Electric Vehicles - Red Herring?

Rich_cb wrote:

I don't think the growth in EVs will lead to more fossil fuels being used in electricity generation as the charging can easily be scheduled for off peak times when electricity is often in surplus and when CO2 emisions per KWh are the lowest. Batteries and electric motors are being improved all the time and electricity generation is getting less CO2 intensive every year. That together with improved efficiency in EV manufacture will tip the argument decisively in favour of EVs in the next few years.

you have that backwards, I suspect because you don’t understand how grid generation works. There is not a surplus of generation in off peak. What happens is that the baseload, which is the minimum constant demand for electricity, is met almost entirely by thermal generation run at close to peak efficiency levels. It’s usually the cheapest form of power. Above that we add generation that is more easily varied to suit the grid demand, but are more expensive forms of generation. At the top are peaking generators, often piston engined generators running gas or diesel, that only get used in times of extreme demand.

off peak is cheap not because there’s an excess of generation but because the demand isn’t there to require the use of more expensive forms of generation. If you add EV charging at night, when renewable output is usually lower, you increase the use of on demand fossil fuel generation like gas turbines to meet the increased demand, raising CO2 level and the cost. The amount of increase depends on the kind of generation used, it’s less variable in the UK but in Germany the CO2 per kWh can more than double at night. The optimal time to charge an EV is during the day when renewables are strongest.

EV efficiency improvement is almost zero. When electric motors have long been above 90 percent efficient there is little improvement to make. Batteries have improved but the benefits are being squandered by trying to extend range, and by building larger more profitable vehicles which are less efficient due to mass and drag and excessive performance. A 2.5 tonne electric SUV isn’t advancing us anywhere, but that’s what Audi and Mercedes and Jaguar and Tesla would have us use.

Philh68 wrote:

you have that backwards, I suspect because you don’t understand how grid generation works. There is not a surplus of generation in off peak. What happens is that the baseload, which is the minimum constant demand for electricity, is met almost entirely by thermal generation run at close to peak efficiency levels. It’s usually the cheapest form of power. Above that we add generation that is more easily varied to suit the grid demand, but are more expensive forms of generation. At the top are peaking generators, often piston engined generators running gas or diesel, that only get used in times of extreme demand.

off peak is cheap not because there’s an excess of generation but because the demand isn’t there to require the use of more expensive forms of generation. If you add EV charging at night, when renewable output is usually lower, you increase the use of on demand fossil fuel generation like gas turbines to meet the increased demand, raising CO2 level and the cost. The amount of increase depends on the kind of generation used, it’s less variable in the UK but in Germany the CO2 per kWh can more than double at night. The optimal time to charge an EV is during the day when renewables are strongest.

EV efficiency improvement is almost zero. When electric motors have long been above 90 percent efficient there is little improvement to make. Batteries have improved but the benefits are being squandered by trying to extend range, and by building larger more profitable vehicles which are less efficient due to mass and drag and excessive performance. A 2.5 tonne electric SUV isn’t advancing us anywhere, but that’s what Audi and Mercedes and Jaguar and Tesla would have us use.

You're wrong.

CO2 intensity in the UK is lowest at night.

Data is here: https://carbonintensity.org.uk/

Wind output in the UK is stronger in early evening/night peaking at about 1800-2000. Wind makes up a far larger share than solar (Which is obviously stronger in the day.) Wind capacity is growing rapidly so the evening/night peaks will have an even greater effect on the CO2 intensity and price in the future.

Data is here: https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/are-wind-farms-more-produ...

If you added a huge amount of demand to the grid at night you may need to start using 'peaker' plants but it would still be less carbon intensive than doing so during the day.

EV efficiency is improving.

Article here: https://electrek.co/2019/11/18/tesla-efficiency-increasing-3-year/

Rich_cb wrote:

You're wrong. .......

Wind output in the UK is stronger in early evening/night peaking at about 1800-2000. Wind makes up a far larger share than solar (Which is obviously stronger in the day.) Wind capacity is growing rapidly so the evening/night peaks/

Yet your own referenced data shows that wind output peaks in late afternoon (17:00) in the UK, is well past peak by the supposed start of your "18:00 - 20:00" peak, and these "night peaks" of which you speak are a red herring. 

