EV 914 Options

[raynekat]

Looks a bit "Rube Goldberg-ish" to me, but creative for sure.

starting at 4:07 on the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY2RPSUyIrc

The guy on the EV skateboard is nuts!

[bbrock]

In 2015, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report finding that EV have lower cradle to grave emission than gasoline cars even when run on dirty electricity. EV do have a higher carbon footprint to produce compared conventional ICE, but over the life of the vehicle, reduced tailpipe emissions more than make up for it.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/elect...le-ev-emissions

Lithium batteries CAN be recycled, it just often isn't.

https://waste-management-world.com/a/in-dep...energy-clean-up

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-bus...thium-recycling

Of course EV are not perfect and will present many new challenges. Is any technology a perfect solution for the problem it is intended to solve? Why do we make perfect the enemy of the good? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Another thought... I wonder how many total engineer-hours have been devoted to gasoline vs EV vehicles since their humble beginnings around the turn of the 20th century? I'm guessing it will be some time before the cumulative effort spent on perfecting EV power plants matches that of combustion engines.

[Superhawk996]

In 2015, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report finding that EV have lower cradle to grave emission than gasoline cars even when run on dirty electricity. EV do have a higher carbon footprint to produce compared conventional ICE, but over the life of the vehicle, reduced tailpipe emissions more than make up for it.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/elect...le-ev-emissions


Of course EV are not perfect and will present many new challenges. Is any technology a perfect solution for the problem it is intended to solve? Why do we make perfect the enemy of the good? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

I love the spirited debate. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Like most reports, the Union of Concerned Scientists report has a definite bias toward EV's. Better than most for sure, but, the bias is there none the less with some carefully chosen assumptions at best or deceitful assumptions at worst.


Let's start with the assumption that a Nissan Leaf will only require or use 1 battery in it's lifetime - this clearly isn't the case based on field performance. See the previous eBay ad I posted for the Leaf, the owner admits the battery is shot and range has been negatively impacted. Vehicle had 50K miles and range had been reduced to 40 miles. Using the study life cycle of 179,200 miles, Nissan Leaf's will definately need more than one battery in their lifetime. Maybe 3 or 4! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)



Let's take a look at how fuel economy was compared for Gas vs. EV's.



These are suspiciously low and are from MY15 vehicles Why not include any Hybrids that offer excellent Fuel Economy and aren't tethered to EV chargers for long trips? Hybrids are a wonderful middle ground between Gas and EV and a far better choice for the average consumer.




They also used a strange assumption on the large car side. Is anyone is really considering a Hyundai Equus or a Chrysler 300 vs. Telsa? Seems to me that the Hyundai was thrown in there to drag down the average MPG. Over a 179,200 mile vehicle life assumption, the fact that they put the Hyundai Equus in there will add up to an disadvantage to the gas vehicles. In all fairness, if they really wanted to push down the numbers for the large gas cars, they could have chosen the Chrysler 300 with the V8 Hemi or a Hellcat and they didn't. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)







But allow me to push back on your statement:
Why do we make perfect the enemy of the good? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

I honestly don't think we are. EV's will continue to propagate if for no reason other than forced Government mandates that you will have no choice on. People are not yet choosing them in mass for a lot of different reasons. Even you mentioned that an EV will not be your next car. Why wait? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

There are lots of good reasons to wait, particularly in your neck of the woods. As far as I could tell, the study referenced makes no accounting for diminished battery range in cold weather, the need for more EV charges per mile, and the increased contribution to overall EV emissions in cold climates.

I do a lot of winter testing of vehicles and I assure you that every time I've gone out to an EV on a cold morning 0F or below, the battery is not fully charged (EV's have to use battery power to warm the pack just to get it to charge) and once under way, the range diminishes much faster than the optimistic projection of the instruments due to need to heat the cabin, defrost the window, and the increased parasitic drag of driving though snow.

Overall a great study and well footnoted. Much better than most where they seem to carefully omit their methodology. I would like to look into the footnotes a bit more and encourage others to really dig into any study or report and understand what is being reported Good or Bad.