Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Just_a_fan]

I think the idea that EVs are inherently less ecologically damaging is fallacious. EVs have ecological impacts that ICE cars don't, for example. Unless the electricity is all genuinely renewable, it also impacts the environment.

i totally agree! This just keeps happening doesn't it . There's nothing inherent about it, they only make a difference if you generate the electricity renewably. Otherwise, if you burn fossil fuel to charge the batteries, you're burning fossil fuel. Then there's the mining and cobalt and everything, for now at least. But they can reduce the ecological footprint, whereas engines that burn fossil fuel can only burn fossil fuel!

Well they can burn other types of liquid fuel such as alcohol. But that's a different type of problem.

[djos]

I think the idea that EVs are inherently less ecologically damaging is fallacious. EVs have ecological impacts that ICE cars don't, for example. Unless the electricity is all genuinely renewable, it also impacts the environment.

The scientists dont agree with you:

https://blog.ucsusa.org/rachael-nealer/ ... ssions-953

From cradle to grave, battery-electric vehicles are cleaner. On average, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) representative of those sold today produce less than half the global warming emissions of comparable gasoline-powered vehicles, even when the higher emissions associated with BEV manufacturing are taken into consideration. Based on modeling of the two most popular BEVs available today and the regions where they are currently being sold, excess manufacturing emissions are offset within 6 to 16 months of driving.

It's not just emissions though, is it? It's the production of lithium batteries and all of the damage that is causing. Now we might be able to reduce that impact but we need millions of tonnes of lithium to replace the millions of cars. Dig up millions of tonnes of lithium and you're going to make a big mess.

Sure there are other impacts, however, the nice thing about Lithium batteries is they can be successfully recycled.

https://batteryrecycling.org.au/environ ... batteries/

[Just_a_fan]

Sure there are other impacts, however, the nice thing about Lithium batteries is they can be successfully recycled.

https://batteryrecycling.org.au/environ ... batteries/

That is a good thing, yes indeed. But you've got to produce enough virgin lithium for all of the new EVs that will be made before the first ones start to be recycled. That's still a lot of lithium and associated damage potential. Some EVs might well carry on with a new battery, many might be scrapped when the battery is beyond its practical life. And not all batteries will be recycled. And not all will be recycled in a "good" way either because the money involved is someone's profit and people cut corners to maximise profit. That's not just an EV problem, of course, but it's worth remembering.

[izzy]

Well they can burn other types of liquid fuel such as alcohol. But that's a different type of problem.

oh true, ethanol from crops and even old cooking oil. Still, electric opens up all kinds of possibilities doesn't it.

And another thing is commuting and who really needs to any more? Some people but not everyone who does. A lot of it is just social more than anything, when people could meet up locally to work in their various companies remotely. Just imagine if they spent £100Bn on fibre instead of HS2

[Andres125sx]

I think the idea that EVs are inherently less ecologically damaging is fallacious. EVs have ecological impacts that ICE cars don't, for example. Unless the electricity is all genuinely renewable, it also impacts the environment.

If we are talking about a technology wich is good/bad for the future... what if we think in the future?

This debate about what is greener today is simply absurd. First because even today EV are cleaner except if you live in India (and even so it may be debatable), but most of us don´t live in India, and even so I read this too frequently. Any reason people think in unreal scenarios so frequently . What if all electricity comes from a coal plant? The opposite of what if all electricity comes from renewables. Both are hypotetic scenarios, but the former is just absurd and unreal, while the later will be true sooner or later. Ok it will be later, but will be true some day in the future, so if we´re arguing about what´s better for our future... where´s the debate? Are you missing the big picture intentionally?

About lithium, first it can be recycled, even at 100% in a closed loop. Second batteries dont need to use lithium, that is only current technology but EV don´t need lithium at all, they need electricity and there are several projects with no-lithium based batteries, so lithium needs are just temporary.

In the future who knows if electricity may come from other batteries, from hydrogen fuel cells, or who knows if it will come from a small fusion reactor in the back of the car

What we know for sure today is fuel pollutes when using in the car, while electricity do not pollute when used in the car. Then we must ensure electricity comes from renewables, but that´s a second step, first is accepting in final use fuel pollutes and eletricity don´t. If we can´t agree on this and its obvious advantages...

[Just_a_fan]

About lithium, first it can be recycled, even at 100% in a closed loop. Second batteries dont need to use lithium, that is only current technology but EV don´t need lithium at all, they need electricity and there are several projects with no-lithium based batteries, so lithium needs are just temporary.

In the future who knows if electricity may come from other batteries, from hydrogen fuel cells, or who knows if it will come from a small fusion reactor in the back of the car

What we know for sure today is fuel pollutes when using in the car, while electricity do not pollute when used in the car. Then we must ensure electricity comes from renewables, but that´s a second step, first is accepting in final use fuel pollutes and eletricity don´t. If we can´t agree on this and its obvious advantages...

