[TopLiveCentre]

Imagine your son/daughter having therapy for cancer Vs Jeremy Clarkson's antics: What will you choose? It boils down to what you are affected by not what you are offended by. EVs are better any day.

[srikanth.vemuri]

This is a very interesting thread. Just putting numbers for a comparison made based on back of the envelope calculations for what I see as similar class of vehicles (couldn't get exact apples-to-apples in my research)
Ioniq 5 vs Hyundai Tuscon

Assumptions-
1. 10,000 km/year running
2. 15kWh/100Km for Ioniq 5 ==>1500KWh for 10,000 km ==>1050 kg or 1.05 Tons CO2 per year (excluding transmission losses)
3. Grid emissions rate (inclusive of coal mining and transportation)- 700g/ KWh
4. Transmission losses- 10%
5. 15 km/L for Hyundai Tuscon ==>173.33 g CO2/Km
6. Manufacturing Emissions (Ioniq 5): 10 tons CO2
7. Maintenance Emissions (Ioniq 5): 0.1 tons CO2
8. Battery Replacement: 2 tons CO2
9. End-of-Life Emissions: 1.5 tons CO2
10. Manufacturing Emissions (Tuscon): 6 tons CO2
11. Maintenance Emissions (Tuscon): 0.2 tons CO2
12. End-of-Life Emissions: 1 ton CO2
13. Oil extraction and transportation: 150 g CO2/L
14. Refining process: 350 g CO2/L
15. 2.6 Kg CO2/Litre emissions for diesel ==>173.33 g/km CO2 for Diesel Tuscon
16. Maintenance emissions above account for wear and tear of parts.

Now, coming to the actual calculations part-
Ioniq 5
1. Annual Operational Emissions with Transmission Losses:
1.05 tons*CO2/year×1.1=1.155 tons CO2 ==>11.55 tons CO2 over 10 years

Tuscon Diesel
1. Annual Diesel Consumption: 666.67 L (based on 10,000 km at 15 km/L).
2. Annual Extraction, Refining, and Transport Emissions: 666.67L ×500gCO2/L=0.333 tons CO2/year ==>3.33 tons CO2 over 10 years
3. Combustion emissions: 173.33 g/Km CO2*10000 km =1.733 Tons/Year ==>17.33 Tons/ Year

Ioniq 5 Summary
Manufacturing Emissions: 10 tons CO2
Operational Emissions: 11.55 tons CO2
Maintenance Emissions: 0.1 tons CO2
Battery Replacement: 2 tons CO2
End-of-Life Emissions: 1.5 tons CO2

Ioniq 5 Total- 25.15 Tons

Tuscon Summary
Manufacturing Emissions: 6 tons CO₂
Operational Emissions: 17.33 tons CO₂
Emissions from Extraction, Refining, and Transport: 3.33 tons CO₂
Maintenance Emissions: 0.2 tons CO₂
End-of-Life Emissions: 1 ton CO₂

Tuscon Total- 27.86 Tons

Points of contention in above nos.
1. Assumptions might be a bit off.
2. Taken a cut-off of 10 years. This is a disadvantage for Ioniq 5, where I have added 2 Tons of CO2 for a fresh battery at 8 years

The intention is that this could be a comprehensive framework for a proper comparison. Will try to plug in a Windsor (50 KWh battery, because 37KWh is just too small for highways ) against an Ertiga next.

[srikanth.vemuri]

Originally Posted by srikanth.vemuri

Will try to plug in a Windsor (50 KWh battery, because 37KWh is just too small for highways ) against an Ertiga next.

Well, here goes. Listing the changes in assumptions (compared to Ioniq 5 vs Tuscon)-
Windsor- Efficiency of 14KWh/100Km ==>0.98 tons CO2 per year
Maruti Ertiga- 18 km/L
2.3 kg/L emissions for petrol ==>127.78g CO2/Km
Windsor Manufacturing Emissions- 9 Tons
Ertiga Manufacturing Emissions- 5 Tons
Windsor End-of-Life Emissions: 1.5 tons
Ertiga End-of-Life Emissions: 1 tons
Battery Replacement Emissions: 1.7 Tons (Non-linear reduction compared to Ioniq 5)

Calculations part-
Windsor
1. Annual Operational Emissions with Transmission Losses:
0.98 tons CO2/year×1.1=1.078 tons CO2 ==>10.78 tons CO2 over 10 years

