Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: One Great Big EV Thread
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire

 > One Great Big EV Thread

This Topic Is Closed  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 31  
Prev  |  Next
atreis

IN

Senior Member

Joined: 08/29/2005

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 05/09/21 09:42am Link  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Timmo! wrote:

As I was collecting data to finalize my "break even" analysis between ICE and BEV, I discovered Volvo already did that for us. For starters, the basic ICE XC40 has a $33,700 base MRSP and the BEV version is $53,900, for a premium of over $20k.

Using the amount of emissions from the average power plant (mix all sources of power) once you drive the XC40 for 97,270 miles (146,000 km), you are now "greener" than the XC40 gas version. If we used 100% solar power (no coal, natural gas, hydro, etc) then at 29,204 miles (47,000 km) you are now "greener" than the ICE version. Until you reach those breakeven points the ICE XC40 has a smaller carbon footprint.


Bottomline--

As long as the XC40 Recharge has a higher Carbon Footprint from the Materials production and refining phase than the XC40 ICE, the question of break-even will remain. At what distance will GHG emissions from Materials production and refining be outweighed by lower emissions in the use phase? This study shows a break-even point of almost 50,000 km for the wind powered XC40 Recharge, significantly below the driving distance of 200,000 km used as the functional unit. When considering a global average electricity mix the break-even point is at about 146,000 km for XC40 Recharge, also below the 200,000 km. After the break-even points the global warming related benefits of the XC40 Recharge compared to the XC40 ICE continue to increase over the rest of the life cycle. This means that the longer the lifetime, the lower the Carbon Footprint of the XC40 Recharge compared to the XC40 ICE.

Volvo report https://group.volvocars.com/news/sustain........edia/ccs/Volvo_carbonfootprintreport.pdf

Following are excerpts from that report.

[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]

So, it depends on what region you live in and kind of fuel required to generate electricity.

Those with lowest MPG are states with "dirty power" (greater emissions per kWh).
[image]

Source: https://blog.ucsusa.org/rachael-nealer/g........vs-electric-global-warming-emissions-953

How is your energy generated? https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/electricity-sources-by-state/

How much does your state charge for power? https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/

So, is it worth a $20k premium for the BEV XC40? IMO, no. The Volvo is for my wife and she buys one tank of gas every 6 weeks or so for her Benz, and probably drives 200-300 miles a month. Assuming Oregon goes 100% wind, then around the 8th year the BEV will be "greener" than the ICE alternative.


That's a nice analysis on a fairly sizable and not terribly slippery vehicle. Of course it will change over time as more renewable energy generation comes online (improving for the BEV). Given that the Volvo should be on the road for 200K miles or more, whether driven by the original owner or not, that's also a pretty significant advantage over the lifetime of the vehicle.


2021 Four Winds 26B on Chevy 4500


Timmo!

Oregon

Senior Member

Joined: 03/10/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 05/09/21 10:01am Link  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

That's 200,000 km (which is equivalent to just over 124k miles).

Yes, when the powergrid comprises of power generated exclusively from the top three clean sources: nuclear, wind and hydro, then BEVs will kick ass, as the breakeven will be almost instant (just under 30K miles for the XC40)...provided the car is driven frequently (which unfortunately for my wife, is not the case).

So how many years will it take for the powergrids to have clean energy? As in here in the USA, nuclear is verboten. Gotta have water for hydro, and wind for wind.....and we know solar and geothermal are really 2 bit players in the power game.


(Formerly known as SPRey)
Tim & Sue
Hershey (Sheltie)
2005 F150 4x4 Lariat 5.4L 3.73 Please buy a Hybrid...I need your gas for my 35.7 gallon tank!
2000 Nash 19B...comfortably pimped with a real Queen Size Bed


atreis

IN

Senior Member

Joined: 08/29/2005

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 05/09/21 11:24am Link  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

I would hope that a Volvo would last for more than 124K miles! I'd expect it to go for 200-300K miles before the end of its service life. (That's what I was referring to. The car's expected service life.
Break even was considerably less than 124K miles, even with the current mix of power generation sources.)

We have quite a lot of wind generation here in the US, and tremendous potential for more. A lot of the available wind sources in the midwest have not yet been tapped. There's also a lot of untapped potential for solar. It still amazes me how many very large roofs (factories, malls, big box stores, warehouses, and the like) contain no, or only small, arrays.

* This post was edited 05/09/21 12:25pm by an administrator/moderator *

RambleOnNW

Pacific Northwest

Senior Member

Joined: 08/06/2010

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 05/09/21 11:42am Link  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Timmo! wrote:

That's 200,000 km (which is equivalent to just over 124k miles).

Yes, when the powergrid comprises of power generated exclusively from the top three clean sources: nuclear, wind and hydro, then BEVs will kick ass, as the breakeven will be almost instant (just under 30K miles for the XC40)...provided the car is driven frequently (which unfortunately for my wife, is not the case).

So how many years will it take for the powergrids to have clean energy? As in here in the USA, nuclear is verboten. Gotta have water for hydro, and wind for wind.....and we know solar and geothermal are really 2 bit players in the power game.


Solar has 8X the potential of wind. Scroll to page 20 of this NREL report:

https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files........ble%20Resource%20in%20States%20Study.pdf

Potential of renewables is >100X the annual electricity consumption of 4 TWh. So plenty for BEV charging and hydrogen production but need the infrastructure obviously. I haven’t run the numbers for TWh equivalent of all current annual oil and gas consumption.

