Throw Away Culture

[thollandpe]

Totally. I feel a small sense of guilt that we're not currently running one, yet the most recent thing I read about them is that the 'payback' before they become more environmentally friendly than an engine-based car is around 10yrs...

I’m skeptical at that number. Yes an electric car has more embodied energy than a comparable engine-driven car. But what’s comparable? Ain’t no way it takes more energy to make a Leaf than a QX80. That’s why the behemoth costs more up front. And nobody ever asks what the payback is on an $80,000 luxury SUV.

Another wrinkle is, at least here in the US, you can buy renewable energy to power an electric car (and everything else you plug in). And that’s not just buying solar panels for your house. I buy the output from solar panels that some company installed on a landfill about 40 miles away.

Compare that to the carbon emissions from an average engine-driven vehicle — 4.6 metric tons per year. That may be an odorless, colorless gas coming out of that tailpipe, but at the end of a year those emissions weigh more than the car, maybe four times more. Embodied vs. operational energy.

I’d be surprised if the payback of the additional embodied energy in an electric car isn’t way quicker than a decade.

[thollandpe]

FYI

Comparative life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of a mid-size BEV and ICE vehicle

International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statist...nd-ice-vehicle
Licence: CC BY 4.0

[echappist]

FYI

Comparative life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of a mid-size BEV and ICE vehicle
International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statist...nd-ice-vehicle
Licence: CC BY 4.0

I'm afraid that the error bars are masking a lot of issues here. I posted about this last year re: one specific example where the ICE and EV are as comparable as they can get (Volvo's 40-series SUVs).

The C40 is an all-electric small SUV. XC40 is the corresponding small SUV at least partially powered by an ICE: there's a pure-ICE version and a hybrid version of the XC40.

First a mea culpa. I misread things when I read about this last year, and the difference is not 59 tons CO2 for the ICE vs 50 tons CO2 for the EV on EU grid. That difference is actually 59 vs 42 tons. The 50 ton figure for the EV is for world grid (presumably showing the contribution from the utilization of coal or oil to generate electricity). Also note that only with true renewables, does the difference get to the level where CO2 production of the pure-EV is half of that of the pure-ICE

Few other things to note: at least for certain types of driving, it would appear that the full EV isn't much better than the hybrid (which I think has a ~35-40 mile range in mild conditions).

[thollandpe]

I'm afraid that the error bars are masking a lot of issues here. I posted about this last year re: one specific example where the ICE and EV are as comparable as they can get (Volvo's 40-series SUVs).

The C40 is an all-electric small SUV. XC40 is the corresponding small SUV at least partially powered by an ICE: there's a pure-ICE version and a hybrid version of the XC40.

First a mea culpa. I misread things when I read about this last year, and the difference is not 59 tons CO2 for the ICE vs 50 tons CO2 for the EV on EU grid. That difference is actually 59 vs 42 tons. The 50 ton figure for the EV is for world grid (presumably showing the contribution from the utilization of coal or oil to generate electricity). Also note that only with true renewables, does the difference get to the level where CO2 production of the pure-EV is half of that of the pure-ICE

Few other things to note: at least for certain types of driving, it would appear that the full EV isn't much better than the hybrid (which I think has a ~35-40 mile range in mild conditions).

e-chap, I have a question on Volvo's calcs.

Why is the carbon footprint for the Li-ion battery modules the same for the C40 Recharge (EV) and the XC40 Recharge (hybrid)? That seems off to me. A Leaf (EV) has a 40-kWh battery that weighs 670 lb., and a Prius plug-in has an 8.8-kWh battery that weighs 180 lb. I'd expect the battery footprint of the hybrid to be a fraction of that for the EV. But the footprint for making the rest of the car should be higher, since a hybrid has both propulsion systems. So maybe it's a wash.

Anyhow, Volvo and IEA seem to say the same thing, that the lifetime carbon footprint for the EV is less than that of a similar car with an internal combustion engine, even when the battery is accounted for. Which makes sense, since Volvo's going all-EV by 2030.

The other thing that report says is the payback for the EV's larger manufacturing (embodied carbon) footprint happens in less than 10 years. Using 13,500 miles a year, that occurs between 2.2 years (renewable electricity) and 5 years (global electricity mix).

[vertical_doug]

e-chap, I have a question on Volvo's calcs.

Why is the carbon footprint for the Li-ion battery modules the same for the C40 Recharge (EV) and the XC40 Recharge (hybrid)? That seems off to me. A Leaf (EV) has a 40-kWh battery that weighs 670 lb., and a Prius plug-in has an 8.8-kWh battery that weighs 180 lb. I'd expect the battery footprint of the hybrid to be a fraction of that for the EV. But the footprint for making the rest of the car should be higher, since a hybrid has both propulsion systems. So maybe it's a wash.

