Is solar really better than oil?

[patjk]

I always assumed solar was the future as Musk has pumped it and makes sense.  However, a few friends have insisted it is worse due to the CO2 it takes to make the panels, the dirty parts of mining, the maintenance and life expectancy, etc.  And overall, they claim it is worse than fossil fuels.  Here are some of the claims:

"7,300 kg of CO2 is generated for the creation of a 100 kilowatt-hour Tesla battery pack". It take 3 years / 47,413 miles of driving just to make up the CO2 to catch up to the production of a traditional gas/diesel vehicle... and that is only if 100% of your charging comes from renewables, which, for example if you could charge it from your home solar, you have to also include the environmental impact for the battery production and disposal in 8-10 years from your solar system
This is pretty deep, but its where the data comes from: https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2019/03/150624.pdf

The cost of lithium batteries is around 73 kg CO2-equivalent/kWh. Production of a single battery with a range of 40 kWh (e.g. Nissan Leaf) and 100 kWh (e.g. Tesla) emit 2920 kg and 7300 kg of CO2, respectively.

A lithium-ion battery can be divided into three main components: the cells, which contain the active materials, the battery management system, and the pack, which is the structure the cells are mounted in.

Aluminium is important for the pack component (for its light weight) but is a very energy-intensive material, representing 17% of the total battery’s carbon footprint (12.4 kg CO2/kWh).

The cells represent the majority of the energy and carbon footprint of the production of lithium battery. Specifically, 40% of the total climate impact of the battery comes from the from mining, conversion and refining step of the active materials of cells where Nickel, Manganese, Cobalt (NCM) and lithium are processed into cathode powder (NCM Powder- 28.5 kg CO2/kWh).

The actual cell production is the second most energy-demanding activity and represents 20% of the total CO2/kWh (14 kg CO2/kWh). This number is highly dependent on the plant’s capacity as many of the energy-intensive activities in cell production relate to drying and heating which is taking place in large rooms where the energy used remains the same no matter if one or several thousands of cells are in production.

Reduction use on cars, and in general car pooling has contributed more to reduced CO2 more than the entire EV market could ever do

Also, don't mistake this or me as pro-fossil fuel, or not wanting a better source of energy... It's just the lobby, media, false misrepresentation that solar / EV's are some holy grail, and everyone blidly falls for it is BS... there are better sources of energy. We are changing 1 bad source of enery for another, and not improving anything... we need to finds ways to chnage the system, not just shift it around

There was one study I saw that showed that loading deserts with solar farms would increase global warming at a significantly fast rate, because the earth absorbs heat from warming up that atmosphere. where solar would reflect so much back into the atmosphere tha it would cause much bigger issues....
-----------

In MMM's recent Model Y post he had this one:
What about the Environment?

Since the beginning, there has been a weird battle / conspiracy theory that says electric cars are actually worse for the environment than their gasoline counterparts because of either battery components, or the dirty sources of some of the US electric grid, or whatever. As an electrical / energy engineer, I looked into all of this and it’s totally wrong. The real story is this:

-All cars are hugely bad for the environment simply because they are large and heavy chunks of manufactured metal and other minerals
-Roads and parking lots are even worse so we should stop designing our cities around cars.
-But electric cars are far less harmful than gas cars, because they avoid the burning of 50,000 pounds of gasoline over their lifetimes. As for the electricity – the US energy grid is fairly clean already and will soon be 100% renewable. Plus you can easily generate your own solar power as I’ve been doing since 2018.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/the-model-y-experiment/

------

So I want to start the discussion here, is solar really the future and the rational way to go? I'd be curious what Musk thinks of all of this, but interested in chatting with you all here to learn more about really what is going on.  Any good books/links/thoughts are appreciated.  Thanks.

[RWD]

This has been discussed several times on these forums already. Here are a few articles:
https://electrek.co/2022/03/04/light-duty-evs-have-64-lower-life-cycle-emissions-than-ice-vehicles-ford-study/
https://insideevs.com/news/569169/gas-cars-emissions-electric-cars/

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11
https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-footprint-of-nuclear-power/

[bacchi]

Yes. There are numerous life cycle analyses that clearly show that solar energy beats NG and oil power. NREL shows 4x lower CO2 than coal in this meta study.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56487.pdf

It is true that BEV cars, off the production line, are worse environmentally than ICE cars. Over the regular lifetime of the car, however, BEVs are far better than ICEs. Now, if all BEVs were driven off a cliff at the end of their 2nd year, we'd have a problem.

The likely source of your quote about Tesla batteries states that the author is working from the "worst-cast scenario" in the US for the EV.

I wanted to do the worst-case-scenario math for the EV and to do that I needed to pick the place with the dirtiest energy generation possible.
[...]
That data estimates 7,300 kg of CO2 is generated for the creation of a 100 kilowatt-hour Tesla battery pack. Since the Model 3 has a roughly 75 kWh battery pack, we can reduce that figure to 5,500 kg of CO2.

(bolded)

The vast majority of the US grid is cleaner and the grid is getting greener all the time. My utility's electrons are about 50% renewables, for example, far more than the 14% worst case.

[nereo]

Adding to RWD and bacci -
OP you are conflating solar power generation and personal vehicles powered by internal combustion engines (ICE). 

As bacci noted, the LCAs clearly show that EVs win out over ICE vehicles over their lifespan, and it isn't even a close contest.  You are correct that less driving is always better, as is more ride-sharing and self-propelled transit, but that's true regardless of whether you are talking ICE or EVs - consume less and it pollutes less.

Your assumption that all early adopters of EVs think it is a holy grail rings false to me - from what I've seen we are far more aware of the impacts of each type of technology than your average driver, and as RWD pointed out we've discussed it here ad nausium.

