Biff_Malibu

Are you involved in or invested in the green industry sector? Just curious where your source of passion comes from on the topic.

Nizer

30% of US electricity production is coal. In China the number is 80%. China is working to clean up its energy production but it will be decades before they get to 50/50 coal vs non-coal production, let alone ween themselves off it completely.

China also controls the bulk of lithium and cobalt production. If you think producing fossil fuel is ugly you should look at lithium and cobalt mining: Yields are as low as .02 and the 99.8% of processed material left over is highly toxic.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/theres-...ing-1518374815

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas...t-green-think/

But here's where the EV vs ICE argument falls short IMO: ICE infrastructure is in place - from both an environmental and $$$ basis it's largely sunk cost. A switch to EV implies massive new investment and environmental cost in both raw material exploration, mining, and production for batteries, and in developed as well as most emerging markets replication of an existing on-road refueling infrastructure.

We know why China is pushing EV's: abundant coal and control of rare-earth metals. If the U.S. and EU want to replicate a transportation model we should be thinking a lot harder about alternatives such as hydrogen and high-speed rail? But these alternatives appear to have been steam-rolled by the EV juggernaut. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if years from now we find out there was a political grand bargain struck between the government and utilities to save the grid in the face of rising home-based energy alternatives. Conspiracy theory? Sure, maybe. But history has shown that stranger things have happened.

That's my .02 on the topic. Now I'm going back to the other GT3 thread to read about watches.

daveo4porsche

No I'm not - I'm employed in the tech industry - Computer Science BS Degree - 30 years industry experience doing commercial grade consumer software - I'm an EV enthusiast and have had roof top solar for 10+ years - so over the years I've come to understand the model - I've driven over 150,000 miles with EV's and can state that they simply work, work well, and offer a great number of benefits, and most of the "problems" people cite are FUD and overblown - but EV's are not perfect and require rethinking some assumptions and habits, but are easily integrated into one's life if you make the adaptations.

The biggest arguments that has swayed my opinion is one where if you look at the growth of personal transportation as China/Inida and other sub-contenents come online we simply can't afford another 1,000,000,000 tail pipes with the attendant emissions from those miniature CO2 generators we all know Internal Combustion engines to be - I believe it's simply not sustainable to continue to generate vast amounts of CO2 emissions at the 20% efficiency rating of most ICE engines…and worse if you count the sorts of ICE engines that are low end likely to be deployed in this high population up coming personal transportation growth…even if we remain fossil fuel based it would be far better to route the fossil fuel resources to efficient power generation plants and drive EV's for transportation needs, the math/science/practice all show this to be possible and lower impact than refining gasoline and burning 24 gallons at a time in small 20% efficient engines idling in congested traffic.

As far as the calc's are concerned, the numbers come published efficient rates, and energy densties of various fuel sources - the barrels of oil numbers was a mental exercise to try and do an Apple's to Apple's comparison of ICE vs. EV even when you're electrical energy source is fossil fuel based. The actual calculations and derivations come from post #75 in this thread - I document my numbers, calcs, assumptions and the sources of those numbers - feel free to correct any mistakes - https://rennlist.com/forums/mission-...-threat-3.html

There is virtually no source of information that states it more efficient to use gasoline made from barrels of oil for transportation vs. doing something different with that same barrel of oil for electrical generation. It's better to convert it to electricity and then charge a car from it than to burn it in your personal flat-6 @9000 RPM ;-) - and making gasoline is very very energy intensive at the refinery - less gasoline use equals more grid capacity for EV's - which largely offsets the argument the grid can't handle EV charging demands.

