EVs are 61% cleaner than gas in Minnesota

Status
Not open for further replies.

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,958
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
Here is a lifecycle analysis from the Argonne GREET model Argonne GREET Battery Lifecycle Analysis. It goes into the exact details you are claiming they did not account for. I am not sure that this specific model is what was used for this data, but I doubt they would have used a less comprehensive one.
This is exactly what I am looking for, thank you!
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
So after reading it for yourself, and commenting on the quotes I pulled from it that 100% disprove your statement of them not addressing battery manufacturing's effect, you are going to dig your heels in and continue to say that they do not factor in the manufacturing of batteries into their calculation? If that is the way this is going to be then I'll just stop now and move on.
You've disproven that they don't reference it, and I already thanked you for that, however the language is so ambiguous that I am not convinced that we are looking at the same sort of data provided in the paper you just linked. This statement, from that paper, is exactly what I'm looking for:
Originally Posted By: Argonne
Quantifying material and energy flows in a product life-cycle is an activity of the inventory stage of LCA, often referred to as life-cycle inventory (LCI) analysis. Ideally, the material and energy life-cycle data gathered in an LCI are fully speciated. By this we mean that the purchased (or direct) energy units (liter [L], kilowatt-hour [kWh], cubic meter [m3], and kilogram [kg]) and specific material consumptions (kilograms) are given. Studies that provide greater detail instill more confidence in the results and generally present a more complete picture of the product and its manufacturing processes, thereby enabling better environmental assessments. The advantage of additional detail helps to identify opportunities for product or process improvement — an important objective of LCA.
And I don't feel it is unreasonable to want to see exactly what they've factored in when this type of claim is being presented shrug
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,958
Location
Ontario, Canada
Another statement from that paper:
Quote:
As mentioned above, detailed process information and flow are most desirable for LCI efforts. Unfortunately, for competitive or proprietary reasons, detailed product assembly information about processes or products is often not provided by manufacturers, whether for batteries or other products. If such detail is not available, then rolled-up energy and materials information must suffice. However, for the reasons mentioned earlier, such information is of lower quality. In the absence of process life-cycle data, some authors employ economic input/output (EIO) energy data. We have not included such data in this review, since the associated analyses are generally devoid of process detail. Such detail, typically included in traditional or process chain LCA, permits the identification of product environmental improvement opportunities — a core objective of LCA
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,958
Location
Ontario, Canada
So far, using the data provided in the paper provided by MotoTribologist, and looking at Lithium Ion batteries, we have the following:
Code:
Cradle-to-Gate Life-Cycle Energy (MJ/kg) Results for Five Battery Systems(a)

Battery      Note      Emp      Ercycl      Emnf      Ectg           Reference

Li-ion 
             NCA-G     93.3     4.8         32        125.3         Ishihara et al. (website)
             LMO-G     113      3.6         30        143           Ishihara et al. ( website)
             NCA-G     53–80    25–37b      96–144    149-224       Rydh and Sanden 2005
                       112.9                91.5      204.4         GREET 2.7
             NCA-G                                    222c          Umicore Slide/Virgin Materials
             NCA-G                                    62.9c         Umicore Slide/Recycled Materials


