The Little Secret of Electric Vehicles

The Little Secret of Electric Vehicles

Glenn Weinreb It is easier to reduce carbon dioxide with solar farms and wind farms than with Electric Vehicles, solution is to kill replacement battery There are four primary types of automobiles: Gas Vehicle (ICEV), Hybrid (HEV), Plugin Hybrid (PHEV), and Electric Vehicles (EVs). And for each type one can look at initial cost, lifetime cost of fuel, and lifetime CO2 emissions. Also one can look at how much it cost, and how much CO2 is reduced, when one switches from a Gas Vehicle, to a different type. Then one can divide these two numbers to calculate decarbonization cost, in units of dollars spent to reduce CO2 by one metric ton ($/mtCO2).

WhatsApp or Call: +447935088859. E-mail: geisoenterprise@gmail.com https://www.geisoenterprise.com/ The decarbonization cost when switching from a Gas Car to an EV is typically $200 to $700/mtCO2. And it is typically $500 to $1300/mtCO2 when switching from an HEV (Hybrid without the plug) to an EV. This is based on data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Alternatively, one can reduce CO2 by constructing a wind farm, solar farm, or hydro-electric dam; with a decarbonization cost less than $50/mtCO2. In other words, if one wants to reduce climate change, they should consider buying a solar farm instead of an EV; and reduce CO2 more, per additional dollar spent. And that is the dirty little secret of Electric Vehicles. What to do? The electric vehicle lasts twice as long as its battery, and the cost to replace the battery is high. Subsequently, EV decarbonization costs could be eliminated by doubling the longevity of the battery. In other words, the way to solve this problem is to make Electrics Vehicles cost less than Gas Cars, and the easiest way to do that is to kill the replacement battery. Decarbonization is Competitive Decarbonization opportunities are discussed in the IPCC 2022 Mitigation Report, and are summarized below. For a high resolution version of this graphic, click here. Figure 1: Decarbonization options and their costs, according to IPCC Figure 1: Decarbonization options and their costs, according to IPCC The above graphic indicates decarbonization costs in units of dollars spent to reduce CO2 by one metric ton ($/mtCO2), and indicates amount of CO2 one can reduce at this cost, in units of billions of metric tons of CO2 per year (GtCO2/year). For example, decarbonization opportunities that cost $1 to $20/mtCO2 are shown in light orange, opportunities that cost $20 to $50/mtCO2 are shown in dark orange, and opportunities with no decarbonization cost are shown in blue. No decarbonization cost refers to moving to a lower cost solution that also emits less CO2. And the width of each horizontal bar indicates how much the world can reduce at each decarbonization cost, in units of billions-of-metric-tons-per-year (GtCO2/yr). The easiest and lowest cost opportunities are likely to be tackled first. In other words, blue first, followed by light orange. For example, the world might first construct 2.5GtCO2/yr of solar at no decarbonization cost (blue), followed by 1GtCO2/yr at $1 to $20/mtCO2 cost (light orange), for a total reduction of 3.5GtCO2/yr. The world emitted 59GtCO2 in 2019 (IPCC 2022 Report, CO2 equivalent); therefore, if this was reduced 3.5GtCO2/yr via new solar farms, global CO2 emissions would decrease 6% (3.5 / 59). If fuel prices are high enough, green electricity could replace carbon-based fuel at no decarbonization cost. For example, if electricity from solar cost $0.03/kWh and natural gas cost $0.04/kWh, then consumers could decarbonize without additional cost (coded blue in above graphic). The following causes fuel prices to increase and decarbonization costs to decrease: shortages, taxes, import fees and distribution bottlenecks. Consumers buy the lowest cost solution, independent of CO2 emissions. This is consistent with economic theory and observed behavior. In other words, in most cases, decarbonization does not occur unless the green option cost less, or it is required by law. Also, as evidence of climate change increases, support for gov’t intervention increases. For example, water shortages in California has encouraged their voters to support decarbonizing their electricity at 3% each year via more solar power and more wind power. Make Electric Vehicles Blue The typical Gas Car emits 75 metric tons of CO2 over its lifetime (75mtCO2), and if this was reduced to zero