Are EV's really better for the environment?

"Jordan" (jordanbelljb) 04/27/2019 at 09:00 • Filed to: None

0

66

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 09:09

1

Ev’s will ultimately make it unaffordable to power our homes as well. We already have trouble meeting demand.

jimz > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 09:15

11

not that it’s universally true, but always take something from a “think tank” with a grain of salt until you can find corroborating evidence. “Think tanks” generally have a political slant to them and sometimes seem to tend to start with a conclusion they want and work backwards from there. Just like companies over here paying analyst firms to come up with a study that shows the company’s products are great.

also consider they’re focusing on Germany specifically, who panicked after Fukushima and has already shut down half of its nuclear power generation and will phase out the rest by 2022.  And renewables haven’t risen enough to fill the gap.

bhtooefr > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 09:26

5

A few considerations:

The grid can very easily get cleaner (and is getting cleaner), whereas the fuel doesn’t really get cleaner (as there’s limits on how much biomass you can use, and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis from biomass is expensive).

They’re basing their battery production emissions o n Romare and Dallhö f’s 2017 study, The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lithium-Ion Batteries . Looks like this study is a meta-study that’s guesstimating what other studies have returned... but it comes to a conclusion that electricity mix is the largest driver. And, Gigafactory 1 (where the Model 3 cells are produced) is, per Elon Musk, powered by renewables , and he discounted that study (not naming it by name).

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 09:26

3

Why bother doing anything at all, ever? Any change might upset the status quo. Everything is just fine.

WilliamsSW > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 09:26

11

It seems like they cherry-picked CO2 emissions here. There are plenty of other problematic emissions from ICE engines - NOx, and CO for example.

As JimZ said, these think tanks are all funded by someone, and usually slanted to favor one company/political view/industry.

That said, EV’s *do* have their own environmental issues, and it irritates the shit out of me when governments ‘pick winners’ by mandating EV’s rather than supporting all alternatives and letting the best technologies win naturally.

bhtooefr > WilliamsSW 04/27/2019 at 09:29

4

To be fair, the focus is very much on CO2 reductions, as they’re global existential threats.

NOx, PM, and CO are much more acute local threats, though.

(And, electrics manufactured and charged with renewables help with both  problems!)

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 09:33

3

A) a c class is much more than 8 tones of co2

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

B) diesels also produce less c02 at the expencse of NOX which is much worse than a petrol car.

C) they assume the model 3 only lasts 95k km which is bullshit. 

vondon302 > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 09:35

0

In the future every thing is bad ........

WilliamsSW > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 09:36

0

True - CO2 is critical, I just think it’s a bit disingenuous to ignore the others.

And yes, the electricity source matters GREATLY when assessing EV’s - and there are wide variations in how eco-friendly electricity generation is around the world, and even by region here in the US.

I just looked quickly, and half of Wisconsin’s electricity is from coal, while California is near zero.  Big difference.

HammerheadFistpunch > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 09:37

4

I'm still convinced that batteries are a stop gap

jimz > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 09:47

6

the thing to consider is that heat engines (which are what a car’s engine and a power plant are) get more efficient the larger you make them (thus why those giant marine diesels are so efficient .) Even if the energy source for power generation is fossil, the power plant gets much more energy out of the fuel burned than your car’s engine. A modern combined cycle turbine plant (a natural gas fired gas turbine drives the main generator, exhaust heat is used to heat water for a steam turbine to drive a second generator) can reach up over 60% efficiency. Then an EV is about 60% efficient from grid-to-wheels.

meanwhile, your (little) gas engine is running at miserable efficiency numbers most of the time. When you’re just loafing around town or even cruising down the highway, you’ve got the throttle barely cracked open and the engine is spending a tremendous amount of power just sucking air past the throttle plate, to the point that in the real world your engine is only delivering ~18-20% efficiency. You’re literally wasting 75% of the energy content of the fuel.  meanwhile, EVs don’t really lose any efficiency at part load operation. 

bhtooefr > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 09:47

5

Also, hold up just a second.

