[flagged]
I own plug in hybrid and I live in apartment meaning I have no possibility to charge at home. near me (about 10 min of walking there is public single phase allow charger with 2 plugs machine maxing 3.5kW total (for both)) and if I'm lucky I manage to find free slot one a week, but usually that's one every two weeks. This is only "free" charger in reasonable distance from me, and free means that I can use it when I have ticket for public transportation with I need to have anyways.
there are some normal chargers, but they cost 2x for slow charging or 3x for fast charging than energy prices here + you have to pay per minute of taking parking spot.
in summary when I calculated how much does it cost $/km it is very similar to gasoline but it's much trickier to recharge.
I would love to own fully electric but without also owning house with solar this makes no sense right now.
I’m always amazed by statements like this. People who have lived through the rollout of the internet to the masses can’t see how we’d modify existing structure to accommodate needs. We had phone lines initially, 20 years later now we have 5G, fibre, satellites.
They just dug up every street in my European town to put fibre internet in. We already had broadband in the town. They dug up every street to give us fibre that most people won’t even need over their existing connection. People look at this and say “how will we charge electric cars” when we are already surrounded by electricity.
Electricity infrastructure already exists everywhere where we have civilization. And production is usually just hundreds or less km away. For lots of people it even happens at their own home.
The average amount of km every European drives is around 40km. For a standard EV that is around 7,2 kWh of energy per day, which can be charged in 2-3 hours from a normal 240V Schuko plug at home.
If there’s no option to charge at home, a weekly load on newer EVs with around 500km range would be more than enough, taking around 3-4 hours on standard 22kW chargers or less than 2 hours in a DC 50kW chargers.
EVs are a real option for lots of people. Main blocker for most of people according to most statistics is lack of knowledge on how to operate, and as a consequence fear of the unknown.
The 500km mark is calculated in ideal conditions, flat street at 60km/h or something like that in more realistic highway conditions it's about 300km
That's why plugins have so much sense even when they cost about the same that EV would. I can drive fully electric on everyday short distances (my car is rated for 33km of electric range, but I'm able to squeeze about 40 by careful eco driving) That usually covers my city driving and at the same time I have 700-1000km backup of ICE/hybrid range
In my observation hybrid approach have about 30% better fuel efficiency than pure petrol.
I agree that having 22kW charger nearby that is affordable could solve all of that. But for many people that is not the case and if so they are so expensive.
In my case petrol costs me about $0.12/km and electric from supercharger would be $0.14/km (assuming 19kW/100km). Why would I want to switch to more expensive car to pay more per driven distance?
Of course everything changes when you have solar installation and you have basically free electricity (of course I omit here installation cost that would make if free after about 10years or so) then driving basically everyday for free and paying for fast charging few times a year when doing very long distance trip makes is fine.
But again, not everyone can have solar installation.
I have high hopes for new sodium batteries, give them 2 more generations and we could afford ev cars with 1000km of range in cars less expensive than ice and that would be very compelling.
People aren't that stupid as you think, you are just ignorant. EV preachers take the easy route and ignore issues which are inconvenient to them, or focus only on home charging.
A RWD Model 3 and Model Y with around 500km range is even less than that right now in their available stock.
How can that be stupidly expensive if it’s even below average price?
Street chargers are more expensive than home charging, that is right. However it is still cheaper than gas and diesel by 50-70% by average in mainland Europe.
You can look up facts instead of calling me ignorant.
Now imagine we came along and said we were going to add to the electrical grid a parallel system of transporting explosive liquid to billions of distributed combustion engines. Not only that, the explosive liquid is only available in a few politically charged areas in the world. Add all the tankers refineries pipes truck lines holding tanks pumps etc so that most people live at most a few miles from a holding tank that will distribute hundreds of gallons to them for their own micro power plant that only exists for their commute.
It seems crazy. We built both systems incrementally over time so we're in a massive sunk cost analysis whenever we think about replacing gas cars.
The same is not true of electric cars. People have real mileage anxiety because they can’t use petrol when a charger isn’t available
Saving the environment is nobel, but affording it is another thing.
If price hikes in the US continue, there are places in the US where that may soon be the case, too. Then we're screwed. Thankfully hybrids aren't going anywhere. They may be more complicated, but they have the most critical feature, regenerative braking. instead of shedding the energy spent slowing down as pollution and heat, it gets saved and is used to move the vehicle later.
> The highest peak electricity demand in the UK in recent years was 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy efficiency.
> Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele...
I find plug in hybrids make no sense: electrification is the future.
For me a car is about convenience and having to worry about it and going out and doing things with it when I'm not even using it is the opposite of convenient. It should just be there and ready when I need it and forgotten when I don't. And it should be as cheap and low-maintenance as possible. If every parking space had a charger and I could just plug it in and forget about it when I park it, it'd be acceptable (in fact better than an ICE because at times I also had to remember to refuel it for an early trip). What adds to this also is that I don't really have a 'routine', my life is really ad-hoc.
So for me it would be a huge dealbreaker to have an EV until chargers are everywhere. But right now I have the perfect solution anyway which is not even having or needing a car at all :) My city has amazing public transport and 20 euros gets me an unlimited monthly travel pass. I don't even like spending money on cars, and when I did still own one it was usually a 1500-2000 euro old banger meaning that EVs are out of my price range anyway (even used ones will never be that cheap).
