Thinking About EV Efficiency
Bardeen Quad, UIUC, with the Mechanical Engineering Laboratory and Engineering Hall visible in the distance. |
When I came back to school and met with an advisor last
summer before registering for my fall semester classes, I was gobsmacked to
find that the university required me to take RHET 105, a 100-level
freshman composition course. A perfect storm of stupidity happened to flail
together: the Transfer Credit Office did not accept the freshman writing course
I took in my first undergraduate degree program to satisfy this requirement
(for whatever reason); SAT and ACT scores could not be submitted after
admission to satisfy this requirement (my scores are more than twenty years
old, but easily exceed the minimum for composition credit); none of
my masters or doctoral coursework apparently satisfied this requirement, nor
the fact that I have the master’s degree and have taught at 3 universities including
this one. So, here I am—a victim of mindless university bureaucracy, stuck
in a course that is, at best, a waste of my time.
The only redeeming quality here is the fact that I get to
spend more time writing than I have the past few years—although far less of
that writing has been for personal projects like this blog. Our final
assignment of the semester, however, offered a chance for some overlap: we were
told to take a position essay we had written earlier in the semester and adapt
it to a new audience in a new medium. So, here it is. You're welcome, audience, whoever you may be.
Position Essay
In my position essay, I chose to argue about a topic that
interests me but is still accessible to a non-technical audience (i.e. my peers
in this class and the instructor). I wrote a middling paper, with this thesis:
“While manufacturers must address the complete lifecycle
emissions of electric cars and implement strategies to reduce the required
energy inputs in the construction and eventual disposal of these cars, equally
as pressing is the need to reduce on-road energy consumption and emissions of
both carbon dioxide and particulate matter by optimizing the aerodynamic
profile of EVs and working to reduce their mass—both critical factors in
on-road efficiency.”
It isn’t great, but it is arguable. Ruminating on possible topics for this essay, I found myself
thinking about the EV market—the cars that are available to purchase today and
those that are coming soon (especially big SUVs and pickup trucks). The problem with a lot of them, if not all, is twofold: they have high
aerodynamic drag and are quite heavy. These problems are related, since they
share a cause: EVs today are huge. Gone are the days when work trucks
were quite compact (as I pointed out in this post, my Hilux
is shorter than my Prius despite having a very useful six-foot bed—longer than
most full-size trucks today—and is only a few hundred pounds heavier than the “small”
car).
As I began researching the emissions characteristics of EVs, I came
across some surprising papers which suggested these enormous EVs aren’t as “green”
as they might appear.
EV Emissions
Specifically, two types of emissions from EVs may be
higher than people think. First, EVs are widely characterized as “zero
emissions,” meaning “zero CO2 emissions”; however, they
are not. Significant emissions of carbon dioxide may be associated with the manufacture
of EVs, and their on-road emissions depend on the source of the
electricity that provides the power to recharge their batteries (side note: I
really hate when car magazines and websites refer to charging as “sucking down electrons.” Electrons are negative charge carriers; for a battery to
hold a positive charge, electrons have been removed, not added). Second,
non-CO2 emissions—specifically, 2.5-micron (PM2.5) and 10-micron
(PM10) particulate matter—may be higher in EVs than traditional
combustion-powered cars, even accounting for the particles that come out of
their exhaust pipes. This is all down to the weight of EVs: higher mass
means more tire and brake wear, and when tires and brake pads are worn, they shed microscopic particulate matter.
How do we address these? Well, to reduce CO2
emissions we have to “green” the supply chain and manufacturing process, choose materials carefully, decarbonize the electricity grid, and reduce aerodynamic drag and mass—basically, make the car as energy efficient
as possible across its entire lifecycle. To reduce particulate matter emissions, we have to reduce mass.
The commonality between these two is, as you may notice, mass.
Argument
Focusing on just one half of my original position paper thesis,
I think it is imperative that we reduce the mass of electric vehicles—for many
reasons. First, this is necessary to reduce particulate matter emissions,
improve brake and tire wear (which also extends the lifespan of these
consumables, reducing waste), and reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as
possible. Second, a less massive vehicle requires less material to build, and
less material means less energy required to process it, less energy to move it
around over the vehicle’s life, and less energy to
smash it up and recycle it when the vehicle is no longer usable. Third, a
lighter EV means its battery can be downsized for the same range, which lowers
weight again; as I put it in my original paper,
“My feeling is that the best approach in future is to
reduce the dimensions of EVs and move toward smaller cars, a technique that by
its nature reduces mass, while introducing limited use of lighter and more
expensive materials to keep costs down. However, barriers to this that must be
overcome include issues of range limitation due to smaller battery size and the
perception of consumers, who increasingly prefer larger and larger SUVs and
trucks. Consumer preference can be addressed through marketing, although this
will take some time, and reduced range from smaller and less massive batteries
is mitigated through reducing aerodynamic drag and the lower overall vehicle
mass—a virtuous cycle.”
And fourth, lighter cars are more fun to drive. Yes, this
is subjective—but I did own a Dodge Ram SRT-10 (5200 lb) and Honda Civic (2700 lb)
back-to-back, and one of those was definitely more fun to bomb around mountain
roads in the Cascades.
One of these was way more entertaining to drive, and it wasn’t the one with a Viper engine. |
Comments
Post a Comment