At what point does the maintenance cycle, render the car worthless? Even after 12 years, the Saturn SL1 I had still worked as a car. There would still be maintenance cycles (oil, brakes, etc). But if you took that into the cost of ownership, it's still relatively cheaper than buying a new car.
- markvdb 4y ago
  > Also there's really no reason that I won't be able to keep my car another 8 years, making it a 20 year car. In northwestern Europe, the reason would be low emission zones. "Sorry, this type of car is not allowed here anymore." is a real thing here.
  - oynqr 4y ago
    In reality I have only seen this happen to old/bad cars with equally bad diesel engines.
    - markvdb 4y ago
      Take Brussels, the EU capital. Euro 4 diesel cars are forbidden there now. Euro 5 became mandatory for new car registrations in 2011 [0]. That means 11 years old cars could still be Euro 4. These are not old or bad cars to a lot of people. Many are not able to afford car mobility anymore due to low emission zone restrictions on these cars. It's easy for the upper middle class or above running society to develop a blind spot for this. "Just buy recent a second hand car or a new Dacia Spring" is not the answer if the money for that is missing. Has enough attention been paid to this social side of the low emissions zones? I'm not so sure. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Em...
    - _ph_ 4y ago
      Paris is going to lock out parts of the city for ICE cars in 24.
      - bb88 4y ago
        In the US there are large areas where gas powered vehicles are going to be needed for at least 3 or 4 more decades.
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    Only for diesel cars and only in certain cities and you can still drive there if you pay a fine. It's perfectly reasonable.
  - bb88 4y ago
    Where I live, we have to do emissions testing. And it passed this year. The emissions testing was a result of the 1970s/1980s smog crisis.
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  In the US, electric vehicle batteries are required by law to be under warranty for 8 years or 100,000 miles. In California, it is 10 years and 150,000 miles.
  - bb88 4y ago
    If the average ownership of a car is 12 years, that doesn't help for the next owner.
- jeffrallen 4y ago
  Renault has found, to it's surprise, I guess, that 10 year old Zoes are keeping minimum 85% battery capacity. The BMS babies the batteries. Forget what you think you know about LiPo from laptops and cellphones. For example: you can't get a Zoe without A/C. Why not? Because the battery is air cooled, by the A/C. If there is capacity left over AFTER ensuring the battery is comfortable, it is shared with the human occupants. :)
- sgt101 4y ago
  How many components have you replaced on the Saturn? If you put 200k and 20 years on it then I am guessing you will need two new clutches, at least one pump and a bunch of sundries. Tyre wear can be heavy in EV's if you put your foot down a lot, brake wear is a lot lighter. At about 200k the battery may well go - but at 200k you can expect something major in your ICE drive chain to go. A new gearbox can set you back $6k - that's pretty similar to the cost of a tesla battery replacement.
  - bb88 4y ago
    These are what I can recall on the top of my head. Starter $800 (on warranty). AC $400. Transmission service $1500 at 70k. Coolant flush $400. 2 set of brake pads @ $400 a piece. Timing belt $200. Battery $100. Oil changes at $30 every 3k miles. Lets call it $1k total. Cabin Air filter change every 15k miles $20 Bottom heat shield $100 Shocks @100k miles $250 Sundries sure, but spread out over time.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Most ICE cars that age are either falling apart or long retired to the junk yard. They get nowhere near the fuel economy they might have had when they left the factory. Also, cumulatively the amount of maintenance, parts, and hours tinkering with the vehicle adds up. A battery replacement is an economical choice for an EV. You could buy a new vehicle or buy a life extension of another decade plus. That's how long the battery lasts and there's very little else in the vehicle that is very likely to start falling apart. Electrical engines last a long time. Drive trains are much simpler. And parts for that are relatively cheap. So even if the engine were to fail, replacing it would be pretty straightforward and cheap probably. E.g. a Nissan Leaf battery replacement will set you back around 7000 dollars. A lot of money for sure. But it will last quite long and when there's really nothing else wrong with the vehicle, it's a perfectly rational decision to make. Lots of original Nissan Leafs from 12 years ago are still driving around and quite a few will survive into their second and third decade. As it is one of the older EV models available, that's a great benchmark. We're talking first generation technology. The batteries and drive train were more primitive. Cooling and battery management were not a thing yet. Etc. Just great little vehicles. And a 7K battery doubles their original range (from 20kwh to 40kwh).
  - bb88 4y ago
    > E.g. a Nissan Leaf battery replacement will set you back around 7000 dollars. A lot of money for sure. But it will last quite long and when there's really nothing else wrong with the vehicle, it's a perfectly rational decision to make. Lots of original Nissan Leafs from 12 years ago are still driving around and quite a few will survive into their second and third decade. This is better than Tesla which charges $12-20k + labor + parts to change the battery pack. But $7k is still a big chunk of change. That will set a price cliff on the car. Basically if it is worth $13k, but you're going to need a battery change in the next year, the true price of the car will be worth $6k on the market. Cars that are less than $7k become effectively worthless as the new buyer will be guaranteed to have to replace the battery pack on them. This happens with home sales. Like if a house needs a new roof, the buyers will ask the home owners to discount the price of the new roof off the house. https://www.way.com/blog/tesla-battery-replacement-cost/ https://www.way.com/blog/tesla-battery-replacement-cost/
- clysm 4y ago
  > the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that today’s batteries may last 12 to 15 years in moderate climates (8 to 12 years in extreme climates). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62813.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62813.pdf
