New Study Proves EVs Are Always Cleaner Than Gas Cars (thedrive.com) 195
An anonymous reader shares a report: It's broadly understood that electric vehicles are more environmentally friendly than their counterparts that burn only gasoline. And yes -- that includes the impact of manufacturing batteries and generating power to charge them. But even then, such generalizations gloss over specifics, like which EVs are especially eco-friendly, not to mention where. The efficiency of an electric car varies greatly depending on ambient temperature, which is less compromising for gas-burning vehicles.
We now have the data and math to answer these questions, courtesy of the University of Michigan. Last week, researchers there released a study along with a calculator that allows users to compare the lifetime difference in greenhouse gas emissions of various vehicle types and powertrains from "cradle to grave," as they say. That includes vehicle production and disposal, as well as use-phase emissions from "driving and upstream fuel production and/or electricity generation," per the university itself.
What's more, these calculations can be skewed by where you live. So, if I punch in my location of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, I can see that my generic, pure-ICE "compact sedan" emits 309 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (gCO2e) per mile. A compact hybrid would emit 20% less; a plug-in hybrid, 44% less; and an EV with a 200-mile range, a whopping 63% less. And, if I moved to Phoenix, the gains would be even larger by switching to pure electric, to the tune of a 79% reduced carbon impact.
We now have the data and math to answer these questions, courtesy of the University of Michigan. Last week, researchers there released a study along with a calculator that allows users to compare the lifetime difference in greenhouse gas emissions of various vehicle types and powertrains from "cradle to grave," as they say. That includes vehicle production and disposal, as well as use-phase emissions from "driving and upstream fuel production and/or electricity generation," per the university itself.
What's more, these calculations can be skewed by where you live. So, if I punch in my location of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, I can see that my generic, pure-ICE "compact sedan" emits 309 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (gCO2e) per mile. A compact hybrid would emit 20% less; a plug-in hybrid, 44% less; and an EV with a 200-mile range, a whopping 63% less. And, if I moved to Phoenix, the gains would be even larger by switching to pure electric, to the tune of a 79% reduced carbon impact.
whatever the opposite of rolling coal is (Score:2)
"New Study Proves EVs Are Always Cleaner Than Gas Cars"
You would think that American scientists would know better than to frame their research on environmental impact in the form of a challenge.
Re:whatever the opposite of rolling coal is (Score:5, Insightful)
They did. Their actual study name is "Greenhouse Gas Reductions Driven by Vehicle Electrification across Powertrains, Classes, Locations, and Use Patterns"
You read a headline, which was written by a reporter, who gets paid when people get emotional about his article.
Reporter's write headlines, scientists write studies. You and I write the comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: whatever the opposite of rolling coal is (Score:2)
Re:whatever the opposite of rolling coal is (Score:4, Informative)
You read a headline, which was written by a reporter, who gets paid when people get emotional about his article.
Reporter's write headlines, scientists write studies.
In print news generally editors write headlines not reporters/journalists. How the publication in question does it or how online only publications generally do I don't know.
but what about the tires? (Score:3)
Can't wait for the lies about smog being entirely BEV tire particles.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't wait for the lies about smog being entirely BEV tire particles.
To do so, they'll have to somehow retconn EVs into news items from the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
But, then again, nothing would surprise me nowadays...
Re:but what about the tires? (Score:5, Funny)
I removed the tires from my ICE vehicle. I drive around on the bare rims like a REAL MAN, not a soyboy EV driver that wants little bits of rubber and plastic to give him* a comfy ride.
* (or whatever pronoun EV drivers use)
Re: but what about the tires? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rubber particles and the occasional output from vehicle conflagrations.
Re: but what about the tires? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
And we all know that vehicles carrying around multiple gallons of highly volatile and flammable petroleum distillates in liquid form in plastic fuel cells absolutely never cause fires. You know, except for the ~150k/year recorded by the US DOT...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He reckoned it was the same magnitude of problem as tailpipe emissions.
For an EV he's probably right. Looking purely at particulate emissions he's probably right for a modern PHEV as well. But "solving half the problem" is comically wrong given the abundance of existing evidence that many cities the world over have already solved *all* of the problem from smog through emissions reductions from the tailpipe alone.
Of course tires generate particulates. The joke the OP was saying is about the morons who think that tires are the cause of city smog.
Did anyone doubt this, apart from BP and Shell? (Score:4, Funny)
Hardly earth-shattering news.
Re: (Score:2)
There were legitimate unknowns, but any fool could estimate the unknowns as not making electric vehicles dirtier. Unfortunately, it also meant that any fool could also estimate them to somehow magically require more output for every single fucking part of it than a standard car.