Those of us living in the present prefer to be more flexible and have the best of both worlds (electric commute, ICE for long trips)
They make sense depending on how far away that future is, and I think that 'future' is way different for different parts of the world.
Because in almost every other country there is a real lack of decent charging infrastructure.
Especially outside of densely populated areas.
Not just availability of chargers but also the average kW rate.
https://apricum-group.com/ev-charging-infrastructure-race-in...
Rapid charging is now widely available (certainly could be more)
I'm an enviromentalist and I'd still buy an ICE Porsche.
No EV has come close ... only the Hyundai ioniq 5 N seems to be looking interesting.
Environmentalists walk or ride bikes.
I am also an environmentalist and burn some fuel from time to time, I’m not a zealot.
For me to operate and support the environment the best I can I also need to be mentally fit and have life enjoinment. And riding my old classic carbureted Triumph helps me with that.
I can't see how buying a Porsche (or any car really) is compatible with that.
I'll note I've seen people struggling across the supermarket carpark to avoid buying a plastic bag only to get in a giant SUV. It's a form of moral licensing[1], there is a huge amount of dissonance around environmental issues.
A sports car, used fairly sparingly for fun, and not a daily driver - is different to the horrible trend of daily driving done via ugly, honkingly big SUV's.
There's a line somewhere out there that enables humanity to have fun and not destroy the planet ... probably related to the 80/20 rule.
Right now almost all consumers use SSDs because they are affordable for space most people need.
And I remember how we were transitioning where I bought 128gb drive for cost of 4TB HDD to have super snappy system and I had to manage system much more to not burn writes too quickly (ram drives for logs and temp etc)
That where I believe we are right now with EVs. But they are more affordable and have better range every year.
But to go further with this comparison we still develop new generations of HDDs even after all that time, even when everyone believe that at some point in the future we will abandon that technology completely
Most of the US is in the same boat as you. Where I live, there is nowhere to charge and there are fairly great distances between things. You rarely ever see electric cars here, because they are only useful for people who have invested quite a bit in their house to build a charging station.
The people here on hn that have the attitude you mention, are people who live in large populated regions, especially congregated around the coasts.
I'm all for electrifying, and I think it is very necessary, but people do love to put the cart way in front of the horse.
Chances are there will be - or, at least, Porsche appears to bet there will be - a sufficient number of well-heeled enthusiasts who prefer the sound, smell and vibration of an ICE to the quiet performance of an electric motor.
I am really curious to see how this pans out in a generation or two - I suspect nostalgia plays a significant role in the 'performance cars should have ICEs' mindset, so what happens when the generation who grew up on EVs enter middle age and have the disposable income for a performance car?
As for the rest of us, if, say, 1 in 1000 cars in a couple of decades' time burns fossil fuels, it is hardly going to be a nuisance. I'd be more worried (If I owned an ICE-powered vehicle) about the infrastructure needed to get the fossil fuels I needed in the tank.
(Glancing anxiously over at my 1949 S1 Land Rover (1.6l I4 petrol) and 1981 Land Cruiser 42 (3.4l I4 diesel) - neither of which are performance cars by any stretch of the imagination! The 3B engine in the Land Cruiser will merrily chug along on just about anything vaguely combustible you pour in the tank, though.)
After driving a fast Tesla, stepping into an ICE performance car feels like going back to a steam engine. A very slow, unresponsive steam engine.
When avid petrolheads try a fast EV and feel the instant torque it will be an epiphany for them. Only the most stubborn will stick with fossil cars.
(the catch: this instant is often one which you weren't expecting, and if you are lucky it will mostly have been applied along the craniocaudal axis)
Vilifying a d taxing any luxury not only is a ludicrous position, it will only make inequality worse. Its not like the 0.1% will renoujce to it, and taxes don't matter to them.
I haven't been cross shopping it with vehicles that cost 3x as much and get only 15% of the mileage, so maybe I'm missing something? But weighing 10% more and taking 20% longer to reach 60 doesn't seem particularly compelling.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but clearly we disagree. To each their own.
It all depends on what makes cars interesting to you, of course - but a lot of the car enthusiast clientele would merrily start tinkering with their pride and joy even if all is well, just because they can.
Top fuel dragsters accelerate from 0 to 100 mph in 0.8 seconds.
I have tried fast EV and it's boring. I prefer my loud meth injected turbo diesel BMW (520 lb/ft at the wheels, pulls like a Tesla but is not boring to me)
One car being objectively faster than another does not mean that it is more fun.
And even if one vehicle is more fun in some total measure, it will not be fun in all the same ways as all other fun vehicles.
There are plenty of people who alternate between something like a modern Mercedes V8 and a classic Mini. There is no question of which one is faster, but it might be the slow one that gives the most joy of sporty driving
Nope. Tesla Model S Plaid beats the 911 Turbo S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_car...
But being thrown back is not the fun part. The fun part is controlling the car around those bends on a mountain road.
Anyone can floor it in a straight line.
"There were an estimated 20 million horses in March 1915 in the United States" [1]. In 2023? Almost 7 million.
Internal combustion engines will be around for a long time, in part because they're beautiful.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States#St...
Other marques are still extant:
According to the below link, 80% of its transport was via horse.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-wwii-german-army-was-80-ho...