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    "Today" being 2014 for this particular source. I wonder if we have any newer information that doesn't rely on predictions?
djaychela 4y ago
On all those areas, an EV is better. Modern ICE vehicles are hugely complex because its they only way they can meet emissions targets. EV power trains are much simpler in comparison, and electronics are much more reliable. Batteries are not the issue that the naysayers say they are - lasting much longer than an ICE engine (which usually die around the 250k mile mark) , and at similar replacement cost at that point. And in the meantime you've saved hugely on servicing and maintenance costs - youd have changed the clutch and DMF at least twice by then, something that people like to leave out when they say "what about my iPhone battery, that dies in months".
- artificialLimbs 4y ago
  Would like to know where you get those numbers. I just changed the clutch in my 2010 Toyota Yaris at 260,000 miles and it’s the first repair I’ve ever done on the car.
  - sgt101 4y ago
    You have been very lucky. Many years of buying cheap used cars taught me that clutches tend to last less than 90k miles when driven by normal people. In addition you can expect at least one of the pumps on an ICE to fail in less than 100k and there is a small risk of an electrical component like the alternator going as well.
  - djaychela 4y ago
    I've owned maybe 150 cars (personal ownership plus buying and selling). 100k miles is the usual point. Ive never owned one that had made it past 150k without needing a clutch. Many much sooner (town use only cars, maybe 50k?). Dual mass flywheels are always changed at the same time due to labour costs. A friend has a 2013 T5 van that needed it doing at 50k, bill was £1300. He never loads the van up (it's a people carrier really), and has done some long road trips as well. Id suspect you do lots of highway miles with no gear changes (hence no clutch wear). Manufacturers now aim for ideal 150K life on a clutch, but that's aspirational, not the median by any means.
WalterBright 4y ago
The article is nonsense. It magically claims that regenerative braking makes up for losses from friction and heat. There's no way 87-91% efficiency can be achieved when 10% is lost just charging the car.
- jeffrallen 4y ago
  Bringing a car to a halt without regen uses only friction brakes. Bringing it to a halt with regen uses some regen and some friction. Both cars always have friction loss from rolling friction and drag. What's not to understand about such a simple comparison?
  - mlindner 4y ago
    > Bringing it to a halt with regen uses some regen and some friction. To clarify, most EV cars use only regen braking until either the pedal is pressed (Tesla regens automatically by letting off the accelerator) or when the pedal is pressed hard (most other EVs).
    - varjag 4y ago
      I owned 3 different makes of EVs, this is incorrect for all three. On a Nissan Leaf, mild regenerative is always engaged in Eco mode unless you touch gas. Otherwise when you put on the brake it's regenerative + extra braking with pads if necessary. On BMW i3 it brakes regeneratively once you slip the gas. If you use the brake pedal hard it's still regen + pads. On VW id.4 it's quite like on the Leaf. On all three it's pads only braking only when the battery is fully charged.
      - mlindner 4y ago
        > On all three it's pads only braking only when the battery is fully charged. So they don't encourage only charging to 90% like on Tesla to maintain good braking action?
        4y ago
princeb 4y ago
> cost of ownership some of the cars that i've seen have EV equivalents that are so significantly more costly that the gas savings only start to work out at around 1.25-2x the average driving distance of a personal vehicle owner. it makes no sense for example for me to replace my glc300 with a eqc. and if you don't drive at least 10k miles/yr, the kona electric is more expensive than the kona ice. a lot of discussions revolve around downgrading from an expensive ice to a cheap ev to make the cost work but that seems a bit disingenuous. of course getting a cheaper car is cheaper. when we do like-for-like, a lot of the advantages disappear.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jillesvangurp 4y ago
Cost efficiency is where the money is. Quite literally. Miles per $ is the metric you need to apply to transport. You can fold the life time cost of the vehicle into that metric as well. All the interest, maintenance, inspections, etc. In short, that's why a lot of commercial fleets are transitioning to electric. Dollar per mile is the only relevant metric there. ICE vehicle technology is basically going obsolete rapidly. Commercially, that game is over. And the gap is widening every year. We've had a period where the tax incentives were important, helpful and necessary. But that is increasingly just a nice to have thing. Fundamentally, it's not technically hard to build much lighter and efficient electrical vehicles. So, if the current ones are cost effective now, imagine how much more cost effective they could be.
- dreamcompiler 4y ago
  This. At $5 per gallon, my 30 mpg ICE car can go 6 miles on $1. My Tesla can go 4 miles with 10 cents worth (1 kWh) of electricity, or 40 miles per $1. Obviously there can be mitigating factors, but even if you drive a 50 MPG ICE car, or your electricity is unusually expensive, or you drive your Tesla at 85 mph and only get 2 miles per kWh, it's still no contest.
  - jillesvangurp 4y ago
    The kicker is what happens if you get your kwh at the expense of a one time investment in solar and batteries. The grid or fast charging rate is the worst case in terms of pricing. You can actually charge smarter way cheaper than that. Many fast charging setups essentially only rely on the grid to top off the batteries if solar is not providing enough energy. Basically, if you charge using solar panels that you own, the miles per dollar is a function of maintenance, and purchase cost of the vehicle and panels. The efficiency of the panels or vehicles are not a factor at all since the variable cost is 0$/mile. You only have variable cost when you charge the vehicle somewhere else. The non variable cost is basically the ownership of the vehicle and panels. Which you might simplify via e.g. leasing constructions.