Anyhow, Volvo and IEA seem to say the same thing, that the lifetime carbon footprint for the EV is less than that of a similar car with an internal combustion engine, even when the battery is accounted for. Which makes sense, since Volvo's going all-EV by 2030.

The other thing that report says is the payback for the EV's larger manufacturing (embodied carbon) footprint happens in less than 10 years. Using 13,500 miles a year, that occurs between 2.2 years (renewable electricity) and 5 years (global electricity mix).

True, but 53% of the EV market is china and with their 65% coal share for electricity generation roughly 25% renewable (Nuclear and NatGas are rounding errors 5 & 5 ) , EVs in China are currently dirtier than ICE.

EU is 40% renewable, 30% Nuke, 15 Gas, 15 Coal.

If we do the math, I think the entirety of EV market to date has had zero net impact on GHG emissions ...
We are now probably at the point to beginning getting small net savings globally....

There are no magic bullets outside of consuming less.

[Chik]

Did anyone say "car culture" yet?

[bigbill]

I hope that this project is successful. https://ktla.com/news/california/con...-set-to-begin/ If a high speed train between LA and Las Vegas can demonstrate the utility of building high speed rail, perhaps more cities can connect with rail, especially out west where cars are king because of distances. Vegas is the gambling capital, but it's also home to dozens of trade shows that highlight technology.

[COVRTDESIGN]

I got a Dyson vacuum and a Kelty 85 internal frame pack yesterday. Some people just don't value their money. I just clean them up and resell for free money!

[thollandpe]

True, but 53% of the EV market is china and with their 65% coal share for electricity generation roughly 25% renewable (Nuclear and NatGas are rounding errors 5 & 5 ) , EVs in China are currently dirtier than ICE.

Let's ignore, for a minute, the obvious opportunities where EVs would be better like taxis, police cars, mail trucks, delivery vans, city buses, and cars that might spend an hour or two idling in traffic where their efficiency is zero and the fuel is being used (ironically or perversely) for air conditioning to reject engine heat from the passenger compartment. Let's also ignore any benefit from emissions in a tall smokestack instead of at street level, because we're looking at climate change and not directly at public health. Help me do the math.

Burning 65% coal to generate electricity, that's like the MROE grid here in the US. Their non-baseload emissions rate is 1.75 lb eCO2 per kWh (eGRID 2016).

EV that goes 4 miles per kWh, eCO2 emissions = 1/4 kWh/mi * 1.75 lb/kWh = 0.44 lb/mi

ICE car that gets 25 mpg, eCO2 emissions = 1/25 gal/mi * 19.4 lb/gal = 0.77 lb/mi

Who's the dirty bird?

There are no magic bullets outside of consuming less.

Amen, brother. But as Bill McKibben likes to say, there is silver buckshot.

[vertical_doug]

Let's ignore, for a minute, the obvious opportunities where EVs would be better like taxis, police cars, mail trucks, delivery vans, city buses, and cars that might spend an hour or two idling in traffic where their efficiency is zero and the fuel is being used (ironically or perversely) for air conditioning to reject engine heat from the passenger compartment. Let's also ignore any benefit from emissions in a tall smokestack instead of at street level, because we're looking at climate change and not directly at public health. Help me do the math.

Burning 65% coal to generate electricity, that's like the MROE grid here in the US. Their non-baseload emissions rate is 1.75 lb eCO2 per kWh (eGRID 2016).

EV that goes 4 miles per kWh, eCO2 emissions = 1/4 kWh/mi * 1.75 lb/kWh = 0.44 lb/mi

ICE car that gets 25 mpg, eCO2 emissions = 1/25 gal/mi * 19.4 lb/gal = 0.77 lb/mi

Who's the dirty bird?




Amen, brother. But as Bill McKibben likes to say, there is silver buckshot.

I agree with you on use phase, however, initial production cost is higher for the EV, and the USE phase shown in the model for Volvo is 200,000KM . I postulate that most EV in big cities will not drive anywhere near that in China.

Since most EV cars are less than 5 years old, I doubt many have hit the breakeven barrier for USE.

We can also play with the models. Model 3 gets about 4.4 miles per KWH, NIO ES8 about 3.

With your use case, the breakeven is 44 mpg for my ice car. A hard lift but not impossible...

My point is the incremental savings with EV is really marginal in my opinion. Ultimately, you just don't need a car.
If you really want to see what is incredbile- throw nuclear into the GRID. France is like 86grams per KWH whereas Germany is 366. Difference is Germany is shutting their nukes.
Go to iceland or norway, the the carbon intensity of the grid is really a unbelievable low number in the 20's...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/c...ty-electricity

And for what it is worth, South Africa and Australia are both worse than China by a lot....
I no longer own a car and could not be happier..... although the clowns in my Garage, all have the worse cars imaginable.

