[PreludeSH]

Current way of power generation might not be very clean start to end of EVs. I think it will change once we get more decentralized way of producing power without the giant coal and nuclear power plants. We need smaller nuclear plants that will make handling a catastophe easier while providing clean energy.

Since solar energy source need not be mined and every available everywhere, we will come up with methods to even produce some form of intermediate store for power other than batteries.

[ferrarirules]

Originally Posted by Venky03

They considered the price of base variant of Grand Vitara but the mileage of strong hybrid, and for EVs they have assumed mandatory cost for battery replacement, how convenient!

Thanks for highlighting the most crucial points that we missed in the "research". Intelli Hybrid or Smart Hybrid or any other moniker's they given them are just a engine start-stop feature. There is no electric powertrain driving the car. And in their dreams does mild hybrid car gives an average of almost 28 kmpl. An full hybrid car gives an average of 27-28 kmpl when driven extremely cautiously.

These studies are simply for eyewashing people into buying the mild hybrid thinking that they will be getting a good mileage.

Shame that the premier institutes in this country are churning out such lopsided and misinformed research/studies.

On replacement of battery, if it is to be considered, cannot be considered at an outright cost of new battery as the existing battery has a huge demand in second hand market for BeSS systems. So the existing battery will have a considerable residual cost.

[Joe367]

Originally Posted by Aroy

The article is not very far from truth. You have just not taken into account the pollution load of the whole cycle.

That's because most of these life cycle analysis conveniently misses out on important stuff when it comes to fossil fuels. 💁 Video shared by electric_eel above gives us much more insight into these matters. I recommend it to everyone, much better researched than all the short 'anti-ev' videos circulated online.

Also I feel it's important to reduce our dependency on oil for transportation. It's always better to have a choice.

[Shresth_EV]

At this point idk which of the IITK study to believe

EV better, 2021, collabed with ICCT, the ones who discovered VW dieselgate

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/kanp...w/86761393.cms

EV worse, 2022 but sponsored by Saudi AramCo who definitely do not have any vested interest in pushing oil products — interestingly no mention of hybrid in the slightest because they reduce oil imports however small

EV worse, 2023, sponsored by Japanese New Energy Development Organisation who definitely do not have any vested interest in pushing hybrid which makes up japans biggest exports after electronics

I’m not taking their word when their own verdict keeps changing every year with new batch of Mtech and PhD students.

And I say this as a student of an NIT myself.

[Independent study by ICCT, EV 19% better today and 34% better projected 2030](https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploa...a-sept21_0.pdf)

The fact that the premier institutions have been reduced to “science for hire” is really saddening. They know very well, the avg Indian who just reads headlines and goes “IIT ki study hai toh sahi hi hogi” (trans > Its an IIT study so it must be true after all)

Glaring flaws in the report which I found while reading it :

1. ⁠PDF pg 6 (indexed 5) : Sponsored by Japanese New Energy Development Organisation which has vested interest in hybrid technology which also very conveniently happens to be the favourable tech in the report results

2. ⁠Indexed pg11 and indexed page 47 show disparity in the mileage/range considered for TCO analysis. If the “real world range/mileage” is being used for emissions calculations (LCA) then why not for TCO?

3. ⁠Same page, service costs are assumed same for all kona, eHEV and City. The three vehicles which is obviously not the case.

It’s not even that these numbers cannot be sourced from public domain. Yet the servicing cost seems to be odd with EVs as baseline and other vehicles having same servicing which I can attest, is not the case. Maybe IITians get concessions at dealerships by wearing insti merch clothes /s

4. ⁠The report assumes 1x battery replacement for both, EVs and HEVs but does not consider relative degradation. As such, designed capacity of LFP EV is 3000cycles.

Even if we give benefit of doubt and provide same cycles to HEVs battery, the fact of matter remains that the hybrid battery will be cycled more frequently than EV battery with 20k km per annum running. That is to say, that a hybrid battery will need more replacements over the considered research driving cycle (20K km per year) if one is to maintain the “30kmpl mileage on hybrid” which they assume.

at the 240km range assumed for Nexon EV, the battery would be charged fully 7 times per month and 84 times per year. Cycles over 2,00,000 km = 840. Let us assume we still change the battery whether or not it is in peak condition or not.

for HEVs, there is not solid way to count cycles since it is very fickle as to when it will use only the battery, only the engine and when it is in combined mode. It’s dependent on lot of factors. Assuming the 0.746kWh capacity in the GV and same energy consumption as Nexon EV due to similar kerb weight at 125Wh/km as assumed for Nexon EV by the report, the electric range is 6km on a good day. At 20k km per year, your hybrid battery will complete 3333 cycles. The mileage will now fall this point on due to degradation of battery.

these figures are also in public domain. Prius has been a long term hybrid car with enough sales to give a big dataset and long enough to provide valid info regarding ageing and degradation.

the report therefore, should assume an adjusted formula for hybrid mileage which includes the degradation or else, count suitable number of battery replacements to keep mileage as good as day one. I should clarify at this point that while Prius has lot of data on battery life, most owners do not end up replacing the battery, much like EV owners due to the cost which approaches $1700 for OEM and $1100 for 3rd party. I must also clarify that this generation of Prius used NiMH

5. The M15D-FXE I3 used in GV/hyry is mechanically same as the M15A-FXE used in Yaris hybrid for UK market. The tailpipe emission itself quoted for Yaris hybrid there is 112gCO2/km. It makes it quite fishy that the rest of the LCA for hybrid is just 167gCO2/km despite battery production and oil extraction/refining/transport — either that or they didn’t count oil extraction, transport and refining at all — which is even worse for a report that claims to be “cradle to grave” study.

