[Sai Teja]

EV’s haven’t been something that I have admired since their inception into the Indian market. Couple of years ago, to me it all looked very cool with the marketing of Tesla’s earlier models in the states and also their sales numbers for the model S, but also I was a bit naïve back then to be able to look at the whole picture. Now after a few years of their presence in the market and the evaluations of their practicality and efficiency done by numerous people and studies over the years, I still feel that there are a few things which escape our eyes when we think about EVs. In this post I’d like to mention those areas where the EVs still deserve some skepticism.

Charging losses:
Charging losses are a known phenomenon, but we can get to know how significant they can be if we look at examples like the BMW i7 with 105.6kwh battery consumes around 126 kwh of energy to be fully juiced up, whereas the Jaguar i-pace with it’s 90kwh battery requires 100kwh of energy on fast charging and unfortunately trying to charge these cars on slow chargers would take days. Definitely these are not the EVs that an average Indian would buy. Even the highest selling Nexon EV consumes an extra 2kwh than its rated battery capacity, not so big when looked at, but could slowly add up across the charge cycles and these losses are usually more pronounced on fast charging networks due to the high voltage operations which results in the wastage of energy in the form of heat. When monetary value is considered, even the wasted energy could be adding to the costs as the fast charging fee ranges between Rs.22-27 in most places. Even though slow charging would mean that the losses are less, they won’t be zero and would prevent the vehicles in being on the road for a lot of time and more charging at home would mean that you breach several governemnt slab rates per kwh and end up paying the highest per kwh which is inclusive of the household usage. The average charging efficiencies of the setups available today range between 75% to 90% which is good but definitely has to get better. This makes me feel that the electric propulsion systems are overrated for their efficiencies.

Powertrain efficiency:
In 2015, I clearly remember an Optimistic EV article saying that the EVs would be easily capable of delivering drivetrain efficiencies in the range of 80-90%. But unfortunately todays searches suggest they actually lie between 60-75% with a very high degree of variability primarily dependent on how effectively the regenerative braking is used. So it’s very obvious that the drive cycles like IDC, WLTP which involve deceleration that is more than required, would also have more regeneration occurring that leads to better drivetrain efficiencies and hence the over optimistic range figures that are hard to achieve in the real world. Another talking point should be the torque speed characteristics of the EV motors. It is very clear that how good they are of the line, as for the initial few 1000 rpms the torque delivery remains constants, but falls or drastically post that, which means it is getting more and doing less for the energy it is receiving from the battery. It is also obvious that the manufacturers and designers are aware of this but don’t use a transmission to keep the motor in its sweet spot. Even if not the heavy lumps of metal that the helical gears are, why not experiment atleast with a CVT?

Commercial vehicles:
There has been a study performed by IIT Kanpur in partnership with a Japanese organization, which has also been posted on one of our TeamBHP threads. It states that the emissions involved with the manufacturing, running and maintenance of EVs are indeed higher than that of the conventional ICE vehicles. And this could be offset only by running the EVs past a certain threshold which around 1 lakh kilometres odd. The private or personally owned vehicles are very less likely to breach this mark, apart from the few owned by our fellow BHPians. If it comes to replacing the ICE vehicles, the first to be replaced should be the diesels present in the commercial segment, but by pushing for EV adoption in private vehicles which is usually dominated by petrols, can only do more harm than good. If we consider the public transportation segment which is entirely diesel, with the buses doing atleast 150-200kms a day, taking up only one single charging point for the 40 people it carries in contrast with a car transporting a maximum of 5 people, it makes a lot of sense.

Ease of getting fixes:
Getting our cars or bikes fixed at a relative ease and in a cost-effective way is one of the key considerations during ownerships. If certain issues prove to be too costly to be fixed at your dealership, we always have one roadside mechanic who could procure spares for cheap and help with some other cheap fixes, albeit not advisable but good enough in the long run. With the cars being entirely electric the usual visual inspection would no longer get your car a proper diagnosis unless connected with some OBD tool, which completely takes out the feasibility of it being repaired at any other garage.
These doubts have often made me feel that the commercial segment as a whole would thrive with the induction of EVs as they tend to have institutions of their own for vehicle maintenance and care taking, which is not the case if it is owned in private. The initial investment for the commercial institution will be high too, but for them the economies of scale comes as a boon, and it is also in their advantage the ability to control sales numbers of certain manufacturers based on the assistance they provide. For the average Indian who does around 5000-6000 kms a year, would only end up doing 90000kms in 15 years time, which is nearly twice the maximum battery warranty period given by any manufacturer around the world. So it would be safe to say to private EV buyer “you are not really saving the world” neither you are making it easy for yourselves.