(a) - See Section 3.1.4 for Li-ion nomenclature; Ercycl denotes energy to recycle the battery; see Table A-1 for megajoule/watt-hour values.
b - Reported as material production energy using recycled materials.
c - These values are per cell
The Ectg column is the one we are interested in, which gives us the Cradle-to-Gate production energy in MJ/kg for the various types of Li-ion batteries. And from the previous table, a Li-ion battery for EV applications has a Specific Energy of 75Wh/kg. They then later go on to state:
Quote:
A summary of PEj values for materials that comprise Li-ion batteries appears in Table 9. An inspection of the table reveals a considerable dearth of energy information on Li-ion battery materials, whether for anodes, cathodes, or electrolytes. More specifically, PEj data for Li-ion battery constituent materials, such as LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 and most of the other materials listed in Table 8, are sorely lacking. More information is needed about the reaction pathways from the commodity materials to the materials that make up the battery components listed in Table 8. Because of this, we are unable to estimate the material production energy for these batteries. Nevertheless, some energy data for these batteries are listed in Table 2.
Which is unfortunate. Then also:
Quote:
3.2.4 Lithium-Ion Batteries The manufacturing of these batteries consists of a number of processes that include: (1) preparation of cathode pastes and cathodes from purchased lithium metal oxides, LiMexOy, (Me = Ni, Co, Fe, Mn), binders, aluminum strips, and solvent; (2) preparation of anodes from graphite pastes and copper strips; (3) assembly of anodes and cathodes separated by a separator strip; (4) addition of electrolyte; (5) charging of cells; and (6) final assembly. For more detail, see a discussion by Gaines and Cuenca (2000) on these manufacturing steps. As seen in Table 2, Li-ion Emnf values are quite variable. Indeed, a review of the table reveals a low set of values around 30 MJ/kg and a high set greater than 100 MJ/kg. The low set is based on the work of Ishihara (website), and the high set is from Europe and North America. Ishihara (1996) details the manufacturing processes, including the production of solvent, LiNiO2, LiPF6, indirect effects, and assembly. On the other hand, the sources of the data in the high set provide no process detail.
Quote:
Another trend, which can be estimated from Table 2, is the manufacturing stage’s share of Ectg. It is as follows: (1) about a third for PbA and Na/S, (2) about half for NiMH and NiCd, and (3) inconclusive for Li-ion batteries due to the breadth of the distribution of values. Generally speaking, better descriptions of current battery manufacturing processes are needed.
We then get to the emissions section of the paper. Now, this paper covers VOC, CO, NOx, PM (g/kg), SOx, CH4, N2O and of course CO2 as per the opening paper, measured in kg/kg, which is different from the g/mile mentioned in the article at the beginning of this thread. Looking just at Li-ion, we see a range of 7.2-18.2kg of CO2 per kg. Going by the original article, we see a lifecycle defined as 160,000 miles. We could break that into grams per kg per mile I believe (bear with me here, I've only had one coffee this AM): The range would be 0.045 - 0.11375g/kg of battery per mile I believe. We could then find how much a typical vehicle battery pack weighs (in kg) to see our effective range, based on the limited data available for Li-ion, of CO2 emitted during the manufacture of that battery. My concern, which is highlighted in the paper via the quotes I've provided is the very limited data on the various aspects of the manufacture and materials extraction for Li-ion batteries, which, as they've noted, greatly impacts the ability for there to be a proper and complete analysis performed.
 

