4 banger LC, thoughts? (1 Viewer)

[JohnPW]

One issue I am curious about is how & whether the lifespan of products are being considered at all in determining carbon footprint. The footprint of building a car, whether ICE or electric, has to be considerable. Are we paying attention to how long these things last?

Things like dishwashers, washing machines etc used to last forever. Now I own newer models that are more energy efficient and use less water. But they seem to need replacing every 6 to 10 years. I have no idea what the carbon footprint of creating a washing machine is but it’s not nothing. I wonder if any of it is making a difference at all.

Land Cruisers are gas hogs. But they can last a very long time if maintained and aren’t totaled in a wreck. I’m guessing the lifespan of products aren’t being considered in carbon footprint calculations at all.

 

[M1911]

Infrastructure is also something that CAN be improved over time, replacing fossil fuel based power generation with renewable energy. A gas powered car will never get cleaner than it is when it was made.

The biggest concerns that I have about EVs are the impact of the mining of rare metals (cobalt in the Congo in particular) and what we are going to do with the spent batteries. There are established ways to recycle nickel metal hydride batteries, but it is my understanding that recycling lithium batteries is far less advanced.

 

[M1911]

Things like dishwashers, washing machines etc used to last forever. Now I own newer models that are more energy efficient and use less water. But they seem to need replacing every 6 to 10 years. I have no idea what the carbon footprint of creating a washing machine is but it’s not nothing. I wonder if any of it is making a difference at all.

We bought an expensive new refrigerator when we redid our kitchen. After about 5 years, the fridge died and it would have been uneconomical to fix it. While we were waiting on the new fridge to be delivered, we started up the old freezer we have in the basement. This freezer was left by the previous owner and was old when we moved in, more than 30 years ago. That freezer has to be 50 years old and still works. I’m sure it is inefficient as all get out, but there is a certain efficiency in not replacing an appliance every 5 years…

 

[Roosevelt T]

In the northwest a significant amount of the energy comes from coal. It's just greenwashed to pretend it's not. You can tell by looking at the market purchases. When you see that 60% of the energy is from market transactions at the hubs - that means it's probably coal being hidden in the market purchase category. Oregon would not be able to keep the lights on in the winter without Jim Bridger in Wyoming sending power as an example I'm familiar with. If you see the term "net" before generation - you know it's a greenwash. Washington probably does better than most states, as does Oregon. But they do still rely on gas and coal out of state for maintaining reliable service.

I know a number of EV drivers who do so simply because it's cheap and convenient. They drive a Nissan Leaf, a Honda Clarity (PHEV, but use mostly as an EV), and whatever the Hundai is - IONIC? All of them also have other cars but use the EVs as commuters and local cars because they're so cheap and convenient to never have to go to a gas station. I'm sold on the convenience alone that I'd love to have one for all my local driving - but not as my only vehicle. Pretty sure our next family commuter CUV will be a Model Y or something like it.

Since I can't quote the numbers, I didn't want to bring it up... but if the bolded wasn't the case I was going to be incredibly surprised.

Also - I have a friend that just sold a Clarity. He fits into your convenience/etc profile. But his wife virtue signals their EV at every moment possible, almost always quoting misinformed statistics... so as a couple I count them in the virtue signal column.

 

[Roosevelt T]

Land Cruisers are gas hogs. But they can last a very long time if maintained and aren’t totaled in a wreck. I’m guessing the lifespan of products aren’t being considered in carbon footprint calculations at all.

There is nothing greener than not buying a new car, and repairing your old one.

 

[skey44]

Making me happy to have a v8 as long as fuel costs stay reasonable. I’ve been loving my gx460 a little bit more everyday since the new LC was annnounced with a 4cylinder turbo. Also I’ve been hitting some corners at speed with my kdss (is that even an option in new LC?). I had a Prius and loved it when I had a long commute… so it’s not about masculinity. The 4cylinder hybrid does great in my partners crv… it’s a commuter/mom engine by my perception.
Cool that Toyota is sticking to some of their oldish hybrid tech though as that Prius was very reliable. If I drive one and feel that instant electric kick and turbo with better mpg I might be sold

 

[Jetboy]

Since I can't quote the numbers, I didn't want to bring it up... but if the bolded wasn't the case I was going to be incredibly surprised.

Also - I have a friend that just sold a Clarity. He fits into your convenience/etc profile. But his wife virtue signals their EV at every moment possible, almost always quoting misinformed statistics... so as a couple I count them in the virtue signal column.

