debunking anti-BEV propaganda

[aerohead]

The December 19,2021 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS, carried a Yale School of the Environment paper on BEVs which addresses disinformation which has been directed against electrification of transportation.
I just learned about it in the April, 2023 MOTOR TREND, pp. 24-27, by Jonny Lieberman.
https://environment.yale.edu/news/ar...ugh-additional

[oil pan 4]

It's usually it's usually people whonhave never driven one and are dumbarses who can't do 4th grade math trashing EVs.

[redpoint5]

There were no facts in that link, and even an uninformed person like me can tell they are lying.

Battery production has way more entrained CO2 emissions than building a whole ICE vehicle. An EV starts out with a CO2 output something like 3x greater than an ICE.

So, anyone saying the indirect emissions of an EV are lower than ICE are either misinformed, or corrupt.

All that aside, the lifetime emissions of an EV will be lower, it just takes many miles to make up that initial deficit.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

There were no facts in that link, and even an uninformed person like me can tell they are lying.

Battery production has way more entrained CO2 emissions than building a whole ICE vehicle. An EV starts out with a CO2 output something like 3x greater than an ICE.

So, anyone saying the indirect emissions of an EV are lower than ICE are either misinformed, or corrupt.

All that aside, the lifetime emissions of an EV will be lower, it just takes many miles to make up that initial deficit.

* There's a link to a link for the Yale research.
* All your points are addressed by Jonny Lieberman.
* BEV battery production averages the pollution of 74-gallons of gas.
* Where ICE vehicles need 9-million barrels of oil/day, BEVs require only 2.3-million barrels/day equivalency.
* Energy infrastructure capacity buildout for BEVs requires only 25.5% that of ICE for equivalency.
* ICE is a whale oil lamp, vs LED for BEVs.
* BEVs can operate without fossil fuel. ICE cannot.
* BEVs can mitigate climate change. ICE cannot.
* BEV regen can recover braking energy. ICE cannot.
* BEV sedan pollution equations favor BEV over ICE after 1.4-1.5-years.
* BEV SUVs after about 1.6- 1.9-years.
* Even with a 2-year lease on a BEV will net out better than ICE.
* In 2022, about 22% of the US power grid was green.
* 2023 is expected to be 24%.
* Wind is predicted to grow 3-X by 2040.
* Solar is predicted to grow 4-X by 2040.
* BEV pickup trucks after about 1.6-years.

[redpoint5]

I've seen 60k miles as the rough breakeven for EV vs ICE as far as CO2 emissions are concerned. After that point, ICE takes the lead for CO2 emissions.

Among the main reasons why an EV battery costs $10,000 is because it is so energy intensive to mine the materials and fabricate them into a battery.

As a rule of thumb, things that cost more consumed more energy. I think we can get a close approximation of when the breakeven point on EV vs ICE is simply with total cost of ownership. The year in which an EV has a lower total cost of ownership per mile driven than an ICE is roughly the year in which ICE begins to contribute more CO2.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I've seen 60k miles as the rough breakeven for EV vs ICE as far as CO2 emissions are concerned. After that point, ICE takes the lead for CO2 emissions.

Among the main reasons why an EV battery costs $10,000 is because it is so energy intensive to mine the materials and fabricate them into a battery.

As a rule of thumb, things that cost more consumed more energy. I think we can get a close approximation of when the breakeven point on EV vs ICE is simply with total cost of ownership. The year in which an EV has a lower total cost of ownership per mile driven than an ICE is roughly the year in which ICE begins to contribute more CO2.

I gave you the values in #4 (permalink ).

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I gave you the values in #4 (permalink ).

... and I gave you others. There is conflicting data... which brought me to my point about using something else as the metric, which is total cost of ownership per mile.

My point being that I don't necessarily believe the figures from your sources, nor the ones I've seen elsewhere. Given uncertainty, a different indicator must be used, and I suggested the best one I could think of off the top of my head.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

... and I gave you others. There is conflicting data... which brought me to my point about using something else as the metric, which is total cost of ownership per mile.

My point being that I don't necessarily believe the figures from your sources, nor the ones I've seen elsewhere. Given uncertainty, a different indicator must be used, and I suggested the best one I could think of off the top of my head.

They show all their methodology, math, ect..
Within the conditions they lay out, their results are 'facts.'
You told me that you haven't seen their work.
Yet you've already indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced the quanta.
' Uncertainty' is the hallmark of the premise behind BEV propaganda.
I'm picking up a familiar odor.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

They show all their methodology, math, ect..
Within the conditions they lay out, their results are 'facts.'
You told me that you haven't seen their work.
Yet you've already indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced the quanta.
' Uncertainty' is the hallmark of the premise behind BEV propaganda.
I'm picking up a familiar odor.

I've not indicted the data, I've said it's in conflict with other data which also lays out all the parameters used and are also "facts".

You're correct in that I'm very skeptical that an EV emits less than an ICE after only 1.5 years of typical miles driven given the fact that the battery alone is $10,000.

In 1.5 years, that's 18,000 miles. A 30 MPG car would consume 600 gallons.

It will take more than someone simply stating that a battery only takes 74 gallons of fossil fuel energy to go from minerals in the ground to a battery in a car to convince me. Why does it cost $10,000 when it has less than $300 of energy to produce?

Then, there's the copper and rare earths and other minerals in motors and inverters, and all the other unique components that comprise an EV.

I'm willing to be wrong about this, it's just not clearing the common sense bar at the moment. I suspect there's something in the assumptions or the measurements that is inaccurate.

I am pro EV generally speaking. Even more though, I'm pro truth. Whenever something seems wrong, I'm going to push against it, even if that harms the reputation of something I like in the short term. In the long term, truth wins every time.

We're on the same page when it comes to dismissing anti-EV propaganda. I'm on a conservative leaning forum (security cameras), and I'm often correcting their misunderstanding of EVs. That makes me unpopular there, too. Truth-seeking sets people as outcasts because they don't neatly align with any particular group.

[aerohead]

The 'carbon footprint' of manufacturing the statistical-average pack is equal to that of combusting 74-gallons of gas.
74 X 19.7-pounds/gallon = 1,457.8-pounds of carbon dioxide.