Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think BEV's are just one of many possible tools to get us to a greener / more sustainable future, but I think it is a mistake to focus solely on BEV's and not look at other propulsion technologies that could reduce emissions and carbon.
The big downside to BEV's are that they are *heavy* and use a significant amount of rare earth metals that are typically mined overseas, which of course involves shipping. Heavy batteries mean heavier-duty suspension components, more wear and tear on parts and tires. Heavier vehicles also create additional wear and tear on roads. More wear and tear means more resources and heavy machinery used to repair them, which offsets some of the benefits. This all needs to be studied / factored in when we are looking at the overall picture of reducing our carbon footprint...not just looking at vehicle emissions themselves.
Producing a new car uses a significant amount of embodied energy, even BEV's. As governments talk about banning ICE vehicles completely, this disregards the fact that it will take a significant amount of energy to replace the entire worldwide fleet of ICE cars with BEV's. Porsche has started producing a synthetic fuel that reduces emissions 85% and can be used in existing ICE vehicles. It will be significantly more expensive than gasoline until it can be produced at scale. But if the government is going to subsidize BEV's, why not subsidize R&D and production of synthetic fuels that can be adapted to existing ICE vehicles, reducing emissions by 85%, which could be an easier way to have a large impact on emissions while easily adapting to existing infrastructure and vehicles.
Toyota is also developing engines that can be powered by hydrogen fuel. This is not a hydrogen fuel cell, which are usually dismissed by hydrogen critics for their complexity. Essentially it is a zero-emissions ICE that uses hydrogen fuel, and they are looking to debut it as a Corolla in 2023. There are some drawbacks to hydrogen as a fuel, but it can more easily be adapted to existing infrastructure and it goes back to my embodied carbon argument that ICE vehicles are lighter weight and result in less wear and tear on parts and road surfaces and use fewer rare earth metals that have to be mined and shipped from overseas.
One of the growing drawbacks of BEV's is how to recycle the batteries. Current recycling methods basically extract the rare earth metals that are worth a lot to recyclers such as cobalt, but this process creates significant amount of waste and greenhouse gases through burning and use of acids to extract the rare earth metals. Then there is direct recycling, where the cells go back to to the battery manufacturer and are disassembled in an attempt to reuse them. The problem is that this is a very time consuming process, and there is little incentive for manufacturers to recycle. Tesla uses a cement that makes it nearly impossible to separate the cells, essentially making recycling Tesla batteries not feasible. https://www.science.org/news/2021/05...dead-batteries
And my final argument of why we should look at zero-emission technologies beyond BEV's is the fact that when BEV's burn, they emit a significant amount of toxins both in the air and through contamination of the water used to extinguish them. They are also much more difficult to put out than an ICE fire. They also easily reignite.
All of these topics need to be factored in when we are looking at the bigger picture of the overall environmental impact. The rush to push policy that promotes BEV's over other technologies is misguided, IMO.
Last edited by mustang84; 09-21-2021 at 01:17 PM..
I think BEV's are just one of many possible tools to get us to a greener / more sustainable future, but I think it is a mistake to focus solely on BEV's and not look at other propulsion technologies that could reduce emissions and carbon.
The big downside to BEV's are that they are *heavy* and use a significant amount of rare earth metals that are typically mined overseas, which of course involves shipping. Heavy batteries mean heavier-duty suspension components, more wear and tear on parts and tires. Heavier vehicles also create additional wear and tear on roads. More wear and tear means more resources and heavy machinery used to repair them, which offsets some of the benefits. This all needs to be studied / factored in when we are looking at the overall picture of reducing our carbon footprint...not just looking at vehicle emissions themselves.
