Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

21 - 40 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
549 Posts
You get what you pay for. You could always buy a motorcycle or a 10 year old beater for that matter. I'm perfectly fine paying a premium for an EV because after driving one, there's no way I'm going back to ICE. I don't mind driving an ICE car once in a while but I won't own one. It's kind of like finding Five Guys after feasting only on McDonald's for years. You can stomach the McDonald's once in a while. ;)

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Oh I love beating dead horses! If we based everything we do on the economics alone, everybody would be driving twice totaled Corollas and eating rice and beans 3 times a day. And yes I just now realized that plenty of good people do exactly that. Dang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
I'm not so hung up on the fact the vehicle comparisons had a vast different in price. The Bolt is close to $20k more expensive than a counterpart ICE equivalent, IMHO. We paid a hefty price for the drivetrain and electron storage device. I for one don't see the ROI to be that good in an EV right now, especially with the gas prices where they are. I don't have solar to subsidize that nor do I charge for free. I'm ok with the Bolt, and I'm ok if the ROI is nearly zero in true savings. I'm not sure I buy the CO emission savings because no one can truly quantify what the CO emissions were to create a comparable ICE versus what is going on to make those batteries. I'm not super environmental, but there still is no viable recycling of these batteries yet. More than one thread on this forum citing sources that it just isn't happening. Search....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
I'm not so hung up on the fact the vehicle comparisons had a vast different in price. The Bolt is close to $20k more expensive than a counterpart ICE equivalent, IMHO. We paid a hefty price for the drivetrain and electron storage device. I for one don't see the ROI to be that good in an EV right now, especially with the gas prices where they are. I don't have solar to subsidize that nor do I charge for free. I'm ok with the Bolt, and I'm ok if the ROI is nearly zero in true savings. I'm not sure I buy the CO emission savings because no one can truly quantify what the CO emissions were to create a comparable ICE versus what is going on to make those batteries. I'm not super environmental, but there still is no viable recycling of these batteries yet. More than one thread on this forum citing sources that it just isn't happening. Search....
ZoomZoom, I stated this tread and I hope you read the the article, it’s interesting in any case the co2 that is not expelled is in the order of 50 tons over a ten year period. So 5 tons a year. On the battery front when there is enough used batteries around somebody going to find how to make money on the recycling. The Chinese will find a way to make money...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,909 Posts
I don't have solar to subsidize that nor do I charge for free. I'm ok with the Bolt, and I'm ok if the ROI is nearly zero in true savings.
I looked at rooftop solar 5 years ago and been checking it yearly since, still cheaper for me to stay on the grid. The power company's been adding solar and battery storage. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,364 Posts
There's actually quite a bit of data on just this issue in the Tesla 2019 Environmental Impact report.
Page 8
Even if we use the official EPA efficiency rating (instead of real-world data) for a Toyota Prius of 56 MPG, which translates to 177 grams of CO2 per mile (incl. refining & transport of oil), an EV would still emit fewer lifetime emissions than the Prius. Regarding mileage and lifespan, we estimate that an average vehicle in the U.S. is driven slightly less than 12,000 miles per year for about 17 years before it is scrapped. Furthermore, as an ICE vehicle ages, its fuel efficiency only remains stable if serviced properly. On the other hand, electricity generation to charge EVs has become “greener” over time with the addition of cleaner energy sources to the grid. Thus, emissions generated through EV charging should continue to decline over time.

This table is showing the comparative emissions of the various applications that the Model 3 will be used.

A current Fremont-made Model 3 charged from a grid with the generation mix that reflects the geographic distribution of Model 3 deliveries in the U.S.
• What emissions per mile could be if the Model 3 were used for ridesharing over one million miles using cell chemistry from our energy products
• What emissions per mile could be if a Model 3 were principally charged at home using a solar system and energy storage
• What emissions per mile could be if a Model 3 were used for ridesharing over one million miles using cell chemistry from our energy products and if it were only charged using a solar system and energy storage
• The reference ICE vehicle is based on the average midsize premium sedan in the U.S.
29729


This video gets into it too with some further explaination but focuses more on the million mile battery that's been in production for a while now but utilized in storage for now.