From 1940 to 1943, one can readily explain Axis strategy as an insatiable quest for more oil: no barrels, no Blitz.
EDIT: Lagniappe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Medicine_Crow#World_War_II
The industrial and economic "miracle" of the pre war Nazi regime wasn't spent on tractors either, but on weapons.
They'll go the way of horses in the sense that you'll be hardly seeing any in cities.
Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs-IKeRyRAg
ICE engines and every type of motor have a Power Curve. Many things go into the power curve including the construction, configuration, fuel and general type of motor. The power curve graphs engine power output as it relates to engine rotational speed. Every one of these different motors and transmissions out there including electric as well, have differing characteristic curves which effect the handling of the vehicle to great effect. This affects their possible applications.
Controlling the power and efficiency curves of motors is the entire story of the very well known "VTECH" Variable Valve Timing technologies, super and turbo chargers or other forced air intake, and even the way that Tesla electric motors arrange the magnets in their electric vehicle motors.
Inventing a new way to operate an ICE is good for many things. This patent looks cumbersome, and a bit complex. In my mind the long-term future of ICE for vehicles is in more specialized use cases as fossil fuels reach the long tail. Certain highly reliable, or certain types of safety prohibiting voltage or battery chemistry, types of standby vehicles, certain rugged vehicles, industrial equipment, small motors, these might be better off being petro-like. It might be better to make corn-gasoline than to stash a huge battery onto your lawnmower all year in this case.
But please do not discount: They are enjoyable.
Even during the end-of-days, we can process something like biofuels into "gasoline replacements". We can use waste vegetable oil to create biodiesel today. Small volumes are pretty easy and although we desperately must reduce fossil fuels to near zero (I dont need to have a blast gunning my Porche in bumper-to-bumper traffic, for example...) I don't see a reason why people can't still buy a motorcycle, even if we are living under sci-fi-like domed cities.
All else, people would simply make them themselves in their own garages. For Fun.
>Tiny Bacteria, Not Huge Dinosaurs, Formed Oil
>try to grasp the concept of deep geologic time, a talent possessed by very few people. Try to wrap your mind around the enormity of the figures: bacteria and single-celled organisms were the dominant forms of life on earth for a whopping two and a half to three billion years, a virtually incomprehensible stretch of time when measured against human civilization, which is only about 10,000 years old, and even against the reign of the dinosaurs, which lasted "only" about 165 million years. That's a lot of bacteria, a lot of time, and a lot of oil.
People love to talk about combustion engines being pollutants but few people talk about just how damaging it is mining for rare metals to make those batteries. Nor how harmful for the environment it is disposing of old batters (we haven’t yet solved the problem of recycling them either).
And that’s before you even touch on problems at the power grid. Eg many addresses don’t have high quality enough power infrastructure to cope with everyone switching to electric, so that would need to be upgraded. And a lot of countries still rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity to begin with.
Electric cars are likely the future. But they’re not as green as people like to think. In fact for some use cases they can actually work out both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly once you total up their carbon footprint in full. And I think it’s going to be a long time before they become the greener option of everyone.
Whereas in the meantime, research into combustion engines can provide benefits for more than just petrol-fuelled sports cars.
The national grid in the UK was so fed up with people making claims about the grid capacity it also busted some too: https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele...
> The highest peak electricity demand in the UK in recent years was 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy efficiency.
> Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle.
> Nevertheless, at National Grid we’re working with the distribution networks, government, the regulator and industry to provide the green energy infrastructure around Britain – the wires, the connections to charge points – to support the needs of a decarbonised transport network into the future.
> In the US, the grid is equally capable of handling more EVs on the roads – by the time 80% of the US owns an EV, this will only translate into a 10-15% increase in electricity consumption.1
Energy demand in UK declining because prices went up which accelerated deindustrialisation and forced people's to use less energy e. g. heat homes less .
For example, none of the new houses in any of the new estates around me were built with solar panels.
That article addresses literally just one of my claims
There are two articles in my post that address multiple points. Luckily I don’t even have to argue with you about this as ChatGPT can do it for me.
AI content below:
### Analysis of the Original Post and Response
The original post critiques the environmental benefits of electric vehicles (EVs), raising several concerns about their production, usage, and infrastructure. The response refutes many of these claims by providing evidence from reputable sources, notably *Carbon Brief* and *National Grid UK*, which seek to correct common misconceptions about EVs. Let’s analyze both the original post's claims and how the response addresses each point.
---
### Claim 1: *Electric cars still consume fossil fuels—just earlier in the pipeline*
- *Original Post's Argument*: The claim suggests that although electric vehicles do not burn fossil fuels directly, the electricity used to charge them is often generated from fossil fuels, thus shifting pollution earlier in the supply chain.
- *Response*: The *Carbon Brief article* acknowledges that while electricity generation still relies on fossil fuels in some countries, the grid is becoming increasingly decarbonized over time. As renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectricity grow, the carbon footprint of charging EVs is steadily shrinking.
> "Many countries, including the UK, have rapidly decarbonised their electricity grids, meaning that electric cars are already far cleaner than petrol and diesel cars, and will get cleaner as the grid continues to decarbonise." - **Carbon Brief**
This directly counters the argument, indicating that while fossil fuels are still used, the grid is moving towards cleaner energy sources, making EVs progressively greener over time.
