Electric Vehicles

[Ziggurat]

Even so all that does is get us back to "Heavier cars are safer for me, but screw the people in the cars I hit."

That's basically what happened. If you're equating "safety" with "size" even if it's true within certain contexts, all that does is create an arms race of everyone wanting to drive the biggest car on the road so they aren't at a disadvantage in an accident.

Not really. Passenger cars aren't the only vehicles on the road, and not all inter-vehicle collisions are passenger car vs. passenger car. Trucks have always been big for reasons unrelated to safety. And in a collision with a truck, a passenger car is always going to be significantly outweighed.

Furthermore, a collision between two light cars is going to be more dangerous than a collision between two heavier cars, because safety doesn't scale linearly with weight. There's a floor to the weight of a car unrelated to its own safety that will make it dangerous to other cars in a collision. Add in the safety features that make a car safer, and you haven't actually made it that much more dangerous to the cars around it. Again, look at the figures I posted for a Civic: the weight gain is significant, but the safety gains are even bigger.

 

[Shalamar]

The wife and I continue to explore Yellowstone in our EV. We've even seen a handful of other Teslas, and a couple people ave asked what it's like to drive one in the park.

No problems. At all. It's been pleasant, the car is working just fine. We charge up every evening, and we barely come down to 50% during the day.

 

[Ranb]

So last night Ford revealed the production version of an all-electric version of their long running F-150 full sized pickup. Now you darn furniers who don't even have the common decency to be born in 'Murica might not get the big deal but the F-150 line of trucks is the best selling vehicle in America.

I'd like to own an electric truck, but this one will not work for me at all; the bed is only 5.5 feet long. Quad cab short bed is the only kind they are going to sell for now.

If it doesn't have a bed at least 6.5 feet long, then it will not be able to haul my ATV. I have a 2016 2WD regular cab/bed F-150 that I bought for $30k. It's used it like a big car I haul stuff in.

I might even consider a Tesla Cybertruck, but I don't know if I can use it with the tailgate down.

Ranb

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Now yeah there's one or two exceptions here or there, go look up Doug Demuro's review of a 1980 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser station wagon or the 1977 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz ("The car ends and then there's like... a foot more car on each end...") if you want a good laugh at a hilariously overly large old vehicle, but in general cars look smaller because they are sleeker and more aerodynamic and just generally packaged better (cab forward design and the fact that cars no longer have hoods which are so long they get to your destination 10 minutes before you do are a big factor) and they share the road with giant SUVs and pickups, but they've gotten way bigger.

Cadillac really dropped the bal on using space well.

In the early '80s my (then) wife inherited a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado when her grandmother passed away. At the time I was diving a '72 Volvo 140.

It didn't take long for me to realize that I could put nearly twice as much in the trunk of the Volvo than the Caddy could handle. Sure the Caddy trunk covered a lot of acreage, but it was ridiculously shallow compared to the Volvo, and to add insult to injury the spare tire was mounted right in the middle. The Volvo spare sat upright in a pocket over the wheel well, and there was another pocket on the other side if you wanted to carry two. If not it was just extra space to use.

When our dart league decided to have a barbeque for an end season party one time I put three kegs of beer and a whole hog ... in a small wading pool ... in the trunk, with the lid down and latched.

Try doing that with an El Dorado.

 

[Shalamar]

Returned from Yellowstone Car trip in my Tesla Model Y Long Range.

We put roughly 2000 miles on the car. 14 hours to drive there, and 16 hours to return. It was longer to return, as we visited the Grand Tetons after Yellowstone.

These drives did include stops for charging, which ranged from 10 minutes to an hour, with longer stops generally including stopping for lunch or dinner.

We ended up using an average of 302kW/hr. This was high due to the climbing of mountains. and driving at high rates of speed. EV's don't really like going faster than 65, and driving at 85 while pleasant *really* drains the battery.

Charging for the trip was roughly $60. This did include using the remainder of our free supercharging miles, so without that, there and back would have been $100 to charge.

Our hotel in Yellowstone had free destination chargers, which we used the night before our outings at the park.

My wife and I swapped drivers at every charge, which helped us stave off exhaustion. Stopping every 1.5-2 hours or so to get out, charge and stretch does make the long drives tolerable.

Of course, there are issues. While Tesla's supercharge network is impressive, some locations had limited amenities, which at night are even more pronounced. A 'rest stop' or service station approach would be much better than 'these chargers are located behind a hotel parking lot who don't like it when you ask to use a restroom'.