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by Sai Teja

Charging losses:
Charging losses are a known phenomenon, but we can get to know how significant they can be if we look at examples like the BMW i7 with 105.6kwh battery consumes around 126 kwh of energy to be fully juiced up, whereas the Jaguar i-pace with it’s 90kwh battery requires 100kwh of energy on fast charging

While some part does go to charging losses, batteries differ in the actual and usable capacity. The usable capacity of an iX is 107.5 kWh but actual capacity is 111.5 kWh gross. It is locked in to prevent deep discharge as a sort of buffer.

and unfortunately trying to charge these cars on slow chargers would take days.

The i7 supports 7kW and 11kW chargers. Using these said chargers at home, one can charge in about same time as other EVs do ie ~8-9h on the 11kW and ~13h on 7.4kW.

Its not exactly DCFC quick, but its also far from "days". You're probably referencing the chargers used by Nexon and Tiago segment cars which are 3kW which would indeed take days, but its like asking to charge a laptop using mobile charger. My laptop charger is 67W while phone is barely 15W.

losses are usually more pronounced on fast charging networks due to the high voltage operations which results in the wastage of energy in the form of heat.

Far from it really. The reason HV transmission lines run on 100kV+ More voltage = less current needed to transmit same amount of power. Heat scales by square of current (I^2)

Power = V*I.

My nexon takes 21kW at 343V 63A. If I wanted to supply the same at 240V at home, it would be 87.5A not 63.

The reason EVs like Taycan, EV6, Ioniq 5 and future EVs use 800V system architecture instead of legacy 400V architecture on Tesla or 72V architecture on hybrids is for minimising heat itself.

Laptops and PCs use 12V architecture instead of 5V on phones/watches for same reason.

Originally Posted by Sai Teja

This makes me feel that the electric propulsion systems are overrated for their efficiencies.

Its still by far more efficient than any other powertrain (hybrid/CNG/ICE/FCEV/eFUEL)

But unfortunately todays searches suggest they actually lie between 60-75% with a very high degree of variability primarily dependent on how effectively the regenerative braking is used.

You're mistaking two different things.

Regenerative braking does not increase efficiency, it increases range. That too in specific scenarios (city traffic). The efficiency of the motor remains same whether or not you use regen or not.

In city condition, it is a given that one would use brakes every so often. Brakes work because they dissipate the Kinetic energy of moving vehicle as heat through friction.

Regen does not dissipate this energy as heat rather sends it back to the battery.

The efficiency will remain same even if you disable regen. Just your range will reduce. Allow me to demonstrate :

Lets say there is a Nexon EV and Nexon Petrol.

Both moving at 36kmph possess 68500J and 61850J of KE respectively. In kWh, thats 0.019kWh and 0.017kWh. This is the amount of energy that the vehicle's used to reach 36kmph.

Since the EV has regen, assuming motor efficiency of 90%, will be able to recover 0.017kWh of the initial kinetic energy (rest being heat wastage). Now say, the car is being driven in the city where there are 10 signals on one way to office and speed remains 36kmph after every green light.

Total energy usage of the EV over a round trip to the office = 20*0.019kWh = 380Wh. Energy successfully recovered : 10*0.017 = 340Wh.

As such, a usage of 380Wh would've led to the drop in % being 1% (380/30200), but due to regen you got back 340Wh which would've been lost otherwise. In this case the drop is practically zero on MID.

This does not consider the continouos power needed by motor to overcome air resistance of travelling at 36kmph. As such, a trip encompassing 10 signals one way would not be just 1%.

Had you not used regen and simply used brakes, this 340Wh wouldn't be recovered.