6. Coming to the latter, oil transport and refining emissions are considered, not extraction, which is fair imho since they assume full crude import from ME. However the numbers for refinery efficiency they are using are sourced from USA as quoted.

Processes for crude oil refining in India are the same as that of the USA. Imported crude oil comes from the Middle East and the UAE. Crude is transported to India and then refined in Indian refineries

, indexed page 23/pdf page 24

Further, no footnotes or references are provided for the method used to actually calculate refinery emissions

7. Page 28 they assume electricity infra to be same as USA again. If all the datapoint assumptions are from USA including grid and oil refining, then how come the result is opposite from the EV studies done in USA by their educational organisations?

https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploa...EN-jul2021.pdf

This study compares USA EVs LCA with FCEVs, Hybrids and ICE. The result says in USA, EVs are 60-68% cleaner as of today. And in india as well, they are cleaner by 19%. Yet, our esteemed IITK researchers, DESPITE lifting all data points for oil refining and electricity production from USA, how come the result is coming different from what the studies in USA have concluded?

8. They have used the common figure of 123kgCO2/kWh for battery production but it cannot be universally applied because the Nexon EV uses LFP which is a different chemistry than the NMC622 that Toyota is using in other lithium ion hybrid (they still use NiMH battery in Camry hybrid)

to say NMC production causes same emissions as LFP is to say that butter chicken uses same ingredients as shahi paneer

secondly, according to their own stats, the Nexon battery at 30kWh should cause 18.57gCO2/km not 187. (Averaged over 2,00,000km).

9. Minor nitpicks :

a. For an institution whose examination (JEE) has the first chapter as units and dimensions, they have literally written 177.6V and 172.8V as under battery capacity for hybrid when in fact it’s the HV battery voltage not capacity. How can an IIT get confused between volt and kWh? When GV and eHEV battery capacity is in public domain (746Wh and 784Wh)

b. Throughout the report, the actual footnotes which are required are not present. Examples being, they’ve literally put footnotes for Googlable stuff like price of cars and their specs. We get ZERO footnotes for the reference to the data which they use for — and now that people mentioned it, even these googlable datapoints are wrong (ie using the price of base variant SHVS but mileage of top trim strong hybrid)

i) Oil refining emissions

ii) Coal energy production emissions

iii) tailpipe emissions of the vehicles in question (ARAI does NOT publish emissions which is why I raised the flaw (5) above)

iv) source of the battery production emissions

c. Page 10 and 11 mention “On board DC charger” which is a non existent part. DC charger is literally outside the car to convert the electricity before reaching the charging port. No EV has a DC onboard charger. And again, got units wrong. Should be in kW not minutes. They could refactor the table cell as charging time. But on board charger is a non existent part. This is the biggest nitpick imho because as the premier engineering college, they don’t even know the basics of EV layout which I as a customer (not to brag) knows.

[vipul_singh]

Originally Posted by mohanphadnis

I want to know who was sponsoring this study. Something tells me it will be two Japanese manufacturers that have been left far behind in the EV race.

IMO, the Japanese are right about their overall approach to electrification. Their approach seems to be oriented towards offering *both* consumer and environmental benefits, instead of one to the detriment of another.

Till the time the battery chemistry itself changes, EVs are a downgrade from even existing ICE vehicles from a consumer perspective. Li-ion has seen 30 years of development, but the charging time required is still too high. And before one cites '30 mins to 80%', current ICE vehicles charge from 0 to 100% in 2 mins flat. There are many videos on practical challenges aroung pure BEVs, but here's one from just yesterday:

https://youtu.be/nXQT7vPq9iY?feature=shared

We are, of course, being asked to make a sacrifice 'for sustainability', so let's continue on.

In geopolitical terms, we should use Li-Ion batteries judiciously, considering which country owns the biggest chunk of the Li-ion value chain. Maximum CO2 reduction with least Li-Ion battery usage is possible with PHEVs which has been the Japanese focus for long. The idea is to have only one vehicle, with enough battery range to perform typical daily runs on battery power, which still retaining the capability to do longer runs. Li-ion batteries being installed on 5 PHEVs can therefore have a bigger environmental impact that using all that battery capacity on a single EV.

