EV general discussion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

No.. you keep with they aren't cleaner. You're just wrong on that. wrong wrong wrong! Go watch sky news for a while and you'll feel better. Keep saying it like it's fact - someone might believe you.

As to the sums.. everyones situation is different. Frankly I didn't understand your calcs but whatever works.

We've got two vehicles in our garage. 1 a land rover TD5 defender. 1 Tesla Model Y. I went for a trip for a ride Saturday. Could have taken either car although it's easier to throw the bike in the Tesla.

The trip was 134km. The Tesla used 17 KWH. 125 WH/KM. Let's calculate that. My electricity costs .21c (let's ignore solar for the moment so worst case). The trip cost 17 * .21 which is $3.57. The national grid is 900g of co2 per KM again ignoring solar. So that's 15.3 KG of Co2 for the trip.

My defender typically averages 12l/100k. So it would use 16 Litres for that trip. Diesel near me is 192.9 this morning so that's $30.86 in cost. It's 2.640kg of co2 per litre of diesel. So that trip would have directly emitted 42.24 KG of co2 for the same trip. Note that no one ever includes the amount of CO2 required to find, extract, transport, and refine fuel in their co2 calculations so it's likely massively understated.

TABLE for you.
KM 134
Cost CO2
Tesla $3.57 15.3KG
TD5 $30.86 42.24 KG

I know we're lucky to be able to have two cars. But I think this illustrates the advantage of having one of each. It works really well for us. But we're not constantly looking for reasons for it to not work either which seems to be a common theme here.

Added bonus is the Defender doesn't rack up the miles and wear doing stupid short trips. I can buy another Tesla if required, but my defender seems to be irreplaceable. So this is something I really like.

And no - tesla don't state any servicing for their cars. Just tyre rotation and cabin filters as required.

---

You play the Sky News card, you keep saying they're cleaner like its fact - please post up some balanced info, more than happy to see it....
Saying its cleaner doesnt make it so - I have access to a decent sized environmental monitoring and compliance team. They have significant access to global mining and mineral processing environmental reports. They also monitor energy production globally, looking to see where, who etc is doing what.
We have all the reports from all the companies mining the minerals used in the construction, all the output data from the steel processing mills, mining companies diesel burn, chemicals used to process, the environmental damage reports for the brine farms, reports on the damage to the water table in these contries, the fresh water consumption, the smelting emissions for the steel and alloy components - all the bits and pieces all add up.

You are correct, there is no smell coming from the backside of your Tesla, its all elsewhere - on the same planet, same atmosphere, just now no longer concentrated in the area you live.


If you're enjoying the car, thats all fantastic, you do you... I have no issue with that at all. Seriously, more than happy you have a car you enjoy driving - and they are nice to drive, been there, driven them, I like them - and they're quick which is fun too!
And being able to preserve the Defender is a great bonus, as you say, they cannot be had anymore.


What is a lovely little Green Wash, is they arent cleaner over their lifespan - things get better in a few tiny countries where their energy is 24/7 geothermal etc
Current generation EVs are driving horrendous practices in procuring the necessary minerals, far worse than iron / steel in conventional vehicles and no large scale reprocessing facilities are in action, so its not being cleaned up at end of cycle.
Environmental impacts of these mineral resource operations (talking less controlled nations here, which are principal source of Cobalt, Lithium etc) are having long term impacts on water tables, land damage and environmental changes. No point if there is no water or vegetatation to help reprocess the CO2 [bigwhistle]

As an example, Here is an excerpt from a research paper: Carbon Footprint Study of Tesla Model 3 - (Note: This research is based on 150,000km of driving)

Quote:

---

The GHG emissions value per unit distance of Tesla Model 3 is376gCO2e/km, 17% higher than the average GHG emissions of B class ICEV

---

Quote:

---

Unlike most pure electric passenger cars, Tesla Model3 not only has a GHG emissions higher than the averageGHG emissions of same class ICEV in the raw materialacquisition stage and production stage, but also has aGHG emissions value higher than the average GHGemissions of same class ICEV in the usage stage. Thismay be due to Tesla Model 3's power consumption ismuch higher than the average level of electric vehicles ofthe same class, resulting in a significant increase in GHGemissions during the use stage.Reference1. ISO, ISO 14040: 2006 Environmental ManagementLife cycle assessment-Principles and framework.2006: International Organization for Standardization.2. ISO, ISO 14044: 2006 Environmental management -Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines.2006: International Organization for Standardization.3. ISO, ISO 14067:2013 Greenhouse gases - Carbonfootprint of products - Requirements and guidelinesfor quantification and communication. 2013:International Organization for Standardization.

---

Its never as cut and dry as they claim.