### Claim 2: *Mining for rare metals in batteries is damaging to the environment*
- *Original Post's Argument*: The post highlights the environmental impact of mining rare metals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which are essential for EV batteries. It also points out the issue of disposal and recycling, suggesting that current methods for handling old batteries are inadequate.
- *Response*: The *Carbon Brief article* acknowledges the environmental costs of mining but contextualizes it within the broader benefits of EVs. It points out that while battery production has a higher upfront environmental cost, EVs offset this over their lifetime by producing lower emissions during use compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.
> "The manufacturing of electric cars can indeed produce higher emissions, particularly due to the energy required to produce the battery. However, this is offset by the much lower emissions during the use of the vehicle." - **Carbon Brief**
Additionally, the article touches on battery recycling, noting that significant research is being undertaken to improve recycling technologies and reduce the environmental impact of batteries. For example, companies are exploring second-life applications for batteries and refining recycling techniques.
> "Recycling of electric vehicle batteries is improving, and the EU has introduced regulations requiring EV batteries to be recycled." - **Carbon Brief**
### Claim 3: *Power grids are not equipped to handle widespread EV adoption*
- *Original Post's Argument*: This claim suggests that the infrastructure for delivering electricity to homes is insufficient to support a mass switch to EVs, particularly in areas with outdated grid systems. The post implies that upgrading the grid would be costly and challenging, and that many countries still rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity.
- *Response*: The *National Grid UK article* directly addresses the concern about grid capacity, arguing that the national grid is more than capable of handling an increased demand from EVs. In fact, the article notes that peak electricity demand in the UK has been falling due to improvements in energy efficiency, and that even with widespread EV adoption, the grid would still use less electricity than it did in 2002.
> "Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle." - **National Grid UK**
In the U.S., a similar analysis found that the grid could easily support the growth of EVs.
> "By the time 80% of the US owns an EV, this will only translate into a 10-15% increase in electricity consumption." - **National Grid UK**
This contradicts the claim that grids are ill-prepared and highlights that grid modernization efforts are already in progress to support EV infrastructure.
### Claim 4: *Electric cars are more expensive to run and may not always be greener over their full lifecycle*
- *Original Post's Argument*: The post suggests that, in certain cases, EVs may be both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly when considering the total carbon footprint, including production, use, and disposal.
- *Response*: The *Carbon Brief article* provides a nuanced answer, recognizing that while the upfront cost of EVs can be higher due to the price of batteries, the total cost of ownership is often lower in the long run. This is due to reduced fuel and maintenance costs, as well as government subsidies and incentives for EV owners.
> "Electric cars can have higher upfront costs, mainly due to the cost of the battery. However, they are cheaper to run, due to lower fuel and maintenance costs." - **Carbon Brief**
On the environmental side, the article argues that EVs have a lower lifecycle carbon footprint compared to ICE vehicles, especially as grids become cleaner.
> "Studies consistently show that, even when powered by relatively carbon-intensive grids, electric cars still emit less CO2 over their lifetime than conventional cars." - **Carbon Brief**
### Conclusion:
The original post raises several valid concerns about the environmental and infrastructural challenges of EV adoption, but the response effectively refutes most of these claims with data and evidence from *Carbon Brief* and *National Grid UK*. The articles emphasize the following:
- EVs are becoming greener as grids decarbonize. - The environmental costs of battery production are offset over the vehicle's lifetime. - Power grids in countries like the UK and the U.S. are equipped to handle increased EV demand. - EVs offer lower running costs and, overall, a smaller carbon footprint compared to internal combustion vehicles.
The original poster's assertion that the reply only addresses one of their claims is inaccurate. Both the *Carbon Brief* and *National Grid UK* articles provide detailed information that counters multiple points raised in the original argument.
- Electric motors use low amounts of rare earth metals, or in some cases none. Batteries generally don't use them either.
- Automotive batteries have been demonstrated as >90% recyclable, far better than most materials we consider "recyclable" today such as plastic
- The electric grid has sufficient capacity to onboard millions of electric cars without issue, and will not be impacted by the transition to EVs
- Cost of ownership of EVs is significantly lower than ICE vehicles in their class, as is the lifetime carbon footprint
For instance, where one recycle a Tesla battery, say in Poland?
I do not see to many chargers around and I believe the grid is not very modern here. Why do you think it can easily handle millions EVs? What about peak hours like nights? Do you think it will be env friendly, provided that majority of electricity in Poland is produced on coal plants.
EV initial cost is about 5-10 times more than a slightly used ICE in a perfect condition. Such a car car drive decades and will never reach in total spendings even initial cost of EV. I’m not counting charging that may not be very cheap. As electricity prices went up in recent years and may go up more.
When you stating something, think beyond your household. Your statements are not universal.
(Whether we actually do that or not, capitalism being what it is....)
Maybe the term “rare” was poorly chosen. But mining those metals is the damaging part, not the abundance of the metals.
So my point is still correct.
> Automotive batteries have been demonstrated as >90% recyclable, far better than most materials we consider "recyclable" today such as plastic
Citation needed.
EV batteries are reused in some less demanding domains for a couple of years after their life in EVs. but everything that I’ve read thus far has said recycling the batteries themselves, after their life is done, is still very much in its infancy.
