Great article about electric vehicles in the New Yorker—just a few fixes needed
Those of us who write about electric vehicles professionally are used to seeing the mainstream media get things wrong. Even pro-EV articles in newspapers and consumer magazines typically contain a certain amount of misinformation.
 |
Above: Tesla’s Model Y (Source: Evanex; Photo by Casey Murphy)
I’m a longtime fan of The New Yorker, an excellent magazine with in-depth reporting on a wide variety of topics. I was excited to see the recent One Piece, America’s favorite pickup truck Goose Electric, focused on the Ford F-150 Lightning, and more broadly on the growing popularity of EVs. Alas, I was disappointed when I read the article and encountered many misleading statements.
Author John Seabrook discusses the environmental impact of producing EV batteries and the fact that battery capacity degrades over time. To be fair, these are both valid concerns, but Mr. Seabrook oversimplified both issues, and made them much more problematic than he might have been – he may have been unaware that these are two common things that are endlessly exaggerated and fraudulently distorted. Anti-EV mob.
He also stated that “due to the difficult patent terms of Tesla, [Tesla Superchargers] are not compatible with Ford EVs and other electric vehicles,” which isn’t strictly accurate (it’s a question of technical incompatibility, not patents), and struck me as misleading, as they didn’t mention the fact that Tesla developed its proprietary Supercharger system at a time when no other automaker offered DC fast charging, nor the fact that the company is now beginning to open up its system to other automakers’ EVs.
As a public service (and a means of self-promotion), I wrote a letter to the New Yorker in which I addressed the issues accompanying the article, and my letter was published in the March 7, 2022 issue of the magazine.
Now, before you attack the New Yorker with your online torch and pitchfork, let me point out two things. First, the article was by no means an anti-EV hit piece—it was a balanced overview that attracted many interviews, and it was hard to avoid inaccuracies when an outsider writes about a highly technical field (yes, I I’ve been guilty of this myself.) Second, admitting your errors to a publication is a sign of good journalism—fewer journals, especially in these click-driven times, rarely try to correct errors in previous articles. are worried about.
As a matter of necessity, the New Yorker condensed my letter, and adapted it to the style of his home (which included the urge to write down numbers, among other quirky features). Also, as news publications do, they omitted the citations I included to support my claim (if it doesn’t contain citations, it’s not non-fiction). So, dear readers, although you may prefer to read the original, longer version of my letter, and saw,
letter to the new york
Greetings,
I really enjoyed reading John Seabrook’s article about the coming wave of electric pickup trucks, and I very much agree with him.
I’m a longtime subscriber to The New Yorker, and I appreciate (and envy) the level of access your writers enjoy, and the amazing amount of time they’re able to dedicate to their research. However, even the most thorough research is sometimes no substitute for the extensive knowledge that comes from writing about a specific topic all day, every day.
I’ve been a full time writer about EVs for the past decade. I’ve published several thousand articles about EVs, including at least a dozen about the Ford F-150 Lightning. I identified several misleading statements in Mr Seabrook’s article (admittedly, fewer than most EV-related articles I read in the mainstream media). Mr. Seabrook may not realize that the two issues he briefly talks about have been examined in great detail in scientific publications and the EV trade press for more than a decade.
(1) Seabrook cites a single scientist who said it takes 25,000 miles for an EV’s lower tailpipe emissions to cancel out the environmental footprint of battery manufacturing. Rahul Malik is an eminent battery scientist, but he’s far from the only person researching this highly complex issue, and others have found little duration to rule out “climate backpacks” of EVs.
A model developed by Argonne National Laboratory (which involves thousands of parameters) indicates that a Tesla Model 3 operated in the US will reach lifetime emissions parity with a Toyota Corolla after 13,500 miles. (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/)
Tesla’s 2020 Impact Report (https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2020-tesla-impact-report.pdf) claims that “a Model 3 has lower lifetime emissions than a similar ICE. [internal combustion engine] After covering a distance of 5,340 miles.”
Mr. Seabrook’s statement is at most a huge simplification (as I doubt Dr. Malik or any battery researcher would agree). Obviously, he couldn’t go into any great detail in the article, but he should have at least noted that the relative emissions footprint of EVs varies widely depending on the particular model in question, the generation of that region. mixture where it is operated. , and of course the ICE vehicle it is being compared to.
A 2020 study by Eindhoven University of Technology (https://www.oliver-krischer.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/English_Studie.pdf) gives several specific examples. In Europe, the Volkswagen e-Golf’s lifetime carbon emissions are 54% lower than those of the Toyota Prius; The Tesla Model 3’s emissions are 65% less than the emissions of the diesel Mercedes-Benz C220d.
The “long tailpipe” issue, as it is known in the industry, has been the subject of numerous scientific studies (as well as thousands of anti-EV hit pieces). I’ve been reporting on this topic for almost a decade, and the vast majority of published studies have found that the lifecycle carbon emissions of EVs (including raw materials, manufacturing, power generation, and end of life) are far and wide. Less than an ICE vehicle, even if the EV is charged with non-renewable power.
The latest dose of debunking comes from Yale University, where a new study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27247-y) found that total indirect emissions from EVs are lower than fossil fuels. fuel powered vehicles.
In a 2020 article, I listed some studies that have examined this topic: https://chargedevs.com/newswire/new-study-reaffirms-carbon-emissions-of-evs-lower-than-ices -lists-fault-in-long-tail-arguments/.
(2) Seabrook says that EV batteries “are rated to last no more than eight to ten years.” I’m not sure what they mean by “rated”, but that statement is misleading at best. All EV batteries are warranted against failure for 8 years by federal law (in California, this is 10 years). Battery capacity gradually degrades over time. Several studies have measured real-world battery degradation over a period of years, and have concluded that a typical EV battery should retain usable capacity for several years, after which it can be reused in a stationary storage application. could. I don’t know if Mr. Seabrook asked any battery engineers at Ford or Rivian about this issue, but I doubt anyone would agree that their batteries would be ready for the junkyard ten years later.
The Eindhoven study says: “Empirical data suggest that modern batteries can potentially last more than 500,000 km. Newer studies claim a range of 2 million km can be covered by current technology.” I can provide a more detailed quote upon request.
(3) The fact that Tesla Superchargers aren’t accessible to owners of other EVs isn’t a matter of patent so much as a simple business decision. Tesla operates the Supercharger network as a service offered only to its customers. The company recently announced its intention to open up networks for other brands of EVs, and is slowly starting to do so on a pilot basis.
Charles Morris
senior editor, charged
,
written by: Charles Morris
was published
Electric Vehicles, Tesla, Tesla News, TSLA
Of earlier
Comments
Post a Comment