Technical Wizardry

Are They Really Better?

Pedro P. Bonilla, Tech Editor

You hear it all the time: “EVs (Electric Vehicles) are

significantly better for the environment because they produce zero emissions compared to conventional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles and make a lasting positive

impact on our planet.” But are they really better?As an engineer, I need to analyze the pros and cons to make a determination. Join me in this search and analysis.

Since it’s been globally decided that all cars are bad, this is the new thinking about our future: The best car-

related innovation we have is not to improve the car but eliminate the need to drive it

everywhere we go. That’s the mantra. Cars are our modern-day dinosaurs and are soon to be extinct. If you have a nice ICE machine, hold on to it!

Let’s analyze:

EV PRO - You can save a lot of money. This is a false claim, in my opinion, and here’s why:

An electric vehicle uses electricity to charge its batteries and power its electric motor(s). A conservative rule of thumb is that an EV gets 3.5 miles per kWh. The US average cost of a kWh is $0.13. So, driving 10,000 miles per year will need 2,857 kWh, which at $0.13 each will come out to $372 in kWh/year. Driving a 30 mpg ICE vehicle 10,000 miles per year at $4.00/gallon will cost $1,333 in fuel/year. The EV owner gets a savings here of $961/year. Also, the EV owner will save an average of $400/year in maintenance versus the ICE vehicle since EVs do not need oil changes and have far fewer parts than ICE vehicles. But look closely at the actual cost of the vehicles (ICE vs. EV): The ICE version of the 2021 Toyota Rav4, with options comparable to the Rav4EV, is $27,800. The 2021 Rav4EV starts at $49,800 – but for this vehicle, you need to add $1,300 for the LII home charging station and the installation cost of $1,500. So the Rav4EV cost actually comes to $52,600.

The difference is $24,800 in favor of the ICE vehicle (and that difference exists with all brands offering both versions of a particular model.) There are tax incentives that you get if you pay cash for the vehicle. Let’s say you do pay cash deduct these incentives from the cost: $52,600 - $7,500 = $45,100. That’s still a difference of $17,300 in favor of ICE. Looking at the annual cost of ownership (fuel/electricity and maintenance):

Rav4 (ICE): $1,333 (fuel) + $400 (maintenance) = $1,733. Rav4 (EV): $372 (electricity) + $0.00 (maintenance) = $372. The difference is $1361. In order to break even, you would have to keep the car for almost 13 years ($17,300/year divided by $1,733 = 12.71 years). This doesn’t even take into account insurance costs for the EV which are higher than the ICE version simply because of the replacement value of the car.

The counter is: But they are way better for the environment!

Are they? Really? The 1,000-pound batteries that power EVs have a life of 10 years. What happens after those 10 years? They must be replaced – and they won’t be recycled! The only reason batteries are recycled today is because of the cobalt content. But as batteries convert to non-cobalt content, such as lithium, recycling becomes more expensive than mining, and dumpsites will be a more economical way to dispose of them. Imagine when millions and millions of batteries run their life and are not recycled. Where do they go? Can you say toxic waste dump? Is this better for the environment?

But even worse is the fact that this technology is being touted as renewable energy when in reality, no energy system is actually renewable since all machines require continual mining and processing of primary materials and the disposal of hardware that eventually wears out.

A 1,000-pound lithium EV battery, for example, contains 25 pounds of lithium, 30 pounds of cobalt, 60 pounds of nickel, 110 pounds of graphite, 90 pounds of copper, and another 400 pounds of steel, aluminum, and various plastic components. To obtain those quantities of ores, 500,000 pounds of the earth must be extracted and processed. Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an EV consumes five (5) pounds of earth. Using an ICE vehicle consumes 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.

Here’s a picture of just one of those open mines to extract rare earth and other necessary materials for EV batteries.

I really do not see the benefit of EVs at all. To me, a much more logical approach to a greener mode of transportation is the Hydrogen-Powered Vehicle. It’s basically a standard vehicle as we know it, which consumes hydrogen (abundant in nature) and produces water vapor as a by-product. There are several auto manufacturers that have taken a hard second look at hydrogen. I hope cooler heads prevail for our own collective good.

Some of the other pros of EVs are super acceleration due to instant torque and low noise from the power plant, although a lot more EV owners complain of higher levels of road and tire noise in their cabins. I think these are offset by the cons, such as long battery charging time, relatively short autonomy, difficulty in finding charging stations, higher costs, and the list goes on. Many of these issues will probably get better as time goes by and technology improves, but still, to me, it’s a no-go.

Personally, I don’t ever foresee purchasing an EV (and I have driven quite a few, including the Taycan Turbo S, which is an outstanding piece of machinery).

I am conscious of our environment and really believe that EVs are the bad choice here. At least I’ll be able to drive my old 1998 Boxster even when fossil fuels become outlawed or impossible to buy because of their cost. If you read one of my previous articles, Porsche will be producing their E-Gas (synthetic fuel) that affords old ICE vehicles extremely low levels of pollution, comparable to the net produced by EVs.

We can all do our part to help the environment for future generations, so think this one through before you decide to go all-in.

For more information on EVs, ICE, and more, please visit my website: www PedrosGarage.com.