I have no idea where you are getting that bit about putting solar farms in deserts would increase global warming by a substantial amount, but I call BS on that, and its backed by a ton of data. Bottom line, solar based plants are less harmful from a CO2 standpoint than natural gas, coal or residual fuel plants by a country mile. It's true they also come with environmental costs, but one must look at the electricity they offset to make a fair comparison.

[GuitarStv]

Do these analysis take into account the increased road damage/wear that the heavier weight of battery electric vehicles cause?

[rockeTree]

Another calculator for those who like to play around with such things - highlights the sizable gap between hybrids and full electric cars:

https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/how-clean-are-electric-cars/?gclid=CjwKCAjwxr2iBhBJEiwAdXECw5HkbtPZF0Vfn6PySx100QuZdWSWWx40X1jYDnlzT1xsZhvgKjPwJxoCH98QAvD_BwE

Note the pdfs linked on the right if you want to dig into the details.

[TomTX]

I always assumed solar was the future as Musk has pumped it and makes sense.  However, a few friends have insisted it is worse due to the CO2 it takes to make the panels, the dirty parts of mining, the maintenance and life expectancy, etc.  And overall, they claim it is worse than fossil fuels. 

While I don't know why you bring up Musk, your "friends" have been sucked into parroting fossil-fuel industry funded disinfomation.

ie, repeating lies.

[TomTX]

Do these analysis take into account the increased road damage/wear that the heavier weight of battery electric vehicles cause?

Passenger vehicles are irrelevant to road damage caused by their weight. Literally irrelevant. It's all about heavy trucks, especially overweight trucks.

It's a common bullshit "gotcha!" used by.... the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign.

[bacchi]

Do these analysis take into account the increased road damage/wear that the heavier weight of battery electric vehicles cause?

Passenger vehicles are irrelevant to road damage caused by their weight. Literally irrelevant. It's all about heavy trucks, especially overweight trucks.

It's a common bullshit "gotcha!" used by.... the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign.

It's all about axle loads.

“The damage due to cars, for practical purposes, when we are designing pavements, is basically zero. It’s not actually zero, but it’s so much smaller -- orders of magnitude smaller -- that we don’t even bother with them,” said Karim Chatti, a civil engineer from Michigan State University in East Lansing.

Bikes are of course over 4 orders of magnitude better for roads than a car.

[nereo]

Do these analysis take into account the increased road damage/wear that the heavier weight of battery electric vehicles cause?

The better ones do, although it's not as straightforward as "BEVs weigh more, therefore more BEVs means more road damage overall". In general a BEV weights about 20-25% more than an equivalent ICE vehicle.

The relationship between road wear and vehicle weight isn't linear - big heavy trucks damage roads disproportionately more than an equal weight of many smaller vehicles. The type of road surface is also matters greatly.

 This becomes relevant because almost every ICE vehicle is supplied by fuel delivered by tanker trucks with GWVs of ≥26,000lbs. Those tankers - and other heavy trucks - are the biggest contributor to road wear.

[GuitarStv]

Do these analysis take into account the increased road damage/wear that the heavier weight of battery electric vehicles cause?

Passenger vehicles are irrelevant to road damage caused by their weight. Literally irrelevant. It's all about heavy trucks, especially overweight trucks.

It's a common bullshit "gotcha!" used by.... the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign.

[/quote]

The weight, noise (quietness actually), and acceleration do combine to make EVs measurably more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists on the road (https://theryanlawgroup.com/are-electric-cars-dangerous-to-pedestrians/, https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/09/crash-test-electric-cars-are-more-dangerous-than-conventional-cars-says-global-insurance-company/).  It makes intuitive sense that there would be some impact on road wear as well . . . I mean you have to buy special tires for EVs because of the added weight.

So to take one single example - https://www.carscoops.com/2022/02/the-gmc-hummer-ev-sut-weighs-9063-lbs-its-battery-alone-is-heavier-than-a-mazda-miata/.  Going from two to four tons seems like a significant weight change.  It's hard for me to believe that there's no impact at all.  And if you run the math, it turns out (https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads) that in this instance the damage is in the ballpark of sixteen times as much. 

The most popular vehicles in the US are heavier trucks/suvs, and there's a fair bit of talk of electric semis as well.  So it seems pretty undeniable that there will be at least some negative impact to road longevity by adding all that extra weight.  Not sure exactly what that would be though, hence the question.  A 1% increase in road maintenance would be negligible, a ten or fifteen percent increase would not.

It's a common bullshit "gotcha!" used by.... the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign.

Ad hominem - appeal to motive.  Better to attack the argument.

This becomes relevant because almost every ICE vehicle is supplied by fuel delivered by tanker trucks with GWVs of ≥26,000lbs. Those tankers - and other heavy trucks - are the biggest contributor to road wear.

That's a good point that I hadn't thought of.

[Ron Scott]

I think the worldwide transition from oil is in early stages and we have a lot to learn. Solar seems to be a winning approach, but where it will ultimately lead vs. alternatives is still an open question.

Ultimately, I imagine there will be several good alternatives to oil in the future, solar being one, that may vary by location. Were I a betting man I would have no idea where to place long term investments.

But I don’t think we’re going to avoid the environmental damage. It’s coming too fast and our technology and political systems are too slow.

I suspect we’ll live to see some parts of the world become largely uninhabitable, with the resulting mass death, immigration, war, supply chain disruptions, inflation, etc. I just don’t see how this is avoidable now.

[RWD]

The most popular vehicles in the US are heavier trucks/suvs, and there's a fair bit of talk of electric semis as well.  So it seems pretty undeniable that there will be at least some negative impact to road longevity by adding all that extra weight.