I'm glad someone(s) went and figured out all the unknowns, so that the fucking fossilophiles can fuck off with their bullshit. But of co
Re: (Score:2)
The previous studies weren't wrong, This paper primarily updates to new actuals and new projections for further grind decarbonization. (though it also makes some other methodological changes). So basically they're cutting the CO2e/mile for electricity by a good 40%-50% from some earlier studies.
Woody et al. also investigated MY 2020 vehicles, and reported lower BEV sedan emissions of 141–182 gCO2e/mile when accounting for projected grid decarbonization over the lifetime of the vehicles. (13) The lower emissions calculated in the present work for MY 2025 vehicles reflect the continued progress toward grid decarbonization and improved vehicle fuel efficiency, with the BEV sedan emissions of 88–113 g CO2e/mile. The number of locations in which ICEVs outperform BEVs has also been decreasing as the grid has decarbonized and grid projections have trended toward more rapid decarbonization. ...
therefore, this new finding is primarily due to lower projected grid emissions factors throughout the vehicle’s lifetime.
(from the paper https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.10... [acs.org] in the "3.5. Comparison with Previous Work" section )
Re: (Score:2)
The previous studies weren't wrong
Sure they were.
To be completely fair- it's not like they were wrong by any fault of theirs, they simply greatly underestimated decarbonization.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Part of the change is just that it moves time forward from 2020 to 2025 so e.g. the relative effective emissions integrating 2020 - 2028 is different than the ones over 2025-2033 because of different energy generation mix without either being "wrong" per se.
note: i don't claim to be an expert in this field, just have read articles and papers on it over the years as they come up in arguments. So yes i'm sure some papers are more right or wrong than others in addition to this issue of
Re: (Score:2)
Both models reflect policies in effect for their respective years; policies enacted between 2021 and 2023, along with cost and technology innovations, have led to a significant reduction in projected lifecycle emissions for electric vehicles.
As I said, it's not necessarily their fault- they couldn't predict the future- but it's worth pointing out that that can often be the problem when comparing the lifecycle emissions of something in a rapidly changing environment in comparison to something with virtually static emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
As you say, it’s not *necessarily* their fault, but it’s not unreasonable for studies on EV carbon intensity to make reasonable projections about grid decarbonisation.
I will also say that these studies almost always calculate only over the vehicle’s lifetime (see the quote from the PP, for example). As far as I can tell, this leads to a *wild* over-estimate of the carbon intensity of the battery in an EV. That battery will be re-used and then recycled, because these are cheaper and easier
Re: (Score:2)
My guess, lead-acid batteries,
There is zero chance that an EV will be powered by lead-acid batteries. They are far too heavy (5x), the energy density is too low, they don't last very long, they take a long time to charge, and they hate being run down to near zero.
More lithium mining, plus recycling (Score:2)
Pretty much every day I read about new lithium extraction techniques being developed, which means that even if only 1% of them make it to practice, lithium is going to see a drastic increase in availability at a good reduction in price. The last one I read about uses a specific clay to make what's basically a filter, and can also be used to extract cobalt and nickel.
If some of these technologies pan out, lithium wouldn't be a problem in the future. Especially once we start recycling serious numbers of EV
Re: (Score:3)
There are proven reserves for about 144 years of lithium at current consumption.
There is not a lithium supply problem.
Now crude- there is a crude supply problem.
We have about 45-50 years of proven crude reserves.
144 years is a long time for alternative battery chemistry, and improvements in recycling.
30 years is the time you've got to get off of fossil fuels before you're looking at $50/gallon gas.
As it sits right now, there's no universe w
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe you. There's technology right now that can synthesize gasoline at far less cost than that. https://www.zmescience.com/res [zmescience.com]... [zmescience.com]
Based on proven reserves. ;)
Magical technology that isn't going to pan out- notwithstanding.
I'd read the rest of that article if I were you
In 30 years we can build a lot of nuclear power plants and facilities to process seawater into fuel. I've had people protest this that jet fuel isn't gasoline. Well, if people want to be such dunces that they don't understand that a gasoline engine can run on jet fuel then consider that in 30 years we can use whatever engines the Navy uses in their trucks to shift the vehicles we drive to run on this fuel like theirs do. It's not some huge conversion. They run commercial off the shelf trucks on this same fuel, maybe they need to add some lubricating oil to the fuel tank to keep things lubricated and cool, it is not rocket science here.
I don't think you know what a nuclear power plant costs.
That's great but we aren't talking about current consumption. We are talking about shifting from 99% of vehicles on the road that burn dino juice to 100% battery electric. That means mining a lot more lithium in a very short amount of time. We can't mine lithium at that rate. It's unlikely we could mine enough in 30 years to replace every gasoline and diesel vehicle with battery power in that time.
Indeed we are.
