Competing technologies to BEV

[Robert.Boston]

I skimmed through the report and have the following comments to questions mentioned in your report and interpretation of the results:

1. So let me get this straight: powering an electric vehicle with the grid average electricity pollutes 80% more than just the tailpipe of an ICE?
   Just to clarify, it is necessary to define the subject of this Report. It addresses non-GHG air pollution only:
   
2. what about extracting, refining, and transporting oil, why not include that?
   The report does include life cycle analysis that includes total fuel supply chain (non-GHG emissions only). However, some emissions from the fuel life cycle are excluded from the analysis because they occur outside of the spacial model used in the study (US)
   
   
3. So let me get this straight: they are comparing 2005 pollution (including from gasoline ICEs) to what would supposedly be added by 2020? If Electric cars replace gasoline cars, then why would you add the electric car pollution to the previous gasoline car pollution?
   The charts that you are referring to do not add electric car non-GHG pollution to the previous gasoline polution, they show increase in concentration above the baseline attributable to replacement of 10% of year 2020 vehicle use with the given technology, as explained in the text under the chart that you posted
4. It looks like the major error, IMO, is in interpretation of the results. It seems that you are not considering that virtually all coal power plants are part of the base load portion of the electricity production. Since charging of electrical vehicles is unlikely to add any demand to base load production, the electricity used for this charging will come not from the "EV Coal", and not from the "EV Grid Average", but almost 100% from "EV Natural Gas" and perhaps, to a lesser extent from "EV WWS", as great majority of peak load is covered by natural gas units. A cursory look at "EV Natural Gas" (J) or "EV WWS" (L) shows that their impact on non-GHG pollution is LESS than "Gasoline" (B) or "Gasoline Hybrid" (C)

So my conclusion is that this study is yet again demonstrates that use of pure EVs has non-GHG pollution impact that is LESS than that of vehicles containing ICE.

There's a long thread discussing this article over in the Environment section: Study: Comparative EV to ICE environmental impact

 

[CalDreamin]

There's a long thread discussing this article over in the Environment section: Study: Comparative EV to ICE environmental impact

The discussion there is about a different study.

 

[Auzie]

Overview: Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States
PDF: Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States

Did we discuss this pollution report? It seems quite flawed to me.



So let me get this straight: powering an electric vehicle with the grid average electricity pollutes 80% more than just the tailpipe of an ICE? First of all, that sounds way too high (is it a cooked up number?). Second, what about extracting, refining, and transporting oil, why not include that?

Also, this is the image in the report:
View attachment 67139
So let me get this straight: they are comparing 2005 pollution (including from gasoline ICEs) to what would supposedly be added by 2020? If Electric cars replace gasoline cars, then why would you add the electric car pollution to the previous gasoline car pollution?

Anyway, this is a report from November of this year that is now being cited far too often as proof that electric vehicles aren't the solution to our environmental problems. To me, it seems like it creates more questions than it answers, and doesn't provide enough information. I am skeptical and curious to hear what you guys think.

I read abstract and summary only, without scrutinizing test methods.

Our assessment of the life cycle air quality impacts on human health of 10 alternatives to conventional gasoline vehicles finds that electric vehicles (EVs) powered by electricity from natural gas or wind, water, or solar power are best for improving air quality, whereas vehicles powered by corn ethanol and EVs powered by coal are the worst.

The falseness of this study lies in trying to taint the clean bev technology with unclean power generation technology by falsely making these two independent variables appear to be dependent. Bev operation and the existence and cleanliness of the power source are independent of each other. This study makes a link between the two variables and such link does not exist in a real world.

The choice of the type of power plant in an area is not driven by the type of transport that people choose. Any area that uses coal-powered plant as its electricity supply source most likely does not have other, better choices, or has the plant as a legacy. The existence of the coal powered plants is independent of the type of transport that people choose in the same area.

The study implies that we should not be using bevs powered by coal-generated electricity if we wish to have clean air. My counter argument is that the number of bevs on the road has no meaningful impact on the cleanliness of the air that a power source creates. Electric vehicles are unlikely to increase demand on the said power plants as the charging happens during the night.

Once we have a coal-powered plant operating in an area, and people do not wish to shut it down, the best way to clean the air is to install adequate filters on the plant.

The question for residents of an area should be: given your power plant source will not change, which kind of transportation adds the least to polluting your air?

 

[Robert.Boston]

The key point is that his article is looking primary at fine particulates. Gasoline doesn't have many of these, while coal does. The article is explicitly not about GHGs.

 

[Auzie]

BMW to test fuel cell car

BMW Marketing Head suggests battery cars will ultimately prevail

BMW will begin testing of what may be called the i5 fuel cell vehicle using a Toyota co-developed fuel cell system, but battery electric technology may rise up and render it uncompetitive before hydrogen ever really takes hold, says the German automaker.

BMW has been partnered in fuel cell development with Toyota, and its new i-series of cars based around battery tech are being developed alongside, with the electric i3 and i8 plug-in hybrid on the market beginning last year in Europe and this year in the U.S.

This is very much a shakeout between technologies, with battery tech already ahead in the race. And not only did Robertson tell Autocar batteries appear to be the odds-on favorite, he also can foresee the day when a tipping point will see the industry turn away from internal combustion.
“At some point in the future the technologies will switch over,” he said. “When the crossover comes and the focus becomes electricity, the rate of learning will accelerate even faster,” he said. “Relatively, that time is not far away.”

 

[Johan]

BMW Marketing Head suggests battery cars will ultimately prevail

So... Why on earth then persue FCVs???

 

[ggr]

So... Why on earth then persue FCVs???