• the 30% coal number is outdated and largely refuted with 2016 statistics - but even if it's correct that % is not growing, it's shrinking - and all that really means is stop using Coal and move to renewables and then EV's are clearly better - or even alternate fossil fuel sources are more emissions efficient and higher efficiency - all that argument establishes is Coal sucks as a way to power our electric grid, great clean up the grid - we know how to do that - and if you clean up the grid - ICE cars still generate the emission they generate, but all your EV's nationwide just became more efficient nation wide overnight.
• LiON is only one potential battery tech - we can shift the battery tech to something else without changing the EV cars very much if at all - so don't like LiON fine lets use a different battery tech - there are battery tech's that are not LiON on the near horizon that show promise - assuming this tech will remain static is like assuming the ICE market will remain static - it hasn't, it improves, so will EV's - and again EV's are more modular so it's more possible to move the entire fleet forward without deploying the entire car…
• OMG it's so horrible to mine lithium and it causes all this damage, well yeah cause the Fossil Fuel industry is so well known for it's light touch with the environment - so we should keep doing that cause it's worked so well to date - EV's can be better, ICE's can't - EV's can be zero emission, ICE's can't - it's as simple as that.
• OMG how are we going to dispose of all these electric cars? OMG disposing of ICE cars isn't exactly clean either, and is in fact worse in that you can not reuse the complex ICE based metal alloys due to fuel tainting and metal mixes that just don't recycle that way - take the battery out of the EV - and disposing of an EV worse case is the same as an ICE, and best case better cause EV motors are high quality materials that haven't been tainted with 200,000 miles of fossil fuel use - highly recyclable I believe is the term. EV motors last 1,000,000 miles and are copper/aluminum - easy to recover and valuable to do so - fine figure out what to do with the battery.
• We don't have the grid infrastructure to support EV's - wrong, and so what - grow the grid - we'll have to do it anyways our thirst for electricity isn't going to shrink in the near future with/with out EV's - lower your gasoline usage and you free up a lot of existing grid capacity to power EV's (6 kWh per/gallon refined is a number that's been bandied about)

what frustrates me about so many of these argument is that they boil down to:

EV's are not yet perfect and they have their own issues, so that justifies continuing to use ICE based technology, so since it's isn't yet perfect let's keep status quo -and I personally reject that argument - ICE will never be zero impact, EV's already are less impact, and could be way less impact if we invest in cleaner electricity - which by the way is a huge win for non-transportation needs. Also having some portion of our personal transportation fleet electricity based - frees up what ever remaining fossil fuel reserves there are for specific applications where an EV simply isn't an option - I don't think we need a 100% EV infrastructure - we need an intelligent mix - use an EV has a daily driver commuter vehicle, and keep your pickup truck for use on the farm or what not...it's a better use of both resources. ICE's are horrible for high congest commuter cars, and EV are awful rural work horses…fine keep the ICE for rural applications where charging infrastructure is absent and you need the energy density of fossil fuels.

Use EV's at what they are good for - keep pushing them to be better
Use ICE's at what they are good for - keep pushing them to be better

but we have past the point of one size fits all technology - and ICE's have seen their peak - from here on out we have to be smarter about how we power our transportation fleets and EV have many many compelling benefits.

as to hydrogen - that's a fools game - since most hydrogen is made from refining fossil fuels - and the electrical requirements to make Hydrogen from fossil fuels actually results in CO2 emission, and the kWh used would've been more efficiently used on the grid and stored in a battery…if you measure how much of 100 kWh ends up moving something - it turns out you get to use about 68 kWh to actually move your car if you do it with an EV - but take the same 100 kWh to start with and make hydrogen you end up 19-26 kWh worth of power moving the car with hydrogen - would've been better to just dump the power into a battery to begin with.

basically I have my opinions, others have theirs, but there are some compelling arguments for EV/Solar/Renewable - and most of the throw away analysis on forums is: that since the grid is fossil powered and my car is fossil powered there is no advantage so I'll keep burning my dead dinosaurs thank you very much - that position lacks any serious support from details studies and published results on the over all efficiency of the power/transportation industry. But it's an easy throw away line in a forum conversation, and even easier to simply check out of the conversation when it becomes difficult to defend that position when you start talking some of the facts, physics, chemistry.

I'm looking forward to my '18 GT3 being delivered in June ;-) I'll drive my GT3 for fun/track use - and use my highly efficient EV for daily driving where it's characteristics are ideal for that application. Both can co-exist.

br911

I didn't read Dave's analysis in detail since I am not buying anything EV unless I have the advantage of a pool lane , given that time is precious - that would affect the whole analysis and would depend on how much one value his/her own time. But it seems that one point missing is the EV premium (or Musk premium- even if one does not buy Tesla, other EVs are prices accordingly) that is, compare 3 cars with similar quality, size ( difficult to compare driving) and faço-te that into the analysis. I don't need to spend much time on it since I know that, for a Model X, with a 3rd row, I would have to pay $35K for the privilege of driving at 3c/mile instead of the 10c/mile, or even 20c/mile. Not even applying a discount factor on upfront costs vs over time benefits.