Overall, a perfectly acceptable scenario which needs a bit more planning to pull off, and a far cry from 'IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DO!'

 

[Trebuchet]

I'm envious of your trip to Yellowstone! Where did you stay? Favorite sight?

 

[dirtywick]

That's quite a bit cheaper than what it would have been in gas

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

We ended up using an average of 302kW/hr. This was high due to the climbing of mountains. and driving at high rates of speed. EV's don't really like going faster than 65, and driving at 85 while pleasant *really* drains the battery.

Charging for the trip was roughly $60. This did include using the remainder of our free supercharging miles, so without that, there and back would have been $100 to charge.

Sure you didn't drop a decimal point somewhere? 9,000 kWh would normally be around a thousand dollars. Or is that subsidized heavily?

 

[Shalamar]

Sure you didn't drop a decimal point somewhere? 9,000 kWh would normally be around a thousand dollars. Or is that subsidized heavily?

My Mistake. 302 Wh/mi. We used 623 kWh.

 

[Shalamar]

I'm envious of your trip to Yellowstone! Where did you stay? Favorite sight?

We stayed in West Yellowstone (Destination Charger!) but Our favorite part was Lamar Valley. We had a guide for that day for a private photography and wildlife tour.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

We ended up using an average of 302kW/hr. This was high due to the climbing of mountains. and driving at high rates of speed. EV's don't really like going faster than 65, and driving at 85 while pleasant *really* drains the battery.

Sure you didn't drop a decimal point somewhere? 9,000 kWh would normally be around a thousand dollars. Or is that subsidized heavily?

There is something a bit off about the numbers. I think Shalamar means he used 302 kWh for the trip but that seems very low, I would have thought more like 500 assuming around 15kWh/100km which is reasonable for a Tesla according to the Internet.

9000 kWh for the trip is completely off the scale though. I assume to get that you multiplied 302 by the 30 hours for the trip, which doesn't really make sense.

ETA Shalamar's edit makes much more sense.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I assume to get that you multiplied 302 by the 30 hours for the trip, which doesn't really make sense.

Yes, that is what I did. Why doesn't that make sense? (ETA: I noticed 302kW/hour didn't make sense as a unit but thought he just meant average power over an hour was 320kW)

Shalamar has made sense of his numbers though.

 

[Shalamar]

Yeah. I goofed on the numbers. The EV thing is still a little weird in nomenclature.

 

[Tippit]

Anyone buying EVs because they believe that anthropogenic climate change is some kind of real problem, are kidding themselves.

First of all, the Lithium ion batteries in Teslas and other EVs are highly toxic. They're known to produce CO gas, and Lithium mining is even more toxic, consumes and pollutes more water, and is more environmentally damaging than fracking.

Second, only a tiny fraction of Li+ batteries are recycled, something on the order of 2-3%. So they decompose in landfills where they pollute the ground water.

Third, and most importantly, 80% of the power grid (in the United States, at least) is fueled by non-renewable energy sources (coal, petroleum, natural gas, nuclear, etc...) So all of the virtue signaling EV drivers who like to think highly of themselves for not burning gasoline in an ICE, are still charging their EV batteries from a grid whereby only 20% is powered by renewable energy.

Just because your precious EV doesn't emit CO2 (which is not a pollutant), doesn't mean the power plant that you're charging your vehicle from isn't generating the emissions for you.

The two positives that EVs have, is that they are quiet, and electric motors have a lot of torque. But to pretend that you are benefiting the environment by purchasing one, is an exercise in self-delusion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Anyone buying EVs because they believe that anthropogenic climate change is some kind of real problem, are kidding themselves.

First of all, the Lithium ion batteries in Teslas and other EVs are highly toxic...

Toxic is bad. Maybe we should stick to good old lead acid batteries like nature intended.

Pollution caused by producing the materials to make EVs is a serious problem. But it's a different problem from anthropogenic climate change. So how exactly do you conclude the toxicity of lithium battery production is evidence that people are kidding themselves about anthropogenic climate change?

 

[Shalamar]

A few things. EV's are not pollutant free, but they are better for the environment (especially local environment) Than ICE vehicles. They are more efficient at turning fossil fuels into energy than ICE vehicles are.

As well, An ICE vehicle is run by oil: either gasoline or diesel, both of which take electricity to produce. Depending on the source of the power, my EV can run off of coal, oil, natural gas, wind, or hydro. Since I live in the Pacific Northwest, that power is primarily Hydro.