Producing a new car uses a significant amount of embodied energy, even BEV's. As governments talk about banning ICE vehicles completely, this disregards the fact that it will take a significant amount of energy to replace the entire worldwide fleet of ICE cars with BEV's. Porsche has started producing a synthetic fuel that reduces emissions 85% and can be used in existing ICE vehicles. It will be significantly more expensive than gasoline until it can be produced at scale. But if the government is going to subsidize BEV's, why not subsidize R&D and production of synthetic fuels that can be adapted to existing ICE vehicles, reducing emissions by 85%, which could be an easier way to have a large impact on emissions while easily adapting to existing infrastructure and vehicles.
Toyota is also developing engines that can be powered by hydrogen fuel. This is not a hydrogen fuel cell, which are usually dismissed by hydrogen critics for their complexity. Essentially it is a zero-emissions ICE that uses hydrogen fuel, and they are looking to debut it as a Corolla in 2023. There are some drawbacks to hydrogen as a fuel, but it can more easily be adapted to existing infrastructure and it goes back to my embodied carbon argument that ICE vehicles are lighter weight and result in less wear and tear on parts and road surfaces and use fewer rare earth metals that have to be mined and shipped from overseas.
One of the growing drawbacks of BEV's is how to recycle the batteries. Current recycling methods basically extract the rare earth metals that are worth a lot to recyclers such as cobalt, but this process creates significant amount of waste and greenhouse gases through burning and use of acids to extract the rare earth metals. Then there is direct recycling, where the cells go back to to the battery manufacturer and are disassembled in an attempt to reuse them. The problem is that this is a very time consuming process, and there is little incentive for manufacturers to recycle. Tesla uses a cement that makes it nearly impossible to separate the cells, essentially making recycling Tesla batteries not feasible. https://www.science.org/news/2021/05...dead-batteries
And my final argument of why we should look at zero-emission technologies beyond BEV's is the fact that when BEV's burn, they emit a significant amount of toxins both in the air and through contamination of the water used to extinguish them. They are also much more difficult to put out than an ICE fire. They also easily reignite.
All of these topics need to be factored in when we are looking at the bigger picture of the overall environmental impact. The rush to push policy that promotes BEV's over other technologies is misguided.
Right, I think an overall lifecycle emissions analysis is important, though with that it appears that BEVs still come out ahead of ICE vehicles unless you make the vehicles and essentially don't use them at all which would then beg the question of why make any vehicle in the first place. I think this skepticism is ultimately healthy as it's not much good if there isn't a constant examination of whether it is ecologically better and identifying ways it can be improved.
Battery weight is an issue, but it's also an issue that often improves hand-in-hand with lower cost per kWh and we've seen a nearly tripling of average energy density of EV battery packs over the course of the 2010s. As EVs don't generally need transmissions and exhaust systems and motors are generally much lighter than engines for the same power, you'll see that several of the more successful EVs in the market today, such as the Tesla Model 3, are about the same weight as their closest ICE counterparts such as the BMW 3-Series. Another factor to consider is that the appetite for more range per full charge will probably be satisfied for most at some point and so energy density increases in batteries at some point probably won't go to simply more capacity and more range, but rather lighter weight and greater efficiency. The US market actually just had its first example of such with the ~400 mile Model S in its revision coming out hundreds of pounds lighter than its previous version. The Long Range trim went down from a curb weight of 4,883 lbs to 4,561 lbs despite an even more powerful motor and being fitted with a heat pump that did not appear in the previous version. The performance trim, called Plaid in 2021 and called Performance in 2020, went down from a curb weight of 4,941 lbs to 4,766 lbs despite the inclusion of a new third motor and a heat pump.