[Saab2000]

It would be possible for me to live without a car and live in downtown Chicago. I’d have to take the L to the airport for work and anyone who does this regularly knows it’s a model on how not to lure people to use mass transit. Additionally, housing would cost me more. Finally, I did consider this because I actually really like downtown Chicago or life in The Loop but as a cyclist I was put off by the lack of decent riding options. There are some and the suburbs are hardly inspiring but it can be made to work. Urban cycling in the a city of Chicago is as bad as I’ve ever seen it in a large city.

And suburban life in the States almost by definition requires a car. I opted for an EV and so far generally feel I’ve made a reasonable investment in what I believe will be a green technology that’s also very useful and practical for daily life.

[72gmc]

And suburban life in the States almost by definition requires a car.

I spent a long weekend touring several college campuses with my wife and kid, and it occurred to me that this is also the case for some colleges. Sporadic transit, limited on-campus options for food (especially on weekends) and non-walkable distances to town.

[bigbill]

I can't live without a car because of where I've chosen to live. There is no public transportation that reaches me. If you went back 100 years, there would be a train station half a mile away with passenger service from LA to Chicago. As a nation, especially out west, we transitioned to the automobile in the first half of the 20th century. Santa Fe stopped passenger service in the early 70s, and Amtrak sightings are rare, although I live close to their travel route. Trucking took over from rail service, but it's shifting back to rail because it's cheaper per ton than trucking. BNSF operates the tracks that roughly follow I-40, and freight trains pass by every ten minutes. It is common for eastbound trains (loaded in Long Beach) to have 5-9 locomotives and be extremely long.

Now that I'm retired, I plan my trips to town for shopping, appointments, teaching classes, etc, so I make the most out of the drive. My F250 is for pulling our travel trailer. We make at least one trip a month with it and make it our home in the summer. Without a trailer, my truck gets around 22 mpg, so a tank of gas will last a month. Later this summer, we're getting my 2018 Escape back from my son for running errands. It gets 30+ mpg and can still carry a full load of soap making supplies from Phoenix.

[Saab2000]

I can't live without a car because of where I've chosen to live. There is no public transportation that reaches me. If you went back 100 years, there would be a train station half a mile away with passenger service from LA to Chicago. As a nation, especially out west, we transitioned to the automobile in the first half of the 20th century. Santa Fe stopped passenger service in the early 70s, and Amtrak sightings are rare, although I live close to their travel route. Trucking took over from rail service, but it's shifting back to rail because it's cheaper per ton than trucking. BNSF operates the tracks that roughly follow I-40, and freight trains pass by every ten minutes. It is common for eastbound trains (loaded in Long Beach) to have 5-9 locomotives and be extremely long.

Now that I'm retired, I plan my trips to town for shopping, appointments, teaching classes, etc, so I make the most out of the drive. My F250 is for pulling our travel trailer. We make at least one trip a month with it and make it our home in the summer. Without a trailer, my truck gets around 22 mpg, so a tank of gas will last a month. Later this summer, we're getting my 2018 Escape back from my son for running errands. It gets 30+ mpg and can still carry a full load of soap making supplies from Phoenix.

When I take Metra Rail (not the same thing as the L - Metra is fine, though seemingly pulled straight out of 1968) into Chicago it is pulled by a BNSF locomotive on the line I live on. Interestingly, my town is the first stop on the westbound routes from Chicago’s Union Station, so were I to take Amtrak westward, I could hop on about two to three miles from my house and get to the west coast a couple days later. I actually want to do this. But then I look at the price (not inexpensive at all) and remind myself that I work for an airline that can get me there for free in 3-4 hours.

But I do want to take a train journey across the States one day.

Sorry for the drift.

[Scott G.]

I can't live without a car because of where I've chosen to live. There is no public transportation that reaches me. If you went back 100 years, [snip]

Fun site, maps of the city rail lines.

1944

Cincinnati-1944.jpg

2023

2023 Cincinnati.jpg



http://tundria.com/trams/USA/Cincinnati-1944.php

[bigbill]

When I take Metra Rail (not the same thing as the L - Metra is fine, though seemingly pulled straight out of 1968) into Chicago it is pulled by a BNSF locomotive on the line I live on. Interestingly, my town is the first stop on the westbound routes from Chicago’s Union Station, so were I to take Amtrak westward, I could hop on about two to three miles from my house and get to the west coast a couple days later. I actually want to do this. But then I look at the price (not inexpensive at all) and remind myself that I work for an airline that can get me there for free in 3-4 hours.

