Fallacy of Electrics

[jpd80]

12 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Just wondering....what if instead of expending a lot of "energy"-no pun intended - on the ICE vs EV debate, the world's attention was focused on emissions of all sorts coming from China and India???

 

And as always, if only we could attack an issue at a measured pace.  No doubt many economies associated with EVs but given the politics in our country we seem to lose perspective-in particular when  we have a president who makes it clear he will push his agenda  to eliminate the fossil fuel industry..not a "political statement", but rather a fact that is relevant to this thread IMO.

This old chestnut, the west sends all of its manufacturing to low cost countries to reduce costs and emissions and then wonders why their emissions go through the roof. It’s true that China expanded its power grid massively with coal fire power plants but I suspect that it will eventually go nuclear, that and the obsession with Electric vehicles at the moment will see it leap frog the west.

 

Americas fortunes are tied to low cost energy sources, the moment that oil prices soar or it’s told not to use coal anymore, things get mighty expensive quickly. What’s  needed is a sensible long term energy plan but unfortunately, short term gain seems to govern politics these days, politicians are like elephants, they rush off in one direction making unilateral decision that start causing a ton of collateral damage and then get voted out, the opposite happens with another government but nothing long term gets put in place.

Edited April 10, 2022 by jpd80

[Tico]

some people will aways be afraid of change. but change still comes. those who can adapt own the future. in 20 years this argument will be moot.

[akirby]

On o e side you have people who simply love ICE and don’t like the idea of BEVs.  On the other side you have folks who think the planet will die if we do t go 100% BEV right now.  And these people will find article after article supporting their position.

 

The truth is BEVs are viable today for a subset of buyers - people who drive less than 250 miles per day and who can charge at home or people willing to plan their long distance driving around public chargers.  And those people can afford a new $35K plus vehicle.  I figure that’s maybe 25% of the market right now.  And that’s where we’ll stay more or less while the public charging infrastructure gets built out, mfrs develop more BEVs of different types to satisfy this initial wave.  But this is not the long term landscape.

 

The game changers will be the next generation of batteries - probably solid state - that will provide more range and much faster recharging and hopefully lower cost (eventually) which will expand the market to almost everyone assuming the charging infrastructure is sufficient.

But I also think we’ll see hybrid and PHEV ICE vehicles to fill the gap.

 

And I still think we might see an environmentally friendly alternative fuel that will allow ICE to continue in specialty vehicles.

[rmc523]

On 4/9/2022 at 8:58 AM, AGR said:

 

Nobody said it was. EVs and power generation are separate issues. Like bzcat said, an EV is agnostic towards where the electricity is coming from. Even the most biased studies (like one that was widely circulated in conservative media about 5 years ago) can only get EVs to be "dirtier" if the electricity comes from coal. Gas, and obviously nuclear and renewables are MUCH cleaner than ICE. So any attacks on EVs because of "coal generated electricity" are an indictment against coal. 

i don’t think anyone is arguing EVs are dirtier, just that they’re not the holy grail of cleanliness powered by unicorn farts and rainbows like they’re made out to be.

 

they may be cleaner at the individual source (vehicle itself) but you can’t just completely ignore the back end of them that people tend to do.

[Rangers09]

On 4/9/2022 at 5:58 AM, AGR said:

 

Nobody said it was. EVs and power generation are separate issues. Like bzcat said, an EV is agnostic towards where the electricity is coming from. Even the most biased studies (like one that was widely circulated in conservative media about 5 years ago) can only get EVs to be "dirtier" if the electricity comes from coal. Gas, and obviously nuclear and renewables are MUCH cleaner than ICE. So any attacks on EVs because of "coal generated electricity" are an indictment against coal. 

 

Using that analogy, ICE vehicles and fossil fuel extraction, transportation and refinement are also separate issue. The tree-hugging greens want us to believe, BEV's & power generation are separate issues, but to compare apples to apples and get a realistic comparison of ICE v's BEV, the vehicles and their fuels must be compared as single entities.