I don't think it's at all clear that hydrogen whether for fuel cells or combustion would be more easily adapted to existing infrastructure as it is not a simple replacement for natural gas pipelines which is what's usually being discussed when talking about adapting existing infrastructure. Hydrogen gas has some fairly different properties compared to natural gas as a much lighter and less dense at STP gas. Electricity on the other hand is something that we have a lot of infrastructure already in place and have had pretty tried and true methods as well as new ones to improve such infrastructure. What's more the issue is that hydrogen gas itself is still kind of expensive to produce in a low-emissions method and so most of it is from natural gas reforming which isn't all that low emissions. The most mentioned "green" way of producing hydrogen gas is often mentioned as electrolysis of water via electricity generated by renewable sources, but that conversion ratio of electricity to hydrogen gas and then either via a fuel cell or a combustion engine fuel is several times less efficient per miile at best than simply using that electricity to charge a vehicle. Meanwhile, EVs generally use very efficient motors and have the ability to reclaim some of their energy expenditure through regenerative braking which converts some of the kinetic energy of a vehicle in motion into electricity for storage in the battery and later use. Another point to consider is that hydrogen gas stations are coming out at around 2 million USD per station installed while EV DC level 3 fast chargers are coming out in the low hundreds of thousands range without considering operations cost which should be lower for the EV charger as it has a direct grid connection. You can up the price of the EV charging station by having it have battery backup and solar panels, but it still wouldn't come close to the hydrogen gas pump and battery backup and solar panels means that it can sell power and/or storage to the grid for better grid resiliency. While throughput on each hydrogen gas pump can be higher, the fast chargers mentioned are near future-proofed by offering 350 kW charging and you can have multiples more of these for the same cost of a hydrogen gas station.
Small point to mention is that cobalt is not a rare earth metal and rare earth metals aren't common in EV battery packs. You can find rare earth metals in catalytic convertors, refineries and some types of motors, but they aren't common in EV battery packs. Cobalt is relatively rare and expensive, but the amount of cobalt used per kWh of capacity has gone down a lot in recent years and some EV battery chemistries like the LFP ones mentioned earlier use no cobalt at all. If we do find ourselves in the situation where battery materials are hard to come by, then that means the market incentive for recycling goes up substantially so it's sort of a ceiling that's built into the market so it's kind of nice the materials in the batteries aren't consumables in quite the same way petroleum is.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 09-21-2021 at 02:26 PM..
I think BEV's are just one of many possible tools to get us to a greener / more sustainable future, but I think it is a mistake to focus solely on BEV's and not look at other propulsion technologies that could reduce emissions and carbon.
The big downside to BEV's are that they are *heavy* and use a significant amount of rare earth metals that are typically mined overseas, which of course involves shipping. Heavy batteries mean heavier-duty suspension components, more wear and tear on parts and tires. Heavier vehicles also create additional wear and tear on roads. More wear and tear means more resources and heavy machinery used to repair them, which offsets some of the benefits. This all needs to be studied / factored in when we are looking at the overall picture of reducing our carbon footprint...not just looking at vehicle emissions themselves.
Producing a new car uses a significant amount of embodied energy, even BEV's. As governments talk about banning ICE vehicles completely, this disregards the fact that it will take a significant amount of energy to replace the entire worldwide fleet of ICE cars with BEV's. Porsche has started producing a synthetic fuel that reduces emissions 85% and can be used in existing ICE vehicles. It will be significantly more expensive than gasoline until it can be produced at scale. But if the government is going to subsidize BEV's, why not subsidize R&D and production of synthetic fuels that can be adapted to existing ICE vehicles, reducing emissions by 85%, which could be an easier way to have a large impact on emissions while easily adapting to existing infrastructure and vehicles.
Toyota is also developing engines that can be powered by hydrogen fuel. This is not a hydrogen fuel cell, which are usually dismissed by hydrogen critics for their complexity. Essentially it is a zero-emissions ICE that uses hydrogen fuel, and they are looking to debut it as a Corolla in 2023. There are some drawbacks to hydrogen as a fuel, but it can more easily be adapted to existing infrastructure and it goes back to my embodied carbon argument that ICE vehicles are lighter weight and result in less wear and tear on parts and road surfaces and use fewer rare earth metals that have to be mined and shipped from overseas.