Bei einer Haltbarkeit der Batterie von zehn Jahren und einer Fahrstrecke von 15 000 km pro Jahr impliziert diese Angabe, dass für die Produktion und das Recycling der Batterie pro Kilometer Fahrstrecke zwischen 73 Gramm und 98 Gramm an CO2-Ausstoß anzusetzen sind. 

So, they’re amortizing the entire embodied CO2 of the pack (which is overestimated as previously noted) over a mere 150,000 km. Because of course they would, because they’re used to German reliability and repair costs - at 150,000 km, the car’s either scrapped or sent to Eastern Europe and becomes Somebody Else’s Problem.

But this isn’t considering improved reliability from mechanical simplicity, and the car making it longer than 10 years and 150,000 km. It’s not considering second-life usage of the packs in energy storage (amortizing the CO2 over an even longer period).

Pack aging could be a consideration, but if you’re only doing 15,000 km/yr, you may well not even notice any time-based degradation.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 09:48

2

Are they factoring in CO2 emissions from production of, say, a full tank of diesel? Because if we're counting emissions from electricity production it's only fair.

facw > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 09:48

6

That seems like a really strange concern. Worst case, you are just shifting where fuel is burned. And it’s easy to build new power plants. There’s really no concern that we are going to reach peak power generation. There’s no reason to be worried that power generation rates will skyrocket.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 09:48

2

Point source emissions. Yes a lot of electrical production is dirty today, but it’s easier to convert one power plant to green energy than 100000 vehicles

bhtooefr > jimz 04/27/2019 at 09:52

0

That’s also why a good hybrid is so good at improving efficiency, even more than just its regenerative braking capability - it can choose to either charge the battery on a wide open throttle, or shut down the engine and use the battery, rather than suck past a closed throttle plate.

But the best hybrids are 40-41% peak engine thermal efficiency - and they stay close to that, rather than straying far from the ~35-40% of modern gasoline engines, but it’s still only 41% at the very best . That still throws away a lot of energy compared to the best power plants, as you point out.

Ash78, voting early and often > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 09:53

0

Correct, which is a big part of why Diesels took so long to catch on in the US — the EPA was so focused on particulates and NOx, while the Europeans looked more closely at CO2 (where Diesels excel over gas). It’s all just a global vs local perspective.

bhtooefr > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 04/27/2019 at 09:53

1

They do claim to be factoring in well to wheels emissions, but there’s other major issues with this study.

Ash78, voting early and often > HammerheadFistpunch 04/27/2019 at 09:55

1

I’m pretty sure they’re here to stay, at least until we hit some kind of “energy density plateau” where they’re putting off too much heat or randomly exploding (errr...more regularly) . That will set things back a bit. But the idea of toting 25 gallons of highly explosive liquid sounds pretty crazy, too...

facw > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 09:58

3

Seems like a pretty limited study. One it’s only focusing on CO2, which while important is only one part of the picture. Diesels are much worse in other pollutants . The energy mix is also important. Germany, uses 42% coal for power compared to 27% for the US (and some parts of the US are much lower than that, though we do use more natural gas, which may even out CO2 ), so numbers for Germany may be irrelevant worldwide. Additionally as countries try to combat global warming, new power coming online tends to be cleaner so increased demand for EV power is likely to be met by low emissions sources, even as lower emissions sources also replace existing power sources (to be fair, cars also continue to improve in efficiency, though that is also true of electrics). Reductions are far easier on the power generation end than on the car side.

On top of that, note that this study is from a think tank funded by the auto industry, who have a vested interest in opposing ideas that would force them to make drastic changes.

WilliamsSW > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 09:58

0

That seems like a valid assumption - for ICE cars build in 1987.

jimz > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 09:58

0

but again, “peak” efficiency numbers are almost never reached in the real world (not even with hybrids.)  a spark ignitions peak efficiency is achieved at the rpm it is producing peak torque while at or near wide-open-throttle.  hybrids- as you say- get their fuel economy by shutting off the gas engine whenever possible. 