Just my 10c

daveo4porsche

if you read beyond the headline of:

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas...t-green-think/

it's click bait with the article largely stating when you read it electric cars are still better even _IF_ you think there are all these side impacts…

as far the 30% number for Coal - it's shrinking it can get better - and is highly regional - in California/West virtually no electricity comes from Coal so driving an EV is way way way more efficient than a gas car and cleaner - and even the most die hard EV hater admits it comes out to about a wash _IF_ your power source is coal for gas vs. EV per-mile.

2017 power source numbers here nation wide.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

and agin this article really articulates that even today with our power mix it is still better to drive an EV efficiency wise - i.e. we are already past the tipping point

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyi.../#342bb5ee71f8

daveo4porsche

Just my 10c"

no question Tesla are too expense and their savings don't add up - unless you want to "be EV" - this will change over time - the Model 3 is more compelling price wise $50k, the Chevy Bolt is really quite a good little car for $30k/240 mile range - and with Porsche's plans for the mission-e pricing out similar to a Panamera we should be good - move EV choice is necessary to move forward, and once they hit "cost" parity to buy (which isn't that far off) they have compelling per-mile cost advantages...over gas cars.

one thing most non-EV owners don't consider, and can't imagine - is that EV's have virtually no maintenance - all the things you maintain on an ICE car don't exist on an EV - the only thing I do with my Tesla is: Tires, Windshield Wipers, Brake Fluid - brakes don't wear out due to regenerative braking not using the friction pads…500,000 mile brake jobs are the target.

the _ONLY_ recommended maintenance for the Chevy Bolt from the chevy manual is a 150,000 mile coolant swap for the LiON battery - that is the ONLY factory recommended service interval for a $30k/240 mile hatchback - and tire rotations every 6,000 miles.

but yes Tesla's are too expensive - no question - and there is no "cost savings" to yet justify the incremental price difference, this will change over time…and I recomend you vote intelligently with your consumer $$'s

the good news is there are some savings - and driving an EV will not cost you more if you adapt your habits - from the analysis from the other thread the 10 year fuel costs come out as follows:

10 year fuel costs for Panamera $19,687.50 @ 24 mpg @ $3.50/gallon @ 13,500 miles/year
10 year fuel costs for Tesla 100D $5,129.90 @ 3.3 miles/kWh @ $0.1254/kWh @ 13,500 miles/year
a savings of $14,558
this does not include savings from reduced maintenance costs on the Tesla vs. the Panamera

but I will NEVER argue you're going to make up the difference in cost for initial purchase price - I will argue I prefer the Tesla P100D to the Panamera and it's quick quick off the line ;-) I was happy to pay the difference due to my perceived value in the quicker/higher-tech car that the Tesla is...but that's personal preference not rational cost analysis ;-)

br911

^nice having an intelligent discussion about the subject with an EV enthusiast. Totally agree, in the end it is up to personal preference.
Most of my non-car friends think they are saving money, but they fail to see how expensive Tesla is for what it is, unless you're really into the tech behind it.

Thanks

Nizer

rerun the numbers for cold weather (as much as 40%-50% loss), $0.24kwh electricity (Boston), and unknown lifespan and efficiency loss over time of batteries.

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forum...her-range-loss

but I agree for short-distance, urban driving in mild weather EV's have merits.

daveo4porsche

daveo4porsche

re run the numbers for $0.24 / kwh is easy - $0.06/mile - double the cost - strange when you double the cost of your fuel you double the cost per-mile

factoring in low temp driving the cost also has to increase reduced driving range: 30% loss moves your cost/mile from about 3.3 to 2.3 miles/kwh - at Boston's rates and 2.3 miles/kwh the cost/mile is actually about $0.10/mile - or about equal to a gasoline car during the winter months (although gasoline cars get reduced range in winter also I don't have those numbers handy) - even at the cost per mile drifts to equal direct gas costs during the winter, the emissions from the power plant running them are still better than the emissions from the equivalent gas motor given their inherent efficiency disadvantage vs. an industry power plant.

at california's rates of $0.08/kwh even in reduced 30% range configuration the cost per mile is $0.034/mile - gas still is at $0.10/mile - so the EV still wins - Boston is perhaps the worse case scenario and I'm sure Nizer picked that case because his opinion is clear - no EV for him and thinks we should abandon this whole liberal scientific conspiracy - and he keeps think he will find the kill shot that proves EV's are really really bad idea....