One of the growing drawbacks of BEV's is how to recycle the batteries. Current recycling methods basically extract the rare earth metals that are worth a lot to recyclers such as cobalt, but this process creates significant amount of waste and greenhouse gases through burning and use of acids to extract the rare earth metals. Then there is direct recycling, where the cells go back to to the battery manufacturer and are disassembled in an attempt to reuse them. The problem is that this is a very time consuming process, and there is little incentive for manufacturers to recycle. Tesla uses a cement that makes it nearly impossible to separate the cells, essentially making recycling Tesla batteries not feasible. https://www.science.org/news/2021/05...dead-batteries
And my final argument of why we should look at zero-emission technologies beyond BEV's is the fact that when BEV's burn, they emit a significant amount of toxins both in the air and through contamination of the water used to extinguish them. They are also much more difficult to put out than an ICE fire. They also easily reignite.
All of these topics need to be factored in when we are looking at the bigger picture of the overall environmental impact. The rush to push policy that promotes BEV's over other technologies is misguided, IMO.
I don't think electric vehicles are a atom in the bucket. Even if that's all the is.
The lithium-ion pack you're thinking of are usually the more expensive NCA, NCM or NCMA or something of the sort (nickel, cobalt, maybe manganese, maybe aluminum) packs. There's another lithium-ion chemistry that's in common usage which is lithium iron phosphate often abbreviated as LFP. That's not been as common outside of China for EV use as they seem to average around 160 wh/kg, but that's changed recently with LFP showing up in the European market and apparently now the US market for the Model 3 SR+. The tests for the LFP battery-equipped Model 3s in Europe seem to show somewhat greater vehicle weight at about two to three hundred pounds greater weight, but comparable performance so something's making up for the difference. It has some advantages aside from just lower cost per kWh (which isn't nothing) to go with the lower density disadvantages, and energy density increases in the near future for these packs are still reasonable to expect. For the sodium-ion batteries, it's a larger temperature range for optimal performance and relatively high charge/discharge rates.
We didn't wait and see, but instead invested in some of these things early on, and it's worked out fairly well for us though we sold most of our Tesla shares aside from what's in index funds. It's also not just startups putting investment into EVs or batteries, but large established automakers at this point. Solid state batteries do actually exist and have for a while, the question is when they'll be commercially viable for use in EV batteries. The sodium-ion batteries I mentioned are from CATL which is one of the main EV battery providers in the world.
Funny thing is that Nikola is still around and still making a semi which is pretty wild.
Cathode versus electrolyte. The Li-NCA is the cathode, electrolyte is generally LiPF6 sandwiched between the cathode and anode. Not much lithium in an Li-NCA cathode either, although those tend to be more proprietary in makeup whereas LiPF6 is just LIPF6.
Tesla stocks done very well for me as well. Doesn't mean I believe more than about a quarter of what Elon says. Nikola makes hats and concepts. Think made 95,000 selling hats last year. Of course they spend about 368 million to make 95,000 of hats. But it's publicly traded. Could be the next Tesla, could just be hats.
I think BEV's are just one of many possible tools to get us to a greener / more sustainable future, but I think it is a mistake to focus solely on BEV's and not look at other propulsion technologies that could reduce emissions and carbon.
That is the official corporate statement of Toyota. They are calling for a mix of mild hybrids, full hybrids (like Prius), plug in hybrids (like Prius Prime and RAV4 Prime), fuel cell vehicles (like Mirai), and Battery Electric Vehicles (like bZ series).
They will comply with state mandates, but they are not going to emphasize BEVs in states where they are not mandated.
My own theory is that Toyota will stop selling pure Internal Combustion Engines voluntarily around 2030 in states like California and other states that support CARB standards. Come 2035 the state government will chicken out of trying to enforce a ban, and they will continue to be able to sell hybrids.
They could do that today, as they have hybrids for most models (major exception are Tacoma, 4 Runner, and C-HR which is sold as a hybrid in other countries). However, at this time they would probably lose sales to other brands that offer ICE engines. So they must wait.
That is the official corporate statement of Toyota. They are calling for a mix of mild hybrids, full hybrids (like Prius), plug in hybrids (like Prius Prime and RAV4 Prime), fuel cell vehicles (like Mirai), and Battery Electric Vehicles (like bZ series).