There has been testing ongoing with using a pantograph and overhead wires to supply power to trucks on the highway (similar to electric trains). This would greatly reduce the size of batteries needed for long-distance routes, and hence have minimal weight impact compared to legacy trucks. I'm really hoping this option takes off because it also means less demand on battery production capacity.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/markets/automotive/article/21172885/electronic-design-electric-highway-tests-accelerate-in-germany-and-the-uk

[EchoStache]

Since passenger cars do very little road damage compared to big trucks i.e. 2500:1, an approximate off the cuff guess would make one think that the tiny bit of extra damage done by each heavier electric passenger vehicle would be offset by the tremendous damage reduction of eliminating all/most fuel tanker trucks.  Maybe we net come out ahead in terms of road damage, but rough napkin math makes me think road damage is of zero consequence when considering the affect of EV's vs ICE.  Definitely seems like more anti-EV FUD.

As far as the rest of the big trucks, electric are only allowed to be 4,000 lbs heavier i.e. 84,000 lbs 2,000 lbs heavier i.e. 82,000 lbs.  This would all be on the front three axles of the truck, so about 1333 667 extra lbs on three axles.  Axle weight is the factor affecting road damage.

Assumptions:
Battery technology will improve, possibly swiftly and substantially.
Long term, this would mean higher energy density allowing longer range with less weight. 
Given the likelihood for this improvement, perhaps increased vehicle weight for big trucks will not be a long term, significant issue in terms of road damage.

[bacchi]

The most popular vehicles in the US are heavier trucks/suvs, and there's a fair bit of talk of electric semis as well.  So it seems pretty undeniable that there will be at least some negative impact to road longevity by adding all that extra weight.  Not sure exactly what that would be though, hence the question.  A 1% increase in road maintenance would be negligible, a ten or fifteen percent increase would not.

Yikes, that's a complicated problem. It'd depend on the type of traffic. For a highway, increased BEV weight is lost in the noise of 20-80 ton semi trailers.

A Model 3 does 3.2x the road damage of a Toyota Corolla.

One lane-mile of urban highway emits 3500 tons of CO2 over 50 years. (A neighborhood street is far less CO2 intensive than an urban highway but I don't feel like searching or doing the equations.) *https://transdef.org/Resources/Smart_Growth_assets/Sightline%20GHG%20analysis.pdf

10 year concrete CO2 emissions = 700 CO2 tons

An imperial gallon of petrol emits 19.6 pounds of CO2. A Corolla gets 33mpg, uses 303 gallons a year for 10k miles, and emits 3 tons of CO2/year.

If a highway wears out in 10 years with Corollas, it wears out 3.2x faster with Model 3s.

BEV highway (re)construction would require 700 * 3.2 - 700 = 1540 more tons of CO2 than an ICE only highway. That's spread out over thousands and thousands of cars and trips though.

1540 tons of CO2 is what 513 Corolla ICEs emit combined in a year.

One lane-mile of urban highway has more than 513 cars on it in a day let alone 10 years. Then we remove the last-mile transport of heavy oil tankers as Echostache mentioned ^^^ and the conclusion is obvious: Road construction CO2 is trivial for BEVs vs ICEs, at least when comparing mid-size sedans.

[mistymoney]

The most popular vehicles in the US are heavier trucks/suvs, and there's a fair bit of talk of electric semis as well.  So it seems pretty undeniable that there will be at least some negative impact to road longevity by adding all that extra weight.

There has been testing ongoing with using a pantograph and overhead wires to supply power to trucks on the highway (similar to electric trains). This would greatly reduce the size of batteries needed for long-distance routes, and hence have minimal weight impact compared to legacy trucks. I'm really hoping this option takes off because it also means less demand on battery production capacity.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/markets/automotive/article/21172885/electronic-design-electric-highway-tests-accelerate-in-germany-and-the-uk

I saw something about building highways that would charge electric vehciles as they drove, not over head but from underneath. Not sure what the method was did not look into, just saw a blip on this somewhere. That would be so awesome if the roads could capture the solar engery and then EV coast to coast would be in the bag :P

[GuitarStv]

One lane-mile of urban highway has more than 513 cars on it in a day let alone 10 years. Then we remove the last-mile transport of heavy oil tankers as Echostache mentioned ^^^ and the conclusion is obvious: Road construction CO2 is trivial for BEVs vs ICEs, at least when comparing mid-size sedans.

Is comparing mid-sized sedans all that valid?

They make up only two of the top ten selling passenger vehicles in the US (and the other eight are all heavier trucks/suvs - https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/07/americas-top-10-bestselling-cars-of-2022-tesla-makes-the-cut.html).  Corroborating that observation, in 2021 truck SUVs made up 45% of the market and pickup trucks were an extra 16% on top of that.

The bulk of the vehicles that Americans want are bigger and heavier that are less aerodynamic.  Electrifying them appears to need need bigger and heavier battery packs than those used for sedans . . . or at least that's what manufacturers appear to be fitting them with.  As I mentioned, there's a bigger weight difference between the hummer and comparable vehicles. . . and the average vehicle people in the US seem to want to drive is closer to a hummer than a corolla.

(Not to denigrate the overall spirit of the calculation, which otherwise looks pretty accurate.)

The most popular vehicles in the US are heavier trucks/suvs, and there's a fair bit of talk of electric semis as well.  So it seems pretty undeniable that there will be at least some negative impact to road longevity by adding all that extra weight.

There has been testing ongoing with using a pantograph and overhead wires to supply power to trucks on the highway (similar to electric trains). This would greatly reduce the size of batteries needed for long-distance routes, and hence have minimal weight impact compared to legacy trucks. I'm really hoping this option takes off because it also means less demand on battery production capacity.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/markets/automotive/article/21172885/electronic-design-electric-highway-tests-accelerate-in-germany-and-the-uk

I love this idea.  But I was always a fan of streetcars . . . they seem to make much more sense in cities from a cost/weight perspective than trying to cram battery packs into busses as seems to be all the rage these days.

[bacchi]

One lane-mile of urban highway has more than 513 cars on it in a day let alone 10 years. Then we remove the last-mile transport of heavy oil tankers as Echostache mentioned ^^^ and the conclusion is obvious: Road construction CO2 is trivial for BEVs vs ICEs, at least when comparing mid-size sedans.