Where it gets interesting is that my nexon gives 120Wh in city which comes to a range of 250km with regen3. If I take it at 36kmph CC with regen0, it can give close to 100Wh/km which is 300km.

So usage of regen only helps when braking is inevitable. If you can maintain constant speed (hwy) then the range WILL be more than if you drove at SAME speed in city.

So it’s very obvious that the drive cycles like IDC, WLTP which involve deceleration that is more than required,

It's already well known that MIDC, NEDC and CLTC are dynamometer tests done at constant speed with no AC usage, no speed variation and no air resistance.

Those are the factors leading to inflated range, not the use of regen. As such, if you do not use regen in city, your range will reduce.

There has been a study performed by IIT Kanpur in partnership with a Japanese organization, which has also been posted on one of our TeamBHP threads. It states that the emissions involved with the manufacturing, running and maintenance of EVs are indeed higher than that of the conventional ICE vehicles. And this could be offset only by running the EVs past a certain threshold which around 1 lakh kilometres odd.

This is the third study being performed by IITK, and second under sponsorship. Last year, we had a study sponsored by Aramco which obviously has vested interest in prolonging use of fossil fuel.

I read a very insightful comment regarding the inconsistencies in the said IITK report which you can view here

Its a page by page and point by point debunk of the report pdf which I found accurate given the links and data presented as counterpoint.

Either case, IITK itself said EVs are better in 2021, so why are conclusions changing when the sponsor is an oil giant or a hybrid supplier?

Its a shame that the names of premier institutions of the country are being used as a hallmark by powers with vested interests. They know very well that the avg person who just reads headlines will go "IIT ne study ki hai toh sahi hi hogi" (Since it is an IIT study it is bound to be correct)

They do not even read the article let alone the 100s of pages of pdf which the report has.

If we consider the public transportation segment which is entirely diesel, with the buses doing atleast 150-200kms a day, taking up only one single charging point for the 40 people it carries in contrast with a car transporting a maximum of 5 people, it makes a lot of sense.

That is exactly what is happening, mumbai revived the Double Decker in EV guise this year, multiple tier 1 and even tier 2 cities have a large electric bus fleet now. This had started in like, 2017 already.

With the cars being entirely electric the usual visual inspection would no longer get your car a proper diagnosis unless connected with some OBD tool, which completely takes out the feasibility of it being repaired at any other garage.

Its not an EV issue, even most modern ICE/hybrids face same issue.
I'm sure overseas BHPians can attest to this.[/quote]

[Sai Teja]

well, if you say that the studies performed by reputed institutes are biased because they are funded by some wily foreign sponsor who conspires to prevent EVs from getting what they deserve, then it could also be said that you too are being biased towards EVs as you own one and same logic applies to me as I am biased against them because I don't own one. Also Mumbai doesn't represent India as a whole and in fact bringing in EVs without taking out the diesels doesn't make sense. The baby steps taken in Mumbai won't be sufficient and ignoring the emissions associated with the synthesis and fabrication of batteries and battery materials to paint them as sustainable is something to me feels nothing different to any other political propaganda.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

I read a very insightful comment regarding the inconsistencies in the said IITK report which you can view.

Its a shame that the names of premier institutions of the country are being used as a hallmark by powers with vested interests. They know very well that the avg person who just reads headlines will go "IIT ne study ki hai toh sahi hi hogi" (Since it is an IIT study it is bound to be correct).

Good, well written post. Even I had mentioned somewhere on TBHP, this study by IITK is a sham, conducted by the engine department of mechanical engineering, obvious conflict of interest.

It looked like they took electricity mix of US to refine oil, but used electricity mix of India for EVs.

There are multiple studies by researchers and govt which show that EVs are better than ICE, yet we believe in what a comedian (Mr. Bean) says than what a researcher says. Anyways, if we like it or not EVs are the only cars or buses or trucks you can buy in 2035.