They will comply with state mandates, but they are not going to emphasize BEVs in states where they are not mandated.
My own theory is that Toyota will stop selling pure Internal Combustion Engines voluntarily around 2030 in states like California and other states that support CARB standards. Come 2035 the state government will chicken out of trying to enforce a ban, and they will continue to be able to sell hybrids.
They could do that today, as they have hybrids for most models (major exception are Tacoma, 4 Runner, and C-HR which is sold as a hybrid in other countries). However, at this time they would probably lose sales to other brands that offer ICE engines. So they must wait.
Well, considering Toyotas truck lifecycle dunno.
New Tundra comes with a 3.4 V6 or the same 3.4 V6 strapped to a battery pack. They could just only sell the battery pack version but given how costly the 3.4 V6 is likely already over great grampa's pushrod V8, might pushing it a bit for the base engine. Basically it's the same thing Ford's got going with their F150 with the 3.5 and the 3.5 strapped to a battery pack. Similar deals, standard hybrid with a bit more electric punch rather than the PHEV everyone initially expected out of the F-150.
Hopefully better execution than Ford did on their battery pack strap jobs. It ain't great on either the F-150 or Aviator PHEVs. Maybe okay in a truck if it's jerky, not so good on your luxury egg though.
New Tundra comes with a 3.4 V6 or the same 3.4 V6 strapped to a battery pack. They could just only sell the battery pack version but given how costly the 3.4 V6 is likely already over great grampa's pushrod V8, might pushing it a bit for the base engine.
AFAIK, the MSRP for the 2022 has not been set, but speculation is that the non-hybrid will increase by less than $1K.
2021 Toyota Tundra MSRP: From $34,125 Engine: 5.7 L V8 | 381 Horsepower, 401 lb-ft of torque
2022 Toyota Tundra MSRP: Expected $35,000 Engine: twin-turbo 3.5-liter V6 380 hp and 479 lb-ft of torque.
2022 Toyota Tundra i-Force Max, hybrid powertrain employs the twin-turbo 3.5-liter V6 and a motor-generator powered by a nickel-metal hydride (Ni-MH) battery. All told, this hybrid powertrain produces a substantial 437 horsepower and an even more impressive 583 lb-ft of torque.
Obviously the hybrid Tundra is going to be substantially more expensive than the non-hybrid version or the old 5.7 V8. That's why Toyota would be insane to just sell just the hybrid (even in California) like they only sell hybrid Venzas and Siennas. With Siennas if a customer refuses to pay for a hybrid, there are very few competing ICE models one can buy as an alternative (primarily the Chrysler Pacific and Honda Odyssey), With a Tundra there are a dozen competing ICE models.
Toyota Venza hybrid sales and Toyota Highlander hybrid sales are about equal for first 6 months of 2021
35,834 VENZA HYBRID
34,528 HIGHLANDER HYBRID
But Toyota also sold 109,852 non-hybrid Highlanders. So if a customer absolutely refuses to buy a hybrid the Toyota Dealer still has the option of steering him towards a non-hybrid Highlander.
However, in theory, by 2030 the competitive landscape may be radically different. If many competitors are only selling BEVs, then Toyota's hybrid Tundra, Corolla, Camry, Highlander and RAV4 will be much cheaper by comparison.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 09-21-2021 at 06:21 PM..
Cathode versus electrolyte. The Li-NCA is the cathode, electrolyte is generally LiPF6 sandwiched between the cathode and anode. Not much lithium in an Li-NCA cathode either, although those tend to be more proprietary in makeup whereas LiPF6 is just LIPF6.
Tesla stocks done very well for me as well. Doesn't mean I believe more than about a quarter of what Elon says. Nikola makes hats and concepts. Think made 95,000 selling hats last year. Of course they spend about 368 million to make 95,000 of hats. But it's publicly traded. Could be the next Tesla, could just be hats.