dgan 4y ago

Can we finally promote electric vehicles that don't weight +1000kg, and as aerodynamic as a brick? There is no way this is sustainable. We need something like vélomobiles

fastball 4y ago
Weight is partially related to the fact that our existing battery chemistries are relatively heavy. Also not sure why you think electric vehicles are not aerodynamic – the Tesla Model S Plaid has a drag coefficient of 0.208.
- ianai 4y ago
  https://aptera.us/ https://aptera.us/ .13 but I really need to drive around fewer behemoths to feel safe in it. Maybe a 4 wheel will make up for it?
  - fastball 4y ago
    Yeah I was gonna mention that one as well but didn't because AFAIK it's not really in production yet. Regardless, the lowest drag coeff cars in the world seem to be electric ones so GC's point is still... strange.
- hot_gril 4y ago
  Yeah, the more avoidable weight is the SUVs.
cjrp 4y ago
Absolutely. BMW, for example, have built really heavy EV SUVs and then slapped on huge batteries in order to get the 300+ mile range people expect. Miles per kWh is the metric cars should be optimising for, not just absolute range.
radu_floricica 4y ago
This. But the problem is regulatory. China already has a number of under $5000 city cars that are perfectly fine for driving around. Problem is that they're completely illegal in Europe or US. We utterly need a category of city vehicles that are barred from highways, can be driven in cities, and lack 90% of all the newer and ridiculously expensive safety features. We're moving in a direction where new cars are mandated to read the speed limits indicators and follow them. Honestly I'm hoping this particular piece of news is bunk, but it definitely wouldn't surprise me - regulators love regulations, car manufacturers love having extra features to sell, and it's fool-proof protection against cheaper alternatives. A city car needs safety belts, and a built in speed limit. That's it.

arkit3kt 4y ago

Like most of these puff pieces, the destructive mining and limited volume of all the precious metals like copper, lithium & nickel are ignored. Until iron-sulphide can effectively produce the same results, it's still trading rats for snakes. Then there's the whole tire problem...

herghost 4y ago
Yeah but we risk “perfect” being the enemy of “progress” if we think that way, and people invested in the status quo will surely co-opt and fund this thinking too.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Usually the pursuit of perfection is FUD. In my area, a local republican committee is very concerned about the fate of bunny rabbits, birds of prey and riverbank erosion. Amazing and inspirational, except the catalyst is that a bunch of land was cleared to build a factory, in an polluted industrial park, to manufacture wind turbine components. Even though said turbines will be installed ~200 miles away, windmills attract a lot of ire in some circles.
  - elcritch 4y ago
    Yah its a bummer when "tribalism" wins out over consistent ideals (e.g. the pro-business and US manufacturing party suddenly dislikes those things).
cantaloupe 4y ago
An article is not a puff piece simply because it casts something in a good light. This article is largely a transcription of the images from the linked report, and also addresses a common counter argument, “the power plants are dirty”. Batteries as energy storage/source are a related but entirely separate concern from the ratio of energy in to energy out (the focus of the article). I also find it interesting to replace “precious metals” in your comment with “fossil fuels”, which also require destructive mining and have limited volume.
4y ago

rightbyte 4y ago

Essentially like if every car was a ICE BEV hybrid, but the ICE in some power plant somewhere. The reving and idling or low power output of the ICE can be avoided if it is in some power plant somewhere.