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > HammerheadFistpunch 04/27/2019 at 09:59

0

It's a shame HFC seems to have dead-ended for private vehicles. It was so promising, provided we could find a cleaner way to produce it.

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > facw 04/27/2019 at 10:02

0

I find it strange that you aren’t concerned. It’s fairly simple economics. W hen we are left with literally zero other options, prices are absolutely guaranteed to rise.

Easy to build a power plant, but how to power the plant itself? Can’t burn coal. Can’t use nuclear. Can’t dam anything for hydro. All the windmills and solar panels in the world aren’t going to cover it. So how do we meet an ever growing demand?

We’re already forcing homebuilders to heat exclusively with   electric under a lot of circumstances. Nearly everything we own plugs into an outlet. Every time it the weather gets hot or cold, we’re told we absolutely must conserve. Rolling blackouts and brownouts have been a thing before, and that was before we learned that every method of power generation we know of is basically the worst thing ever.

Everyone should be concerned, frankly. Even if you never plan to own another vehicle.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 10:05

2

My big gripe with all these studies is that yeah, batteries are dirty to produce but it’s a flat rate of environmental damage per battery. Each pack has a set amount of emissions from getting made (and recycled) and that’s it. Refining fuel causes emissions and pollution , and then the ICE will continue to emit for its entire useful lifetime of, let’s say, 20 years. Surely that cumulative pollution is more than the few battery packs that an electric car will need in that time, right?

Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 10:06

1

Thanks for reading; I was curious what the expected lifespan was. 150,000km is far too short.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 10:07

6

Where are you getting this from? I’ve heard it before and have never seen a source. Most EVs  will be charging overnight when electrical production generally is ramped down anyways. If anything EVs might help flatten the load graph since power generation goes up and down everyday.

facw > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 10:07

2

Ok, so here’s the thing, not using fossil fuels has nothing to do with EVs. If you can use gas in your car, you can use it in a power plant. If you are worried about power prices going up because of carbon tax, cap and trade, or just straight bans, that’s a concern, but that’s a concern we never make another EV.

Even if we ban fossil fuels, we can certainly still build nuclear. And I think you vastly underestimate the amount of power that can be produced by wind and solar.

Rolling blackouts/brownouts happen due to sudden spikes in power consumption. But EVs won’t generate that, it will be a gradual change that can easily be accompanied by expansion of generation and grid capacity. Totally different situations. If anything there are ideas about using charging EVs to provide emergency gird capacity, temporarily discharging them to provide extra peak capacity, reducing the chance of blackouts.

There’s really no need to worry.

bhtooefr > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 04/27/2019 at 10:12

1

They’re assuming a useful lifetime of 10 years, 150,000 km.

Which, for a German car, is probably actually correct.

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 04/27/2019 at 10:14

0

Where am I getting this from? Basic math and critical thinking.

It’s one thing when only a small percentage of vehicles are plugging in. Now imagine all 280 million registered vehicles in US being forced into doing the same. Electricity pr ices will rise exponentially to deter use, for the good of everyone. I can guarantee it.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 10:17

0

That’s not right though. Not only are there plenty of cars out there older than ten years, they’ll have been built to the less stringent emissions requirements of whenever they were made. Especially those emissions cheating Germans.

Not to mention all the cars in emerging markets like India and South/West Asia  where emissions legislation might only be comparable to like 1980's Europe and North America

ranwhenparked > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 10:18

1

We can always use natural gas, massive amounts of that around.

Nuclear is currently challenging, but who knows? A comeback might still happen.

ranwhenparked > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 04/27/2019 at 10:21

0

I think the energy required to separate hydrogen vs the amount that can be recovered from it is the problem. Although, if the issues were ever solved, the conversion process would be straightforward - you can re-engineer existing ICE engine designs to burn hydrogen and have a mixed fleet of fuel cell and ICE cars using the same fueling infrastructure as automakers transitioned fully to the new technology. 

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > facw 04/27/2019 at 10:24

0

I won’t argue that we can burn fossil fuels at power plants, but much like nuclear I believe the public outcry would be significant, especially if we’re talking new construction. The world is full of NIMBY’s.

Also, if we’re just relocating where the gas is burned we may be causing more harm than good I’d imagine. I nstead of burning gas in your car and calling it a day, you’re now burning it in a power plant to power the other plant that makes the batteries, charging infrastructure and battery recycling plants, not to mention the recharging of said batteries. Seems wasteful to me at best.

280 million registered vehicles in the US. Fast forward 50 years when they’re presumably all electric and all plugged in at night. Nighttime has the potential to b ecome t he new peak consumption period.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > ranwhenparked 04/27/2019 at 10:25

0

Most ways of producing it involve burning fossil fuels or natural gas. Electrolysis can be d one sustainably but then were talking about depleting the Earth’s fresh water.

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > ranwhenparked 04/27/2019 at 10:26

0

Dat fracking doe, they’ll say.

Nuclear could make a comeback, but after Chernobyl and Fukushima it's going to need a hell of a good PR team.

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle 04/27/2019 at 10:32

0

Lest we forget, G eneral Electric is the grandfather of planned obsolescence.

facw > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 10:55

0

Except that power plants are more efficient and better at controlling their emissions than cars, so you should end up in a better place, even if you keep using fossil fuels.

Regardless, renewables are growing quickly and becoming much more price competitive, so I don’t think you would need to build a bunch of new fossil fuel plants. And with electrics you can use those renewables , you can’t power a practical car with wind or solar, so without EVs gas prices are bound to soar if we actually make emissions more expensive.

Nighttime may have increased consumption, though it’s currently way lower than daytime consumption. If nightt ime consumption ends up being more, we’ll just have to build more plants and/or energy storage, which again is easily doable on the timetables we are talking about. A 50 year transition won’t catch anyone by surprise.

Jordan > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 10:56

0

German cars are usually very reliable. For example, the Mercedes E Class, as well as the S Class to a lesser extent, are very popular taxi’s, and routinely rack up hundreds of thousands of miles with no more than routine maintenance. Audi doesn’t represent the reliability of all German cars.

Also, EV’s are not reliable. After 10 years or 100k miles or so, they need new battery packs, which essentially totals the car. Simplicity doesn’t mean better reliability, it just makes it easier to figure out what has broke .

3point8isgreat > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 10:56

2

They mention a CO2 per mile number that appears to include the CO2 of production. To be a comparable number you need to then specify at what mileage you are doing your calculation since the CO2 produced when making the car would get averaged over the total miles. Also sort of sounds like, but isn’t ultimately clear, they are comparing EV’s charging CO2+ Production CO2, to just the driving CO2 of diesel. Which is extra disingenuous since regular combust cars also have significant emissions related to their production.

And then there’s this bit: “Methane technology is ideal for the transition from natural gas vehicles with conventional engines to engines that will one day run on methane from CO2-free energy sources.” There are no CO2 free sources that use methane. A methane fuel cell will still convert CH4 into CO2+H2O. it IS an interesting transition fuel to just using fuel cells. But it cannot be a CO2 free energy source. The fact that they single out methane is also telling of their bias. They could have just as easily said hydrogen, which can also be used in both combustion and fuel cells. And can be made without CO2, although the process is less efficient.

Basically it seems like they may have left out some information necessary for a good direct comparison, and their suggestions point towards where they probably get their funding.

Do EVs have their own environmental issues? Sure, lots of them actually . But I’m not sure that research is a good look into those problems.

aquila121 > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 10:58

1

Really, this just speaks to a need for power production to be improved, as well. If the existing electrical grid is powered by a wider net of renewable energy sources ( or something like advancement in nuclear where the waste is less of a risk long-term) , then the negative impact of charging EVs would reduce dramatically. Overall, any ability to reduce reliance on finite fossil fuels is a good thing.

Jordan > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 04/27/2019 at 11:01

0

95k km is a pretty generous estimate for the Model 3's lifetime. Drive units for Tesla’s usually need replaced by 50k miles, but sometimes as early as 10k. The battery packs only last around 100k miles on EVs. Once the warr antee expires, these things will total the car.

