GCC: LowCVP LCA study finds matching battery size with vehicle use is crucial for the environment

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/09/20180914-lowcvp.html

A new Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study by Ricardo for the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LowCVP) across a broad range of vehicle sectors finds that the relative contribution of each vehicle life cycle stage is highly dependent on the vehicle type and powertrain technology as well as what assumptions are made about a vehicle’s operational life, mileage and duty cycle.

For electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles the carbon intensity of the power grid is also a key factor in terms of the vehicle’s full life cycle emissions.

Well-to-wheel CO2e emissions of current electric vehicles are already significantly lower (40-60%) as a proportion of full lifetime emissions than those of typical current passenger cars (70-85%) and this difference can increase as the electricity grid becomes increasingly decarbonized.

However, if a race for bigger and bigger batteries is left unchecked, EVs doing low mileages could undermine some of the potential benefits, the report finds.

The environmental impacts associated with the production phase, in particular, for road vehicles will become increasingly important in the context of the full life cycle and, therefore, the focus of more policy attention as governments around the world strive to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets.

The Ricardo study focuses on providing insights into how life cycle CO2e emissions vary by vehicle segment and powertrain technology. It considers ‘L-category’ (micro) vehicles, passenger cars, heavy duty trucks and buses across four life cycle stages: vehicle production, fuel production, vehicle use and vehicle end-of-life.

For larger, heavy duty trucks, life cycle CO2e emissions are overwhelmingly from vehicle use (>95%); unsurprising given the high utilization and lifetime mileages of these types of vehicles. In this sector using lower carbon fuels and energy sources will deliver the greatest carbon reductions in the near term.

For passenger cars, embedded GHG emissions from vehicle production and end-of-life account for 10-30% of total life cycle GHG emissions for conventional ICEVs and 20-95% of total life cycle GHG emissions for BEVs (depending on electricity carbon intensity).

For smaller vehicles, such as passenger cars and micro vehicles, there is much greater sensitivity in each life cycle stage; often more than 50% of the overall impact comes in the manufacturing stage.

For a medium-sized passenger car, embedded emissions are typically 5-8 tCO2e for gasoline ICE, and 6-16 tCO2e for BEV, depending on size of battery pack and assumed production emissions factor. . . .
There's a direct link to the study (54 pgs),
Understanding the life cycle GHG emissions
for different vehicle types and powertrain
technologies
in the article.
 
True, except that the market presently has a variety of battery ranges out there and some people are still buying BEVs with 100 miles or less range despite there being 200+ range options. Not all buyers are range anxiety constricted or perceive the 'value' in buying a car with a larger than needed battery and therefore aren't willing to pay the additional premium. That is one reason I'm very glad to see a variety of options in the market. Some might be deciding based on their understanding about not buying more range than needed is greener than buying bigger batteries.

It is a real shame that Tesla won't sell the SR version of the 3. That sales data could be rather enlightening into the range/price sensitivity in the market. Would I like to have Tesla range? Yes. Am I williing to pay that premium? No. Part of my personal decision is the concept of not consuming more battery production capacity than is needed by my driving. But a big part of it is the cost of said battery range. But I don't know how well my particular decision making lines up with the rest of the marketplace and that is a big question the automakers desperately need to decipher.

Thanks GRA for a post weighing in on this balancing point. This suggests that Nissan's approach has been fairly green oriented, especially when they offer different range options at different price points (which they did for a few years IIRC). Does anyone other than Tesla and Nissan do that?
 
I agree it would seem to be self balancing at this point. Trouble is getting the other 99% to go electric may take a bit larger than needed battery. Two+ car households may tend to have a long range and a short range vehicle to balance convenience and cost.

I still think the short range Model 3 will get build next year. Tesla really need to focus on profit and cash flow for the rest of this year. Also as the production gains efficiency the SR model will be easier to make a profit.

Batteries with a lower environmental cost will be the real solution.
 
Yup, as a 2+ car household, our 2013 Leaf is working great for the local stuff and the Clarity is working great for the longer range stuff. If the 2018 Leaf had the longer range that the 2019.5 Leaf is rumored to have, I'd probably have gone that route. Both were in my price range and would get the job done well. But as you said, the real challenge is to convert the other 99% of drivers. I think that is where the PHEVs can really help with this transition. And if done right (i.e., Clarity, Volt, i3Rex) these can decimate many drivers' use of gasoline while introducing them to the many benefits of BEV. Ones like the C350e, which really aren't for EV driving but rather hybrid driving that can get better fuel economy than non-plugin hybrids, can help to reduce gas use, but really won't introduce EV driving to the consumer. But they do allow smaller batteries to be deployed, which across the fleet can serve to cut gas consumption considerably.

