38% of cars sold in China are now electric, Sinopec says the ICE is doomed

[classicalgas]

I think the last goalposts is going the be the effect of large worldwide mining once we're halfway through the adoption curve.
And we'll argue whether oil or mining is better. And oil supporters will suddenly pose as environmentalists for the sake of argument. But they'll be driving EVs themselves about a decade after we're done arguing that additional point.

First, they laugh at you..

I think it's going to be hard to argue that mining minerals for EV batteries is "worse" than extracting oil.

Only a fraction of that oil is used to drive cars, and only once, whereas minerals mined for batteries get used (in the original battery) for transportation for decades, and then can be recycled for re-use.

 

[classicalgas]

"Salary sacrifice specialist Tusker has analysed data from its fleet of more than 30,000 electric vehicles (EVs) to understand if there is any truth behind some of the commonly shared myths surrounding them. The Lloyds-owned business claims that misinformation is being spread widely on social media and even being published by national newspapers.
One of the most commonly shared EV myths is that they regularly catch fire. While it’s no secret that EV fires present an increased danger once the battery starts burning, Tusker’s data proves that the likelihood of an EV catching fire is significantly less than that of a petrol or diesel car."


"In fact, the company’s insurance records show that not a single one of the EVs on its fleet have caught fire"

From here...https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/tusker-fleet-data-reveals-the-truth-about-ev-fires

 

[harrisonpatm]

@classicalgas , the fleetnews.co.uk article you posted sources:

"A study by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency backs up Tusker’s findings. It concluded that EVs are 20 times less likely to catch fire than petrol and diesel cars...

...With data corroborated from a US insurer, the study found that EVs suffer 25 fires per 100,000 sold."

Which is just the same Swedish study and the AutoinsuraceEZ.

The Forbes article you posted:

"A report from AutoinsuranceEX said EVs exhibited 61 times fewer fires per 100,000 sales than ICE vehicles."

So, the same AutoinsuranceEZ. As well as Tesla self-reporting their own data, which is inherently suspect. Do you see my point that it's just the same 2, max 3 studies cited dozens of times over and over again?

On the other hand.

From NTSB publication... "Investigations of EV fFires"

"Observation #5: Current EV Population"

Tesla
• ~ 350,000
• 17+ fires (0.005%)

Nissan Leaf
• > 300K
• No known battery fires in service


Chevrolet Volt
• > 200 K
• No known primary battery fires in service

BMW i3
• ~ 100 K
• At least 3 fires

Evidently the NTSB does keep some sort of track of EV fires.

Could you please share the source for this? I would be interested to read more. I haven't yet seen that data broken down by manufacturer.

Just so you know. I also really think that EVs are inherently safer than gas vehicles. Check out my builds, I wouldn't be assembling these massive packs by hand if I thought they were bombs waiting to happen. But that's just my opinion, and I would love to see it backed up by credible data. Looking forward to the NTSB publication, I wasn't able to find it on Google, thanks in advance.

 

[raylo32]

Nope, at least not on road trips. There is no such thing as .20 per KWh available at commercial charging stations. More like .45-.65. And meanwhile gas is more like $2.60 these days. And the Model Y will not get 4 miles per KWh at normal 75 mph highway speeds. No way. So the RAV 4 hybrid easily wins on road trips. By a wide margin. And when you toss in the intangibles like charger availability and charge time the RAV 4's margin only increases. Bottom line, on road trips a larger pure ICE vehicle will cost equal to or less per mile than a BEV, and an equivalent size ICE or ICE hybrid will cost significantly LESS per mile than a BEV. And driving an ICE or hybrid and not having to stop for a couple of hours on a full day's drive to charge could even save the cost of a hotel stay.

I am not saying that I agree that this is the right way to go. On the contrary, I have long believed that there should be more incentives to encourage EV adoption, like serious support for building out the charging infrastructure and keeping the per KWh rates reasonable. I also believe that we should have instituted a carbon tax decades ago. A measured and gradual transition would be in everyone's long term interests, including economically. But since we live in a highly dysfunctional country we seem to be divided into camps, one that is blind to the subsidies for and environmental costs of petroleum use, and the other blind to the current poor economics (high initial cost and high commercial charging costs) and logistical pain of commercial charging with BEV tech.

You can have academic discussions all day long, but here are the facts.

A Tesla Y and a hybrid RAV4 are largely the same size and function vehicle. One goes 4 miles per kwh, which means at 20 cents per khw it costs $30 to drive 600 miles. And the hybrid RAV4 gets 39mpg, and at $3 per gallon it costs $46 to drive 600 miles.

Which a RAV4 can actually do on a single tank in optimal conditions, and still cost much less to purchase, with much better depreciation, and much less "refueling" headaches.