But I do want to take a train journey across the States one day.

Sorry for the drift.

I looked at taking that trip but it is expensive compared to air travel. I saw it roll through town early one morning heading west which meant it passed through the really great parts of the southwest in the dark. I think that defeats the purpose of taking the train. The community education class I taught two weeks ago covered the Harvey Houses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Harvey_Company

[vertical_doug]

My point is we lived in a carbon cheap society for so long, that our lifestyle choices by default are extremely carbon intensive.
For most people, climate change maybe crosses their mind but doesn't always equal lifestyle choices. Moreover, they really have limited option beyond carbon energy.

My apartment is super efficient, I don't drive, take public transport but because I fly a lot, my carbon footprint from flying is probably equivalent to driving a car averaging 25 mpg, 35,000 miles a year. And that is after making the choice to fly economy. If I flew business, it'd be closer to 100,000/ I have friends who even if they speak about climate change, will not fly economy because of status. Which is why the private jet-setter preaching climate change is such a oxymoron. My at status before the planet. (We're doomed)
Basically we have a society built on carbon intensive energy over 200 years. How and how quickly we can transition away from this, is the elephant in the room. Everything must change.

Patagonia did publish the carbon footprint chronicles for some of their products in 2012. In general, the reality was so horrible with modern global production chains, that it just ended up being depressing.

They switched by setting a goal of being carbon neutral by 2025. I don't know if they will make it. . .
https://www.patagonia.com/climate-goals/

https://www.patagonia.com/stories/20...ory-74769.html

On a final note, Tesla released the Master Plan III for Sustainable Energy for all of Earth.
Business Analysts find it disappointing, they wanted ne car models...

https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesl...lan-Part-3.pdf

[Chik]

My point is the incremental savings with EV is really marginal in my opinion.

In the real world, the calculations don't stop there. One would take that marginal savings per unit and multiply by the number of units out there or projected to be out there. The suggestion is that the product of those two numbers is a substantial one. It's like making some proper money from a low margin, high volume business.

Since Patagonia was mentioned and there seem to be many Patagonia fans on this forum, I have a question about Patagonia. What is their environmental cred based on? Isn't the bulk of their assortment apparel made of plastic fabrics, some of which are DWR-treated with forever chemicals, that shed micro-plastic and forever chemical bits all over the place, particularly when they are laundered and polluting the water system?

[vertical_doug]

In the real world, the calculations don't stop there. One would take that marginal savings per unit and multiply by the number of units out there or projected to be out there. The suggestion is that the product of those two numbers is a substantial one. It's like making some proper money from a low margin, high volume business.

Since Patagonia was mentioned and there seem to be many Patagonia fans on this forum, I have a question about Patagonia. What is their environmental cred based on? Isn't the bulk of their assortment apparel made of plastic fabrics, some of which are DWR-treated with forever chemicals, that shed micro-plastic and forever chemical bits all over the place, particularly when they are laundered and polluting the water system?

I think the point I am making with EVs and you are making with Patagonia, is you can get cred with some marginal improvements, but in reality there is still an elephant in the room no one wants to talk about because the elephant is hard to deal with. Maybe it is a save it for later mindset, or maybe let's tackle the easy stuff first.

All true and valid points....or maybe we never get to the elephant.

I can give you the example of Japan. With the incredible volcanic activity on the island, they could really develop geothermal to a large scale. Unfortunately, there is political opposition from people who own Hot Spring Inns. They are afraid it will affect the water.

Or closer to home on the East Coast, the people opposing windfarms off the coast of New England, probably all believe in climate change, but are willing to put status and home values first before allowing renewables.

[thollandpe]

Hey hey hey — Debbie Downer!

Look at Interface, the carpet company, if you want to see sustainability in action in the commercial marketplace. Real changes and real effects while becoming and staying a leader in the industry. They’re a small part of a much larger industry, non-residential construction, that has been radically transformed over the past few decades. And they were on the forefront.

And in our own little corner of the world, check out Clif Bar.

It’s quite possible to participate in today’s society and maintain a low or zero carbon lifestyle. Even with air travel (I can’t speak to that personally). What’s that quote about how people saying that something can’t be done should not interrupt those who are busy doing it?

PS Kudos to you all and anyone who is thinking about and doing things to fix these vexing problems. Just because you’re not going all the way does not mean it’s not good enough. Better is better. We didn’t get here in one fell swoop, and we must find our way out one step at a time. It’s a logical fallacy that any solution must solve all problems to be a valid solution. And yet we fall for it so often when discussing things like electric vehicles, solar power, anything and everything “green”.