[rAijin_]

Originally Posted by fuzzydealhunter

Here is a video of PluginIndia discussing the very same topic:
https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=zRNp...ectricVehicles

Thanks for sharing this video. Clearly shows the bigger picture of how much pollution we do from extracting the oil to transporting it to refining it. If we just move to EVs a majority of these will be removed from equation completely. Although we may still need to transport the batteries worldwide.

Originally Posted by VinNam

"The LCA report for the C40 Recharge shows that when charging it with electricity generated from clean sources, its lifecycle CO2 footprint comes down to approximately 27 tonnes of CO2, compared to 59 tonnes for an XC40 compact SUV powered by a combustion engine.

However, when drivers charge their C40 Recharge using an average global energy mix (which is generated for around 60% from fossil fuels), the car’s life cycle CO2 tonnage can increase to as much as 50 tonnes, significantly reducing the environmental gains versus a traditionally powered car.[/i]"

In case you haven't already seen the above video ( first quote ), please do see it.
The Volvo study talks about carbon footprint of batteries and about disposal of Batteries while keeping in dark the carbon footprint of extracting the oil to delivering it.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

One other major flaw with this report is the XC40 recharge is made in China, so all the materials and components have higher emissions due to electricity generated primarily from coal. The XC40 ICE compared here is made in Europe where the materials made have lesser emissions.

In case you haven't already seen the above video ( first quote ), please do see it.
The electricity required for EVs is far too less compared to refining and transporting Oil. The electricity requirement will reduce by a lot if we switch to EVs. Even though it may be generated primarily from coal, lesser amount of electricity would be generated.

[IshaanIan]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

This is so wrong, with the current battery technology, people are hardly noticing any drop in battery capacity in 5 years. For example, Tesla says their cars lose just 10% battery after 3.2 lakh km. This is a non issue, future battery tech will enable that 1.6million kms car.

Did some reading up of my own apparently the average battery degradation of a Tesla Model S is 2.3% every year. Which might seem okay but then again 8-10 years down the line the user will feel the effects of battery degradation. Also, Teslas are not sold everywhere yet there are loads of other EVs. These days it seems almost fashionable for any manufacturer to offer their B+ or C segment cars in EV guise as well. No idea if they adhere to the same standards as Tesla. To give you an example, another popular EV in California; the Nissan Leaf, suffers from an average battery degradation of 4% per year (I shudder to imagine what a Nexon or one of the many modern electric scooters might suffer in terms of battery degradation) which means its users will definitely suffer from the effects of degradation in 5 years time and after the battery is out of the US mandated 8 year warranty (think about why the law is even in place), it will dip below 70% health in which case the user will definitely have to think about replacing the car. On the other hand, most ICEs can run lacs and lacs of kilometers without suffering from much degradation at all if maintained well. This is why I feel EVs are just like consumer appliances; not what an expensive depreciating asset really ought to be like. Obviously when one pays 10-100x of what they do for a phone on one of these EVs, the battery will perform better but the principles of engineering are the same there's no hiding or dodging battery health degradation.

[sunilg33]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

Did some reading up of my own apparently the average battery degradation of a Tesla Model S is 2.3% every year. Which might seem okay but then again 8-10 years down the line the user will feel the effects of battery degradation. Also, Teslas are not sold everywhere yet there are loads of other EVs. These days it seems almost fashionable for any manufacturer to offer their B+ or C segment cars in EV guise as well. No idea if they adhere to the same standards as Tesla. To give you an example, another popular EV in California; the Nissan Leaf, suffers from an average battery degradation of 4% per year (I shudder to imagine what a Nexon or one of the many modern electric scooters might suffer in terms of battery degradation) which means its users will definitely suffer from the effects of degradation in 5 years time and after the battery is out of the US mandated 8 year warranty (think about why the law is even in place), it will dip below 70% health in which case the user will definitely have to think about replacing the car. On the other hand, most ICEs can run lacs and lacs of kilometers without suffering from much degradation at all if maintained well. This is why I feel EVs are just like consumer appliances; not what an expensive depreciating asset really ought to be like. Obviously when one pays 10-100x of what they do for a phone on one of these EVs, the battery will perform better but the principles of engineering are the same there's no hiding or dodging battery health degradation.

I think the battery degradation significantly depends on the number of recharges cycles and to an extent on the age as well. Any significant drop in battery capacity is over a 500 recharge cycle. Assuming a range of 500 km per charge we are talking over 2.5 lakh kilometers or more before we see any significant drop in the battery performance. With time the efficiencies will only improve. I feel that with proper charging infrastructure there is no stopping the EV juggernaut.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

To give you an example, another popular EV in California; the Nissan Leaf, suffers from an average battery degradation of 4% per year.

Nissan Leaf 1st gen has a battery which is of very old tech, on top of that it does not have liquid cooled battery pack. Every Nissan Leaf 1st gen cars have the battery degradation problems, more so in hot and cold climates.
Nissan Leaf 2nd gen though has a better battery but still does not have liquid cooled battery, though they degrade faster than other liquid cooled EVs.(Reason why the Nissan env200 performs so badly in Norway's cold, on the other thread).

Coming to Nexon EV, it uses liquid cooled LFP batteries. LFP batteries have higher cycle life(5000 cycles) and performs better in hot climates like ours. I do not know how good the batteries in Nexon EV are, but I hope the drop won't be more than 10-15% in 10 years, still usable with more charging stations.

Except for few Toyotas, I have almost never heard of ICE cars going beyond 3 lakh kms, for EVs we are talking about 16lakh kms with original battery and motors with minimal service.