Take a look at Electric Jesus and his companies environmental reporting - he's been dodging it for years and its only just starting to be (partially) reported - as expected its not as small as originally claimed



Anyway, enjoy driving your cars, whatever they may be [biggrin]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4bee

Thanks for that. Why did I know you'd respond Mike. Ah, I know, your experience with Hydraulics. Same thing really. In a way.[bigrolf]

---

I am sure the oriface size is directly related to the direct expansion,I thought you would have picked that:angel:[biggrin]

Anyway,FWIW,I don’t mind that Sky News,the only news worth watching:whistling:

Although I must have missed the night they were chatting about EV’s.[bigsad][smilebigeye]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scarry

I am sure the oriface size is directly related to the direct expansion,I thought you would have picked that:angel:[biggrin]

Anyway,FWIW,I don’t mind that Sky News,the only news worth watching:whistling:

Although I must have missed the night they were chatting about EV’s.[bigsad][smilebigeye]


jkl

---

Mind you given a choice I would have preferred an Ammonia TEV. Big orifice you see.[bigrolf]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4bee

Mind you given a choice I would have preferred an Ammonia TEV. Big orifice you see.[bigrolf]

---

The pilot operated model[biggrin]

Then there is the oriface plate in a 600 KW Centrifugal.[bigrolf][biggrin]

Camperdown and Geelong have now made the fast charge crew. I direct line to the elderly M&D is now much less will I make it[biggrin]

I know I brought a shockingly short range and not Tombies "Electric Jesus" [biggrin][biggrin][biggrin][biggrin] cars Electric Jesus has lot of charges not used a LOT of the time or almost any of the time I go past them[bigrolf]

Hope my assumption on who Electric Jesus is correct.

Its a bit crook for all the places that added silly speed chargers. The 7ish kwh take several hours which is never on my travel to do list again.

Those two new ones mean I do not deviate to RACV Torquay or Ballarat which are both fast yet the range to get to both left me on edged almost every time[bigwhistle]

It seem $0.45 is the current charge cost. Still significantly cheaper than my very last fuel bill. RIP Disco [bawl] Its Driving on with another cool family happily.

Thanks ND, you’re one of the fortune early adopters in that your premises, both home and work allow you to charge and both have good sized arrays present.

For you, it seems to be a nice fit for your current [emoji12] needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

You play the Sky News card, you keep saying they're cleaner like its fact - please post up some balanced info, more than happy to see it....
Saying its cleaner doesnt make it so - I have access to a decent sized environmental monitoring and compliance team. They have significant access to global mining and mineral processing environmental reports. They also monitor energy production globally, looking to see where, who etc is doing what.
We have all the reports from all the companies mining the minerals used in the construction, all the output data from the steel processing mills, mining companies diesel burn, chemicals used to process, the environmental damage reports for the brine farms, reports on the damage to the water table in these contries, the fresh water consumption, the smelting emissions for the steel and alloy components - all the bits and pieces all add up.

You are correct, there is no smell coming from the backside of your Tesla, its all elsewhere - on the same planet, same atmosphere, just now no longer concentrated in the area you live.


If you're enjoying the car, thats all fantastic, you do you... I have no issue with that at all. Seriously, more than happy you have a car you enjoy driving - and they are nice to drive, been there, driven them, I like them - and they're quick which is fun too!
And being able to preserve the Defender is a great bonus, as you say, they cannot be had anymore.


What is a lovely little Green Wash, is they arent cleaner over their lifespan - things get better in a few tiny countries where their energy is 24/7 geothermal etc
Current generation EVs are driving horrendous practices in procuring the necessary minerals, far worse than iron / steel in conventional vehicles and no large scale reprocessing facilities are in action, so its not being cleaned up at end of cycle.
Environmental impacts of these mineral resource operations (talking less controlled nations here, which are principal source of Cobalt, Lithium etc) are having long term impacts on water tables, land damage and environmental changes. No point if there is no water or vegetatation to help reprocess the CO2 [bigwhistle]

As an example, Here is an excerpt from a research paper: Carbon Footprint Study of Tesla Model 3 - (Note: This research is based on 150,000km of driving)




Its never as cut and dry as they claim.

Take a look at Electric Jesus and his companies environmental reporting - he's been dodging it for years and its only just starting to be (partially) reported - as expected its not as small as originally claimed



Anyway, enjoy driving your cars, whatever they may be [biggrin]

---

You haven't included your sources.. I could provide stuff but I really doubt you'd listen to it anyway. There is so much FUD on the web.

What part of this was it you don't understand? The ev emits only 1/3 the co2 for the same trip as the defender. How long do you really think it's going to take to offset the additional co2 produced in its manufacture? I know.. forever right.

TABLE for you.
KM 134
Cost CO2
Tesla $3.57 15.3KG
TD5 $30.86 42.24 KG

Unlike the Defender, the tesla will continue to put out lower emissions throughout it's life as the grid greens. At the end of it's life the battery is very close to 100% recyclable. Lithium and Iron. No cobalt thanks. If I sell the car before it's end of life, it will not immediately cease to exist but it's lower emissions will continue to benefit society.