dragontamer 4y ago
Except building mild hybrids to avoid that problem might be more efficient than us building the mass production of lithium metals needed to make mass BEVs. If we are battery constrained today, we need to consider the most efficient use of our limited battery supply. Start/stop idle technology is much cheaper than 1000lbs of lithium batteries in each vehicle. ---------- It looks like the most efficient solution involves like 50lbs of batteries, rather than the gross 1000+lbs of batteries that BEV fans want to use per car.
- kiba 4y ago
  Or just use more trains and streetcars.
  - landemva 4y ago
    Like Berlin and Munich and Prague and Düsseldorf and Warsaw and Amsterdam and The Hague. I lived there, without a car. I rented a few times when not on train or flight out of town. It's not for every city, though switch out trams for busses (Stockholm) and it could work in many places.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Yes, and you have to go even further and more general. The solution is actually urbanism. You can't just build trains and hope everything is gone be fine. Living in low or high density urban environments is far more efficient in pretty much every single way that we can measure. CO2, energy, land use, water use and so on, and not just by a little but by a huge margin. Transport can be electrified trains, trams, trolly buses, metros. This uses very few battery materials and essentially no new technology. All technology read to deploy in large numbers. This would also 'solve' the housing crisis as increasing density around transportation with mixed use is what leads to much cheaper living cost (housing and transportation need to be seen together). This talk by famous City Planner Peter Calthorpe is really good and goes into detail. He and his teams were charged with making a few projection plans for California and have really good numbers on all of these things (except the nuclear I mentioned): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUtdFbK4YG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUtdFbK4YG4 He has other great talks about his work in China as well, this is a bit more academic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqldZhxl86I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqldZhxl86I

blumomo 4y ago

The electric vehicles may be more energy efficient once they are ready for driving. But actually building all its parts not only consumes way more energy compared to combustion cars. It also needs rare earth metals which are mined by workers living the life of slaves.

epups 4y ago
Right... As opposed to oil, which is mostly sourced from free democracies right?
- dragontamer 4y ago
  I've been running my car on E85 all year, US sourced ethanol. But yes, US gasoline is also sourced from the US primarily. (Texas and Alaska). With a terminal at Brent / Arkansas.
  - benj111 4y ago
    And what's the oil input required to produce that ethanol?
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      Oil? None. Natural Gas? A bit, for corn-based ethanol (the Nitrogen fertilizers used to make modern corn fields requires a surprisingly large amount of energy, of which is primarily given through Natural Gas IIRC). Various calculations I've seen however, suggests that Ethanol uses less greenhouse gasses than say Electric vehicles (since most of our power grid is still coal / natural gas based). Aside from that one guy who keeps making anti-ethanol research papers for the last 15 years. The bulk of energy going into corn is the sun, all natural solar energy. A bit of it is hacked together with Nitrogen fertilizers that must be accounted for, but still better than other methodologies. The other major greenhouse gas issue is the greenhouse gas costs of converting forested land into farmland, and this seems to be the biggest area of debate. ------------ Bonus points: Switchgrass based ethanol uses no fertilizers, meaning its 100% green. Since Switchgrass grows naturally in the US Fields (unlike Corn, which is a domesticated crop), Switchgrass is arguably better for the environment (or at least, more "natural"). The lack of fertilizers needed for it to grow is proof to how its a plant designed for our geography. So Switchgrass solves the fertilizer and land-conversion issues.

jtlienwis 4y ago

bergenty 4y ago
That’s really, really reaching. An ICE Camry weighs 3500lbs, a Model 3 weighs 4000lbs. You’re not even right.
- curioushacking 4y ago
  I need to check again, but from my understanding the damage is exponential based on the vehicle weight, but also that real road damage is functionally nothing until you get to very large heavy vehicles
  - jtlienwis 4y ago
    (4000/3500)^4 = 1.70 so that 70% more road damage with a fleet of EVs. I don't know how high Vehicle Registration is in your state, and Fuel Tax, but it does add up to a surprising amount that mostly goes into rebuilding highway infrastructure. So it does need to be accounted for. Our transportation highway network is a system. ]
    - mperham 4y ago
      You’re assuming that most road damage comes from passenger cars. In fact most road damage comes from large semis weighing 20,000+ pounds. The worst roads are almost always freight corrridors
    - bergenty 4y ago
      I was wrong the Model 3 also weighs 3500lbs. With your thinking we shouldn’t have any trucks or pickups on the road. The Ford F-150 is the most selling vehicle of all time and it’s massive.
- Andys 4y ago
  > The single motor Model 3 Standard Range Plus is the second-lightest Tesla ever at 3,582 lbs.

maxekman 4y ago

Really good diagrams illustrating where the energy is used.

bsder 4y ago
And, as, always, glosses over the fact that even if EVs are simply just equivalent to ICE vehicles, moving a million point sources of pollution (cars) to a small number of single point sources (power plants) makes the pollution problem much easier to solve and improves the air quality in cities dramatically. One number I challenge, though, is "0-4% for auxiliary use". My AC on an EV looks to be closer to 15% of cruising energy in a hot clime, and I know that my ICE cars always had a significant drop in MPG when I ran the AC, too. In addition, heating is "free" in an ICE car while it's probably a similar 15% in an EV car.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  I wonder if there are any EVs that combine the battery cooling system with the heater! There is still some waste heat in an EV though I don’t know if it’s being well utilized yet.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    In buses, the problem is so severe that there are some EV buses shipping with fossil fuel heat for cold climates.
    - cplusplusfellow 4y ago
      And those climates scoff at those of us in Texas and Arizona for needing air conditioning to survive.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Tesla already does that, all heat and cooling are in one system. Even the first Model 3 had a system for that. They do this with the Octovalve and a highly efficient (Tesla designed) heat-pump.

