Electric Cars: Debunking some unpopular myths

While EVs are undoubtedly the buzzword at the moment, I have not managed to get as excited or even convinced that it is indeed the next big thing, or more importantly the only alternative.

BHPian drive-by-hooter recently shared this with other enthusiasts.

I have been a consumer of the forum's content for years and I'd like to start with my heartfelt thanks to all contributors for helping me learn new things about the automotive world. This also happens to be my first post, so kindly excuse me if I've made any unintentional errors in the post.

As the title of the post suggests - while EVs are undoubtedly the buzzword at the moment, I have not managed to get as excited or even convinced that it is indeed the next big thing, or more importantly the ONLY alternative. I'm listing down a few of my reasons/thoughts, and let me state at the very outset, I have no expertise in the automotive space whatsoever, so please take these more or less as amateur queries or musings - and of course, I'm more than happy to stand corrected on any or all of these.

Battery

The heart of any EV is of course the battery, and the heart of every battery (lithium-ion) in turn happens to be Cobalt. And cobalt mining just happens to be one of the biggest examples of modern-day slavery - especially in the DRC. Now, while these batteries power practically every single piece of modern-day equipment, it is undoubtedly the massive demand for EVs that have spiked the cobalt trade to unprecedented heights. A must-read in this context is "Cobalt Red" by Siddharth Kara. Add to this the other negatives of coal-powered electricity grids powering charging stations and so on.

Monopolistic future

Can EVs be the ONLY option for the future of auto? How could that be? Literally, every major manufacturer seems to be celebrating EVs as the inevitable option, is it really so? Having said that, I do take heart in Toyota recently announcing its Hydrogen tech as its vision - and while Mirai was indeed a failure, that was a Hydrogen fuel cell-based technology, whereas the one they are banking on now is the Hydrogen combustion engine. It's still a long way from taking centre stage like EVs, but I'm genuinely glad that there are options. Ford also seems to have started thinking in this direction - any thoughts on this alternative?

The drive itself

This point is rather esoteric in nature but I do wonder how driving could possibly change over the next 25 years. Will it all become about the "drive" (15' flat screens, jazzy displays, connected technology, remote-controlled tech, automated and assisted driving aids, etc.) - but less about "driving"? Maybe this is how owners of horses felt as the first cars rolled out - but I can't help but also wonder what the future of motorsport would look like. Would it be more about bringing the best programming talent with the best pair of video-game reflexes?

As I said, maybe I'm completely ignorant about many aspects of EVs but these are simply my gatherings on the subject from here and there. Any thoughts, comments or corrections are welcome!

Here's what BHPian androdev had to say on the matter:

There are two things going on here. One is the source of power to drive the vehicle. The other is the way cars are designed to offer a certain driver/passenger experience. It just so happens that both these aspects are changing at an incredible speed simultaneously.

The source of power will be electric for the vast majority of the personal vehicles. It's a great anomaly that this hasn't already happened some 20-30 years go. Electricity is like magic and nothing else comes close to it. I'm sure battery situation will also evolve rapidly. Just imagine powering any device or appliance in your house with anything other than electricity. There will be a lot of confusion and chaos during the transition period because such a transition impacts politics and economy of many countries who prefer the status-quo. Alternative sources of power will exist in some niche segments but will continue to become less relevant as more innovations take place in EV space.

Cars coming loaded with touch screen heavy interfaces, automated driving technologies, pay-per-use subscription features etc. is a phenomenon completely independent of EV technology. These things offer better economies of scale and are attractive to the manufacturers from profitability point of view. I'm not a fan of this trend but eventually this will be the new norm and nobody would know any better.

Here's what BHPian Kosfactor had to say on the matter:

Electric cars were popular before petrol cars became popular, now after a century Electric cars are making a come back , this time around there is enough urbanization, electricity availability, a chance for non automobile companies to compete in this segment , of course doomsday marketing and virtue signalling to name a few.

The reality is plenty of vehicle owners who are going to get their first vehicle may not use cars much beyond the first few months , a long tank range is not important , charging points are also not important, those who are buying a second car for city use also do not have to worry about either of these things.

So EVs are going to be very popular in near future however not everyone can do with an EV, I certainly cannot and I know many people like me who drive a hell of a lot , non stop and at higher speeds that it is practically impossible for an EV battery to store that much energy without becoming a serious handicap to the vehicle itself - as how things stand now, diesel works for me.

Here's what BHPian SKC-auto had to say on the matter:

Simple questions

What powers the Reliance Jamnagar refinery?

Why Mirai failed? What makes Hydrogen Combustion Engine successful over fuel cell?

Is it true that Cobalt and child labour used to refine oil?

Is it true that many EVs do not have Cobalt?

Why petrolheads don't want monopoly of petrol (or diesel) be broken?