Having said that, even your own referenced data from a researcher at Strathclyde Uni, and averaged over a year, differs markedly from a more comprehensive 34 years worth of data published by Oxford, and which accounts for seasonal variation (your reference admits to this omission) which you will find here. https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf

And which shows the daily peak at 14:00 for most of the year, and typically has dropped by 1/3 by your supposed "18:00 - 20:00" peak!

This is actually quite convenient as UK electricity consumption peaks in late afternoon, just as wind is at its peak, and is at a minimum in early morning (4:00) when wind output is at a minimum.  

OK, so why the difference between the Strathclyde data and the Oxford data ? Well the answer is in your own paper. Your paper shows data for 3 different years, 2011, 12 and 13. 2013 is clearly different. The 2011 and 2012 data from your own paper fits closely with the Oxford 34 year average, showing peak at 14:30, and significant evening drop off. It is the 2013 data, which shows unrepresentative  evening performance (by the standards of the 3 datasets presented) which you chose to illustrate a bogus point. Andy even then, you misrepresented the time of the peak. Pretty shabby!

Griff500 wrote:

Yet your own referenced data shows that wind output peaks in late afternoon (17:00) in the UK, is well past peak by the supposed start of your "18:00 - 20:00" peak, and these "night peaks" of which you speak are a red herring. 

Having said that, even your own referenced data from a researcher at Strathclyde Uni, and averaged over a year, differs markedly from a more comprehensive 34 years worth of data published by Oxford, and which accounts for seasonal variation (your reference admits to this omission) which you will find here. https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf

And which shows the daily peak at 14:00 for most of the year, and typically has dropped by 1/3 by your supposed "18:00 - 20:00" peak!

This is actually quite convenient as UK electricity consumption peaks in late afternoon, just as wind is at its peak, and is at a minimum in early morning (4:00) when wind output is at a minimum.  

OK, so why the difference between the Strathclyde data and the Oxford data ? Well the answer is in your own paper. Your paper shows data for 3 different years, 2011, 12 and 13. 2013 is clearly different. The 2011 and 2012 data from your own paper fits closely with the Oxford 34 year average, showing peak at 14:30, and significant evening drop off. It is the 2013 data, which shows unrepresentative  evening performance (by the standards of the 3 datasets presented) which you chose to illustrate a bogus point. Andy even then, you misrepresented the time of the peak. Pretty shabby!

Your paper looks at onshore wind speed. The data I referenced looks at overall wind power.

Given that most new wind capacity is now built offshore your data is not necessarily relevant.

The peak time for wind power varies considerably between regions so it seems reasonable that it would also vary between an onshore measuring point and a distant off shore wind farm.

As off shore capacity is being added rapidly it may be that the 2013 data represents a shift in peak generation time caused by new off shore capacity or it may be a blip.

Either way it doesn't change the fundamental point that night time EV charging is less CO2 intensive than day time charging.

Rich_cb wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Yet your own referenced data shows that wind output peaks in late afternoon (17:00) in the UK, is well past peak by the supposed start of your "18:00 - 20:00" peak, and these "night peaks" of which you speak are a red herring. 

Having said that, even your own referenced data from a researcher at Strathclyde Uni, and averaged over a year, differs markedly from a more comprehensive 34 years worth of data published by Oxford, and which accounts for seasonal variation (your reference admits to this omission) which you will find here. https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf

And which shows the daily peak at 14:00 for most of the year, and typically has dropped by 1/3 by your supposed "18:00 - 20:00" peak!

This is actually quite convenient as UK electricity consumption peaks in late afternoon, just as wind is at its peak, and is at a minimum in early morning (4:00) when wind output is at a minimum.  

OK, so why the difference between the Strathclyde data and the Oxford data ? Well the answer is in your own paper. Your paper shows data for 3 different years, 2011, 12 and 13. 2013 is clearly different. The 2011 and 2012 data from your own paper fits closely with the Oxford 34 year average, showing peak at 14:30, and significant evening drop off. It is the 2013 data, which shows unrepresentative  evening performance (by the standards of the 3 datasets presented) which you chose to illustrate a bogus point. Andy even then, you misrepresented the time of the peak. Pretty shabby!

