Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars

As always, fusion power is just 10 years away...

 

It's also only 93 million miles away . If you have solar, you can be one of "those people" and put a "fusion powered" sticker on your Clarity right now.

 

Too bad they reduce the power level on that reactor on cloudy days, and shut it down at night. It would be far more convenient if they would run it at full power 24/7!

 

Actually, the reactor runs really well, but the transmission losses are astronomical.

 

ROTFL!

Okay, you win the Internet for today.

 

The original paper is written in German but there are a lot of English language articles about the paper. This means the 'Cliff Notes' paper can omit obvious problem with the German language paper to deceive those who don't know how to translate:

Ok, here is the 'smoking gun' from the translated paper:

Work summarizes, appreciate Romare and Dahllöf (2017) that per kWh battery capacity between 145 kg and 195 kg of CO2 equivalents be ejected.
​

So let's put this perspective:​

• "100–265 W·h/kg" - Wikipedia claim
  • 1 kw @100Wh/kg -> 10 kg :: 145 kg - 195 kg CO{2}
  • 1 kw @265Wh/kg -> 3.8 kg :: 145 kg - 195 kg CO{2}

The primary problem is the paper claims CO{2} output that is 14.5 - 51.3 times the weight of the LiON battery. So they cited:

The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...https://www.ivl.se/...5922281715bdaebede9559/.../C243+The+life+cycle+energy+con...​

I'm seeing some suspicious references in this paper and it even claims there are a wide range of numbers:

[table=head]
University/Institute|Researchers|Active in the area (based on assessed reports)
Argonne National Laboratory USA|Dunn Gaines Kelly James Gallagher|2000 -
Chalmers University of Technology Sweden|Nordelöf Tillman Ljunggren Söderman Rydh Kushnir|2005 -
Karlsruhe Institute for Technology Germany|Peters Baumann Zimmermann Braun Weil|2016 -
Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTU Trondheim Norway|Majeau-Bettez Ellingsen Singh Kumar Srivastava Valöen Hammer Strömman| 2011 -
Swerea IVF Sweden|Zackrisson Avellán Orlenius|2010 -
United States Environmental Protection Agency US-EPA USA| Amarakoon Smith Segal | 2013
University of California | Ambrose Kendall | 2016
[/table]

Ok, it is unfair to call BS until reading the papers. However, I would point out a lot of these papers are snapshots in time. My experience is:

• 
  
  
  • Internet reports - shortest time between observations and report BUT risks credibility (including this post)
  • Magazine articles - typically a 3-9 month delay between observations and report with improved credibility
  • Formal papers - typically a 12-18 month delay between observations and report with the best, but not perfect, credibility

I am bothered by seeing more than an order of magnitude more CO{2} than the mass of the battery. Furthermore, this graph of the cost per kWh:



BTW, this is what Tesla reports:
https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/tesla-impact-report-2019.pdf

Unlike our Fremont Factory which was purchased and renovated, Tesla
designed and built from the ground up our Gigafactory 1, a battery and
motor manufacturing facility in Sparks, Nevada, allowing us to design
and implement sustainable solutions throughout the site from the
beginning. Gigafactory 1 began mass production of lithium-ion battery
cells in January 2017 and started manufacturing Model 3 battery packs
and drive units in mid-2018. At 15M sq ft, Gigafactory 1 will be the
world's largest building by footprint when completed and will eventually
be powered by 100% renewable energy sources. Tesla built Gigafactory
1 with an efficient lighting design utilizing high-efficiency LED light
fixtures combined with an optimized layout that reduces the facility’s
overall electrical load. Gigafactory 1’s current lighting power density is
0.45 watts per sq ft, which is 65% less than the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
lighting design allowance of 1.3 watts per sq ft for a manufacturing
facility. In the course of 30 days, the facility’s lighting system can save
144 MWhs of energy – enough energy for a Model S to drive 480K
miles. Designed to be a net-zero energy factory upon completion,
the facility will have the largest rooftop solar array in the world, with
roughly 200K solar panels. Solar installation is already underway,
in addition to a microgrid R&D facility.
​

pp. 16 has an interesting graph that if we use the 2017 production numbers we could back-in to the cost per kWh.

Source: New study claiming electric cars are dirtier than diesel debunked - Electrek

However, the Ifo Institute for Economic Research came out earlier this month with a new study again using the same argument that dirty electricity is making electric cars worse for the environment than diesel:

“Considering Germany’s current energy mix and the amount of energy used in battery production, the CO2 emissions of battery-electric vehicles are, in the best case, slightly higher than those of a diesel engine, and are otherwise much higher.”
​

The professors behind the study were instead pushing for hydrogen-methane vehicles.

