EV (electric vehicle) News and Discussion

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › EV (electric vehicle) News and Discussion

1 | ... | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | ... | 771

1702 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 771

Lifetime subscriber

#2337915 16-Oct-2019 08:23

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/116599831/climate-explained-the-carbon-footprint-of-electric-versus-fossil-cars

Seems a reasonably balanced article. Not certain the potentially longer life of EV's has been fully accounted for though.

Also, future changes in battery technology will hopefully lower some of the negative impacts of the manufacturing and recycling phases. Plus improvements due to other technology changes?

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#2337929 16-Oct-2019 08:52

DS248:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/116599831/climate-explained-the-carbon-footprint-of-electric-versus-fossil-cars

Seems a reasonably balanced article. Not certain the potentially longer life of EV's has been fully accounted for though.

Also, future changes in battery technology will hopefully lower some of the negative impacts of the manufacturing and recycling phases. Plus improvements due to other technology changes?

Summary from the article:

In summary, we conclude on the basis of recent studies that fossil-fuelled cars generally emit more than electric cars in all phases of a life cycle. The total life cycle emissions from a fossil-fuelled car and an electric car in Australia were 333gCO2/km and 273gCO2/km, respectively. That is, using average grid electricity, EVs come out about 18 per cent better in terms of their carbon footprint.

Likewise, electric cars in New Zealand work out a lot better than fossil-fuelled cars in terms of emissions, with life-cycle emissions at about 333gCO2/km for fossil-fuelled cars and 128gCO2/km for electric cars. In New Zealand, EVs perform about 62 per cent better than fossil cars in carbon footprint terms.

Since New Zealand's electricity is cleaner than Australia, switching to an electric car will have greater environmental benefits in terms of mitigating climate change, as well as reducing local air pollutants.

So, for EVs to make a substantial contribution to climate change problems, the world has to move away from generating electricity from fossil fuels. It's of little use pumping out millions of EVs if the electricity needed to charge them up is not "clean".

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#2337945 16-Oct-2019 09:14

Whoever edited that article made a real hash of it, its really hard to follow,

But looking at the numbers

an ICEs carbon cost in manufacturing and recycling is 12.3 Tonne ( 10.5+1.8) ,

While and EVs is 15.4 tonne ( 13+2.4)

So based on that an ICE has a drive away advantage of 3.1 tonne,

In OZ it takes 38,000 km to claw that back, leaving 112,000 Km to accrue savings, 81gm/km that saves about 9 tonnes of Co2 over 150,000km

In NZ it only takes 13.000 km to claw back 3.1 tonne, leaving 137,000 of reductions, and at a much higher differential of 226gm/km that yields nearly 31 tonnes in carbon reductions,

( granted the 150,000km life is a bit arbitrary, but you have to use something....)

But as has been said above it certainly supports why places like the EU are throwing billions in to "greening their grids", It then gives you huge advantages when you electrify your fleets...

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9545

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2338009 16-Oct-2019 11:12

frednz:

So, for EVs to make a substantial contribution to climate change problems, the world has to move away from generating electricity from fossil fuels. It's of little use pumping out millions of EVs if the electricity needed to charge them up is not "clean".

For the narrow definition of contribution to climate change only, yes, we need to cut fossil fuel electricity generation. However there are two points you should consider there. Firstly we need to cut fossil fuel electricity generation even without EVs. Secondly, even if you ignore the smaller CO2 reduction of the coal-fired EV compared to the ICE, the coal-fired EV still has a substantial impact on local pollution. All the pollutants are concentrated at the coal plant where they can be scrubbed or at least emitted away from the streets where people are living and breathing. One large coal plant is much cleaner than a million small engines.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#2338017 16-Oct-2019 11:22

SaltyNZ:

For the narrow definition of contribution to climate change only, yes, we need to cut fossil fuel electricity generation. However there are two points you should consider there. Firstly we need to cut fossil fuel electricity generation even without EVs. Secondly, even if you ignore the smaller CO2 reduction of the coal-fired EV compared to the ICE, the coal-fired EV still has a substantial impact on local pollution. All the pollutants are concentrated at the coal plant where they can be scrubbed or at least emitted away from the streets where people are living and breathing. One large coal plant is much cleaner than a million small engines.

Which is the angle that China are taking, their EV subsidies are not based on CO2 reductions, but on getting PMs and other nasty pollutants out of their big cities..

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#2338117 16-Oct-2019 14:23

I suspect that the above study is stilted in favour of the ICE. They quote 251gCO2/km which seems to be low enough to be purely tail pipe emissions. When making these arguments a common fallacy is to include electricity production emissions but not petrol/diesel production emissions, which can double the ICE CO2 figures depending on production methods, grade of oil being refined and refinery efficiency and heating energy sources.

I can not find where they positively state weather or not they are including crude oil production, delivery and refining CO2 emissions in those ICE estimates, (has anyone else seen this) but I suspect not.

If you include petrol/diesel production emissions the ICE figures will look twice as bad and EV even better still.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Obraik

2167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1347

#2338139 16-Oct-2019 15:11

frednz:

Summary from the article:

In summary, we conclude on the basis of recent studies that fossil-fuelled cars generally emit more than electric cars in all phases of a life cycle. The total life cycle emissions from a fossil-fuelled car and an electric car in Australia were 333gCO2/km and 273gCO2/km, respectively. That is, using average grid electricity, EVs come out about 18 per cent better in terms of their carbon footprint.

Likewise, electric cars in New Zealand work out a lot better than fossil-fuelled cars in terms of emissions, with life-cycle emissions at about 333gCO2/km for fossil-fuelled cars and 128gCO2/km for electric cars. In New Zealand, EVs perform about 62 per cent better than fossil cars in carbon footprint terms.

Since New Zealand's electricity is cleaner than Australia, switching to an electric car will have greater environmental benefits in terms of mitigating climate change, as well as reducing local air pollutants.

So, for EVs to make a substantial contribution to climate change problems, the world has to move away from generating electricity from fossil fuels. It's of little use pumping out millions of EVs if the electricity needed to charge them up is not "clean".

But an EV's emissions will become less without the owner having to do anything. An ICE vehicle will never become greener...so it's still better in those countries to buy an EV over an ICE.

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#2338156 16-Oct-2019 15:28

Obraik:

But an EV's emissions will become less without the owner having to do anything. An ICE vehicle will never become greener...so it's still better in those countries to buy an EV over an ICE.

That's not strictly true that you cannot easily (slightly) green an ICE,

Moving to an E5 or E10 blend will reduce emissions,-

Although there is debate about whether you end up needing more blended fuel due to a lower energy density of Ethanol,

kingdragonfly

11989 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12875

Subscriber

#2338238 16-Oct-2019 16:30

Release just a few days ago. I like this guy's videos, because it's heavy on math.

Are Teslas Actually Better For The Environment?

Engineering Explained

Are Tesla Electric Cars actually better for the environment versus alternative energy sources? Do electric cars have lower emissions, even if their energy comes from fossil fuels? Between electric, hydrogen, gasoline, diesel, and hybrids, which uses the least amount of total energy, from well to wheel? This video will analyze the entire energy equation, starting from the very source of the fuel, whether that’s petroleum, natural gas, or other energy sources.

kingdragonfly

11989 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12875

Subscriber

#2338247 16-Oct-2019 16:57

Support The Planetary Society and Win a One-of-a-Kind 1965 Convertible VW Bug Powered by Tesla Batteries.

I'd guess import is about NZ $8,000 including GST, based on approx NZ $47,000 value.

Note it's left hand drive. We are right hand drive, though LHD is allowed.

https://www.omaze.com/products/zelectric-1965-convertible-beetle-tesla?ref=ee

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2339687 17-Oct-2019 11:52

"Toyota has revealed its fourth-generation Yaris supermini, claiming that more than 80 per cent of buyers will purchase the petrol/electric hybrid version rather than the 1.5-litre petrol-only model that goes on sale at the same time next summer.

The new hybrid system swaps the outgoing model’s 97bhp/92lb ft 1,497cc four-cylinder petrol engine for an 89bhp/88.5lb ft 1.5-litre three-cylinder unit that’s naturally aspirated. There’s a more energy-dense lithium-ion battery pack, which is 27 per cent lighter and smaller than the outgoing nickel-metal-hydride unit – and can charge and discharge faster.

