Downfalls of the Electric Car
The rise of electric vehicles is upon us. The day is approaching when electric motors will replace gas and diesel engines. Gasoline and diesel are horrible for the environment, complicated to build and repair, and unreliable if not maintained regularly. The problem is, electric cars have been more so of all of these.
There’s no denying that the dream of a clean white slate free of pollution, free of head-banging breakdowns, and free of traffic accidents is a wonderful idea. But that’s all it’s been, an unrealized dream. But what if that could change? What if we could get into our car every morning, tell it where we want to go, and watch the birds outside the window as it drives for us wherever our heart desires? That future may not be as far off as you might think.
There are several downfalls in electric vehicles that must be alleviated before a complete conversion can be practical. As of now, a full electric conversion proposes more problems than solutions both short-term and reaching into the future.
These problems include:
- Lack of Performance
- Short Driving Range
- Exorbitant Price
- Production Pollution
- Recyclability / E-Waste
Lack of Performance
Let’s travel back to 1974 when OPEC imposed an oil embargo one year ago and the Citicar was just released. As a way to combat freshly quadrupled oil prices and an average 12mpg fuel economy, this 36-volt beast boasted a whopping 2.5hp and a light-on-your-seat 25mph maximum speed. It was a glorified golf cart with a license plate. Granted, the specs for this line of vehicles grew over the following couple of years to a 48-volt system with 6hp and a maximum speed of 40mph.
This lack of power has been solved many times over since. Looking to Tesla, the leader in the electric vehicle industry, the base Model 3 starts at 283hp. Their most impressive top-end Model S maxes out at 1,020hp which is more ponies than many would even feel comfortable having at the other end of their throttle.
Problem = Solved.
Short Driving Range
Looking back again to our little 1974 Citicar, it had a range of about 40 miles. Another electric car of the same period was the 1977 Chevrolet Electrovette concept. While it was a much better-looking car by comparison, with its lead-acid batteries it still could only go 50 miles at 30mph.
Fast-forward again to present-day 2023 and we see range capacities comparable to the standard gasoline and diesel counterparts of 350-to-400 miles per charge (equivalent to per tank). This is accompanied by Tesla’s claims of up to 175 miles worth of charge in 15 minutes for certain models when plugging into a Supercharger unit. That’s a fair amount of power to be injected into a battery in that amount of time and it’s still just in development and improving with every model.
On the other hand, while Tesla seems to have met the demand with their extended-range battery options, their standard battery and the batteries of their competitors still need some work for those with what is becoming known as “range anxiety”.
Status = Getting There.
Exorbitant Price
The reports of “outrageous prices” for electric vehicles are all in perspective. Most people seem to tier the Tesla Model 3 with more economical models such as a Honda Civic or a Toyota Camry. The truth is, the Civic and Camry serve their purpose as an economic car very well but they just aren’t in the same class that the Model 3 has been designed for. To start, they have half the horsepower of the Model 3. That alone putting gasoline against gasoline would separate the classes. But there are comparable economy models such as the Chevrolet Bolt and the Nissan Leaf which fall nicely into the same MSRP range as their competitors. See a few comparisons below:
Gasoline 2022 Honda Civic MSRP $23,645 – 31,145
Gasoline 2022 Nissan Altima MSRP $25,995 – 35,695
Electric 2022 Chevrolet Bolt EV MSRP $32,495 – 35,695
Electric 2022 Nissan Leaf MSRP $28,495 – 38,495
Looking briefly at the mid-range of pricing, yes, the Model 3 seems to be more expensive. That is, until you look at the reviews and specs. The top performance model Audi A4 has 22hp less than the base model Model 3 and 164hp less than the top Model 3. There are 100 metrics to compare between horsepower, torque, handling, and styling among others. The bottom line that keeps coming to from every comparison is that the Model 3 is either negligibly close or a better bang for the buck.