So you're crazy worried about issues with producing EV batteries, but you're totally OK with oil extraction and all the issues that brings? Are you aware that each litre of fuel could have a co2 overhead of as much as 30% depending on field etc? Can we count that in this? Moving tankers around the world has resulted in some stupendous disasters and mining usually makes quite the mess. Are you ok with the cobalt used in the process of refining oil?

https://www.mercator-ocean.eu/wp-con...o-resizée.png

I was riding next to a main road in Brisbane yesterday. All I could smell was diesel and petrol smells. My lungs sucking in that pollution. I rode past shops, childcare centres, schools. Why isn't clean air a thing? Isn't emitting it away from population centres a good idea?

If you're really worried about the environment the best answer is to not drive. Not volunteering? I can't get everyone in this house to volunteer either. So four people using one EV seems like it's worth a shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scarry

The pilot operated model[biggrin]

Then there is the oriface plate in a 600 KW Centrifugal.[bigrolf][biggrin]

---

That sounds even better.[bigrolf]

Whilst it’s not good… Those CoMOX catalysts almost never degrade (best part of a catalyst) and they also generate elemental Sulphur and Sulphuric acid used in many other processing streams.

And yes, you’re correct, I won’t be giving up my driving (work is fixed, personal travel is choice).

I also won’t be giving up Polyester any time soon, which Cobalt is used to reduce emissions by improving its production.

I also won’t stop using my synthetic based phones, health care products, clothing, or my tech which all use Oil in their production.

You are correct that lower end Tesla models only use LFP as it’s cheaper and has lower energy density. The higher end vehicles use Nickel and Cobalt. They all use Graphene though, and I can tell you exactly where a large proportion of that comes from, and have seen the photos from that region showing what’s been done there.

Know how much lithium based battery is recycled annually? About 10% of the 3,300t made in Australia pa (currently)
It’s expected that Lithium battery waste will exceed 136,000t pa in the next 12 years.

There is almost zero capacity to process them in Australia, with almost all stockpiled presenting huge fire and environmental issues.

It’s currently not priced effectively to reprocess, and until they tax us into oblivion to pay for it, looks unlikely to be economical for a significant time. One process quotes higher energy exertion than the returned benefit. (Time should change that hopefully).

By then it will likely be SS batteries and H2FCs more likely, so ROI will probably cripple it. Let’s face it, they aren’t processing old tyres effectively yet either.

Quoting the tailpipe emissions isn’t useful unless measuring to direct area standards - if we expand that area, Australia’s total emissions are also “nothing”, a clean patch compared to other nations globally - so why bother sending us broke when we “hardly make anything” [emoji6]

Agree 100% that inhaling the likes of Benzene isn’t a good thing. No argument there. Especially post change to ULP when TEL dropped and C6H6 increased notably, alongside a measured increase in cancer rates. So no argument from me.

The report I quoted has the title attached, you can link to it.
I cannot release corporate data supplied for fairly obvious reasons.

Total life is critical, at the moment EVs are worse than equivalent sized ICEVs on average. That pollution is still out there. And still impacting atmospheric conditions.

It’s like that “little mushroom cloud” in an obscure desert many years ago. It wasn’t in my region by any stretch of the imagination. However I have SR-90 in my body from it, we all do.

Bring on a truly sustainable tech that doesn’t limit people and doesn’t do harm somewhere and I’ll line up with my cash straight away.

Random side note: our 2 wheel hobby is pretty nasty too, CF is incredibly energy and emissions intense, Al is pretty messy too (although 14 times less than CF) and the bikes 2 legged engines are huge CO2 emitters over their total lifespan [emoji56]


Keep safe, enjoy life….

4WD owners debating total GHG emissions over a vehicles total life cycle is some what ironic (in my opinion).

There are too many variables as it very much depends on where the raw materials come from, where the metals are made, where the car is made, where it is sold, where the fuel or electricity comes from to fuel that car, and what you assume is the life of the vehicle.

There is plenty of published data that shows EV’s do have lower CO2 emissions per km over the total life cycle, but this is very much dependent on where each part of the vehicles lifecycle comes from and the assumptions behind that.

Currently the biggest difference is for cars manufactured and sold in Europe - where total lifecycle emissions for a BEV are estimated to be between 30-40% compared to an ICE. Most EV’s would be ahead by about year 4 or 5. But if the car is built in China, using raw materials from Australia, and is sold back to Australia, then the break even point can easily be 2-4 times longer (if not more if using coal powered electricity).

Providing all parts of the life cycle use renewables, then over the full life time an EV can be expected to be much much lower, and in countries like Norway would be carbon neutral within a few years, but we have a long way to go to achieve this. Especially in countries like China, the US, and Australia where coal still plays a big part of our energy mix.

And yes - like the tobacco industry disputing health data, the American Petroleum Institute does dispute these studies, claiming that based on their analysis total GHG emissions from an ICE can be “similar” to a BEV. (Similar does not mean lower). Again - it all depends on the assumptions made in the model.

Meanwhile people should just enjoy what ever they drive safe in the knowledge that your individual impact is insignificant.

Now I did read a report that having a child is 7 times worse for the environment than the next 10 most discussed mitigating actions any individual can take. Which is proof that we can all blame the parents!

So to our millennials - I say have one less kid, enjoy having more money, get a V8 4WD and an EV sedan, and be happy!