Is comparing mid-sized sedans all that valid?

They make up only two of the top ten selling passenger vehicles in the US (and the other eight are all heavier trucks/suvs - https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/07/americas-top-10-bestselling-cars-of-2022-tesla-makes-the-cut.html).  Corroborating that observation, in 2021 truck SUVs made up 45% of the market and pickup trucks were an extra 16% on top of that.

The bulk of the vehicles that Americans want are bigger and heavier that are less aerodynamic.  Electrifying them appears to need need bigger and heavier battery packs than those used for sedans . . . or at least that's what manufacturers appear to be fitting them with.  As I mentioned, there's a bigger weight difference between the hummer and comparable vehicles. . . and the average vehicle people in the US seem to want to drive is closer to a hummer than a corolla.

Using mid-sized sedans seems valid, for now, because EV trucks are selling in the low thousands.

It'll matter in 5 years, definitely.

Model Y vs Subaru Forester: (4500/2 / 3500/2) ^4 = 2.7x more damage
Ford 150 Lightning vs Ford 150 (Supercab 3.0L):  (  8250/2 / 5208/2) ^4 = 6.3x more damage

Ford F150: 10000/24mpg = 417 gallons * 19.6# of CO2 = 4.1 imperial tons of CO2/year

(Not to denigrate the overall spirit of the calculation, which otherwise looks pretty accurate.)

I'm just throwing together numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if I left out something.

[Arbitrage]

If you really are looking to improve, use of micromobility such as bikes/ebikes, walking, or even e-scooters - an order of magnitude or more better than any type of car.  That's without even considering the generalized carbon impact of car culture - more pavement and concrete, more space wasted for roads and especially parking, more spread out cities, etc.

Electric cars are not the answer.  They may help to bridge the gap, but they don't solve the problems. 

[nereo]

@bacchi - curious where you are getting the multiplication factors for different vehicles (i.e. a Tesla 3 is 3.2x the road damage of a corolla)?  Not saying it's wrong, just wondering where those numbers are coming from.

[bacchi]

@bacchi - curious where you are getting the multiplication factors for different vehicles (i.e. a Tesla 3 is 3.2x the road damage of a corolla)?  Not saying it's wrong, just wondering where those numbers are coming from.

I'm using the curb weight of the vehicles (2 tons vs 1.5 tons) and then using this formula: https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads

2 tons / 1.5 tons = 1.33 and 1.33^4 = 3.16

The weight is from edmunds.com "Spec and Features." E.g., https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2022/features-specs/

I'm also rounding heavily.

[nereo]

@bacchi - curious where you are getting the multiplication factors for different vehicles (i.e. a Tesla 3 is 3.2x the road damage of a corolla)?  Not saying it's wrong, just wondering where those numbers are coming from.

I'm using the curb weight of the vehicles (2 tons vs 1.5 tons) and then using this formula: https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads

2 tons / 1.5 tons = 1.33 and 1.33^4 = 3.16

The weight is from edmunds.com "Spec and Features." E.g., https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2022/features-specs/

I'm also rounding heavily.

Awesome - thanks

So that addresses something I had been pondering upthread, which is "about how much more damage does a loaded fuel tanker do compared to an SUV" per mile. 

Using that formula, a loaded fuel tanker (three axle) can weigh 60,000lb and an ID.4 (VW SUV) about 4,300 (two axle).  So that's about 10T / 1.05T = 9, and 9^4 = 8145x

Of course one tanker can refuel about 600 cars, and we'd have to make a lot of guesses about how many miles that tanker drives to deliver its fuel ... interesting to think about.

[BicycleB]

@bacchi - curious where you are getting the multiplication factors for different vehicles (i.e. a Tesla 3 is 3.2x the road damage of a corolla)?  Not saying it's wrong, just wondering where those numbers are coming from.

I'm using the curb weight of the vehicles (2 tons vs 1.5 tons) and then using this formula: https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads

2 tons / 1.5 tons = 1.33 and 1.33^4 = 3.16

The weight is from edmunds.com "Spec and Features." E.g., https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2022/features-specs/

I'm also rounding heavily.

Interesting!

Really liking the analysis sharing in this thread. So much better than the average internet discussion.

[mistymoney]

if we are going to get into the weeds of costs here, let us factor in the pulmony effects of ICEs.

For all subjects with COPD and for males, % predicted FEV1 and the FEV1/FVC ratio were significantly lower in the highest vehicle exposure group compared to the low density group in the adjusted regression analysis. The difference in mean % predicted FEV1 between the low and high vehicle density category was 10.5 percentage points in all COPD participants and 8.4 percentage points in males. For the FEV1/FVC ratio, differences between the low and high vehicle density categories were 4.8 percentage points in all subjects and 5.2 in males respectively.

https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12931-016-0451-3

Conclusions: Living or attending schools near high traffic density roads exposes children to higher levels of motor vehicle air pollutants, and increases the incidence and prevalence of childhood asthma and wheeze.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22683007/

What the national cost for treatment is I don't know if any can speculate. Childhood asthma can be devasting socially as well, being left out of a lot of play and such.

[clifp]

@bacchi - curious where you are getting the multiplication factors for different vehicles (i.e. a Tesla 3 is 3.2x the road damage of a corolla)?  Not saying it's wrong, just wondering where those numbers are coming from.

I'm using the curb weight of the vehicles (2 tons vs 1.5 tons) and then using this formula: https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads

2 tons / 1.5 tons = 1.33 and 1.33^4 = 3.16

The weight is from edmunds.com "Spec and Features." E.g., https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2022/features-specs/

I'm also rounding heavily.

But not all road damage is caused by traffic, much of the damage is caused by temperature change, which causes the road material to expand and contract and different rates. Not to mention water damage, which undermines the road bed.  A good example is the roads that are closed during winter, in national parks, and places like Wyoming or Montana. When the reopen the roads in the spring they need repair them even though no cars have been on them for months.

