Energy expert explains why Tesla and the electric car industry is here to stay

Discussion in 'Model 3' started by Teslarati Bot, Mar 30, 2017.

  1. Teslarati Bot

    Teslarati Bot New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,027
    #1 Teslarati Bot, Mar 30, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 30, 2017
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Electric vehicles will be hugely beneficial for our environment but that’s not always what you read.  There’s a lot of misinformation out there, with too many articles pushing old myths and bad data.  It’s time to set the record straight.  As an engineer working in the field of energy and sustainability I’m going to give it a shot.

    In all fairness the story of electric vehicles has been advancing rather quickly.  Battery costs have fallen 80% since 2010 and affordable long range EVs are beginning to hit the market.   But this is just the start.  Nearly all major manufacturers are now feverishly working on electric models, with companies like Mercedes, BMW, and VW expecting 25% of their sales to be electric by 2025 and then there’s Tesla, the patron saint of sustainability, targeting production of 500,000 electric vehicles as soon as next year.  This information and the benefits however are not universally appreciated, far from it.

    Electric vehicles are coming, they’re shaking up long-established industries, and it’s happening much more quickly than people expected.  This is a good thing.  Here’s why:

    1. Our electricity grid is actually pretty clean… and getting cleaner

    The myth “you’re using fossil fuels to power your electric car” is false.  In Ontario Canada, where I live, we have an electricity mix that includes no coal and only 10% from natural gas.  Canada-wide 63% of electricity comes from hydro and only 16% from fossil fuels.  That’s a lot of carbon free power.

    The US average doesn’t look quite as good but it’s improving all the time.  A short time ago over 40% of electricity in the United States came from coal (2011).  Last year it was 30%, with 34% from natural gas, 20% nuclear, 7% hydro, and 8% from other renewables.  That will continue to improve every year as more coal plants are shut down and more renewables are installed.  Want proof?  From 2014 to 2017 electricity from coal dropped by 23% while solar power generation increased 102%.  In 2016 alone US solar capacity went from 28GW to 42GW.

    Electricity Mix – Ontario, Canada, USA

    [​IMG]

    2. Using electricity to power your car is way more efficient than gas or diesel

    I recently read a Canadian newspaper article that said “burning a fossil fuel to power an electric car is nowhere near as efficient as burning that fuel to power the car directly”.  That’s simply not true but more importantly it’s not even a real scenario.  Just look at the electricity mixes above.  Fossil fuels are not our only source of electricity; in Canada they make up only 16%.  Even in the US where fossil fuel use is much higher, natural gas is a cleaner, lower carbon option compared to gas, diesel, or coal.  Not all fossil fuels are equal.

    Electric and combustion vehicles are very different so comparing their efficiencies directly, apples to apples, isn’t straightforward.  The best way to do it is using “Well to Wheel” efficiency; it’s the total system efficiency right from fuel extraction to the point where power is delivered to the wheels (and all the losses in between).  No hiding losses in this calculation.

    There’s a lot of background information that goes into the calculations and if you like you can check out the details at the end of the article.  The results however are tabulated below.  Electric vehicle efficiency on the Ontario grid is double that of diesel and triple that of gasoline.  The efficiency goes up if the grid uses more hydro or other renewables, as you can see in the Canadian average or for residential solar.  TLDR: it’s the combustion efficiency that’s “nowhere near as efficient”.

    Table 1: Vehicle Efficiency Comparison

    [​IMG]*Efficiency in this situation does not include the conversion of light to electricity since that light energy is not ‘wasted’ but goes on to perform its regular function providing light and heat.

    This is clearly a positive result, it means we’re using energy more wisely with electric vehicles.  But efficiency is not the same thing as ‘environmentally friendly’.  An engine that’s 100% efficient but runs on whale oil isn’t very friendly, at least not to whales.  Thus the next section looks at the carbon intensity of the fuel sources.

    3. Electric vehicles will reduce emissions… by a lot

    There seems to be a large amount of distrust for this, as if electric cars are some sort of scam to hoodwink unsuspecting millennials.  Let’s clear that up because it’s a big driver for EVs.