I haven't studied this, but I would think an analysis where battery capacity is a constrained/expensive resource would go something along the lines of:
- One Tesla takes 90kwh (assuming that is what the 90 stands for in the Model 90?) of batteries and that one car allows the owner to replace their daily roundtrip ICEV commute of (say) 45 miles and have 200+ miles spare capacity for extra side trips, etc.
- That same battery capacity allocated to 3 2017 Leafs with 30kwh batteries would allow 3 owners to replace the same commute, for a savings of 135 miles daily from being driven on gas, and each would have 50+ miles of spare capacity for extra side trips, etc.
- That same battery capacity allocated to 9 PHEVs with 20+ miles EV range would allow 9 owners to replace the same commute, for a savings of 180 miles daily from being driven on gas, but of course this does require that each end up still using gas on a daily basis. Not as many people are going to feel good about this option on an individual contributor basis, but on a fleet wide basis, this approach would reduce gas use by more than the Tesla or Leaf examples above. And IIUC, fleet fuel economy standards are what the automakers are trying to achieve to meet regulatory pressures around the world with a few compliance models for the few markets that are pushing zero emission targets.
- And I think the sweet spot is the Volt and Clarity where that same capacity can produce 4-5 cars that barely cover that 45 mile commute for a savings of 180 - 225 miles from gas power while also providing good exposure to the joys of EV driving.

Note: The above numbers are rough cut calculations. While I know the newer (pre-2018) model Leaf had a 30kwh battery, I'm guessing at some of the other numbers plugged in to the above as I haven't researched each model and their battery size. I know the Clarity is 17kwh and gets 47+/- mile EV range, so 90kwh of Tesla batteries would equal 5 Clarity. I'm guessing a Volt is comparable.

On the above basis, I see why some automakers are pushing the PHEV rather than producing competitive BEV models. Unless we get more of the regulatory targets to focus on zero emission choices, they will likely focus on fleet fuel efficiency, which would favor PHEV over BEV. On an individual consumer basis, the pure BEV has many compelling factors in favor of it. But thus far, there haven't been enough consumers clamoring for BEVs to convince the automakers this is where they should invest.
 
I think that is where the PHEVs can really help with this transition. And if done right (i.e., Clarity, Volt, i3Rex) these can decimate many drivers' use of gasoline while introducing them to the many benefits of BEV.

I don't think the i3 REx is "done right" from reports of its (lack of) reliability. It appears to have both design issues and build issues.
 
What is the GWP of a battery produced at a carbon free factory ?
What is the GWP of a battery recycled into a new battery at a carbon free factory ?

Conclusion: looking at the battery size as a surrogate for GWP as if all factories are the same leads to GIGO.
Consumers who shop with 'Green' intent are best served by paying attention to the factory CO2 energy intensity.

In this Tesla reigns supreme; I think followed by Toyota. All the other *EV manufacturers are as bad as Detroit.
 
^^^DarthPuppy

This is one of the reasons I'm in favor of PHEVs, as hastening the transition to electrification while having the largest near-term effect on reducing fossil-fuel use. I also feel that unless batteries can be made a lot less heavy, PHFCEVs may be the best fossil-fuel-free solution at least for single-car all-trips households, or else as the road trip vehicle in 2+ EV households. Always assuming that home/work charging is available, of course, but then I'm also in favor of smaller-battery (20-35 mile AER) PHEVs that can be fully charged off-peak using only L1, to maximize the number of customers who can home charge while eliminating the hassle and expense of upgrading electric infrastructure to provide L2, not to mention keeping the cost of the cars down as well.

I think for a PHEV, L1 at both ends of the commute is better than L2 at one end, as it lowers the battery size, weight and cost while also boosting the vehicle's efficiency. Of course, having L2 at both ends is better still, but see expense. L1 or low power L2 is also best matched to the power density of PV mounted over parking lots, which will need to be the norm going forward.
 
Re: the i3Rex, my comment is about the balance between having good EV only range and the ability to go further when needed. Reading some of the posts on this forum, the Leaf would appear to be the worst car out there. I was not attempting to compare build quality and reliability in this look at which battery size approach is more green.