Where this gets interesting is an extreme example where there are two states that share an electric market that is 50% coal, 50% solar. State A claims 100% "net" renewables based on renewable energy credits but actually uses 100% of its energy from coal generation that it pairs with credits to claim renewable. State B has a contract for 100% of the energy from the renewables that are sited in State B but not the credits (which were sold to state A). State A and B then support federal laws that shut down coal powerplant. What happens? - State A has renewable credits but no energy and the lights go out. State B has "dirty" energy on paper that's actually from renewables and lights stay on. State A was buying feel-good, not actual renewable energy. There's a very real difference. This is why IMO renewable credits and carbon credits in general are a fraud. They distort the markets and misrepresent actual energy usage and sources. And there are real harms that result because the users don't have transparency into what is actually happening and are both mislead and make poor choices as a result.

 

[Surf123]

BTW What's a "Heat pump water heater". I know what a "heat pump" is (localized AC/heater).
Perhaps you're conflating "electric water heater" and "heat pump" or is it something else?

It is the hybrid combination of an electric water heater with a heat pump sitting on top of it. They cost a lot more than a traditional unit and obviously will be more expensive to repair. The cheapest one at Home Depot is a Rheem 40 gallon unit at $1699. I would think that once the heat pump breaks the whole unit is headed for the landfill because it will be too expensive to repair.

A Rheem 40 gallon traditional unit is as low as $427 at Home Depot and is completely repairable until the tank leaks. Generally there are six parts to a water heater: two elements, two thermostats, one pressure relief valve and a tank. Five of the parts inexpensive and anyone with basic skills can do the work. The only part that cannot be repaired is the tank and there is at least one solution to that...buy a model of the Marathon heaters which has a super insulated non-metallic tank.

Granted the hybrid will save you money, but I'll go with repairing an older unit for $25 over spending $1700 and needing an HVAC technician to repair it. Just like ICE I don't mind paying the fuel cost for convenience and repairability.

 

[AndrewTK]

IMO - (I've argued this for a long time as I used to work in the energy industry) - PHEVs are simply the better choice both for the environment and as a bridge tech. With limited battery manufacturing capacity, every battery that goes into a PHEV gets about 4-5 times as much fuel savings and thereby emissions savings as a pure EV. We should be building predominantly PHEVs before BEVs. There is also a time value of emissions savings wrt global warming. Emissions reduction now is more important than emission reduction over the next 20 years.

I'm also very pro-renewables, but in a pragmatic sense. Roof top solar is great, but it's not the answer to major energy needs. Utility scale solar is far more efficient both economically and generation wise. And we still need dispatchable thermal resources to manage the grid. Many grids are relying on market purchases to make up the difference and it's going to result in major grid failures. What's happening is the big grid operators are relying on market depth of connected systems who are at the same time relying on historical assumptions about the same market depth of generation capacity. What is going to happen, and is already happening at some level, is that everyone is relying on a mythical market having enough excess capacity to make up for the variable generation and that's not going to actually work. I'm all for renewables - but it can't happen overnight. Doing it in a smart and cautious way is more appropriate in my opinion.

I agree completely on the PHEV benefits, many of the vehicles for sale today provide enough range to enable most people in urban areas to commute using little to no gas but they still have the flexibility to drive long distances without the inconvenience of finding and charging a pure EV. Personally I think that if I have to sacrifice cargo space like the layout in the new 250 then I would want the benefits of a PHEV over just a hybrid (especially when towing on mountain passes).

I have spent a fair amount of time over the last few years working with a power modeler at a private equity firm working on modeling future locations for renewable generation sites throughout Texas and the southwest. Its a very interesting side of the business to see, West Texas and Southern California are areas that have a significant amount of renewable generation (both solar and wind but mostly solar) but both areas are also fighting transmission line congestion to get that power to population centers when demand is high. The level of transmission upgrades that are going to be needed over the coming years is significant and something that I don’t think a lot of people realize, and that doesn’t even touch on the level of upgrades that the distribution network will need to support widespread level 2 charging at the residential level.

 

[M1911]

I agree completely on the PHEV benefits, many of the vehicles for sale today provide enough range to enable most people in urban areas to commute using little to no gas but they still have the flexibility to drive long distances without the inconvenience of finding and charging a pure EV. Personally I think that if I have to sacrifice cargo space like the layout in the new 250 then I would want the benefits of a PHEV over just a hybrid (especially when towing on mountain passes).

You are assuming that a PHEV is equivalent to a hybrid. But it isn’t. The PHEV needs a much larger battery and electric motor than a mild hybrid. So the PHEV will be significantly more expensive, have significantly less cargo room, and weigh significantly more than a mild hybrid. After the battery is depleted, the PHEV will get worse fuel economy than the PHEV (due to the extra weight). No thank you very much. I absolutely do not want the compromises of a PHEV.