via a low cost $20/mtCO2 method, for example, it would cost $1,500 ($20 x 75mt). However, the additional cost of an EV is typically more than $1,500. The way to fix this is probably to reduce the lifetime cost of the EV to below that of the Gas Car. Subsequently, decarbonization costs would be eliminated, and EVs would show up as a big blue horizontal bar in the above graphic. Currently EVs are gray, which means IPCC does not want to talk about it. In other words, we need to make EVs blue. Kill the Replacement Battery The below table (LINK http://www.ma2life.org/g/pic/ev_secret/kona_lifetime.png) summarizes the lifetime costs of a typical EV and its Gas counterpart. The EVs initial cost is $11K higher, its gas/electricity fuel lifetime cost is $12K less, and its one-time battery replacement cost is $13K. In total, the EV lifetime cost is $12K more. Figure 2: Comparison of Kona Gas vs. Kona EV Figure 2: Comparison of Kona Gas vs. Kona EV Cars typically last 200K miles; however, EV batteries are usually warrantied for 100K miles and 8 years. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the battery to be replaced once during the vehicle lifetime. However, if battery longevity improved 2-fold, its replacement cost could be eliminated, and this would cause many EVs to cost less than Gas Cars. In other words, the easiest way to make EVs blue is to kill the replacement battery. For details, see Car Costs and CO2 are Complicated. Decarbonizing Transportation is a $30 Trillion Dollar Problem There are approximately 1,500,000,000 Gas Cars in the world and if these were replaced with EVs, at a cost of $20K each, then total would be $30 trillion (1.5B x $20K). If this cost was reduced 10% via hundreds of billions of dollars of additional R&D, for example, then the cost of the R&D would be justified. We need to think about the decarbonization of transportation as a 30 trillion dollar problem, and act accordingly. In other words, more R&D. We will now discuss how one might double battery longevity. Battery Longevity R&D Fund A government or foundation could potentially set up a Kill the Replacement Battery R&D Fund with a simple mission, “Increase EV battery longevity two-fold”. And scientists who have published the most research papers on batteries could potentially direct how this money is spent. Dynamic Battery Warranty The typical EV battery has a 100K mile and 8 year warranty. Alternatively, one could have a dynamic warranty that counts down instead of up. For example, one might begin with 300K miles and 20 years, and different behavior would causes this to decrease at different rates. If battery conditions were favorable, the owner might be charged one hour of warranty for each actual hour, and charged one mile of warranty for each actual mile driven. Alternatively, if conditions were not favorable, the owner might be charged a multiple of actual miles driven, and a multiple of actual time. Less favorable conditions might include charging above 80%, discharging below 20%, fast charging, and operating in cold climates. Owners might receive 80K miles and 8 years minimum, and if they take care of their battery, receive more. A user interface on the vehicle’s display might help communicate warranty usage in real-time. For example, the following might indicate warranty is reducing 2 miles per actual mile driven, and 3 hours per actual hours. Battery Warranty: 2x miles, 3x hours, cold 5°C climate, low 8% charge Or, the following might indicate favorable conditions with one-to-one ratios. Battery Warranty: 1x miles, 1x hours, favorable conditions Charging rapidly to 100% capacity typically causes a battery to degrade more quickly than charging slowly to 80% capacity. Software updates from manufacturers occasionally reduce range and charging speed to increase battery longevity. However, drivers and manufacturers might prefer a vehicle settings panel, an example of which is shown in the below illustration. Figure 3: Example Control Panel for EV with Dynamic Battery Warranty Figure 3: Example Control Panel for EV with Dynamic Battery Warranty Manufacturers might be inclined to claim high initial warranties and then have them degrade quickly in unobvious ways. Therefore, gov’t regulators might require manufactures to declare their derating system in a standardized format, an example of which is shown in the below table. Figure 4: Example Dynamic Battery Warranty derating declaration - Electric Vehicles Figure 4: Example Dynamic Battery