Your paper looks at onshore wind speed. The data I referenced looks at overall wind power.

Given that most new wind capacity is now built offshore your data is not necessarily relevant.

The peak time for wind power varies considerably between regions so it seems reasonable that it would also vary between an onshore measuring point and a distant off shore wind farm.

As off shore capacity is being added rapidly it may be that the 2013 data represents a shift in peak generation time caused by new off shore capacity or it may be a blip.

Either way it doesn't change the fundamental point that night time EV charging is less CO2 intensive than day time charging.

You've missed the point. The peak wind speed acceding to the paper YOU referenced is not where you said it is. You said the peak was between 18:00 and 20:00. It isn't for any of the 3 years the paper discusses. 2 of the years peak at 14:30. The 3rd at 17:00. YOUR data does not support YOUR argument, not even 2013. The peak of your graph is not where you said it is. Learn to read a graph, then your argument may have more credibility.

Griff500 wrote:

You've missed the point. The peak wind speed acceding to the paper YOU referenced is not where you said it is. You said the peak was between 18:00 and 20:00. It isn't for any of the 3 years the paper discusses. 2 of the years peak at 14:30. The 3rd at 17:00. YOUR data does not support YOUR argument, not even 2013. The peak of your graph is not where you said it is. Learn to read a graph, then your argument may have more credibility.

The point was, and remains, that EV charging is best done at night. That was the entire basis of this discussion in the first place. Whether the peak is at 1700 or 1800 doesn't change that.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

Now if they were to knock out a Sinclair stylie vehicle similar to the one I pictured above Or the Iris E Trike, made it in the UK, made it free from all the weighty crud as the ETrike is (hence 55kg incl battery) that would change the balance of a viable/covered transport mode for up to 20-25 miles each way then that would smash the argument out of sight. 

Not made in the UK (Norway), but this is set to go into production next year:

https://www.podbike.com/en/

kt26 wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

Now if they were to knock out a Sinclair stylie vehicle similar to the one I pictured above Or the Iris E Trike, made it in the UK, made it free from all the weighty crud as the ETrike is (hence 55kg incl battery) that would change the balance of a viable/covered transport mode for up to 20-25 miles each way then that would smash the argument out of sight. 

Not made in the UK (Norway), but this is set to go into production next year:

https://www.podbike.com/en/

 

Dear Santa,

If you're listening, I have been a very good boy this year, and...

I WANT ONE OF THESE!!!!!!!!!

Edit: Okay - Christmas next year will do.

kt26 wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

Now if they were to knock out a Sinclair stylie vehicle similar to the one I pictured above Or the Iris E Trike, made it in the UK, made it free from all the weighty crud as the ETrike is (hence 55kg incl battery) that would change the balance of a viable/covered transport mode for up to 20-25 miles each way then that would smash the argument out of sight. 

Not made in the UK (Norway), but this is set to go into production next year:

https://www.podbike.com/en/

 

It looks alright but has over engineered wheels that are costly and weighty, I don't want something that comes to me automatically/beck and call, that means more weight, more gadgetry/stuff to go wrong and simply isn't needed, it's a gimmick. I can't say I like the gearless motor in the wheels, again, more unecessary weight and tech, a simple bike derailleur system would work just fine and is hugely adpatable/cheap.

Also If we are to get people to move the medium range distances then we need to conider having a vehicle that can go faster than 16mph under its own power, that's why something like the Iris Etrike would be more preferable at 25mph and yes if you are to have this option (or even faster) then requiring insurance etc

I do like that it has luggage/child seat option however, that is the one big plus over the Etrike, another thing to save weight/cost would be fabrics as the exterior instead of polycarbonates.

All the problems are that none of them including the podbike (or podride from Sweden) are currently actually selling models. I was interested initially in the IRIS Etrike by Sinclair but it simply didn't look like people were going to get anything for their money and production dates have been pushed back years and there has so far been no actual models handed out though a test ride by an 'early bird' investor occured in May nothing else has happened.

vonhelmet wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

The most economical and ecological thing you can do car wise is run an old reliable car into the ground. The carbon footprint of manufacturing an old car is a sunk cost, so all you have to deal with is the marginal impact of repairs and miles. The impact of manufacturing new cars is vast. What's the impact of mining all that lithium compared to running an old Volvo (other reliable cars are available) to 200,000 miles? It's almost like the car industry is more concerned with selling new cars without regard to their actual lifetime environmental impact.

