www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-27/comparing-electric-cars-and-petrol-cars/103746132
Interesting article from the ABC. They look at all aspects of the lifecycle of a vehicle and yes EVs are significantly cleaner than the petrol equivalent. Also interesting to note that from the article it looks like only around 2 or 3 years of normal driving to counteract the additional impact from the manufacturing of an EV.
Also before people jump in with the usual nonsense:
EVs are alot less likely to catch fire than combustion engines vehicles.
" In other words, an EV passenger vehicle is around 100 times less likely to catch fire than a traditional vehicle."
www.drive.com.au/caradvice/how-many-electric-cars-have-caught-fire-australia/
Great factual article, looking at the complete life cycles.
A few assumptions in there about the progress to renewable electricity, but they seems reasonable, as long as the fossil fuel lobby doesn't get too powerful
At high concentrations one might say that oxygen is a pollutant. "Breathing 100 percent oxygen at normal pressure can cause acute oxygen poisoning, which can lead to all sorts of symptoms, including: Fluid in the lungs, hyperventilation or labored breathing. Chest pains, mild burning on inhalation and uncontrollable coughing (sometimes with blood)."
Things that struck me when I read that this morning were :
The plot for the IC cars is linear. So do this assume a new vehicle and one with 200k kms on it burn fuel at the same efficency ?. This I doubt is true. Presumably the plot can't keep going forever, otherwise you'd say a vehicle with 1 billion kms on it is just as good as a new one. So I assume the IC engines should become worse as the mileage increases.
The plot for the EV cars reduces due to, as it details, assumptions about the efficiency of electricty production in the future. So likewise, a reduction in battery efficency presumably also not considered. It appears they assume that both the IC and EV vehicles are as efficent at converting energy to motion on day 1 as they are at 200k km.
Also, the assumption that electricity generation will get cleaner always seems to ignore that as EV vehicles are owned then more electricity is required. Not just a bit more, but lots more, depending EV usage. So whilst generation may be getting cleaner, an assumption that a significant increase in required power would maintain that same trajectory seems to be a big assumption.
Then I figured that none of this would probably make a difference to the results within the accuracy of the calculations done.
Then I also figured, if EVs only get better at +40k km, what about all the ones that don't make it to 40k+ km for whatever reason. I am sure I read not long ago the average age of a vehicle on the road in Aus is about 10 or 11 years. At 10k km per year does that mean the average comparison should be capped at 120k km ???
Then I figured my coco-pops were going soggy so I stopped thinking and started eating .
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Things that struck me when I read that this morning were :
The plot for the IC cars is linear. So do this assume a new vehicle and one with 200k kms on it burn fuel at the same efficency ?. This I doubt is true. Presumably the plot can't keep going forever, otherwise you'd say a vehicle with 1 billion kms on it is just as good as a new one. So I assume the IC engines should become worse as the mileage increases.
The plot for the EV cars reduces due to, as it details, assumptions about the efficiency of electricty production in the future. So likewise, a reduction in battery efficency presumably also not considered. It appears they assume that both the IC and EV vehicles are as efficent at converting energy to motion on day 1 as they are at 200k km.
Also, the assumption that electricity generation will get cleaner always seems to ignore that as EV vehicles are owned then more electricity is required. Not just a bit more, but lots more, depending EV usage. So whilst generation may be getting cleaner, an assumption that a significant increase in required power would maintain that same trajectory seems to be a big assumption.
Then I figured that none of this would probably make a difference to the results within the accuracy of the calculations done.
Then I also figured, if EVs only get better at +40k km, what about all the ones that don't make it to 40k+ km for whatever reason. I am sure I read not long ago the average age of a vehicle on the road in Aus is about 10 or 11 years. At 10k km per year does that mean the average comparison should be capped at 120k km ???
Then I figured my coco-pops were going soggy so I stopped thinking and started eating .
Ev efficiency shouldn't drop off all that much. The batteries may not hold as much charge but whatever goes in is conserved coming out. Electric motors are pretty fundamental in converting electrons to rotary motion. They don't have piston rings and valves to wear out, injectors to clog up, Filters to clog.
I sometimes think the extra strain on the grid is exaggerated. The average annual km of a car in Oz is 13,000 km . A Tesla uses 14 kWh for 100 km. That's 1,820 kWh per year. A swimming pool uses 2,000 to 3,000 kWh pa. , althought the average household consumption is only 7,300 kWh pa . We'll just have to fill in all the backyard swimming pools, shower once a week, knock a few degrees off heating and cooling. The grid will be fine as it is.