I agree that an EV powered by 100% renewable electricity is a good place to aim for. At least in terms of local air pollution / air quality in use.

But EVs don't get around the central problem - that cars as a whole are resource intensive (they contain a lot of material that has to be mined, formed, created etc.). And if everyone in the world has a car, then we are still looking at massive ecological impact even if recycling levels are near ideal.

So it's not just about getting people to switch to EVs. It's about cultural shifts away from each individual having a car.
There are currently approx. a billion cars on the roads of the world and worldwide production is approx. 100 million a year (up from approx. 60 million a year in 2004). So that's approx. 1 car per 7 people in the world right now. People in developing countries aspire to "developed country" lifestyles which includes personal transport i.e. a car. Think about the resource requirements to make 7 billion cars. Think about the resource requirements to recycle 7 billion cars. That's the big issue, not whether a few million people in Europe or the US drive EVs instead of petrol/diesel cars.

How do we say to the 6 billion people who want a car but don't currently have one, that they can't have one because we've got them and we don't want to see any more ecological damage associated with car production/use? We don't say it by continuing to consume car-related resources at the current rate, do we? No, we do it by reducing, massively, our own consumption. One leads by example.

So, how does the political class get us in the "developed world" do that? That's the unanswered question. Indeed, I think it's the unasked question. Why? Because politicians know that there will be a huge backlash against it, and ultimately, politicians are populists because that's how they stay in power.

(Figures approximated from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle )

[Andres125sx]

I don't believe in radical measures, asking people to not own a car IMHO is unreal

Maybe it could be enough if cars are not used for few years and then replaced with a new one when the old is still in perfect condition, as our politicians are forcing us lately in the name of reducing pollution, even if the new car still pollutes significantly .

With EV this will be much more important, as EV lifespan can be much much longer than ICE cars, so just using cars to its real lifespan can drastically reduce new cars manufacturing numbers... if politicians allow it, wich is a big if

Anycase I think this is a debate to discuss in some decades, not now when manufacturing pollution is just a fraction of pollution produced in use. First solve the big problem, then the rest

[AJI]

... EV lifespan can be much much longer than ICE cars, so just using cars to its real lifespan can drastically reduce new cars manufacturing numbers...

This is the real crux of the problem. No manufacturer wants to build a car that lasts forever, particularly when a major part that is not manufactured by them is the only big ticket serviceable item?

[izzy]

In the UK they've just taken company car tax to zero on EV's for a year, so now they can't make enough anyway! Somebody on Autocar complaining the delivery time is forever
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/indu ... sales-boom

[AJI]

In the UK they've just taken company car tax to zero on EV's for a year...

That must be a big boost for all the UK EV manufacturers!

[nzjrs]

Anycase I think this is a debate to discuss in some decades, not now when manufacturing pollution is just a fraction of pollution produced in use. First solve the big problem, then the rest

This immediate discussion about the viability of EVs (accounting for energy expenditure across their life), and electricity generation mix, is the closest this thread has been to on-topic in 50 pages!!!!!!!!!!

Please dear god let us stay on this particular point and not descend into another climate change "is it happening/is it bad/is it our fault" nightmare thread!

[LM10]

... EV lifespan can be much much longer than ICE cars, so just using cars to its real lifespan can drastically reduce new cars manufacturing numbers...

This is the real crux of the problem. No manufacturer wants to build a car that lasts forever, particularly when a major part that is not manufactured by them is the only big ticket serviceable item?

A Toyota lasts forever!

[Tommy Cookers]

UK BANS NEW PETROL and DIESEL CARS INCL HYBRIDS FROM 2035 OR EARLIER

and 44 tonners ?

all-renewable electric heating everywhere will need to use those 36 million EV batteries

[Just_a_fan]

I don't believe in radical measures, asking people to not own a car IMHO is unreal

Then where are 7 billion car going to come from? Where are they going to drive, be parked, be charged?

The best way to solve the problem of environmental damage caused by cars is to reduce usage, not increase it...

[AJI]

... EV lifespan can be much much longer than ICE cars, so just using cars to its real lifespan can drastically reduce new cars manufacturing numbers...

This is the real crux of the problem. No manufacturer wants to build a car that lasts forever, particularly when a major part that is not manufactured by them is the only big ticket serviceable item?

A Toyota lasts forever!

Yeah, they're certainly not the company they used to be. They dropped the ball almost to the day that the Prius was introduced... The Toyota Way was genius, then came the Prius.
On a Toyota diesel note, a friend of mine just had his Prado DPF replaced for the 3rd time... At least it's at Toyota's expense. There's a class-action law suit brewing in Oz about that situation though.
And on a Toyota Lexus note, I just replaced the PS pump and alternator in my Aunt's 3UZ Lexus because they have an inherent design flaw... Disappointing to say the least.

Personally, I only own German cars that have four rings on them. If they introduced a PHEV TDI Q7 I couldn’t hand over the cash fast enough.