[nereo]

@bacchi - curious where you are getting the multiplication factors for different vehicles (i.e. a Tesla 3 is 3.2x the road damage of a corolla)?  Not saying it's wrong, just wondering where those numbers are coming from.

I'm using the curb weight of the vehicles (2 tons vs 1.5 tons) and then using this formula: https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads

2 tons / 1.5 tons = 1.33 and 1.33^4 = 3.16

The weight is from edmunds.com "Spec and Features." E.g., https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2022/features-specs/

I'm also rounding heavily.

But not all road damage is caused by traffic, much of the damage is caused by temperature change, which causes the road material to expand and contract and different rates. Not to mention water damage, which undermines the road bed.  A good example is the roads that are closed during winter, in national parks, and places like Wyoming or Montana. When the reopen the roads in the spring they need repair them even though no cars have been on them for months.

Yes, weather damages roads - but how is that relevant here? For the purpose of this discussion it’s a constant. The variables are the vehicles on top of them.

[clifp]

@bacchi - curious where you are getting the multiplication factors for different vehicles (i.e. a Tesla 3 is 3.2x the road damage of a corolla)?  Not saying it's wrong, just wondering where those numbers are coming from.

I'm using the curb weight of the vehicles (2 tons vs 1.5 tons) and then using this formula: https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads

2 tons / 1.5 tons = 1.33 and 1.33^4 = 3.16

The weight is from edmunds.com "Spec and Features." E.g., https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2022/features-specs/

I'm also rounding heavily.

But not all road damage is caused by traffic, much of the damage is caused by temperature change, which causes the road material to expand and contract and different rates. Not to mention water damage, which undermines the road bed.  A good example is the roads that are closed during winter, in national parks, and places like Wyoming or Montana. When the reopen the roads in the spring they need repair them even though no cars have been on them for months.

Yes, weather damages roads - but how is that relevant here? For the purpose of this discussion it’s a constant. The variables are the vehicles on top of them.

Quite relevant if we are attempting to allocate CO2 emissions to specific types of vehicles.  If 90% of cost/CO2 emission of road repair is due to weather, then the higher weight of EVs is pretty much irrelevant when compared to the difference in CO2 from burning gasoline, vs using the grid.  If on the other hand only 10% is from weather then it is an important consideration.

I suspect that the real number is somewhere between 10 and 90%, and I'm certain that varies greatly by highway. Weather is huge factors in Montana, much smaller for SoCal freeway.

[SYNACK]

Sorry if I missed this in the thread already, but another thing to note that oil must be extracted from wells (CO2 and pollution), shipped to refineries (CO2 and pollution), then from the refineries shipped to distribution points (more CO2), and then trucked to gas stations (even more CO2). All that CO2 and pollution happens before you even start your car. And this is needed for every single gallon of fuel you use. Every time you drive... on and on.

For example:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264013/transport-volume-of-crude-oil-in-seaborne-trade/

in 2021 the world did 1,829 million metric tons worth of oil in seaborne trade. Obviously that is expensive on the environment.

I don't know about you, but why don't people include the cost of shipping all that oil around to calculate how ICE cars compare to battery operated cars?

[lutorm]

There are two aspect that are conflated here, energy production and energy distribution. In principle, the two are independent.

A self-powered vehicle needs to be provided with energy somehow, either by carrying around some burnable stuff or by having a battery (or a fuel cell). This has essentially nothing to do with where that energy comes from, you can turn fossil fuel into electricity (or electricity into fossil fuel, although that's less efficient.) There is also no inherent CO2 advantage either way, in principle you could run vehicles on renewable gasoline and be CO2-neutral. So you need to do the numbers to know which is more efficient, especially when you take into account lifecycle costs as well.

What is undisputably true is that a battery electric vehicle is much more flexible in making use of energy produced in different ways, because we have a very nice infrastructure for turning various energy sources into electricity. Making gasoline powered vehicles CO2-neutral is a lot more painful than taking a BEV which becomes renewable when the grid does.

[Alternatepriorities]

Yes. There are numerous life cycle analyses that clearly show that solar energy beats NG and oil power. NREL shows 4x lower CO2 than coal in this meta study.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56487.pdf

Thanks for this, it's a fantastic example of the kinds of studies that leave people like me feeling jaded and skeptical. So the NREL did a meta study where they compared the dirtiest fossil fuel to a renewable source and found the renewable was 4X better. Great news! What, they didn't include the storage footprint for the solar energy? Well that's not really a fair comparison is it? Wait, is there another fossil fuel that provides baseload power with 40% lower emissions that coal? (see last link by RWD above) How is this not just a strawman argument for solar?

An analysis comparing the combined foot print of solar PV + Storage capacity necessary to make it baseload power vs the footprint of Natural Gas would be far more meaningful. But of course that's not going to come out anywhere near 4X better so it won't make as good of press. It's not just fossil fuel companies playing it a little loose with the data.

I've build solar PV installation sizing calculators for myself and others and installed panels. The NREL has some great data and has done some good research. For example, it was from the NREL that learned the reflected light off the snow and cold temperatures make March and April the most productive months for solar in much of Alaska... And it was their data that along with data from the University of Alaska Fairbanks that helped us determined the optimal angle for panels in interior Alaska is 81 degrees. Why? Because the snow slides off on it's own and you generate more power in the dark winter months when you need it for only a 2% reduction in annual production which is probably more than made up for in additional days of production.

ETA
If we want to convince people a new way of doing things is better, then we need to be completely above board about it. Over promising and underdelivering can not be what engineers and scientists are know for. I grew up blue collar and I still have a lot of friends who are blue collar. As best as I can tell years of over promising by techno utopists has left a huge credibility gap.