 

[AndrewTK]

You are assuming that a PHEV is equivalent to a hybrid. But it isn’t. The PHEV needs a much larger battery and electric motor than a mild hybrid. So the PHEV will be significantly more expensive, have significantly less cargo room, and weigh significantly more than a mild hybrid. After the battery is depleted, the PHEV will get worse fuel economy than the PHEV (due to the extra weight). No thank you very much. I absolutely do not want the compromises of a PHEV.

Jeep managed to fit a battery large enough to get 22 miles of electric range into a Wrangler with no real loss of cargo space and their “fallback” when the charge is depleted is a 2.0 turbo 4 that makes slightly less power than the 2.4 that Toyota is using. Their primary electric motor replaced the transmission torque converter (just like Toyota) and there is a second smaller electric motor attached to the engine. More complex? Sure, but it doesnt seem like a significant hit given the net increase of one electric motor attached to the engine. Toyota already has this technology on several platforms (the Rav4 Prime/Lexus NX get great reviews for the implementation), it seems like the 250 could have been a great platform to showcase their expertise in this area. The RAV4 Prime also has a hybrid mode that should significantly lengthen the battery life when driving. I wouldnt be surprised if it becomes an option on the LC250 in the future (provided that the platform is successful enough in the US to warrant continued development).

 

[NTTD]

Sidenote: I know two types of EV drivers. The ones with Tesla or Rivians that do it because they think its cool to have the new, tech related thing and tell you all about it, and the ones who do it because of virtue signaling/perceived environmental help. I, personally, know zero in between.

I know a number of EV drivers who do so simply because it's cheap and convenient.

Also "performance".

My cousin got a Tesla for the novelty and the quickness. He got a Model Y. That thing at full acceleration is scary fast.
The only other place I've experienced anything like that is on a jet plane. You've got to spend over 100K (and often over 1M) to get something quicker.

Otherwise he's strictly a V8 guy. He sees electric cars as largely a gimmick at this stage. He knows he can't conveniently go any real distance but likes it for his commute and seat-of-the-pants acceleration.

 

[LazarusTaxa]

You talking hydro? As @JohnPW pointed out, (I'll use his term) the green lobby hates hydro.

Also, please point out the incorrect facts that are being banded about - this thread has been a great discussion. If you see incorrect facts, please provide proof otherwise - don't hide behind labeling it "a fair amount of conspiracy".

Sidenote: I know two types of EV drivers. The ones with Tesla or Rivians that do it because they think its cool to have the new, tech related thing and tell you all about it, and the ones who do it because of virtue signaling/perceived environmental help. I, personally, know zero in between.

Sure, I'd be happy to add sources.. Apologies as they are likely behind paywalls, but i'll try to summarize key points:

Motortrend: You're Being Lied To About Electric Cars

"Even if you only ever burned coal to create the electricity to power EVs, that's still less CO2 than is released by burning gasoline."

New York Times: E.V.s Start With a Bigger Carbon Footprint. But That Doesn’t Last.

"Studies have found that, though it’s true that the production of a B.E.V. causes more pollution than a gasoline-powered counterpart, this greenhouse-gas emission difference is erased as the vehicle is driven.

And erasing the difference does not appear to take very long. In a study conducted by the University of Michigan (with a grant from the Ford Motor Company), the pollution equation evens out between 1.4 to 1.5 years for sedans, 1.6 to 1.9 years for S.U.V.s and about 1.6 years for pickup trucks, based on the average number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States."

New York Times: How Green Are Electric Vehicles?

"An all-electric Chevrolet Bolt, for instance, can be expected to produce 189 grams of carbon dioxide for every mile driven over its lifetime, on average. By contrast, a new gasoline-fueled Toyota Camry is estimated to produce 385 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. A new Ford F-150 pickup truck, which is even less fuel-efficient, produces 636 grams of carbon dioxide per mile.

But that’s just an average. On the other hand, if the Bolt is charged up on a coal-heavy grid, such as those currently found in the Midwest, it can actually be a bit worse for the climate than a modern hybrid car like the Toyota Prius, which runs on gasoline but uses a battery to bolster its mileage. (The coal-powered Bolt would still beat the Camry and the F-150, however.)"

Included in this article is an MIT online tool for comparing the climate impacts of different vehicles.

Wall Street Journal: Driving an EV is Getting Greener, Especially in the US

"Regardless of where they are driven, EVs are always a climate-friendlier choice than their gasoline counterparts, according to recent studies published by the European Environment Agency and the International Energy Agency, as well as academic research. In 2020, for example, researchers from Cambridge, Exeter and the Netherlands found that driving an electric car is better for the climate in 95% of the world.

This is also the case when taking into account the emissions released during the manufacturing of batteries and the mining of the metals needed to make batteries, a big part of an EV’s overall carbon footprint over its lifetime. The IEA published data in October last year showing that even when using the dirtiest battery materials EVs still produced less than half the CO2 emissions of combustion engines over their lifetimes.

