EV fact and fiction by NRMA

[paulp]

NRMA have produced what seems like a good high level summary of the facts and fiction around EV ownership

EV fact or fiction: busting common electric vehicle myths

We debunk common electric cars myths about charging, towing, battery recycling. driving range and emissions.

www.mynrma.com.au

 

[Vostok]

Not bad, but a few comments (shame NRMA doesn’t allow BTL comments )

• “This report calculated that if all of these EVs were plugged into 7kW home chargers at the same time (during an evening period), the instantaneous draw on the grid would increase by approximately 30 GW – almost doubling current peak energy demands” - it would have been helpful to note that this scenario is extremely unlikely, since who is going to charge their EV at peak grid rates? That’s like ICE drivers looking for the most expensive petrol. People grid-charging are going to do it overnight when electricity is cheap, and hence there is already a large amount of grid headroom to accommodate this. Also not everyone is going to charge at that rate. Overnight charging at 3.6 kW or less is fine.
• “Charging an EV takes much longer than refuelling a car“ - they don’t mention that on a road trip, EV drivers align charging with stops they were going to do anyway - grab lunch, have a leg-stretch, etc. Incremental time penalty: zero
• “In the works are chargers producing up to 1000kW. EV battery tech may take a while to catch up to this sort of figure, but when it does, charge times could come down to the mere minute or two” - this is very unlikely to happen. First, 1 MW charging places an incredible strain on the grid, limiting where it could be done (so not helpful for rural/remote areas). And there’s no sign of any battery chemistry being developed that could charge at that kind of rate all the way until the battery is full or close to it. Charge rate tapering will be a thing for a very long time.
• ”EVs get better driving range the slower you’re going” - this is not a function of the gear reduction ratio, but purely wind resistance at higher speeds. They don’t mention that.
• ”However, as EVs approach price parity, we’re likely to see multi-speed transmissions become more commonplace in the vehicles and for their highway consumption to improve.” - I doubt that, since it’s not the primary cause of inefficiency. Multi-speed transmissions are mainly used to facilitate higher maximum speeds on EV hypercars, not to improve efficiency. They also introduce additional cost, complexity and failure points. They will not become standard in most EVs because it is simply not needed.
• “As of early 2022, roughly 75 per cent of Australia’s grid is powered by fossil fuels” - this is changing fast and so should be updated. YTD, Australia’s grid is 63.6% fossil fuelled, and will likely become majority renewable by late 2025.

 

[cafz]

• ”EVs get better driving range the slower you’re going” - this is not a function of the gear reduction ratio, but purely wind resistance at higher speeds. They don’t mention that.
• ”However, as EVs approach price parity, we’re likely to see multi-speed transmissions become more commonplace in the vehicles and for their highway consumption to improve.” - I doubt that, since it’s not the primary cause of inefficiency. Multi-speed transmissions are mainly used to facilitate higher maximum speeds on EV hypercars, not to improve efficiency. They also introduce additional cost, complexity and failure points. They will not become standard in most EVs because it is simply not needed.

Yes.

Both ICEVs and EVs have a 'sweet spot' speed for range, it just happens to be a bit lower for EVs (about 50km/h) than ICEVs (about 80km/h). You'll get significantly more range in an ICEV going at 100km/h instead of 120km/h as well, it's just not something that drivers tend to think about much.

 

[paulp]

Based on a recent vid by Bjorn testing a toyota hydrogen engine, it definately does not like speed, losing something like 65% range or double a decent ev or 4 times a petrol engine at 120kmh.

 

[evpaddie]

NRMA have produced what seems like a good high level summary of the facts and fiction around EV ownership

EV fact or fiction: busting common electric vehicle myths

We debunk common electric cars myths about charging, towing, battery recycling. driving range and emissions.

www.mynrma.com.au

This point riled me:
"At a street-level, most electric cars also produce less fine particulate matter than equivalent ICE models, meaning the air in the you breath in walking alongside a road full of electric cars is not as damaging to your health as one packed with ICE vehicles

Only "not as damaging to your health". What a minor improvement?
EVs only "produce less fine particulate matter" (apart from tyres, what else?), instead of diesel particulate matter that is slowly killing you in the air you breathe.

 

[Vostok]

This point riled me:
"At a street-level, most electric cars also produce less fine particulate matter than equivalent ICE models, meaning the air in the you breath in walking alongside a road full of electric cars is not as damaging to your health as one packed with ICE vehicles

Yes that bit is unclear and confused. It would have been more informative to say that EVs produce no particulate matter from their non-existent tailpipe, but do produce some from their tyres (as do ICE vehicles from their tyres). And in terms of brake pad particulates, EVs really win there as well, as mechanical braking is used a tiny fraction of the time compared to ICE vehicles.

Tailpipe pollution is really dangerous as its particulates are PM2.5 which can get deep into the lungs and potentially enter the bloodstream - hence cause cancer. Cumulative exposure to tailpipe pollution is a known and proven cause of premature deaths. They should say that.

Tyre particulates aren’t great for respiratory health either, but are mostly PM10 which means they don’t get as deep into the lungs, have less serious potential consequences (nose/mouth/throat irritation, other respiratory symptoms, aggravation of asthma) and are too big to enter the bloodstream hence unlikely to cause cancer.

Given that, EVs are absolutely the lesser of two evils in terms of particulates by a very big margin. And more attention is now being paid to tyre particulate pollution and how to design better tyres to minimise its generation.