We always concentrate too much on negatives of EVs, do not think of positives. What people fail to understand is ICE cars have more negative points than EVs, the reason why EVs will triumph over ICE cars.

Here's what BHPian howler had to say on the matter:

Geo-politics plays a role in the push away from petroleum based fuels; how else will the west reduce their dependence on the Saudis and be able to break the monopoly that oil producing nations have currently. ‘Saving the environment’ is a marketing gimmick. Just like what BP did with the whole ‘carbon footprint’ phrase.

Here's what BHPian electric_eel had to say on the matter:

The hybrid route makes zero sense today; it probably made sense say in the early 2000s (the Prius era). Might as well stick to the trusted ICE, if your life style does not support it than buy a new hybrid.

Here's what BHPian sreeharipv had to say on the matter:

I think most EV enthusiasts can relate. Most of these concerns are the result of maybe 3 things.

1. Lack of a Scientific understanding of energy and physics in general. False equivalences.

2. Propaganda by big oil and big auto

3. Flawed, all or nothing mentality

Scientific Method: There are major inefficiencies related to ICE. An ICE at its peak is only about 35% efficient in normal operation and 0% efficient while idling. A battery/motor combination is 85%+ efficient in normal operation and infinitely efficient while idling. So in reality, the ICEV is probably converting 15% of chemical energy to motion while EV can convert 85%+. In addition, kinetic energy of ICEV vehicle is lost as heat to environment which in case of EV can be recovered to an extent due to regenerative braking. This is before we talk about the multi speed transmission that is needed to make the ICE work due to its narrow power band. Somehow this bug have been made a feature by some by making the skill to be able to drive a manual as a cool thing (this is moot in India as everyone can drive manual). Another thing is this false comparison to the mobile phone batteries (which are cycled 100% everyday and doesn't have robust thermal management). Current LiFePO4 batteries can easily do 2000 cycles before any major degradation which is more than 400k km even for lowly Tiago EV. There is no getting around these points with the current understanding of physics. For technically minded people, ICE is so handicapped, it doesn't even qualify for the race.

Another false equivalence is the charging infrastructure. People claim we don't have as many fast chargers as there are petrol pumps while conveniently forgetting that petrol cars can't be refuelled at home. EVs can be charged at home when you sleep which is not an option for ICEV. Plus, one can make their own fuel from the roof of your house which is not an option for ICEV. Plus, the fast chargers are fast coming up everywhere because its very easy to set up, no permitting required, doesn't require manual labour or periodic maintenance, and compliments existing business like restaurants.

Another false equivalence is that EVs are just shifting the pollution from car tail pipe to the power plant smoke stack. Can't be far from truth. Just from a CO2, perspective, EVs are much more efficient because coal plants can run at higher efficiency for longer than ICE in vehicles and they don't produce nearly as much other pollutants (NOx and particulate which is what we should be worrying more about than CO2).

All the time and cost savings from the reduction of period maintenance is another benefit.

FCEV is even worse when you look at the well to wheel efficiency and other issues like vehicle packaging, hydrogen embrittlement, ease of leakage (smallest molecule in the universe!), need for high pressure (10,000 psi, that is about 5 tonnes of force on every square inch inside the tank!!!), need for traction battery, limited regen potential etc.

2. Propaganda: Big oil (I'm a subsea drilling engineer) and auto (for their respective reasons) have been propagating false narratives about EVs and have successfully killed the EV growth multiple times in the history. They are trying even now though less successfully. They are peddling the fear that EVs are being forced up on people when the truth is that ICE was forced on people all along. We never had an option other than ICE last 100 years although EVs were more popular that ICE at the dawn of automobile more than a century ago. No amount of mining for batteries will be equivalent to the equivalent of 70% of the 100 million barrels of crude we dig out every day and burn away to the atmosphere. Battery materials are not burned away, they are here for perpetuity once they are taken out of the ground. That is not a small difference. The sheer volume of hydrocarbons we dig out currently is many times more than the amount of replacement minerals that would be required at a time when EVs are the only choice in the market. So the energy used for 'mining' also can only be proportionally less for batteries.

3. All or nothing mentality/short term thinking: An EV is more efficient even if 100% of electricity is made from burning coal. So, we are at a better starting point than the current ICE tech. And the grid will get cleaner over time. If you buy an ICE now, you not only are not generative more demand of clean energy (most newly installed capacity on grid is renewable), you are blocking the benefits of grid getting cleaner in the years to come. Also, one can understand this type of pessimism from the citizen of an oil rich country benefiting from oil dividends, and not endowed with potential for solar or wind. Solar is the new oil and we Indians, of all should embrace that instead of being adamant about enriching the Saudi Prince.

Read BHPian comments for more insights and information.