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by Sai Teja

well, if you say that the studies performed by reputed institutes are biased because they are funded by some wily foreign sponsor

I’m no one to say that. I have simply read, what in my opinion, was a very logical debunk. As an engineer myself, I concur with most of the points, but most of all, these lines :

Further, not footnotes or references are provided for the method used to actually calculate refinery emissions
7. Page 28 they assume electricity infra to be same as USA again. Bhai agar sab chiz usa ki hi assume karni hai toh fir result ulta kyu aa raha hai?

https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploa...EN-jul2021.pdf

This study compares USA EVs LCA with FCEVs, Hybrids and ICE. The result says in USA, EVs are 60-68% cleaner as of today. And in india as well, they are cleaner by 19%. Yet, our esteemed IITK researchers, DESPITE lifting all data points for oil refining and electricity production from USA, then how come the result is coming different from what the studies in USA concluded?

They have not even used datapoints from india, but USA. Funnily enough, ICCT study itself in USA concluded EVs are better, but using same data, IITK received opposite results.

That, and the fact that they are backtracking on an older study from 2021 performed by IITK itself, said that EVs are better.

I don’t know if you read the linked debunk or not, but I suggest you do. Every single quoted line in the comment exists in the pdf available on iitk website and in the beginning of that debunk. You can cross check if there is any inconsistency.

Also Mumbai doesn't represent India as a whole and in fact bringing in EVs without taking out the diesels doesn't make sense.

I mentioned mumbai because it’s the most recent example. Here’s the full list of every govt run electric bus in india if you missed the part where I said “adoption of electric busses started back in 2017”

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1742666

ignoring the emissions associated with the synthesis and fabrication of batteries and battery materials

That’s exactly what the said IITK study has done by ignoring oil extraction emissions (lithium mining analogous) which uses diesel/electric pumps at oil rigs, transport of said oil which employs 40% of global shipping fleets and refining of the said oil which uses fractional distillation (requires heating which is sourced from fuel/electric furnace)

Few hundred kg of metals one time mining and recyclable vs thousands of litres of oil extraction refining and transport for running a ICE car for same duration. I wonder which is cleaner.

Since I failed to find exact figures for the oil side, but battery side are readily available. I wonder if this information blackout is intentional or coincidental, that nobody cared to do the same math for oil, that they so enthusiastically do for battery production.

[electric_eel]

Originally Posted by Sai Teja

well, if you say that the studies performed by reputed institutes are biased because they are funded by some wily foreign sponsor who conspires to prevent EVs from getting what they deserve, then it could also be said that you too are being biased towards EVs as you own one and same logic applies to me as I am biased against them because I don't own one. Also Mumbai doesn't represent India as a whole and in fact bringing in EVs without taking out the diesels doesn't make sense. The baby steps taken in Mumbai won't be sufficient and ignoring the emissions associated with the synthesis and fabrication of batteries and battery materials to paint them as sustainable is something to me feels nothing different to any other political propaganda.

The lab in question is the Engine research lab which I have visited. Impressive lab, many interesting experiments including a see through engine (made of glass) through which one can see the strokes of the engine and measure things using laser based sensors. Any automobile enthusiast would love being there.

But I think the TCO/Carbon foot print analysis makes no sense. If you do not compute the emission involved in extracting oil, it is to push an agenda. Also the Li mined does not evaporate after the end of use. The cells with reduced performance can work as electric backup systems. Even after that the LI can be recycled. I am sure we all agree that not a drop of fuel can recycled after it is burnt.

Forget about the oil, just the methane that is flared (See Gas flaring) would be enough to power Europe it seems. And you say Li, a recyclable commodity, generates more carbon foot print that oil extraction ? Does not pass the smell test for sure.

[wheelguy]

Many people making these comparisons are conveniently ignoring some crucial points:

• Lithium is mined and refined only once during a vehicle's lifetime.

• On the contrary, diesel and petrol need to be mined, refined, and transported multiple times throughout the vehicle's lifetime.

• Additionally, consider what's more environmentally friendly and efficient: transporting fuel in tankers to fuel stations or transmitting electric power?

• Electricity generation has the potential to become greener over time, unlike fossil fuels.

• Those who argue against EVs fail to recognize that Lithium-ion batteries are not a fuel source themselves; they serve the same purpose for EVs as a fuel tank does for an ICE car.