Maybe contractual obligation. That would give a whole new meaning to "compliance car"!

 

[Auzie]

So... Why on earth then persue FCVs???

Pursuing FCV seems to make their strategy more transparent. Drag their feet for as long as they can and pursue compliance cars.

So much talent is lost in pursuing compliance at the expense of pursuing innovation

Maybe contractual obligation. That would give a whole new meaning to "compliance car"!

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

So... Why on earth then persue FCVs???

1) Hedging
2) Subsidies
3) CARB has such generous credits for HFCV in comparison to BEV that it's a sensible thing to do
4) ... and they might abandon BEVx and sell the i3 REX without the crippled REX.
5) Fuel cells would be a very useful technology if the price can be lowered.

Edit: in 4, meant BEVx

 

[Auzie]

1) Hedging
2) Subsidies
3) CARB has such generous credits for HFCV in comparison to BEV that it's a sensible thing to do
4) ... and they might abandon BEV and sell the i3 REX without the crippled REx.
5) Fuel cells would be a very useful technology if the price can be lowered.

BMW will begin testing of what may be called the i5 fuel cell vehicle using a Toyota co-developed fuel cell system, but battery electric technology may rise up and render it uncompetitive before hydrogen ever really takes hold, says the German automaker.

BMW Head of Marketing states his view on FCV likely future and announces that BMW will begin testing the technology he proclaimed obsolete.

I find it astonishing that he said these incompatible statements in the same breath. Even more astonishing that this comes from a Head of Marketing, so it is unlikely to be a slip up. The only way that I can read that is that he does not like his job any more??? Maybe he wants a job at Tesla.:biggrin:

 

[The Blue Owl]

I find it astonishing that he said these incompatible statements in the same breath.

Astonishing, indeed.

Even more astonishing that this comes from a Head of Marketing

Ah, ok. I'm not astonished anymore.

 

[Auzie]

BMW 7 Series next generation revealed

Bmw-7 series next generation 730d sedan photographed

Reports state that the new 7 Series will be officially launched in the build up to the one of this year’s major European motor shows, either the Geneva show in March or Frankfurt extravaganza in September.

Reports indicate that the new 7 Series will tip the scales at least 100 kilograms lighter than the current model. Some rumours talk of savings of up to 170 and 200 kilograms, which would mean that the next-generation 7 Series will be around the same weight as the current 5 Series. The car will feature a high proportion of lightweight materials, such as carbon fibre, aluminium and high-strength steel, in their structures.

Under the bonnet, the next-gen 7 Series is expected to feature engines equipped with either six, eight or twelve cylinders. Powertrain details are scarce, however, the 7 series is expected to come in a range of turbocharged diesel and petrol options, as well as 'active hybrid' versions including a plug in hybrid producing around 249kW. On top of the range is set to be a 6 litre twin turbo V12 producing around 440kW.

gas-guzzler

On the inside, the new BMW 7 Series has a sleeker layout and more inviting design than the current model. Like other recent BMW models, it features a tablet-style high-resolution display rising out of the dashboard.

 

[bluenation]

wow its...a kia k900

*slow clap*

 

[RobStark]

Toyota is "musking" fuel cells by releasing it patents on fuel cells technology including fuel-cell stacks, high-pressure hydrogen tanks, fuel system software and hydrogen production and supply.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/01/05/toyota-fuel-cell/21299311/

Touché, you bastards!

 

[Peter_M]

Toyota is "musking" fuel cells by releasing it patents on fuel cells technology including fuel-cell stacks, high-pressure hydrogen tanks, fuel system software and hydrogen production and supply.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/01/05/toyota-fuel-cell/21299311/

I thought mainstream fuel cell cars were perpetually 15 years in the future. Now Toyota is saying 100 years...

 

[pGo]

So it looks like one hydrogen station costs $2M. To build 500 stations, the bill would be $1B. Tesla will only spend around $150-200M to build just that. Add home chargers, and you can say Toyota is going to make the biggest strategic mistake of the century.

 

[RobStark]

So it looks like one hydrogen station costs $2M. To build 500 stations, the bill would be $1B. Tesla will only spend around $150-200M to build just that. Add home chargers, and you can say Toyota is going to make the biggest strategic mistake of the century.

Toyota is only giving low interest loans to hydrogen fueling station companies.

Most of the bill is being paid by taxpayers. First in CA, Japan, and Germany.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Toyota is "musking" fuel cells by releasing it patents on fuel cells technology including fuel-cell stacks, high-pressure hydrogen tanks, fuel system software and hydrogen production and supply.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/01/05/toyota-fuel-cell/21299311/

Touché, you bastards!

With the big catch being only up to 2020. Then they can continue to charge whatever they want for the patents. That kind of catch makes the announcement much less meaningful. And there's a whole lot of other restrictions on what you can use the patents for.

 

[chickensevil]

I thought mainstream fuel cell cars were perpetually 15 years in the future. Now Toyota is saying 100 years...

That way when 100 years comes to pass and the technology still isn't there no one will still be alive that remembers that the 100 year timeframe was mentioned.

 

[Auzie]

Top horsepower per $

Autoblog published comparison of 2015 cars on some interesting metrics

Here is what the creative author Seyth Miersma has to say about his spreadsheet:

For my list, I'm running with the straight MSRP wherever possible, and as recently reported as I can get it. All the vehicles on my list are 2015 models (with the exception of a few exotics that seem to shun formal model year designation), and all trims are reported where the lowest price and differing power levels intersect.

The link to Seyth's spreadsheet is here

Snapshot of the most expensive cars on this metric ($/hp):

Comparative list of more than 600hp cars:

And something for the eyes to feast on:

:love::love::love: