EV vs. ICE - safety + environmental

[Pittsburgher]

Preface - this is not intended to start a political conversation - Lord knows there's enough of that outside of this forum. That said, the media seems to have very different coverage regarding pros/cons of BEV's vs. ICE vehicles. Like many of you, I have both family + neighbors who watch only conservative media (and I'm guessing, get very different news feeds on their phone than I do) . . . who are VERY concerned (and condescending) regarding our EV purchase. When they bring up their concerns (both safety and environmental issues), my stock reply is to listen (for a bit) and then ask for them if they can provide any data, and for them to forward any articles or links so I can educate myself on their concerns. I have not received any links or articles so far.

I know there must be others (if not the majority) in this community, who have had similar experiences. I'm not particularly interested in (commiserating about?) feedback relating to those experiences -- but am really curious if any of you are aware of any datasets, reports, or impartial 3rd party analysis of EV's in terms of how they compare to ICE vehicles. Ideally more than the standard gas vs. electricity environmental impact . . . but things like crash tests, death rates per million miles driven, frequency of fires (per million vehicles), lithium mining and environmental impact of "used" batteries vs. used engine oil, etc . . .

I haven't really done much web surfing for this . . . and was hoping there are forum members (or even Lucid folks on this forum) who have information or links to share. The sources are almost nearly as important as the information itself . . . so things like government data, scientific research institutes, (not affiliated with or funded by companies or trade organizations that would benefit from the results), etc., would be much better sources to share with the EV sceptics.

Hoping there are others in the same boat who have already done a bunch of homework in this area, and are willing to share ! !

 

[Pittsburgher]

Sorry, just seeing scal_air's post on the Guardian article re lifetime CO2 impact of EV vs. ICE . . . that's exactly the kind of thing that I'm looking for. I expect my "EV sceptic" family/neighbors would see the Guardian as a biased / "liberal media" source - although their article is based on the 2021 UNESE report which I would argue is a "neutral" party just reporting factual data sets.

 

[bikeriderbryan]

Yes I get crazy stuff like this all the time from everyone.

I just went to pick up a loaner (Lucid is in the shop ) and the guy at the rental counter said I bet your car is in the shop due to a SW issue. He then said he wouldn't own an EV because the SW might leave him stranded away from home. I then replied that he does realize that his car has electronics and runs off SW. He then gave me a blank stare and the rental car keys.

 

[rfc805]

Most people seem concerned about fire and EVs.. Which seems selective amnesia, since there's a rich history of combustion engine vehicle fires, houses burning down due to them, etc. There are still far more combustion engine vehicle fires than EV. Just nobody cares about the ICE vehicle fires since they're just normal now and not useful to fit any sort of agenda.

Forbes is pretty conservative in news at this point, and even they point this out https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwi...uilty-of-excess-short-term-fire-risk-charges/

 

[j4gates]

I've found Ben Sullins' YT videos interesting because he uses data to reinforce his statements - or counterpoint to others' statements. He makes great points and you can hand off the videos and ask your family to provide data-backed counterpoint to help you understand their position. I'd bet you won't get a response.

 

[borski]

the guy at the rental counter said I bet your car is in the shop due to a SW issue

“Nope, oil change, new spark plugs, a dirty fuel injector, faulty oxygen sensor, and my brother accidentally filled it with diesel.

Wait, no, that’s this GM rental you just handed me.

My car just needed a wash and annual maintenance.”

 

[Rogue]

I am working in industrial mining at the moment for copper, gold, and moly (not the drug, used in steel and other products). The reality is that the net effect of ICE vs EV vs Hybrid is equalized. The materials required for these vehicles is not environmentally friendly, regardless of media portrayal.

What I do know is that recycling of batteries shall tremendously tip the scales towards EV vehicles. Green/clean energy sources are improving in efficiency and capacity by the providers of the electrons needed for our cars. However, this is highly dependent on where you live as there are still many coal, natural gas, and other carbon energy producers globally providing the bulk of the electricity.

The short story is the topic is complicated. If you want data, you need to base it on your specific geographical location plus battery composition plus battery composition composed of recycled materials plus energy source provider. Tires, vehicle, and battery longevity also come into play as well as battery repairability.

The really short answer that I think is closer to the truth is it's about equal right now. The trend with the right technologies and processes in place should make EVs drastically more "environmentally friendly" through material recycling and material longevity.