LinuxBender 4y ago

Semi-off-topic question: Have any government offices started programs to put out of work coal miners back to work mining the materials required for EV batteries and maybe also solar panels? In the off-chance that there is a blockade in China some countries may have to start mining these materials themselves.

russdill 4y ago
... that's not how mining works. You don't get to just pick what comes out of the ground in a certain region.
- earleybird 4y ago
  Not even in Minecraft :-)
- lightedman 4y ago
  I use satellites all the time to isolate specific mineral beds for mining. You can just-about 'just pick' what comes out of the ground when it comes to certain things. I look almost exclusively for agates. ASTER has spectral data exactly geared to that, LANDSAT 7 can get you semi-close if you know your terrain type. I'm 100% successful at every location. I'm almost ready to start using them for Uranium before they get decom'd. I've trained myself on 7 years of this satellite data.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Satellites don't let you see under the ground.
    - lightedman 4y ago
      I don't need to see under the ground, I just need to pinpoint specific IR spectral emission/absorption lines on the surface via satellite, and dig there.
      - 4y ago

amelius 4y ago

22% recapture depends on where/how you drive. I suppose when cruising on a highway (without much braking), it will be closer to 0%.

kumarvvr 4y ago
That is true for a good flat one. On one that curves and bends up and down, it is possible to capture back some energy, though, you do have to spend the energy required to go from point A to point B.
dangrossman 4y ago
If any segments of the highway drive are downhill, you'll recapture some energy even on cruise at constant speed.
- amelius 4y ago
  True.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- sokoloff 4y ago
  It has to be a quite noticeable downhill for a car to net pick up energy at highway speed. Small downhills still require positive power consumption (to overcome rolling and aerodynamic drag). Obviously, there’s a point at which a downslope will offer regen, but these are the slopes where a manual transmission car would pickup speed if placed into neutral.
  - djaychela 4y ago
    That's not my experience in my renault zoe. Often on almost imperceptible downhill slopes it will be at zero consumption, and there have been many areas where I can't back off the throttle in my ice vehicles where the zoe will be regenning.

georgia_peach 4y ago

This is a rip-off of freelancer Karin Kirk's original article[0] on Yale Climate Connections. Her primary sources in that article are federal agency websites[1-4] and address the points of mass energy production & vehicle consumption by type. And going solely by that math, it's a slam-dunk. The problem--same as with any other modern system--is that there are far more variables to consider to arrive at total system-wide costs, many of these are "trust me" trade secrets of various manufacturers, and the feds themselves (thanks to regulatory capture) have also been known to fudge numbers in the favor of one private interest over another, so even those numbers aren't above cross-examination. This is not a pro or anti EV post as much as a humility one. I see a bunch of web developers nerd-sniping each other over personal recollections of industry PR (everthing in the media, pro or con, is somebody's PR, BTW). Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. TCO is going to be a fairly good approximation of overall system-wide efficiency. Companies can only loss-lead for so long before going bankrupt, and they can only externalize costs for so long before being sued into oblivion. If EVs truly are this superior, nothing is going to stop them. [0]https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-tran... [1]https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml [2]https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=9&f=A&s=0&start=2010&end=2023&map=&linechart=~MGTCPUSX&ctype=linechart&maptype=0&id= https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=9&f=A&s=... [3]https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=107&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=107&t=3 [4]https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html

userbinator 4y ago

...and way more boring.

ganbatekudasai 4y ago
You're downvoted, but I agree with you. EVs are so much more boring than the highly evolved, intricate design of ICEs. I marvel at the general principle, at what engineers continuously came up with to squeeze ever more out of them, even at such "simple" things as stroke order and cylinder configuration (V, inline...). That won't change the fact that EVs are and should be on the way out. All the engineering of the world has not made them come close to the relative (really just relative) simplicity of EVs. I also like ancient phone networks, CRTs, and mechanical calculators. And preserving small numbers of them as artifacts is invaluable, but only with a small number of enthusiasts or in a museum. There are a few Ford Model T still around...
- ganbatekudasai 4y ago
  Let me make clear actually: I really think EVs are much more boring. To drive and to study. A part of my mind is sad that they are a dead end. But me nerding out about their engineering is not worth keeping them.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    There's more to nerd out about with EVs than ICEs in my experience. It's just requires a different kind of nerd.
- mlindner 4y ago
  > EVs are so much more boring than the highly evolved, intricate design of ICEs. I marvel at the general principle, at what engineers continuously came up with to squeeze ever more out of them, even at such "simple" things as stroke order and cylinder configuration (V, inline...). EV powertrains aren't "simple" and are in fact "intricate", honestly to a higher level than ICEs. Even the motor itself is complex. But honestly, complexity is a bad thing. It means there's more things that can fail.

rr808 4y ago

I doesn't often say that CO2 emissions for a new EV are higher than an ICE. After 10-20k miles you're just breaking even. Over the life of the vehicle the EV does have fewer emissions but it isn't a huge difference. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifeti...