Re: the greenness of the battery factory, that is a very good point in that is something that would be good to factor in. I'm not sure how much data is available on that or how much weight to ascribe to it. But for that matter, same could be applied to the rest of the car too. Doesn't BMW tout the i3 as being sustainably sourced including as much of the car as possible? And regardless of the carbon footprint of the factory, there are the social costs of the source materials for the batteries from third world countries, child labor, etc. that do make analysis based on battery size, regardless of carbon footprint of the battery factory, very relevant in an overall social justice perspective, of which being green is a prominent but not the sole driver. Of course, the OP article and my assessment above are driven on greenness as I would assume all battery sourcing has the same child labor social justice burden absent any info to the contrary. But that burden makes it prudent to use the batteries we get as efficiently as possible, and for that, battery size comparisons and resulting reduction in gas consumption is likely the best corollary we are going to get.

And if Tesla is particularly green in their battery sourcing, then think how much more fleet-wide impact they could have if they would allocate some of their batteries and get 3-4x the cars out to more people at affordable price points? Again, the battery size analysis is very worthwhile.
 
What good are small batteries that consumers do not want ?
Look at the sales stats in the USA: People overwhelmingly want Tesla, and a big part of that is larger batteries.

Second, Tesla is supply constrained due to production bottle-necks, not due to raw material limits. I don't think they could make many more cars than they do presently even if the battery size was halved.

Lastly, while it is certainly true that raw material mining and transport are dirty and in some cases miserable activities, each generation of recycled battery using sustainable methods halves their impact.
 
“DarthPuppy” said:
And if Tesla is particularly green in their battery sourcing, then think how much more fleet-wide impact they could have if they would allocate some of their batteries and get 3-4x the cars out to more people at affordable price points? Again, the battery size analysis is very worthwhile.

I second everything SageBrush said below.

If this were a mathematical problem, I would agree with you, as well as GRA’s point about PHEVs>BEVs.
It isn’t though, it is a psychological problem. How do you get people to adopt “greener” solutions? When hybrids were the ‘greenest’ car around, they peaked out at about 4% market share. There just aren’t that many people that put CO2 emissions at the top of their priority list.
So, how to advance EVs in general? Appeal to a much broader section of the market. Make the, appealing to those that want POWER, EXCITEMENT, SEXY, great handling, meanwhile practical, convenient (for many), and provides a world class driving experience.
The section of the market that wants that is larger than the market section that wants ‘green’.
If someone else thinks there is a better way, great, go for it. Tesla would be happy to have another company selling more EVs.



SageBrush said:
What good are small batteries that consumers do not want ?
Look at the sales stats in the USA: People overwhelmingly want Tesla, and a big part of that is larger batteries.

Second, Tesla is supply constrained due to production bottle-necks, not due to raw material limits. I don't think they could make many more cars than they do presently even if the battery size was halved.

Lastly, while it is certainly true that raw material mining and transport are dirty and in some cases miserable activities, each generation of recycled battery using sustainable methods halves their impact.
 
SageBrush said:
What good are small batteries that consumers do not want ?
Look at the sales stats in the USA: People overwhelmingly want Tesla, and a big part of that is larger batteries.

Yes people want Tesla's range. Like I said above, I'd love to have Tesla's range. But I'm not willing to pay Tesla's price for it and I sincerely doubt I'm the only consumer balking at that. If you want to focus on sales stats in the USA, people want gas guzzling SUVs, not green cars, so why bother with EVs at all?

As for what good small batteries are, the last time I looked, there were substantial numbers of non-Tesla EV and PHEV sales. Not nearly at the levels us in the pro-EV community would want, but Tesla's sales aren't at that level either. Doesn't the Leaf still have the worldwide sales lead to date despite Tesla being around about as long with that magical large battery size? All of those small batteries are successfully displacing gas consumption in routine commutes - that is a lot of gas consumption and emission reduction. That is a lot of good!
 
Zythryn said:
It isn’t though, it is a psychological problem. How do you get people to adopt “greener” solutions? When hybrids were the ‘greenest’ car around, they peaked out at about 4% market share. There just aren’t that many people that put CO2 emissions at the top of their priority list.
So, how to advance EVs in general? Appeal to a much broader section of the market. Make the, appealing to those that want POWER, EXCITEMENT, SEXY, great handling, meanwhile practical, convenient (for many), and provides a world class driving experience.
The section of the market that wants that is larger than the market section that wants ‘green’.

True, there is a major psychological aspect at play and we need to do better at marketing green.

