More anti-ev gibberish

[JRP3]

Petersen: http://seekingalpha.com/article/126...-on-solar-power-integration-and-electric-cars

Summary if you don't want to give him a penny:

For my first example, I'll use a Model S Performance Edition from Tesla Motors (TSLA). Based on an embodied energy of 472 kWhe per kWh of battery capacity, the Tesla's 85 kWh battery pack will have 40,120 kWhe of total embodied energy. Over a ten-year useful life, assuming 15,000 miles per year of driving and an average efficiency of 3.5 miles per kWh, 42,850 kWh of purchased electricity will flow through the battery, yielding an ESOI of 1.1.

I've already debunked this in the anti Telsa gibberish thread. The figures in the study were based on a 75 wh/kg battery pack and the S is at least twice that at 150 wh/kg, so the construction energy would be half.

Anti-Tesla Gibberish - Page 42

 

[richkae]

I just came across this article from today's WSJ (subscription required):

Bjorn Lomborg: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret - WSJ.com

Don't even bother reading the comments. But if you really want a good laugh, watch the accompanying video which includes some great comments from a mouthpiece for the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. In the video, he praises great American innovation and entrepreneurship for leading the charge in creating cleaner vehicles. He's not referring to EVs of course, rather the breakthroughs in "fracking" technology to power natural gas vehicles.

Can anyone else come up with specific debunking of the article?
It is very difficult to get to the underlying data, but three things I have come up with are:
1) The end of life assumption for the battery is at 150,000 km where it is destroyed and recycled. They totally ignore the possibility of reuse in a stationary application.
2) They assume that the glider/chassis is common between an EV and an ICE. I think this is wrong, because the EV chassis can be simpler.
3) The ICE is assumed to be the same efficiency its whole life, ignoring how much dirtier they get as they fall out of tune.

 

[JRP3]

2) I'm not sure an EV chassis is any simpler or takes any less material than an ICE.
3) May be a valid point though I don't know how to measure it. Here in NY State cars have to pass a yearly inspection test, including emissions.

 

[eledille]

This analysis by Argonne finds rather high numbers. This Japanese analysis finds about 75 kg CO2 per kWh battery capacity.

1. A large part of the energy consumption is electricity. The CO2 emissions then depend on the source of that electricity, and can be removed altogether by using nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. They are also from a large point source (the power plant) and can be captured rather than from millions of individual tail pipes.

2. Much of the energy consumption is due to mining and processing of raw materials. This can be eliminated by recycling. Lomborg assumes new raw materials only.

3. I suspect the production percentage of total life cycle energy consumption in Lomborgs sources are too high. I've seen other analyses from serious scientists come up with much lower estimates for pure BEVs, more on the order of 20 to 25 %, despite the energy intensive battery. I can't find them right now, of course.

4. There are other battery technologies - for example the Zebra battery. That battery uses much less energy intensive raw materials.

5. Battery technology is improving. Nanotech and materials science is continually improving the energy densities, and when they get the lithium air battery working, all this is history.

6. Lomborg seems to be forgetting that choking on smog isn't much fun either, a problem that EVs eliminate completely. Reduced noise pollution is also a good thing.

7. It's not hard to put a lot of kms on a short range EV - just commute 70 km or so per day. That's about 15k km per year, excluding shopping etc.

 

[ChadS]

Lomborg's article in the WSJ refers to a study that made the rounds a few months ago and was debunked then. Richkae got a couple of the points. A couple more biggies are HERE.

 

[richkae]

Lomborg's article in the WSJ refers to a study that made the rounds a few months ago and was debunked then. Richkae got a couple of the points. A couple more biggies are HERE.

Was there a thread? Is there a "better" debunking that cites sources and specifics?

 

[Fredrik S]

Lomborg's article in the WSJ refers to a study that made the rounds a few months ago and was debunked then. Richkae got a couple of the points. A couple more biggies are HERE.

No. That was another study. Here's the one Lombard is refering to:
Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles - Hawkins - 2012 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library

 

[eledille]

Anders Hammer Strømman has skewed numbers in favor of oil before.

 

[strider]

But at the end of the day, if someone asks you about this, is to keep some perspective. The first ICE cars were horribly inefficient. They got terrible mileage and spewed tons of exhaust. Now after over a century of R&D they are where they are today. EVs and battery tech is still growing. Just like it was foolish to look at an ICE car in 1895 and think they were going to stay that way forever it is foolish to think EV and battery tech will stand still as well.

The other problem I see some people do (haven't read this article so don't know) is that they compare a Model S to a Ford Focus or other econobox that gets "good mileage" when Model S' competition is the A7, 5-series, etc.

 

[JRP3]

1. A large part of the energy consumption is electricity. The CO2 emissions then depend on the source of that electricity, and can be removed altogether by using nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. They are also from a large point source (the power plant) and can be captured rather than from millions of individual tail pipes.

CO2 capture is expensive, and reduces the efficiency of the power plant, and I don't think it's currently happening.

2. Much of the energy consumption is due to mining and processing of raw materials. This can be eliminated by recycling. Lomborg assumes new raw materials only.