Not only that, but rust is another thing. Engineering Explained bought a Model 3, and it was delivered with the paint bubbling with rust.

Jordan > Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle 04/27/2019 at 11:02

0

Most EV’s need battery packs replaced by 100-120k miles, so its not too far off. 

Jordan > Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle 04/27/2019 at 11:02

0

Most EV’s need battery packs replaced by 100-120k miles, so its not too far off. 

bhtooefr > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 11:02

0

Nissan LEAFs need new packs. EVs don’t need new packs typically.

Spanfeller is a twat > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 11:17

1

Yes, EVs are better for the environment than regular ICE cars  

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 11:17

0

Even if every single car sold in the us was an EV it would take 50 years to have 280 million on the road. I think we can figure out power in that time.

So you basically pulled this out of your ass?

How much power capacity does the US have and how much is consumed? You need numbers to back up your claim.

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > facw 04/27/2019 at 11:17

1

W e’ll see how it pans out . Time will tell.

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 04/27/2019 at 11:26

0

Assuming we’ll figure it all out at some point in the future is an excellent solution. I’m sure your grandchildren will appreciate the forethought.

How much capacity does the US have? Let me put it this way: Last I checked, not enough. They were purchasing a substantial amount from Canada, actually. Yay hydro-electric, except boo dams, so don’t expect any real increase in output potential . We can speculate on how all of these new green power generating dealios will help in the future, but we may be putting the cart before the horse.

bhtooefr > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 04/27/2019 at 11:48

0

I’m making a joke about German car unreliability...

...and I’ve heard that that really is the attitude due to that unreliability. Just automatically ditch the car before it reaches that point, and it either gets scrapped or made into some Eastern European’s problem.

Spanfeller is a twat > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 04/27/2019 at 11:58

0

Yes and no;

The load gap is shifting towards the late afternoon since those punny solar panels seem to be pretty good at powering things during the day. 

Jordan > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 12:38

0

They all need packs around this time. Tesla’s get around 20k miles more than other EVs before their packs need replaced, but they still don't last as long as other as they should. Also, their motors tend to fail at 50k miles.

bhtooefr > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 12:50

0

Citation needed on the packs. If you’re claiming they all need packs, I need actual data of what percentage of the fleet has had a pack replacement (and how many pack replacements), by model, and at what mileage the pack replacements have needed to occur. (Age of the pack would be good, too.)

The motors was early Model Ses, that’s been fixed now.

DipodomysDeserti > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 13:03

0

The solution is to lower the demand.

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > DipodomysDeserti 04/27/2019 at 13:27

0

If trends continue the 99% will be lucky if they can keep a roof over their heads, so that should help lower consumption quite a bit. Otherwise, new and creative ways to piss away energy are created everyday (See also: Bitcoin) so we have a tough road ahead if dramatically changing usage habits is the ultimate goal .

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Spanfeller is a twat 04/27/2019 at 13:27

1

Consumption stays the same though, peaking during the day and going down at night. That cycle might actually match generation better with solar, but it doesn’t change. Renewables are going to have to be paired with storage or on demand solutions to smooth out that natural rise and fall anyways.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 13:33

1

I have doubts you’ve actually ever checked because from the source below the US has 9600 billion kWh of capacity and used 4200 billion kWh last year. We have twice the capacity we need right now. Buying from Canada might just make financial sense in certain areas vs bringing new plants online.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=electricity_in_the_united_states#tab2

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > HammerheadFistpunch 04/27/2019 at 13:36

0

I’m just waiting for someone to hit a break through in synthetic fuel. Once we can cheaply make fuel suddenly ICE vehicles are now green too(since you’d be capturing carbon  to create the fuel) as long as the energy source powering the plant is green.

Future Heap Owner > jimz 04/27/2019 at 13:40

0

Are losses from power transmission via the grid negligible?

Future Heap Owner > HammerheadFistpunch 04/27/2019 at 13:43

1

Yeah, batteries on the grid for load smoothing is not a great solution. If only Greenpeace hadn’t spent the 60s and 70s demonizing nuclear power in this country, we could have a zero-carbon energy source suitable for the baseline load, instead of having to fudge it with batteries.