Electric 2022 Tesla Model 3 MSRP $48,440 – 64,440
Gasoline 2022 Audi A4 MSRP $40,995 – 51,995
Gasoline 2022 Mercedes-Benz A-Class MSRP $35,000 – 37,000
The upper class is where the comparisons get more interesting. Here we have all comparable MSRP but one clear winner in horsepower ratings, the Telsa Model S. In many cases to get comparable performance, handling, and styling it was found you would be paying significantly more for a gasoline counterpart, with more manufacturers improving their EV lineup every year.
Electric 2022 Tesla Model S MSRP $106,440 – 137,440
Electric 2022 Audi E-Tron GT MSRP $103,895 – 143,895
Electric 2022 Porsche Taycan MSRP $84,050 – 186,350
Gasoline 2022 Porsche 911 MSRP $102,550 – 185,150
Gasoline 2022 Porsche 911 GT3 MSRP $162,450
Gasoline 2023 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 MSRP $109,295 – 130,145
Problem = Perspective.
Production Pollution
Two points of the pollution involved in the production of electric vehicles and their components rides the same rails as the aftereffects of recycling the materials after their useful life.
The bulk of production pollution is accounted from mining and refining the raw materials before fabrication. The bulk of that is in the materials required to produce the large, typically lithium-based, batteries. Most of the materials required we have been mining for decades and, while they do still have an environmental impact, they aren’t nearly as concerning as the effects of mining lithium.
Lithium is mined primarily through two processes: salt flats and hard rock mining. On one hand, hard rock mining is reported to release 15,000 kg of CO2 for every 2,000 kg of lithium mined in addition to 170 cubic meters of water used. In the case of salt flats and underground reservoirs, CO2 emissions are reduced to 5,000 kg for the same amount of lithium, but water usage dramatically increases to 469 cubic meters. The areas of salt flats are typically scarce for water resources to begin with and mining does nothing to help the problem.
Much of the CO2 emissions arise from the use of machinery and heating the extracted minerals using traditional fossil fuels. As of now, these are still the most economical processes for accomplishing these tasks, but they partially defeat the purpose. The machines could be exchanged for electrically-driven alternatives in the future. Given our progress with larger vehicles such as semis and the present use of hydraulics in heavy machinery, this solution shouldn’t be more than a few short years away. Heating the minerals can also be done electrically, but these both pose the same problem. How do we generate or harvest that much electrical energy in these remote areas?
Several of the problems with mining can be solved by getting electrical power to the remote sites of the deposits. While we don’t have any modern solutions to the power problem, there may be a few options coming in the near future concerning recent advancements in nuclear fusion power generation and a new Nano Diamond Battery technology that has been in development.
Problem = It’s a Problem.
Recyclability / E-Waste
E-waste, the waste made from discarded electronics, circuit boards, wires, and batteries is much more difficult to economically separate and reuse than that of other products. In addition to toxic substances like lead and mercury that leach into the soil, this waste also traps precious non-renewable materials such as aluminum, cobalt, copper, gold, platinum, silicon, and silver. What this leads to is the increased need for mining new materials from slowly depleting mineral deposits.
Do an image search on Google for “e-waste” and it will show you page after page of mountains of discarded electronics. There are companies recovering these materials through traditional processes involving acid dissolution and electrolysis as well as companies deploying newer strategies such as flash-heating. While these companies are working hard at recovering these materials, they haven’t been able to keep up with demand.
This is an obvious problem on several fronts. So how do we combat it?
There is a business concept at play in most product-generating companies called “Planned Obsolescence”. Briefly, planned obsolescence is a group of strategies used to ensure a product will become useless or antiquated within a certain period of time, forcing consumers to purchase a new version. Typically this plan has no accounting for the waste and is solely focused on pushing out a new product. While it is brilliant for the business itself, it is highly irresponsible.
There are major companies that do take action, so it is possible. According to Tesla’s 2021 impact report, they announced a closed-loop recycling system for their batteries that achieves a 92% overall recovery rate of their raw materials. That means that over 92% of the waste is going directly back into making new products, with only 8% left for further refining and use in other applications.
There is a way, it just comes down to a decision to be made.
Problem = Getting There.
In short, we could have a bright, electric-car-filled future ahead of us with just a couple of minor adjustments. We just have to take action and make it happen because progress doesn’t happen by itself.