    First I assembled the the ‘fuel’ economies of the average US vehicle, my VW Golf, and a Tesla Model S 85D.  Those are the three vehicles I wanted to compare.  I then determined the CO2e emissions per km for the combustion vehicles and then did the same for the Tesla.  Since the fuel source for the Model S is electricity I had to calculate the emissions from each electricity grid.  To do that I used the median lifecycle emissions factors from the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN), and then compared them to reports specific to Ontario.  Then it was a simple matter of comparing the emissions per km of each vehicle. The results surprised even me.

    As a resident of Ontario there’s a 94% reduction in the CO2 equivalent emissions from swapping my gas powered Golf for the Tesla.  And before you start talking about manufacturing emissions, I looked at those too.  The extra manufacturing emissions for the Tesla total approximately 5440 kg of CO2e, almost entirely from the battery.  Those emissions would be ‘paid back’ through driving emission reductions by around 20,000 km.  This happens to be the average distance driven by a Canadian in a year.

    [​IMG]

    In addition to Ontario, I also ran the numbers for the four most populated provinces in Canada, the Canadian average, and the US average (see table below).  All show significant reductions, though coal heavy Alberta has lots of room to improve.

    Table 2: Comparison of Vehicle CO2e Emissions

    [​IMG]

    4. Transport emissions are a big part of our national emissions

    There are some that claim transport emissions aren’t significant and we should be focusing on other areas.  They say this as though our civilization can only do one thing at a time and we weren’t already working on those areas (we are!).  One article even stated EVs could never offset more than 12% of Canada’s emissions.  This is all very misleading and fundamentally incorrect.

    Environment Canada Data - GHG Emissions by Sector

    [​IMG]

    Environment Canada data shows transportation CO2 equivalent emissions are 23% of Canada’s total.  Since roughly half of that is attributed to passenger vehicles that works out to the 12% number above, but that’s not the whole story.  Not even close.  That number excludes buses and freight truck transport, which would see electrification or equivalent.  Once included the total rises to approximately 20% of Canada’s national greenhouse gas emissions.

    Wait, there’s more.

    It leaves out how we got the fuel in the first place.  The oil and gas sector, which accounts for 26% of our total national emissions.  If we break out the amount related to oil processing for passenger vehicles, buses, and freight trucks the result is another 10%.

    Adding the 20% from direct vehicle emissions to the 10% for oil processing, results in a total of 30% of our national CO2e emissions.  Thirty Percent!  That’s a big deal.

    5. Incentives will help make EVs more affordable for everyone, speeding up their adoption across the world

    The purpose of incentives is to help a technology mature more quickly so that it will become economically viable for a much broader sector of the public.  Thus the benefits of that technology can be had for many more people and much sooner than would otherwise be possible.

    Incentives are arguably one of the most democratic ways of advancing a technology; if people don’t want EVs then government money doesn’t go there.  Governments also invest in the development of new technologies through things like tax rebates or grants.  To decry the incentives for EVs while giving a pass to traditional automakers receiving hundreds of millions in factory rebates or conveniently forgetting the automotive industry bailout is cherry picking the facts.

    There are many spin-off benefits from electric vehicle adoption that make them a good public investment.  More electric vehicles help balance our electricity demand between day and night, make better use of our resources, grow our economy by replacing old technologies, create new jobs, and reduce pollution which improves quality of life while reducing healthcare costs.  I could go on.

    6. Electric car batteries can, and are, being recycled.

    There are articles that claim “electric car batteries are toxic sludge”.  Well Tesla has published a good deal of information about their batteries and recycling programs.  Their batteries are RoHS compliant and fully recyclable.  RoHS refers to the restriction of hazardous substances directive for electrical and electronic equipment, adopted in 2003 by the EU.  Tesla recycles their batteries 100% within Europe and at ~60% in the US, according to their blog.   They are also building a new recycling facility at the Nevada Gigafactory.  Seems like there won’t be much “toxic sludge” to worry about after all.

    7. Show me a better option

    There isn’t one.  I think it’s fair to say Dieselgate proved that clean diesel wasn’t what we thought (or were told).  And fuel cells, for all their promise still have very large hurdles to overcome.  To that point I think it’s worth naming a few.

    Virtually all hydrogen today is produced through the inefficient steam reformation of fossil fuel methane.  And while it’s possible to generate hydrogen from water, it’s extremely expensive.  Even if it does get cheaper we would then be using the electricity to create a highly explosive fuel before converting it back into electricity.  That might not be so unreasonable if fuel cells were more efficient, or if they didn’t require a battery to regulate the power.  There’s also the storage and distribution issue.  Hydrogen requires strong pressure vessels to store as a liquid (it’s a gas under normal earthly conditions).  Existing gas stations won’t work without massive upgrades (read: new tanks, new pumps).  All this is not to say there won’t be applications for fuel cells but for passenger vehicles does it really make sense?

