Electric vehicles in media and in practice
By: Mika Kauppila
Tags: Ev, Battery, Tesla, Electric Vehicles, Electric Car

Why is information on electric vehicles so confusing in media?

This article is mostly based on a presentation I’ve given a couple of times on electric vehicles in general. The topics include for example lifecycle analysis, safety and battery chemistry, but this is not a deep dive in any of them.

Background information

There are no yes or no answers. Each covered topic is complex, and the outcomes depend heavily on chosen parameters. The industry changes fast, and media articles refer to both future wishes and history relics.

Roughly 90% of media articles on EVs are deliberate bullshit. This applies to positive and negative views. This is understandable, since there are ideologies and moreover money involved. Overoptimism is as common as overpessimism. Unverified myths and outdated data are often chosen to support the prejudice.

Personally I believe in EV growth, but I aim for a neutral opinion.

Why EVs?

From manufacturer point of view, the increasing demand is hard to miss. There is also pressure from competitors. Everyone is afraid of being late. On the other hand, development of any new technology takes years, and investments are huge. This has led to constant strategy changes, and even large car manufacturer CEOs have given contradictory statements on the future of EVs during one week.

Laws, regulations, and politics drive change towards EVs. Manufacturers must meet certain emission level for the whole fleet. For this reason there are green series released, so that the ICE (internal combustion engine) versions can still be kept in market.

Also artificial collaboration has been seen between manufacturers. When the ICE fleet of one brand is bundled with the EV fleet of another brand, the total emission of the whole bunch remains under the regulatory limits. This is one sort of emission trade.

Some countries, cities and areas have also announced possible ICE bans in the future. Whether they will be realized or not, the idea already drives change. Also green incentives and emission taxes set the slope towards EVs.

My personal prediction is that large cities (not Helsinki, I mean large) will complicate ICE usage and support EV driving faster than might be technically or economically feasible. The reason is local pollution. This change will start in China and be so fast, that for example Europe will have no idea what just happened.

Politically driven changes will increase the production so much, that the unit costs come down. This will further reduce the cost gap between EVs and ICEs, and the change will even more accelerate.

Positive sides of EV

The most evident benefit of an EV is the emissions. More on the total vehicle lifetime emissions later, but the local emissions are hard to disagree with.

Another clear pro side is the simplicity. Whereas a combustion engine has hundreds of moving parts, an electric motor basically has one rotating shaft and two bearings. Although this is the kind of oversimplification I warn about, there are much less possible leakage points, less wear-out parts and thus less maintenance needed.

Exploded view of an internal combustion engine

If you compare the same car model with traditional and electric power train, the EV version most likely compares rather to a sport version of the ICE series. The performance of EVs is rarely complained.

Electric vehicles are significantly more expensive. But what is the total cost of ownership? The driving is cheaper, maintenance is cheaper, there might be tax incentives etc. The complexity of the equation can be seen in the picture below. It is outdated in many ways, but it shows that even between neighboring countries the situation may be totally different. The difference is so clear, that we don’t even need to know which car is which, or what is included in the calculation.

Total cost of ownership between different countries and power sources

Challenges

What still must be solved before electric vehicles could be the preferred solution for most? Most of the issues come down to battery technology.

High cost is easy to pick. Limited driving range vs. charging speed is the next. Although ranges are increasing with every new model release, even older models have been for a long time enough for 90% of people for 95% of their trips. It is likely that while more expensive cars are competing with maximum range, cheaper ones will be released with 150–200km range. Also some have been promoting fast charging over long range.

As long as mined cobalt is being used in large quantities in batteries, there will be issues with it. Most cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where child labor among other issues are common. There are also valid mines in Congo, and for reputation purposes most car manufacturers prefer those. But it drives the cheaper electronics to use cobalt from even illegal mines.

Current actions include for example using less-cobalt chemistries and improving recycling. With rising prices it has also become interesting to extract cobalt in mines where it has before been a residue. Talvivaara in Finland is one example.

Battery safety is a critical topic, and EVs have burned because of batteries. The fire releases toxic smoke and it is hard to extinguish. Combustion engines burn too, but they rarely hit the news. Mainly due to relatively small number of EVs on the road, there is not yet reliable data on which technology is safer. One burned EV can turn the situation.

While many issues associated with EVs are at least partly true, they don’t speak for superiority of traditional cars. On the contrary, battery industry is heavily investing in improvements on every issue. There is no indication that any of the current issue would disappear anytime soon, but incremental improvements are happening in every field. Improvements in oil based industry are slower by far.