[BicycleB]

Yes. There are numerous life cycle analyses that clearly show that solar energy beats NG and oil power. NREL shows 4x lower CO2 than coal in this meta study.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56487.pdf

Thanks for this, it's a fantastic example of the kinds of studies that leave people like me feeling jaded and skeptical. So the NREL did a meta study where they compared the dirtiest fossil fuel to a renewable source and found the renewable was 4X better. Great news! What, they didn't include the storage footprint for the solar energy? Well that's not really a fair comparison is it? Wait, is there another fossil fuel that provides baseload power with 40% lower emissions that coal? (see last link by RWD above) How is this not just a strawman argument for solar?

An analysis comparing the combined foot print of solar PV + Storage capacity necessary to make it baseload power vs the footprint of Natural Gas would be far more meaningful. But of course that's not going to come out anywhere near 4X better so it won't make as good of press. It's not just fossil fuel companies playing it a little loose with the data.

I've build solar PV installation sizing calculators for myself and others and installed panels. The NREL has some great data and has done some good research. For example, it was from the NREL that learned the reflected light off the snow and cold temperatures make March and April the most productive months for solar in much of Alaska... And it was their data that along with data from the University of Alaska Fairbanks that helped us determined the optimal angle for panels in interior Alaska is 81 degrees. Why? Because the snow slides off on it's own and you generate more power in the dark winter months when you need it for only a 2% reduction in annual production which is probably more than made up for in additional days of production.

ETA
If we want to convince people a new way of doing things is better, then we need to be completely above board about it. Over promising and underdelivering can not be what engineers and scientists are know for. I grew up blue collar and I still have a lot of friends who are blue collar. As best as I can tell years of over promising by techno utopists has left a huge credibility gap.

@Alternatepriorities, thanks for this thoughtful post. It covered several issues at once that I'd been wondering about - some on topic for this thread, some not.

Fwiw, I strongly agree with you that engineers and scientists should be careful with facts, and should not compromise their devotion to accuracy in order to make policy arguments or other points.

[bacchi]

An analysis comparing the combined foot print of solar PV + Storage capacity necessary to make it baseload power vs the footprint of Natural Gas would be far more meaningful. But of course that's not going to come out anywhere near 4X better so it won't make as good of press. It's not just fossil fuel companies playing it a little loose with the data.

The latest NREL meta study, then, should allay your concerns.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

From page 2, you can see some storage solutions, including pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen. The worst case for solar + battery storage emits greenhouse gases at the best case of NG (page 2, using rough guess). The graph even shows NG and coal plants with proposed carbon capture technologies.  Nuclear is also represented and, solely considering production, is on par with wind.

Table 2 shows that the median of solar + battery is over 6x better than the NG median (PVs have come a long way over the last decade).

I apologize for linking the 2013 meta study. This one has a lot more studies included; the 2013 one only accepted 17 studies, which is probably why it didn't include storage.

It's obvious that we'll need some kind of battery storage or nuclear baseload and maybe a few NG peakers. That doesn't mean that we can't use solar when it makes sense. There's no reason that Phoenix should get most of its power from coal (over 30%!) during the day.

[lutorm]

It's obvious that we'll need some kind of battery storage or nuclear baseload and maybe a few NG peakers. That doesn't mean that we can't use solar when it makes sense. There's no reason that Phoenix should get most of its power from coal (over 30%!) during the day.

We need some battery storage, but I don't think there's any reason to think all the energy storage needed to turn to a completely renewable production system has to be batteries. Batteries are great for short term consumption variation, but it seems likely to me that some mechanical storage system like pumped hydro or thermal storage will scale much better to very large storage volumes (like would be needed to carry over the winter at northern latitudes, for example.)

Everyone talks about storage, but storage and grid transport capacity largely do the same thing. If you can transport large powers around you don't need as much storage, because e.g. the sun will always be shining somewhere. I've never seen a study that evaluates how storage and grid infrastructure trade off against each other.

In principle there's nothing saying it won't be cheaper to build a bunch of HVDC lines all radiating out across the country from some enormous PV installations in Arizona with practically 100% uptime than to build a bunch of storage to carry through production minima at local installations with much more iffy production stats.

[TomTX]

Quite relevant if we are attempting to allocate CO2 emissions to specific types of vehicles.  If 90% of cost/CO2 emission of road repair is due to weather, then the higher weight of EVs is pretty much irrelevant when compared to the difference in CO2 from burning gasoline, vs using the grid.  If on the other hand only 10% is from weather then it is an important consideration

No, increased weight from passenger EVs is still irrelevant, even if only 10% of degradation is from weather. Heavy trucks are 99+% of vehicle-caused road damage.

I suggest going back upthread where this was explained.

[TomTX]

In principle there's nothing saying it won't be cheaper to build a bunch of HVDC lines all radiating out across the country from some enormous PV installations in Arizona with practically 100% uptime than to build a bunch of storage to carry through production minima at local installations with much more iffy production stats.

NREL says we would save a lot of money by building a bunch of HVDC lines:

https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/seams.html

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

@GuitarStv - Just want to point out that the gas savings are more noticeable in a bigger vehicle!

I've only owned hybrids, not plug ins, but the gas savings from our Toyota Sienna are a lot more noticeable than the gas savings in my husband's old hybrid Civic. The van gets the same gas mileage as our Honda Fit (the Civic was a 2005 with 200K miles on it and it went to its reward in 2020, then we had just one car for almost 2 years, but you can't safely or comfortably carry 3 kids in a Fit so we got the van before the new baby arrived).

[Alternatepriorities]

The latest NREL meta study, then, should allay your concerns.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

From page 2, you can see some storage solutions, including pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen. The worst case for solar + battery storage emits greenhouse gases at the best case of NG (page 2, using rough guess). The graph even shows NG and coal plants with proposed carbon capture technologies.  Nuclear is also represented and, solely considering production, is on par with wind.

Table 2 shows that the median of solar + battery is over 6x better than the NG median (PVs have come a long way over the last decade).

That looks to be a much better study. Thank you. I am really curious as to the energy source "ocean". Is that tidal? Wave? Oceanic thermal?