    Look, there are some big industries that would love for you to believe the technology to replace them ‘just isn’t there yet’.   It’s a common tactic.  Remember the cigarette industry that for decades said the research just wasn’t conclusive, all to keep you smoking.  Fact is we may not have another 10, 20, 30 years to figure this out.  We need to start making real changes today.  EVs are part of that change.  They are here now and looking better every day.

    The breakthroughs have been incremental with the improvements compounding rapidly.  It’s happening so fast that people are caught off guard.  Today Tesla Supercharger stations can add 270 km in 30 minutes while next generation stations will triple that rate.  Batteries are improving every year, with faster charging, higher capacities, lighter weight, and lower cost.   Just this year Tesla began manufacturing their new 2170 battery format with a reported 30% improvement in energy density over their 2012 battery cell.  Product announcements from other manufacturers suggest another 30% is expected by 2020.  This has led to a new benchmark for electric vehicles - affordable battery powered cars with 400km in range.  The Chevy Bolt and Tesla Model 3 are but the first of many.

    With major automotive manufacturers now committed to EVs, this is truly just the start.  Look at VW, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes, Toyota, Ford, Nissan, Tesla, the list goes on.  This broader commercialization will bring larger investments and even more rapid improvements.  We are on the cusp of a paradigm shift in our transportation and energy sectors.  A shift that will help reduce the effects of climate change, improve our air quality, and preserve our wonderful planet for future generations.  To disregard electric vehicles as a fleeting fringe technology is to ignore all indicators to the contrary. Electric vehicles are coming.

    Oh and they cost a lot less to operate too.

    -----------------------

    Notes:

    Wherever possible I completed most of the calculations using raw data. I used multiple sources to justify calculation inputs and to compare the results to other publications as part of my validation exercise.  I also performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the relative impact of parameters, such as in the CO2e calculations. I’ve made my best effort to use accurate, representative data and present the information to offer a realistic view of the environmental benefits.

    1 Vehicle Efficiency Comparison:

    Notes:

    • The results for combustion engines are taken from a 2010 MIT study as noted below.
    • Tank to wheel efficiency for electric vehicle efficiency includes battery charge/discharge efficiency (~88%), motor (~93%), inverter (95%), and drivetrain transmission efficiency (~95%).
    • Well to Wheel for battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles are calculated per the information below. It should be noted the overall grid efficiency affects the battery electric vehicles efficiency, which is ~74% for Canada due to the large amount of hydro and in Ontario is lower ~52% because nuclear power stations are relatively lower thermal efficiencies of 33% (according to the US EIA, which also shows natural gas stations are 44% efficient).  I’ve accounted for fuel extraction energy which did not have a meaningful impact on final efficiencies. Also note that comparing renewable energy efficiencies are somewhat different than fossil fuels or nuclear. In solar and wind the losses are in uncaptured or unconverted solar or wind energy. That energy continues to serve its intended function on the planet.       There are system losses however which are accounted for.

    [​IMG]

    Article: Energy expert explains why Tesla and the electric car industry is here to stay
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. gizmowiz

    gizmowiz New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    Littleton, CO
    It's too bad the average American can't understand tables, graphs or any presentation of scientific facts. They resort to just listening to their buddies who think they know everything and whom flunked out of science, math and physics classes in high school. And certainly never took any engineering courses in college.

    So Disinformation is the new social teacher on twitter, facebook, etc.

    And thus Science took a huge back seat since the advent of social websites where 75% get their news today.

    That news is primarily just disinformation.

    Sad.
     
  3. Snowcat

    Snowcat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2017
    Messages:
    42
    Nice article, thanks!

    I'm positive EVs and green energy will prevail, there is no stopping it. People will see the light. The big problem is timing, the sooner the better. The people that don't "get" science and simply refuse to "believe" it (as if you can choose it) can be convinced with money, when they have to pay less they will transition. The problem there is that they only think about up front cost and not the cost over the useful life of the product, be it cars, solar panels, battery storage or something else.
     