And that performance is improving. CO2 emissions from power generation worldwide have fallen 11% since 2007, when they peaked at 489 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, according to the 2023 Global Electricity Review by Ember Climate, an environmental think tank. "

These are three quick articles, but the takeaway is that even if the EV is using electricity generated by a coal-fired power plant, it's almost always better for the environment over it's life cyle than it's fossil fuel burning counterpart. This is largely due to the fact that a steam turbine generator combined with an EV's electric motor is WAYYYYYY more efficeint at turning the energy stored in fossil fuels into motion. ICE engines are like 50% or less efficient at turning fuel into motion as tons of energy is lost as heat whereas EV motors are like 90% efficient.

One issue I am curious about is how & whether the lifespan of products are being considered at all in determining carbon footprint. The footprint of building a car, whether ICE or electric, has to be considerable. Are we paying attention to how long these things last?

All articles posted above are taking into account the full life cycle of the vehicle, from production to it's lifetime use.

The biggest concerns that I have about EVs are the impact of the mining of rare metals (cobalt in the Congo in particular) and what we are going to do with the spent batteries. There are established ways to recycle nickel metal hydride batteries, but it is my understanding that recycling lithium batteries is far less advanced.

This is an issue.. The middle NYT article above talks about cobalt mining and how unfortunately a significant portion still comes from totally unregulated (read: terrible) mines in Congo. My personal speculation (based with some professional experience) is that this will get a LOT better. Rivian cannot sell itself as the "patagonia of cars" if it is sourcing from these mines.. Reputational risk is too great for large EV manufacturers.

And recycling is also an issue. But my understanding is that most of an EV's Lithium ion battery can actually be recycled, there just hasn't been enough market pressure to do it:

Car & Driver: Everything you need to know about EV battery disposal

Here is a good article from NYT that talks about it as well :

New York Times: Electric Cars are Taking Off, but When Will Battery Recycling Follow?

"Fortunately, those battery ingredients are also highly reusable. And now a race is on to collect and recycle used lithium-ion batteries. Venture capitalists, automakers and energy companies are pouring money into dozens of start-up recycling companies in North America and Europe."

This article poses that batteries are highly recyclable and currently the main issue is that there simply are not enough to recycle to make building and operating recycling facilities worth it..


Again, I didn't specifically buy an EV for its environmental impact, but it has started annoying me that EV-haters have all found themselves in an echo chamber stating that they are actually worse for the environment than an ICE vehicle.

There is nothing greener than not buying a new car, and repairing your old one.

I would guess that this is 100% true.

 

[Jetboy]

I usually try to rent a Model Y when I'm traveling. It's an odd thing. I like the EV part mostly. The Tesla part I'm luke warm. My biggest hangup on buying one is that they're so god awful expensive to insure because they're so fragile. Almost any crash results in a complete loss and the insurance rates reflect that risk. Especially in Alaska where the roads are rarely plowed and crashes are so common. The insurance cost difference alone exceeds the entire annual fuel cost for my RX350 that it would replace. And we both have perfect clean driving records. The economics don't work because of the insurance costs. If that issue was resolved, I think we'd already have one in the driveway.

 

[LazarusTaxa]

Man.. what am I doing here on mud defending EVs... I have a real job to do...

I usually try to rent a Model Y when I'm traveling. It's an odd thing. I like the EV part mostly. The Tesla part I'm luke warm. My biggest hangup on buying one is that they're so god awful expensive to insure because they're so fragile. Almost any crash results in a complete loss and the insurance rates reflect that risk. Especially in Alaska where the roads are rarely plowed and crashes are so common. The insurance cost difference alone exceeds the entire annual fuel cost for my RX350 that it would replace. And we both have perfect clean driving records. The economics don't work because of the insurance costs. If that issue was resolved, I think we'd already have one in the driveway.

Our Rivian is like $10 more per month to insure than our 2017 Volvo XC90.... I think it was like $650/6 months vs $600. No real difference.

Also "performance".

My cousin got a Tesla for the novelty and the quickness. He got a Model Y. That thing at full acceleration is scary fast.
The only other place I've experienced anything like that is on a jet plane. You've got to spend over 100K (and often over 1M) to get something quicker.

Otherwise he's strictly a V8 guy. He sees electric cars as largely a gimmick at this stage. He knows he can't conveniently go any real distance but likes it for his commute and seat-of-the-pants acceleration.

