Official Off Topic Discussion Thread #1

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Well it doesn’t give us an idea what percentage of the cars total pollution over its lifetime is incurred only in the manufacturing process. It might be inconsequential compared to the total fuel consumption over a lifetime of 10 to 20 years.

Anyhow we won’t have to worry about buying oil from Iran soon, because they shot up our embassy with missiles.

What makes this all so amusing to me (ignoring the horrors of the oil wars) is that, from an engineering perspective the most efficient thing and least polluting thing that we could do is make our own oil and use our own oil and quit importing and exporting oil.

And we should do that until the day that we managed to quit using oil as ICE fuel.

Burning oil to make methanol, and shipping oil around the world thousands of miles, makes very little sense when you consider what you create in pollution to do that, regardless of the actual energy cost.

But very little about our engineering situation is driven by engineers. It is all driven by politicians with the TV presence to direct the public opinion.
 
Ulu said:
Well it doesn’t give us an idea what percentage of the cars total pollution over its lifetime is incurred only in the manufacturing process. It might be inconsequential compared to the total fuel consumption over a lifetime of 10 to 20 years.
Click to expand...
Hello; Quote from the first link . "So with the majority of an EV’s total lifetime carbon emissions being made up during the manufacturing process, how much do you have to drive to offset the on-road usage emissions on an ICE? According to Volvo, the breakeven point for an EV running on the global average electricity grid is at 109,918 km – more than half of a vehicle’s lifetime."

So after 109,918 km (68,149 miles) you reach the break even point according to the article. Also states it is more than half the vehicles lifetime. That is the point where the emissions from manufacture of an EV no longer loses to an ICE vehicle. Some depends on the source of the electricity. The 109,918 km number was based on a global average source of electricity.
In other words after you drive an EV 68,000 miles you start to have reduced emissions overall. My 2001 Nissan Sentra has 136,000 miles on it since i bought it new in April of 2002. Been averaging 35mpg over the 20 years at least, maybe better. Not sure the average ICE gets anywhere near 35mpg. Too many SUV's and pickups in the fleet So I would have to drive an EV ten years to start breaking even with an average ICE. Add a few more years to my Sentra.

So overall the EV eventually can overcome the emissions deficit if you drive one far enough. My take is some significant number of miles will need to be put on an EV past the breakeven point of 68K miles for it to make sense as a replacement of an ICE. I do not drive so much any more so over ten years for me to start helping the environment.
If the battery pack of an EV will last around 20 years will make a difference in my case. However, If i have to buy a new battery pack in ten years that will start the process over to some degree and will push the break even point more miles down the road. Best i have been able to find is recycling of EV batteries is limited currently. When no longer good enough for a vehicle some are being repurposed as electric energy storage for solar, wind and other such generation which does not work 24/7.
 
So what you’re telling me is with the high price of electricity in California l will never break even with an EV here, but places with cheap electricity will do OK.

Meanwhile we drive up the price of gas artificially, in order to promote the electric car business.

Without that I don’t think their calculations would be half as attractive.
 
Ulu said:
So what you’re telling me is with the high price of electricity in California l will never break even with an EV here, but places with cheap electricity will do OK.

Meanwhile we drive up the price of gas artificially, in order to promote the electric car business.

Without that I don’t think their calculations would be half as attractive.
Click to expand...
Hello; No, the Volvo study did not take into account the cost of electricity. It was about the total emissions of building an EV compared to total emissions of a comparable ICE. Best i can tell is many if not most have been thinking an EV is cleaner from the get go than an ICE. This study was about emissions.

The cost of electricity can make a difference to a pocketbook and is another issue. My area has reasonable electric fees so I likely could do better than you in terms of operating cost of an EV. The initial higher cost of an EV over an ICE is a factor. Before the Covid lockdowns and the resulting disruption in component production and shipping (think chips) I could buy a small ICE similar to my Sentra for perhaps half the cost of an EV. I could buy a lot of pre 2021 gas for the difference.
To be honest I do not know how long it would take to break even on cost with an EV over an ICE. Prices are crazy now. But one of the main points of an EV is the "green" associated with them. I found the Volvo study of interest because it compared apples to apples and was done well. They used very similar vehicles with the powerplants being the main difference.

Various states are making changes so they can collect the lost road taxes from an EV. EV owners will be getting a bill of some sort so will have to pay similar amounts to a gas tax at the pump. EV's are much heavier due to the battery weight so will wear out tires, brakes and other such components faster than a lighter ICE.
The jury is out on the battery packs in terms of both longevity and cost to replace. In the hybrids the battery packs have been lasting a long time. Hybrids keep batteries topped up may be a reason. A pure EV will be subject to large drains to near empty. Then rapid charging often. So that sort of discharge and recharge may make a difference in how the battery packs last. That remains to be seen.

One last thing I learned from my investigation into an EV is how they burn. Turns out it takes huge volumes of water to extinguish an EV fire. 25,000 to 35,000 gallons of water compared to a few hundred to put out an ICE fire. There have been some EV makers telling folks to not park the EV inside. A few EV's have caught fire and burned down houses. I had planned to have a 240 volt charger in my basement garage as i have a 240 line run for my air compressor and welder. That plan may have to change if i ever get an EV.

I think of an EV as utilitarian. I can picture having one to run errands and make short trips. A $50 K price turns me off so far. However the artificial increase in gas prices may push me toward an EV or a hybrid eventually. I have two older vehicles but do keep them up so may get by for awhile.
 
The FBI is set to dig up a site underneath the Pulaski Skyway where they have reason to suspect that Jimmy Hoffa is buried in a barrel.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: celebrist
Publicly Charging EVs in Ohio Wasn’t All That Cheap and Raised More Questions | Car Bibles

Hello; Just read the above link. It is about a test done by a person who has to charge an EV at public/commercial chargers. No home charging at all. The author rents an apartment and writes articles.

I selected two quotes from the article. There is a lot more information in the article. I think the story is currently relatable as the ICE fuel price was $3.90/ gallon when written.

“After tallying up the costs of running a few EVs around Ohio I should let you know something important here: I paid more to drive electric cars than I would have to use any of my subcompact gas-powered cars.”

“My research showed me that DC fast chargers can induce incredible demand; 20 cars using DC fast charging at once could equal the output of 1,500 homes. That’s more than the number of houses in my little suburban Ohio hamlet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom