8 ms·

Newer chemistries like LFP do not use rare earth metals and have far higher cycle times. It is true that building an EV in the first place does embody more car

Newer chemistries like LFP do not use rare earth metals and have far higher cycle times. It is true that building an EV in the first place does embody more carbon, but the payback time is not that long (under 15,000 miles with a clean enough grid and under 50,000 even on the dirtiest grids). As the grid and supply chain decarbonizes that embedded carbon of manufacturing will also drop. An EV gets cleaner as the grid you drive it on decarbonizes. An ICE vehicle will emit for its whole lifespan and will get worse fuel economy and emit more particulates, SO2 and NOX as it ages. Anyone who claims EVs will save the planet is deluding themselves, but electrified transport needs to be one of many, many steps we take to decarbonize.

dragontamer 4y ago
100,000 EVs contain the same number of batteries as 500,000 PHEVs, which contains the same number of batteries as 2,000,000 hybrids. Run the math. The 2-million hybrids will save the world faster than 100,000 EVs. Let's say ICE is 30MPG, Hybrid is like 40MPG to 60MPG. Even at the low end 40MPG, 2 million hybrids is the same number of emission savings as 350,000 EVs. -------- Pure ICE technologies are also more important. Going from 20mpg to 25 mpg will have a bigger impact due to the huge number of ICE cars being made. ------- There are 289 million vehicles to replace in the USA. The sad truth is that 1 million EVs/year changes nothing. We need faster production and faster replacement. And there is no entity who can make 1 million EVs/year.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Tesla makes 1.5 million EVs/year at current run rate, and is targeting 2 million/year by end of year. You need not replace every vehicle right away, just enough to replace the largest consumers of fossil fuels. > Run the math. There are no spherical cows. https://insideevs.com/news/602725/tesla-3-million-cars-prduced-2-million-run-rate-2022/ https://insideevs.com/news/602725/tesla-3-million-cars-prduc...
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > Tesla makes 1.5 million EVs/year at current run rate, and is targeting 2 million/year by end of year. 289 million vehicles. At that rate, it will take over 100 years to replace all ICE vehicles. > You need not replace every vehicle right away, just enough to replace the largest consumers of fossil fuels. You mean semi-trucks and busses? How many years has Tesla-semi been in development hell now? Electric semi-trucks will eventually come. But at this point, I'm thinking its going to be Fuel Cell electricity through Hydrogen rather than batteries.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      It took Tesla 14 years to build their first 3 million vehicles. By year end, it will take them 1.5 years to build the same amount. Assume their growth rate continues (50-100% YoY), they could (if they so desired and the market demanded the unite) consume total US vehicle sales (17M/year) in ~5-15 years. Is consuming total US TAM going to happen? Unlikely, but the broad strokes of the transition are apparent; you could even stick this in Excel to reasonably extrapolate. Importantly, EVs don’t need to replace every combustion vehicle, only enough so that petroleum supply infra is no longer economically sustainable. At that point, existing fossil vehicles become stranded and only good for salvage.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        A lot of Tesla's growth has been in China and Germany though. I don't think they have big plans for US-based growth after the Texas factory. There seem to also be a lot of growing pains with Giga-Shanghai, Giga-Germany, and Giga-Texas. When we look at European nations + Japan and even China, their strategy for sustainable green energy is shifting into Hydrogen. The technology offered by fuel cell technologies is the one that I'm frankly more willing to bet on for the future to be frank. Especially with regards to large trucks (ie: semi-trucks and busses). -------- As you've noted earlier: its the large vehicles we need to focus on. And the largest vehicles (ex: semi-trucks) are not practical on Li-ion. Not yet anyway.
        4y ago
bobthepanda 4y ago
> It is true that building an EV in the first place does embody more carbon Also, is this true for building a new EV vs building a new ICE car? People just regularly replace their cars and vehicles, and in that sense the transition need not necessitate any more carbon than would've otherwise happened.
- theluketaylor 4y ago
  Yes, it takes more energy to build a BEV than an ICE car. It's not massively different and the lifetime emissions of a BEV are still lower than an ICE car even on a pretty dirty grid. good breakdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM
deepdriver 4y ago
>Newer chemistries like LFP do not use rare earth metals and have far higher cycle times. Technically correct, as lithium isn't a rare earth. Lithium mining isn't free from controversy, however. The "Lithium Triangle" in South America contains most of the world's known lithium reserves. Mining companies in Chile, the world's second-largest lithium producer, have less than a sterling human rights record: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lithium-mining-leaving-chiles-indigenous-communities-high-and-dry-literally https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lithium-mining-leaving-chiles-i...