  4. anonim1979

    anonim1979 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    13
    "EV batteries are just about the most recyclable object made by humans. You can put them in landfill if you are so mad as to throw away such a valuable thing because they don't contain toxic metals (unlike the battery in your petrol car). The battery in my electric bike is certified for the ordinary waste stream and the manufacturer claims you could, if you wanted, eat it.
    https://faircompanies.com/videos/zero-motorcycles-high-performance-electric-bikes/ "
     
  5. bdwaters

    bdwaters New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    Newport Beach
    I've read a lot of articles on the efficiencies of BEVs over ICE vehicles and this one lays out the argument in a clear and somewhat concise (there's a lot of into to cover) way. Nice work. I'm bookmarking this one to give to naysayers.
     
  6. ints mann

    ints mann New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    estonia
  7. Michael Russo

    Michael Russo Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,222
    Location:
    Pau, France
    @gizmowiz , again, puzzled by your post... To what extent would you agree that the average reader on this forum is not the average American... knowing Gene a little, I'd offer that his vision does go a lot farther than that!
    Also, are you taking exception with the content of this particular article with regards to key messages, as well as supporting tables & graph? Or are you just frustrated with the accuracy & therefore lack of value of all social media information in general, even if this one is over average in its quality?
    Please humor us... :)
     
  8. J.Taylor

    J.Taylor Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2017
    Messages:
    223
    Location:
    Canada
    Thank-you Chad for the great article clearly stating the facts about electric transportation.
    Electric car fans already knew this, but it's nice to see it stated so clearly and have a reputable info source to show the fossils.
    One thing missed was just how poorly fuel cells efficiency stood up to a BEV. Elon said “with batteries we are at least twice as better off.”
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Scorpion

    Scorpion New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    Nebraska
    #9 Scorpion, Mar 30, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
    ALSO:
    Electric Vehicles don't use petroleum imported from some of the worst regimes in the world, in the Middle East and other unstable places.

    ALSO:
    Electric Vehicles keep your fuel dollars local, with your local utility, creating local jobs

    Don't get me wrong - cutting emissions is very important. I want the world to get to negative CO2 asap. But it's time to get real:
    - U.S. produces 20% of global GHG
    - Transport in all forms (road, rail, ship, air) accounts for 30% of U.S. GHG emissions
    - Light-duty vehicles (cars, trucks, minivans, SUVs) account for 50% of U.S. transport emissions

    20% x 30% x 50% --------------> 3%.
    There you have it. Converting every car in the U.S. to EV (no hybrids! and powering them with a zero-carbon grid would cut global greenhouse gasses by 3%. And trust me, that's not an 'alternative fact'.

    It absolutely drives me nuts that no one ever talks about the non-environmental benefits of EV's. We will absolutely never get more than 20-30% of the driving population into an EV (let alone paying extra or having to change behavior) if we keep harping on ONLY the green benefits.

    We need to emphasize ALL the benefits of plug-in cars.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. GreenEnergyMom

    GreenEnergyMom New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    toronto


    While I agree that we should emphasize all the benefits of electric cars, I am wondering why you would limit the potential impact of an electric vehicle revolution to only "every car in the US". Presumably all countries would see reductions in transportation emissions through the increased use of electric cars. Also, electrifying transport trucks would further reduce transportation related emissions. Lastly, as Chad mentioned in his article the extraction, refining and transportation of petroleum for use in combustion engine vehicles has it's own emissions contribution which is not included in your numbers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Michael Russo

    Michael Russo Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,222
    Location:
    Pau, France
    Great add, @GreenEnergyMom ! This T≡SLA-aficionado from the other side of the water could not agree with you more! Go, rEVolution, everywhere! :)
     
  12. gene

    gene Moderator

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    628
    Well put @Michael Russo! Would love to take credit for this fantastic article but all of the credit goes to @Chad Berndt.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. mairsil

    mairsil New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    Texas
    Agree with this critique.