Yes always a lot of variables and assumptions to be made in this type of article. I posted it because it seems quite fair and impartial.
They based the ICE emissions on a vehicle that does around 8L per 100km which is definitely in the lower half of average fuel consumption. At least half if not more ICE cars currently on our roads would get much worse economy than that. Another important factor they didn't mention is air quality and health problems that arise from living in heavy traffic poluted areas. That's an issue that we are only just starting to scratch the surface of.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
At high concentrations one might say that oxygen is a pollutant. "Breathing 100 percent oxygen at normal pressure can cause acute oxygen poisoning, which can lead to all sorts of symptoms, including: Fluid in the lungs, hyperventilation or labored breathing. Chest pains, mild burning on inhalation and uncontrollable coughing (sometimes with blood)."
Yes but the world isn't addicted to an energy system that produces excess oxygen
Just about anything can be a "pullutant" in high enough concentration. It is CO2 was at an environmental concentration that suited us, now it's increasing to a concentration that doesn't.
The increased CO2 levels suit many people just fine, there is a lot of money being made from it.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Ev efficiency shouldn't drop off all that much. The batteries may not hold as much charge but whatever goes in is conserved coming out.
Older batteries surely surely self-discharge at a greater rate than new ones. The chemicals breakdown and so you will need to put more in to get the same out. The energy will be lost through chemical change and heat generation.
But between battery degredation and electric motor wear I'd imagine it is peanuts compared to IC engine wear reducing compression, changing timing etc.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..Ian K said..
Ev efficiency shouldn't drop off all that much. The batteries may not hold as much charge but whatever goes in is conserved coming out.
Older batteries surely surely self-discharge at a greater rate than new ones. The chemicals breakdown and so you will need to put more in to get the same out. The energy will be lost through chemical change and heat generation.
But between battery degredation and electric motor wear I'd imagine it is peanuts compared to IC engine wear reducing compression, changing timing etc.
Maybe, couldn't find anything on ev battery leakage current on google. Maybe it's not a big deal? They do propose repurposing old ev batteries as stationary storage batteries where the kWh to weight ratio is not that important. That might indicate that leakage current is not a big problem..
You are a sceptic and CT japie for posting the above meme.
Coal and gas fired power stations have never charged up any electric car.....
Turns out my tired, 15 year old 8 panel solar set up can run dishwasher, washing machine (at different times) and still supply enough charge to an EV for my 250km of weekly commuting.
We'll see how it works over winter.
It's not the amazing solution that's solely going to fix the energy crisis, but it's certainly making an impact in my household.
^ +1
Our MG4 for the last couple of months has run on about 95% sunlight. All it's cost us is the $.07 we aren't getting back in export fees.
@ an average of 13KWh/100km that works out to about $1.00 for 100km. Winter obviously won't be as good, we'll see.
I read a story about some pom having a whinge about very short tyre life on his EV. I think he said replacement required at 3 000 miles.
Presumably he was doing something wrong, but, even so, heavier cars do create more tyre dust, and that's not good.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
You are a sceptic and CT japie for posting the above meme.
Coal and gas fired power stations have never charged up any electric car.....
It was not I. I did find it quite funny though.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
I read a story about some pom having a whinge about very short tyre life on his EV. I think he said replacement required at 3 000 miles.
Presumably he was doing something wrong, but, even so, heavier cars do create more tyre dust, and that's not good.
EVs are heavier because to sell them they had to do everything we have come to expect from our bloated ICEs. It's very unhuman to take a backward step, but 60 years ago a Morris Minor was a family-sized car. People walked to the corner store. Supermarkets cleverly shifted the last leg of the distribution to a now motorised society. We could stop or even reverse the pm2.5s coming off tyres by getting used to smaller cars with moderate performance and range again. How often was the long-distance capability of a Morris Minor utilised anyway?
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
I read a story about some pom having a whinge about very short tyre life on his EV. I think he said replacement required at 3 000 miles.
Presumably he was doing something wrong, but, even so, heavier cars do create more tyre dust, and that's not good.
There's a few strange stories going round about tire wear.
But if you do things right, it's not much of a problem, here's one instance from the MG forum
"My rear tyres lasted 35k miles."
35k miles is about 56k kM, not sure if his car is rear or frontwheel drive though
Here's another one from the forum.
" Rear tyres now on 35k miles and fronts replaced twice in that time so they can't be that far out at the rear."