Congrats, you just defined the luxury sport sedan market. Do people want that? Absolutely! And yes, that is broader than the current green market. But that is nothing compared to the affordable and practical market. I see lots of low end Corollas and Civics running around. I bet if we look at sales statistics, those 2 models blow away most other cars. And there are lots of other econo-cars running around that blow away any EV on sales. Yes people want what you described, but we really need to reach more than just those consumers in the top 5% of the economy if we really want EVs to become mainstream. We need a variety of products that can hit different market niches. And that requires affordability, which given battery cost constraints, means having options with smaller batteries. Satisfying the green whims of the 1%'rs isn't going to make a very meaningful improvement in our society's carbon footprint. Tesla is great at appealing to the 1%. I see those all over Malibu and Santa Monica. But we need cars that appeal to the masses - and those consumers can't afford the current Tesla offerings. Now if they will do the SR version while full incentives are available, they would start to cut into a much deeper potential market.
 
DarthPuppy said:
SageBrush said:
As for what good small batteries are, the last time I looked, there were substantial numbers of non-Tesla EV and PHEV sales.!
Look at August sales numbers for *EV, and keep in mind that Tesla is supply constrained. If I recall correctly, Tesla accounted for 70% of *EV sales in the US this past month and the fraction will increase as Tesla supply constraints loosen up.

Look at EV sales growth in the US over the past year. It is overwhelmingly due to Tesla. If *EV adoption is your goal, pay attention to what people are mostly buying. I should point out that Tesla is far from *only* a big battery EV, or it would sell like the Chevy Bolt. My point is that a big battery is a key feature to sales.

You bought a PHEV; I bought a PHEV. They are a *brilliant* solution ... that few people want.
Incidentally, PHEVs are doing really well in Europe although I'm not sure how many EV miles are put on them. The purchases are driven by tax credits. Hopefully the high price of petrol is enough to overcome the convenience barrier. That motivation of course does not exist in the US for now.

https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/
 
DarthPuppy said:
Zythryn said:
It isn’t though, it is a psychological problem. How do you get people to adopt “greener” solutions? When hybrids were the ‘greenest’ car around, they peaked out at about 4% market share. There just aren’t that many people that put CO2 emissions at the top of their priority list.
So, how to advance EVs in general? Appeal to a much broader section of the market. Make the, appealing to those that want POWER, EXCITEMENT, SEXY, great handling, meanwhile practical, convenient (for many), and provides a world class driving experience.
The section of the market that wants that is larger than the market section that wants ‘green’.

True, there is a major psychological aspect at play and we need to do better at marketing green.

... I bet if we look at sales statistics, those 2 models [Corolla & Civic] blow away most other cars. And there are lots of other econo-cars running around that blow away any EV on sales. Yes people want what you described, but we really need to reach more than just those consumers in the top 5% of the economy if we really want EVs to become mainstream. ....

You belittle Tesla’s contribution.
There are NOT a “lot of other econo-cars running around that blow away the Model 3 on August sales.
There are exactly four. In August, the Model 3 was the number five best seller by units sold, and number one measured by revenue.

I agree completely that we need more variety and less expensive options. However, denigrating Tesla as not being green enough, when it is outselling the much less expensive EVs with much “greener” sized batteries seems a bit odd.
If Tesla found the secret sauce to get people out of ICE vehicles, isn’t that a good thing?

I’m all for better solutions, but don’t stand in the way of people with good solutions, until you can deliver on the perfect ones. ;)
 
Zythryn said:
You belittle Tesla’s contribution..., denigrating Tesla as not being green enough, ...but don’t stand in the way of people with good solutions

Please refrain from putting words into my mouth and making false accusations about what I am saying. Nowhere am I denigrating Tesla as not being green enough. I do like their cars and they have done great things to advance the state of the EV market. However, they are not the magic bullet. That is all I'm saying. Sorry if this runs counter to your beliefs but baseless attacks are not appropriate.
 
Zythryn said:
There are NOT a “lot of other econo-cars running around that blow away the Model 3 on August sales.
There are exactly four. In August, the Model 3 was the number five best seller by units sold, and number one measured by revenue.

You might want to actually look at the numbers you claim support your stance before you post stuff. YTD Civics and Corollas sold 434k units in the U.S. vs. 56k Model 3. And a whole bunch of other econo-cars have many more out there and continuing to hit the market each month. Gee, I wonder why I see so many of these cars rolling around and so few Model 3s. Yes, as Tesla ramps up and overcomes the capacity constraints, they will become a more significant part of the market. But the top 15 cars year to date total to over 1.9 million (that's nearly 2 million units). Oh, and what do all of those top 15 slots have in common? Quick glance suggests they can all be had at least in base configuation for less than $30k unless I'm confused about those model prices.

So yes, there ARE a lot of other econo-cars running around that blow away the Model 3 in sales. You might want to get your facts straight before you say there aren't.