TLDR
According to Tesla's research, based on a life expectancy of 200k miles, EV's give off less CO2 than ICEV's.

There are also numerous videos that also compare 5 year amortizations between typical ICEV's and various BEV's that look at it from purely a financial POV which is in line with the above comments that at some point in time, BEV's are less expensive TCO than ICEV's depending on the particulars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
I think its time people start making environmental decisions and making them quick because just this weekend temperatures hit 30C at the 60 parallel, that is bad and it’s just the start of summer...
I think we're all aware of what people should do. Unfortunately, most are so self absorbed that they wouldn't make one single change if that change requires any type of compromise or annoyance. That's the reason we continue to see arguments that EVs need to get 400-500 miles of range, need to charge in 5 minutes from empty to full, and must cost less than comparable ICE vehicles before they will consider them. Simply stated, since compromise is required for the betterment of all, and many are unwilling to do so, here we are.

I mean we're in a world where people are still debating if they should wear a mask in public in a global pandemic. That protecting the public and trying to maintain public health and safety is too inconvenient and infringes on their rights. If folks are that petty about something simple, why think they would budge on what is bordering on a extinction level event?

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,603 Posts
There's actually quite a bit of data on just this issue in the Tesla 2019 Environmental Impact report.
Page 8
Even if we use the official EPA efficiency rating (instead of real-world data) for a Toyota Prius of 56 MPG, which translates to 177 grams of CO2 per mile (incl. refining & transport of oil), an EV would still emit fewer lifetime emissions than the Prius. Regarding mileage and lifespan, we estimate that an average vehicle in the U.S. is driven slightly less than 12,000 miles per year for about 17 years before it is scrapped. Furthermore, as an ICE vehicle ages, its fuel efficiency only remains stable if serviced properly. On the other hand, electricity generation to charge EVs has become “greener” over time with the addition of cleaner energy sources to the grid. Thus, emissions generated through EV charging should continue to decline over time.

This table is showing the comparative emissions of the various applications that the Model 3 will be used.

A current Fremont-made Model 3 charged from a grid with the generation mix that reflects the geographic distribution of Model 3 deliveries in the U.S.
• What emissions per mile could be if the Model 3 were used for ridesharing over one million miles using cell chemistry from our energy products
• What emissions per mile could be if a Model 3 were principally charged at home using a solar system and energy storage
• What emissions per mile could be if a Model 3 were used for ridesharing over one million miles using cell chemistry from our energy products and if it were only charged using a solar system and energy storage
• The reference ICE vehicle is based on the average midsize premium sedan in the U.S.
View attachment 29729


This video gets into it too with some further explaination but focuses more on the million mile battery that's been in production for a while now but utilized in storage for now.

TLDR
According to Tesla's research, based on a life expectancy of 200k miles, EV's give off less CO2 than ICEV's.

There are also numerous videos that also compare 5 year amortizations between typical ICEV's and various BEV's that look at it from purely a financial POV which is in line with the above comments that at some point in time, BEV's are less expensive TCO than ICEV's depending on the particulars.
The graph shows varying CO2 emissions in the manufacture of a vehicle depending on how it's used, which doesn't make sense. The conclusions are in doubt if the assumptions about entrained CO2 emissions in manufacture aren't accurate. I assume in most instances the Model 3 lifetime CO2 emissions would be less than the "average" vehicle.

In the same paper they list this abysmal fact, that transportation is only 16% of CO2 emissions. If we converted most everything to EV and cut transportation emissions in half, we'd have reduced total emissions 8%, which is good but...

Electricity & Heat Production 31%
Agriculture, Forestry 20%
Industry 18%
Transportation 16%
Other Energy 9%
Buildings 6%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,364 Posts
The graph shows varying CO2 emissions in the manufacture of a vehicle depending on how it's used, which doesn't make sense. The conclusions are in doubt if the assumptions about entrained CO2 emissions in manufacture aren't accurate. I assume in most instances the Model 3 lifetime CO2 emissions would be less than the "average" vehicle.

In the same paper they list this abysmal fact, that transportation is only 16% of CO2 emissions. If we converted most everything to EV and cut transportation emissions in half, we'd have reduced total emissions 8%, which is good but...

