BMW i4 Forum banner
21 - 40 of 57 Posts

Well-known member
Joined
1,045 Posts
@MinhSATx j'茅tais en train d'茅crire la m锚me chose 馃槄 :

To come back to Polstar: Their data is for a vehicle use of 200'000km, in this case the CO2 reduction "significantly better" is 20% compared to the big XC40. The reduction drops to 10% for 150'000km to 2% for 100'000km...
 

Registered
Joined
1,039 Posts
@Mycroft , je suis 100% d'accord.
I like BMW's "Circular" concept: re-think, re-use, re-cycle. The holy grail is, one day, new cars would be electrical, built from re-cycled ICE and EVs, powered by renewable sources, with extended life thanks to swappable components such as seats, and 100% re-cycle-able at the end if their life. Precisely what the BMW iVision Circular concept proposes. BMW i Vision Circular | BMW USA
 

Registered
Joined
28 Posts
This is almost all false. Every study attacking EVs as being big carbon producers is politically motivated and based on layer upon layer of false assumptions, bad science, and evil intent. Sorry. You are not doing anything good buy buying an ICE, unless perhaps you're running on biodiesel.

Now if you DGAF, that's fine. Your moral choice. I would enjoy the hell out of a 911, but I can't bring myself to make that choice when I can afford far greener options.

Also, gas stations suck sweaty balls.
BMW always talk of local CO2e, this is fallacious. The best value I found is -30% CO2e over the lifetime of a BMW EV (vs BMW ICE), which is not enough. Indeed, the only solution: fewer humans cars.

(But I no longer believe in our ability to stop climate change, so I buy 2.2 tons of German car to forget about it 馃様)
I have no idea whether this is correct but I gather that a rule of thumb is it will take 7 years for an electric car to make up for the CO2 emissions in manufacturing the car.

(for the sensitive, look away now - it's so true that only fewer humans can really reduce carbon emissions and clearly this is not a topic that is being discussed, even though the illustrious David Attenborough has expounded on this. At least if we buy an e40 or M50 we will be perceived to be doing our bit for the planet. Even though it's unlikely to really help at all at least it will reduce air pollution in the cities.)
 

Registered
Joined
1,039 Posts
I have no idea whether this is correct but I gather that a rule of thumb is it will take 7 years for an electric car to make up for the CO2 emissions in manufacturing the car.

(for the sensitive, look away now - it's so true that only fewer humans can really reduce carbon emissions and clearly this is not a topic that is being discussed, even though the illustrious David Attenborough has expounded on this. At least if we buy an e40 or M50 we will be perceived to be doing our bit for the planet. Even though it's unlikely to really help at all at least it will reduce air pollution in the cities.)
@Chas1 , I think the rule of thumb is based on current technology, especially recycling levels, and also on comparing keeping your current ICE car vs. ordering a brand new EV, having it built and then driving it. Batteries recycling is getting a lot of traction, so as new EVs are built using batteries already built (thus where the carbon has been mostly emitted), the emissions associated with building will reduce significantly. Building new ICE cars though is already worse than building EVs considering the whole lifecycle.
 

Registered
Joined
28 Posts
So looking at the chart, since the red portion represents 200,000 km of driving, yes over 200,000 km the ICE Volvo emits more than the electrical Polestar, however due to the higher emissions associated with building the car, at half life 100,000km the emissions are neck in neck at around 175 g/km. A.similar pattern can be seen for the UE more.basic car, at half life a wash at 125 g/km approx., then as usage continues of course the ICE emits more. The other perspective I was offering to @Inception is that at this moment, given a choice between buying a used ICE (which has been built already so the carbon is in the air already) and driving 200,000km with it would net 210 g/km, slightly less than ordering a new Polestar, having it built and driving it for 200,000 km. Of course if there was a sizable market of used EVs, buying a used EV would be the lowest emission choice, but here is the weakness of older EVs, after 200,000km the older technology battery would start holding significantly less charge, making a such a choice less attractive. Again, this is the view from today, battery technology for new cars are a lot better and recycling batteries is a new nascent industry that will change the build emissions drastically for the better (eg if a new EV was built from 50% recycled batteries, the build phase emissions would be less than the equivalent ICE new build).
The conversation about EV vs ICE has been so politicized, we often forget that it's not only about the whole industry sticking with building and selling ICE vs switching to EV, but each of us has to make a choice today in today's market place, and getting a car we would want to drive may not be possible as an EV (delivery in 8 months vs buying a used car). If it were up to me, we would be stopping the build of new ICE, but thrashing all existing ICE cars is NOT feasible nor desireable.
An interesting discussion. I think cleaner air especially in built up areas is a massive benefit of ev鈥檚 and should be factored in. I am definitely interested in generating all our home power from solar and wind. Storage will get more sophisticated and governments should insist that batteries can be recycled. There does seem a flaw in bevs and that is the huge increase in energy that is required lugging around say 800kg (?) of additional weight for every single vehicle. Any views on this?
 