Recycling still takes energy so it won't eliminate energy consumption.

4. There are other battery technologies - for example the Zebra battery. That battery uses much less energy intensive raw materials.

Zebra has it's own problems.

 

[eledille]

They're taking the numbers for the life cycle environmental assessment of the batteries from their own earlier paper. Strømman is known to be anti-EV, so one might want to check that article. If those numbers are wrong, then this article is wrong too.

Majeau-Bettez, G., T. R. Hawkins, and A. H. Strømman. 2011. Life cycle environmental assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology 45(10): 4548–4554.

The biggest weakness I've found so far is that they're not considering battery recycling at all. That makes the report completely invalid in a 15 year perspective, because a very large part of the extra energy cost is mining and refining of metals that can be recycled at very low cost.

- - - Updated - - -

CO2 capture is expensive, and reduces the efficiency of the power plant, and I don't think it's currently happening.

Focusing solely on how to reduce CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions today without taking future developments into account would be short sighted. Such a large infrastructure shift takes time. Science is pretty clear on this - if we don't stop emitting CO[sub]2[/sub] pretty soon, we're going to be in deep trouble. Arguing that we're going to continue to burn coal without capturing CO[sub]2[/sub] sort of makes the whole discussion uninteresting, if so we might as well just keep driving big gasoline SUVs since it's all going to hell anyway.

By the way, I completely agree with you, CCS is too expensive and doesn't capture all the emissions anyway. A mix of mostly nuclear energy with some wind and solar balanced by hydro and pumped hydro will be needed. But whether it's nuclear or CCS doesn't matter in this context, CO[sub]2[/sub] reduction does.

Recycling still takes energy so it won't eliminate energy consumption.

Hey, are you pro or anti EV? Recycling takes a ridiculously low amount of energy compared to mining and refining, and battery recycling is really easy.

Zebra has it's own problems.

No, it doesn't, no large ones anyway. The Zebra Thinks are working really well.

 

[eledille]

Found the other analysis, which shows that total lifetime global warming impact for an ICEV is 55 % higher than that of an EV of similar size: Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles

Note that this analysis does not consider recycling either, it assumes the ICEV actually consumes the fuel that NEDC says it does - which is wrong, and the energy density of Model S is about 20 % better than that of their battery. Even so the EV wins.

 

[JRP3]

Hey, are you pro or anti EV? Recycling takes a ridiculously low amount of energy compared to mining and refining, and battery recycling is really easy.

I'm "pro" accurate information. Recycling of lithium batteries at this point in time takes a fair amount of energy and not all the materials in the batteries are being reused. In fact it is a challenge to separate all the materials in lithium batteries and return them to useful products. I do expect recycling to improve but until we have actual figures of energy required and percentage of materials recovered you cannot make blanket statements about it.

As for the Zebra, there are reasons no other EV builders are using them, poor energy density being one of them. Plus Think went bankrupt.

 

[Norbert]

Although we don't know what the future battery tech will be long term, we can be quite sure it won't be the current one. Energy density will increase, and reach the point where battery weight will be reduced (once range is increased sufficiently). I expect in the very long term, it will be something like super caps using carbon nano tech.

While current EVs don't have that battery tech, they do accelerate the development of battery technology. Also I think the development of electric cars encourages the development and popularization of solar energy, and other renewable energy.

So I don't give a lot of weight to such detailed studies of current technology, as they obfuscate the dynamic nature of the situation, and the crucial role of electric cars in accelerating this dynamic nature.

- - - Updated - - -

Found the other analysis, which shows that total lifetime global warming impact for an ICEV is 55 % higher than that of an EV of similar size: Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles

Note that this analysis does not consider recycling either, it assumes the ICEV actually consumes the fuel that NEDC says it does - which is wrong, and the energy density of Model S is about 20 % better than that of their battery. Even so the EV wins.

Nevertheless, I bookmarked this one...

 

[AndreN]

I do expect recycling to improve but until we have actual figures of energy required and percentage of materials recovered you cannot make blanket statements about it.

An old Tesla blog about roadster battery recycling here claims that 60% of materials are recovered and a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions. But that's for the old cobalt chemistry. Would be nice to get a new Tesla blog sometime that lists recycling info for the Model S battery.

 

[JRP3]

New work on recycling lithium chemistries: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/gc/c3gc40182k

 

[richkae]

Since the study assumes a ridiculous 150,000 km lifetime of the vehicles I looked up some stats to refute that.

A study about the average age of vehicles in use in the US: 11.1 years Average Age of Vehicles Reaches Record High, According to Polk - Polk - Company - News

Two good links for data:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=gb66jodhlsaab_#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=Vehicles&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
Chapter 8 Household Vehicles and Characteristics - Transportation Energy Data Book

From those, the total number of vehicles in the US: 240 million and the total miles driven: 3 trillion
So thats 12,500 miles per year per vehicle.