I dont understand why that is "gimmicky"? IMHO, thats exactly what EVs are for. I bought a Rivian because I was tired of taking my wife's volvo to the dealer for an oil change and check-up (under warranty). If I am spending time working on cars, it's gonna be restoring my 60. We got the EV because there is literally ZERO maintenance.. we never have to stop at gas stations, and the performance as you say is straight-up insane. For example: I think break pads are a lifetime item on this thing (i've never used the brakes)

For driving around town, and even regionally, it's really a no-brainer. Using it as a daily driver there has never once been a time where I thought about its charge level. Driving to Portland (3.5 hrs) uses up 40-50% of the battery, so yeah we do have to do a bit of planning and charge the night before. Fast charging on the road has been fine as well. In my experience, by the time we get the kids out of the car, go to the bathroom, and feed them a snack, the EV is either fully charged or very near it.

However, I cannot take it overlanding in eastern Oregon.. There straight up isnt charging infrastructure there (hence me looking at a 250). And, while I would be happy to take it on a long road trip down the coast to CA or wherever, we don't do long drives like that.. We fly.

 

[JohnPW]

G

Sure, I'd be happy to add sources.. Apologies as they are likely behind paywalls, but i'll try to summarize key points:

Motortrend: You're Being Lied To About Electric Cars

"Even if you only ever burned coal to create the electricity to power EVs, that's still less CO2 than is released by burning gasoline."

New York Times: E.V.s Start With a Bigger Carbon Footprint. But That Doesn’t Last.

"Studies have found that, though it’s true that the production of a B.E.V. causes more pollution than a gasoline-powered counterpart, this greenhouse-gas emission difference is erased as the vehicle is driven.

And erasing the difference does not appear to take very long. In a study conducted by the University of Michigan (with a grant from the Ford Motor Company), the pollution equation evens out between 1.4 to 1.5 years for sedans, 1.6 to 1.9 years for S.U.V.s and about 1.6 years for pickup trucks, based on the average number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States."

New York Times: How Green Are Electric Vehicles?

"An all-electric Chevrolet Bolt, for instance, can be expected to produce 189 grams of carbon dioxide for every mile driven over its lifetime, on average. By contrast, a new gasoline-fueled Toyota Camry is estimated to produce 385 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. A new Ford F-150 pickup truck, which is even less fuel-efficient, produces 636 grams of carbon dioxide per mile.

But that’s just an average. On the other hand, if the Bolt is charged up on a coal-heavy grid, such as those currently found in the Midwest, it can actually be a bit worse for the climate than a modern hybrid car like the Toyota Prius, which runs on gasoline but uses a battery to bolster its mileage. (The coal-powered Bolt would still beat the Camry and the F-150, however.)"

Included in this article is an MIT online tool for comparing the climate impacts of different vehicles.

Wall Street Journal: Driving an EV is Getting Greener, Especially in the US

"Regardless of where they are driven, EVs are always a climate-friendlier choice than their gasoline counterparts, according to recent studies published by the European Environment Agency and the International Energy Agency, as well as academic research. In 2020, for example, researchers from Cambridge, Exeter and the Netherlands found that driving an electric car is better for the climate in 95% of the world.

This is also the case when taking into account the emissions released during the manufacturing of batteries and the mining of the metals needed to make batteries, a big part of an EV’s overall carbon footprint over its lifetime. The IEA published data in October last year showing that even when using the dirtiest battery materials EVs still produced less than half the CO2 emissions of combustion engines over their lifetimes.

And that performance is improving. CO2 emissions from power generation worldwide have fallen 11% since 2007, when they peaked at 489 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, according to the 2023 Global Electricity Review by Ember Climate, an environmental think tank. "

These are three quick articles, but the takeaway is that even if the EV is using electricity generated by a coal-fired power plant, it's almost always better for the environment over it's life cyle than it's fossil fuel burning counterpart. This is largely due to the fact that a steam turbine generator combined with an EV's electric motor is WAYYYYYY more efficeint at turning the energy stored in fossil fuels into motion. ICE engines are like 50% or less efficient at turning fuel into motion as tons of energy is lost as heat whereas EV motors are like 90% efficient.



All articles posted above are taking into account the full life cycle of the vehicle, from production to it's lifetime use.



This is an issue.. The middle NYT article above talks about cobalt mining and how unfortunately a significant portion still comes from totally unregulated (read: terrible) mines in Congo. My personal speculation (based with some professional experience) is that this will get a LOT better. Rivian cannot sell itself as the "patagonia of cars" if it is sourcing from these mines.. Reputational risk is too great for large EV manufacturers.

And recycling is also an issue. But my understanding is that most of an EV's Lithium ion battery can actually be recycled, there just hasn't been enough market pressure to do it:

Car & Driver: Everything you need to know about EV battery disposal

Here is a good article from NYT that talks about it as well :

New York Times: Electric Cars are Taking Off, but When Will Battery Recycling Follow?

"Fortunately, those battery ingredients are also highly reusable. And now a race is on to collect and recycle used lithium-ion batteries. Venture capitalists, automakers and energy companies are pouring money into dozens of start-up recycling companies in North America and Europe."

