Coast2Coast
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Mark
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2020
- Threads
- 26
- Messages
- 451
- Reaction score
- 564
- Location
- Santa Cruz, Ca./Odawara, Jpn
- Vehicles
- 1981 Volvo wagn; 2006 Tacoma SR5; 2021 Toy Mirai
- Thread starter
- #31
Energy in transport applications is produced in two stages. First, it comes from a source and goes into a "tank"; this first stage is often called well-to-tank. Next, it goes from a storage tank to a vehicle's wheels or tank-to-wheels.
So far, this thread has focused on the tank-to-wheels portion of the BEV story, but new research suggests a huge amount of variability in the costs of the well-to-tank portion.
In countries where energy in the well-to-tank portion comes from coal fired plants, like Germany and China, BEV vehicles are more destructive to the environment than ICE vehicles. (It costs more to get energy out of the ground and into usable form in BEV applicaitons.) In countries where energy comes from nuclear and hydroelectric sources, like France and Norway, on the other hand, BEV powered vehicles are less destructive to the environment than ICE vehicles in the well-to-tank stage of battery production.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/green...diesel-cars-still-produce-less-pollution-evs/
According the US Energy Information Agency, in 2019, about 62.7% of the energy generated in the US came from fossil fuels; 19.7% from nuclear; and, 17.5% from renewables. Separately, less than 1% of the total comes from small scale (residential), solar photovoltaic systems.
My takeaway is we can likely feel good about Rivian's tank-to-wheel efficiency, as detailed in #21, but there's still a big problem in well-to-tank efficiency. Battery chemistries, mining, production and refining processes, raw and processed materials transportation and storage are the main variables in the well-to-tank stage and while Rivian can choose its battery partners with an eye on these factors, they vary by country more than by company. Nonetheless, within the same country, some companies will be more energy efficient than others and manage their operations with a greater emphasis on sustainability. At least that's my take.
So far, this thread has focused on the tank-to-wheels portion of the BEV story, but new research suggests a huge amount of variability in the costs of the well-to-tank portion.
In countries where energy in the well-to-tank portion comes from coal fired plants, like Germany and China, BEV vehicles are more destructive to the environment than ICE vehicles. (It costs more to get energy out of the ground and into usable form in BEV applicaitons.) In countries where energy comes from nuclear and hydroelectric sources, like France and Norway, on the other hand, BEV powered vehicles are less destructive to the environment than ICE vehicles in the well-to-tank stage of battery production.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/green...diesel-cars-still-produce-less-pollution-evs/
According the US Energy Information Agency, in 2019, about 62.7% of the energy generated in the US came from fossil fuels; 19.7% from nuclear; and, 17.5% from renewables. Separately, less than 1% of the total comes from small scale (residential), solar photovoltaic systems.
My takeaway is we can likely feel good about Rivian's tank-to-wheel efficiency, as detailed in #21, but there's still a big problem in well-to-tank efficiency. Battery chemistries, mining, production and refining processes, raw and processed materials transportation and storage are the main variables in the well-to-tank stage and while Rivian can choose its battery partners with an eye on these factors, they vary by country more than by company. Nonetheless, within the same country, some companies will be more energy efficient than others and manage their operations with a greater emphasis on sustainability. At least that's my take.
Sponsored