The total real cost difference is not multiples.

 

[classicalgas]

@classicalgas , the fleetnews.co.uk article you posted sources:

"A study by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency backs up Tusker’s findings. It concluded that EVs are 20 times less likely to catch fire than petrol and diesel cars...

...With data corroborated from a US insurer, the study found that EVs suffer 25 fires per 100,000 sold."

Which is just the same Swedish study and the AutoinsuraceEZ.

The Forbes article you posted:

"A report from AutoinsuranceEX said EVs exhibited 61 times fewer fires per 100,000 sales than ICE vehicles."

So, the same AutoinsuranceEZ. As well as Tesla self-reporting their own data, which is inherently suspect. Do you see my point that it's just the same 2, max 3 studies cited dozens of times over and over again?

On the other hand.

Could you please share the source for this? I would be interested to read more. I haven't yet seen that data broken down by manufacturer.

Just so you know. I also really think that EVs are inherently safer than gas vehicles. Check out my builds, I wouldn't be assembling these massive packs by hand if I thought they were bombs waiting to happen. But that's just my opinion, and I would love to see it backed up by credible data. Looking forward to the NTSB publication, I wasn't able to find it on Google, thanks in advance.

"Salary sacrifice specialist Tusker has analysed data from its fleet of more than 30,000 electric vehicles (EVs) to understand if there is any truth behind some of the commonly shared myths surrounding them. The Lloyds-owned business claims that misinformation is being spread widely on social media and even being published by national newspapers.......not from the other three studies, it's their own fleet, their own analysis.

 

[classicalgas]

Most of the remaining handicaps of EV's are on the edge of going away, due to a new anode material that has doubled energy density (over conventional production graphite anodes) is compatible with most lithium electrolyte compounds, and allows ultra fast charging (ten miles range per minute)


This new anode is in millions of Chinese cellphones, and is in cars under test by "major automotive manufacturers"


"Batteries have reached a tipping point this year because silicon anodes are actually being produced and they do two things. They double the range of battery packs, and they allow incredibly fast charging."

TLDR...it takes six carbon atoms (in a conventional graphite anode) to capture one lithium atom. In a silicon anode, a single silicon atom can hold six lithium atoms. The rest is engineering and nano deposition of structures to allow lots of lithium to bond to the silicon without mechanical expansion fouling things up.



from here...https://www.electricbike.com/silicon-anodes-and-why-everyone-will-be-using-them/


"Tipping point" because doubling current energy densities puts an EV at about the same weight as an ICE (of similar size, with similar range ) and lets a designer trade off pack size and weight for cost and range without dropping range much below that of a typical ICE. Fast charging makes range even less of an issue.

 

[classicalgas]

It looks like sodium batteries (massive world supply compared to known lithium reserves) using silicon anodes have promise...look at the table here...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202307275

silicon /sodium has only about a fifth the theoretical energy density of silicon lithium, but even that is twice the capacity ( mAhg−1) of current carbon anodes with lithium electrolyte compounds.

There's a cool diagram in there showing what factors the chemical engineers have to consider in choosing any particular combination of materials.

 

[classicalgas]

@classicalgas , the fleetnews.co.uk article you posted sources:

"A study by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency backs up Tusker’s findings. It concluded that EVs are 20 times less likely to catch fire than petrol and diesel cars...

...With data corroborated from a US insurer, the study found that EVs suffer 25 fires per 100,000 sold."

Which is just the same Swedish study and the AutoinsuraceEZ.

The Forbes article you posted:

"A report from AutoinsuranceEX said EVs exhibited 61 times fewer fires per 100,000 sales than ICE vehicles."

So, the same AutoinsuranceEZ. As well as Tesla self-reporting their own data, which is inherently suspect. Do you see my point that it's just the same 2, max 3 studies cited dozens of times over and over again?

On the other hand.

Could you please share the source for this? I would be interested to read more. I haven't yet seen that data broken down by manufacturer.

Just so you know. I also really think that EVs are inherently safer than gas vehicles. Check out my builds, I wouldn't be assembling these massive packs by hand if I thought they were bombs waiting to happen. But that's just my opinion, and I would love to see it backed up by credible data. Looking forward to the NTSB publication, I wasn't able to find it on Google, thanks in advance.

It's a pdf of a power-point presentation at a NTSB regulation session. If you search....

NTSB Investigations of EV Fires
Electric Vehicle Safety IWG
Global Technical Regulation Session 16


it should come up.

 

[99t4]

I have long believed that there should be more incentives to encourage EV adoption, like serious support for building out the charging infrastructure and keeping the per KWh rates reasonable. I also believe that we should have instituted a carbon tax decades ago. A measured and gradual transition would be in everyone's long term interests, including economically. But since we live in a highly dysfunctional country we seem to be divided into camps, one that is blind to the subsidies for and environmental costs of petroleum use, and the other blind to the current poor economics (high initial cost and high commercial charging costs) and logistical pain of commercial charging with BEV tech.