[giri1.8]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Except for few Toyotas, I have almost never heard of ICE cars going beyond 3 lakh kms

Outside of India, 3L km is quite normal in developed countries with good infrastructure. We are not even taking about CVs, where diesel engines cross 12L km mark without much fuss.

[theabstractmind]

I take a realistic view towards life. And what I have learnt is that how much ever man tries, the nature balances out. Whether it is for the good or bad, can't say. We can slow down ageing, but not overcome death. Same thing goes for the nature. We have already taken the step towards destruction. The evolution of human race was the beginning of the journey.

You try to take fossil fuels out of the equation from the cars but introduce mining, electricity based on fossil fuels, and solid waste of batteries into it. The process of mining and solid waste also create ecological imbalance, perhaps more pronounced than just CO2 emissions. Are such ecological imbalances accounted for when propagating EVs?

Purposely keeping the comment open ended to promote discussion. I'm now taking the backseat and enjoy being a spectator.

[Electromotive]

OMG
Think of the plants!
What will the plants eat? Without all the delicious ICE exhaust, the plants and plankton will starve. Oh noooh.

EVs will deny me the warmth of the smog during the night and the roar of the engines during the day. If I don't smell the noxious, sweet hydrocarbons the well maintained CVs keep belching, how will I know all is well with the world?

[careind]

Putting on the cynic's hat, Sweden is the world leader in using alternative technology. So they could be making a case for enhancing the services their countrymen are offering in alternative energy technology. The obvious is hidden in the obscure clauses

This can be reduced to less than 30k miles if EVs are charged with green energy.

Another thing is that, with ICE the pollution is way distributed. With EVs even if the initial pollution is more, it is concentrated to the manufacturing plants. It is anybody's guess behind whose hides the governments over the world would be after when they get into the next phase of the "pollution reduction" strategy, now that it is in nicely concentrated locales. The published datapoints would serve as good rearguard actions for the auto majors.
There is already a lot of noise being generated on how polluting battery manufacturing is, albeit in concentrated locales.

[Aish_4761]

Indeed!
However, I personally feel that it is not the production of B-EVs in large numbers which is concerning here, but the pollution that would be caused at the end of life cycle of these batteries.

Studies have shown that mining lithium is way cheaper than recycling it from used batteries, and then we all know human greed! The sheer fact that a greater percentage of such batteries will find their way into waste landfills is disturbing, yet no one talks about that!

Countries like India do not have any significant infrastructure to support mass adoption of B-EV or FC-EV and, since FC-EVs have fewer demerits from carbon footprint perspective, logically, countries like ours should emphasize more on them, as we have to begin almost fresh in both cases. So, shouldn't we be pouring our money to opt for a long term change, specifically if it is greener?

[hdman]

More on this:

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

[adityadeva]

Originally Posted by VinNam

https://www.greencarcongress.com/202...-volvolca.html

The above link should shed further light.

the car’s life cycle CO2 tonnage can increase to as much as 50 tonnes, significantly reducing the environmental gains versus a traditionally powered car."

I would put Elon Musks argument against this

https://youtube.com/watch?v=L0R0kipOTfE?feature=share

[EV Fan]

Originally Posted by RahulNagaraj

A new study by Volvo shows that manufacturing EVs generate 70 per cent more emissions compared to the production of conventional fossil-fueled cars.

Originally Posted by fuzzydealhunter

Not taking any sides here but it looks like cherry picked data to me.

Intrestingly if you properly read through the study, there are quite a few important things that have been dicounted which works in favor of the ICE variant They are in the fine print if you read it carefully.
(there might be some in favour of electric car but my EV Fan brain could not spot them ):

A few intresting ones:
Not accounting for "Maintenance in use phase"(Page 16 of study). ICE cars usually have higher maintenance requirements than Electric - engine oil, transmission oil, engine parts etc. Even a well maintained ICE car has quite an inventory of parts that are replaced as SOP before it hits the 2 Lakh marker. So the CO2 emission for production & consumption of these have not been accounted as it was "Out of Scope Definition".
Tailpipe emission is assumed to be "163 g CO2/km for the XC40 ICE" (Page 20 in study). This seems to match the test condition & not real life scenarios. Generally around 30% increase is easily observed in test vs real life scenarios. Most of the recent studies pin the average at closer to 200. Sounds small but mutliply it with 2Lakh and the "Footprint" figure changes. Somehow they did not account for increased emission as the vehicle ages, basically as its efficiency drops(Kitna Deti Hai). Morover the test scenarios never factor for congestion, studies show for congested populations centres - average goes even higher due to increased idling conditions.
"Only carbon dioxide emissions are included methane and nitrous oxide emissions (CH4 and N2O) are excluded" as it is a minor fraction (page 15 of study). This and lack of any health/ pollution analysis indicates that the study does not consider impact in terms of proximity to population centres.
"Electricity production is modelled according to regional (global or EU28) grid mix or as specific energy source (wind)" (Page 20 of Study). Somehow the Global Energy Mix will remain same even as someone does 2Lakh km (presumably in an instant and not in 5-10years). They somehow could not calculate & forecast for the Global Energy Mix trend, something that is improving aggressively due to increased renewables/year.

Scientific studies, no matter who does it , always has System Boundaries, Assumptions & Limitations. Even with same data two similar studies can have different results based on the System boundaries i.e. what all factors you want to include or not. Give this same data to a team at Tesla or Environmental Activist's, and the Footprint result will definitely be different.

For anyone who is intrested can go through the Volvo's document here:
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-...eport-xc40.pdf

While both ICE & Electric cars have different sources of CO2 generation i think it would be easier to monitor & regulate emission norms from hundreds of power plants (generating electricity for millions of electric cars) as opposed to trying to monitor & regulate emissions from millions of ICE cars.