Future Heap Owner > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 13:50

0

This study seems sketchy, as others have pointed out, but I do wonder how many folks are ditching a relatively new ICE vehicle (say, three years old or less) for a brand new electric vehicle, which is a big carbon expenditure that takes a loooong time to pay off. Only about 1/2 to 2/3rds of a car’s total lifetime emissions come out the tailpipe; the other 1/2 to 1/3rd is emitted to manufacture the car in the first place. If you replace your hybrid and electric vehicles with a new one every few years, you could have higher total carbon emissions from your vehicles than someone who drives a 20 mpg vehicle for ten years.

This is part of the reason that I strongly prefer buying used vehicles (even though I could afford a new one); I’m helping to amortize the manufacturing emissions over many years of useful service.

PS9 > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 14:04

1

You can’t propose that there might be a serious problem with our ability to meet future demand for electricity without knowing what the demand is now, what the cost is now , what the demand might be later , and what impact exactly that rise in demand will have on current costs. You need a whole bunch of numbers to contextualize a problem like this and make useful predictions, and you have provided none.

Can’t burn coal. Can’t use nuclear. Can’t dam anything for hydro. All the windmills and solar panels in the world aren’t going to cover it.

Why not? This is a lot of conclusions to be throwing out there without anything to back them up, and without an actual measure of what current capacity is versus and accurate prediction of what we will need, conclusions like these have almost no meaning. It’s nonsense to say ‘we can’t burn coal or use nuclear’ when we are currently burning coal and using nuclear. You can’t tell us what part of it the windmills and solar panels are going to cover when 1) you don’t know what they cover now, 2) you don’t know how easy or hard it would be to scale up those things and 3) since you haven’t even given us a picture of what the demand is going to be, you don’t even know what ‘it’ is.

How much electricity do we produce? How much more will we need? When will we need it? You need more detailed answers for these beyond, ‘a lot, and soon’ before telling us how concerned we should be about it.

Jordan > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 14:15

1

https://www.downtownnashvillenissan.com/blogs/565/nissan-leaf/what-is-the-life-expectancy-of-a-nissan-leaf-battery/

http://myimiev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3825

https://autoweek.com/article/drive-reviews/imiev-we-test-worst-selling-car-america

https://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5305

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/g-wiz-electric-car1.htm

https://insideevs.com/news/346847/video-tesla-model-x-battery-degradation/

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/unfortunately-getting-rid-tesla-battery-degradation-problems

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/catastrophic-battery-pack-failure.66741/

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/my-new-model-3-has-faulty-battery-needs-replacement.116109/

https://insideevs.com/news/342671/my-chevy-bolt-is-on-third-battery-pack-heres-why/

https://insideevs.com/news/339193/3-ways-to-ruin-your-tesla-battery-plus-what-it-costs-to-replace-it/

https://insideevs.com/news/342252/this-nissan-leaf-already-lost-more-than-half-of-its-battery-capacity-video/

As for Tesla motor failures, the sources below show its not just early cars that have the problem.

https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/rear-drive-unit-failure-model-s.7178/

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/drive-unit-failure-no-warranty-going-to-catalog-my-experience-with-repair-or-replacement.126959/

https://www.teslarati.com/like-need-tesla-drive-unit-replacement/

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/drive-unit-replacement-poll.29834/

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/04/awful-lot-tesla-model-3-owners-complaining-cars-mysteriously-conked/

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

bhtooefr > Jordan 04/27/2019 at 14:40

1

I need data, not a bunch of forum threads with anecdotes.

Jordan > bhtooefr 04/27/2019 at 17:21

0

There was plenty of non -forum sources there.

ranwhenparked > This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: 04/27/2019 at 21:31

0

I don’t think PR is really that  much of a problem anymore, the bigger issue is cost. It used to be that nuclear’s relatively cheap operating costs would eventually offset the stratospheric initial construction costs, given enough time. But, with natural gas so cheap, its completely wrecked that math.