 

At no time have I posted that BEV's are dirtier, my point is they are highly dependent on how the electrical power they use is generated, and any transmission losses. Unfortunately, the tree-hugging promoters would have us believe that the power is all clean and/or renewable. In my Province this is almost true, but sadly this is not common practice in other Provinces and US States.

 

While Hydro-Electric and Nuclear are clean, the Greens are also pushing back against both of these alternatives. If the Greens don't want dams and nuclear plants, where will all this clean power for BEV's come from in the future?

[AGR]

6 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

 

Using that analogy, ICE vehicles and fossil fuel extraction, transportation and refinement are also separate issue. The tree-hugging greens want us to believe, BEV's & power generation are separate issues, but to compare apples to apples and get a realistic comparison of ICE v's BEV, the vehicles and their fuels must be compared as single entities.

 

At no time have I posted that BEV's are dirtier, my point is they are highly dependent on how the electrical power they use is generated, and any transmission losses. Unfortunately, the tree-hugging promoters would have us believe that the power is all clean and/or renewable. In my Province this is almost true, but sadly this is not common practice in other Provinces and US States.

 

While Hydro-Electric and Nuclear are clean, the Greens are also pushing back against both of these alternatives. If the Greens don't want dams and nuclear plants, where will all this clean power for BEV's come from in the future?

 

Nope, your analogy is faulty since ICE vehicles MUST use petroleum products while EVs can use electricity from any source.

Nuclear is probably done; the existing plants are nearing the end of their lifecycles and new replacements are too expensive.  They may succeed in getting a few minor dams removed, but the bigger dams aren't going anywhere.

[fuzzymoomoo]

5 hours ago, AGR said:

Nope, your analogy is faulty since ICE vehicles MUST use petroleum products while EVs can use electricity from any source.

EVs use petroleum products too. Plastics come from petroleum.  

[NLPRacing]

On 4/8/2022 at 7:33 PM, fuzzymoomoo said:

It goes both ways, let's not pretend mining for battery minerals is harmless.  it's far from it.

 

On 4/8/2022 at 7:47 PM, Bob Rosadini said:

you are making too much sense!  Ever notice when there is an article on the wonders of EV you NEVER see a comment that goes with it about where the power is coming from to charge that EV.

 

4 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

EVs use petroleum products too. Plastics come from petroleum.  

 

I always find it a little funny that people that don't like EV's for "environmental issues" don't typically care how dirty it is to find, extract, transport, refine, transport again & burn petroleum. EV's aren't the silver bullet solution to any problem. But they are a stepping stone. As batteries transition from Lithium to Solid State, they will get cheaper, lighter, and cleaner. And going forward, they will be charged from sources that will only get cleaner such as solar, wind, nuclear, etc. Oil production will never get "cleaner", so anything that transitions from it, the better. Obviously, there will always be a need for oil for things like medical, plastic, fertilizer, etc., but if we can burn less oil by going to EV's, Hybrids, ICE on synthetic fuel, Fuel Cell, etc., then that will be better for everyone. The advancements on Solid-State batteries and Fuel Cells are pretty exciting. And if I can keep driving my Raptor for years to come by using clean burning synthetic fuel, that would awesome too. Progress is a good thing.

[Rangers09]

11 hours ago, AGR said:

 

Nope, your analogy is faulty since ICE vehicles MUST use petroleum products while EVs can use electricity from any source.

Nuclear is probably done; the existing plants are nearing the end of their lifecycles and new replacements are too expensive.  They may succeed in getting a few minor dams removed, but the bigger dams aren't going anywhere.

 

Yes, ICE vehicles must use petroleum products, just like BEV's must use electricity. Last time I checked, we don't have any options on where our electricity is sourced. If you reside in an area that uses mostly coal, then your BEV is worse than my diesel with emission controls. However, I accept that our local BEV's are cleaner than my diesel, as 98% of our power is clean/renewable.

