Debate question... No, not THAT debate!

I was out for my morning walk yesterday and thinking about my daughters' school activities.  One seems destined for High School debating.  Then the subject of automobiles filtered into my empty noggin and it seemed to me that we while we seemed destined by The Industry to have to accept electric vehicles, I don't remember us having an honest debate about the respective merits.  I hereby propose that we respectfully discuss the following contention:

"From an engineering perspective, electric motors are inherently more desirable for automotive applications than internal combustion engines."

I know this is probably unresolvable but we've got some pretty smart members in The Hive and I'd be curious as to how you'd argue both versions of this.  

Let's not let this devolve into bickering, mmkay?  

I'm not going to get into the E vs. gas vehicle debate, but I would highly encourage you to get your daughter involved in debate.  I was on the debate team in college, and it was a fantastic experience that really helps develop critical thinking skills.  It also provided an opportunity to travel and meet and compete against other university students all over the country.

I'll start:

1. Torque at zero rpm relieves any need for clutch or torque converter, allowing a huge reduction in complication and possible failure points

2. Noise is much less than IC, similarly reducing or eliminating the need for an exhaust noise attenuation system

3. The whole idea of idling and idle time are removed, if the vehicle is still, it is not producing wear on the drivetrain

4. Far fewer moving parts means reduced maintenance and less complicated repair

5. Power from each device is essentially even (we can make them as powerful as we want).

Variable frequency drives can produce maximum power at the right time to avoid wheel spin to make acceleration smooth and less destructive

Cold weather operation results in a much shorter range, due to the need for heat for passengers, and batteries.

Or, for southerners who think 60 is cold weather, Extreme cold weather.  Like when you have ice and stuff.

Packaging is superior on EV, you can do individual wheel motors which allows for thrust control to aid stability rather than or in addition to the systems on ICE vehicles which rely on braking systems.  It also can allow for better vehicle packaging in terms of suspension and passenger space/design. 

Conservation of energy, the EV can regenerate the kinetic energy into its battery while the gas engine would not be able to convert KE into more gas. 

The noise aspect: they are so quiet that the government is making rules that they need to generate some noise at lower speeds for pedestrian safety. (I have had a EV come up beind me that I didnt hear coming, it is a thing). big systems to quiet ICE engines though.  Not having to deal with exhaust gasses and CO2 hazards. ( see https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/ford-explorer-owners-carbon-monoxide-nhtsa/#:~:text=The%20fifth%2Dgeneration%20Ford%20Explorer,gases%20into%20the%20passenger%20cabin.&text=The%20issue%2C%20according%20to%20the,carbon%20monoxide%20(CO)%20poisoning. )

Battery safety - Thermal runaway...    In a severe accident many of the current battery packs can pose a hazard for quite some time after an accident. I have seen incidences where an electric vehicle was continually exploding for hours after a collision. I have also seen faulty battery packs on hybrids cause a explosion and LARGE clouds of very toxic and nasty smoke.  Another aspect; I have seen a battery pack that was in a crash light itself on fire over a week after it was in a collision.  The safety aspect behind a battery going off is actually worse than gasoline actually exploding and flinging flaming debris rather than simply catching fire. 

Maintenance - EV wins. less moving parts with potential for smoother application of power. They just plain need less work. Additionally the regeneration aspect of the EV allows for far less use of the brakes in normal operation. 

Based on the original contention, yes electric motors are a better way to meet the everyday automotive requirements.

The limiting factor is how to supply the power to the electric motor. 

Debate point (not necessarily my opinion):

What about the inherent fire risks associated with (and demonstrated) by some EVs?  Explosions, fires, and high-voltage can be a dangerous side effect of EVs.

There is also the conundrum that 80% of our energy production still comes from burning fossil fuels.  Aren't we just trading one oil burner for another?

This is something I have begun to look into.  Remember the old "humvee makes less pollution than a prius" thing?  Although it has been widely disproved, it does bring up a good point.  Marketing makes people feel green and cuddly when they buy an EV or a Hybrid, but in truth they are only saving energy for the lifetime of the vehicle.  The production of the vehicle has huge impacts, as does the disposal of the spent vehicle.