• Electric motors in EVs can covert ~85% of the available energy into propulsion whereas internal combustion engines can convert only 20%~40% of the available energy into propulsion. Add to that transmission losses in the gearboxes of ICE cars vs comparatively negligible losses in the EVs.

• There are many more points, all these studies and comparisons are never comprehensive and exhaustive. Those who take the ICE car side leave a few, likewise those who take the EV side leave a few.

All these studies are crafted to appear objective, to gain credibility, and influence the opinions of readers.

How much ever we may debate, disregard to what technology is the best, the shift happens based on factors like - which side the biggies of industry are, on which side government is, etc. Consumer based corrections happen later.

Disregarding whether it's good or bad, I admire Elon Musk for his capability to single-handedly disrupt the entire auto industry and its deeply entrenched allies.

Finally, one should not forget the fact that they are comparing the pros and cons of a technology that has been perfected to its max potential over many decades, to a technology that is relatively new and evolving.

Stop discouraging the early adopters, how can we today enjoy all the technologies that we are enjoying today if there are no early adopters for those technologies in their nascent stages. If the technologies are really so bad, the early adopters will stop it from propagating further to the early majorities, late majorities, and the laggards.

So, cut it some slack, and let it evolve.

[electric_eel]

Originally Posted by wheelguy

Finally, one should not forget the fact that they are comparing the pros and cons of a technology that has been perfected to its max potential over many decades, to a technology that is relatively new and evolving.

ICE technology has been perfected over the years but so has the electric motor. Many of the "perfections" that are needed by ICEs are due to the inherent inferiority of the ICE drive train. EVs do not need these "perfections" because they do not have the associated problems.

- The entire transmission system of an ICE, oh the MT/AMT/AT/DCT is just to work around the ugly fact that ICEs have very poor operational RPM range. Electric motor
only needs a single gear transmission. How much more simpler can it get.

- 1 kWh of electricity is just that on the other hand 1 L of petrol is not the same every where, Blended petrol, octane numbers and pure simple adulteration. You need an entire PhD in chemistry to make head or tail of it.

- Getting the fuel to the engine, conduit, valves etc vs a simple high gauge electric wires; ladies and gentleman which do you think is simpler ?

- Timing issues, valve control, fuel injection, multiple cylinders, synchronisation. I just admire the engineering that goes it all these but for the electric drive train, these are irrelevant.

This superiority of the electric drive train has amply been demonstrated in railways for example. No one gives a second thought here. The only missing link was the power source and with modern Li batteries I think that gap has also been more or less fixed. The EV drivetrain is well developed, gives better driving characteristic and is simpler than ICEs. Together with the environmental advantages there is no going back.

[wocanak]

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

Its still by far more efficient than any other powertrain (hybrid/CNG/ICE/FCEV/eFUEL)

Attachment 2484819

This is an excellent summary of the efficiencies. Would be great if you can provide a link to the source. By liquid do they mean liquid hydrogen?

This clearly shows Hydrogen starts with a factor of two efficiency handicap. The story that is being weaved is that renewables will have so much excess peak production, that storage will be needed and green Hydrogen is the answer. I think when that gets analysed it will also come up short. I am not inclined to believe the petrochemical lobby claims.

Another point to note, if you have an option to put solar rooftop and can charge (or otherwise use) during the day, you will be increasing the "well to tank" efficiency from 94% to 99% (or close to 100%) and can hit the 81% overall efficiency now, instead of waiting for 2050. As a bonus it will be fully clean and you would also have locked in your energy supply for decades.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by wocanak

This is an excellent summary of the efficiencies. Would be great if you can provide a link to the source. By liquid do they mean liquid hydrogen?.

I believe it means e-fuels(synthetic fuels), not sure why they did not add Transportation losses for 'Power to Liquid'.

Hydrogen is 2x least efficient even by 2050, which proves that by 2050 Hydrogen will still be fuel of the future.

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by wocanak

This is an excellent summary of the efficiencies. Would be great if you can provide a link to the source. By liquid do they mean liquid hydrogen?

No no, liquid refers to e fuels.

The publishing org. is Transport&Environment.

