hybrids are not EVcars , shut them out

[willow_hiller]

One more relevant article:

Analysis finds hybrids make better use of scarce batteries than pure EVs

Points well taken, but I think a distinction needs to be drawn between expensive and scarce. Lithium is relatively plentiful, and although Cobalt is rare a lot of battery manufacturers are cutting down on its use.

An article addressing some other myths about EVs mentions this: Busting 7 of the most common myths about electric cars

"Lithium is abundant on five continents. It presently blows across the plains of Peru as dust. Most analyses suggest it will never see the shortages or cartels or sales restrictions that oil does. It's just too plentiful."

 

[acoste]

Points well taken, but I think a distinction needs to be drawn between expensive and scarce. Lithium is relatively plentiful, and although Cobalt is rare a lot of battery manufacturers are cutting down on its use.

An article addressing some other myths about EVs mentions this: Busting 7 of the most common myths about electric cars

"Lithium is abundant on five continents. It presently blows across the plains of Peru as dust. Most analyses suggest it will never see the shortages or cartels or sales restrictions that oil does. It's just too plentiful."

Based on my readings I came to the conclusion that the mining business for batteries ramps up too slowly. This is why even Tesla showed interest in entering into the mining business. Tesla might get into the mining business to secure minerals for electric batteries – TechCrunch

Here is a prediction for battery production for 2028. Even that capacity can't keep up with the worldwide new cars sales. And renewable storage will eat up a portion of this.

Battery Megafactory Forecast: 400% Increase in Capacity to 1 TWh by 2028

if production is at 1TWh / year
and each car has a 50kWh battery
that equals to 20M cars/year.

Worldwide new car sales is higher than 80M cars annually. Plus renewable storage.

 

[willow_hiller]

Based on my readings I came to the conclusion that the mining business for batteries ramps up too slowly. This is why even Tesla showed interest in entering into the mining business. Tesla might get into the mining business to secure minerals for electric batteries – TechCrunch

Here is a prediction for battery production for 2028. Even that capacity can't keep up with the worldwide new cars sales. And renewable storage will eat up a portion of this.

Battery Megafactory Forecast: 400% Increase in Capacity to 1 TWh by 2028

if production is at 1TWh / year
and each car has a 50kWh battery
that equals to 20M cars/year.

Worldwide new car sales is higher than 80M cars annually. Plus renewable storage.

Interesting. Do we know anything about lithium recycling yet? I imagine by the time EVs are more mainstream recycled lithium will be one of the major sources for batteries. That, and there's the potential for battery reuse. It seems like there's already a pop-up industry around reusing Tesla batteries for various purposes.

 

[Eno Deb]

Have you considered the co2 footprint of the battery?
Swedish study calls for smaller EV batteries, finds Tesla more polluting than an 8-year-old car | Autovista Group
"a car with an internal combustion engine (ICE) can drive for eight years before it reaches the same environmental load as a Tesla with a 100kWh battery."

This 8 year claim keeps popping up, but has long been discredited. It is based on a second-hand report from someone who was not involved in the Swedish study, and does only apply under very specific circumstances. You can read more about it here:

No, Tesla Batteries Are Not a Global-Warming Disaster

In the US, a 100kWh EV would break even in between 3 and 6 years if you use the same methodology as the study (and obviously most EVs have smaller batteries and break even earlier). More recent studies arrived at even more favorable results for EVs, and they continue to get better.

 

[Eno Deb]

Here is a prediction for battery production for 2028. Even that capacity can't keep up with the worldwide new cars sales.

Yes, this is one of the reasons why EVs won't be able to scale up and "take over" anywhere near as fast as many Tesla fans assume, but will coexist with other types of drive systems for a long time.

 

[Curious George]

This 8 year claim keeps popping up, but has long been discredited. It is based on a second-hand report from someone who was not involved in the Swedish study, and does only apply under very specific circumstances. You can read more about it here:

No, Tesla Batteries Are Not a Global-Warming Disaster

In the US, a 100kWh EV would break even in between 3 and 6 years if you use the same methodology as the study (and obviously most EVs have smaller batteries and break even earlier). More recent studies arrived at even more favorable results for EVs, and they continue to get better.

The first link is right that it all depends on various factors and assumptions. This is why I picked a specific comparison of similar vehicle; otherwise there are too many moving variables.
The article asserts (in large bold text) that Tesla giga factory is carbon neutral, but produces no proof. Just points to some wish and probably assumes it is 0 CO2. Tesla hasn't released the co2 footprint data for its battery factory.

The second link is good (newer numbers). But it didn't include the extra CO2 produced by large battery EVs during production. Just compares CO2 for the driving energy. Yes, of course, as grid gets cleaner, the EV electricity produces less CO2.
But the 68% extra co2 during its production ( 1.5 tonnes) remains. So even with 100% solar electricity, with zero co2, the Camry can drive 6 years before a new Tesla 100 KWh will catch up with it. So, what you said is right. 5-6 years time to just catch up.