* This post was edited 05/09/21 12:16pm by RambleOnNW *

Timmo!

Oregon

Senior Member

Joined: 03/10/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 05/10/21 10:04am Link  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

RambleOnNW wrote:



Solar has 8X the potential of wind. Scroll to page 20 of this NREL report:

https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files........ble%20Resource%20in%20States%20Study.pdf

Potential of renewables is >100X the annual electricity consumption of 4 TWh. So plenty for BEV charging and hydrogen production but need the infrastructure obviously. I haven’t run the numbers for TWh equivalent of all current annual oil and gas consumption.


If, all alternative/renewable sources of electricity started their life cycle with a zero carbon footprint, then life would be much easier. Unfortunately, they don't. Once we include the carbon footprint to produce and deliver the product to the user, then the "green story" changes.

The following graphic from wiki lists the grams of CO2 per kWh for these alternative sources. As you can see, the median (a good safe number to use) for solar is much greater than other forms of alternative energy.

[image]

I agree the "potential" for solar as "greener" source of electricity is great, but after the production and "end of life" processing is cleaned up, because that is quite "dirty", especially when compared to nuclear (which I DO NOT advocate).

* This post was edited 05/10/21 10:15am by Timmo! *

Yosemite Sam1

Under the pines.

Senior Member

Joined: 03/28/2018

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 05/10/21 10:13am Link  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

free radical wrote:


You forgot to include cost of driling for oil refining procesing and shiping such to destination using dirty fuel powered vehicles.

also making sick and kiling milions of people w resulting dirty air coming from emisions exhausts pipes.

Driving EV is cleaner no matter how you try to spin the tale while avoiding fosil fuels shortcomings.
Shall we include all the wars and related casualties in pursuit of oil control?
Iraq Iran Venezuela,Lybia Syria etc


And the cost for us taxpayers with our troops patrolling the oil sea lanes in the Gulf.

As to @timmol's request for scientific study on deaths due to pollution, here, just 10.2 million more.

Global mortality from outdoor fine parti........tion generated by fossil fuel combustion

pianotuna

Regina, SK, Canada

Senior Member

Joined: 12/18/2004

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 05/10/21 10:20am Link  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Timmo!,

Your graph shows solar is ten times less co2 than gas and 20 times less than coal.

If c02 was reduced by 90% then there would no longer be a problem.

We do need to conserve power, and I believe that is a best "first step". I'm currently using less than 110 KWH per month.


Regards, Don
My ride is a 28 foot Class C, 256 watts solar, soon to have SiO2 batteries, 3000 watt Magnum hybrid inverter, Sola Basic Autoformer, Microair Easy Start.

Timmo!

Oregon

Senior Member

Joined: 03/10/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 05/10/21 10:22am Link  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

free radical wrote:


You forgot to include cost of driling for oil refining procesing and shiping such to destination using dirty fuel powered vehicles.

also making sick and kiling milions of people w resulting dirty air coming from emisions exhausts pipes.

Driving EV is cleaner no matter how you try to spin the tale while avoiding fosil fuels shortcomings.
Shall we include all the wars and related casualties in pursuit of oil control?
Iraq Iran Venezuela,Lybia Syria etc


And the cost for us taxpayers with our troops patrolling the oil sea lanes in the Gulf.

As to @timmol's request for scientific study on deaths due to pollution, here, just 10.2 million more.

Global mortality from outdoor fine parti........tion generated by fossil fuel combustion


Sam, did you even read that? Is it any surprise the two dirtiest countries are responsible for almost 2/3 of those estimated deaths (China 3.9 million and India 2.5 million). Duh I say.

The greatest mortality impact is estimated over regions with substantial fossil fuel related PM2.5, notably China (3.9 million), India (2.5 million) and parts of eastern US, Europe and Southeast Asia.

Interesting that in USA, only the eastern part had significant deaths, not the crazy west coast.

Timmo!

Oregon

Senior Member

Joined: 03/10/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 05/10/21 10:29am Link  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

pianotuna wrote:

Timmo!,

Your graph shows solar is ten times less co2 than gas and 20 times less than coal.

If c02 was reduced by 90% then there would no longer be a problem.

We do need to conserve power, and I believe that is a best "first step". I'm currently using less than 110 KWH per month.


Dude, you write if I am an advocate for big oil. I am an advocate for Mother Earth and been a conservationist for about 40 years (once I grew out of my crazy 20's). I am just a contrarian and question what I am being told, and when it comes to BEV, we are not told the complete story....like when does a BEV breakeven with a comparable ICE vehicle. Some believe the BEV is greener on the first day it is driven off the dealer's lot (false--BEVs have 30-70% greater carbon footprint at the starting line).

And BEVs (like majority of our consumer goods) require fossil fuels to produce the parts in manufacturing. Outlaw fossil fuels and the result is no BEV.

* This post was edited 05/10/21 10:40am by Timmo! *

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 05/10/21 10:43am Link  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

You chose to believe the environmental impacts of manufacturing ices and bevs in an article you quoted

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/fil........ars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

But chose to reject/ignore the comparison of full lifecycle emissions from that same article (50% lower for bevs). What criteria are you using to decide what to believe and what not to believe?

This Topic Is Closed  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 31  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire

 > One Great Big EV Thread
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2021 CWI, Inc. © 2021 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.