So I suspect both these examples are rear tyres on front wheel drive cars.
Our car is rear wheel drive, so I expect a more even wear between front and back
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Mr Milk said..
I read a story about some pom having a whinge about very short tyre life on his EV. I think he said replacement required at 3 000 miles.
Presumably he was doing something wrong, but, even so, heavier cars do create more tyre dust, and that's not good.
EVs are heavier because to sell them they had to do everything we have come to expect from our bloated ICEs. It's very unhuman to take a backward step, but 60 years ago a Morris Minor was a family-sized car. People walked to the corner store. Supermarkets cleverly shifted the last leg of the distribution to a now motorised society. We could stop or even reverse the pm2.5s coming off tyres by getting used to smaller cars with moderate performance and range again. How often was the long-distance capability of a Morris Minor utilised anyway?
They are also heavy from the batteries themselves. Sure, lithium is light, but there is a lot of battery there, and then the structure required to take care of that load, so you end up with an SUV fitted into a sedan body.
I think Teslas use a special tyre, specifically because the vehicles are so quiet that tyre noise would be a problem if normal tyres were used. So you have a special tyre that is supporting a heavy car, and durability might be the sacrifice you have to make?
I wonder if other EVs have this same requirement or if its just Teslas? Might be cheaper to simulate engine noise instead...
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
They are also heavy from the batteries themselves. Sure, lithium is light, but there is a lot of battery there, and then the structure required to take care of that load, so you end up with an SUV fitted into a sedan body.
I think Teslas use a special tyre, specifically because the vehicles are so quiet that tyre noise would be a problem if normal tyres were used. So you have a special tyre that is supporting a heavy car, and durability might be the sacrifice you have to make?
I wonder if other EVs have this same requirement or if its just Teslas? Might be cheaper to simulate engine noise instead...
The batteries don't have to be so heavy if we accept moderate performance and range. (Range and performance go hand in hand. bigger batteries can discharge quicker). An MG4 is getting there. I has a 51 kWh battery and a 351 km range. A 25 kwh battery would go 175 km, the average car does 30km per day. It would still be significantly quicker off the mark than a Morris Minor. And save 200 kg of weight, getting it down to 1450kg. Only about 100 kg heavier than an ICE Corolla.
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-27/comparing-electric-cars-and-petrol-cars/103746132
For both types of car, these are the key stages where emissions are produced:
- manufacturing of the car,
- production of the battery, especially for electric cars
- running the cars over their life-cycle, either on petrol or electricity
- disposal and recycling of the vehicle at the end of its life, including batteries
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
And if you run the car off your solar panels that line drops substantially
Yep, they had that example in the article. The EV is pretty much a flat line.
With EVs becoming much cheaper, how long will it be before 'regular people' decide that they will get an EV instead?
I mean 'regular people' as people that don't care about the benefits to the environment of EVs and only comparing the cost to run and maintain?
www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/on-the-road/potential-risks-concerns-as-chinese-evs-flood-australia/news-story/5c8f1fb18d8550a62a3137328468a456
But on the back of it, how long do people guess it will be before the Aussie government successfully come up with a way to tax EVs based on distance driven? I am guessing 2 years.
LPG was excise free for a long long time, until it became popular. Electric cars are surely going to be the same, the question only being 'for how long?'
Yes we need to maintain the roads, but there's an argument that petrol tax is used for a lot of other stuff.
I imagine a lot of incentive for "ordinary" people will be the increasing price of petrol.
Then there is the hoon factor, you can burn off Lamborghinis at a fraction of the price.
And driving experience, one pedal driving is just so smoooooth, but that may not appeal to everybody.
At 46 cents per litre, the government will want their tax back if it becomes too popular.
Get in while you can before they work out how to do it.
I don't ever try and race Teslas, Lambos, or motorbikes. You need to know what is within your weight limit 
I think one of my cars draws idiots to race it as it has a turbo badge on the back. Last idiot was some guy in a big 4wd. Beats me why people in those want to race you at the traffic lights. To be fair he was faster than expected, but it is much easier to accelerate 1500kgs versus 2500kgs.
But governments will want their tax. Whether it is used for roads or not, they will want it. I still recall a 3x3 tax on petrol which was meant to be 3cpl for 3 years and it went a lot longer than that. If we all opt out of fuel excise they will come looking for it in another form.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said...
If we all opt out of fuel excise they will come looking for it in another form.
Tobacco?