schimmy_changa 4y ago
I don't want to feed the trolls, but this requires a response as it is highly misleading. Cars last 100k+ miles now, and that 13k break-even number in your link is with the current US energy mix, which is rapidly decarbonizing. It is a big deal, and worth moving to EVs.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  Both articles should simply state the lifetime carbon footprint of ICE cars and EVs. That is all that matters in this context - break even mileage and energy efficiency are secondary concerns.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    GP’s point though is that the footprint of EVs is constantly changing. ICE cars can only ever work by burning fossil fuels, which inevitably results in a certain amount of emissions per gallon of gas burned. That’s not the case for EVs as the electricity needed for them can be generated in many different ways, some resulting in more emissions than others.
    - curmudgeon22 4y ago
      I wonder how much the footprint for ICE changes based on where the crude was sourced from, eg: - traditional well in the US - fracking in the US - offshore - Canadian tarsands Edit: This article has some interesting information on Energy Return on Investment (EROI) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...

throwaway787544 4y ago

More energy efficient and also much slower to charge with a shorter range. Nothing we haven't known for 150 years. The reason we have had ICE vehicles for so long comes down to those two things.

oplaadpunt 4y ago
Altough the slow charging is changing. Newer models can use DC charging at 350kW, which should increase to 500kW in the future. This is unpracticle at every home, but it should lower highway stops to 5-10 minutes, which isn't significantly longer then with gas currently.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

What I don't understand is how we didn't have these efficiency numbers in terms of kwatts/mile with an ICE/EV hybrid drivetrain, and why we haven't had them for decades already. Why aren't hybrid drivetrains in Semis, RVs ... everything. Within 5 years of the Prius there should have been legislation mandating PHEVs for practically all consumer transport. With a hybrid you can run an engine in the Atkinson cycle which (apparently) enables diesel-level mileage out of gasoline. You get the regen braking that dramatically improves city driving. Every five years after the Prius is another travesty that we didn't have this legislation coming down the pipe. By now in 2022, 25 years after the Prius and Insight, we should have had 50% or more of new cars being PHEV hybrids with 50+ mile all-electric range. It would have brought Russia to its knees, the Saudis would be an afterthought in policy, and we'd be so much more resilient. And hybrids in addition to atkinson should enable other tricks for efficiency gains besides carnot output to reclaim heat from the engine and exhaust, like turbochargers do. Gas turbines at the utlity scale are at 60% efficiency. Oh well.

josephcsible 4y ago
> By now in 2022, 25 years after the Prius and Insight, we should have had 50% or more of new cars being PHEV hybrids with 50+ mile all-electric range. The problem with PHEVs is that so many people never plug them in, unless the automaker does something to them like with the BMW i3 REx, in which case said people wouldn't want them.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  This is education and habits. And when gas is at $5.00, an economic incentive.
  - pornel 4y ago
    It's also a practical difficulty. Small batteries in PHEV mean they charge slowly (makes public chargers less useful, EV road trips impossible). Their tiny EV range requires them to be charged daily, which makes at-home charging a necessity in practice. But having such a good access to charging is also a thing that makes BEVs convenient. From this perspective PHEV a poorly-performing BEV with a baggage that reduces its performance, range, and efficiency, and occasionally is a less-efficient ICE to potentially save 20 minutes of time after 2-3 hours of driving at highway speeds.

WalterBright 4y ago

The EV chart doesn't add up. 10% charging loss, 87-91% goes to the wheels? No other losses?

dabinat 4y ago
Not all the energy to power the car comes from charging. Some is generated from regenerative braking.
- dawnerd 4y ago
  The chart even shows this.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    I know. The chart is wrong. The entire conclusion of the article is based on bad math in the chart. Losses due to friction, drag, and heat are NOT magically made up for with regenerative braking.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Um, all the energy recovered by regenerative braking was initially supplied by the charging input, which loses 10%. The overall efficiency simply cannot be 90%.
  - smt88 4y ago
    > all the energy recovered by regenerative braking was initially supplied by the charging input You're forgetting about gravity. People brake when traveling downhill, which is essentially using gravity to charge the battery (similar to hydroelectric energy).
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Do you drive downhill both ways to and from school?
  - 4y ago

seiferteric 4y ago

Well they better be since they typically only have the energy equivalent of about 1-1.5 gallons of gas in the batteries.

olivermarks 4y ago

This Motor Trend article is a weak regurgitation of Karin Kirk's 'Yale Climate connections' promo blog for green energy, which uses US government's https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml claims. There are a lot of very confident claims here but little substantiation other than academic postulations. ' The final loss of energy is from auxiliary electrical components like heated seats, lights, the audio system, and windshield wipers. Taken together, these accessories can consume up to 2% of the vehicle’s total energy intake.' Ironically the complete reliance in BEVs to run accessories off their batteries is one of the major reasons battery life is so poor. This sort of of vague proselytizing isn't helpful and arguably misrepresents BEV and to a lesser extent hybrid maturity IMO.