> The electric grid has sufficient capacity to onboard millions of electric cars without issue, and will not be impacted by the transition to EVs
Most country’s electric grids do. That’s the bloody point of a grid. It’s the last mile that’s the issue in some counties.
However I will concede that this point is a little unfair because it’s non-specific.
> Cost of ownership of EVs is significantly lower than ICE vehicles in their class, as is the lifetime carbon footprint
That depends. If you’re an occasional driver and charging your car at home, then the cost of electricity in some countries is going to be greater than the cost of petrol.
However if you travel lots and are heavily use charge stations at super markets et al, then EVs will be much cheaper to run than ICE.
It’s definitely not as clear cut as a lot of EV marketing claims.
(I’ve been adding up the costs just this month because was looking at buying an EV and it just wasn’t a cost saving for my particular requirements).
> Citation needed
It shouldn't be hard to believe. The components of a battery aren't consumed during operation. An old battery weighs the same as a new battery, and the chemical reactions taking place inside are reversible (because that's how a chemical battery works).
I believe, though, the the previous commenter erred. 90% of _batteries_ are recycled.
According to Wikipedia, lithium battery recycling can see up to 96% recovery rate of material. Lead acid is over 98% of the lead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling
> However if you travel lots and are heavily use charge stations at super markets et al, then EVs will be much cheaper to run than ICE.
This statement is confusing to me.
In my experience in the US, charging away from home is far more expensive.
Charging at home has added an average of $10/month to our electric bill. Charging at a commercial charger can easily cost $5-$10 _per charge_.
At home I have a 3kw charger, one of the lowest options you can buy. I prefer to take time and keep the battery cool. Heat kills batteries faster.
Your statement about your cost comparison doesn't mention maintenance, which is a significant savings. No oil changes, no rusted exhaust pipes, no spark plugs, etc. Over the life of the car, that's tens of thousands of dollars unspent.
We have lots of free charging points in the UK. Or at least they do around me.
> Your statement about your cost comparison doesn't mention maintenance, which is a significant savings. No oil changes, no rusted exhaust pipes, no spark plugs, etc. Over the life of the car, that's tens of thousands of dollars unspent.
In my experience the maintenance costs is usually more tyres, suspension, breaks, and other similar things that would equally need to be maintained on EVs.
Oil changes and spark plugs are cheap. Never had an issue with my exhaust pipe but I’m sure that’s a thing. Have had clutches burn out but that’s always been more specific to manual shifts rather than ICEs. Cam belts is definitely one big ICE consumable that EVs wouldn’t require though.
I’m sure EVs will have their own specific areas of maintenance as well, but I’ll admit I haven’t done much research in that specific area.
You'll go through tires _slightly_ faster because the cars are heavier. With the exception of some standouts like Tesla's Cybertruck, which reportedly is only getting 6k miles on a set of tires, the wear rate is slightly higher. Low rolling resistance tires are slightly more expensive. Plan on whatever you're paying now plus 20% to cover the difference.
I've never had to change the suspension on any of my cars. I wouldn't even consider it in a maintenance list unless you live somewhere with truly shit roads, but the mileage and repair cost would be the same in EV or ICE.
Brakes last forever in an EV. 100k miles easily.
Oil changes in the US cost $50+, and are done every 3-4k miles (or $75+, 7-10k miles if you choose synthetic oil).
Spark plugs are cheap, but paying someone to replace them is not.
Some EVs have liquid cooling, but it lasts longer than coolant in an ICE.
I'm so used to people around me driving automatics, I forget to consider a clutch - but I get >100k per clutch so it's not a frequent or predictable cost for me.
Most recent cars, even the small ones, seem to have swung back to using timing chains rather than belts, and don't need regular changes. You can consider it if you like, but you have to take it on a case-by-case basis.
Unless you don't keep your cars long enough to notice, your exhaust system will rust. Water is a byproduct of combustion, after all, and steam corrodes faster than liquid water. It's worse if you make lots of short trips - which is where an EV shines.
Also consider non-regularly-replaced things in your maintenance list: oxygen sensors, water pumps, thermostats, heater cores, etc. You can't predict when these things will fail, but over 10 years you'll almost certainly have to replace some of them.
Consider, also, downtime while your car is in the shop getting the work done.
Contrast to an EV: none of that. A new battery in 150k-200k miles for $5k, unless you're still satisfied with the reduced range.
My wife and I have owned an EV since 2019. We also still have a couple of ICEs for me and my daughter. I'm not going to throw a car away just because.
I see the cost savings of an EV up close and personal. The only downside has been range for long trips, but 364 days of the year that's not a problem and for the remaining days my ICE does the job. When that car dies, I'll rent one when it's needed.
Wait, we do? There are people out there just giving away energy?
(I think I must have misunderstood you here).
I really think as soon as batteries get even cheaper and denser there will be no chance for ICEs to be dominant but right now the balance is still against the change.
EV adoption here is high compared to the European average (similar to Norway). Public charging stations in affected areas are reducing capacity or even shutting down at certain times.
So grid capacity is an actual problem here.
- Plenty of electric drivetrains still use neodymium for example[0]. Whether it's too much or likely to change soon I don't know, but I feel like that's crucial to making a judgement on the overall harmfulness.