Electricity & Heat Production 31%
Agriculture, Forestry 20%
Industry 18%
Transportation 16%
Other Energy 9%
Buildings 6%
The CO2 emmisions in manufacturing are accurate based on how they are amortized. Watch the other video linked. I believe he explains it. A million mile robotaxi will have a smaller carbon footprint per mile than a 200k mile personal use vehicle. This amortization gets applied to both initial manufacturing and energy use over it's lifetime.
Look at it as amortizing the total amount of fuel consumption as a percentage split into each category. As the miles increase, a smaller and smaller percentage of the overall energy consumption is from manufacturing since that was a fixed cost up front.

But even better, over time, BEV's will continue to outpace ICEV's in lower emissions as a result of continued reductions on the manufacturing end as well as the greening of the grid.

"Predominantly due to lack of reliable data, various third-party studies tend to overstate the actual energy requirement, and therefore the associated emissions, for battery manufacturing. In fact, in 2019, the emissions from producing a full EV were nearly comparable to than the emissions from producing an average ICE vehicle. That said, battery manufacturing technology continues to improve rapidly, and we expect the EV manufacturing energy requirement and associated emissions to drop significantly in the near future."

I believe the bolded is in reference to the dry electrode, solvent free Maxwell battery that should be in production in the next few months. The lack of drying ovens result in a 4X increase in efficiency as well as reduced filtering requirements for the solvents while also improving the energy density by 20%-30%.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
I looked at rooftop solar 5 years ago and been checking it yearly since, still cheaper for me to stay on the grid. The power company's been adding solar and battery storage. :)
I'm in the process right now of installing Tesla Powerwalls and in phase 1; two banks of 9 panels (18 total panels) each of Suniva 340W Solar Panels. In my state, there's no realistic ROI because the utility company is anti-solar. I personally am not doing it to sell back any power though it will, the compensation rate is so minimal in my state, it's a joke. I always wanted to have a solar cell setup. I'm ground installing them, I'm on 6 acres and have the room to do that and away from the house.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,603 Posts
I'm in the process right now of installing Tesla Powerwalls and in phase 1; two banks of 9 panels (18 total panels) each of Suniva 340W Solar Panels. In my state, there's no realistic ROI because the utility company is anti-solar. I personally am not doing it to sell back any power though it will, the compensation rate is so minimal in my state, it's a joke. I always wanted to have a solar cell setup. I'm ground installing them, I'm on 6 acres and have the room to do that and away from the house.
Why should utility payers or tax payers fund a system you don't need, and which doesn't benefit the utility or tax payers in any way?

I say that after having heavily benefited from State, Utility, and Federal funds for my solar install. They shouldn't have offered the money, because financially sound folks like myself don't need it, and nobody else benefits. It's the definition of a regressive program.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
928 Posts
Hey Hatchy, are you telling me I don’t have the right to my opinion or discuss my personal opinion on the said subject, don’t tell me my opinion is wrong. Tell me I don’t agree with your opinion or point of view and why. So lets leave it at that. Shall we...cheers
I think you misunderstand what is happening here. You are the one who is trying to stop the opinions from flying... cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
I think you misunderstand what is happening here. You are the one who is trying to stop the opinions from flying... cheers.
I’m the one stopping opinions from flying, did somebody piss on your cornflakes this morning, get real man, I never did what you are accusing me. Stop playing games this forum is for everybody and stop acting like the Bolt Police, get a life...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
928 Posts
"Lets leave it at that" pisses in my cornflakes.

Me is the choice i make and it is my choice and this choice to me is valid and stands up to my own personal views and research i have done on the subject. Here is Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, it's my personal opinion, lets leave it at that. I'm writing what i personally think is right and less co2 is right one way or the other. I think i'm going to step outside and smoke a reefer, co2 included...cheers
You type what you want, and so will we.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Why should utility payers or tax payers fund a system you don't need, and which doesn't benefit the utility or tax payers in any way?