In home building/renovation circles it has been proven time and again; the greenest house is not one built brand new with all the latest things, it is the oldest house brought up to modern standards.  Building a new house has a greater environmental impact than upgrading an old one by a large margin.  The same has been proven for old vehicles.  Converting a 1955 Chevy to a modern, fuel-efficient, emissions-controlled LS has far less impact on the environment than buying a new LS-powered vehicle.

I would argue that a slow, natural progression into EV is a valid choice, but if we mandate it and force the production of all those new vehicles, the environmental impact could be worse than just letting Grand-dad drive his F150.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Debate point (not necessarily my opinion):

What about the inherent fire risks associated with (and demonstrated) by some EVs?  Explosions, fires, and high-voltage can be a dangerous side effect of EVs.

There is also the conundrum that 80% of our energy production still comes from burning fossil fuels.  Aren't we just trading one oil burner for another?

This is something I have begun to look into.  Remember the old "humvee makes less pollution than a prius" thing?  Although it has been widely disproved, it does bring up a good point.  Marketing makes people feel green and cuddly when they buy an EV or a Hybrid, but in truth they are only saving energy for the lifetime of the vehicle.  The production of the vehicle has huge impacts, as does the disposal of the spent vehicle.

In home building/renovation circles it has been proven time and again; the greenest house is not one built brand new with all the latest things, it is the oldest house brought up to modern standards.  Building a new house has a greater environmental impact than upgrading an old one by a large margin.  The same has been proven for old vehicles.  Converting a 1955 Chevy to a modern, fuel-efficient, emissions-controlled LS has far less impact on the environment than buying a new LS-powered vehicle.

I would argue that a slow, natural progression into EV is a valid choice, but if we mandate it and force the production of all those new vehicles, the environmental impact could be worse than just letting Grand-dad drive his F150.

Keith addressed the fossil fuels thing in another thread. Essentially, even the fossil fuel powered power plants, are far more efficient than any ICE. 

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I like the "forcing an early replacement of ICE vehicles with EVs" argument. 

But we have to remember the rates involved. We are already replacing ICE vehicles with ICE vehicles at a pretty astounding rate. So really your argument only takes effect if the replacement of vehicles with EV is at a larger rate than current vehicle replacement. And for that to happen, the number of brand new cars made each day would have to grow, and it would have to grow significantly to have a measurable effect. If current manufacturing simply replaces ICEs with EVs, the number of brand new cars made each day is not increasing. Even if the switch magically happened 100% tomorrow. 

Restating a bunch of things, but adding and subtracting some:

Pro:

1: Electric motors operate over a wide enough speed range that they do not require multiple forward gears to conduct daily driving speeds while maintaining acceptable amount of acceleration.

2: Support systems are fewer than an internal combustion engine. No fuel system, a reduced cooling system, no transmission and its associated cooling system, no exhaust system, no accessory drive systems, no emissions systems, no oiling system, no throttling system.

3: Reduced parasitic drag associated with systems in #2.

4: Increased thermal efficiency due to removal of exhaust and dramatic reduction in cooling systems (together these are about 60% of the fuel energy in an internal combustion engine)

5: Braking system becomes only for emergencies, and braking performance is increased for the same size components.

6:Quieter and smoother operation overall.

7: Reduced maintenance of systems associated with #2 plus braking systems.

Con:

1: Battery longevity for long ownership period remains somewhat unknown.

2: Battery manufacture and recycling environmental impact is somewhat unknown.

3: Charging infrastructure must (in most nonurban cases) be installed at the home.

4: Increased complexity and energy of vehicle charging system, battery, and power supply.

Tuna, you missed that the battery packs remain unsafe for weeks after a major collision.

See also https://www.motortrend.com/news/damaged-goods-fisker-karmas-ignite-in-lot-after-hurricane-sandy-285025/

Apexcarver said:

Tuna, you missed that the battery packs remain unsafe for weeks after a major collision.

 

See also https://www.motortrend.com/news/damaged-goods-fisker-karmas-ignite-in-lot-after-hurricane-sandy-285025/

I'll amend, but not with an increased risk, just an unknown risk. If a ICE car gets into an accident, it's quickly drained of all of its fuel if tha tank has sustained damage. The energy and risk from the fuel is comparable. We simply don't have adequate ways of handling EV batteries yet.