Don't forget about the extra air pollution that older vehicles produce.

Do you mean older as in older designs or older as in more worn ie less efficient? Either way, let's do some back of an envelope maths. Googling suggests a Volvo 240 (very old) has co2 emissions of about 180g/km. Let's assume we'd got a knackered one and it does, I dunno, 300. Googling suggests an electric car causes 9 tonnes of co2 emissions in its production. You could drive the 240 for another 30,000 miles before the electric car had even been built. I can't be arsed doing the maths to work out when the electric car breaks even but I bet it's moon miles and it may in fact be impossible if you have to replace the batteries at astronomical cost before you get there. If you mean other nasty emissions besides co2 then that's a trickier one, yes.

I meant older designs and specifically the nasty emissions other than CO2 though I do agree with you about the reasons to keep an old car running. From a selfish point of view, I'd prefer the old cars to be off the road to improve air quality which I think is the more immediate problem. It seems that we're only starting to understand the effects of air pollution - have a look at https://patrickcollison.com/pollution for a summary of some cognitive affects of air pollution.

My view is that EVs are a necessary evil but of course a lot of us cyclists realise that the best answer involves a healthy dose of active travel.

vonhelmet wrote:

The most economical and ecological thing you can do car wise is run an old reliable car into the ground. The carbon footprint of manufacturing an old car is a sunk cost, so all you have to deal with is the marginal impact of repairs and miles. The impact of manufacturing new cars is vast. What's the impact of mining all that lithium compared to running an old Volvo (other reliable cars are available) to 200,000 miles? It's almost like the car industry is more concerned with selling new cars without regard to their actual lifetime environmental impact.

Better still if you convert it to run on LPG. No particulates at all, and a lot less NOx.

There's a lot to be said for having an old SII or SIII Landrover actually as they can be rebuilt repeatedly (aluminium body panels and a chassis that's easily welded), especially if you run it on LPG.

A big issue for EVs is how and where the minerals for the batteries come from. It's all very well if the minerals come from a big mine in Western Australia with decent safety conditions and pay for the workforce, as well as legislation to prevent the worst environmental contanimation, quite different indeed if they've been sourced from an operation in Africa using child labour in horrendous condtions.

Rick_Rude wrote:

Car companies and governments are just dragging this idea out like they dragged the diesel idea out. They'll convince people to buy new cars then eventually you need a new gimmick to sell more cars so no doubt we'll then get told that mining stuff like lithium and cobalt is bad (bad, naughty consumers, how dare you!). Hold on, we've got just the technology to buy you're way out of environmental guilt.

The future doesn't look bright for private space. Shared cars and living in pods. Dystopia moves ever nearer.

I'll have you know that I'm a fan of dystopian fiction - I grew up reading loads of John Wyndham scifi and often wonder why more of his stuff hasn't been filmed (excepting Village of the Damned, Chocky, Day of the Triffids etc). I reckon it's about time for a Netflix/Amazon series of The Kraken Wakes.

Alternatively, we could just turn the world into a dystopian nightmare as quick as we can.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Car companies and governments are just dragging this idea out like they dragged the diesel idea out. They'll convince people to buy new cars then eventually you need a new gimmick to sell more cars so no doubt we'll then get told that mining stuff like lithium and cobalt is bad (bad, naughty consumers, how dare you!). Hold on, we've got just the technology to buy you're way out of environmental guilt.

The future doesn't look bright for private space. Shared cars and living in pods. Dystopia moves ever nearer.

I'll have you know that I'm a fan of dystopian fiction - I grew up reading loads of John Wyndham scifi and often wonder why more of his stuff hasn't been filmed (excepting Village of the Damned, Chocky, Day of the Triffids etc). I reckon it's about time for a Netflix/Amazon series of The Kraken Wakes.

Alternatively, we could just turn the world into a dystopian nightmare as quick as we can.

Maybe that's actually what's happening right now? (rising sea levels, hmm...?).