sgt101 4y ago
>major reasons battery life is so poor. I thought that we were seeing batteries retain 75% performance past 250k miles?
- olivermarks 4y ago
  I was discussing live battery drain in BEVs, which rely on running all accessories off them.

vimwizard 4y ago

Is Tesla still the only fully electric manufacture worth buying? If it is, all this legislation and subsidization are creating a monopoly. Also I'd rather not have a vehicle that can be software locked, so I'll continue to buy old used cars until I can just get a fully electric car that isn't connected to the internet.

ageitgey 4y ago
It's really changing this year and Tesla is losing market share to the competition (though the market itself is growing). The competition has finally stepped up. Buyers are opting for other excellent cars like the Kia EV6, the VW ID.3/ID.4/ID.5, the Hyundai Ioniq 5, the Mercedes-Benz EQC, the Polestar 2 and the BMW iX. The number of excellent options is rapidly multiplying, which is good for everyone.
- helf 4y ago
  Which is great. Some really nice ones coming out. I might be up for giving up my Volt in 15 years lol. I refuse to even consider a Tesla for a host of reasons but I'm keeping an eye on the other options.

occz 4y ago

And in turn, trains are far more energy efficient than all kinds of cars. Trains are subsequently beaten by both electric and non-electric bicycles, which are the most energy efficient mode of transport currently known to man. While phasing out ICEs entirely is clearly an urgent necessity, it would be wise to invest in a world where we move more towards these superior modes of transportation, instead of going for EVs, which are a slight improvement, but not at all as big of an improvement as we could realize with trains and bicycles.

throwaway894345 4y ago
We’re not going to replace cars with trains in the timescales necessary to deal with climate change, even if we could convince everyone to upend their lifestyle. It just isn’t going to happen.
- hot_gril 4y ago
  Yeah, would basically require demolishing most cities and rebuilding them around the train lines. Moving non-physical jobs to home has more potential.
  - occz 4y ago
    Cities were demolished to accommodate cars in the past, I see no reason why such a retrofit would be impossible in the other direction. There is some potential in reduction by moving jobs to WFH when possible, but this is not mutually exclusive with migrating to energy efficient means of transportation and urban development. Hence, I don't think it's relevant in the discussion.
    - hot_gril 4y ago
      In what way were they demolished? Cars allow for urban sprawl. People now have homes in places where they rely on cars to get to work. I also have a theory that widespread WFH makes dense cities obsolete. Dense cities seem to originate from big money appearing somewhere and everyone building around it, eventually reaching the typical situation where the highest-paid can afford to live there and everyone else commutes in and out. If the housing, roads, or public transit are expanded, more people come and saturate them again, because the commute is worth the pay. (If it's just roads, such commutes are super polluting.) But when the execs and higher-paid workers don't need to be there in person, it dominoes. There's no extra money to be made providing physical goods/services in that area, and no incentive for such a forced commute or crammed living quarters. Physical laborers end up working locally, and more isolated, less dense, lower-income but lower-cost-of-living cities form. I used to work in SF and observe these things closely, and now I'm watching what happens as many of the techies leave.

verisimi 4y ago

krona 4y ago
You appear to be climate hesitant. We are simply following the science.
- verisimi 4y ago
  Re science, I did say: > Can we even be cognisant of the facts, or are even scientific institutions bent to political ends? Which of these parties - corporate, governmental, military - that sponsor research is the one that is interested in truth, rather than control and power? ... which is akin to religions of the past. I would say I'm 'climate alarmism hesitant' or 'governance narrative hesitant'. I don't trust the honesty of our institutions to act in a way that is beneficial for people, as opposed to gaining more power and control for themselves. From an anti-statist position, I think I can look at the provided narrative from a different perspective, without the heat or panic. I suggest to you the narrative is non-sensical and that you have no personal experience to support it. And that it should be ignored.
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    You are spreading misinformation. The nice thing about science is, that it is based on reviewable parts. It is "open source", if you want to look at it that way. Yes, there are always single actors, which might have an agenda and some parts of science are in active discussions. But most parts of science are not. So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. Feel free to demonstrate the opposite in an experiment. You don't? A good decision! The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. Arrhenius did the first calculations in the 19th century. This is very basic science, verified by experiments and observations over and over again. So why are you claiming it isn't? If you are into conspiration theories, try this: The oil industry is the richest. If there were any scientific evidence showing that humans with their CO2 emissions are not responsible for climate change or that climate change itself didn't exist, why wouldn't the oil industry finance research in this domain? A scientist, who could prove that could make millions if not billions. Yet there isn't any of those. Actually, it is on record that the scientists of Exxon in the late 70ies did correctly predict the global warming we experienced in the last 50 years. Because, well, the science is pretty simple and clear.

cbmuser 4y ago

Yes, but electric cars need electricity which has to be generated from primary energy sources like coal, oil and uranium while combustion engine cars directly burn gasoline which is a primary energy source. Thus, when you are comparing the efficiency of electric cars with combustion engine cars, you have to take into account the efficiency of the electricity generation process.

