www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-27/comparing-electric-cars-and-petrol-cars/103746132
Interesting article from the ABC. They look at all aspects of the lifecycle of a vehicle and yes EVs are significantly cleaner than the petrol equivalent. Also interesting to note that from the article it looks like only around 2 or 3 years of normal driving to counteract the additional impact from the manufacturing of an EV.

Also before people jump in with the usual nonsense:

EVs are alot less likely to catch fire than combustion engines vehicles.
" In other words, an EV passenger vehicle is around 100 times less likely to catch fire than a traditional vehicle."

www.drive.com.au/caradvice/how-many-electric-cars-have-caught-fire-australia/

This is for the mentally handicapped who think CO2 is a pollutant.

Things that struck me when I read that this morning were :

The plot for the IC cars is linear. So do this assume a new vehicle and one with 200k kms on it burn fuel at the same efficency ?. This I doubt is true. Presumably the plot can't keep going forever, otherwise you'd say a vehicle with 1 billion kms on it is just as good as a new one. So I assume the IC engines should become worse as the mileage increases.

The plot for the EV cars reduces due to, as it details, assumptions about the efficiency of electricty production in the future. So likewise, a reduction in battery efficency presumably also not considered. It appears they assume that both the IC and EV vehicles are as efficent at converting energy to motion on day 1 as they are at 200k km.

Also, the assumption that electricity generation will get cleaner always seems to ignore that as EV vehicles are owned then more electricity is required. Not just a bit more, but lots more, depending EV usage. So whilst generation may be getting cleaner, an assumption that a significant increase in required power would maintain that same trajectory seems to be a big assumption.

Then I figured that none of this would probably make a difference to the results within the accuracy of the calculations done.

Then I also figured, if EVs only get better at +40k km, what about all the ones that don't make it to 40k+ km for whatever reason. I am sure I read not long ago the average age of a vehicle on the road in Aus is about 10 or 11 years. At 10k km per year does that mean the average comparison should be capped at 120k km ???

Then I figured my coco-pops were going soggy so I stopped thinking and started eating .

Yes always a lot of variables and assumptions to be made in this type of article. I posted it because it seems quite fair and impartial.
They based the ICE emissions on a vehicle that does around 8L per 100km which is definitely in the lower half of average fuel consumption. At least half if not more ICE cars currently on our roads would get much worse economy than that. Another important factor they didn't mention is air quality and health problems that arise from living in heavy traffic poluted areas. That's an issue that we are only just starting to scratch the surface of.

Just about anything can be a "pullutant" in high enough concentration. It is CO2 was at an environmental concentration that suited us, now it's increasing to a concentration that doesn't.

Ian K said..
Ev efficiency shouldn't drop off all that much. The batteries may not hold as much charge but whatever goes in is conserved coming out.

Older batteries surely surely self-discharge at a greater rate than new ones. The chemicals breakdown and so you will need to put more in to get the same out. The energy will be lost through chemical change and heat generation.

But between battery degredation and electric motor wear I'd imagine it is peanuts compared to IC engine wear reducing compression, changing timing etc.

You're on fire with the lies tonight.

^ +1

Our MG4 for the last couple of months has run on about 95% sunlight. All it's cost us is the $.07 we aren't getting back in export fees.
@ an average of 13KWh/100km that works out to about $1.00 for 100km. Winter obviously won't be as good, we'll see.

Pcdefender said..
You are a sceptic and CT japie for posting the above meme.

Coal and gas fired power stations have never charged up any electric car.....

It was not I. I did find it quite funny though.

Mr Milk said..
I read a story about some pom having a whinge about very short tyre life on his EV. I think he said replacement required at 3 000 miles.
Presumably he was doing something wrong, but, even so, heavier cars do create more tyre dust, and that's not good.

There's a few strange stories going round about tire wear.
But if you do things right, it's not much of a problem, here's one instance from the MG forum
"My rear tyres lasted 35k miles."
35k miles is about 56k kM, not sure if his car is rear or frontwheel drive though

Here's another one from the forum.
" Rear tyres now on 35k miles and fronts replaced twice in that time so they can't be that far out at the rear."
So I suspect both these examples are rear tyres on front wheel drive cars.
Our car is rear wheel drive, so I expect a more even wear between front and back

FormulaNova said..


They are also heavy from the batteries themselves. Sure, lithium is light, but there is a lot of battery there, and then the structure required to take care of that load, so you end up with an SUV fitted into a sedan body.

I think Teslas use a special tyre, specifically because the vehicles are so quiet that tyre noise would be a problem if normal tyres were used. So you have a special tyre that is supporting a heavy car, and durability might be the sacrifice you have to make?

I wonder if other EVs have this same requirement or if its just Teslas? Might be cheaper to simulate engine noise instead...

The batteries don't have to be so heavy if we accept moderate performance and range. (Range and performance go hand in hand. bigger batteries can discharge quicker). An MG4 is getting there. I has a 51 kWh battery and a 351 km range. A 25 kwh battery would go 175 km, the average car does 30km per day. It would still be significantly quicker off the mark than a Morris Minor. And save 200 kg of weight, getting it down to 1450kg. Only about 100 kg heavier than an ICE Corolla.

And if you run the car off your solar panels that line drops substantially

Yes we need to maintain the roads, but there's an argument that petrol tax is used for a lot of other stuff.

I imagine a lot of incentive for "ordinary" people will be the increasing price of petrol.
Then there is the hoon factor, you can burn off Lamborghinis at a fraction of the price.
And driving experience, one pedal driving is just so smoooooth, but that may not appeal to everybody.

FormulaNova said...

If we all opt out of fuel excise they will come looking for it in another form.

Tobacco?