- Battery recycling is happening[1], but so is plastic recycling. Are batteries likely to be recycled, and are the environmental benefits and available profit sufficient to make it significant in the near future? Seems like yes, but it's not clear to me.
- Which grid? Is capacity sufficient just on average, or also at peak demand? Would that still be the case if EV adoption increases in the next five years? (or some timescale to short to build more plants). Looks like the US will do ok[2] but again it's not obvious.
- Does this also apply to buying new? Are you including resale value? What about carbon generated at power stations to provide the electrical power? This is a complex claim and it's hard to do anything with unless it's sharpened and given some numbers or at least references. Seems like price to consumer is roughly the same[3] and CO2 emissions even over about five years of normal use and will improve if the grid moves towards cleaner fuel[4].
Overall I think it's annoying for a commenter who knows the truth to go to the trouble of being convincing, but it's critical for having an interesting discussion that might change someone's mind.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/automa...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/06/27/nx-s1-5019454/ev-battery-recy...
[2] https://news.mit.edu/2023/minimizing-electric-vehicles-impac...
[3] https://www.nada.org/nada/nada-headlines/beyond-sticker-pric...
[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-vehicles...
thank goodness oil production isn't damaging at all and has zero cost, then
if you're going to talk about mining, every other environmental cost of the fossil fuel lifecycle is fair game. how confident are you that oil and gas come out ahead?
Unfortunately, this is a massively complicated subject and it’s hard to definitively make claims because there’s also a large element of locality (where you live) and user-specific circumstances (like how long you keep a car, how often you drive, etc)
My original comment was just that it’s easy to say “EV is the future” but really we need to be extremely mindful that EV still has a long way to go itself and thus we shouldn’t be dismissive of any research happening in the automotive industry.
Even thought I'd agree mass EV would not be carried by the current grid, or that charging density and time is not satisfactory (in most of Europe)... LiFePO4 doesn't contain rare earth metals, unless you count Li for 'rare'.
Also probably unaware that with the rise of extremely low cost, solar and wind, Fossil fuel use on the grid is economically nonviable long term.
Even so, the fossil fuels consumed on the grid are very likely to be combined cycle natural gas, which has less carbon emissions than have equivalent. Amounts of energy were burned in ice engines.
Also, The energy efficiency of electric vehicles is much higher than an ice car, so if solar and wind do not generate the electricity, it still will emit less carbon than an ice.
The only useful new engine technology I am interested in is an extremely compact recharging engine for use in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. There was something about the inside out rotary engine a couple years ago but nothing has come off of it.
I'd not call the rise, yet. The Na ones' energy density (and specific energy) is even lower than Li based (LiFePO4 is lower than cobalt ones). They might be okay for grid storage, of course.
So the pack level they become a lot more competitive. Rise of high density, salt, water and lfp. We should be able to produce 300 and 400 mile range sedans with sodium ion and LFP chemistries.
Just go look at the catl density numbers all the stuff they have going into production. Obviously has not scaled to the level it needs to. That's a big ramp up.
I believe the current numbers are 160 Watt hours per kilogram for sodium ion and a little over 200 for lfp. With cell to pack projections of 90%, while pack density of nmc is like 60-70% to the cooling and safety system requirements, sodium ion is a revolutionary development for the cheap EV.
The five year road maps for sodium ion gets it close to 200 watt hours per kilogram. Lfp should be reaching 250 Watt hours per kilogram in the next five years.
https://www.electrive.com/2024/01/02/first-sodium-ion-batter...
Tuning SIB chemistry and getting enough factory capacity up takes a while.
In many places putting solar panels on roofs and on parking spaces would solve such issue.
No need for personal snark comments. Not everybody lives in the US. The worst part moving there was surviving the lack of sun light during the winter but that was many years back.
I'm trying to think of an example, and I'm honestly coming up blank.
Just like with your post. I never actually made any claims about mileages. However as it happens, I do specifically fall into that uneconomical bracket. That’s why I ended up buying petrol despite wanting an EV. I work from home and thus rarely drive. EV isn’t yet ready for my specific use case. It will get there, but it’s not there today.
And thus we are back to the crux of point is was making: that this topic is far more complicated than the OP suggested.
No, my point was “EVs aren’t all that green either”.
Things are going to improve. But people so often forgot about all the other environmental costs involved with EV.
In an ideal world we’d be using push bikes, but clearly that’s not practical either. However it’s fair to say that this whole transportation debate is a lot more complicated than people like to summarise.
> It is because the additional costs in terms of emissions are paid off in less than 20k miles.
Again, that was never my claim. That’s a strawman argument you’ve constructed.
In fact for some use cases they can actually work out both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly once you total up their carbon footprint in full.
End quote.
No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles.
As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40. Locally I go on foot, bike and rarely public transport and long distance by train and I rarely fly. So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live. If not, EVs are a much better option.
> No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles.
You’re being overly generalised. There are different ICE cars that have different carbon footprints. Hybrids too. Different driving styles that can affect fuel consumption too.
Just as there are different EVs that have different running costs, different mileage per charge, and different carbon footprints to manufacture.
Then you have questions about how that electricity was generated. Most countries are improving with their use of renewables but there are some counties out there that are just going to burn fossil fuels anyway.
However even if you ignore external factors like driving style, and where the electricity comes from, you still have literally thousands of different variables just on the vehicles alone.