_ph_ 4y ago
And the amount of energy needed to get the raw oil, distill and distribute the gasoline. Not to mentioni that electric cars are ideal to be powered by renewables, as they bring a great storage with them. In Germany, you need about 10 solar panels to provide enough energy for powering the car.
pornel 4y ago
ICE engines convert less than 40% of gasoline's energy into movement, and the rest is lost as heat. This inefficiency is unfixable: the waste heat can't be avoided in a combustion engine. In cars there isn't enough space and carrying capacity for a steam turbine that could make a good use of the heat. In a stationary power plant, there is. Stationary power plants are incredibly efficient, to the point that burning gasoline and transmitting electricity to an EV is still way more efficient than burning gasoline in a car. You may be mixing up things with natural gas used for heating. Fuel -> heat is most efficient at the destination. But ICE cars don't run on heat, they radiate it away as waste.
clysm 4y ago
Well-to-wheels, EVs are better in any energy mix. https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html Getting cars on electricity also centralizes the problem of emission control and improvements.

csours 4y ago

Its natural and easy to find the bad parts of a new solution. EVs are not perfect. EVs definitely have problems. There are better solutions if you maximize for energy efficiency. People didn't buy ICE cars to be energy efficient, and they won't buy EVs to be energy efficient. They buy them because having a car is an integral part of a certain lifestyle. That lifestyle may not be equitable or sustainable; handling that problem is a different challenge. - but - We lack an intimate and personal understanding of the byproducts of ICE cars. We use a liquid fuel that we rarely actually see. The emissions are almost completely in gas form that we don't see. You don't have to "unload" bricks of CO2 and particulate from your vehicle. But imagine what it would be like if you did. Imagine if CO2 was sludge that you had to handle. For every 10 gallons of gas you put into a car (approximately 70 pounds) you would have to unload approximately 200 pounds of CO2 (not counting water or other byproducts). You would have to find a place to put that. Do you drop it off at the filling station? What do they do with it? How many trips would you have to make to unload it? A 5 gallon bucket of water weighs about 40 pounds, if our sludge had that density, it would be 5 of those 5 gallon buckets. Many people struggle to carry a 5 gallon bucket (not you dear reader, other weaker people). I don't think CO2 is actually toxic sludge, this is a mental exercise. I do think CO2 is a pollutant. I think if we had to personally and physically deal with CO2, no one would bitch about the minerals used in EV production.

danuker 4y ago
> I don't think CO2 is actually toxic sludge Judging by the fact that so far, we've been on the worst trajectory considered by the IPCC [1], CO2 has a good chance of ending humankind within a century. That is not directly "toxic", but it is dangerous. [1] - https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2007117117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2007117117
- csours 4y ago
  I think the nuance is important here. If CO2 was toxic we would have handled it already. Obviously CO2 is an asphyxiant, but so is nitrogen and that's 70% of our atmosphere. No one complains about atmospheric nitrogen. Our bodies handle CO2 continuously as a product of metabolism. I view CO2 like I view processed sugar - if you have an energy deficit or energy balance, it's probably fine in small amounts; if you have a surplus, it's not ok. I've been thinking about the industrial miracles of the 19th and 20th century. Steel, Aluminum, Concrete, Gasoline, Natural Gas, Plastic, Glass, Integrated Circuits, Artificial Fertilizers, Air Conditioning, Automobiles. If you only look at the positive side, all of these are truly miraculous - they've provided humanity with incredible increases in productivity and happiness. They've let people live longer and in less hospitable places. They've supported a higher population level than people expected was possible. But those miracles have terrible side effects. I won't list them, it's too depressing.

irthomasthomas 4y ago

Only if you ignore manufacturing and battery replacement. "The emissions from Materials production and refining of the ICE are roughly 40 per cent less than for the BEV" https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/project/contentplatform/data/media/my23/xc40-electric-light/volvo-cars-LCA-report-xc40.pdf https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/project/contentpl...

clysm 4y ago
A BEV makes up the manufacturing emission difference usually within the first year of operation. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth5 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myt... https://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/29/electric-vs-gas-emissions-lifetime-break-even-point/ https://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/29/electric-vs-gas-emission...
DoughnutHole 4y ago
First - this article is entirely about engine vs motor efficiency (ie what percentage of energy used is actually converted to forward momentum). Second - your own source concluded that the studied BEV has lower lifetime emissions (including manufacturing) than the studied ICE car, albeit with a high uncertainty - they estimate that the the BEV has 27-54 tonnes of emmissions vs 58 tonnes for the ICE, or 47-93% of the ICE's lifetime emmissions.

Elizabeth0147 4y ago

tibbydudeza 4y ago

Energy density of gasoline > latest battery tech Really don't see the arguments when the bulk of electricity generation in the world comes from burning fossil fuels - EV's are just feel good measure for people like eating packaged food does not remind you of the abattoirs.

msmenardi 4y ago
Just because we currently burn fossil fuels in power plants (which are much more efficient than internal combustion engines btw) doesn't mean we always have to. Besides, development of electric vehicles increases development of battery technology, which is necessary for long-term sustainable energy generation.