Ertiga
1. Annual Extraction, Refining, and Transport Emissions: (10,000Km/18Km/L)*500 g/L*10 years = 2.78 Tons over 10 years
2. Combustion Emissions: 127.78 g *10,000 Km * 10 years =12.78 Tons over 10 years

Windsor Summary
Manufacturing Emissions: 9 tons CO2
Operational Emissions: 10.78 tons CO2
Maintenance Emissions: 0.1 tons CO2
Battery Replacement: 1.7 tons CO2
End-of-Life Emissions: 1.4 tons CO2

Windsor Total- 22.98 Tons

Ertiga Summary
Manufacturing Emissions: 5 tons CO₂
Operational Emissions: 12.78 tons CO₂
Emissions from Extraction, Refining, and Transport: 2.78 tons CO₂
Maintenance Emissions: 0.2 tons CO₂
End-of-Life Emissions: 0.9 ton CO₂

Ertiga Total- 21.66 Tons

Again, the assumptions are a bit rough in nature, but from this and the previous post, bigger vehicle classes, higher usage or longer lifecycles would see EVs emerge as the cleaner choice. Also, doesn't account for the improving energy mix over time. But yes, if the running is significantly lower than 10,000 km/year, then buying a white elephant EV would be counter productive from an environmental PoV.

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by srikanth.vemuri

Ioniq 5 Summary
Manufacturing Emissions: 10 tons CO2
Operational Emissions: 11.55 tons CO2
Maintenance Emissions: 0.1 tons CO2
Battery Replacement: 2 tons CO2
End-of-Life Emissions: 1.5 tons CO2

Ioniq 5 Total- 25.15 Tons

Tuscon Summary
Manufacturing Emissions: 6 tons CO₂
Operational Emissions: 17.33 tons CO₂
Emissions from Extraction, Refining, and Transport: 3.33 tons CO₂
Maintenance Emissions: 0.2 tons CO₂
End-of-Life Emissions: 1 ton CO₂

Tuscon Total- 27.86 Tons

Originally Posted by srikanth.vemuri

Windsor Summary
Manufacturing Emissions: 9 tons CO2
Operational Emissions: 10.78 tons CO2
Maintenance Emissions: 0.1 tons CO2
Battery Replacement: 1.7 tons CO2
End-of-Life Emissions: 1.4 tons CO2

Windsor Total- 22.98 Tons

Ertiga Summary
Manufacturing Emissions: 5 tons CO₂
Operational Emissions: 12.78 tons CO₂
Emissions from Extraction, Refining, and Transport: 2.78 tons CO₂
Maintenance Emissions: 0.2 tons CO₂
End-of-Life Emissions: 0.9 ton CO₂

Ertiga Total- 21.66 Tons

Just one doubt, if the battery replacement incurs emissions of only 2tons and 1.7tons in each case, why are the ICE/EV production emissions ex factory, having gap of 4 tons each?

Shouldn’t the production emissions be 8 tons and 6.7 tons respectively for Ioniq 5 and Windsor?

Points of contention in above nos.
1. Assumptions might be a bit off.
2. Taken a cut-off of 10 years. This is a disadvantage for Ioniq 5, where I have added 2 Tons of CO2 for a fresh battery at 8 years

One more issue I see here is battery replacement at mere 80K km each, which is quite low for both NMC and LFP. Also LFP production emissions would be much lesser than NMC per kWh.

So 72kWh NMC has 44% more capacity but will produce MORE than 44% emissions vs 50kWh LFP.

I’m just pointing out points which don’t match up to the proportional differences that exist, otherwise like you admitted the overall numbers are still napkin math.

[ferrarirules]

Originally Posted by srikanth.vemuri

13. Oil extraction and transportation: 150 g CO2/L
14. Refining process: 350 g CO2/L

Can you please provide a source for these numbers? Based on IEA data, Oil and Gas extraction account for 15% of the annual GHG emissions of the world.

2. Taken a cut-off of 10 years. This is a disadvantage for Ioniq 5, where I have added 2 Tons of CO2 for a fresh battery at 8 years

Why is the battery to be replaced after 8 years if it has only run 80,000 kms?

[srikanth.vemuri]

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

Just one doubt, if the battery replacement incurs emissions of only 2tons and 1.7tons in each case, why are the ICE/EV production emissions ex factory, having gap of 4 tons each?

Shouldn’t the production emissions be 8 tons and 6.7 tons respectively for Ioniq 5 and Windsor?



One more issue I see here is battery replacement at mere 80K km each, which is quite low for both NMC and LFP. Also LFP production emissions would be much lesser than NMC per kWh.