It's obvious that we'll need some kind of battery storage or nuclear baseload and maybe a few NG peakers. That doesn't mean that we can't use solar when it makes sense. There's no reason that Phoenix should get most of its power from coal (over 30%!) during the day.

I am 100% in agreement with you that Phoenix should be getting daytime power from solar. If we accomplished nothing with solar but powering all of the HVAC systems (preferably we'd build more thermal storage into new building too) and charging peoples electric cars at the office it would make a significant difference even without storage. Using coal to power AC seems like the most sad and ironic misuse of energy in the modern world... (Depending on how one feels about crypto)

I presume the wide bar on solar is partially driven by how effective the location of the installation is. Obviously there is a huge difference between panels in the American Southwest of Southern Spain and panels in New England or Germany. It might pencil out for the installation in less optimal locations if the incentives are right... but, as the world can only produce X panels per year we might want to be choosey about where they go. It's something I've been pondering for myself. With the current tax breaks it pencils out in at least some scenarios to put some panels up. But if I do, they will produce less than half the power of a panel installed near Phoenix and my grid power comes from natural gas, hydro, and wind. Presumably they'll reduce power from the gas plant. but that's still half as effective again as removing coal power in Phoenix... What I need is a way to buy panels that are installed in AZ instead of AK. Which is just investing in a solar producing energy company but I don't get the tax breaks.

[Alternatepriorities]

@Alternatepriorities, thanks for this thoughtful post. It covered several issues at once that I'd been wondering about - some on topic for this thread, some not.

Fwiw, I strongly agree with you that engineers and scientists should be careful with facts, and should not compromise their devotion to accuracy in order to make policy arguments or other points.

To be specifically on topic :) I lived in a remote village where oil(diesel) vs solar power generation was a hot topic and I helped write a proposal to replace oil generation with solar for part of the year. Why only part of the year? In the fall and early winter it's cloudy then just dark enough that the solar array and storage capacity would be absurd. Also, the city is able to heat all of their buildings with the waste heat from the generators which makes them much more efficient. But in spring and summer it's sunny so the solar works well and the building don't need much heat... How is it cost effective to install panels that are only used half the year? Diesel was $8/gal when I moved out there. The city saved on bulk purchases, but it was still over $5/gal and the electricity was 67 cents/wkh. So the financial math works... Solar is better than Oil for about 7 months a year there... but should the federal government really back that project instead of on just outside Phoenix (see above)? I'm a lot less certain of that now than when I lived there...

[clifp]

Quite relevant if we are attempting to allocate CO2 emissions to specific types of vehicles.  If 90% of cost/CO2 emission of road repair is due to weather, then the higher weight of EVs is pretty much irrelevant when compared to the difference in CO2 from burning gasoline, vs using the grid.  If on the other hand only 10% is from weather then it is an important consideration

No, increased weight from passenger EVs is still irrelevant, even if only 10% of degradation is from weather. Heavy trucks are 99+% of vehicle-caused road damage.

I suggest going back upthread where this was explained.

Oh,  I read the linked article, and it triggered a pet peeve of mine, relying on ancient studies when calculating ecological impacts.

I suspect, that it more likely than not that this statement is true.
"The damage due to cars, for practical purposes, when we are designing pavements, is basically zero. It’s not actually zero, but it’s so much smaller -- orders of magnitude smaller -- that we don’t even bother with them,"

But if the basis for this is studies performed in 1950, that's pretty terrifying.  First of calculations performed in the 1950s were almost certainly done primarily done by slide rule.  Now, if you never used a slide rule, let me tell you they are very error-prone, it is quite easy to be off by an order or magnitude or more.  Second, a helluva of a lot has changed in American roads in the last 70 years, number of vehicles, weights, speeds etc.  I know for a fact that the material used in road construction has also changed. My friend owns paving company, and every year they go to Vegas to attend the World of Concrete conventions, which is the 3rd largest in Vegas, and she comes back every year talking about some new paving material. Now I'm an electrical engineer, not a civil or mechanical engineer so maybe none of this matters.

But as a rule, I don't think any estimates of ecological impacts should use any data, collected from the 20th century.

[ditheca]

...you can't safely or comfortably carry 3 kids in a Fit so we got the van before the new baby arrived).

Getting a Kia Sedona van for our third kid was the worst financial mistake I ever made. Admittedly, I got exceptionally unlucky with it. Three major repairs followed by selling it for cheap because of its now well-known problem of needing major repairs. It cost me almost $20k to drive for three years.

Our three teenagers now ride comfortably in the back of a Honda Fit. At 6'3" and slightly overweight, I'm also quite comfortable in the back seat.

[bill1827]

Quite relevant if we are attempting to allocate CO2 emissions to specific types of vehicles.  If 90% of cost/CO2 emission of road repair is due to weather, then the higher weight of EVs is pretty much irrelevant when compared to the difference in CO2 from burning gasoline, vs using the grid.  If on the other hand only 10% is from weather then it is an important consideration

No, increased weight from passenger EVs is still irrelevant, even if only 10% of degradation is from weather. Heavy trucks are 99+% of vehicle-caused road damage.

I suggest going back upthread where this was explained.

Oh,  I read the linked article, and it triggered a pet peeve of mine, relying on ancient studies when calculating ecological impacts.

I suspect, that it more likely than not that this statement is true.
"The damage due to cars, for practical purposes, when we are designing pavements, is basically zero. It’s not actually zero, but it’s so much smaller -- orders of magnitude smaller -- that we don’t even bother with them,"

But if the basis for this is studies performed in 1950, that's pretty terrifying.  First of calculations performed in the 1950s were almost certainly done primarily done by slide rule.  Now, if you never used a slide rule, let me tell you they are very error-prone, it is quite easy to be off by an order or magnitude or more.  Second, a helluva of a lot has changed in American roads in the last 70 years, number of vehicles, weights, speeds etc.  I know for a fact that the material used in road construction has also changed. My friend owns paving company, and every year they go to Vegas to attend the World of Concrete conventions, which is the 3rd largest in Vegas, and she comes back every year talking about some new paving material. Now I'm an electrical engineer, not a civil or mechanical engineer so maybe none of this matters.