Right--the "lithium-ion pack you're thinking of" comment was in relation to the energy density comparison as I wanted to point out that there are other lithium-ion packs that exist and are in commercial use which have energy densities fairly close to that of these sodium-ion packs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
AFAIK, the MSRP for the 2022 has not been set, but speculation is that the non-hybrid will increase by less than $1K.
2021 Toyota Tundra MSRP: From $34,125 Engine: 5.7 L V8 | 381 Horsepower, 401 lb-ft of torque
2022 Toyota Tundra MSRP: Expected $35,000 Engine: twin-turbo 3.5-liter V6 380 hp and 479 lb-ft of torque.
2022 Toyota Tundra i-Force Max, hybrid powertrain employs the twin-turbo 3.5-liter V6 and a motor-generator powered by a nickel-metal hydride (Ni-MH) battery. All told, this hybrid powertrain produces a substantial 437 horsepower and an even more impressive 583 lb-ft of torque.
Obviously the hybrid Tundra is going to be substantially more expensive than the non-hybrid version or the old 5.7 V8. That's why Toyota would be insane to just sell just the hybrid (even in California) like they only sell hybrid Venzas and Siennas. With Siennas if a customer refuses to pay for a hybrid, there are very few competing ICE models one can buy as an alternative (primarily the Chrysler Pacific and Honda Odyssey), With a Tundra there are a dozen competing ICE models.
Toyota Venza hybrid sales and Toyota Highlander hybrid sales are about equal for first 6 months of 2021
35,834 VENZA HYBRID
34,528 HIGHLANDER HYBRID
But Toyota also sold 109,852 non-hybrid Highlanders. So if a customer absolutely refuses to buy a hybrid the Toyota Dealer still has the option of steering him towards a non-hybrid Highlander.
However, in theory, by 2030 the competitive landscape may be radically different. If many competitors are only selling BEVs, then Toyota's hybrid Tundra, Corolla, Camry, Highlander and RAV4 will be much cheaper by comparison.
That last theoretical part is a bit odd to me. If many competitors in 2030 are only selling BEVs, then it stands to reason that there were competitive advantages to such since a lot of the current competitors have mature hybrid technologies currently in production. If BEVs are so competitive that many of the automakers have turned to them exclusively, then there's a pretty good chance that the hybrids are of equal or greater expense at purchase price than the BEVs being fielded. That would seemingly be more sensible for such a radical shift for many competitors, and it would also tie closely with the projections that a $100/kWh point is where purchase price parity is met and that the next few years will see that price parity point and then *continue* to go down since the projections aren't for battery improvements to hit a wall once at that point. One thing to point out is that multiple projections made through the 2010s generally underestimated the speed at which battery prices per kWh would follow rather than overestimated. Supposedly these models will have adjusted though to be more accurate.
China may not be as range obsessed as the US. 150 wh/kg versus 260 wh/kg in Li-On. Model 3 SR battery pack is around 1,060 pounds. Definitely a simplification, but assuming the pack weight scales with cell weight, that would mean a sodium-ion pack would need to weigh around 1,800 pounds. Grain of salt on that one as the pack weight probably wouldn't be the same. Sodium-ion batteries are likely more dense as sodium is much more dense than lithium. Just depends on the actual chemistry. There's really not that much lithium in lithium-ion battery. It's LiPF6 after all, one part lithium, seven parts other stuff for the active cathode which itself is only part of a lithium-ion battery.
Anyway, with batteries I take a wait and see it before I believe it approach. Between your straight vaporware companies like Nikola rolling unpowered chassis down a hill to Dyson and the other failed EVs counting on solid state batteries that never materialized to Tesla with history of Mars Colony crackpipe dreams that never come to fruition... wait and see for me.
Asia and Europe can easily force EV use because majority of people do not need to own cars, period. They have working mass transit system nationally. It's only Americans who refuse to adopt mass transit as a whole and EV use won't help the environment. Mass adoption of EVs will lead to other environmental catastrophe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