This article poses that batteries are highly recyclable and currently the main issue is that there simply are not enough to recycle to make building and operating recycling facilities worth it..


Again, I didn't specifically buy an EV for its environmental impact, but it has started annoying me that EV-haters have all found themselves in an echo chamber stating that they are actually worse for the environment than an ICE vehicle.



I would guess that this is 100% true.

oo rebuttal

Sure, I'd be happy to add sources.. Apologies as they are likely behind paywalls, but i'll try to summarize key points:

Motortrend: You're Being Lied To About Electric Cars

"Even if you only ever burned coal to create the electricity to power EVs, that's still less CO2 than is released by burning gasoline."

New York Times: E.V.s Start With a Bigger Carbon Footprint. But That Doesn’t Last.

"Studies have found that, though it’s true that the production of a B.E.V. causes more pollution than a gasoline-powered counterpart, this greenhouse-gas emission difference is erased as the vehicle is driven.

And erasing the difference does not appear to take very long. In a study conducted by the University of Michigan (with a grant from the Ford Motor Company), the pollution equation evens out between 1.4 to 1.5 years for sedans, 1.6 to 1.9 years for S.U.V.s and about 1.6 years for pickup trucks, based on the average number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States."

New York Times: How Green Are Electric Vehicles?

"An all-electric Chevrolet Bolt, for instance, can be expected to produce 189 grams of carbon dioxide for every mile driven over its lifetime, on average. By contrast, a new gasoline-fueled Toyota Camry is estimated to produce 385 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. A new Ford F-150 pickup truck, which is even less fuel-efficient, produces 636 grams of carbon dioxide per mile.

But that’s just an average. On the other hand, if the Bolt is charged up on a coal-heavy grid, such as those currently found in the Midwest, it can actually be a bit worse for the climate than a modern hybrid car like the Toyota Prius, which runs on gasoline but uses a battery to bolster its mileage. (The coal-powered Bolt would still beat the Camry and the F-150, however.)"

Included in this article is an MIT online tool for comparing the climate impacts of different vehicles.

Wall Street Journal: Driving an EV is Getting Greener, Especially in the US

"Regardless of where they are driven, EVs are always a climate-friendlier choice than their gasoline counterparts, according to recent studies published by the European Environment Agency and the International Energy Agency, as well as academic research. In 2020, for example, researchers from Cambridge, Exeter and the Netherlands found that driving an electric car is better for the climate in 95% of the world.

This is also the case when taking into account the emissions released during the manufacturing of batteries and the mining of the metals needed to make batteries, a big part of an EV’s overall carbon footprint over its lifetime. The IEA published data in October last year showing that even when using the dirtiest battery materials EVs still produced less than half the CO2 emissions of combustion engines over their lifetimes.

And that performance is improving. CO2 emissions from power generation worldwide have fallen 11% since 2007, when they peaked at 489 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, according to the 2023 Global Electricity Review by Ember Climate, an environmental think tank. "

These are three quick articles, but the takeaway is that even if the EV is using electricity generated by a coal-fired power plant, it's almost always better for the environment over it's life cyle than it's fossil fuel burning counterpart. This is largely due to the fact that a steam turbine generator combined with an EV's electric motor is WAYYYYYY more efficeint at turning the energy stored in fossil fuels into motion. ICE engines are like 50% or less efficient at turning fuel into motion as tons of energy is lost as heat whereas EV motors are like 90% efficient.



All articles posted above are taking into account the full life cycle of the vehicle, from production to it's lifetime use.



This is an issue.. The middle NYT article above talks about cobalt mining and how unfortunately a significant portion still comes from totally unregulated (read: terrible) mines in Congo. My personal speculation (based with some professional experience) is that this will get a LOT better. Rivian cannot sell itself as the "patagonia of cars" if it is sourcing from these mines.. Reputational risk is too great for large EV manufacturers.

And recycling is also an issue. But my understanding is that most of an EV's Lithium ion battery can actually be recycled, there just hasn't been enough market pressure to do it:

Car & Driver: Everything you need to know about EV battery disposal

Here is a good article from NYT that talks about it as well :

New York Times: Electric Cars are Taking Off, but When Will Battery Recycling Follow?

"Fortunately, those battery ingredients are also highly reusable. And now a race is on to collect and recycle used lithium-ion batteries. Venture capitalists, automakers and energy companies are pouring money into dozens of start-up recycling companies in North America and Europe."

This article poses that batteries are highly recyclable and currently the main issue is that there simply are not enough to recycle to make building and operating recycling facilities worth it..


Again, I didn't specifically buy an EV for its environmental impact, but it has started annoying me that EV-haters have all found themselves in an echo chamber stating that they are actually worse for the environment than an ICE vehicle.



