Myths

Details
Last Updated: Wednesday, 26 February 2025 14:58

Environmental Impact

EV's are prone to catch fire.

Yes some do, but about an order of magnitude less than ICE cars. Many were in early cars using batteries from LG which turned out to be faulty and several manufacturers had to recall all their cars.  Petrol ignites considerably more easily than a battery, but electrical fires tend to be harder to extinguish, due to the oxygen generated mainly from magnesium and the electrolyte used in NMC. This is another reason the industry is moving to LFP.

Tesla spent many early years minimising this risk, but the media is very quick to report a Tesla fire, ignoring non news worthy and frequent ICE fires, thus giving Tesla a falsely bad reputation. Actual statistics show that an ICE vehicle is over 11 times more likely to catch fire. Tesla statistics from 2012 to 2021 (10 years) show that fires have averaged 1 per 337 million Km traveled, and for ICE cars the NFPA figures show 1 fire per 30 million Km traveled. The EV figures continue to improve as battery technology has improved by some 10% each year, even though more are now on the road.

EV's are no better for the environment than ICE vehicles.

This is completely false and proven by many studies, even when the electricity used is generated from coal. Because of the much high efficiency of an EV, over time its CO2 footprint from using coal generated power becomes less than an ICE burning petrol. Also, when using coal to generate electricity, the pollution is released in lower populated areas, and power stations filter it far more effectively than catalytic convertors in city driven ICE vehicles. Much generation of electricity over the last five years has moved from to green renewable sources and this continues at pace. Its also possible to generate enough power at home from solar and wind to maintain the charge of an EV for free with no pollution at all.

Apart from the battery, the damage to the environment from manufacturing an ICE vehicle is similar to an EV. They both have a body, wheels, tires, brakes, plastic interior, seats, carpets, paint, differentials and wiring in similar amounts. Building the IC engine itself uses considerably more energy to manufacture, due to 1000 odd additional moving parts, than for a simple electric motor which also lasts far longer.

While the energy used initially to mine materials to manufacture batteries is probably greater, they are recyclable, unlike the fossil fuel burned just once by the ICE and which continues to increase its pollution over its lifespan. The total pollution created in making an EV is greater, but driving it more will completely offset this compared to an ICE, which then needs more regular oil changes.  Used EV batteries can be repurposed for stationary use and may last for another 8 years.  Companies are now being created to re-cycle batteries and claim to recycle up to 95 % of these materials in the manufacture of new ones. The reported main complaint of recycling companies at present is a shortage of batteries to recycle.

The batteries have a short lifespan.

This myth was partially true for the early batteries. These cars had no heat management and a short range, which for longer trips needed frequent fast charging, leading to heat damage with a rapid loss of capacity and early replacement. Battery improvements since then are considerable.

Tesla was the first to: fit larger batteries, implement heat management, improve efficiency, and use software to maintain rapid charging within safe limits. These batteries are expected to achieve 1500 or more full charge cycles, and with a range of 400 Km per charge, 1500 cycles means 600,000 Km is possible. With continued improvements in battery design, Tesla are aiming for a 1 million mile lifespan, or the entire life of the car! Latest research indicates 5 million miles may be possible. Could one then keep the battery and change the car?

There won't be enough power on the grid to charge all E.Vs at once.

Most charging will be done at home over night during off-peak when the least generation capacity is required. Peak capacity will increase over time as needed and is a gradual process. Our immediate concern in N.Z is not the extra energy required, but ensuring that it can be maintained over time. Storage water levels, and wind, sun, availability etc.

Its also been calculated that the total power needed, if everyone in N.Z drove EV's, is less than that currently supplied to the Tiwai smelter. Solar panels at home and work can easily recover the energy needed for daily commuting. When air conditioning was first introduced in USA homes, similar concerns never eventuated as the power generators were easily able to meet the increasing demand over time as they become popular. If USA transport went totally electric tomorrow, power demand is estimated to only increase by 10% and this ignores the savings made by ceasing to extract fossil fuels.

In the USA there are some 430,000 oil wells using electric pump jacks, and each uses near 10,000 kWh each month, for a total of 10,000 x 430,000 x 12 or 51 billion kWh per year. If a Tesla uses an average of 5000 kWh per year,  (I used 1,412 kWh) this would provide power for 10 million cars.

The cost and subsidies in providing fuel for the ICE industry is huge, and as ICE users disappear, falling production and losses in economy of scale will cause pump prices to increase, leading to a further drop in demand. While fuel production in NZ is tiny and not so affected, the savings in fuel imports will offset the cost of projects needed to generate more power. This is a once only capital investment in green energy, whereas fuel is a continuous running expense and I believe was one reason for decommissioning the Marsden Point refinery.

A article on cleantechnica.com recent came to my attention and while for the USA, it pretty much applies everywhere. It was based on the average household power usage per year and the percentage used for heating water, which for a resistive element is typically about 30%.  By replacing water heating with a modern heat pump unit this can be reduced to near 5%, giving a saving of approximately 25%.  The calculations of doing this came to a bit more than the energy used by the average family E.V. Obviously this depends on the size of the household and the number of vehicles and the daily distance driven.  So for any family take 25% of your power usage as units (kWh) and divide it by your E.V's range per kWh and compare that to your distance driven.
The article claimed savings would be 2820 kWh and EV usage 2363 kWh. Thus no increase in generation capacity would be needed.  In my own case the savings are close to double my EV usage.

EV are not as safe as ICE.

Tesla's in particular have a much lower accident rate due to their design and fitted safety systems.  Reported USA statistics show 1 accident for every 8 million Km traveled compared to 1 for each 1 million Km driven by other brands.

Not having an engine and transmission in the front of the car provides room for luggage, charging cables and other accessories, plus in its place a superior and longer crumple zone, thus making an E.V safer. 