These are all important variables that shape the results. Saying “20k miles” is completely bullshit headline made by people trying to greenwash people into buying EV. There isnt this magic line you claim there is. Instead we have a massive fuzzy grey area.
I also think you massively underestimate just how different European cars are to American cars.
Plus the fact that even your grossly generalised statement acknowledges that there is a cross over point, means I’m still factually correct; even ignoring how overly simplistic (to the point of being factually incorrect) you are.
> As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40.
Right. So your points are from a theoretical perspective rather than actual experience. Understood.
> So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live.
I’m getting really sick of your assumptions about me. I’ve already said I work from home and rarely need to drive. That was literally in the comment you claimed to have “read carefully” - thus proving my point that you hadn’t.
I live in the countryside. So I do walk and cycle lots. That’s the entire reason I chose to live where I live.
———
You have this impression that cars are literally one thing and it’s a Boolean decision. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. People like yourself need to understand that life is fully of nuance. Which was the point of my original comment: that the issue around EVs environmental footprint is still being understood but even by conservative estimates, there’s still a lot of room to improve.
Yet you missed all of that when you “carefully read” my comment and instead focused on some meaningless generalisation you saw on twitter coupled with a bunch of incorrect assumptions about myself.
Things aren't really that unclear or case to case either. A person buying a tiny IC car will not suddenly decide to buy a 7 ton Hummer EV where suddenly their carbon footprint is much higher. They will buy a Volt or whatever it's called. So there really is nothing really that important other than mileage. EVs are clearly better in every use case, as long as we're talking about the environment.
And lastly first hand experience in driving and owning a car is not helpful in determining carbon footprint. The research I linked to is helpful. Under 20k miles per car (on average - if it makes you feel better, but please note I am not insinuating it will make you feel better) with the electricity grid of yesterday. As the grid decarbonizes, this will be even less.
More EVs please.
Of course its case by case. A 3.2lt Maserati Quattroporte is obviously going to have a lower MPG than a 1lt Vauxhall Corsa. And that’s without taking any into account the types of road you drive on and the exact year of build of the car.
> A person buying a tiny IC car will not suddenly decide to buy a 7 ton Hummer EV where suddenly their carbon footprint is much higher.
I never suggested they would. But also not every model of ICE vehicle will have an exactly equivalent model of EV. In fact I ran into the exact problem myself. And I did look.
> So there really is nothing really that important other than mileage.
And this is where your lack of experience with cars is apparent. I don’t mean to be snarky but I’ve given numerous examples and you’re still sticking firm to this fallacy that there isn’t much variation in cars.
> EVs are clearly better in every use case, as long as we're talking about the environment.
It wasn’t just about the environment. I did also talk about cost too. In that post you “read carefully” in fact.
This is why I’ve been getting a little snarky. You claim to read my comments but then completely ignore everything I’ve said and draw your own strawman arguments instead. Presumably a knee jerk reaction because you’ve incorrectly labeled me as a petrolhead.
> And lastly first hand experience in driving and owning a car is not helpful in determining carbon footprint.
It is very helpful because you start to understand that even the same car can have different fuel consumption characteristics depending on who’s driving it, on what type of roads, and the length of those journeys. Let alone the wildly different characteristics of different cars even in the same class of vehicle.
You don’t seem to understand that different engine sizes matter. The weight of the car matters. The gear ratios (automatic) or how you shift gears (manual). The roads (do you need to shift gears a lot or cruise at a constant speed?). Even how heavily you break can have a massive impact on fuel consumption. Wheel sizes, tyres, road surfaces. Is your local area flat or hilly? Do you drive longer or shorter distances? Does your car have a stop-start engine? Or hybrid? How many cylinders? Turbo injection? Etc.
There simply isn’t a standard. So if you then take averages you’re going to find that all those sporty ICE cars will massively skew the results against those small European cars. And the people who buy EV for environmental reasons are more likely to be buying a small ICE vehicle if EVs weren’t an option.
You seem to think all cars are roughly equivalent and that demonstrates just how little you actually know on this subject.
> As the grid decarbonizes, this will be even less.
I agree. Which is why I also said that in my original comment. The one you “read carefully”.
> More EVs please
I agree. I was never arguing against EVs. I was just saying that EVs seem to suffer a lot from greenwashing when actually there’s still a long way for them to go before they live up to the claims people make about them.
It’s still a young industry though so that will change. But people like yourself need to understand that doesn’t mean EVs are the silver bullet. What we really need is better types of fuel. EVs are a step in the right direction but it still largely just pushes the problem upstream. We still need to clean up electricity production even with EVs.
I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t buy EV nor that EV isn’t greener than ICE.
What I actually said is that EV still does a lot of harm to the environment and it’s a long way from being the saviour to our private transportation woes that a lot of people like to greenwash it as.
Does this mean that we shouldn’t buy EVs? Of course not. But it also means:
- we shouldn’t put all of our eggs into one basket. Research into other engines still brings us gains
- for some specific individuals, EVs are yet the best choice for their needs
The problem we have in this thread is everybody is jumping to one extreme or the other rather than acknowledging that this is actually a massively complex topic and thus theres going to be a lot of contextual factors and shades of grey.
So please don’t assume I’m trying to spread FUD about EVs just because I’m promoting awareness that we still have a lot more work to do before mass produced cars of any design becomes green.