I would guess that this is 100%

Sure, I'd be happy to add sources.. Apologies as they are likely behind paywalls, but i'll try to summarize key points:

Motortrend: You're Being Lied To About Electric Cars

"Even if you only ever burned coal to create the electricity to power EVs, that's still less CO2 than is released by burning gasoline."

New York Times: E.V.s Start With a Bigger Carbon Footprint. But That Doesn’t Last.

"Studies have found that, though it’s true that the production of a B.E.V. causes more pollution than a gasoline-powered counterpart, this greenhouse-gas emission difference is erased as the vehicle is driven.

And erasing the difference does not appear to take very long. In a study conducted by the University of Michigan (with a grant from the Ford Motor Company), the pollution equation evens out between 1.4 to 1.5 years for sedans, 1.6 to 1.9 years for S.U.V.s and about 1.6 years for pickup trucks, based on the average number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States."

New York Times: How Green Are Electric Vehicles?

"An all-electric Chevrolet Bolt, for instance, can be expected to produce 189 grams of carbon dioxide for every mile driven over its lifetime, on average. By contrast, a new gasoline-fueled Toyota Camry is estimated to produce 385 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. A new Ford F-150 pickup truck, which is even less fuel-efficient, produces 636 grams of carbon dioxide per mile.

But that’s just an average. On the other hand, if the Bolt is charged up on a coal-heavy grid, such as those currently found in the Midwest, it can actually be a bit worse for the climate than a modern hybrid car like the Toyota Prius, which runs on gasoline but uses a battery to bolster its mileage. (The coal-powered Bolt would still beat the Camry and the F-150, however.)"

Included in this article is an MIT online tool for comparing the climate impacts of different vehicles.

Wall Street Journal: Driving an EV is Getting Greener, Especially in the US

"Regardless of where they are driven, EVs are always a climate-friendlier choice than their gasoline counterparts, according to recent studies published by the European Environment Agency and the International Energy Agency, as well as academic research. In 2020, for example, researchers from Cambridge, Exeter and the Netherlands found that driving an electric car is better for the climate in 95% of the world.

This is also the case when taking into account the emissions released during the manufacturing of batteries and the mining of the metals needed to make batteries, a big part of an EV’s overall carbon footprint over its lifetime. The IEA published data in October last year showing that even when using the dirtiest battery materials EVs still produced less than half the CO2 emissions of combustion engines over their lifetimes.

And that performance is improving. CO2 emissions from power generation worldwide have fallen 11% since 2007, when they peaked at 489 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, according to the 2023 Global Electricity Review by Ember Climate, an environmental think tank. "

These are three quick articles, but the takeaway is that even if the EV is using electricity generated by a coal-fired power plant, it's almost always better for the environment over it's life cyle than it's fossil fuel burning counterpart. This is largely due to the fact that a steam turbine generator combined with an EV's electric motor is WAYYYYYY more efficeint at turning the energy stored in fossil fuels into motion. ICE engines are like 50% or less efficient at turning fuel into motion as tons of energy is lost as heat whereas EV motors are like 90% efficient.



All articles posted above are taking into account the full life cycle of the vehicle, from production to it's lifetime use.



This is an issue.. The middle NYT article above talks about cobalt mining and how unfortunately a significant portion still comes from totally unregulated (read: terrible) mines in Congo. My personal speculation (based with some professional experience) is that this will get a LOT better. Rivian cannot sell itself as the "patagonia of cars" if it is sourcing from these mines.. Reputational risk is too great for large EV manufacturers.

And recycling is also an issue. But my understanding is that most of an EV's Lithium ion battery can actually be recycled, there just hasn't been enough market pressure to do it:

Car & Driver: Everything you need to know about EV battery disposal

Here is a good article from NYT that talks about it as well :

New York Times: Electric Cars are Taking Off, but When Will Battery Recycling Follow?

"Fortunately, those battery ingredients are also highly reusable. And now a race is on to collect and recycle used lithium-ion batteries. Venture capitalists, automakers and energy companies are pouring money into dozens of start-up recycling companies in North America and Europe."

This article poses that batteries are highly recyclable and currently the main issue is that there simply are not enough to recycle to make building and operating recycling facilities worth it..


Again, I didn't specifically buy an EV for its environmental impact, but it has started annoying me that EV-haters have all found themselves in an echo chamber stating that they are actually worse for the environment than an ICE vehicle.



I would guess that this is 100% true.