Notably, Germany currently uses more coal power than most of Europe, and is one of the dirtier grids in Europe, but is cleaning up more quickly than most. By 2030 – when many electric cars sold today will still be in service – Germany plans to produce 2/3 of their energy by renewables.

The problem is that the IFO’s study makes many of the same mistakes as other studies used electric vehicle detractors in the past.
. . .​

Do we need to waste time any longer on this terribly flawed 'paper'?
​

Bob Wilson

 

I thought we had stopped wasting time on that. The discussion has moved on to other subjects.

One of the sources you said that fake "study" cited was:

That appears to be a reference to that infamous fake Norwegian study which is cited in so many articles from Big Oil propaganda mills; the fake study that Robert Llewellyn went on a (well deserved) rant about in his blog post "The Truth will Out".

Mr. Llewellyn never gives the name of this fake study, perhaps to avoid giving it more exposure, but I think we should name it so we'll know when we see it cited in anti-EV propaganda. The title is "Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles", by Troy R. Hawkins, Bhawna Singh, Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez, and Anders Hammer Strømman; first published 04 October 2012.

Fake Big Oil funded "studies" cite other fake Big Oil "studies" to "prove" that EVs are more polluting, on a life-cycle basis, than ICEVs or hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars, or whatever "alternative facts" they want to invent. It's not only disgusting, it's downright sickening to see science being perverted in this way.

Okay... down off my soapbox now.

 

Well let us waste a little more time on this flawed paper. What about the medical effects of smog and pollution especially in dense areas such as say Shanghai or New Delhi or even LA. As per an old saying attributed to the British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, there are three types of lies, lies, dammed lies and statistics.

You can misuse statistics to prove your point.

 

The motivation is almost always money. In this case, the fossil-oriented companies have a lot (of money) to lose with a shift to EVs.

 

It is not just the fossil fuel companies who could lose. It is the whole car selling Eco-system The dealers who are being cut out by Tesla, the Jiffy lubes of the world who promise quick oil change, convenience stores (7/11, Circle K etc.) who sell more than gas, the corner mechanic who has less work as EVs need less maintenance. Yes, you will have quick charging stations replacing gas stations, but many people may charge at home or at work, so you may not need as many of them. There are already charging stations in malls, office complexes, apartment complexes, work places, etc. and there is a considerable investment in that infrastructure. So the gas station owner may have to remove the gas tanks, do an environmental clean up and then add a few quick charging stations, with less traffic (if you can accommodate 8 cars and each car takes half hour compared to 5 minutes for gas, you have less traffic to your store). So there are going to be winners and losers and the potential losers are going to fight to keep their way of life. So it is more than just fossil fuel companies.

 

You're absolutely right, there are a huge number of industries dependent on the gasmobile. I've been calling the EV revolution a disruptive tech revolution, and I think it's going to be the biggest disrupter of industry since the personal computer.

​

 

I agree that the whole 'trickle down' economy of gas stations, oil and lube shops, mechanics, car dealerships, etc. are going to be hit hard by the uptick in EVs. I wouldn't be surprised if some or most major brand names go under or consolidate. However, I hope a few will have the foresight to pivot into the new 'blue ocean' market that EVs create. I predict that we'll see major cafe brands like Starbucks become EV charging stations, since EV drivers need somewhere to hang out for 30 mins at a time. I'm frankly surprised they haven't done this already. I also dream about a revival of the old American roadtrip dream, what I think of as 'Route 66' style drive ins, such as Sonic burger, drive in movie theaters, motels, etc. If all of those types of establishments provided Lvl 2 & 3 charging, I think people would love to have an excuse to stop, charge, and relax or be entertained. Scenic pit stops are good for this too, such as small state parks, fossil sites, etc...the kinds of places where people typically just stop for 15-30 mins anyway. All of these places have power already, so adding some Lvl 2 charging stations for a little boost charge is easy. Throw in some solar panels while you're at it...gosh it all just seems so obvious (and appealing) to me. This is of course a very American style of travel, it won't work everywhere.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

Alternatively they could just turn off peaking fossil plants or utilize pumped-storage hydroelectricity.

Businesses do not like unpredictability. Intermittent = unpredictable. I do not foresee the owners of a hypothetical surplus power-using facility paying the capital cost to build a facility and then hiring and paying an entire work force just in case conditions are optimal at some point throughout the year.

 

Pumped hydro is great, buy requires specific geography to work. Batteries work anywhere, and are more likely to become the mainstay for energy storage.