Might as well spread your bets. They are also working heavily on efuel, that works with ICE engines, does not pollute much, but currently would cost 2x at the pump. If they could shave that cost in half we could keep most ICEs (plus an add on catalyst). Distribution networks could be kept. Batteries and their chemicals would not be needed.
So if either pays off, it’s a fortune.
If 100% of new vehicles were electric today, it would take 15 to 20 years to renew the whole fleet in those countries. But today the share of new EVs were between 0 to 5%.
While there is a subyacent network effect (when 30% of gas stations close, it will be so hard to refuel that adoption will spike, which in turn will kill more gas stations), it still seems way off. The people I interviewed at car makers seemed to see EV as a new segment more than a new paradigm.
Your mileage might vary.
Something i wouldn't do, but i understand.
Internal combustion engines are not limited to fossil fuels. For instance, here in Brazil it's common to use sugarcane ethanol as an alternative fuel, and many cars come from factory ready to use either gasoline or ethanol (the keyword to look for is "flex fuel").
As for why Porsche is spending money on ICE engines...well, no one really buys a Porsche because it's a "practical car", do they?
Now the busses are getting retrofitted with fuel-based heaters, which will be running on bio-diesel... better than nothing I guess.
I don't know. I find my daily very practical: a Porsche Panamera MY2013, now nearing 125 000 miles and 12 y/o. Still under extended manufacturer warranty. I have it since more than five years now (bought it used). Next car is another used Panamera (probably a 2020 or something). Very sweet, comfy, luxurious ride and yet if you push the pedal to the metal, way funnier to drive than, say, a Mercedes Class S.
But, you said it: sweet, comfy, luxurious, funnier. Valid reasons, of course, but different :-)
Besides, you'd be surprised at the amount of work geard towards hydrogen-based economy which is still about burning stuff to turn wheels (even when electricity is produced) as they did in 1890s...
To me is a joke that we keep heating water to move magnets to get energy in 2024 with all the quantum entanglement, Johnson teleportation, lasers, etc. engineering magic happening around. And we do what? heat water to move magnets to squeez energy? So why is then hydrogen bad, just because it goes boom? Plenty of things we use daily go boom now and then, not meaning recent news, but in general.
I also invite you to take a look at the Tokamak and then try to argue again that metal tubes wired around to pump liquids and do some combustion is not the future.
Methanol or renewable synthetic gasoline seem like they'll always outperform hydrogen for ICE cars.
Hydrogen airships would be cool though & we could make them safe with modern technology (both preventing fires & making the passenger compartment an under-slung survival cell with parachutes & giant airbags so a catastrophic loss is survivable)
> One in seven new car sales worldwide is now electric
> Year-to-date figures show that nearly 10.6 million EVs have been sold globally as of July 2024, marking a 16.3% increase compared to the same period last year.
What constitutes “walking back”?
Legally+Economically. After seeing how badly their cars were doing against Chinese EVs, it seems the EV-only mandates in the EU and US are on shaky ground; only heavy tariffs on imported cars seem to be giving local producers a chance. I do not think they will figure it out by the 2030-ish targets, and bet that European and American companies will be allowed to sell combustion engine cars after that.
> marking a 16.3% increase compared to the same period last year
This is buoyed a lot by growth in China (which is not nothing, I guess), but growth in Europe and the Americas is slowing.
Globally, if I recall, you need 20 years to replace the whole global fleet (so around 5% replacement rate). Let’s assume this global number is fixed (installed base is growing, as more vehicles are being created that destroyed, actually)
1/7 is 15%. 15% of 5% is 0,75%. So this means that every year 0,75% of global installed base is replaced by EVs. So 130y for full replacement?
Yes, the 1/7 weight will increase. But so will expand base. Even if suddenly today every car made now on the planet is EV only, iCE will still be around for 20-30 years.
NAGEVT site only shows data for UK, is unclear which data sources they used, and whether they added PHEV (still ICEs) into the mix.
Don’t mean to come obnoxious, I just spent a few weeks researching the topic for 10 countries and my data differs a lot from theirs.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/15/car-importers-stuck-with-...
“In 2023 January through August, one in four new light passenger vehicles sold were EVs. Fast forward to 2024 and EVs make up just one in 11 new light passenger vehicles sold”
In the EU sales are sluggish.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2024/05/19/europes-w...
“Current sales of EVs in Europe have stalled at just over 2 million a year, as early adopters and corporate purchasing peaked out. Schmidt Automotive Research said during the opening third of 2024 Western Europe EV market share stalled at 14.4% compared with the same period last year, according to its provisional data.”
There are other regions that are growing, but I see little relevance to the original point unless people expected continued growth in every region with no blips?
Electric motors will prevail long term, simply for the fact that ICEs can't reach their efficiency. So no need to have this attitude.
There’s zero chance we will be able to electrify all personal mobility let alone the elephants in the room being construction equipment, planes of all sorts and above all marine vessels that ship our goods globally.
EVs are well suited for a couple use cases but far from a monolithic solution.
It is beyond me how a group this large actually thinks that ICEs are facing “death”.
Once line is done going up in that field, i sincerely hope the discussion around this will mature and become less histerical.
Because they’ll still make money from it.
Because they are selling a sports car. They’re not targeting the same audience as your typical car manufacturer.