So 72kWh NMC has 44% more capacity but will produce MORE than 44% emissions vs 50kWh LFP.

I’m just pointing out points which don’t match up to the proportional differences that exist, otherwise like you admitted the overall numbers are still napkin math.

Fair points. Missed listing below assumptions-
1. Battery Replacement after 8 years primarily due to Calendar degradation, and not usage.
2. The initial difference was 4 tons. I assumed replacement to be lower as it would avoid replacing some permanent fixtures (High Voltage Electrical Systems, Additional structural support to support the extra weight, Cooling and Thermal Management Systems). Also, the hope is, 8 years down the line, the battery production process would be far less carbon intensive and would include more inputs from recycling than from mining and extraction.

[ferrarirules]

Originally Posted by srikanth.vemuri

Fair points. Missed listing below assumptions-
1. Battery Replacement after 8 years primarily due to Calendar degradation, and not usage.
2. The initial difference was 4 tons. I assumed replacement to be lower as it would avoid replacing some permanent fixtures (High Voltage Electrical Systems, Additional structural support to support the extra weight, Cooling and Thermal Management Systems). Also, the hope is, 8 years down the line, the battery production process would be far less carbon intensive and would include more inputs from recycling than from mining and extraction.

• Please answer the question above on source of data for oil extraction and refining emissions.
• LFP batteries that are being used in India majorly are not seeing as much calendar degradation as to replace batteries after 8 years.
• The thermal management or HV or other components are equivalent to the components used in ICE cars like turbos, inter coolers, transmission components and much more or for Hybrid car they are almost the same if not more as the electric car. We can easily say the energy required to produce a EV minus the battery will be definitely be equivalent to producing an ICE/Hybrid car.

[srikanth.vemuri]

Originally Posted by ferrarirules

• Please answer the question above on source of data for oil extraction and refining emissions.
• LFP batteries that are being used in India majorly are not seeing as much calendar degradation as to replace batteries after 8 years.
• The thermal management or HV or other components are equivalent to the components used in ICE cars like turbos, inter coolers, transmission components and much more or for Hybrid car they are almost the same if not more as the electric car. We can easily say the energy required to produce a EV minus the battery will be definitely be equivalent to producing an ICE/Hybrid car.

1. I spent some time at a refinery during my job, and have had a close friend in an Oilfield Services Company. That helped me get a sense of these nos. In case you want to corraborate these numbers, the Argonne National Laboratory's GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) model is available for public use. You can download the excel sheet to get a better estimate.
2. Agreed. I had started with Ioniq 5's NMC and should probably adjust it for the Windsor, which should have a 12-15 year+ replacement cycle.
3. Here, the inital difference of 4 tons, I'm assuming would reduce to 2 tons after 8 years, even assuming all of it is due to the battery manufacture. Citing one reference of emissions for 1 KWh manufacture emissions here, which seems to align with my initial assumption, and also the hope for improvement. https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...21344922004402

The intent is not to get to a definite number at first go, but to try to start talking numbers on this thread. The assumptions could be refined with people who have more access to data and sources.

Disclaimer: I'm personally biased towards EVs, and believe that EVs are the right way to go, with the maximum headroom reduction of carbon footprint. Obviously, we are not there yet, but improving our energy mix, reducing battery manufacturing's footprint, etc. are areas where we can see much steeper gains than other technologies. Worst case scenario assumptions, like mine, seem to already imply 10,000 km is a fair usage pattern for an EV to become a better fit. The current policies, even if imperfect, seem directionally right.

At very low usage, however (say 5000 km/year), it might not be enough to recover the current manufacturing emissions impact. I'm looking to buy and EV in the near future, but would want to know how the overall numbers translate before making that purchase. In that context, the EV should probably replace my beater CNG car as well, and it might not be right to look at the EV purely as an occasional use fun to drive car, which I was considering(Weekend drives with a long range battery, ala Mahinda XEV 6/ BE 6e or whatever else it is called). Might end up merging both use cases to justify that purchase, given how good the car looks on paper (Off-topic).

[BlueGod]

Crude oil is here to stay. It has uses in many other fields. EVs reduce the dependency on crude oil and thus keeping it available for other uses which will keep the price in control upto an extent.

I bought zs ev last week and has setup a solar panel for electric generation. Trying to minimise my travel cost, carbon footprint and dependence on crude oil.

