- This topic has 47 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
Bmblbzzz.
-
CreatorTopic
-
November 17, 2019 at 11:38 pm #30282
ktache
A fine peice from the RDRF on elecric vehicles:
What’s wrong with electric cars? Are they a (small) step forward or a red herring?
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
Rich_cb
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:My folks car will last at least 20 years, how many EVs will be gone through in that time, how many extra batteries and cobalt/lithium mined?
I’m not saying diesels are better, I’m saying the pollution numbers given for EVs is not as good as is being made out and using far fetched scenarios that exclude many factors to get to those numbers, the differential is not that big and as I have said all along there are better solutions that are being ignored pretty much completely despite their obviousness.
I will continue to not run a motorvehicle for the forseeable though at times it is bloody difficult and does shut down certain options you may want to enjoy/explore unless one borrows a car which I have done three times in a 26 month period, the alternates are not impossible but just very, very impractical and very expensive.
We don’t know how EVs are going to fare long term as we are only just seeing mass market EVs appear.
That being said the battery degradation for older Nissan Leafs has been less than predicted a few years ago. The rest of the car generally needs less maintenance than an ICE car so should last as long if not longer.
ICE cars clearly have their advantages at present but personally the local pollution created by them is the reason I couldn’t justify buying another one. If I buy another car it will be an EV.
Philh68 wrote:
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-productive-at-night/
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/
kt26
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:
Philh68
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.
Anonymous
Rich_cb wrote:
Rich_cb wrote:
If your parents Skoda fabia emits 99g/km then its lifetime emisions per km (including manufacture, maintainance etc) will be higher still. It would probably end up not far off double the lifetime emissions of the Zoe. If there’s a market for the type of vehicle you describe I’m sure one will be produced but if I’m honest I don’t think there is. 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.CyclingInBeastMode wrote:In real world use with bio fuel/vege oil (standard operation all year round) my 18 year old large estate diesel runs cleaner than some EUROVI based on the real world testing of both the EURO standards in independant testing, particularly E4, some of the E6 vehicles were absolutely shocking.
The factory spec for mine CO2 wise was 151g/km, when the garage last MOT’d it (126,000) the opacity test level was ridiculously low and that was on first run, so low that they tested it again (they’re a top independant winning garage of the year in the UK a couple of times so no cowboys) I no longer use it but was down to less than 3,000 per year. If I were to do similar (with regards bio fuel/vege oil) to my folks Skoda Fabia 3 cycl 99g/km, I reckon it would be even cleaner, I used it for a 100mile outing this summer when vsiting and managed to get 80mpg with a 10-15% of that getting across the city and through a small town at the other end. I expect them to use it (2014 model) until they can no longer drive, so probably another 15 years or so.
Taking that car changes the comparison hugely.
In any case, I honestly don’t trust the figures given for EVs, there seems to be no accounting for the non recycling of the cobalt and lithium, no account for the additional and very massive infra that needs putting in place and the pollution that comes from that, it takes no account of the increase in burning fossil fuels because we simply won’t have enough capacity nor enough renewables to supply the demand.
Also, as you’ve said, the Zoe is a tiny car (which most people won’t buy) but ridiculously heavy at 1.5metric tonnes, this is were the problem arises for range and potential extra pollution burning fossil fuel). That weight is not just the batteries but all the gizmos and ‘safety’/driving aids etc all add up to a LOT of weight. MKII Ford Escort 1.3L 5 door was 878kg, bigger space internally yet nearly half the weight and with lots of heavy gauge steel/steel wheels/iron bloc.
In our throwaway society these ‘plastic’ cars won’t be around anywhere near as long as the ICE life span they are replacing.
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.
Yet we’re not doing that at all and Labour aren’t a party that support that clear and obvious option either, not even close, it’s continuing down the path of building MASSive vehicles that will still kill and maim with virtual impunity in the hands of morons and the actual real life cycle emissions are doubtful even when using one of the better EVs in lab conditions.
My folks car will last at least 20 years, how many EVs will be gone through in that time, how many extra batteries and cobalt/lithium mined?
I’m not saying diesels are better, I’m saying the pollution numbers given for EVs is not as good as is being made out and using far fetched scenarios that exclude many factors to get to those numbers, the differential is not that big and as I have said all along there are better solutions that are being ignored pretty much completely despite their obviousness.
I will continue to not run a motorvehicle for the forseeable though at times it is bloody difficult and does shut down certain options you may want to enjoy/explore unless one borrows a car which I have done three times in a 26 month period, the alternates are not impossible but just very, very impractical and very expensive.
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:In real world use with bio fuel/vege oil (standard operation all year round) my 18 year old large estate diesel runs cleaner than some EUROVI based on the real world testing of both the EURO standards in independant testing, particularly E4, some of the E6 vehicles were absolutely shocking.
The factory spec for mine CO2 wise was 151g/km, when the garage last MOT’d it (126,000) the opacity test level was ridiculously low and that was on first run, so low that they tested it again (they’re a top independant winning garage of the year in the UK a couple of times so no cowboys) I no longer use it but was down to less than 3,000 per year. If I were to do similar (with regards bio fuel/vege oil) to my folks Skoda Fabia 3 cycl 99g/km, I reckon it would be even cleaner, I used it for a 100mile outing this summer when vsiting and managed to get 80mpg with a 10-15% of that getting across the city and through a small town at the other end. I expect them to use it (2014 model) until they can no longer drive, so probably another 15 years or so.
Taking that car changes the comparison hugely.
