Interesting comparison between LEV and EV

[SubieRubyRoo]

We’re told that EVs are always cleaner, but I asked Grok to analyze how long you could drive the average low-emissions vehicle and have lower overall emissions than a pure EV that was operated with “worst-case” conditions.

Even I was surprised at the results; even in California with their “green” energy focus, your average new Subaru will be responsible for fewer emissions than an inefficiently-run EV for ten years and 100,000 miles!

If you change the analysis to the average electricity in the US to charge that EV, the crossover point where the gas-powered car has created more emissions is 15 years and 150,000 miles, or longer than the life expectancy of the car. Crazy that we’ve been told that EVs are going to reduce emissions.

I’ve said I don’t care that EVs are sold; for some people they do make sense. But I have a problem when the data doesn’t match the claim. People should be free to choose what fits their needs.

 

[Torrid]

I don't think that aside from people who can profit from for selling EVs are saying EVs are the only answer. I wish there were more efficient low emissions vehicles. It's worth looking at the verbiage used and the comparison is very important. It says worst case scenario. If you get an extremely efficient ICE vehicle and compare it to the biggest, most ridiculous EV, the EV is likely not to win. When comparing like vehicles it's a different story.

Regardless of emissions or not, the bath on values that EVs have had that pushed Tesla to lower their prices made the car less expensive than the ICE vehicle I was considering and also 1/3 the cost per mile to drive just powering it. While it may be a noble cause to try and have the most eco friendly vehicle for some, cost would be considered well before that for me. I have to like the car first obviously. It's nuts to buy a brand new product made from new materials specifically to try and save the environment.

 

[OneLonelyBurrito]

I think you have to take any answer like this out of an AI chatbot with a hefty amount of skepticism and verify with traditional sources and studies. They are a complete black box with how they came up with their conclusion.

But most studies I have seen and read come to the opposite conclusion of Grok for this specific question.

 

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

You can pretty much make any conclusion comparing total emissions of any two things if you cherry pick how far up the line of production you go. Just pick the point where the item you want is ahead.

 

[Cujet]

Might depend heavily on whether the driving is mostly around town or highway.

Ask this question: how many BTU’s are consumed in an average American power plant to push an EV 100 miles down the highway at 80mph? And how many BTU’s for a modern gas car?

Tha answer, due to an EV’s stack of losses, is eye opening. 502,000 BTU for an EV. About half that for a Camry Hybrid.

 

[Torrid]

Might depend heavily on whether the driving is mostly around town or highway.

Ask this question: how many BTU’s are consumed in an average American power plant to push an EV 100 miles down the highway at 80mph? And how many BTU’s for a modern gas car?

Tha answer, due to an EV’s stack of losses, is eye opening. 502,000 BTU for an EV. About half that for a Camry Hybrid.

Are you starting from the point of refining and transporting the fuel before you put it in the vehicle, because that matters as well.

For that matter, EV consumption widely varies. You stated Camry Hybrid. What was the EV in question?

 

[OVERKILL]

Are you starting from the point of refining and transporting the fuel before you put it in the vehicle, because that matters as well.

For that matter, EV consumption widely varies. You stated Camry Hybrid. What was the EV in question?

That also needs to be factored in for the power plant if it's fossil powered, IE coal or oil (and, to a lesser extent, gas). Nova Scotia recently, to be compliant with the Federally mandated coal phaseout, converted their coal plants to run bunker C, lol

 

[Ws6]

We’re told that EVs are always cleaner, but I asked Grok to analyze how long you could drive the average low-emissions vehicle and have lower overall emissions than a pure EV that was operated with “worst-case” conditions.

Even I was surprised at the results; even in California with their “green” energy focus, your average new Subaru will be responsible for fewer emissions than an inefficiently-run EV for ten years and 100,000 miles!

If you change the analysis to the average electricity in the US to charge that EV, the crossover point where the gas-powered car has created more emissions is 15 years and 150,000 miles, or longer than the life expectancy of the car. Crazy that we’ve been told that EVs are going to reduce emissions.

I’ve said I don’t care that EVs are sold; for some people they do make sense. But I have a problem when the data doesn’t match the claim. People should be free to choose what fits their needs.

View attachment 281109
View attachment 281110

Volvo did a white paper on their XC40 and XC40 EV. The crossover was around 70K miles on average, cradle to grave.

 

[Torrid]

Volvo did a white paper on their XC40 and XC40 EV. The crossover was around 70K miles on average, cradle to grave.

Like he posted, worse case scenario 100k miles, meaning messing with the numbers to give ICE the benefit and penalizing the EV.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Like he posted, worse case scenario 100k miles, meaning messing with the numbers to give ICE the benefit and penalizing the EV.

FYI, “best case” scenario was a little over 60k miles in Cali, and almost 80k on US average.

 

[Torrid]

FYI, “best case” scenario was a little over 60k miles in Cali, and almost 80k on US average.

Regardless of that, people are buying on cost, not how gentle it is on the planet. 60k isn't too bad realistically. Claims have been made. I want to see the breakdown though.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Regardless of that, people are buying on cost, not how gentle it is on the planet. 60k isn't too bad realistically. Claims have been made. I want to see the breakdown though.

I didn’t save the chat. Ask Grok about the crossover point for LEV emissions vs EV emissions. I used 10k/yr as the comparable distance, and to estimate best & worst cases, which it didn’t really explain other than habits that reduced battery efficiency.