Still the biggest issue is the attitude.

Challenges in electric vehicles

How green are EVs?

Lifecycle CO2 emissions are under constant debate and for a reason. Or two. Would it make sense to save CO2 emissions while driving, if the same amount or more was already caused during manufacturing?

Lifecycle emissions are hard to calculate for many reasons. First, a bunch of assumptions must be made. Comparing two different technologies is always complex. Just consider plastic bag vs. paper bag discussions. Second, electricity production is very different for example between Denmark and Poland. Third, manufacturers are reluctant to publish their data, although some of them will probably come out soon. But that will be the best performer. Fourth, recycling and second life usage will make all the difference.

After all of these are considered, it is no wonder that very different estimations are presented in media. Typical mistakes I have seen in articles that are by nature against EVs: EV is calculated as a conventional car, and the battery comes on top of that. Percentage of coal in energy production is overestimated (up to 100%). Recycling data is based on 10 years old study. Renewables used in battery production are neglected.

Common pro-EV mistakes: Renewables are considered zero polluting. Cell manufacturing and recycling have been skipped.

There are some studies that are better than others. Below is one which is not perfect, but at least compares different electricity production methods, manufacturing and recycling.

Lifecycle emissions

Battery chemistries

Lithium-ion is not one technology, but a common term for different battery chemistries based on li-ion. These chemistries differ on multiple factors, which are often presented in a pentagon (or hexa-) as relative values. There are also differences in ethicalness, material availability, manufacturability and recycling.

NMC is at the moment the most used chemistry in EVs due to its good energy density. Every chemistry has downsides, and a clear winner hasn’t been announced.

Some chemistries used in electric vehicle batteries, and their relative cobalt concentration

Battery lifetime

One question in estimation of total cost of ownership and lifecycle emissions is clearly the lifetime of the battery. Does it need to be changed, or does it outlive the car? That makes all the difference.

If you want to kill your battery as soon as possible, make sure to drive it always empty, and then fast charge it to full when it’s cold. Just in case you would prefer longer lifetime: Use slow charging when possible. Charge when the battery is warm. Avoid high and low end of the state of charge most of the time. Store in moderate temperature if possible.

Driving once a month to countryside and charging on the way will not be an issue. It’s the daily usage that counts.

Depending on the chemistry, usage and many other factors, a battery could outlive the car and be still usable for 2nd life energy storage solution. But what if you want to change the battery? Due to technical inflation, there might be a backwards compatible and affordable battery with larger capacity available at some point. That possibility changes all the equations.

Cold behavior

When it’s freezing (-20…-30C) many cars start facing issues. In conventional cars the starting battery might die and the lubrication is not sufficient. In EVs these are not issues. The electric motor will work, the battery capacity and power are reduced, but they are not dead.

However there have been reported situations, where battery management system has refused to cooperate in under -20C temperatures.

There are differences between car brands and battery chemistries. Some cars try to maintain usable battery temperature with its own energy, whereas some chemistries are better than others when it comes to low temperatures.

Both ICEs and EVs may have issues in cold temperatures due to electronics and measurement systems. It is wrong to say that EVs don’t work when it’s cold. But it is fair to say that some EVs have outstanding issues in freezing temperatures.

Grid interaction

It has been said that electric grid can’t handle it when everyone charges their batteries at 5pm. That would be probably true, but also our gasoline distribution system would fail, if all the cars would every day fill their tanks after work. They don’t.

Many EV drivers today charge their cars at night when the electricity is cheaper. In future when intelligent chargers become more common, the car will actually support the grid by offering its capacity as a buffer. In practice the capacity is not even used, but the grid company actually pays just for the reserve.

There are also innovative microgrid applications. Instead of investing in a UPS system, one hospital bought their doctors electric vehicles. There are always doctors present, and in case of a power outage, the EVs work as power reserve. More innovations like this are just waiting to be invented.

Conclusions (=opinions)

- I believe EVs are the future, or at least part of it.

- Everyone will not drive them, but most will.

- EVs will be cost effective sooner than most can predict.

- All issues with EVs will not be solved, but most of them are improved.

- Incentives are always better than forcing. Force creates counterforce.

- It is better to improve every technology instead of relying on just one. Hybrids, full electric, fuel cells, biodiesel, better ICEs, public transportation. And most of all, less transportation.