Newer Tesla vehicles are using large castings instead of spot welding many smaller panels together. Also the battery is becoming part of the structure and includes the cabin and seating. Essentially the whole car becomes just three main parts - front and rear castings with the battery and cabin structure in the middle. Body panels and doors are then attached. This greatly improves, strength, reduces sealing between panels to avoid rust and corrosion, the overall accuracy of fittings in construction, and the number of assembly steps and hence cost.

Battery Manufacture

A great deal of research is underway for alternatives to lithium, cobalt, nickle and other rare earth materials. In the meantime we are not going to run out of Lithium and Cobalt which are used in small amounts. Tesla purchases all materials from the greenest possible sources and is even developing their own plants that use more efficient refining processes. At a recent shareholder meeting, Elon said they may install web cams at the third party mines used and suggested viewers report any signs of child labour. Recently a huge resource of Lithium and other minerals has been discovered in the U.S.A and when using green energy is estimated to supply some 300,000 tons of Lithium per year.

Jeffrey Straubel, an original Tesla founder, has started a new company called Redwood Materials specifically to recycle batteries. He has quoted they will be able to recover 95 % of the materials used in manufacture and do this using 70% less energy than used to mining them initially.

The latest LFP batteries, while not as dense and capacity of lithium nickel, are now being fitted to EVs. They are safer, have a longer life, and much less likely to catch fire. In addition, CATL and Tesla have for some time been working on LMFP batteries which are now close to production.

The addition of Manganese eliminates Cobalt and greatly reduces the amount of Lithium, making them about 5% cheaper.  They offer up to 10% more power density for less weight. This will allow a much greater range and a faster charging rate. Some are quoting 10-80% in 18 minutes. Currently batteries provide about 190Wh per Kg. LMFP are close to 250Wh per Kg. This will make small EV's with good range possible. A model 3 or Y could reach 800Km, a smaller EV near 500Km, and all with lower cost.

Alternative Fuels

Much has been said about Hydrogen being the fuel of the future. While its true that it only generates water, the efficiency is very poor. Simply burning it in an ICE, instead of petrol, still produces additional pollution due to the high combustion temperatures reacting with nitrogen in the air to produce NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) and the burning of lubricating oil. Currently 95% of Hydrogen production is made from fossil fuel, which generates CO2 in the process and is even less efficient than petrol.  Fuel cells improve the efficiency greatly with no pollution and on a par with an BEV, but the retail cost of Hydrogen is usually greater than petrol. The fossil industry promotes hydrogen as an acceptable fuel to justify continuing their polluting ways and is just Green washing.

The main problem with using Hydrogen is storing enough of it. Burning it directly in an ICE would need some five times the volume compared to petrol and for storage requires compressing it to some 10,000 PSI, or liquefying it at an extremely low temperature.  The YouTube channel "Engineering Explained" covered burning Hydrogen in depth, and for an average hatchback it would need the whole space in the rear for enough cylinders to get a decent range.  In addition, as a liquid it gradually warms, increasing the pressure which requires venting into the air and evaporates completely after a week or so. Therefore ones garage could potentially become a very large bomb. A pressurized vessel holding a gas will also need regular testing and be an extra cost for owners.

Fuel cells are the only way to efficiently use Hydrogen. (Fusion reactors excepted.) Unfortunately, fuel cells use the extremely rare and expensive metals Platinum & Iridium and there likely isn't enough to go around. For every gram of Iridium, some 75,000 grams of Lithium are mined, and its price is double that of gold. Platinum is only slightly more plentiful.

Producing green Hydrogen by way of electrolysis and then converting it back in a fuel cell, uses several times the electricity needed to power a BEV directly. It must also be compressed and transported to filling stations using even more energy. Such filling stations are very expensive to build and are never going to be available at ones home or even every petrol station.  Also, fuel cells don't last forever and because such cars are currently priced at a loss, replacing the cell will likely cost more than that paid for the car. They also don't produce massive amounts of energy and need to be coupled with a battery or super-capacitor to cover the energy short-fall when energy for rapid acceleration or hill climbing is required.

In Europe, buses using Hydrogen have not been successful and are now being replaced with battery electric models.

A single Hydrogen filling station costs some $1.5 million and can only fill about 20 cars before needing a tanker to refill it. This amount would purchase at least 15 electric chargers that never need refilling. It said that each Tesla supercharger costs only $25,000 excluding installation. They usually install them very quickly in pre-built  blocks of four.

Synthetic Fuel

Claims that this is the solution to allow keeping our ICE vehicles for ever maybe true, but while a little greener burning than petrol, the overall efficiency from production and burning in an ICE is only about 16%. The process is basically to use the C02 that man has created over the years to synthetically make more petrol.  While technically true, it won't reduce the C02, only balance it to maintain the status quo. It still uses fossil components including hydrogen, and the electricity is better used directly in an EV. It also costs about ten times more than petrol and so seems unlikely to please the majority of customers who are bitterly complaining of a $1 per liter increase since the pandemic.

Solar Power

Electricity is easy to produce, and if from green sources the generation efficiency is not a major concern, other than getting the maximum energy for capture per unit size. Hydrogen production may still have a part when there is spare green energy available. Solar panels capture only about 30% of available energy, but who cares? The Sun always has, and will continue for many generations to produce way more energy than we need, regardless of how its used. Our only problem has always been storage. It took the fossil industry a hundred years to get where it is, and I'm sure after another hundred the EV industry will have far better solutions.

Deja vu

The world has, in fact, already been through a pollution crisis in 1898 when the new Auto Industry actually saved the day!

To learn more read:-
From Horse Power to Horsepower an 8 page article by Eric Morris.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6sm968t2