    Also, though, people who decry the masses as being ignorant and only believing the false news stories are actually just incorrect. Yes, there are a lot of sources for misinformation these days. But since the invention of media, that has been the case. There were rubbish tabloid rags in the 20s, and some amount of people picked them up and read them like they were truth. I would hazard a guess that the percentage of people who read and believed the rags back then was approximately the same as the percentage of people who believe Breitbart today. The only difference is that now, information is so readily available that both sides know more about what the other believes. Back then, a well informed person would just ignore the rags. Now, you can't help but see the headlines and sometimes full articles that they spew out, so you naturally think there's a higher percentage of it simply because you're being exposed to more of it. But the truth is out there as well, also reported by many more sources than it used to be (by the same mechanism that ignorance has proliferated). I would also bet truth is seeping into the ignorance of some people of average intelligence who were believing the lies, but not zealously. Conversely, the lies are likely swaying some who were already decently informed but maybe not smart enough to realize they were already on the correct side of the argument.

    At the end of the day, misinformation will always exist and always has, but if it were truly "winning" as all the doomsayers like to shout, we wouldn't be making the progress that this article points out. Yes, if there were less lies floating around, we'd probably be advancing faster, but that's the way of any society that has conflicting goals (saving the planet vs making as much money as you can at its expense).

    TL;DR? All we can do is inform people and make sure the lies aren't the only voice. Maybe donate what we can to science (be it time, money, or computing power with things like LHC@home). We'll figure out this whole climate change thing, or we won't, but other than spreading truth, there's very little we can do about it on an individual level. My plan is to sit back with a beer, be fascinated by all of the new scientific advances, and hope we figure out functional immortality before I die. If we don't fry ourselves in the next few decades, I'm giddy to see what we're going to do with the next few centuries.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Michael Russo

    Michael Russo Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,222
    Location:
    Pau, France
    @mairsil , is a good glass of wine ok too? :D
     
  15. pebell

    pebell New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    Netherlands
    And poor efficiency isn't even the real problem with fuel cells. The fact remains that no matter what technological breakthroughs might still be achieved in making the process of turning water into hydrogen more efficient, it will _always_ be more expensive than obtaining it from fossil fuels. This is why Big Oil and Big Car would like to push the world towards hydrogen. They can say: "Hey, we did what was expected of us, we created fuel cell powered vehicles that can potentially run on clean hydrogen with zero emissions. It isn't _our_ fault that our customers keep choosing cheap and dirty hydrogen over much more expensive carbon-neutral hydrogen. We only serve the masses, as long as they buy it, we supply it."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Scorpion

    Scorpion New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    Nebraska
    #16 Scorpion, Mar 31, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
    I will grant you this:
    that 3% I mentioned will have to be among the FIRST 3% cut. Since the U.S. has been polluting CO2 for so long (we are 2nd in terms of current emissions, but sill 1st in terms of cumulative CO2), we need to lead by example and cut first while giving poorer nations some more time. However, Trump.....

    I also concede your point on upstream emissions from making transport fuels. That raises the %, and I'd be curious by how much.
    The EIA says of the 22.5 pounds CO2 released by burning gasoline, 3 pounds is from upstream, but you are right it is probably more since we no longer monitor, let alone regulate methane emissions. Again, Trump.......

    I am worried about the economics of ICE cars versus EV's in developing nation auto markets. U.S. drivers can afford to pay premiums for PHEVs an EVs, but many in poorer countries cannot; also, many governments subsidize fossil fuels.

    Finally, there is compatibility with the grid in other countries.
    In China - grid power shifts pollution away from cities, but sill lots of CO2 since most electricity still coal
    In Japan - electricity has come under public suspicion after the Fukushima nuclear disaster
    In India - the grid is very unreliable, and there are frequent brownouts. Adding more load will be difficult if not properly managed

    I am optimistic these issues can be ironed out. But best way to deal with GHG is still cutting back on top 4 sources:

    - Coal-powered electricity
    - Heavy industry (steel, cement, fertilizer, etc.)
    - Agriculture and ranching methane emissions
    - Deforestation
     
  17. Emmanuel García-Escudero

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    California
    Chad, great article. I love the thoroughness of your numbers but I wonder if you happen to have the total carbon emissions (kilograms of CO2) for manufacturing these cars (ICE & BEV) and not just the delta of 5440 kg

    I wanted to calculate how many miles it would take me to drive my 2000 vw golf gti 1.8t and reach the same number of carbon emissions created by the manufacturing of a brand new car, be it ICE or BEV

    See, I strongly believe that the real killer of the world is consumerism. I kind of knew that it didn't make sense to jump on the hybrid-vehicle wagon because the manufacturing of a brand new hybrid would have taken tens of thousands of miles driven compared to having kept your old (relatively efficient) ICE vehicle. But now, I don't know how valid this reasoning with BEV's in the equation.