But the fact remains, that we're out of crude.
And when we transition to lithium, we'll be out of it too.
It's the next step that buys us more time, because again- nobody is producing a gallon of synthetic gas for $6.
You need to extract all of the carbonic acid from over 30,000 gallons of seawater
Re: (Score:3)
The US Navy did their math and they came up with $6/gallon.
Christ. Sometimes I wonder if you really are just fucking dumb.
Did you just fucking ignore the part where I said:
You need to extract all of the carbonic acid from over 30,000 gallons of seawater to make 1 gallon of fuel. As you do this, you deplete the local supply of carbon in the water.
This may make sense for the Navy to do at a small enough scale- after all- they have nuclear reactors on their boats- mobile ones.
An aircraft carrier has what is essentially free energy.
The only real cost is the material cost.
Furthermore, the aircraft carrier has a constant source of the primary ingredient to the formula- 36,000 gallons of seawater per gallon of fuel.
This is the same problem as reverse osmosis for desalination.
1) It's ridiculously cost prohibitive. Nuclear reactors are expensive. Their energy is expe
Re:Did anyone doubt this, apart from BP and Shell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not always (Score:2, Insightful)
It's pretty clear that my low mileage ICE vehicle has lower lifetime emissions than an equivalent EV.
I specifically bought ICE for low annual mileage, long trips. EV is completely unsuitable, and would be more expensive, and more polluting.
I think the more appropriate study is that for many cases the EV is less CO2 emitting.
Not all cases, and they didn't consider pollution.
I do hold that for most people, and for my primary car, in my location an EV is a better choice.
But for some use cases they just don't m
Re: (Score:2)
Out of interest, what is your annual mileage in that car?
also: water is wet (Score:2)
did we not know that before? i know they take heavy metals to create but the long term benefits far far outweigh the startup cost. right?
A little too optimistic (Score:3, Interesting)
"We do not include Li-ion battery replacements during the vehicle lifetime. The latest data shows that for new models, batteries tend to outlast the vehicleâ(TM)s useful life."
The referenced citation says: "According to Geotab research, EV batteries could last 20 years or more if degradation continues at this improved rate. "
The "improved rate" being an average of 1.8% degradation per year. This claim itself is of course trivially disproven. A battery assuming 1.8% per year degradation reaches the 80% threshold at year 12, by year 20 it is 69%.
As the referenced citation itself openly admits the degradation rate is of course not constant. 80% is industry standard service life for lithium ion batteries because beyond this threshold degradation rates tend to fall off a cliff rather quickly. It doesn't mean the battery magically becomes useless at 80 yet it does mean you can't rely on it to provide service much further beyond that point yet this study appears comfortable doing just that.
"We assume electrified and nonelectrified vehicles have the same lifetime vehicle miles traveled (VMT):
191,386 miles for sedans, 211,197 miles for SUVs, and 244,179 miles for pickup trucks in our baseline scenario."
Why on earth would anyone assume any such thing?
Also my personal pet peeve zero consideration for vampire drain due to self-discharge, electronics and compartment conditioning amongst those who seldom use their vehicles especially in northern climates when vehicles are not in active use. It is always just about miles driven. Lack of any north v south variations in the charting speaks for itself.
Mileage assumptions (Score:3)
Why would somebody assume that? Because there's a study showing that's the average lifetime miles? Or at least, they calculated those numbers using the study, as the study doesn't say that outright.
Also my personal pet peeve zero consideration for vampire drain due to self-discharge, electronics and compartment conditioning amongst those who seldom use their vehicles especially in northern climates when vehicles are not in active use. It is always just about miles driven. Lack of any north v south variations in the charting speaks for itself.
You get the vampire drain with gasoline vehicles as well. I have to make sure to drive my truck once a week or so, otherwise I have to charge the battery before it will start.
Most vehicles don't sit that much though, so not that big of a factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a million mile Model S out there that has gone through 3 battery packs. But, well, 333k miles per battery, using older battery chemistry, maybe factory refurbished batteries, probably beaten to heck by fast chargers because getting to a million miles takes a huge amount of driving, etc... Still indicates that the average vehicle won't need a battery change.
He's actually had to have more motors swapped out than batteries. I'm pretty sure he's the reason modern Tesla motors have bearings that tear-
Re: (Score:2)
As the referenced citation itself openly admits the degradation rate is of course not constant. 80% is industry standard service life for lithium ion batteries because beyond this threshold degradation rates tend to fall off a cliff rather quickly.