We can and do predict the weather, which means we can and do predict the output of solar and wind, with at least a few day's notice. Also, at least at a small scale, excess RE is already being used for creating hydrogen. Check out the projects on Orkney Island. Public service projects could also be battery powered, such that the batteries are charged when there's excess RE, but there's enough of a baseline to keep the plant/factory running consistently. Pretty much any problem with variable supply/demand curves can be solved with grid-connected batteries, either stationary or V2G.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

Pumped hydro requires specific geography, which is the same for wind and solar, no? The grid allows you to move the electrons wherever it stretches. The same as you'd do with the energy stored in batteries produced by RE, unless you are envisioning all of the manufacturing/production facilities being co-located with wind and solar farms.

Since I genuinely don't know, are large-scale batteries a cost-effective near-term solution? If not, what are the estimated time frames for when they will be? Is your cart way out in front of your horse?

No one is arguing about weather forecasting. No need for strawmen. The discussion was about whether companies would make a business decision based on the intermittent nature of RE. To date, not many have. I agree that once the supply/demand issue is resolved, that would change the ballgame.

Edit to add: The Orkney Island projects are indeed interesting, although driven by a unique set of circumstances. The US would have to institute some sort of carbon credits or similar if they want to see a similar change on anything other than a micro-scale in similarly situated areas (mostly/completely isolated from the main grid, strong RE potential, etc.) I could see certain areas of Alaska as a potential test-bed for these types of projects.

 

True, wind is geographically constrained, but much less so than pumped hydro. Solar isn't really geographically constrained, it works pretty much everywhere that humans want to live.

Moving electrons across the grid is lossy and expensive (due to maintenance), so microgrids are more efficient and resilient. E.g. a hospital with adequate solar+batteries could keep critical loads (lights and life support) online during brief blackouts, then fall back to existing diesel generators during an extended blackout. V2B tech could allow a fleet of, say, city/county owned EVs to drive to the hospital and plug in, thus expanding the battery capacity and stretching out the diesel supply (which may not be able to be replenished due to road flooding, wildfires, etc.). Schools and other community aggregation buildings could work the same way, and be supplemented by privately owned vehicles as well. Batteries on wheels create a huge flexible network for emergency response that hasn't been possible before.

I don't know the answer to your timeframe questions, which are very valid points. However, the trend of Li-Ion development and production is exponential, so I believe (but perhaps can't prove) that now is the right time to be thinking about these applications, even if they can't be implemented for another 5-10 years. The Tesla Powerpack battery in Australia is a good indicator as it is on track to pay for itself in just a few years. (Cost $66 mil and has earned $17 mil in the first 6 months of operation, according to Electrek).

I didn't intend to make a strawman argument, I was just trying to respond to your statement that intermittent equals unpredictable, which I don't believe is true. That problem has been solved already, though as you've said, we have yet to see large scale adoption of the solution.

I appreciate your civil discourse, I love thinking about these issues (and teaching them to my students), and it is refreshing to have someone bounce ideas back with some thought behind them!


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

Sure, solar "works" anywhere, but will obviously suffer as you move from ideal geographical areas. Generally, those ideal areas are located further from densely populated areas, so you'd be back to dealing with shipping electrons further and the inherent drawbacks. The grid is definitely aging and dearly needs modernization, but microgrids have their own set of issues. One built around RE will not have the same baseload capacity as the larger grid and will face a similar, yet less severe aging curve. Co-location solves some of these issues, but if you are looking at a larger scale, numerous limitations come up. You have to get the raw material there and the finished products out, which generally is done via fossil-powered modes of transportation. It's a gentle balancing act.

When looking at a long-term business case, I would argue that intermittent does equal unpredictable, but I guess that would depend on what you're producing. It would be difficult to set up fixed-delivery contracts if you only know what your power supply will be 3 to 4 days in advance, but if you're not faced with time constraints, it wouldn't be nearly as limiting. I was looking at that from too narrow a perspective

I would love for all of this to happen sooner rather than later, but thing tend to progress slowly. Exponential development tapers off. Depending on which agencies are involved, government regulation can be a significant time-sink. I agree that we need to be forward thinking so that supporting projects are ready when key factors like storage are resolved, but near-term bridging solutions are needed as well.

I too appreciate the reasonable discussion. /cheers

Edit to add: I realize I am probably looking at this from a larger-scale usage framework than you. I would consider your applications more of a nano-scale usage situation (e.g., single municipality). That would make some of my points far less relevant.

Edit 2: Did a quick Google search. Looks like the term for such usage might be milligrid.