Not only that, but now the incoming new US administration is decidedly anti-EV and decidedly pro-"DRILL BABY DRILL."

["The Biden administration on Wednesday approved California’s request for stricter-than-federal vehicle emission standards that will require automakers to sell more electric vehicles, before effectively banning the sale of new gas-powered cars in 2035.
That policy is the centerpiece of California’s climate agenda and — given the state’s size and share of the national car market — has the potential to reshape the trajectory of the American auto industry. It’s also a major point of attack for Trump, congressional Republicans and industry groups, who’ve made it clear they aren’t ready to cede control to California and are prepared to do battle in court to decide the fate of electrification.

“Everybody’s gearing up for a showdown on zero-emission vehicles,” said Bill Magavern, policy director at environmental group Coalition for Clean Air."]

From
Trump and California draw battle lines around electric cars

 

[Comrade]

Not only that, but now the incoming new US administration is decidedly anti-EV

There is a big difference between being pro-EV and pro reducing oil consumption.

The current administration and every administration before it are anti reducing oil consumption as is evidenced by 0 government incentives for ICE hybrid vehicles.

 

[Chalo]

The current administration and every administration before it are anti reducing oil consumption as is evidenced by 0 government incentives for ICE hybrid vehicles.

Hybrids are 100% boondoggle because they incorporate the worst of everything. They'll be the first to age out and the most expensive hassle to maintain going forward. Their relative energy efficiency compared to ICE (not relative to BEV) will be difficult to amortize against the increased cost of ownership and externalities.

 

[neptronix]

I don't think who we have as president will influence things much here in the states.

Current president shuttered everyone's access to Chinese EVs with a massive tarrif just now. That's a bigger blow than all conservative presidents have ever dealt to EV adoption collectively. But the next president would have done the same thing.

The alternative to new president got in trouble with her supporter base by bragging about how much oil the USA produced under her watch. Didn't go over well with the supporter base. That tells you something.


The economics of electric cars and the state of technology will have a greater effect on adoption than anything else. Right now, electric cars come at a large premium versus their gasoline counterparts still in the states. That's a problem.

38% of new cars sold in China are EVs because they can buy cars like this for cheaper than a gasoline car:

 

[neptronix]

Hybrids are 100% boondoggle because they incorporate the worst of everything. They'll be the first to age out and the most expensive hassle to maintain going forward. Their relative energy efficiency compared to ICE (not relative to BEV) will be difficult to amortize against the increased cost of ownership and externalities.

There are a lot of Prius owners who would disagree with that.
200k-300k miles without major repairs is normal.
~250k is about when you start thinking about a new hybrid battery.
400k-600k on the original engine and transmission is not unheard of, especially by taxi drivers.
Prius makes up a majority of hybrid sales, so when we're talking about hybrids, we're mostly talking about the Prius.

These things are more reliable than gasoline cars despite the extra parts. That's because they're engineered very well.

I owned a 2001 Honda Insight hybrid with a manual transmission and 265k on the clock.. in 2017. All parts were original, and the original battery was just starting to slowly fail. Engine and transmission were still in stellar shape. not any less reliable than a Civic, maybe actually more, outside of the issue with the hybrid battery's lifespan.

 

[99t4]

The current administration and every administration before it are anti reducing oil consumption as is evidenced by 0 government incentives for ICE hybrid vehicles.

Are you sure?

I know Chevy Volt (PHEV)(Li-ion/ICE) were eligible for new car rebates ($7500?) and are still eligible for used car rebates ($4000?) in addition to state rebates.

Here are all the used EVs that qualify for a $4,000 tax credit

January 1, 2023, kicked off a fresh start of new tax credits for vehicles, both new and used. Since then,...

electrek.co

 

[Comrade]

Are you sure?

I know Chevy Volt (PHEV)(Li-ion/ICE) were eligible for new car rebates ($7500?) and are still eligible for used car rebates ($4000?) in addition to state rebates.

Yes. That's a PHEV. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle.

Non plug-in electric vehicles were never subsidized in any way. The Prius was already in the 3rd-4th generation when Tesla started moving the first mass production EV, the Model S. It was a mature technology before the EV craze even started.

If there were government incentives, hybrid technology could have moved much faster and we could have had a large percentage of all vehicles on the road today already be hybrid for a decade or more.

 

[neptronix]

Didn't California have some kind of hybrid rebate system in the 2000's?

But yeah, hybrids could have got the USA to oil independence much sooner and lowered it's emissions decades ago..

