Comment by ppf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ppf | Hacker News Reader

I have so many issues with this, as it is just greenwashing at its worst.

For a start - the latest EURO emissions regulations already make it practically impossible to sell a new ICE-only car. At this rate, ICE-only new cars will already be a rarity by 2030.

The "net zero emissions" is only if the electricity used to power those EVs is generated from renewable sources (and I'm not sure how much further installation potential the UK has for those sources). Unless we return to nuclear power (which brings its own debate), the overall lifecycle CO2 benefit of EVs and hybrids as they stand is minimal.

I also really dislike the blinkered focus on CO2 as the only variable to optimise. Sourcing the lithium and other minerals necessary for EVs is extremely problematic, and lithium battery recycling has yet to be proven at all viable. Some initial research also suggests that heavy demands are going to be placed on lithium reserves.

The net result of this is that manufacturers will make hybrids that just about meet the legislated "green" requirements, meaning all new cars will bring the worst of both worlds to the road. In the "green" new future of Britain's transport, everyone will be driving bloated hybrid SUVs.

Finally - for the "EVs are great because they only have one moving part!" crowd - how many cars have you sold or scrapped due to electronics faults, compared to ICE faults?

The only remotely sustainable form of motorised transport is an ebike (or maybe a bike with a tiny petrol engine), if you really take this whole argument at face value.

Edit: Nearly forgot (which is odd, given the actual enormity of this point) - the UK grid in no way can handle any significant increase in pure EV usage. There would have to be significant investment, and new systems manufactured, for this to even be viable. As I said, I suspect that the solution that will actually be used is hybrid cars.

>The overall lifecycle CO2 benefit of EVs and hybrids as they stand is minimal.

That's simply not true.

>Net emission reductions from electric cars and heat pumps in 59 world regions over time

>..We show that already under current carbon intensities of electricity generation, electric cars and heat pumps are less emission intensive than fossil-fuel-based alternatives in 53 world regions, representing 95% of the global transport and heating demand. Even if future end-use electrification is not matched by rapid power-sector decarbonization, it will probably reduce emissions in almost all world regions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0488-7

Some simple back-of-the-envelope maths shows that, due to the massively increased amount of energy needed to manufacture an EV, it takes somwhere near half the life of the car (assuming 100k miles) to pay back that "CO2 debt". And even then, you are still limited by the net CO2 emissions of your electricity source.

This is why I claim that the CO2 benefits are minimal (not none, or negative). The abstract of the article you linked only claims that the net CO2 of EVs and heat pumps is less, but does not indicate by how much. I would also love to see the assumptions made, especially if manufacturing energy cost is considered. Do you have a non-paywalled version of the article body?

Actual research vs. "back-of-the-envelope maths". I'll go with the research.

Unless you have paid for the article and read it, we are only discussing an abstract. That isn't enough information to bring to a discussion, as we have absolutely no figures, initial assumptions, or methadologies to explore.

There's nothing wrong with back-of-the-envelope maths. It's not refutable that lithium battery packs take a lot of energy to manufacture (as well as all of the control electronics, which is also a very energy-intensive manufacturing process). Just the lithium cells take around 60kWh to manufacture per 1kWh of pack capacity. Where do you think the ~5.1MWh required to make your Tesla battery pack comes from?

Even if you had 100% renewable power to charge your car, it would take 24,000 miles just to pay back the manufacturing energy of the cells alone. Then you can start paying back the energy cost of the rest of the EV components, which are still considerable. Only after that, can you start saving the planet with your EV.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ab5e1e

There is already dozens of studies about kgCO2e/kwh for batteries, thanks for linking to a studies where it is shown that electricity use is actually lower than older studies and in line with the most recent, and all the most recent studies agreed is that the kgCO2e/kwh is decreasing fast with industrialisation making EV better than fossil cars in about 16000 km.

Check this site https://climobil.connecting-project.lu

It has better back-of-the-envelope maths than you could do, it use peer reviewed lifecycle data, take into account real world tank-to-weel CO2 emission from cars where NEDC and WLTP underestimate them massively, well-to-tank emission to make and transport petrol, lifecycle batteries, glider, engine and also the future decarbonation of the electric grid. It shows way better estimates than you claim.

Great, thanks. I just compared my family car to a somewhat equivalent EV, and it takes 40,000km to break even in CO2 emissions. This is very much in line with my original point (and my "back of the envelope maths"). In the online calculator you linked, I assumed a car life of around 150,000km, as the longevity of mass-produced EVs is yet to be determined. It also addresses none of the additional points in my original comment, as we have so far talked entirely about CO2 emissions. If it is all about CO2, and the impending climate catastrophe, then the relatively small reduction in CO2/mile from an EV is just not even close to what is needed. In the calculator linked, it's a 40% reduction per mile. An EV is not the answer. Significantly fewer travelled miles is the answer.

Edit: Just for reference, the UN is calling for a 7.6% reduction in CO2 every year for the next 10 years. Either way you calculate it, an EV alone does not acheive that goal. And if you massively reduce your miles (say, 10x), it doesn't matter (relatively speaking) if you use an EV or an ICE car.

https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/climate-change/...

In my country, France, it is a 4.5 times reduction, grid will continue to decarbonate, electric car have less moving part and their engine is not a self destructing explosive one, batteries max cycle continuously extends, also batteries CO2e/kWh will continue to reduce as their is better industrial process and the electric grid is being decarboned and mining vehicles switch to electric, also we continue to use less minerals to store a kWh.

Also we can both buy less car, drive less km and switch to electric when a car is needed but use more the one car with car sharing infrastructure.

You have a 75% nuclear-powered grid in France, so yes, that probably does work out. It is also the only practical solution if we want EVs.

I really don't buy the whole "electric cars have less moving parts" argument. As I said in my original comment - how many cars get scrapped or sold due to electrical issues, compared to ICE issues? You should know, in France ;) Replacing mechanical moving parts with integrated circuits that have features on the nanometer scale that must not move, and putting them in the harsh automotive environment, is not a step forward in reliability.

I understand that technology and processes will improve, but that's not really a good argument to invest in the technology today. Maybe I should wait, and buy an EV in a few years or decades, when the environmental impact is a lot less.

Excellent comment, makes me sad that no-one seems to be talking about the effects of mining for the electric car minerals

Reply on news.ycombinator.com