But as a rule, I don't think any estimates of ecological impacts should use any data, collected from the 20th century.

When I was taught to use a slide rule we were taught to always do a reality check, i.e. make an approximation to ensure that the result was realistic. The same issue of orders of magnitude errors are just as possible, and probably more common, with calculators and computers. Of course slide rules are not precise, they just give an approximation to make certain types of calculation easire. Even in the slide rule era if you wanted precision you had to use log tables, or other manual methods.

There is inherently nothing wrong with historical data unless there was some methodological flaw, which still seems to occur with tedious frequency today. Studies from the 50s may be flawed because they didn't have accurate methods to measure wear but they aren't completely valueless. If there was a significant error, given the amount of road construction and the resources that go into it, I'm pretty sure that we would have studies overturning the huge inaccuracies of the past.

[alsoknownasDean]

I'd add that maybe different battery chemistries (LFP) would have different levels of emissions involved in their production. ICE vehicles of course also emit all sorts of things out the tailpipes that affect local air quality.

The other thing I'd add in this one, which probably applies less to the US/Canada, is energy security, especially if one is relying mostly on imported refined liquid fuels.

[TomTX]

Oh,  I read the linked article, and it triggered a pet peeve of mine, relying on ancient studies when calculating ecological impacts.

Where is the "rolleyes" emoji when I really need it?

The equations and assumptions used TODAY by transportation agencies conclude that cars/passenger vehicle usage is completely irrelevant from a road durability standpoint.

Seriously, it's mass/unit area to the 4th POWER! Whether a car weighs 3k lbs or 4k lbs is completely fucking irrelevant when you have 80k+lb trucks using the road.

[Just Joe]

Sorry if I missed this in the thread already, but another thing to note that oil must be extracted from wells (CO2 and pollution), shipped to refineries (CO2 and pollution), then from the refineries shipped to distribution points (more CO2), and then trucked to gas stations (even more CO2). All that CO2 and pollution happens before you even start your car. And this is needed for every single gallon of fuel you use. Every time you drive... on and on.

Don't forget the electricity lighting and powering the pumps and the gas station store.

[nereo]

Sorry if I missed this in the thread already, but another thing to note that oil must be extracted from wells (CO2 and pollution), shipped to refineries (CO2 and pollution), then from the refineries shipped to distribution points (more CO2), and then trucked to gas stations (even more CO2). All that CO2 and pollution happens before you even start your car. And this is needed for every single gallon of fuel you use. Every time you drive... on and on.

Don't forget the electricity lighting and powering the pumps and the gas station store.

There's a lot of geographic variability, but broadly speaking 1/5 to 1/3 of the GHG for a gasoline vehicle occur prior to fill up. Once it gets into your tank roughly 2/3 does no actual work (a modern fuel-efficient vehicle is typically 35-40% efficient - the rest is wasted heat).

[TomTX]

Once it gets into your tank roughly 2/3 does no actual work (a modern fuel-efficient vehicle is typically 35-40% efficient - the rest is wasted heat).

You seem to be referencing ideal numbers, plus giving a generous boost to those numbers. Theoretical max efficiency of a gasoline powered internal combustion engine per the Carnot Cycle is ~28%, with perfect conditions, perfect RPM, etc. EGR and such may be able to boost that a bit, but claims of higher need solid, independent testing as proof.

Average vehicles in average uses are more like 10-15% useful energy, with the rest of the of the fuel energy wasted as heat.

Hybrid vehicles which recapture braking energy can get higher, possibly up to 40%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Gasoline_(petrol)_engines

[Alternatepriorities]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/meet-ev-demand-industry-turns-201135755.html

One of the concerns I have is that NIMBY will mean huge toxic messes elsewhere in the world rather than producing it here. Regardless of whether we run our cars on oil or metal the raw material has to be produced wisely and as responsibly as we know how. That’s not the same thing as producing it somewhere else with less regulation.

[TomTX]

One of the concerns I have is that NIMBY will mean huge toxic messes elsewhere in the world rather than producing it here. Regardless of whether we run our cars on oil or metal the raw material has to be produced wisely and as responsibly as we know how. That’s not the same thing as producing it somewhere else with less regulation.

Amazing how much more "concern" there is about generally clean technologies not being perfect while ignoring the absolute filth and massive environmental destruction coming from the use of fossil fuels.

[nereo]

One of the concerns I have is that NIMBY will mean huge toxic messes elsewhere in the world rather than producing it here. Regardless of whether we run our cars on oil or metal the raw material has to be produced wisely and as responsibly as we know how. That’s not the same thing as producing it somewhere else with less regulation.

Amazing how much more "concern" there is about generally clean technologies not being perfect while ignoring the absolute filth and massive environmental destruction coming from the use of fossil fuels.

Not to mention a century of war, oppression and terrorism fueled by and fought over fossil fuels.

[GuitarStv]

One of the concerns I have is that NIMBY will mean huge toxic messes elsewhere in the world rather than producing it here. Regardless of whether we run our cars on oil or metal the raw material has to be produced wisely and as responsibly as we know how. That’s not the same thing as producing it somewhere else with less regulation.

Amazing how much more "concern" there is about generally clean technologies not being perfect while ignoring the absolute filth and massive environmental destruction coming from the use of fossil fuels.

Not to mention a century of war, oppression and terrorism fueled by and fought over fossil fuels.

I don't have any love for fossil fuels.  However, many of the 'green' things that I once believed in (like plastic recycling) have turned out to be lies told to placate the masses instead of addressing the true problem of consumption.  Given that history, it seems quite valid and right to question new technology making big claims.