5: Risk to first responders and wreckers remains somewhat unknown.

It won't happen overnight but the energy industry is moving towards cleaner sources of power.  As an example, my local electric utility has this to say: "By 2022, more than 75% of the energy you depend on will come from clean energy sources—wind, solar, and nuclear.  We plan to reduce carbon emissions more than 80% by 2030, and have a bold vision to deliver 100% carbon-free electricity to customers by 2050."  Also, the energy industry as a whole has cut their use of coal by nearly 50% just since 2007.

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

Not just torque, but maximum torque. An electric motor develops maximum torque a zero rpm. 

I've been driving electric cars (R/C) for 30 years. I'm not worried one bit about "real"  electric cars.

I want to truly see numbers.  Cold hard numbers.  The new-car industry (EV or ICE) is a global endeavor with cargo ships, trains, planes, trucks, and manufacturing of plastics, rubbers, and other things that have pretty big impacts on the carbon use of the vehicle from inception to complete eutriphication.  That is to say, I look at the amount of "footprint" a vehicle makes from the first time a designer picked up a pen to make a sketch or a new car idea, through prototype, production, sales, road use, scrapping, until the last piece of rust, plastic, and glass has returned to it's maker via decomposition.

I have gone as far as tracing a Prius.  Just the batteries alone cost more footprint to manufacture than many ICE cars make in their entire life on the road.  Nickel from Ontario (which, if you've ever vistited, the Su2O4 emissions have wiped out all the vegetation for hundreds of square miles.  Then the unrefined nickel ore is shipped to Wales, where about 70-80% of the ore is discarded to get concentrations of 75% nickel or higher.  Then the Nickel is put back on a cargo ship for Japan where the final assembly of the battery is completed.  From there, a percentage of the batteries are shipped to China and the U.S. for use in hybrid vehicles.  That's just the production of the batteries alone causing more footprint than some ICE vehicles do in all of the miles they put on the road.  That doesn't even take into consideration the hundreds or thousands of pounds of plastics that need to be created for each new vehicle.

I just want to see hard numbers.  It's obvious that EVs and Hybrids save energy ON THE ROAD, but people are so reluctant to admit that the on-road footprint of any vehicle is only a fraction of the vehicle's overall conception-to-decay impact.

It's much like Nuclear energy (not a commentary on nuclear energy)... Sure, it makes super-clean energy while it's in the reactor, but you can't forget the strip-mining of massive areas of the earth to get a tiny amount, the refining process which is intense, and then the half-life of the spent waste is a brief 4.5 BILLION years.

I just feel like most arguments on EV or Hybrid reveal how much people like to hide their heads in the sand and ignore the full A-Z impact of manufacturing and disposing of that vehicle.  The act of owning and driving it comprises D-H.

What about the power grid to charge the ev at home and at other locations.  As they become more prevalent we are going to be a bigger draw on our already ailing, old infrastructure.

In reply to Apexcarver :

re- packaging...  It may seem easier- but until I see an EV conversion that only uses the space of the entire powertrain- engine, gearbox, driveshaft, fuel tanks, vapor tanks, and some remaining underhood space, I'm not so sure I would agree with you.  Watching conversions, the battery trays that are needed to be fabricated and put someplace are incredibly bulky. 

Where it falls apart for me, today, is cost.  I know that's constantly being worked on, but the current battery tech that everyone is using is going to remain expensive, as batteries are being made at super high volumes, there's no more room for volume discount.  It's all about the materials.

I have to hope that the research I heard about that Honda is a part of https://hondanews.com/en-US/releases/honda-research-institute-and-university-researchers-develop-breakthrough-battery-chemistry is going well, as it looks VERY promising- cheaper materials and the benefit of more electrons in the ions (aka much higher energy density).  This is the kind of research I wonder why we are not part of (that would be F).

That one massive battery change would take care of both of my concerns- cost and energy density (aka packaging).

Get your bad things happen in Philadelphia shirts https://www.bonfire.com/store/bad-things-happen-in-philadelphia/?fbclid=IwAR0WaL-bs5qCDotD19_HBe7kyIm45T0pn1xXNSW7vJMxtQta3QoHo3cVCEM
 

It's a joke people. 

I'm in Curtis's camp. The whole needs examination than just the end product life cycle.