 

BEV's can use any electricity, but other than moving, you don't have a choice on how that power was generated.

 

When it comes to dams, removing them isn't the issue. Getting approval to build new ones is the issue, so they can expand capacity to meet demand. Our newest large dam was almost cancelled by the Greens, and only survived as it was already 1/2 built. I highly doubt we will ever see another large hydo dam built, after this one is completed.

[bzcat]

1 hour ago, Rangers09 said:

 

Yes, ICE vehicles must use petroleum products, just like BEV's must use electricity. Last time I checked, we don't have any options on where our electricity is sourced. If you reside in an area that uses mostly coal, then your BEV is worse than my diesel with emission controls. However, I accept that our local BEV's are cleaner than my diesel, as 98% of our power is clean/renewable.

 

BEV's can use any electricity, but other than moving, you don't have a choice on how that power was generated.

 

When it comes to dams, removing them isn't the issue. Getting approval to build new ones is the issue, so they can expand capacity to meet demand. Our newest large dam was almost cancelled by the Greens, and only survived as it was already 1/2 built. I highly doubt we will ever see another large hydo dam built, after this one is completed.

 

But electricity gets cleaner every year, which is the point you won't acknowledge. Coal will be practically eliminated from US grid over the next 15 years as the plants age out and replaced by mostly renewables. 

 

But more to the point, burning coal to generate electricity is still more carbon efficient than burning gas or diesel by a significant margin. Go back to my post when I explained the thermal efficiency of ICE vs. power plants. You can't make up the difference between the two. On a global scale, it is way better for us from carbon emission standpoint to keep coal plants than to continue operating millions of gas and diesel engines. 

[Flying68]

So out of curiosity I compared 2019 Chevy Cruze Diesel to the Bolt and Volt for the same year, using the EPA highway MPG.  They have 48, 110, and 42 respectively.  Converting those to Gallons per 100 miles and then to equivalent kWh/100 miles gives 84.8, 30.6, and 80.2.  Surprisingly the gas/hybrid Volt has better kWh number than the Cruze diesel.  However the reals surprise is when you factor in distribution efficiency, which from a quick googling I found some academic paper that had well to pump efficiency of diesel at 88%, gasoline at 82%, and electric (well to plug) at 26% minimum for coal/ng/diesel plants, 79% for wind/solar (assume hydro is the same), and 90% for @home generation.  Once all the efficiencies are accounted for the Cruze diesel uses 96.4 kWh/100 mi, the Volt uses 97.9 kWh/100 mi, and the Bolt has a best 34.0 kWh/100 mi for home sourced charging (PV on your roof), 38.9 kWh if your electricity is from wind/solar, 119.1 kWh/100 mi if it is from fossil fuels.  The efficiency of the gas/diesel vehicles is pretty similar.  EV's can be either worse or better.  If you factor in the 60.8% fossil fuel vs 39.2% Nuclear/renewable US electrical generation, the Bolt gets 87.7 kWh/100 mi.   

 

Basically if you have PV panels on your roof, there is nothing cleaner or more efficient to drive than an EV.  If you don't, they are all pretty similar, and really depends on your use case.  I didn't look at it from an emissions standpoint, but the last electric co-op meeting I went to seemed to indicate that the newest coal plant that they are invested in is one of the cleanest in the country.  I would think it is much easier to control emissions from large plants, where it is more cost effective to employ scrubbers and other emissions reducing equipment than on millions of vehicles.  They also told us the benefit of EV's is that by charging at night it helps balance out the load and distribution, which makes running generation plants more efficient and distribution more efficient, saving on costs.

 

Just some thoughts to consider.  

[Rangers09]

5 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

But electricity gets cleaner every year, which is the point you won't acknowledge. Coal will be practically eliminated from US grid over the next 15 years as the plants age out and replaced by mostly renewables. 