Mining Lithium certainly does seem to be an issue, but already new technologies of batteries are being developed, with greater capacity and power. the demand for EV's is pushing this. And yes, Lithium batteries can be recycled, and will be so from EV's. After an EV is done with it's battery, it looks like they'll be re-purposed into storage likely for residential or similar use.

as for 'EV's are worse for the environment!!11one! no.

 

[Tippit]

Toxic is bad. Maybe we should stick to good old lead acid batteries like nature intended.

The 12v lead acid batteries in a typical ICE vehicle weigh about 50lbs. The 80kWh Li+ battery in a Tesla model S, weighs about 1200 pounds. Which do you think has a bigger environmental footprint?

Pollution caused by producing the materials to make EVs is a serious problem. But it's a different problem from anthropogenic climate change. So how exactly do you conclude the toxicity of lithium battery production is evidence that people are kidding themselves about anthropogenic climate change?

I don't believe anthropogenic warming is a material issue. I think it's made up "science", used for political reasons (carbon taxation, population control in the developing world). I think solar is the principal driver of climate on earth. Carbon Dioxide is a building block of nature, not a pollutant, and it gets scrubbed by all flora on planet earth, as well as absorbed by the oceans (at the right temperature, else it is emitted). But that is beyond the scope of this thread. Even if you believe climate change is a problem, EVs are a phony solution.

 

[Tippit]

A few things. EV's are not pollutant free, but they are better for the environment (especially local environment) Than ICE vehicles. They are more efficient at turning fossil fuels into energy than ICE vehicles are.

Maybe you can elaborate on why you think this is so. Clearly they only burn 20% renewable when they're connected to the grid, so that has to offset the toxicity of the Lithium and Cobalt mines, plus the effects of disposing of 1200lb batteries. Are they net beneficial if we discount Carbon Dioxide emission? I don't think so.

As well, An ICE vehicle is run by oil: either gasoline or diesel, both of which take electricity to produce. Depending on the source of the power, my EV can run off of coal, oil, natural gas, wind, or hydro. Since I live in the Pacific Northwest, that power is primarily Hydro.

And those same fuels that power 80% of the grid are magically immune from the energy costs to extract them? Do you have evidence that your grid, unlike the vast majority of the US, is fueled primarily hydro-electric?

 

[Shalamar]

Maybe you can elaborate on why you think this is so. Clearly they only burn 20% renewable when they're connected to the grid, so that has to offset the toxicity of the Lithium and Cobalt mines, plus the effects of disposing of 1200lb batteries. Are they net beneficial if we discount Carbon Dioxide emission? I don't think so.



And those same fuels that power 80% of the grid are magically immune from the energy costs to extract them? Do you have evidence that your grid, unlike the vast majority of the US, is fueled primarily hydro-electric?

I was mistaken. While Puget Sound Energy does have diversified sources, It's still 35% coal, 31 Natural gas, 23% hydro, and the rest solar, nuc, and the like.

Mind you, you have provided no citations for any of your claims.

EV's are not perfect, but still better than ICE vehicles for pollutants.

 

[Tippit]

no.

I read this article, it makes some good points. There is no question that EVs have much less toxic emissions. I am not concerned with Carbon Dioxide because I don't believe it is a pollutant, nor do I even believe a warmer earth is disastrous to the extent that anthropological CO2 does increase the greenhouse effect. ICE vehicles do emit what I believe to be actual pollutants, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and various other contaminants that result from the internal combustion engine. Smog is real.

The post mentions the calculation of the "Life Cycle Emissions" of EVs in order to get a fair assessment, which presumably (hopefully?) includes the consumption of non-renewables from the grid, but it didn't give a breakdown of this formula. The article also mentioned that power plants on the grid are better equipped to filter or sequester emissions than your average car, which I also think is true.

But then there is the issue of the 2-3% recycling rate. Your article states:

A scientific report published in the journal Nature found that given the significant impact lithium-ion batteries have on the environment and their growing popularity, "recycling is not only necessary, but also urgent."

Rel:Scads of new electric, hybrid vehicles on way

The researchers stated if the batteries aren't recycled correctly or reused, their good for the environment is wasted.

If my 2-3% figure is anywhere near correct, then EVs are a sham. Do you dispute this figure?

I guess what I'm most interested in, is, are they actually beneficial if we eliminate the premise that CO2 is a pollutant, and tend to think the answer is no. I also neglected to mention that the entire EV industry is government subsidized, so there are economic costs that are subsidized by taxpayers that don't exist for ICE vehicles.