Well-known member
Joined
1,045 Posts
An interesting discussion. I think cleaner air especially in built up areas is a massive benefit of ev鈥檚 and should be factored in. I am definitely interested in generating all our home power from solar and wind. Storage will get more sophisticated and governments should insist that batteries can be recycled. There does seem a flaw in bevs and that is the huge increase in energy that is required lugging around say 800kg (?) of additional weight for every single vehicle. Any views on this?
+1 for local clean air, it's the immediate benefit

But I believe that local electricity production is not that green, we should avoid putting big batteries everywhere, anyway we don't have infinite material resources.

With cars, the issue is probably the charger network and batteries performances, to be able to support modest batteries, let's say 200-300kg

The i4 has 500kg of battery for a weight of 2.2t, so 74% of the energy is used to move the mechanics, 23% is used to move the battery, 3% is left to move the driver!


I hope that in the long run the EVs tye I4 will weigh around 1500kg, when the platforms will be 100% dedicated to EVs and when batteries will be smaller and more efficient. But on the other hand, the consumer is demanding bigger and bigger cars :(
 

Registered
Joined
1,039 Posts
Interesting. @Mycroft , what do you think in the i4 M50 weighs the extra 700kg, and would be avoided once it is remade in a 100% redesign as electric? So right now, it has the central driveshaft and exhaust tunnel, which was optimized to counteract the driveshaft torque, and where BMW put 2 small battery packs which don't contribute to the chassis rigidity, so they would remove those, and then rearrange the pack like the iX (which weighs in at 2,565 kg and is pure electric built), a bit longer and taking up the whole wheelbase, and I guess that's it. The only way to save weight further seems to require going to CRPs like the i3, right?
 

Registered
Joined
34 Posts
Good conversation! Few personal additions. I have always wondered why the local emissions do not get more attention. People really do die because of them. And even if you survive, exhaust fumes are frankly quite disgusting to breath in the city centers.

Secondly, I do not see any viable option for nuclear energy. Fossil fuels for energy production is almost as bad as burning the fuel in our cars. Renewables are in their infancy in the big picture. Since the fusion energy is a generation away, fission energy is really the best option of all the bad options for now. Cutting the total energy consumption is going back to 80's and there is no political party going for that.
 

Registered
Joined
241 Posts
I believe I saw an article from one major car brand that said their goal was to use solid state Batteries by 2028.
Remember when the first Cell phone came out, how big and heavy it was. We can use battery technology improvements to reduce battery size/weight, or reduce range. It will be a while before we have tech to do both at the same time significantly. Until then it will be a balance or a trade-off.
 

Registered
Joined
1,039 Posts
I believe I saw an article from one major car brand that said their goal was to use solid state Batteries by 2028.
Remember when the first Cell phone came out, how big and heavy it was. We can use battery technology improvements to reduce battery size/weight, or reduce range. It will be a while before we have tech to do both at the same time significantly. Until then it will be a balance or a trade-off.
@dspevack , I'm not gonna lie, I've been looking at the development of solid state batteries for some time and it was a tough decision between placing the order for the i4 M50 and waiting some more for the solid state batteries, and keep on burning fossil fuels in the meantime. I agree that everything is a trade-off, but at this point, with my solar panels producing 50% of my energy (no battery back-up) and my future i4 M50, I just picked my path for just being a bit greener while still enjoying life.
 

Well-known member
Joined
1,045 Posts
I wonder whether nuclear is included in the renewables.
Nuclear energy is not renewable, but it is decarbonized. That said, it is often in the "renewable" column, because the political approach is binary: carbon / no carbon; bad / good; past / future... it's so much simpler.
 