 

[Hillhater]

Toyota’s 1:6:90​

Toyota’s 1:6:90 Rule: Sustainable Transportation Strategy

In the ever-evolving landscape of automotive innovation, Toyota’s introduction of the 1:6:90 Rule has sparked a profound reevaluation of…

medium.com

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/format:webp/1*Wfj_IYQWfvanktMu3HKZgA.png

 

[neptronix]

The above makes a lot of sense if you don't have abundant materials for batteries, and batteries are in a low state of advancement. And with a tiny amount of battery, you can make a gas car 25-50% more efficient.

IE it's the early 2000's and your battery costs are 10x of what they are today.

When you're making 600whrs/kg batteries out of sodium in 2035, or maybe before that, this rule stops making sense.
Materials used to make batteries keep becoming more common and the amount of energy capacity you get per unit of material keeps going down.

Batteries scale like the computer processor. Cheaper and better per generation. Just slower. One day we'll be talking about the 100:0 rule.

 

[Chalo]

200k-300k miles without major repairs is normal.
~250k is about when you start thinking about a new hybrid battery.

I owned a 2001 Honda Insight hybrid with a manual transmission and 265k on the clock.. in 2017. All parts were original, and the original battery was just starting to slowly fail. Engine and transmission were still in stellar shape. not any less reliable than a Civic, maybe actually more, outside of the issue with the hybrid battery's lifespan.

My honey's '90 Honda Accord has about 265k miles on the clock. It doesn't burn or leak oil, and it still gets better than its original EPA mileage rating. She's had it a couple of years, and I've spent about $800 during that time to keep it running, including new brake rotors/drums/pads/shoes, a new ignition coil and distributor, and a couple of flat tire repairs.

The only things that could cost as much to her as a new Prius or Insight battery would be a dead engine or transmission, and those would mean immediate goodbye. I think it's safe to say that like for like, part for part, any repair on any hybrid car would cost more than the same repair on the Accord.

A fair comparison against a 300+ kmile Prius would be a Toyota of similar interior size, age, and performance. So a Corolla. I think lifetime costs and resources footprints of those two would most likely fall in favor of the Corolla.

A hybrid car is the same in principle as carrying and running a gasoline generator to power your e-bike. It's not an inherently better idea.

 

[neptronix]

Oh, from a pure operations cost perspective, you can't beat a golden age Japanese beater.

But these things are ~30 years old now, and aren't up to modern safety standards. Can't withstand a collision with a modern monster. Kind of an endangered species at this point due to age, too.

You would have more money for repairs if your car didn't cost 2x the fuel per mile than a prius. It would probably make up the difference. If we were talking about an average reliability hybrid though ( let's imagine something put out by Ford ), i would agree with you on the costs aspect.

 

[Comrade]

A hybrid car is the same in principle as carrying and running a gasoline generator to power your e-bike.

I'm very sure you don't understand how a hybrid vehicle works. Not even a little bit.

 

[Hillhater]

Hybrids are 100% boondoggle because they incorporate the worst of everything. They'll be the first to age out and the most expensive hassle to maintain going forward. Their relative energy efficiency compared to ICE (not relative to BEV) will be difficult to amortize against the increased cost of ownership and externalities.

Hmmm ?..
Taxi and rental operators around the world would seem to dissagree on that.
The Toyota Camry has be ome the taxi standard in many cities, racking up millions of miles reliably and with low operating (fuel) and repair costs. Other make hybrids are also now entering those taxi fleets.
On the other side of the coin, we saw what happened with BEVs in the rental fleets once their true operating costs became apparent.!

 

[jonescg]

Most small or owner-operated taxi and rideshare businesses are going BEV. Besides, if conventional hybrids are so good, why has it taken until now, some 20 years later, for their sales to suddenly explode?

The large rental fleet business model relies on flipping their vehicles for a decent price while they can. The EVs were great until it was time for new assets; if not for those pesky *checks notes* affordable new EVs, the resale values would be much better.
Honestly low resale value is a problem that will solve itself before long.

 

[jonescg]

I'm very sure you don't understand how a hybrid vehicle works. Not even a little bit.

Well they sure aren't "self charging EVs"

 

[classicalgas]

Toyota’s 1:6:90​

Toyota’s 1:6:90 Rule: Sustainable Transportation Strategy

In the ever-evolving landscape of automotive innovation, Toyota’s introduction of the 1:6:90 Rule has sparked a profound reevaluation of…

medium.com

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/format:webp/1*Wfj_IYQWfvanktMu3HKZgA.png

View attachment 363588

Toyota is massively invested in hybrids, they are still paying off their R&D on the Prius t platform. Their views on BEVs are biased and not shared by most of the industry. Batteries are improving too fast for other major makers to go down what looks like a likely dead end. Materials shortages are evaporating as new sources and chemistries surface.