but the $0.10/mile gas figure is based on $2.83/gallon gasoline - if we raise it to the prices I saw in California today of $3.48/gallon for regular the cost per-mile for a 24 mpg ICE Is: $0.145/mile - giving us a lot of head room for an EV even in gross efficiency scenarios - and if we add cost/mile for oil/filters and other 5000 mile items an ICE has replaced/serviced the price gets worse.

there is virtually NO data/evidence that makes an ICE better for efficiency vs. an electric motor and the advantages when one opens their mind can be compelling.

so during the spring/summer/fail - EV is 3 times less expensive vs a gas engine per-mile for direct fuel cost (again not adding maintenance cost - if I do the EV still wins in winter & summer)
and if you live in a climate that routinely has long periods of 30F or colder temps then you will lose maximum range and costs will drift to equal gas car if your kWh cost is $0.24/kWh or higher

EV's do have reduced range in cold weather - (anytime temps drop and stay significantly under 30F) - for those periods of time EV owners WILL encounter reduced capacity due to several factors inherent in batteries

1. LiON batteries are less efficient at converting electricity at sub-freezing temperatures
2. properly designed cars will use some battery power to "warm" the battery to prevent permanent capacity loss to the battery inherent from cold-temp discharge - this is a preventative measure to increase battery longevity
3. passenger also need to be warmed and this has to come from battery power
4. driving in cold weather has increased air density and crummy road conditions reducing rolling efficiencies

all of these characteristics combine to reduce range for an average of about 30% range loss for cold weather driving - anyone considering purchasing an EV needs to consider their daily distance driving requirements and their climate - if you buy say a Chevy Bolt in Chicago -and your daily driving requirements are 180 miles - the Bolt's normal range in mild weather will be about 236 miles easy covered by the Bolt's battery capacity, during winter months at below 30F weather you can really only count on 165 miles - if this doesn't meet your needs then you'll need to consider if you drive the ICE on super cold days, charge mid day, find an EV with a bigger battery, or simply wait for EV's to get better before you take the plunge…

the good news is that 98% of daily driving trip nationwide year round are less than 80 miles daily use - well with in the range of 200+ mile plus EV's with no range anxiety - if you're in the 2% that needs maximum range each and every day in all climates then the ICE is a superior choice for you - but again I encourage people to consider what a mix of EV and ICE look like from an impact point of view - if we could swap 40, 50, 60, 70% of driving to EV driving, and people who need/want their ICE still keep them this would be huge win on several dimensions -most people would be driving cars 4 time more efficient than the ICE it replaced, their driving costs would be lower, maintain would be non-existent - this frees up vast fossil fuel resources for the remaining ICE transportation needs and reduces over all emissions.

people keep seeming too want to prove the EV sucks - they don't suck , they have strengths and weaknesses, and ICE's have strengths/weaknesses - it turns out most of EV's weakness aren't a factor in most daily transportation scenarios - and just like planning your daily use of an ICE, plan your daily use for BEV.

the good news is this is not a perm. loss of battery capacity - your battery capacity is the same and intact and you range will return when the weather returns to warmer averages since less of the battery's available capacity is being used for heating.

issues like this is why I think we will end up with a healthy mix of ICE/BEV cars - with the BEV cars being used for what they are best at - and ICE being kept around for their talents.

daveo4porsche

we have to define expensive:

cost upfront is more than an equivalent 4 door sedan that does 24 mpg - Teslas are more
however if you want a daily driver that costs $0.03/mile to drive and has no maintenance and can do 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, and I get in it every morning and it's full of "gas" I'm at a loss to identify any competition in that market - and apparently so is the lux sedan market world wide with Tesla dominating the $80k + sedan market in sales…

I really really really don't miss going to the gas station.

to hear what a performance guru thinks about Tesla Model S - I refer to you hyper-car master Walter Koenigsegg

Netflix
Show: APEX
Time Stamp: 50 min 30 sec - 51 min 30 sec

this is where Walter Koenigsegg says several things:
I personally find a $140,000 sedan that can do 0-60 in 2.6 seconds with auto-pilot and 100 mpg/efficiency to be a perfectly reasonable value for money proposition - and quite frankly please show me what car is as flexible/practical and as quick as a Tesla in the 1x0k space - instant torque is addicting - once you've lived with it there is no going back - it made my cup car feel slow

ipse dixit

I won't live long enough for the effects (good or bad) of EV to impact the environment in any significant, long term way.

So I couldn't give a ****.

Terrence

daveo4porsche

daveo4porsche