For shiggles, I looked at EV West, they sell multiple kits that are 7k or more. How much is rebuilding an engine, trans, rearend for a "classic"? At minimum you're 1k for the engine adapter for the electric motor...

I even saw on IG, EV West has a retrofit muscle car kit that replaces the engine and transmission with you keeping the rearend for multiple gearing options.... Plus it bolts to the original mounts.

Most electric utilities are for-profit institutions. For that reason, they will figure out how to provide energy to meet needs, or they will become for-negative-profit. Cry for them when they're not taking your money and are failing altruistically rather than succeeding profitably, as actually happens every single time. As someone mentioned, they're already transitioning and investing majorly to prepare for the future because they as an industry are much longer-lived than election cycles and recognize the idiocy of certain political maneuvers regarding energy policy even as they ask the same elected officials for favors and handouts. Thus the very pro-coal administration overseeing some of the biggest coal decline in history, because it's what the industry realizes makes sense. The same reason renewables are growing faster than anyone thought in spite of letting government incentives expire, because they've become price competitive or superior regardless of the stupidity of talking heads trying to find the 'energy angle' to gaslight their base that wouldn't believe or incorporate the truth of the matter even if they were capable of finding it. Plugging in a bunch of EVs wouldn't even come close to requiring the same level of 'rapid adjustment' as when several nations decided to unplug all their nuclear capacity almost overnight after Fukushima. Those countries all still have electricity. 

Recycling: it's already being done, and it's easier than mining the metals in the first place. That means it's financially preferable as well, which is the real motivation to making it happen. Tesla has been using third party recyclers for years, they're starting to do it in-house now as well.

Battery chemistry: this won't be a massive step change like Alfa wants, it'll be gradual. Tesla is starting to produce cars with LFP batteries. These don't use nickel or cobalt which is a big plus from the environmental standpoint. It has its own challenges, but the fact that we're going to see them in the mass-produced Model 3 is very promising.

Thermal runaway: while possible, it seems to be pretty rare. Meanwhile, gasoline powered cars are capable of their own kind of thermal runaway :) I think racing will actually help develop a lot of the "how do we deal with a BEV in an accident" techniques, as the rate of accidents is both high and convenient to emergency workers.

Packaging: it's different on both. I think BEVs have the advantage there because the packs can be of a range of shapes. I can tell you that our Tesla has more storage than our M5, despite having drive at all four wheels instead of only two. It's larger inside as well. Otherwise, they're pretty similar in terms of range, performance and exterior size. Pretty good apples to apples comparison.

The advantages the ICE has are mostly related to the fact that it's the incumbent. The long distance refueling infrastructure is more mature although it's a little goofy when you think about it. It could be argued that the short distance refueling infrastructure is actually worse, as you cannot refuel at home. Repair infrastructure is also mature although it does lag behind current tech by 5-10 years. We have accepted the various risks to health and the environment and the lifespan associated with them. The manufacturing supply chain is robust and well developed.

I would agree with Keith especially on packaging. While it obviously requires different constraints to handle a monolithic battery, you are trading that for exhaust, intake, fuel tank, fuel lines, cooling hoses, radiators, transmissions, coolers, etc. My Bolt has dramatically more passenger and cargo volume than a similarly sized subcompact, and it wasn't like Chevy swung for the fences when they designed it.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

The manufacture of ICE vehicles has a smaller footprint than EV's, but well-to-wheels EV's have a smaller footprint than ICE vehicles.  So there must be a cross over point where it start with a smaller footprint to drive an ICE and switches to a smaller footprint to drive an EV. The analysis I recall indicated that the crossover point, using US average mileage accumulation rate and electrical production footprint, is somewhere in the 6-18 month range, depending mostly on the size of the battery pack. Assuming the same 10 year useful life, the EV will have less than half the footprint of the ICE, and is continually improving.  

Admittedly this analysis was for the carbon footprint only. Getting into other environmental impacts would be more (but not exclusively) favorable to ICE, with improvements and advancements continuing to be made on this end as well, and is essentially impossible to develop a singular equivalency that would allow for a direct comparison.

Recycled vs non-recycled batteries would have a big effect on that calculation, as that's where a pretty big part of the EV's initial footprint comes from. It would not be a simple calculation to make.