In terms of safety, I believe you have already found your answer on that one. Most EVs are built like tanks with great occupant safety. The current weight of the vehicles make them less safe for non-occupants without proper measures put in place. Again, this will trend to equal to gas cars as solid state batteries eventually make it to market and reduce total vehicle weight plus efficiency gains in power train and general vehicle design.

 

[bikeriderbryan]

“Nope, oil change, new spark plugs, a dirty fuel injector, faulty oxygen sensor, and my brother accidentally filled it with diesel.

Wait, no, that’s this GM rental you just handed me.

My car just needed a wash and annual maintenance.”

Actually he was correct. Back in the shop for SW issue but I didn't tell him that.

 

[borski]

Actually he was correct. Back in the shop for SW issue but I didn't tell him that.

I know lol, but the implication is that ICE cars are never in the shop, which is far from the truth. Buy an ICE Mercedes and enjoy spending half your time figuring out electronics bugs lol.

People are often forgetful of their own experiences in the face of judging others’ experiences they haven’t lived.

 

[Pittsburgher]

I know lol, but the implication is that ICE cars are never in the shop, which is far from the truth. Buy an ICE Mercedes and enjoy spending half your time figuring out electronics bugs lol.

People are often forgetful of their own experiences in the face of judging others’ experiences they haven’t lived.

I agree. I know there was a big deal made around Hertz getting rid of their (mostly Tesla) EV fleet - that they attributed to demand at the rental counter and maintenance costs. The latter really surprised me. I bought the Lucid in part because I thought my cost of ownership (vis-a-vis maintenance and repairs) would be lower than buying an A8, S-Class, or 7 series. Time will tell.

Even though I'm veering further off topic, my only concern in this regard (that I did not take into consideration when buying) is obsolescence -- due to computer hardware and software support. If I want to keep the car for 15 years or more, am I at risk for not being able to get support from Lucid ?

 

[kort6776]

I agree. I know there was a big deal made around Hertz getting rid of their (mostly Tesla) EV fleet - that they attributed to demand at the rental counter and maintenance costs. The latter really surprised me. I bought the Lucid in part because I thought my cost of ownership (vis-a-vis maintenance and repairs) would be lower than buying an A8, S-Class, or 7 series. Time will tell.

Even though I'm veering further off topic, my only concern in this regard (that I did not take into consideration when buying) is obsolescence -- due to computer hardware and software support. If I want to keep the car for 15 years or more, am I at risk for not being able to get support from Lucid ?

the reason hertz dumped the tesla was mainly because the people who rented the cars didn't understand the nuances of using an EV, hertz did little to assist the renters about EV things like how, when and where to charge. many people were running the cars to zero and getting stranded. EVs have far less maintenance costs than gassers.

 

[DeaneG]

@Pittsburgher likely the only thing that will eventually alter their belief is when they see you and others happily using an EV.

Once people accept a dogma, they tend to dig in when presented with facts that challenge their belief.

Alternatively, just move to California. Half the cars on my street are electric. You can't throw a rock without hitting a Tesla. My lovely Air GT is my fifth EV.

 

[Leftlane]

the reason hertz dumped the tesla was mainly because the people who rented the cars didn't understand the nuances of using an EV, hertz did little to assist the renters about EV things like how, when and where to charge. many people were running the cars to zero and getting stranded. EVs have far less maintenance costs than gassers.

The last time I was charging, a lady pulled up next to me in her Tesla and asked if I know how to charge (uh, yeah, I’m charging right now). I told her how to plug in and she said it was a rental and she had no clue how to do it or how to pay. Rental car companies must give zero instructions to folks - too busy trying to extract extra fees for every little thing.

 

[scal_air]

@Pittsburgher ...
Alternatively, just move to California. Half the cars on my street are electric. You can't throw a rock without hitting a Tesla. My lovely Air GT is my fifth EV.

So you're the one throwing the rocks...

@Pittsburgher - some people believe what they want to believe . The latest scam is the demonization of hydrogen cars. How you shouldn't buy a hydrogen car because your relatives won't be able to identify your remains because you'll be burned beyond recognition. The truth is that there hasn't been a documented injury, much less death, from a commercial hydrogen vehicle crash. It doesn't mean it can't happen but as others have pointed out, the amnesia regarding car fires seems selective.

 

[traumaflo]

Although I can not provide the source, I recall reading that net environmental impact of an EV (vs. ICE) becomes beneficial beyond 17-19K miles driven...
Obviously there is variability...