Well-known member
Joined
1,045 Posts
@dspevackolar panels producing 50% of my energy (no battery back-up) and my future i4 M50, I just picked my path for just being a bit greener while still enjoying life.
In France, where the energy is essentially nuclear, solar panels are not justified: they add pollution (raw materials, manufacturing, transport..)
I counted that it takes about 1'500m虏 of panels to charge at maximum power, what is your available power and the associated surface?
 

Registered
Joined
1,039 Posts
In France, where the energy is essentially nuclear, solar panels are not justified: they add pollution (raw materials, manufacturing, transport..)
I counted that it takes about 1'500m虏 of panels to charge at maximum power, what is your available power and the associated surface?
@Mycroft, I have 64m2 of panels, so my system is rated for 12.3kW. In practice, my peak production has been 68kWh in 24 hours, and I averaged 42.3kWh/day over the last 12 months.
 

Well-known member
Joined
1,045 Posts
@Mycroft, I have 64m2 of panels, so my system is rated for 12.3kW. In practice, my peak production has been 68kWh in 24 hours, and I averaged 42.3kWh/day over the last 12 months.
Thx, so it's avg 1,8kWh per 64m虏

100m虏 for 3kW, 360m虏 for 10kW...

7000m虏 for 200kW :whistle:

I don't think Ionity will go solar 馃槅
 

Registered
Joined
1,039 Posts
Thx, so it's avg 1,8kWh per 64m虏

100m虏 for 3kW, 360m虏 for 10kW...

7000m虏 for 200kW :whistle:

I don't think Ionity will go solar 馃槅
Actually, Mycroft, a charger does not require constant production at peak current, because 1) there won't be a car plugged 24 hours/day, and 2) even if there was, remember the charging curve? So the only reasonable solution is the one advanced by Audi, where they recycled old cars batteries into a big battery bank, they charge it using a combination of solar and energy from the grid, and they dispense it to cars as needed. I'm sure they have data showing average cars per day, and average total energy draw per car etc... to size their energy requirement.
 

Well-known member
Joined
1,045 Posts
Actually, Mycroft, a charger does not require constant production at peak current, because 1) there won't be a car plugged 24 hours/day, and 2) even if there was, remember the charging curve? So the only reasonable solution is the one advanced by Audi, where they recycled old cars batteries into a big battery bank, they charge it using a combination of solar and energy from the grid, and they dispense it to cars as needed. I'm sure they have data showing average cars per day, and average total energy draw per car etc... to size their energy requirement.
There isn't one charger per station, usually 2-8 !
 

Registered
Joined
1,039 Posts
There isn't one charger per station, usually 2-8 !
True. See https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/audi-pilots-concept-for-quick-charging-13977. Audi is actually piloting such a hub in Bavaria, and I can't wait for them to publish a report of their findings.

I believe that for a true reduction of carbon footprint, car manufacturers should be required to either offer the service of EV recycling (paying residual value back to the car owner) or invest in EV recycling partners. It's good to see that BMW and VAG (at least through Audi) are investing in this on their own, but we need to force the Koreans, Chinese and even Americans to do the same.
 

Well-known member
Joined
1,045 Posts
True. See https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/audi-pilots-concept-for-quick-charging-13977. Audi is actually piloting such a hub in Bavaria, and I can't wait for them to publish a report of their findings.

I believe that for a true reduction of carbon footprint, car manufacturers should be required to either offer the service of EV recycling (paying residual value back to the car owner) or invest in EV recycling partners. It's good to see that BMW and VAG (at least through Audi) are investing in this on their own, but we need to force the Koreans, Chinese and even Americans to do the same.
There is a (small) regulatory pressure to support circular economy in Europe, it is a necessary principle for a sustainable future
 

Registered
Joined
28 Posts
Actually, Mycroft, a charger does not require constant production at peak current, because 1) there won't be a car plugged 24 hours/day, and 2) even if there was, remember the charging curve? So the only reasonable solution is the one advanced by Audi, where they recycled old cars batteries into a big battery bank, they charge it using a combination of solar and energy from the grid, and they dispense it to cars as needed. I'm sure they have data showing average cars per day, and average total energy draw per car etc... to size their energy requirement.
I calculate that with 12 hours daylight 7000m2 of solar would charge around 15 i4 s from 0-100%. Is that right?! That鈥檚 a bit scary in terms of area of pvs required to power ev motor cars.
 
21 - 40 of 57 Posts
Top