    Basically... keeping your old car or buying used vs buying a brand new BEV

    Thanks much, I hope you have access to such data

    Emm
     
  18. Chad Berndt

    Chad Berndt New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    Hi everyone and thank you for your comments. I wanted to provide a list of the references used to complete the calculations in this article, for anyone that's interested or would like to use it in their own work. Please see the complete list below. Based on your comments I'll look to write some specific, shorter articles on some of the subjects in more detail. Battery manufacturing seems to be a good one.


    Notes and Reference Materials:


    Wherever possible I completed most of the calculations using raw data. I used multiple sources to justify calculation inputs and to compare the results to other publications as part of my validation exercise. I also performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the relative impact of parameters, such as for the emissions factors in the CO2e/kWh calculations. I've made my best effort to use accurate, representative data and present the information to offer a realistic view of the environmental benefits.

    1 Vehicle Efficiency Comparison:
    • The results for combustion engines are taken from a 2010 MIT study, as noted in the study by Feng et el listed below.
    • Tank to wheel efficiency for electric vehicle efficiency includes battery charge/discharge efficiency (~88%), motor (~93%), inverter (95%), and drivetrain transmission efficiency (~95%).
    • Well to Wheel for battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles are calculated per the information below. It should be noted the overall grid efficiency affects the battery electric vehicles efficiency, which is ~74% for Canada due to the large amount of hydro and in Ontario is lower ~52% because nuclear power stations are relatively lower thermal efficiencies of 33% (according to the US EIA, which also shows natural gas stations are 44% efficient). I’ve accounted for fuel extraction energy which did not have a meaningful impact on final efficiencies. Also note that renewable energy efficiencies are somewhat different than fossil fuels or nuclear. In solar and wind the losses are in uncaptured or unconverted solar or wind energy and that energy continues to serve its intended function on the planet. Those losses are not considered, though there are still system losses which are accounted for. With the current grid mix it did not make much difference either way.
    References

    2 Union of Concerned Scientists Report

    3 Electricity Production Mix

    4 Efficiency of Electricity Production

    5 Distribution Losses

    6 Electricity CO2e/kWh

    Notes:
    I used the median lifecycle emission rates as noted in the IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (that was a meta study). I compared the emission factors to other reports to verify use for Ontario, such as the Ontario Clean Air Report by Bruce Power and the Asthma Society of Canada.​

    References

    7 Battery CO2e:

    Electric vehicles have a greater embedded carbon content, most of which is from the battery. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports an extra 6 Tons (5442kg) of CO2 equivalents produced to create a 85kWh Tesla Model S. The studies by Notter et el (52kgCO2e/kWh) are referenced as being the most accurate by Dunn et al due to the process up calculation methodology; a similar study by Ishihara shows 75kgCO2e/kWh.

    References

    8 Battery Recycling

    9 Carbon emissions from combustion vehicles

    10 Environment Canada Data

    11 Solar Installed

    12 Battery Cost Forecasts and Energy Density

     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Michael Russo

    Michael Russo Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,222
    Location:
    Pau, France
    @Chad Berndt , thanks for all this great stuff... This is particularly useful and valuable, not only to make us all here feel even better about the rEVolution underway, but most importantly, provides us with strong arguments to use with the naysayers and other skeptics!
    Let us all be effective agent of change, energizers of the disruption! :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. JeffreyR

    JeffreyR New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    21
    Location:
    NorCal and Carcinogenic Coast
    Home Page:
    ALSO:
    One factor usually ignored is that most BEVs are charged at night (article's point about evening out day/night demand), so the energy consumed is made useful instead of being wasted. So charging your BEV at night uses electricity that would contribute to pollution regardless. Taking the wasted electricity from the pollution ledger adds to the benefits of BEVs.

    How is night-time electricity being wasted when not used for BEV charging? Remember that as crazy as it sounds we are still in the Steam Age. When a power plant burns fossil fuels to make electricity it is creating steam to turn turbines (Nuc plants too). It is too expensive (and risky to grid stability) to let a plant go completely cold when demand drops at night. So plants are kept at a bare minimum production rate. Sometimes that energy is stored (less efficiently than in your BEV), but it is often simply wasted.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2

Share This Page