dragontamer 4y ago

100,000 EVs contain the same number of batteries as 500,000 PHEVs, which contains the same number of batteries as 2,000,000 hybrids. Run the math. The 2-million hybrids will save the world faster than 100,000 EVs. Let's say ICE is 30MPG, Hybrid is like 40MPG to 60MPG. Even at the low end 40MPG, 2 million hybrids is the same number of emission savings as 350,000 EVs. -------- Pure ICE technologies are also more important. Going from 20mpg to 25 mpg will have a bigger impact due to the huge number of ICE cars being made. ------- There are 289 million vehicles to replace in the USA. The sad truth is that 1 million EVs/year changes nothing. We need faster production and faster replacement. And there is no entity who can make 1 million EVs/year.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Tesla makes 1.5 million EVs/year at current run rate, and is targeting 2 million/year by end of year. You need not replace every vehicle right away, just enough to replace the largest consumers of fossil fuels. > Run the math. There are no spherical cows. https://insideevs.com/news/602725/tesla-3-million-cars-prduced-2-million-run-rate-2022/ https://insideevs.com/news/602725/tesla-3-million-cars-prduc...
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > Tesla makes 1.5 million EVs/year at current run rate, and is targeting 2 million/year by end of year. 289 million vehicles. At that rate, it will take over 100 years to replace all ICE vehicles. > You need not replace every vehicle right away, just enough to replace the largest consumers of fossil fuels. You mean semi-trucks and busses? How many years has Tesla-semi been in development hell now? Electric semi-trucks will eventually come. But at this point, I'm thinking its going to be Fuel Cell electricity through Hydrogen rather than batteries.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    It took Tesla 14 years to build their first 3 million vehicles. By year end, it will take them 1.5 years to build the same amount. Assume their growth rate continues (50-100% YoY), they could (if they so desired and the market demanded the unite) consume total US vehicle sales (17M/year) in ~5-15 years. Is consuming total US TAM going to happen? Unlikely, but the broad strokes of the transition are apparent; you could even stick this in Excel to reasonably extrapolate. Importantly, EVs don’t need to replace every combustion vehicle, only enough so that petroleum supply infra is no longer economically sustainable. At that point, existing fossil vehicles become stranded and only good for salvage.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      A lot of Tesla's growth has been in China and Germany though. I don't think they have big plans for US-based growth after the Texas factory. There seem to also be a lot of growing pains with Giga-Shanghai, Giga-Germany, and Giga-Texas. When we look at European nations + Japan and even China, their strategy for sustainable green energy is shifting into Hydrogen. The technology offered by fuel cell technologies is the one that I'm frankly more willing to bet on for the future to be frank. Especially with regards to large trucks (ie: semi-trucks and busses). -------- As you've noted earlier: its the large vehicles we need to focus on. And the largest vehicles (ex: semi-trucks) are not practical on Li-ion. Not yet anyway.
      - 4y ago

bobthepanda 4y ago

> It is true that building an EV in the first place does embody more carbon Also, is this true for building a new EV vs building a new ICE car? People just regularly replace their cars and vehicles, and in that sense the transition need not necessitate any more carbon than would've otherwise happened.

theluketaylor 4y ago
Yes, it takes more energy to build a BEV than an ICE car. It's not massively different and the lifetime emissions of a BEV are still lower than an ICE car even on a pretty dirty grid. good breakdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM

deepdriver 4y ago

>Newer chemistries like LFP do not use rare earth metals and have far higher cycle times. Technically correct, as lithium isn't a rare earth. Lithium mining isn't free from controversy, however. The "Lithium Triangle" in South America contains most of the world's known lithium reserves. Mining companies in Chile, the world's second-largest lithium producer, have less than a sterling human rights record: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lithium-mining-leaving-chiles-indigenous-communities-high-and-dry-literally https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lithium-mining-leaving-chiles-i...