For the record, today the average cost of electricity has increased 100% since 2003, adjusted for inflation. Gasoline has increased about 30%. Increased electrical consumption without additional inexpensive generation infrastructure will drive that even higher.

 

[Torrid]

I didn’t save the chat. Ask Grok about the crossover point for LEV emissions vs EV emissions. I used 10k/yr as the comparable distance, and to estimate best & worst cases, which it didn’t really explain other than habits that reduced battery efficiency.

For the record, today the average cost of electricity has increased 100% since 2003, adjusted for inflation. Gasoline has increased about 30%. Increased electrical consumption without additional inexpensive generation infrastructure will drive that even higher.

Yet it's still 1/3 the cost per mile to drive an EV for me. Maybe that will change in the future, but driving 20k miles a year makes a huge difference especially when the vehicle cost is similar and the EV doesn't have the usual scheduled services of the performance ICE vehicles I've purchased in the past and I didn't include that in the 1/3 less cost.

For more money I can have a slower car with less performance yet similar performane modes that cost more per mile to drive with expensive oil changes. I'm just not doing it. If I wanted to I'd buy a Golf R. It's almost $10k more and they don't offer special financing. It would have been $300 more per month not counting the cost to drive it.

For me it's not even close.

 

[Cujet]

Are you starting from the point of refining and transporting the fuel before you put it in the vehicle, because that matters as well.

For that matter, EV consumption widely varies. You stated Camry Hybrid. What was the EV in question?

Model 3 or similar, which is actually smaller than a Camry.

Believe it or not, the refining and transporting of petroleum products is reasonably efficient, it is not far off the power plant's need for combustibles.

Of course, I was simply pointing out efficiency issues with fuels. Nuclear, wind, solar and hydro all factor in to an EV's overall impact.

 

[Torrid]

Model 3 or similar, which is actually smaller than a Camry.

Believe it or not, the refining and transporting of petroleum products is reasonably efficient, it is not far off the power plant's need for combustibles.

Of course, I was simply pointing out efficiency issues with fuels. Nuclear, wind, solar and hydro all factor in to an EV's overall impact.

You're saying that based on the actual consumption to make the power to move a Model 3 is equivalent to 147 kWh to go 100 miles at 80mph which is more than twice the battery capacity of the base Model 3 that can take the car over 200 miles? I want to see this breakdown of loss that you're citing.

 

[OVERKILL]

You're saying that based on the actual consumption to make the power to move a Model 3 is equivalent to 147 kWh to go 100 miles at 80mph which is more than twice the battery capacity of the base Model 3 that can take the car over 200 miles? I want to see this breakdown of loss that you're citing.

A nuke turbine with 3x LP stages and 1x HP stage is around 31-32% efficient. Fossil turbines are a bit more efficient, because they run higher temperatures. But, for the sake of this discussion, a Darlington unit produces 2,776MWth, which in turn, produces 880MWe.

So, just applying 32% to your 147kWh figure, 147kWh generated on the thermal side equates to 47kWh on the electrical side. And that doesn't factor in transmission or conversion losses.

 

[Astro14]

You're saying that based on the actual consumption to make the power to move a Model 3 is equivalent to 147 kWh to go 100 miles at 80mph which is more than twice the battery capacity of the base Model 3 that can take the car over 200 miles? I want to see this breakdown of loss that you're citing.

The point is this - there are generation losses, transmission, and charging losses.

So, the amount of electricity you have in your battery is NOT anywhere near the energy amount of fuel it took to get that charge to the battery. @OVERKILL ran you through the numbers - call the entire process; generation, transmission, charging, 30% efficient.

So, to get your 57 kWh battery charged takes roughly the energy equivalent of 150 kWh of fuel at the point of generation. That math isn’t precise, but it is inevitable.

Ultimately, a BEV should be called a REV - a remote emission vehicle - because emissions are created in the generation of the electricity that it is using to charge.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Supply chains consume energy. There ain't no free ride...

 

[2005jettatdi]

The point is this - there are generation losses, transmission, and charging losses.

So, the amount of electricity you have in your battery is NOT anywhere near the energy amount of fuel it took to get that charge to the battery. @OVERKILL ran you through the numbers - call the entire process; generation, transmission, charging, 30% efficient.

So, to get your 57 kWh battery charged takes roughly the energy equivalent of 150 kWh of fuel at the point of generation. That math isn’t precise, but it is inevitable.

Ultimately, a BEV should be called a REV - a remote emission vehicle - because emissions are created in the generation of the electricity that it is using to charge.

I charge my Mach E with solar power. But then, I guess you could attack me over the costs of making those solar panels.

Our driving cars are the Mach E, my wife's Hybrid Accord and my VW Jetta TDI. The Accord often gets 60 mpg while my VW only gets 48 - 50 mpg. Pretty efficient, but I make up for it with my boat and pickup.

I do not understand why a car is not made that runs on electric only but also has a very efficient engine to make electricity to power the drive motors and charge the batteries. The engineering ought to be much simpler than hybrid technology.

 

[Fair enough]

Car engines burning fuel everywhere and electric generation maybe burning fuel, maybe not, in a regulated fashion. There is no comparison. Older people here remember the smog filled skies. Then there is your electric use at home, is anyone saying they are polluting using their a/c? I’ve never heard anyone say that.