Warranty derating declaration Reduce Battery Fraud with Diagnostics Reports There are two primary types of battery failures. One involves internal cells that degrade in a similar manner; and the other involves a failure of one internal component. When all cells degrade unacceptably, the entire battery is often replaced. Alternatively, when one component fails, the cost to replace is often relatively low. Unfortunately, achieving low cost typically requires honesty at the point of service. To improve honesty, and reduce EV battery costs, gov’t could require EV manufacturers to make all battery diagnostic reports available to owners. There are two types of reports. One is generated by diagnostics hardware built into the vehicle, and the other is generated by equipment outside the vehicle. Reports from both could be made available at a customer’s ownership webpage. To reduce fraud, owners could be shown a green checkmark next to working components and a red ‘X’ next to failed components, along with repair cost. In summary, mandated diagnostic reporting could potentially reduce battery fraud, and therefore reduce EV costs. Reduce CO2 via Solar Farm or via Electric Vehicles? The United States emits approximately 5 billion metric tons of CO2 each year, and if this was reduced to zero, over 30 years, at a constant rate, it would decrease by 170 million metric tons each year (170Mt = 5B / 30 years). In theory, one could reduce CO2 by 170M tons with Electric Vehicles, or by building solar farms. We will compare these two, and work with a simplified model, to make this easier to follow. Spend $86B to Reduce CO2 170M tons via Electric Vehicles The decarbonization cost of switching from an HEV (Hybrid without plug) to an EV is $507/mtCO2, according to NREL’s average car CO2 emissions and cost data. Subsequently, decarbonizing 170Mt via this method would require $86B ($507 x 170Mt) and involve 6,000,000 Electric Vehicles (170Mt / 28mt), as shown in the below table. Figure 5: Cost to reduce CO2 via Electric Vehicles Figure 5: Cost to reduce CO2 via Electric Vehicles Spend Several Billion Dollars to Reduce CO2 170M tons via Solar Farms Solar farms typically reduce CO2 by replacing electricity that would otherwise be generated b natural gas. CO2 emitted by burning natural gas, per unit of electricity, is a known quantity; therefore, one can calculate how much electricity is generated when a gas-fired power station emits 170MtCO2. Also, one can calculate how much solar farm is needed to generate this amount of electricity, assuming the farm operates for 20 years, for example. According to a simple model, 170MtCO2 is emitted when one burns $10.7B of natural gas, and this generates 411TWh of electricity. Also, an 8.8GW solar farm that operates for 20 years produces this amount of electricity, at a cost of $15.2B ($0.037/kWh, NREL 2022 Class 4, no tax credits, $0.005/kWh for power wires). Subsequently, when one replaces 411TWh of gas-based power with solar, net cost is $4.5B ($15.2B – $10.7B) and decarbonization cost works out to $27/mtCO2 ($4.5B / 170MtCO2), as shown in the below table. Figure 6: Cost to reduce CO2 via Solar Farms - Electric Vehicles Figure 6: Cost to reduce CO2 via Solar Farms The above analysis is sensitive to the price of natural gas. For example, decarbonization costs decrease to $0/mtCO2 if the price of natural gas increases 30%, and decarbonization costs increase to $50/mtCO2 if the price of natural gas decreases 30%. Gov’t does not pay for solar farms. Instead, the owner typically borrows money to finance their construction, and repays the loans with electricity sales. And consumers typically pay for decarbonization via a small price increase. In summary, one can reduce CO2 170M tons via solar farms for several billion dollars, or via Electric Vehicles for $86B. Conclusion Some consumers are willing to pay more for Electric Vehicles to help the planet; however, if consumers can help more by other means, then that argument fails. For this reason, one should look at reducing EV lifetime costs to below that of Gas Cars. And the easiest way to do that is to increase battery lifespan, to beyond the life of the car. And to do that, one should look at dynamic battery warranty, transparent battery diagnostics, and more battery R&D. For more information on how to reduce CO2 from vehicles, see: Are We Ready for a Swappable EV Battery? How to Improve Gas Mileage 25% to 50% How to Decarbonize Transportation Car Costs and CO2 are Complicated