This isn't so much backwards as much as it is dishonest. The reality is the service life for lithium batteries degrades rapidly to around 80-85% and then stays there for a LONG time. Only when the battery actually fails does it degrade rapidly and for the most part this doesn't happen within the life of a car. It's 2025, we have the data. We have vehicles that are pushing 20 years old, we have vehicles with that have well over 400000 miles on them. The data shows that you can expect a car to fall to about t
Old News (Score:4, Interesting)
The only people arguing against EVs on environmental grounds are either people on the far left who are opposed to cars in general or people on the right who don't care about the environment to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious troll is obvious, like ICE cars don't use metals
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not magic, but far more of our power lines are aluminum these days than copper, because it is a heck of a lot cheaper. One only uses copper where one needs maximum conductivity by volume, extra flexibility, corrosion resistance, need for simple connections, etc...
Basically vehicles and 15-20A circuits in buildings.
So no, there's no need for 24B pounds of copper. Around 20B pounds of Aluminum instead, given that Al is actually more conductive by weight than copper, which makes it really handy for eleva
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that US ground transportation consumes 1.1 *trillion* pounds of oil per annum, right? And that once it’s burned, it’s gone, unlike copper?
25 quadrillion Btu of oil consumed by US transport annually, 84% of this is ground transportation, which is the equivalent of 3.6 billion barrels of oil, and each barrel weighs 300 pounds.
The copper needed, even with your stupid inflated figures, is but a pimple on the mighty arse of oil.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pure EV have much LESS maintenance and servicing than an ICE engine. Fewer moving parts = less maintenance and service.
In addition, the battery mileage you describe are the expectations of the corporations which were conservative. People are finding out that used EV's tend to be a great deal for a second car. The batteries are lasting longer than expected but customers are terrified of the battery dying early.
More importantly, every year the batteries keep getting better, but the ICE engines are not imp
Re: (Score:3)
EVs are a mixed bag with cost, less maintenance but more expensive to maintain, and insure. There are studies that have shown this.
Battery is warrantied for 100,000 because it was mandated, lifecycle is how much longer that car will last until it costs too much to repair or be useful. However, ev cars are only around 20 years or so, and there is not enough data, however the preliminary reports are they are not as long lived.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the median lifespan for vehicles in the US like 12 years?
In like half the country the salt will destroy a vehicle long before many parts wear out
Re: (Score:2)
"Less maintenance but more expensive to maintain"?
o.O
In a decade of EV ownership of multiple models by multiple manufacturers, I've never had to perform a battery replacement. I've never had to perform any "regularly scheduled maintenance" other than tire rotations. I've had a couple fluid changes on a couple vehicles, both were about the price of an oil change at a high-end carmaker's dealer. I haven't had to replace the brake pads on any, including multiple that went over 100,000 miles by the time I sold
Re: (Score:2)
The batteries are lasting longer than expected but customers are terrified of the battery dying early
Every last cell in every last EV is monitored and has a detailed history and health status making determination of battery health trivial and sure. However this information is a guarded secret and cannot be extracted easily and abuse or over use of fast charging or discharging or even internal coolant leaks can damage it easily despite being up to and over half the cost of the vehicle. What needs to happen is this information MUST be made available by law displayed on a console or user device screen and a
Re: What happens when kindergarden write a paper (Score:2)
Re:What happens when kindergarden write a paper (Score:4, Interesting)
so in short ... EV about 60% of the life of the ICE, no need to assume.
No.
In short, you will require a new battery at around the time your ICE vehicle will be 60% through its lifespan.
The cost of said bettery is steep- but you will save the money on the ultra-low TCO of your EV to pay for it when it's time.
Or... you'll trade it in for a new car, and someone else will roll it into the loan for their certified pre-owned.
For someone knocking a scientific paper, you haven't demonstrated a lot of intelligence here in your parsing of facts.
Re:What happens when kindergarden write a paper (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, you will require a new battery at around the time your ICE vehicle will be 60% through its lifespan.
Realistically, no. Most EV batteries outlast most ICE cars. Of course, it depends on the size of the battery. Smaller batteries result in more charge cycles per 100k miles, which means more battery wear, which means earlier replacement. But at least Tesla batteries have an expected lifespan of 1500 charge cycles, so if your battery has a range of 300 miles per charge, you should get 450,000 miles out of it. With an average ICE car being replace after 200,000 miles or so, you'd expect the battery on any EV with more than 133 miles of range per charge to outlast an average ICE car. So basically, pretty much every EV ever made except for the Rav4 EV and plug-in hybrids. :-)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most EV batteries outlast most ICE cars.
That depends how full of shit you want to be.
If your ICE car went from going 480 miles per tank to 200 miles per tank (what you're proposing here) would you, or would you not have gotten it fixed?
A Tesla battery is estimated to be at ~75% capacity at 200k miles. That's frankly already past replacement time. Your 300 mile Tesla is then only going 225 miles.