Good points and rebuttal. But my point was not that EV’s don’t reduce emissions at all. It was that they aren’t a logical or efficient place to focus resources, especially tax resources. The WSJ article you quoted pointed to a potential 50% reduction in the life of the vehicle. If you take that at face value, then if every car in the world was immediately replaced with EV, we would reduce global carbon emissions by 3 to 4% (half of the @7% of global emissions generated by personal use cars and trucks). Of course we CAN’T immediately replace all cars with EV, because we don’t have the materials for that many batteries and we don’t have the infrastructure to generate that amount of electricity. They certainly don’t have either in most of the rest of the world. It will take decades before all gas cars are replaced, making the 3% to 4% emissions reduction a long term dream.

California and the Federal Government giving people $9,000 of other people’s money in tax breaks to buy an EV makes zero sense from an environmental perspective. Huge strides can be made taking those dollars and focusing on grid efficiency. The most scalable way to reduce emissions is nuclear, which the global warming movement fights at every turn.

 

[JohnPW]

I would add that the biggest market for EV’s is China. But it’s being done for national security reasons, not environmental ones. China has no oil, and is subject to naval blockades of oil imports (even much of their access to Russian oil is via tanker shipping). What China has is rare earth minerals, and coal. They are building hundreds of coal fired power plants which will charge those EV’s. They are already the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, and their emissions are rising by 4% PER QUARTER. Low emission electricity generation, especially in the third world, is the riddle to be solved if emissions are going to come down.

 

[LazarusTaxa]

G

oo rebuttal


Good points and rebuttal. But my point was not that EV’s don’t reduce emissions at all. It was that they aren’t a logical or efficient place to focus resources, especially tax resources. The WSJ article you quoted pointed to a potential 50% reduction in the life of the vehicle. If you take that at face value, then if every car was immediately replaced with EV, we would reduce global carbon emissions by 3 to 4% (half of the @7% of global emissions generated by personal use cars and trucks). Of course we CAN’T immediately replace all cars with EV, because we don’t have the materials for that many batteries and we don’t have the infrastructure to generate that amount of electricity. It will take decades before all gas cars are replaced, making the 3% to 4% emissions reduction a long term dream.

California and the Federal Government giving people $9,000 of other people’s money in tax breaks to buy an EV makes zero sense from an environmental perspective. Huge strides can be made taking those dollars and focusing on grid efficiency. The most scalable way to reduce emissions is nuclear, which the global warming movement fights at every turn.

I mean, I personally agree with the EV tax credit because big picture, it's a tiny amount of money for the US govt, but you could very well be right that emissions could be reduced more in other areas.

I dont think everyone believes that EVs are THE answer.. for some people they see it as something they themselves can do to help and try to make a difference.

 

[NTTD]

It is the hybrid combination of an electric water heater with a heat pump sitting on top of it. They cost a lot more than a traditional unit and obviously will be more expensive to repair. The cheapest one at Home Depot is a Rheem 40 gallon unit at $1699. I would think that once the heat pump breaks the whole unit is headed for the landfill because it will be too expensive to repair.

I didn't know these were a thing.
Honestly I was hoping to keep a gas water heater for as long as possible. Though with how NG's been going up it's less of a savings.

Solar panels are starting to look a whole lot nicer.

I dont understand why that is "gimmicky"? IMHO, thats exactly what EVs are for. I bought a Rivian because I was tired of taking my wife's volvo to the dealer for an oil change and check-up (under warranty). If I am spending time working on cars, it's gonna be restoring my 60. We got the EV because there is literally ZERO maintenance.. we never have to stop at gas stations, and the performance as you say is straight-up insane. For example: I think break pads are a lifetime item on this thing (i've never used the brakes)

For driving around town, and even regionally, it's really a no-brainer. Using it as a daily driver there has never once been a time where I thought about its charge level. Driving to Portland (3.5 hrs) uses up 40-50% of the battery, so yeah we do have to do a bit of planning and charge the night before. Fast charging on the road has been fine as well. In my experience, by the time we get the kids out of the car, go to the bathroom, and feed them a snack, the EV is either fully charged or very near it.

However, I cannot take it overlanding in eastern Oregon.. There straight up isnt charging infrastructure there (hence me looking at a 250). And, while I would be happy to take it on a long road trip down the coast to CA or wherever, we don't do long drives like that.. We fly.

I think his reasoning is because it's a one-trick-pony that pretends to be more. His Y is stated to have a 300 mile range. He had to stop to charge on a recent regional 180 mile round trip.


I get the commute angle. In a perfect world I'd have a daily driver that's a plug-in hybrid. It'd get me to work and back every day on electric alone with 4WD for winter.
But as it's a hybrid I'd still be able to go out to the desert, wheeling in the mountains etc. when the need arises.

This is the truck I'd like.

 

[flx]

Excellent info and sourcing @LazarusTaxa !

What I'm the most surprised is to learn that the USA is still massively using coal for electricity production.
Maybe instead of hating EVs on Internet, people should start writing mails to their congressman / governor if they live in a state that still has coal powerplants
Anything will be better, EV or not.