Now, many people drive even less than 12kmiles/year; so their situation will be different. Like my gas car, that has 5K miles/year after a decade.

 

[Eno Deb]

The first link is right that it all depends on various factors and assumptions. This is why I picked a specific comparison of similar vehicle; otherwise there are too many moving variables.
The article asserts (in large bold text) that Tesla giga factory is carbon neutral, but produces no proof. Just points to some wish and probably assumes it is 0 CO2. Tesla hasn't released the co2 footprint data for its battery factory.

See e.g. here. But even if you assume that this will never happen and that all the other assumptions from the Swedish study are correct (which is highly questionable), the 8 year number would still not be applicable to the US because it used Swedish numbers for the fossil fuel vehicles when calculating the break-even point.

The second link is good (newer numbers). But it didn't include the extra CO2 produced by large battery EVs during production. Just compares CO2 for the driving energy. Yes, of course, as grid gets cleaner, the EV electricity produces less CO2. But the 68% extra co2 during its production ( 1.5 tonnes) remains.

68% is not a magic number. The real number depends on many factors.

So even with 100% solar electricity, with zero co2, the Camry can drive 6 years before a new Tesla 100 KWh will catch up with it. So, what you said is right. 5-6 years time to just catch up.

I have no idea how you came up with those numbers. Anyway, there are other studies that come to very different results. For example, this analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists states that the excess manufacturing emissions of EVs are offset in just 6 to 16 months:

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul...ner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

 

[Curious George]

See e.g. here. But even if you assume that this will never happen and that all the other assumptions from the Swedish study are correct (which is highly questionable), the 8 year number would still not be applicable to the US because it used Swedish numbers for the fossil fuel vehicles when calculating the break-even point.
68% is not a magic number. The real number depends on many factors.
I have no idea how you came up with those numbers. Anyway, there are other studies that come to very different results. For example, this analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists states that the excess manufacturing emissions of EVs are offset in just 6 to 16 months:

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul...ner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

I was using the data from the CleanTechnica article posted up thread, that quoted an UCS data point. See last sentence. As Model S/3 are > 300 miles, it could be even higher than 68%. And I was using the absolute CO2 emission of a car production from the guardian article I posted above. 17 tonnes of CO2 for a Ford Mondeo type car (mid size).

Let’s take that last part first. Those who oppose electric cars like to say that electric cars create more emissions during manufacturing than conventional cars do. And you know what? They’re right! The UCS found that “Manufacturing a midsized EV with an 84-mile range results in about 15% more emissions than manufacturing an equivalent gasoline vehicle. For larger, longer-range EVs that travel more than 250 miles per charge, the manufacturing emissions can be as much as 68% higher.”

I think we both agree, the results of these studies can vary a lot and depend on so many variables that nothing is as black and white as implied by the OP.
If Toyota uses highly energy efficient green factories for its cars, transports its workers by hybrid buses etc, its CO2 foot print for each car produced is very low. if Ford workers drive old gas guzzlers 40 miles one way, uses coal power electricity etc, the CO2 foot print of its Taurus or such can be twice as much. So, Toyota could decide to use green factories for Camry and cut its cradle to grave environmental impact a lot. If that 17 tonnes is cut in half, that's another 4 years worth of driving around in a Camry.

Toyota actually publishes the total carbon footprint of Camry! Below is from 2009, so now it could be even lower.
https://www.toyota.com.au/static/pd...ssurance_report_Camry_Footprint_12May2011.pdf
"Total greenhouse gas emissions (excluding use and dealership emissions) per Camry Vehicle manufactured and sold in Australia 2009/10 10.21 tonnes CO2-e"

 

[wycolo]

Basic Rule of Economy: If it is cheaper it is better. Since it is *much* cheaper to operate an EV than an ICE it is therefore *much* better to use the EV. KISS (keep it simple . . .).


> es-2016-00177x_0002.jpeg

Look at the Chevy Spark_EV way down at the bottom left. Way to go GM_Korea !!
--

 

[Silicon Desert]

. The people I know who have Hybuts never us the electric mode,
as soon that they need A/C or heat, or speed, the flashlight is empty.

It sounds like there are "hybrids" out there that I haven't looked into. In the wife's hybrid, there is no option to choose electric or gas. The car decides.

 

[willow_hiller]

It sounds like there are "hybrids" out there that I haven't looked into. In the wife's hybrid, there is no option to choose electric or gas. The car decides.

Maybe he means PHEVs that never plug in and never operate in all-electric mode. That would negate any plug-in advantage and revert it to a normal hybrid.