If we want to be absolutely technical- the battery on your Tesla could last 100 years as long as you only ever need to drive to the grocery store betw
Re:What happens when kindergarden write a paper (Score:4, Informative)
Most EV batteries outlast most ICE cars.
That depends how full of shit you want to be. If your ICE car went from going 480 miles per tank to 200 miles per tank (what you're proposing here) would you, or would you not have gotten it fixed?
That's not realistic. By the time an EV loses 60% of its range, the battery has probably caught fire from dendrites, not to mention that the rest of the car will have succumbed to rust twenty years earlier.
A Tesla battery is estimated to be at ~75% capacity at 200k miles. That's frankly already past replacement time. Your 300 mile Tesla is then only going 225 miles.
That's not even remotely accurate. Most Tesla vehicles that are at 200k miles have around 85% of their original range, not 70% as you claim. You're literally doubling the amount of degradation compared with what happens in the real world. And given that you usually lose the first 5% within the first year, losing an additional 10% range over a decade and a half is really not that interesting.
A 25% range loss really isn't a problem for more than maybe 1% of drivers. For daily commuting, most EV owners charge their cars at night every night, and add maybe 60 miles of range each time, so for a vehicle that is just used for commuting (the vast majority of cars, and ~100% of second vehicles in a household), the range loss has zero impact on them whatsoever.
The only situations where this really matters in practice is for tow vehicles, where that might genuinely prevent you from making it to the nearest charging stop. For all other vehicles, realistically speaking, that just means maybe one extra charging stop per day on long cross-country trips. It might be a little annoying, but it's hardly earth-shattering. And given that most people don't do those sorts of trips very often, the extent to which it is annoying is pretty limited — certainly not worth spending tens of thousands of dollars on a new battery.
So contrary to your breathless assertion, you would not typically get an EV fixed for that, because in practice, it really isn't important for 99% of use cases. For the remaining 1%, they'll just buy a new car and contribute their old car to the used car market, where that car will be more than good enough for somebody else to use for another two decades.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not realistic. By the time an EV loses 60% of its range, the battery has probably caught fire from dendrites, not to mention that the rest of the car will have succumbed to rust twenty years earlier.
No, that's not true in the slightest.
Assuming a roughly linear degradation, if it is 70% at 450,000 miles, it will have lost 60% of its range at roughly 900,000 miles. How many cars do you know that aren't rust buckets at 900,000 miles?
That's not even remotely accurate. Most Tesla vehicles that are at 200k miles have around 85% of their original range, not 70% as you claim. You're literally doubling the amount of degradation compared with what happens in the real world. And given that you usually lose the first 5% within the first year, losing an additional 10% range over a decade and a half is really not that interesting.
I actually claimed 75, not 70- but that was a typo- I meant 85.
Sorry, misread. :-)
A 25% range loss really isn't a problem for more than maybe 1% of drivers. For daily commuting, most EV owners charge their cars at night every night, and add maybe 60 miles of range each time, so for a vehicle that is just used for commuting (the vast majority of cars, and ~100% of second vehicles in a household), the range loss has zero impact on them whatsoever.
That's just poppycock. A full quarter loss of capacity is a big deal for all drivers.
Why do you think that? Most people don't live alone, and most households have more than one car. People tend to take long trips as a family, not as individuals. That means second and third vehicles in a household, statistically speaking, almost *never* get driven on long trips again unless
Re: (Score:3)
My Toyota Prius, at 300,000 miles, only got ~250 miles on a tank of gas.
Did I pay to get it fixed? No. Because it was still perfectly usable. Just as a Hyundai Ioniq 6 that gets ~50% of its original range at 300,000 miles would still be perfectly usable.
And ultra-high-mile older EVs are getting better than 70% at 200k miles.
Re: (Score:2)
My Toyota Prius, at 300,000 miles, only got ~250 miles on a tank of gas.
Sounds like you had it on the "Tesla maintenance schedule" (which is to say, not at all)
Did I pay to get it fixed? No. Because it was still perfectly usable. Just as a Hyundai Ioniq 6 that gets ~50% of its original range at 300,000 miles would still be perfectly usable.
Sure. But you could have. Pretty fucking cheaply too.
Me, I'd shit my pants if my car only got 250 miles on a tank.
Hell- that's my cutoff for how shitty of mileage my sports coupe is allowed to have before I want a new one.
And ultra-high-mile older EVs are getting better than 70% at 200k miles.
They are indeed.
70% would be really bad.
However, 80-85% after 100-200k isn't abnormal. If you look at the scatter plots, nobody gets the average.
Some usage patterns cause large drops in capacity, s
Re: (Score:2)
If your ICE car went from going 480 miles per tank to 200 miles per tank (what you're proposing here) would you, or would you not have gotten it fixed?