 

[borski]

the reason hertz dumped the tesla was mainly because the people who rented the cars didn't understand the nuances of using an EV, hertz did little to assist the renters about EV things like how, when and where to charge. many people were running the cars to zero and getting stranded. EVs have far less maintenance costs than gassers.

While that's true, that's not actually why Hertz dumped Tesla.

Tesla started slashing Model 3 and Model Y prices in 2022 and 2023, resulting in crashing the resale value of its vehicles. This was incredibly harmful to Hertz as its financials rely on its fleet maintaining its value. By 2020, Model 3 managed to retain up to 90% of its value within 3 years. Then in the next 3 years, they lost nearly 50% of their value. It was even greater for Model Y from its peak in 2022.

Hertz has said it will sell tens of thousands of Tesla electric vehicles this year. They expect to be substantially done by the end of 2025, by which point monthly depreciation will normalize in the low $300s per unit.

In comparison, and thanks to the Tesla fleet, Hertz is currently seeing per-unit depreciation of $600 a month.

 

[kort6776]

While that's true, that's not actually why Hertz dumped Tesla.

Tesla started slashing Model 3 and Model Y prices in 2022 and 2023, resulting in crashing the resale value of its vehicles. This was incredibly harmful to Hertz as its financials rely on its fleet maintaining its value. By 2020, Model 3 managed to retain up to 90% of its value within 3 years. Then in the next 3 years, they lost nearly 50% of their value. It was even greater for Model Y from its peak in 2022.

Hertz has said it will sell tens of thousands of Tesla electric vehicles this year. They expect to be substantially done by the end of 2025, by which point monthly depreciation will normalize in the low $300s per unit.

In comparison, and thanks to the Tesla fleet, Hertz is currently seeing per-unit depreciation of $600 a month.

are you saying that selling the cars at so called deflated prices is better than getting as much usage of the car? a loss isn't a loss until you book it. in addition hertz could realize a lot of tax credits depreciating the asset on their books. IMHO the depreciation of the car had little impact on the decision, every car in their inventory depreciates

 

[BradSholl]

I hear the EV fire thing quite a bit. I refer them to the NTSB statistics.

Only 25 out of 100,000 all-electric vehicles are likely to catch fire, compared to more than 1,500 gasoline vehicles and nearly 3,500 hybrid vehicles, according to research from National Transportation Safety Board data. American National Institute (NTSB).

 

[borski]

are you saying that selling the cars at so called deflated prices is better than getting as much usage of the car? a loss isn't a loss until you book it. in addition hertz could realize a lot of tax credits depreciating the asset on their books. IMHO the depreciation of the car had little impact on the decision, every car in their inventory depreciates

Most people think of Hertz as a rental car company with its three largest brands being Hertz (premium), Dollar (value brand), and Thrifty (deep value brand). However, Hertz also operates as a used car company. After all, they typically hold their cars for about 6 to 36 months, which means that Hertz is constantly selling used cars through a variety of channels, including its own used car lots, labeled Hertz Car Sales, and through a partnership with online used car retailer Carvana.

Car and Driver noted that Hertz planned for the Teslas to command rental rates “similar to our premium and luxury vehicles,” indicating that Hertz was attempting to differentiate its product against competitors Enterprise and Avis Budget Group with Tesla vehicles, which were in short supply at the time. By locking up such a large supply of Teslas, Hertz could theoretically limit the number of Teslas that Avis and Enterprise could purchase given production was constrained at the time.

Typically, Hertz bulk orders cars directly from manufacturers such as GM and receives a significant discount on the purchase price. When they sell their used cars later, Hertz records revenue from these sales. The business model requires accurately predicting resale values of its acquired cars and then obtaining enough rental revenue to cover the depreciation of its fleet during the period it owns the cars. In 2021, electric vehicles appeared to be holding their value more strongly than gasoline cars, and this added an additional dimension of appeal to ordering many electric cars. This made Teslas particularly attractive: not only could they secure a revenue premium by offering a differentiated product, but they could also benefit from the strong resale values.

After the pandemic, due to the global supply chain, used car prices skyrocketed. You could buy a vehicle, drive it for a year, and sell it for close to your original purchase price. Hertz believed that it would buy Teslas and sell it for an amount close to the original purchase price after using it as a rental vehicle. In fact, lots of individual Tesla owners did exactly this—buy a Tesla, drive it for a year, sell it for about what you paid for it because prices for new Teslas had gone up, and repeat. In addition, the resale value data for Teslas supported this assertion. Teslas up until 2021 or 2022 actually held their value quite well as they aged, providing Hertz with confidence that it could resell its used Teslas after its traditional 6 to 36 month ownership period for a substantial amount.