 

But more to the point, burning coal to generate electricity is still more carbon efficient than burning gas or diesel by a significant margin. Go back to my post when I explained the thermal efficiency of ICE vs. power plants. You can't make up the difference between the two. On a global scale, it is way better for us from carbon emission standpoint to keep coal plants than to continue operating millions of gas and diesel engines. 

 

Yes, electricity in many places is getting cleaner, but the fact that electricity is not currently produced from clean/renewable sources is never mentioned in your BEV propaganda brochures. I'm surprised that the US requires another 15 yrs, and even then it won't be full elimination of coal. Wow, another 15 yrs before you get mostly clean power for your BEV's.

[jpd80]

If we add in Ford’s hybrids and PHEVs to the BEV mix, we can see that buyers will be well catered for choices and the degree of electrification they choose. I still think that progressive approach for encouraging buyers to switch, the all or nothing approach of GM  is going to be a problem for ICE buyers.

Edited April 12, 2022 by jpd80

[akirby]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

the all or nothing approach of GM  is going to be a problem for ICE buyers.

I think it’s going to be a problem for GM too.

[silvrsvt]

17 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

 

Yes, electricity in many places is getting cleaner, but the fact that electricity is not currently produced from clean/renewable sources is never mentioned in your BEV propaganda brochures. I'm surprised that the US requires another 15 yrs, and even then it won't be full elimination of coal. Wow, another 15 yrs before you get mostly clean power for your BEV's.

 

Uh you never heard of Hydro or Nuclear power, which both are in use as of today?!?

 

The real issue that people seem to completely lack/comprehend is the auto industry operates with a very long lead time-decisions being made in 2022 won't see the light of day till another 36-48-60 months from now. What you see today was done a while back.  

 

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by silvrsvt

[Deanh]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2022 at 7:08 AM, NLPRacing said:

 

 

 

I always find it a little funny that people that don't like EV's for "environmental issues" don't typically care how dirty it is to find, extract, transport, refine, transport again & burn petroleum. EV's aren't the silver bullet solution to any problem. But they are a stepping stone. As batteries transition from Lithium to Solid State, they will get cheaper, lighter, and cleaner. And going forward, they will be charged from sources that will only get cleaner such as solar, wind, nuclear, etc. Oil production will never get "cleaner", so anything that transitions from it, the better. Obviously, there will always be a need for oil for things like medical, plastic, fertilizer, etc., but if we can burn less oil by going to EV's, Hybrids, ICE on synthetic fuel, Fuel Cell, etc., then that will be better for everyone. The advancements on Solid-State batteries and Fuel Cells are pretty exciting. And if I can keep driving my Raptor for years to come by using clean burning synthetic fuel, that would awesome too. Progress is a good thing.

to add to that...heres an idea...lets ship fuel from overseas as that's a cleaner alternative than piping it here....and screw what the mining and oil exploration does to those foreign countries...well just send some cash under the guise of the Paris Accord...hopefully no one will notice.....

Edited April 12, 2022 by Deanh

[Rangers09]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Uh you never heard of Hydro or Nuclear power, which both are in use as of today?!?

 

The real issue that people seem to completely lack/comprehend is the auto industry operates with a very long lead time-decisions being made in 2022 won't see the light of day till another 36-48-60 months from now. What you see today was done a while back.  

 

 

As I noted in a previous post, I come from a Province that has over 90% of our power from Hydro and we have another large dam under construction. Unfortunately, it will probably be the last hydro project we can build.

[FordBuyer]

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

If we add in Ford’s hybrids and PHEVs to the BEV mix, we can see that buyers will be well catered for choices and the degree of electrification they choose. I still think that progressive approach for encouraging buyers to switch, the all or nothing approach of GM  is going to be a problem for ICE buyers.

 

Good points. I agree. More and more people are buying hybrids, not much more than conventional ICE, and in many cases twice the mpg. Going to straight BEV is very risky. If I owned GM stock, I would sell all for that decision alone. I like the mix Ford has and will have over next 10 years. Toyota is another company that has it right. Lots of choices. 