CT8

Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
15,365
Location
Idaho
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Do they include the mining and manufacture of the battery banks in this or just the vehicle itself? I don't see it mentioned in the article shrug So my guess is no.... Nor do they factor in the periodic replacement of that battery bank.
Can you define what is the highly polluting item from battery manufacture?
I was thinking specifically as to the mining of the Lithium for the large battery banks, something that will only get worse as popularity increases shrug
And that's worse than drilling and harvesting crude, refining crudes and disposing of sulfur, and the near-similar set of raw materials needed to build any car?
Isn't the sulfur used to make things.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
49,510
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Another issue that I've got (with the Tesla version of the model) is that once the packs are used in the vehicles, they are "relifed" in the power walls. Now in my mind, the advantage of the Li packs is lightness in transport applications to avoid lugging around lead acid like the old days. The last thing my house needs is mobility, so tying a bunch of Li packs to my house versus V flow batteries etc. doesn't make the same sort of sense. But it requires even more Li to be harvested, then locked away from recycling for another decade or so (home owners will ride them to the ground rather than stump up another $10k in 6-7 years time. Home storage doesn't need, and probably shouldn't have lithium.
Hogwash. Auto EV packs are highly derated in the interest of (1) impedance reduction, (2) being in a state of charge band that high over potentials can be run to allow fast charge and high energy absorption upon deceleration, and (3) ensuring good lifetime and low warranty claims. Like 50% derated in fact. The power to energy ratio of an EV pack in EV use (say 60kW output for sustained highway use and drawing 200Wh/mile) is so low compared to a home (pulling less than 1kW typically and maybe 7-10kW max), that any impedance growth in the batteries due to seeing would be irrelevant to the round trip efficiency. Even if condemned from EV use for 20% capacity fade, anecdotal pack still stores a lot of energy, and its accessibility and rate of access, as well as dispatch requirements are far more benign than in an EV. The cycle life benefits and capacity fade/impedance growth, and others are like night and day in terms of Li ion benefits. It's far from just a mass difference over lead. Yes, we get V from crude refining, but flow batteries still are way, way behind Li in terms of practical maturity and performance.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,666
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Hogwash.
How eloquent, you don't frequent Iowa do you ? So in the scheme of things, you honestly believe that home/grid storage batteries SHOULD be Li ? Fair enough, so is there going to be enough Li to * have one in every vehicle * one in every home * and enough to store in the grid all the wind and solar that's required for a renewable future ? If you say there is, I'll have to take your word. I was approaching the topic as 'though Li was a finite resource, and along side discussions that we've had previously about utilisation of tractible fuels like oil in stationary power aps.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,958
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
We then get to the emissions section of the paper. Now, this paper covers VOC, CO, NOx, PM (g/kg), SOx, CH4, N2O and of course CO2 as per the opening paper, measured in kg/kg, which is different from the g/mile mentioned in the article at the beginning of this thread. Looking just at Li-ion, we see a range of 7.2-18.2kg of CO2 per kg. Going by the original article, we see a lifecycle defined as 160,000 miles. We could break that into grams per kg per mile I believe (bear with me here, I've only had one coffee this AM): The range would be 0.045 - 0.11375g/kg of battery per mile I believe. We could then find how much a typical vehicle battery pack weighs (in kg) to see our effective range, based on the limited data available for Li-ion, of CO2 emitted during the manufacture of that battery.
If my math is right on the above (you folks are welcome to check it), I've just looked into the weight of the Tesla battery pack, and it is 544kg. So, using our above range, that gives us a CO2 emissions range of 24.48 to 61.88g/mile for the battery manufacturing portion. That lowest number is still higher than the number used in the opening article (though not by much) and doesn't include the manufacture of the vehicle itself...... shrug I would also like to see the same sort of data for wind turbines and solar panels so that could be factored into the "renewable" charge side of the graph, which currently is construed as "zero" emissions, with the battery/vehicle as the only contributor, whereas we know there are plenty of emissions created during the CTG cycle for both of those technologies, whose overall output is less than fantastic once in service.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
49,510
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Hogwash.
How eloquent, you don't frequent Iowa do you ? So in the scheme of things, you honestly believe that home/grid storage batteries SHOULD be Li ? Fair enough, so is there going to be enough Li to * have one in every vehicle * one in every home * and enough to store in the grid all the wind and solar that's required for a renewable future ? If you say there is, I'll have to take your word. I was approaching the topic as 'though Li was a finite resource, and along side discussions that we've had previously about utilisation of tractible fuels like oil in stationary power aps.