 

[ZsoZso]

Out of curiosity, I went ahead and read that Cleantechica article. It's highly flawed. I will debunk it later. is the author just careless or has an agenda? He is blaming Koch brothers for these neutral studies Is billionaire Elon Musk paying for this site?

That is a bold faced lie and you know it! It is not a "blame" to point out facts, and those studies are exteremely far from "neutral".
It is well documented fact that the Koch brothers spend millions of dollars per year to spread anti-EV propaganda via the Heartland institute and other "Merchants of doubt" outfits.

 

[ZsoZso]

I was using the data from the CleanTechnica article posted up thread, that quoted an UCS data point. See last sentence. As Model S/3 are > 300 miles, it could be even higher than 68%. And I was using the absolute CO2 emission of a car production from the guardian article I posted above. 17 tonnes of CO2 for a Ford Mondeo type car (mid size).



I think we both agree, the results of these studies can vary a lot and depend on so many variables that nothing is as black and white as implied by the OP.
If Toyota uses highly energy efficient green factories for its cars, transports its workers by hybrid buses etc, its CO2 foot print for each car produced is very low. if Ford workers drive old gas guzzlers 40 miles one way, uses coal power electricity etc, the CO2 foot print of its Taurus or such can be twice as much. So, Toyota could decide to use green factories for Camry and cut its cradle to grave environmental impact a lot. If that 17 tonnes is cut in half, that's another 4 years worth of driving around in a Camry.

Toyota actually publishes the total carbon footprint of Camry! Below is from 2009, so now it could be even lower.
https://www.toyota.com.au/static/pd...ssurance_report_Camry_Footprint_12May2011.pdf
"Total greenhouse gas emissions (excluding use and dealership emissions) per Camry Vehicle manufactured and sold in Australia 2009/10 10.21 tonnes CO2-e"

This is all smoke and mirrors. All the articles and "studies" that point out the high CO2 cost of Li-ion battery production are based on obfuscation and blaming batteries for dirty electric grid and diesel truck emissions, neither of which has anything to do with actual Li-ion battery production.

Q: Take a good look at the Tesla gigafactory in Nevada. Does it have huge smoke-stacks that emit CO2 ?
A: Nope. All you see on top of the roof is solar panels.

Q: Does any of the chemical or manufactoring process used in Li-ion cell or battery pack production directly emit CO2 ?
A: Nope.

Q: Where does all the associated CO2 emission of EV battery production, really come from ?
A: From 3 major sources:

1. The production process is energy intensive, requires lots of electricity and heat (e.g. electrode drying ovens), so for the energy needs, the studies assume local grid mix CO2 emission costs. However, if the specific factory (like the Tesla factory in Nevada) uses its own solar panels to generate clean renewable energy and does not rely on the grid, then the premise of the study is false, there is Zero actual CO2 emission associated with the energy consumption of the EV battery pack production.
2. The battery cells and packs require a lot of source material that needs to be transported from the suppliers to the factory, this transportation involves diesel trucks and ships with their respective associated CO2 emissions. So the actual blame should fall squarely on the transportation industry for using diesel power rather than electric trains or trucks (e.g. Tesla Semi could be used). So this part can also be reduced to zero by transforming the transportation industry into EVs.
3. The mining of the raw materials also emits significant amount of CO2. Why ? Of course, you guessed it: due to using diesel powered mining equipment. Now, guess what would happen if those machines were also changed to be electric powered ? Yup, this part would also fall to zero CO2 emission.

So, in summary, the total inherent CO2 emission of EV battery production is ZERO. So, stop blaming the EVs for the CO2 emissions embedded in battery production, because all of those are due to dirty grid, diesel trucks and mining equipments. If we transition all of them to electric, then we will have total zero CO2 emission EVs including the whole production system.

 

[SSedan]

BOTH sides spread the bull______ thick when arguing their angle.

 

[ScubaMal]

I always called my Volt, the "Tesla Trainer". Until I sold it.

 

[ajdelange]

Interesting. Do we know anything about lithium recycling yet?.

We know that every bit of lithium put into a battery originally will still be in it at end of life. What I don't know is what it might to take it out. What happens at end of life is that an appreciable part of lithium forms compounds with the electrolyte so that it is unable to shuffle back and forth between cathode and anode. Just for the sake of discussion let's suppose that used auto batteries are put to other use until they can't be charged to more than 50% of original capacity. That says that half the lithium is still intercalated with the elctrodes and it ought to be easy to recover that in a galvanic cell. The other half is in a slew of organometallic compounds which I believe are mostly hydrocarbons as the electrolytes are. The metal should be recoverable by oxidizing the hydrogen and cabon in those compounds but that, of course, releases CO2 which would have to be sequesterd were the process to be carbon neutral. No idea what it would take to do that cost effectively.