I do hope that Tesla becomes a long term success story. Having a green car that appeals to the top 5% economic niche does help as that is a niche that has a lot of buying power and influence. Seeing successful people drive EVs gives EVs credibility. Marketers usually don't use homeless persons as the models for their new fashions when trying to sell clothes. But at $50k per unit, they are not a solution to the over 2 million units a year that are under $30k. It doesn't matter how attractive the car is. The truth is a lot of those people buying those $30k and under cars are stretching to do that and a lot can't afford the cars they are buying. They aren't going to suddenly stretch to the Tesla price level.

Basically all I'm saying is there needs to be variety and lower cost options to achieve widespread adoption. And unless you have some magic solution that solves all battery supply constraints, lower cost options mean some will have to have smaller battery size.
 
SageBrush said:
Look at EV sales growth in the US over the past year. It is overwhelmingly due to Tesla. If *EV adoption is your goal, pay attention to what people are mostly buying.

Looking at those numbers, yes, Tesla is leading the EV market space at the moment. But Tesla accounts for roughly 84k of the 190k US EV/PHEV sales YTD. That means there were 106k non-Teslas. So again, there is a market for those smaller batteries. And just as Tesla is capacity constrained, many of the other EV/PHEV are constrained as well. Some because the manufacturer is only doing compliance models only available in required states, aren't committed to making them in large quantities, aren't committed to making competitive version, or have dealers who don't want to stock and sell them, etc., The list of excuses why people can't find an EV at the local dealer despite the brand's website trumpeting an EV model is probably longer.

Tesla is a good product. I would like one. I'm not willing to pay that much for one though. And I'm someone who could and am more attuned to green issues than the typical consumer, though probably not as dedicated as many on this forum. And most US consumers can't afford Tesla. Mass market adoption requires affordability. Affordability requires compromises, at least until battery supply constraints and prices drop by sizable amounts.

The fact that current EV buyers are buying high end does not translate to what is needed for mass market adoption. I haven't seen a recent study on income of EV buyers. In 2013 right after I bought my Leaf, I saw a study that indicated the average EV buyer earned at least $100k per year. That is not the mass market. At the early stages, many early adopters are going to be people who have the financial flexibility to switch out of it if they don't like it. I sure hope we are still in the early stages because if this is a mature EV market, mass EV adoption is doomed.
 
DarthPuppy said:
Zythryn said:
You belittle Tesla’s contribution..., denigrating Tesla as not being green enough, ...but don’t stand in the way of people with good solutions

Please refrain from putting words into my mouth and making false accusations about what I am saying. Nowhere am I denigrating Tesla as not being green enough. I do like their cars and they have done great things to advance the state of the EV market. However, they are not the magic bullet. That is all I'm saying. Sorry if this runs counter to your beliefs but baseless attacks are not appropriate.

No apologies necessary as those are exactly my beliefs.
You do seem to be the one responding to points I don’t make and attribute “beliefs” that are not held by me.

For example, your bringing up the YTD numbers to refute my position. I very specifically noted the August sales. YTD doesn’t show this of course as Tesla is in the ramp-up mode for the Model 3. For August, the Model 3 is #5 in the US.
The yearly sales in 2019 should be fascinating.

And I agree with you that multiple options are important.
But I do believe you are belittling, or to put it mildly, understating, Tesla’s current contributions.
 
Zythryn said:
For example, your bringing up the YTD numbers to refute my position. I very specifically noted the August sales. YTD doesn’t show this of course as Tesla is in the ramp-up mode for the Model 3. For August, the Model 3 is #5 in the US.
The yearly sales in 2019 should be fascinating.

When I pulled up August sales data since you mentioned that, it was a large table of data which appropriately included YTD numbers. These can't be ignored as they demonstrate a sheer magnitude that will likely take at least a decade for Tesla to really crack and become commonplace or typical on the streets of America. For your assertion, you ignored 95% of the data and focused on just the handful of numbers that support your assertion. Of course I'm going to correct that.

I too would love for Tesla's Model 3 to replace a large portion of what will likely be close to 3 million sub-$30k cars sold in the US this year. And yes, the full-year and 2019 stats should be quite fascinating. But we can't conveniently ignore the huge volumes of cars we are talking about. Hopefully they will continue to chug along and be in the top 5 each and every month going forward. But right now, they aren't pitching to mainstream America. They are selling only to those who can afford to buy a new Mercedes, Audi, BMW, etc. Eventually that pool of customers who want Teslas will be saturated. The real large market, which drives national level gas and emissions issues, is the sub-$30k group who buy millions of units each year.
 
Back
Top