We also seem to be creating a fresh problem of Li battery recycling, much like the plastics industry which sold us the noble *idea* of recyclability while the execution remains far behind to this day. While we are pushed to keep segregating our household waste while the oceans fill up with plastic anyway, even nestling into the bodies of deep sea fish. Selling unsustainable tech in the name of recyclability is something we have seen before.

Finally, on 'oh but CO2, net zero etc.', we have been here before too. Some 15 years ago, diesels were heavily promoted by European governments based on the 'grams of CO2 per km' parameter. To make it work, they allowed a much lower emissions control standard for diesels than petrol vehicles - something which got corrected only with Euro 6. In the meantime, cities began choking up on diesel fumes, decreasing quality of life for residents. Chasing a narrowly chosen set of parameters ('the solution') while ignoring other issues is typical of policymakers worldwide and has made the world what it is today.

Once we are actually able to move away from Li-Ion (and LiFePO4), then pure BEVs *could* be the right idea. But I would wait for such a chemistry to actually move to production before going all-in with current battery tech as 'the solution'. Hope to see solid state batteries address some of the current issues with Li-ion and be actually available in production vehicles. If that happens, it would be interesting to revisit the points above.

[PreludeSH]

Originally Posted by vipul_singh

Once we are actually able to move away from Li-Ion (and LiFePO4), then pure BEVs *could* be the right idea. But I would wait for such a chemistry to actually move to production before going all-in with current battery tech as 'the solution'. Hope to see solid state batteries address some of the current issues with Li-ion and be actually available in production vehicles. If that happens, it would be interesting to revisit the points above.

Agree. The current state of batteries will not help EVs become mainstream. People are so anxious about their phones and buy power banks to alleviate it. My hometown is 280 kms. Even if I can go home in one charge, charging overnight would be a problem and with power supply issues you can never be sure. Plus I drive around and visit villages.

In US, with the kind of long distances they do in their cars, it will be difficult.

You can do it with planning but I can use my bicycle if I really want to show I care about environment.

[Kosfactor]

From a western world perspective (China is its own world) , Tesla made EVs a cool thing, not by environment credentials but performance, cool features etc. It became a cook thing to own for the affluent crowd , like buying a sports car but you end up daily driving it.

The EV buyers our there are not looking for an EV, they want Tesla, that's it.

Hybrids that use existing infrastructure will be a lot less wasteful no doubt, the all-in on EV strategy will bite back a lot of them sooner or later.

[electric_eel]

Originally Posted by vipul_singh

IMO, the Japanese are right about their overall approach to electrification. Their approach seems to be oriented towards offering *both* consumer and environmental benefits, instead of one to the detriment of another.

This thread is about the said IITK study and not about which is better. As many has pointed out the study is a sham. And it is sponsored by the same "Japanese approach" which definitely means there is a conflict of interest. One can make a case of taking research funding from Aramco or Toyota; in these days of misguided tightening of funding for universities in general and fundamental research in particular, ambitious researchers do end up taking funds even from dubious entities like the Templeton foundation (I am not justifying it). But then there should be a clear cut disclaimer right at the beginning of the paper and there should be clear cut section on the assumptions used. For example they should have a section clearly stating the assumptions used.

1. We have not accounted for oil extraction but we have accounted for Li extraction

2. We have not accounted for all the auxiliary consumables of ICE engines like engine oil etc.

It should not be left to the readers to figure this out or be "hidden in fine print" just to satisfy the legal requirements. Otherwise this would not be considered honest by any academic standards.

Also this fascination for "future technologies" like solid state batteries or green hydrogen, what exactly is the scientific justification. I have a suspicion it is just used as a conversation stopper and not out of genuine understanding by people who do not want to change their way of living (for the better).

For example, when solid state batteries make it (if at all) into the market we will use that instead of Li-Ion and take advantage of the infrastructure that is already setup. Why wait for it to come? The hydrogen car folks. How is it that you do not like the BEV's driving characteristics but like the Fuel cell's driving characteristic ? The drive train is the electric drive train plus an additional battery (like a hybrid). If you are asking for Hydrogen ICE then forget it (please read up a bit about Carnot cycle and 2nd law of thermodynamics).

Originally Posted by PreludeSH

Agree. The current state of batteries will not help EVs become mainstream. People are so anxious about their phones and buy power banks to alleviate it. My hometown is 280 kms.

If it does not work for you please dont buy it. Many of us have been successfully using it.
The superiority of the drive train, genuine automatic transmission (single gear transmission) , the convenience of home charging, and once in a while
planning for that one long drive will work out for most people. I for sure do not see a reason to go back to ICE or hybrid (wolf in sheep skin?). Do not use that as an excuse to support what I think is dishonest reporting.

That said I have to say that the particular lab (Engine's research lab) is a wonderful place to be and they have done interesting work in engine research, bio-diesel. It might be another fact that I think those are dead technologies but a university lab is where you explore such things even if it makes no immediate commercial justification.

And by the way some one made this comment about bad work coming from India's premier research institute. Well if it is relief for you, a few weeks ago there was this "Harvard study" which was equally dubious, if not more. So I think, in a perverted way, you can take solace in it.