Typical battery degradation rarely drops below 70% of the life of the vehicle. Rapidly drops to 85% and then spends the rest of the decade slowly dropping before the vehicle is written of. We have the data for this, EVs have been around long enough and second hand vehicles are simply not having their batteries replaced en-mass. No I wouldn't get this fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a 10 year old starter battery that still works great. Hasn't seen a lot of use, but I did use it this winter when my lead-acid car in my battery finally died for the first time since I bought the car (2013)
Re: (Score:2)
More coffee needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What happens when kindergarden write a paper (Score:4, Informative)
A cycle in this case is a theoretical 100% to 0 to 100% discharge and charge. Going from, say, 60% to 85% would be considered a partial charge, counting as 0.25 of a cycle.
This changes it from 1500 cycles to 6k nightly charges, or around 16 years of nightly charging.
Oh, and if even partial charges counted as a full cycle, an EV or hybrid would hit it in months with regenerative braking putting a cycle on every time the driver hits the brakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people will charge every night, which means you hit 1500 cycles in less than 5 years.
Ahh... no.
A charge cycle is not counted each time you plug in the vehicle to recharge. It is a full cycle of each cell within the battery. Most cells will only accumulate a partial cycle each time the vehicle is used and recharged. Thanks to modern software charge controllers individual cells within the battery will be charged and discharged as needed to optimize lifespan (wear leveling for batteries.)
Re: (Score:2)
I would count that as a win for EV's since they are far more forgiving to lack of maintenance than ICE vehicles.
How many ICE cars are Toyota Camry's and Honda CRVs and well maintained?
Re: (Score:3)
> Assume? is this not a research paper, how about ... you know ... do research?
That's a hilarious thing to say immediately before doing 30 seconds of Google searching. Did you happen to notice that number in parenthesis in that portion you quoted? Do you suppose it was a hyperlink for a reason? That's called a 'citation' - it's when you are referencing some other publication or data source, and you want to be clear about where you got your information.
"30 NHTSA. Final Rulemaking for Model Years 2024
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Did you actually read the NHTSA paper?
Not all 692 pages of course, but I read enough of it to know that if this is your comeback, you didn't even LOOK at it.
You throw shade at a paper you clearly disagree with for no reason you're able to articulate, comparing the authors to kindergartners and clowns, and you can't even be assed to read more than a headline for yourself. Fuckin' weak. Actual kindergartners have better reading skills.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
The Nissan Leaf has a potential lifetime mileage of 200,000 miles or more, but this is highly dependent on battery health, which is influenced by climate, driving habits, and charging practices. While Nissan's original battery warranty typically covers 100,000 miles, many owners achieve significantly higher mileage with good care, as shown by anecdotal reports of Leafs exceeding 150,000 miles and even reaching 230,000 miles with original batteries. ... EV about 60% of the life of the ICE, no need to assume.
so in short
Wait, you're using the Nissan Leaf as your EV example, and the Camry as your ICE example? The early Leaf cars are well known to be a disaster, and are an extreme outlier in terms of low life expectancy, which brings that number way down. The Camry is well known to be one of the most reliable ICE cars out there. You're comparing one the worst EVs to one of the best ICE cars. You can't do that. You have to compare averages if you want your comparison to be meaningful.
Or, if you want to compare the exempl
Re: (Score:2)
So... In order to try to argue that ICE vehicles last longer than EV, you compare Toyotas, notorious for being long lasting as long as they're, as you say, "well maintained". Up against the Nissan Leaf, which is notorious for having batteries that fail early, with plenty of blame put on them lacking cooling that most other EV batteries have.
For example, Tesla Model S batteries are being reported as having lifespans of 300k-500k miles. As that's well in excess of the 300k miles you quote for the Honda CR-
Re: (Score:2)
And you're quoting just the one *WORST* longevity model of EV. The problem is that "mainstream EVs" are still so new that there are very few that have even *POSSIBLY* hit 200, 300, 400 thousand miles to have many data points on. At this point, nearly all "modern EVs" that have left service have done so "prematurely." There are Tesla Model S with 300,000 miles on their original battery. The fact is, the only two models of EV that sold in reasonably large numbers starting over 10 years ago are the Nissan Leaf
Re: (Score:2)
If you’re going to get all pompous about a paper, it’s best not to be a dumbass while doing it. The appropriate metric is not “longest conceivable vehicle lifetime” (which is not something an ICE vehicle is guaranteed to win anyway). The appropriate metric is “average vehicle lifetime”. A typical US vehicle has about 160k miles at scrappage.
Additionally, a first gen Leaf is not a representative EV. It will have a much shorter lifetime because notoriously, it has no active
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Personal multi-ton vehicles are a terrible way to build the transportation system.