Edit 3: As an engineer, I would prefer a fixed definition, but I could see it going either way.

 

I saw a Fully Charged show where deep subservice mines are used for the lower reservoir of a pumped water energy storage. An interesting approach, they did not show them being lined.

Bob Wilson

 

Of course this varies quite a bit, but I would argue that people tend to want to live in sunnier places (population is generally higher near the equator than near the poles, but of course this is limited by landmass distribution too). So that means that solar generally works where the people are, hence the effectiveness of rooftop solar. While residential solar involves a lot of redundancy (of inverters and other components), rooftop solar on massive warehouses, factories, supermarkets, etc. is much more effective (pair this with electric delivery vehicles for extra efficiency). I don't know why we aren't seeing more of it. Certainly in densely populated urban areas solar doesn't work so well, since a skyscraper doesn't have much roof space compared to the amount of people in the building, and due to shading from other buildings.

Good points here, it varies a lot depending on what you are trying to accomplish. As you said, I'm mainly thinking at the municipality scale, and thinking about points of community aggregation, such as hospitals, schools, supermarkets, etc. I see your point about a factory having an unpredictable production schedule, but both Tesla and BMW are making it work. Tesla's gigafactory 1 in Nevada uses a combination of solar, wind, and geothermal, and was carefully sited to be able to make those three work in tandem. Retrofitting existing factories in less ideal locations will of course be much harder, and are more likely to continue to rely on the grid.

Milligrid is a new term for me, I like it. I'll research that more.

I'll admit that I have a kneejerk reaction to any solution that involves burning more fossil fuels, but this video on the future of turbine powered range extenders has gotten me to expand my view a bit. At least in the near term, this seems like a promising technology to get us through the next few decades (as we wait for battery tech to improve). See what you think:

(also check out turbine range extended electric aviation...also looks promising)

I'll have to look for that one. There's also a similar approach of using bladders of compressed air (in mineshafts or natural salt domes) as an energy storage system. Makes a lot of sense, and very safe as well.

 

There are many other ideas to store excess energy, which would be used later. Here are two experimental ones using stones or stone like material. Again, they may never become economically viable and the second article talks about some of the alternatives and relative costs.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/19/storing-energy-by-heating-stones-to-600-degrees-could-power-whole-country-for-hours/

Test Facility In Denmark To Be Proof Of Concept For High Temperature Thermal Energy Storage Using Stones As Storage

On Monday, the Danish minister of education and research, Tommy Ahlers, attended the official inauguration of a giant pilot facility that will use 600 degree hot stones to store energy. Speaking to dr.dk, he said: “This could be the missing link in our renewable energy transformation.” (It’s arguable whether there really is a missing link, but that’s another story.) High-temperature thermal energy storage (HT-TES) is the technical term. The basic concept of the project is that cheap, non-degradable, and environmentally friendly storage materials combined with known charging and discharging technology can reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of energy storage.


Imagine a big box of small black stones, the size of an IKEA warehouse, insulated on all sides, very big, but very easy to build. The idea is that when excess energy is produced by intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar, this energy is used to pump very hot air into the stone storage, where the energy in the form of heat can be stored for many days with very little loss on average. The process is reversed by forcing the hot air out of the storage, which in turn creates steam from water to drive electricity-generating turbines and produce hot water for district heating.


https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/

Here concrete blocks are lifted to a height and the potential energy is then tapped.

Stacking concrete blocks is a surprisingly efficient way to store energy

Thanks to the modern electric grid, you have access to electricity whenever you want. But the grid only works when electricity is generated in the same amounts as it is consumed. That said, it’s impossible to get the balance right all the time. ........

A startup called Energy Vault thinks it has a viable alternative to pumped-hydro: Instead of using water and dams, the startup uses concrete blocks and cranes. It has been operating in stealth mode until today (Aug. 18), when its existence will be announced at Kent Presents, an ideas festival in Connecticut.

On a hot July morning, I traveled to Biasca, Switzerland, about two hours north of Milan, Italy, where Energy Vault has built a demonstration plant, about a tenth the size of a full-scale operation. The whole thing—from idea to a functional unit—took about nine months and less than $2 million to accomplish. If this sort of low-tech, low-cost innovation could help solve even just a few parts of the huge energy-storage problem, maybe the energy transition the world needs won’t be so hard after all.

The science underlying Energy Vault’s technology is simple. When you lift something against gravity, you store energy in it. When you later let it fall, you can retrieve that energy. Because concrete is a lot denser than water, lifting a block of concrete requires—and can, therefore, store—a lot more energy than an equal-sized tank of water.