[DIY410]

Originally Posted by srikanth.vemuri

Ioniq 5 vs Hyundai Tuscon


3. Grid emissions rate (inclusive of coal mining and transportation)- 700g/ KWh
4. Transmission losses- 10%
8. Battery Replacement: 2 tons CO2
13. Oil extraction and transportation: 150 g CO2/L
16. Maintenance emissions above account for wear and tear of parts.

Just that you know the oil refining alone takes 1.3 kWh/ Liter of electricity. So that grid emissions and transmission loss applies to it.
With that 1.3 kWh of electricity that went to refining crude, the Ioniq 5 have been driven 9 km.

The oil transportation is a variable, further the distance is the further is the fuel or electricity required to transport it. Let's just say that they used a train which is more efficient then using a tanker truck. The train still needs diesel or electricity.

At each stage of pumping the fuel against gravity you need electricity. Considering the distance from the rail track to the Oil depot fuel storage tank which is anywhere between 100 meters to 200 metres, the energy required to pump the horizontal distance alone takes lot of energy to overcome the frictional loss is around 0.09 kWh per liter of petrol for distance of 200 meter horizontal. Now add energy required for the vertical distance overcoming both frictional loss and gravitational pull lets say a 20 meter tall tank thats another 0.09 kWh. This is the theoretical maximum efficiency. In reality it will be a whole lot higher due to various variables likes bends in pipe, pump efficiency, electrical motor efficiency etc.

Now the Ioniq 5 could have travelled 10km in terms of electricity used on these two factors alone, i.e., electricty used in refining and pumping from one tank to another in just one depot.

Maintenance, wear and tear parts of the IC vehicle is significantly more. It's not even a contest. The only think a EV has in maintenance for a 25000 km is it's cabin filter and coolant every 3 years.

Where as the Diesel Tuscon that you mention needs a oil and oil filter change every 10K km, air filter 20K km, fuel filter 60K km, brakes wear out faster. Other things like clutch, spark plugs, injectors etc

[BlueGod]

Why bother with so much data? People who think ICE vehicles are better should spend 15 mins in an air tight garage where ICE vehicle is idling vs people who think EVs are better should do the same with EV turned on. That garage is our world.

[helios9406]

Originally Posted by niranjanprabhu

I would sincerely appeal to all in this thread to please watch this brilliant video

I was going to share this video. Thanks for saving my time. It's brilliant.

Originally Posted by shyampsunder

A pretty good job at trying to look at the underlying data to come up with a cost benefit analysis but unfortunately seems a bit biased against EVs. Here's why:

Each of your points are brilliant. I wanted to dive into internet for these data. Grateful for detailed analysis and 'proof' too.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Emissions during extraction, transportation and refining of oil is intentionally excluded in the analysis?

.

That's the whole point.
--------------------------------

Bhp is one of the rare forums where one of the best minds of the country and outside come together and sometimes discuss something that directly affects future of humanity, however, even amongst the most brilliant minds there's always prejudice, inertia and succumbing to propaganda.

My hunch is that the oil cartel doesn't want to let go its grip on the main comodity that drives the world and certain currency also derives its power from the oil, which helps them maintain their hegemony (and abuse it too). This is to the extent that the current world order attributes it's power to this one commodity - oil. What I find more intriguing is the attempt to comoditise the energy.

In the early 1900s the trade of goods and comodity constituted economy. This shifted to oil in 1950s onwards. By 2000s energy has replaced oil and is the key transactor which shapes the economy, but the old guard doesn't want to give in to this change. They want to comoditise energy - use hydrogen instead of oil - and then can use the existing mechanisms to have an iron grip over this comodity - and the economy too.

But humanity is in constant search for efficiency and improvement.

There's absolutely no doubt that an EV motor which is more than 85% efficient ( the least, some have a much higher efficiency) in comparison to a ICE engine which is no better than 40% at maximum efficiency.

Also the nvh levels of EVs are very low. People will cry hoarse that how the exhaust note of a v8 is music to their ears and all, but any kid who has lived in 100 % noise free ev world would shudder at the thought of these smelly smoke emitting vehicles we use today.

Most importantly we are responsible for handling over the earth in a better condition to next generation than what we had inherited. And in that aspect ev is far far better than any ice vehicle whether it's tailpipe emission or nvh.

If I understand correctly, the companies shifted to solar power ( 6 cents to drill out a barrel of oil ) compared to 20 cents from the diesel generators they used. That opened the eyes of Arabian countries - if solar goes more efficient and cost effective, there's no future for oils - they changed their ways , their laws et al.

We are still going through oil cartel's propaganda and debating.