Depends on what you're optimizing for. For example: I optimize for isolation from other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Personal multi-ton vehicles are a terrible way to build the transportation system.
Depends on what you're optimizing for. For example: I optimize for isolation from other people.
"Like you."
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Personal multi-ton vehicles are a terrible way to build the transportation system.
Depends on what you're optimizing for. For example: I optimize for isolation from other people.
Understood. But our choice of what to optimise for is also influenced by what rsilvergun describes as something that gets "fixed in your brain between the ages of 4 to 14".
Quite often, a person who has grown up in a car-only society, moves to and lives for a few years in a society with more transport options, and finds that their preferences have changed.
To be clear I didn't come up with 4 to 14 (Score:2)
But the technique used by the evangelicals and the cults can just as easily be applied to any belief.
When people say kids brains are like sponges sucking everything up that's what they mean
Re: (Score:2)
It comes from religious extremists trying to convert children. And they are not shy about talking about it. Google the phrase and you will mostly get hardcore American evangelicals.
Ah. I didn't realise that.
Even without a political slant though, I think it is important to try to recognise in ourselves the things that we take for granted - things we assume to be common sense - but can be revealed as subjective once we live somewhere else for a while.
Particularly with cars. Living in a society with other options is really eye opening. Three are many examples, but here's one that parents might appreciate: Teenagers go out for the evening with their friends. The teenagers don't always rea
Re: (Score:2)
As you mention, and rsilvergun- they are fixed in your head at an early age. This is pretty undeniable from my perspective.
However- the fact that people will be content with less doesn't mean less is better.
Ultimately, children living in abject poverty can be perfectly content with what they have- because humans are resilient critters.
This isn't to say that I disagree with the overall assessment that personalized transportation isn't great fo
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that people will be content with less doesn't mean less is better.
Yes - That's a good point. People with less can be conent with that - possibly because they simply haven't experienced "more".
With transport though, I would suggest that a car-only society could be considered to be in that "less" situation, having only ever had the one option.
In a city like Tokyo, people often have cars of course, but they will often commute by train/subway, or use public transport to go out for a beer, etc.
In my experience, people from the US who experience this transport choice talk about
Re: (Score:2)
In a city like Tokyo, people often have cars of course, but they will often commute by train/subway, or use public transport to go out for a beer, etc.
This can be explained by the difficulty associated with owning and using cars in a very dense urban environment like Tokyo.
In my experience, people from the US who experience this transport choice talk about how "freeing" it is.
Sometimes.
But there is a positive correlation between wealth and desire to drive your own car. This could possible be a matter of "since I can, I shall."
I don't know about Tokyo, but here in Seattle, it costs my a metric fuckton of cash for a parking space.
I'd save a lot of money by using only public transport.
However- since I can afford it, and prefer it- I do it. If i were no lo
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean coach isn't "adequate"- but I know which I prefer, and which I use now that I'm at a place in my life where I can afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
As a corollary, I think probably most people would prefer First Class accommodations on an Emirates flight over coach- if they could afford it.
That doesn't mean coach isn't "adequate"- but I know which I prefer, and which I use now that I'm at a place in my life where I can afford it.
The corollary assumes that cars are fundamentally a higher class option than public transport. First Class on Emirates is more comfortable than coach, and probably more efficient (in terms of fast check in, etc.).
I would accept that in the US, public transport does equate to "coach", with cars more associated with "first class" in the analogy.
But in Tokyo that is not the general perception. A person who owns a car, and can afford to travel by car, might still choose public transport - depending on the situa
Re: (Score:2)
The corollary assumes that cars are fundamentally a higher class option than public transport.
The corollary does, and they are.
First Class on Emirates is more comfortable than coach, and probably more efficient (in terms of fast check in, etc.).
More efficient... than coach? No.
The economy of a plane is a simple formula having to do with how many people you squeeze into the sardine can.
With a first class ticket, you are paying to increase the CO2 cost of your specific transport.
I would accept that in the US, public transport does equate to "coach", with cars more associated with "first class" in the analogy.
I've been on rail in London and Paris.
You're delusional if you think that's a great experience.
But in Tokyo that is not the general perception.
I will grant you I've not been to Tokyo.
I am aware of a profession that exists in Tokyo though- one by which they literally cram people into th
Re: (Score:2)
I am aware of a profession that exists in Tokyo though- one by which they literally cram people into the train.
Fair point. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the Tokyo subway at the height of rush hour! But that represents the worst case. You could perhaps equate that with being stuck in a stationary traffic jam in some US city. The extremes are not always the best ways to judge the overall system.
Sigh. The US is different from Japan in all sorts of ways. Even if we plonked a shiny efficient safe subway system into a US city we would still have problems. US shops offer goods in large quantities, so people are used to
Re: (Score:2)
I live in London, have an EV, and regularly walk and take the tube, sometimes the overground or DLR, my son often takes a Lime bike, all the family will quite often jump on a bus. The strength of many European cities’ transportation system is they support mixed modal use, which enables people to take the form they consider best for a particular journey. If I’m going to get some stuff to cook for dinner, I just walk to the local shops; if I’m going to the National Gallery, I’m taking
Re: (Score:2)
there is a positive correlation between wealth and desire to drive your own car.
True in the world in general, but only where the car option is better. In the US, the car option is almost always better, for many reasons.
In Tokyo the car is quite often a worse option. You mention the Tokyo's "dense urban environment". Yes - That's part of it. If I take a car I would need to find a place to park it, and my travel time would be less predictable. If I go by train I will be able to predict my arrival to the minute, I will often get there faster (considering traffic, finding parking, etc.), a
Re: (Score:2)
Having a choice is appealing, is it not?
Absolutely.
:)
I vote for all public transport programs in my municipality.
I'm all for choice, and the more people who are off the roads because they find public transport palatable, the nicer my drive is
I'm absolutely willing to pay for my convenience- particularly if it helps other peoples' as well.
Re: (Score:2)
With cars, sticky tires offer the best traction, the lowest life, and the highest rolling resistance (lowest gas mileage)
Non-sticky tires offer the worst traction, the best life, and the lowest rolling resistances (highest gas mileage)
i.e., the correlation in tires between lifetime and range is positive- i.e., they emit less particulates per mile traveled.
Re: (Score:2)
Slick tires give you less traction but that means you have better mileage.
Strange, then, that race cars use slick tires, unless it is raining (or they are required to use street tires).
No, the difference is the hardness of the tire compounds. Harder compounds give you less grip, but better mileage.
If I recall correctly, the claimed difference in particulates from EV tires vs. ICE tires was supposed to be due to the weight of the vehicle. On the other hand, the brake pads on EVs give off far less particulates.
Re: (Score:2)
They use hard tires (i.e., low-traction, i.e., slick- i.e., not slicks)
Beyond that, he's also got the association ass backwards, as you mentioned.
"slick" tires (his terminology, not standard) last longer because they're harder (why they're "slick")
Re: (Score:2)
Slick tires give you less traction but that means you have better mileage. Or range in the case of electric cars.
Yes. Less traction equals better mileage- and more importantly- longer life, because they erode slower. The tire compound is harder.
But they wear faster. Which means more particulate in the air.
No, they do not. You have it exactly backwards.
EVs themselves to eat through tires faster than the average ICE car due to their higher average weight, but it's not like a huge portion of cars aren't already Tesla-weight in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Discuss; or as on Slashdot, insult and call each other names.
Well, bless your heart, you charmingly misguided soul! It’s a wonder that your brain has not yet taken a permanent vacation, for it seems to be perpetually lounging in the swamps of ignorance. You’re as useful as a screen door on a submarine, and I reckon a cat on a hot tin roof would have more sense than you. If wit were a currency, you’d be bankrupt, yet somehow you still manage to prance about like a peacock in a henhouse, convinced of your own splendor. You’re a fine example of w
Re: (Score:2)
Just the other day, I asked ChatGTP to run some numbers
Excuse me, this is where I get off; bye!
Re: (Score:2)
Why is death the only metric?
What about injuries?
Property damage and insurance claims thus leading to wasted time and money?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point about them being a kind of "gateway drug" to infotainment screens is valid though. If the cameras weren't required, would modern cars have infotainment screens as much as they do? I recently drove a rental car with backup camera and found it more annoying than anything since I've been driving for decades now without one. Neither my current ride nor the rental were a big SUV/truck though. Some of those don't just need backup cameras. They probably ought to have hood cameras. A kid or e
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea, until all those lithium batteries that last no longer than 10(!) years either end up in a landfill or on fire from thermal runaway when the layers between lithium layers decay. All that lithium will burn off into the air, getting into the rain, and into your water systems. All the landfill batteries will also leech into your water.
Well at least we'll have a more even, more balanced ecological environment. In fact, I feel better already just thinking about it!
But now I am sad for the fish...
So what (Score:2)
Very little lithium leaves as a gas in a battery fire. The main components of the off-gas are CO2, CO, H2. Plus microparticles of hydrocarbons, which is mainly why you see black smoke. Then there is the real nasty stuff that appears in very small quantities, such as: CO, HF, HCl, HCN, NOx, and SO2. A grid storage site near me caught fight and we were put on alert because the county did not have any HF air sensors and couldn't offer an estimate on the danger. You do not want HF in your eyes or lungs or reall