Hertz discovered that the rental demand for Teslas was not nearly as strong as it anticipated, with the company unable to command the rental revenue premiums it anticipated when it ordered the cars. The company shifted to place the Teslas into its rideshare rental business, but then quickly discovered the vehicles were incurring overly high damage repair costs — body panels, interior trim pieces, etc. — as rideshare usage is much more taxing on the vehicle than traditional rental. And as 2023 started, there was substantially greater volatility in used EV prices, with Tesla values being particularly volatile as Tesla began adjusting its pricing for new cars.

In December 2022, Tesla began offering discounts on its cars. Since then, prices of new Tesla vehicles have come down dramatically. Hertz probably purchased the majority of its Tesla fleet throughout 2022 at peak prices. The price of a new Tesla influences what consumers are willing to pay for a used Tesla, because if someone can order a new Tesla for $35,000 online, it is unlikely they will be willing to pay $40,000 for a two-year-old used Tesla.

The prices of Model 3 came down by approximately 17%, and the Y by 26%.

On the cost side, that means for fiscal year 2023, without even thinking about depreciation, Hertz should take an impairment charge, meaning that it needs to write down the value of these Tesla vehicles to the new lower price. If we assume that 35,200 Model 3 were purchased at approximately $45,000 and 11,800 Model Y were purchased at approximately $66,000, then the value of its Tesla fleet should decrease by approximately $472 million, just based on the price cuts alone. To put that into perspective, the depreciation expense for all 427,800 vehicles for the fiscal year 2022 is $701 million. When Hertz announced it was selling approximately 20,000 EVs throughout 2024, they noted in an 8-K filing on January 11, 2024 that they will have to take a $245 million incremental depreciation expense on their income statement- in line with our rough estimates above, at least for the pool of vehicles that Hertz has identified it plans to sell in 2024.

(https://insights.bu.edu/questrom-in...was-selling-evs-and-recording-a-massive-loss/)

 

[Haggy]

Preface - this is not intended to start a political conversation - Lord knows there's enough of that outside of this forum. That said, the media seems to have very different coverage regarding pros/cons of BEV's vs. ICE vehicles. Like many of you, I have both family + neighbors who watch only conservative media (and I'm guessing, get very different news feeds on their phone than I do) . . . who are VERY concerned (and condescending) regarding our EV purchase. When they bring up their concerns (both safety and environmental issues), my stock reply is to listen (for a bit) and then ask for them if they can provide any data, and for them to forward any articles or links so I can educate myself on their concerns. I have not received any links or articles so far.

There are people who love to float those arguments but what they overlook is that the notion that people buy EVs solely for the environment is way off base. There's nothing wrong with caring about the environment, but most people who buy EVs simply like the cars better. Show them the car, talk about what it can do. Show them the convenience and cost savings of being able to charge at home. Talk about the advantages of never needing oil changes or brake jobs. Generally, giving people one ride is enough to convince them.

You should also consider that the same right wing media that's pushing that argument is also pushing the argument that either climate change isn't real or that it's not caused by human activity. If they believe that, then even if EVs were worse for the environment, it shouldn't matter to them. They would want to get an EV just to have a better car.

If they want to complain about tax credits being a tax break for the rich, remind them that it was Bush who championed the bill and signed it into law. It was Biden who put income limits on it to keep cars like Lucid from being eligible. And it's Trump who favors tax cuts for the rich.

As far as safety, Lucid got top scores for safety. So did Tesla, and they make more EVs than anybody in the US. Battery fires are 11 times lower than ICE fires. There's simply not any evidence showing that EVs are more dangerous and plenty to the contrary.

I don't want to claim to be an expert on this since my professional experience with vehicle fires ended by the late 1990s, but I'm a retired managing scientist and did spend a lot of time on projects related to vehicle fires. When Tesla had three freak events that caused fires in a short period of time around 2013, I knew enough about it to know that what happened in those particular accidents were not indicative of EV safety problems or problems with the design. Tesla improved the design anyway, I bought Tesla stock at the split adjusted cost of $8/share and looking into it eventually convinced me to buy one. It was literally because of EV fires that I looked into it and came to the conclusion that I should buy one.