I say that after having heavily benefited from State, Utility, and Federal funds for my solar install. They shouldn't have offered the money, because financially sound folks like myself don't need it, and nobody else benefits. It's the definition of a regressive program.
You're right but the fact that fossil fuel plants and ICEs emit gasses into the atmosphere for free constitutes a significant subsidy too. Nuclear plants get a nice waver of liability in case of an accident so they can afford their insurance. Nothing is pure in the energy market so personally I'd prefer to subsidize solar and wind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
"Lets leave it at that" pisses in my cornflakes.



You type what you want, and so will we.
Type what you want, if you don’t like my opinion so be it, just don’t read my posts and don’t post comments, it’s simple. Just stay away from Electro Volt posts and comments. By the way are you a moderator for this forum if not have nice day and a bowl of cornflakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Why should utility payers or tax payers fund a system you don't need, and which doesn't benefit the utility or tax payers in any way?

I say that after having heavily benefited from State, Utility, and Federal funds for my solar install. They shouldn't have offered the money, because financially sound folks like myself don't need it, and nobody else benefits. It's the definition of a regressive program.
I mentioned the utility company, not tax payers. I'm against tax payers subsidizing a solar install and also for subsidizing an EV purchase. No one I know 'needs' an EV but many states drop the panties of the taxpayers to help people who actually 'can' afford the car, yet gives them a **** ton of subsidies. When I see states give thousands of dollars to offset a purchase, I just shake my head. Want to pay the highest vehicle registration fee possible, register an EV in my state. I don't support the concept of the government helping someone buy a car under any circumstance. I brought up the ROI because my utility provider has put every possible roadblock in front of the concept of 'selling' power back to the grid. They have imposed surcharges into the formula under the basis that just because a solar powered house is using sun power, the utility has to be available to provide power to them just the same for times and days that they can't produce sun based power. I'm not trying to debate it, I'm installing it for the simple reason that I always wanted it. To my naive thinking, solar benefits the utility but they disagree. They also voted for the 3rd time to NOT support EV's in any way in April. They don't subsidize EVSE's, they won't integrate with them to control them for the common good nor will they create any time of use or EV charging discount. I bring this up so those in states, like California that get all these things including HOV access (we don't) understand that not every state has these programs and to be aware.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,909 Posts
There should be a additional tax on health insurance and that money goes into a pot to incentivize EV purchase. EV reduce emission and improve local air quality which results in healthier population meaning reduction in medical claims. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: roseberry

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
I mentioned the utility company, not tax payers. I'm against tax payers subsidizing a solar install and also for subsidizing an EV purchase. When I see states give thousands of dollars to offset a purchase, I just shake my head. Want to pay the highest vehicle registration fee possible, register an EV in my state. I don't support the concept of the government helping someone buy a car under any circumstance. I brought up the ROI because my utility provider has put every possible roadblock in front of the concept of 'selling' power back to the grid. They have imposed surcharges into the formula under the basis that just because a solar powered house is using sun power, the utility has to be available to provide power to them just the same for times and days that they can't produce sun based power. I'm not trying to debate it, I'm installing it for the simple reason that I always wanted it. To my naive thinking, solar benefits the utility but they disagree. They also voted for the 3rd time to NOT support EV's in any way in April. They don't subsidize EVSE's, they won't integrate with them to control them for the common good nor will they create any time of use or EV charging discount. I bring this up so those in states, like California that get all these things including HOV access (we don't) understand that not every state has these programs and to be aware.
Here in the North we subsidize the purchase at the Federal level and also subsidize in some provinces. The Feds subsidize large emitters of co2 to get emissions down. As a country we signed agreements to lower our emissions ie the Paris Treaty, we made a commitment and most of the world has followed, Europe is miles ahead of everybody in their implementation, Norway and Denmark are making huge strides. These countries made a choice to change and look to the future, and subsidies are used as a platform to leap into the future. The US backed out of the Paris Treaty and in my opinion have wasted four years. Due to our geography and low population grants are needed to create an ecosystem that will support a change. It’s two visions, yours is one that it’s up to the individuals to promote change and create prosperity. Ours is that, as a collective we use the funds we generate to create prosperity and change. On the question of solar I would be spending a lot of time on the roof cleaning snow of the panels and for four months of year I would be looking at minimal electrical output.
 
21 - 40 of 73 Posts
Top