LOL Ive used that term since it was part of a play part I had in fifth grade... Your questions about quantity of Li are valid. My consideration is that an "end of life" Li-ion from automotive use, would still have a TON of life left in it for other applications. Since we are talking about the energy of manufacture and production, we must realize that batteries are highly recyclable, but there is energy involved there too. The best energy utilization is to allow them to be used in dispatchable grid stabilization for a while to enhance overall utility and energy savings, before sending them back to be recycled. Im a decent believer in start-stop after my last trip to Europe with a 530D diesel wagon equipped with it... As well as hybrids, being an owner. Ive yet to be compelled on pure EVs other than in specifc roles. So one in every home is a stretch, unless its a kWh-ish hybrid pack, which yes, I think will be reasonably doable. Im voting for Mg-ion to come and be the game changer for EVs. A two electron reaction gets you a doubling in energy density for just shifting right on the periodic table. I am not a believer in metal air secondaries at scale... Get that with the right cycle life and allow the smart grid to dispatch energy stored in EVs based upon a user settable priority level (which may relate to cost of electricity or net metering), and we may be thinking smartly towards the future...
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,666
Location
'Stralia
Interesting on the Mg, makes sense. I'm struggling with the economics on EV smart grids in how the owner would be compensated for the utility of his/her battery pack. Not sure on the US world, but here, wholeseale is about 20% of retail, and only during a couple hundred hours a year will the wholesale price actually EQUAL retail. Clearly owners won't pay retail to sell for an 80% loss because the clouds blew over a windfarm, but the retailers aren't going to buy at retail+ on the same contingency. IMO, would require the EV owners to be in some sort of contract arrangement where they are intermediaries between charging overnight, or when the wind blows, and then available about the time that they want to be commuting home. The great South Australian Experiment that started last week http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb..._-_#Post4096195 inverted the normal weekly play with $0 or -ve wholesale prices during the day/peak due to unseasonal winds, and $170+/MWh "off peak" at 2AM for a few days.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
49,510
Location
New Jersey
Good point. Id suspect that in the interest of various levels of SOC fluctuation, the EVs would be compensated with a permanent charging electricity cost (separate meter or smart meter) of say, 50% retail. Perhaps a tiered structure: -NEVER mess with my SOC = full price -guarantee 100% SOC by 8am? = 90% of retail -guarantee 75% SOC by 8am = 75% of retail -no guarantee, 50% SOC target unless overridden = 50% of retail In these cases, being over the SOC target is good for the driver... Being under in the case of the no guarantee situation means that in case of excess capacity, the owner would buy more energy at a very low rate, but would have to override or be smart about it (like for someone with a five mile commute to a train station, and a spare car, or whatnot). Im sure there are reasons why this structure wouldn't work... but just a thought off the cuff.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,666
Location
'Stralia
Good thoughts, same for customers with on site storage, I'm trying to see what the incentives not to "horde" will drive the behaviours needed to work it.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
691
Location
Ont Canada
According to Stanford if the world switches to Li Vehicles we would need 32% of the identified resources World Wide for a one year production run, thats for non commercial. Its just not Viable.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
691
Location
Ont Canada
According to Stanford if the world switches to Li Vehicles we would need 32% of the identified resources World Wide for a complete production run, (which is not possible in itself) thats for non commercial. Its just not Viable. Those Stanford numbers are for vehicles of the Nissan Leaf category so it dosnt include high capacity batteries built by Tesla. So it would be 10 years production on average for all cars produced total. That does not include even higher capacity batteries that would be needed for total production. We need a different power cell completely. You can delete post 243.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,666
Location
'Stralia
Then factor in all the storage needed for renewables en masse, and grid stability to support those vehicles...
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
3,743
Location
Massachusetts
It's glaringly apparent the mantra here when there is all the talk of pollution in the building of batteries and not one mention of fracking It'd be nice if people could let go of their biases and have an intellectually honest conversation. I don't relish driving one of these things either, but science should be science. Anyone who writes a paper or does a study with a purposeful and self serving slant should be labeled the used car salesman that they are, not an engineer or scientist.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
19,707
Location
Sunny Florida
Fracking is fine, and has numerous scientific studies that support it. Intellectual honesty is rarely practiced by either side when EV's or Fracking are mentioned. It's a political football. After all, we have dolts attempting to shove their climate science down our throats as well...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top