[FordBuyer]

1 hour ago, Rangers09 said:

 

As I noted in a previous post, I come from a Province that has over 90% of our power from Hydro and we have another large dam under construction. Unfortunately, it will probably be the last hydro project we can build.

 

I used to own Idaho Power that got most of its generation from hydro. Some years when they got lots of snowpack they really did well. Other years with less snowpack cratered their profits. The 10 year Western Drought is probably not helping much. 

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Good points. I agree. More and more people are buying hybrids, not much more than conventional ICE, and in many cases twice the mpg. Going to straight BEV is very risky. If I owned GM stock, I would sell all for that decision alone. I like the mix Ford has and will have over next 10 years. Toyota is another company that has it right. Lots of choices. 

And notice how GM loves to stick new tech behind a paywall, be that a Cadillac or GMC Hummer with exclusive pricing, making a connection with regular ICE buyers is much harder…..or maybe that’s the thing, they want ICE trucks and SUVs to continue selling while they get the upper cream sales from BEVs? If that’s true, then so much for rapid transition of buyers to BEV…they better get going with affordable BEVs…..

[Deanh]

16 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

And notice how GM loves to stick new tech behind a paywall, be that a Cadillac or GMC Hummer with exclusive pricing, making a connection with regular ICE buyers is much harder…..or maybe that’s the thing, they want ICE trucks and SUVs to continue selling while they get the upper cream sales from BEVs? If that’s true, then so much for rapid transition of buyers to BEV…they better get going with affordable BEVs…..

I think GM is working with someone regarding sub 30k BEVs...but once again...this whole electrification narrative should be taken with a grain of salt...I don't believe anything Ive read or been preached by our wonderful decision makers as anything but smoke and mirrors...I mean they are the same morons that deem Shipping in foreign oil is better for everyone than us pumping out own and piping it...I sincerely wonder how this whole Ukraine situation and the EUs stance would be if the supply of oil and N Gas was coming primarily from the US ( which we are quite capable of ) .....thank god for Gin and Tonics is all I can say...

 

[Flying68]

Hydro in the west and southwest US is for all purposes dead.  Most of the storage lakes on the Colorado are to the point of no longer being viable and the water levels to low to produce meaningful power.  Powell will be the first to go, followed shortly thereafter by Mead.  Water resources during an extended drought are too precious for large surface storage where the evaporative losses are immense.  Wind and solar will need to replace it and we need to open the Yuca Mountain storage facility to make nuclear viable again.

[BoomerSooner]

Interestingly enough, my old neighborhood in Edmond, OK has found Teslas and other e-vehicles to be very appealing.  During high energy usage months, I am now advised that the municipal electric grid is having trouble supplying sufficient power to additionally charge a bunch of electric cars.  

[FordBuyer]

28 minutes ago, Deanh said:

I think GM is working with someone regarding sub 30k BEVs...but once again...this whole electrification narrative should be taken with a grain of salt...I don't believe anything Ive read or been preached by our wonderful decision makers as anything but smoke and mirrors...I mean they are the same morons that deem Shipping in foreign oil is better for everyone than us pumping out own and piping it...I sincerely wonder how this whole Ukraine situation and the EUs stance would be if the supply of oil and N Gas was coming primarily from the US ( which we are quite capable of ) .....thank god for Gin and Tonics is all I can say...

 

 

Announced today that Ford struck a deal with Argentina which will be supplying Ford with its Lithium needs. Sounds like Ford is doing good job setting up its battery supply for future needs. 

[Rodrigo]

23 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Announced today that Ford struck a deal with Argentina which will be supplying Ford with its Lithium needs. Sounds like Ford is doing good job setting up its battery supply for future needs. 

 

more info,

 

https://insideevs.com.ar/news/579285/ford-litio-argentino-baterias-electricos/