Toyota claims 15 per cent more power and 20 per cent greater efficiency from the latest revisions. This would indicate fuel consumption in the NEDC cycle of about 100mpg, though we’ll wait for the official figures before celebrating the magic “ton”. "

- Daily Telegraph, London

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2339699 17-Oct-2019 12:16

Geektastic:

"Toyota has revealed its fourth-generation Yaris supermini, claiming that more than 80 per cent of buyers will purchase the petrol/electric hybrid version rather than the 1.5-litre petrol-only model that goes on sale at the same time next summer.

The new hybrid system swaps the outgoing model’s 97bhp/92lb ft 1,497cc four-cylinder petrol engine for an 89bhp/88.5lb ft 1.5-litre three-cylinder unit that’s naturally aspirated. There’s a more energy-dense lithium-ion battery pack, which is 27 per cent lighter and smaller than the outgoing nickel-metal-hydride unit – and can charge and discharge faster.

Toyota claims 15 per cent more power and 20 per cent greater efficiency from the latest revisions. This would indicate fuel consumption in the NEDC cycle of about 100mpg, though we’ll wait for the official figures before celebrating the magic “ton”. "

- Daily Telegraph, London

Nice idea. A lower emission car at a regular price. Ideal for those that cannot stretch to a new EV or second hand EV.

I would have thought the weight and cost of transmission is a waste. make the petrol engine smaller (cheaper, lower CO2, lighter) and add just a few kW to the battery so it can go 5km, and use the petrol engine as just a charger engine. Use less petrol as its not pushing the car as well. eCVT transmissions arent cheap Im sure you could do all that for the same price

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#2339705 17-Oct-2019 12:30

Geektastic:

claiming that more than 80 per cent of buyers will purchase the petrol/electric hybrid version rather than the 1.5-litre petrol-only model that goes on sale at the same time next summer.

That all depends on the price difference... and possibly what Euro emissions taxes and congestion charges it might allow the hybrid to dodge...

The current Corolla is rated 6 l/100km while the hybrid version is 4.2 l/100km and there is a $3500 price difference

if you travel 15,000km a year the 1.8l/100km difference means you use 270 fewer litres of fuel... 270 litres @ $2 is $540 a year, so it would take ~7 years to pay back the difference

Geektastic:

Toyota claims 15 per cent more power and 20 per cent greater efficiency from the latest revisions. This would indicate fuel consumption in the NEDC cycle of about 100mpg, though we’ll wait for the official figures before celebrating the magic “ton”. "

100mpg in this part of the world is 2.4 l/100km

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2339738 17-Oct-2019 12:56

tdgeek:

I would have thought the weight and cost of transmission is a waste. make the petrol engine smaller (cheaper, lower CO2, lighter) and add just a few kW to the battery so it can go 5km, and use the petrol engine as just a charger engine. Use less petrol as its not pushing the car as well. eCVT transmissions arent cheap Im sure you could do all that for the same price

I agree with all but the underlined. The engine *will* be pushing the car, just indirectly, via the charger, battery, and electric motor. I guess that the inefficiencies in that path are greater than via the gearbox, so would be less economical.

I am surprised at the size of the engine... I'd have thought that it could be made much smaller, since cars typically only need 30bhp or so whilst driving. So I'd have thought 50-60bhp would be enough, even uphill. On the flat and downhill, surplus power could be used to charge the battery. But maybe the mechanicals are simplified, and you can only either run on the battery OR on the engine, not both at once.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2339740 17-Oct-2019 13:06

frankv:

tdgeek:

I would have thought the weight and cost of transmission is a waste. make the petrol engine smaller (cheaper, lower CO2, lighter) and add just a few kW to the battery so it can go 5km, and use the petrol engine as just a charger engine. Use less petrol as its not pushing the car as well. eCVT transmissions arent cheap Im sure you could do all that for the same price

I agree with all but the underlined. The engine *will* be pushing the car, just indirectly, via the charger, battery, and electric motor. I guess that the inefficiencies in that path are greater than via the gearbox, so would be less economical.

I am surprised at the size of the engine... I'd have thought that it could be made much smaller, since cars typically only need 30bhp or so whilst driving. So I'd have thought 50-60bhp would be enough, even uphill. On the flat and downhill, surplus power could be used to charge the battery. But maybe the mechanicals are simplified, and you can only either run on the battery OR on the engine, not both at once.

OK, perhaps. I know that CVT are very efficient

1 | ... | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | ... | 771