While I didn't find the exact same pdf on their website report archives, I did find the linked article from CleanTechnica which referenced this infographic : https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/01...aking-a-sweat/

Heres another version of this same infographic which I did find on T&E website :

https://www.transportenvironment.org...mate-solution/

As a bonus it will be fully clean and you would also have locked in your energy supply for decades.

Solar is the first thing we got installed after booking EV back in 2021. We've paid exactly ₹0 in household usage and commuting. And that's just with 3kW solar on grid

[wheelguy]

Originally Posted by electric_eel

ICE technology has been perfected over the years but so has the electric motor. Many of the "perfections" that are needed by ICEs are due to the inherent inferiority of the ICE drive train. EVs do not need these "perfections" because they do not have the associated problems.

This superiority of the electric drive train has amply been demonstrated in railways for example. No one gives a second thought here. The only missing link was the power source and with modern Li batteries I think that gap has also been more or less fixed. The EV drivetrain is well developed, gives better driving characteristic and is simpler than ICEs. Together with the environmental advantages there is no going back.

Agree, electric motor has been perfected for the traction purposes, but other parts of the EV like BMS, power electronics, rapid charging technologies, and batteries are yet to be improved to serve at the automotive scale. Commercial viability is an important factor here, we may have an excellent battery which perfectly matches for the automotive applications, super high energy density, negligible degradation even after thousands of charge-discharge cycles, made with ecofriendly and abundantly available materials etc etc, but it cannot help if it is super expensive and difficult to manufacture. This is where I see the need for improvements in EV technology. I still see a lot of scope for improvements in this technology compared to the ICE technologies.

[Starwar19]

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

While some part does go to charging losses, batteries differ in the actual and usable capacity. The usable capacity of an iX is 107.5 kWh but actual capacity is 111.5 kWh gross. It is locked in to prevent deep discharge as a sort of buffer.

This post of yours is so so so deeply insightful, comprehensive and gives such a great knowledge that is prevailing in the market.(Truth/Rumours) I want to make a special mention and appreciate you for the efforts and amount of research that you have done.
I being a newbie in the EV market have very little information about its Pros and Cons.

On a Side note, I own a Jeep Meridian bought in March 23, have already covered 13500+ Kms till date and have been facing frustrating issues with it. Probably will sell the Meridian and planning to go for Ioniq 5.
I feel that if this number of miles run daily, EV makes more sense.
I have already paid 1lac+ for fuel bills.
Do you think EV is the only go to option?

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by Starwar19

This post of yours is so so so deeply insightful, comprehensive and gives such a great knowledge that is prevailing in the market.(Truth/Rumours) I want to make a special mention and appreciate you for the efforts and amount of research that you have done.
I being a newbie in the EV market have very little information about its Pros and Cons.

Its just that being an EV owner in early adopter stage sets you up for all kinds of questions at street lights, parkings, and from relatives in festivals. Being able to answer them and convey correct reliable info is what urged me to research.

Planning to go for Ioniq 5.
I feel that if this number of miles run daily, EV makes more sense.
I have already paid 1lac+ for fuel bills.
Do you think EV is the only go to option?

It really depends on your use case. Ours is a substantial commute (40km/day) with next to no highway usage. For us, EV is perfect choice. Public infra is coming up rapidly and I see new chargers in and around my city every week on plugshare.

As such, Ioniq 5 is probably the best EV in 50L today. BYD is a close second (if you can digest the chinese origins that is)

Anyway, with a EV commute is not even a worry. 13.5k in 5mo would've surely warranted highway trips, thats what you may need to worry about. You can do Mumbai/Pune-Kolhapur trip in one charge itself. The entire route is dotted with multiple chargers so even if you do want to charge, it would be seamless.



MH, KA, KL, TS, TN, GJ, all states have very good infra for road trips. Definitely check out plugshare trip planner (app and web) and check for yourself if the highway aspect works out for you. At this budget, the range is definitely sufficient for most road trips one would want to take.

Replacing the Meridian and going EV definitely depends on the nature of problems and how willing you are to put up with them (I say this because I've never seen people switch cars so early on)

But if it is indeed that much trouble, and switching is an option on the table, then do consider the Ioniq 5. A global spec EV with useful innovations like V2L, movable console and of course, great performance.