From here: U.S. Car and Truck Sales, 1931-2012 | WardsAuto
Auto sales per year about: 15 million

So the average vehicle in use today has 139,000 miles ( 224,000 km ) already on it.
If the total number of vehicles stays constant at 240 million, 15 million new vehicles per year mean that the entire fleet is replaced after 16 years.
16 years at 12500 miles per year is 200,000 miles over its lifetime ( 320,000 km )

That is more than double the 150,000 km in the study that was used to disparage EVs.

 

[hcsharp]

Was there a thread? Is there a "better" debunking that cites sources and specifics?

You can find another debunking here that discusses the sources for the skewed petrol consumption (up to 95 mpg for the ICE) and compares that to an average EV using more power than a Volt (the highest consuming EV).

The sources for the debunking in the LlewBlog can be found by reading the study itself and the attached data sources, which includes datasheets for the motor, inverter and (here's the kicker) a 90kW charger. That's right, since the Leaf is capable of DC quick charging, they assumed a 90kW DC quick charger is on-board the Leaf! Llewellyn is wrong about the motor and inverter size. The study assumed a motor a little over 2x the weight of the actual Leaf motor, and an inverter weighing about 10x an actual Leaf inverter.

None of this is terribly surprising given that Strømman all but works for Statoil.

Found the other analysis, which shows that total lifetime global warming impact for an ICEV is 55 % higher than that of an EV of similar size: Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles

Note that this analysis does not consider recycling either, it assumes the ICEV actually consumes the fuel that NEDC says it does - which is wrong, and the energy density of Model S is about 20 % better than that of their battery. Even so the EV wins.

This study is of course much better but like you said is still skewed towards the ICE vehicle. In addition the points you mentioned, they assume the battery is dead and useless at 150,000km when the MS battery is expected to last about twice that long. Even the Roadster cells are lasting much longer than 150k km, and are being used for other purposes afterwards.

 

[eledille]

I'm "pro" accurate information. Recycling of lithium batteries at this point in time takes a fair amount of energy and not all the materials in the batteries are being reused. In fact it is a challenge to separate all the materials in lithium batteries and return them to useful products. I do expect recycling to improve but until we have actual figures of energy required and percentage of materials recovered you cannot make blanket statements about it.

Everything can be recycled. Recycling of the lithium isn't currently done, but is expected in the future. It's simply cheaper to pump new lithium than separating used lithium. But lithium contributes only about 2 to 3 % of the energy requirement. Recycling of nickel, cobalt and aluminium is being done today, and the largest single energy requirement is from the aluminium packaging, see the life cycle impact analysis I posted. The Lithium Battery Recycling Challenge - Waste Management World

This can also be regulated by law. In Norway all liquids in a condemned car must be drained and disposed of properly. This is obviously a net loss, but is necessary to protect the environment. Scrap yards are required to perform this job to be allowed to operate. I'm sure there are similar regulations elsewhere.

As for the Zebra, there are reasons no other EV builders are using them, poor energy density being one of them. Plus Think went bankrupt.

The fact that a small EV startup went bankrupt because they were unable to secure loans in the aftermath of the 2009 financial crash has exactly zero relevance to the Zebra battery. The Zebra battery does not have low energy density. The energy density of the Think Zebra battery is 116 Wh/kg, but it does not require extensive liquid cooling like Li-ion does, so the real energy density of the battery is higher than it seems. The battery is also totally immune cold weather and has a very high lifetime. My point of bringing up the Zebra battery was simply to point out that more environmentally friendly alternatives do exist. Energy storage - ZEBRA batteries - Rolls-Royce

 

[JRP3]

Everything can be recycled. Recycling of the lithium isn't currently done, but is expected in the future. It's simply cheaper to pump new lithium than separating used lithium. But lithium contributes only about 2 to 3 % of the energy requirement. Recycling of nickel, cobalt and aluminium is being done today, and the largest single energy requirement is from the aluminium packaging, see the life cycle impact analysis I posted. The Lithium Battery Recycling Challenge - Waste Management World

Still zero data on actual energy used in the process. I'm not arguing that recycling can't or won't happen, I'm simply stating that we don't have solid figures on energy inputs required.

This can also be regulated by law. In Norway all liquids in a condemned car must be drained and disposed of properly. This is obviously a net loss, but is necessary to protect the environment. Scrap yards are required to perform this job to be allowed to operate. I'm sure there are similar regulations elsewhere.

Regulations are irrelevant to the energy used by the process, and in fact if regulations are required it probably means recycling is too energy intensive to be profitable.

The fact that a small EV startup went bankrupt because they were unable to secure loans in the aftermath of the 2009 financial crash has exactly zero relevance to the Zebra battery. The Zebra battery does not have low energy density. The energy density of the Think Zebra battery is 116 Wh/kg, but it does not require extensive liquid cooling like Li-ion does, so the real energy density of the battery is higher than it seems. The battery is also totally immune cold weather and has a very high lifetime. My point of bringing up the Zebra battery was simply to point out that more environmentally friendly alternatives do exist. Energy storage - ZEBRA batteries - Rolls-Royce

Worse specific energy than lithium cobalt varieties, much worse volumetric energy density, worse specific power output, and lower charge efficiency all mean that Zebra is not an alternative. We need better batteries in all categories, not worse.