In any case, I honestly don’t trust the figures given for EVs, there seems to be no accounting for the non recycling of the cobalt and lithium, no account for the additional and very massive infra that needs putting in place and the pollution that comes from that, it takes no account of the increase in burning fossil fuels because we simply won’t have enough capacity nor enough renewables to supply the demand.
Also, as you’ve said, the Zoe is a tiny car (which most people won’t buy) but ridiculously heavy at 1.5metric tonnes, this is were the problem arises for range and potential extra pollution burning fossil fuel). That weight is not just the batteries but all the gizmos and ‘safety’/driving aids etc all add up to a LOT of weight. MKII Ford Escort 1.3L 5 door was 878kg, bigger space internally yet nearly half the weight and with lots of heavy gauge steel/steel wheels/iron bloc.
In our throwaway society these ‘plastic’ cars won’t be around anywhere near as long as the ICE life span they are replacing.
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.
Yet we’re not doing that at all and Labour aren’t a party that support that clear and obvious option either, not even close, it’s continuing down the path of building MASSive vehicles that will still kill and maim with virtual impunity in the hands of morons and the actual real life cycle emissions are doubtful even when using one of the better EVs in lab conditions.
If your parents Skoda fabia emits 99g/km then its lifetime emisions per km (including manufacture, maintainance etc) will be higher still. It would probably end up not far off double the lifetime emissions of the Zoe.
If there’s a market for the type of vehicle you describe I’m sure one will be produced but if I’m honest I don’t think there is.
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.
fukawitribe
Griff500 wrote:
Griff500 wrote:I’ve always thought hydrogen was the answer, as it is considerably cleaner than any current battery technology. If we want clean, we are backing the wrong horse. While there are now a few hydrogen vehicles on sale (most notably the new Hyundai), I doubt there will be the appetite to roll out hydrogen infractructure in addition to chargers.Alas hydrogen is a pretty dire thing to use for a fuel – current production techniques don’t help (vast majority of it is still produced using steam reformation) but even so you’re bleeding efficiency at every stage. Currently, electricity consumption per mile seems to be reckoned to be several times worse for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles over straight EV, and that’s without considering greenhouse-gas emissions. It’s a lovely idea, but it just doesn’t add up at the moment (maybe never).
Griff500
I’m surprised that no mention
I’m surprised that no mention has been made here of the environmental damage being done by Lithium and Cobalt mining. This ranges from contamination of land and watercourses in Tibet due to Chinese Lithium mining, to lowering of water tables in areas of Chile due to the vast amounts of water used in Lithium extraction, and the horrific illnesses among children employed in Cobalt mines in the DRC. It is ironic that a couple of hundred years after we stopped sending children down coal mines in the UK, we are supporting the use of children to mine horrifically toxic Cobalt, through our hunger for rechargeable devices. (Yes, I know Elon Musk has signed up to source his Cobalt from ethical sources, but I doubt that message has filtered down through the layers of importers, exporters and metal merchants, to the guy who drives a pickup truck round villages in the DRC collecting sacks of the stuff to ship off to China.)
I’ve always thought hydrogen was the answer, as it is considerably cleaner than any current battery technology. If we want clean, we are backing the wrong horse. While there are now a few hydrogen vehicles on sale (most notably the new Hyundai), I doubt there will be the appetite to roll out hydrogen infractructure in addition to chargers.
But hey, we are building a new runway at Heathrow, we are very likely to cancel HS2, and we subsidise air travel to the extent that short haul flights are a third the price of going by train. Does anybody seriously think any political party gives a damn about the climate?
Rich_cb wrote:
Rich_cb wrote:
The lifetime CO2/km of the latest Renault Zoe is 60g. That means that you’d break even at 46,000 miles assuming your old Volvo was working well (180g/km). If it was running at 300g/km it would be 23,500 miles. The average car in the UK does about 7100 miles per year so you’re looking at about 6.5 years and 3.25 years respectively. I know the cars aren’t exactly equivalent but I only has the Zoe’s figures to hand. Given that UK electricity production is getting less carbon intensive every year you can expect that time frame to get shorter and shorter. If you lived in France or Norway it would already be. There’s also the small matter of noxious gases and particulates which are far more damaging to your local community than CO2 and which your old Volvo probably emits by the bucket load.vonhelmet wrote: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.In real world use with bio fuel/vege oil (standard operation all year round) my 18 year old large estate diesel runs cleaner than some EUROVI based on the real world testing of both the EURO standards in independant testing, particularly E4, some of the E6 vehicles were absolutely shocking.
The factory spec for mine CO2 wise was 151g/km, when the garage last MOT’d it (126,000) the opacity test level was ridiculously low and that was on first run, so low that they tested it again (they’re a top independant winning garage of the year in the UK a couple of times so no cowboys) I no longer use it but was down to less than 3,000 per year. If I were to do similar (with regards bio fuel/vege oil) to my folks Skoda Fabia 3 cycl 99g/km, I reckon it would be even cleaner, I used it for a 100mile outing this summer when vsiting and managed to get 80mpg with a 10-15% of that getting across the city and through a small town at the other end. I expect them to use it (2014 model) until they can no longer drive, so probably another 15 years or so.
Taking that car changes the comparison hugely.
In any case, I honestly don’t trust the figures given for EVs, there seems to be no accounting for the non recycling of the cobalt and lithium, no account for the additional and very massive infra that needs putting in place and the pollution that comes from that, it takes no account of the increase in burning fossil fuels because we simply won’t have enough capacity nor enough renewables to supply the demand.
Also, as you’ve said, the Zoe is a tiny car (which most people won’t buy) but ridiculously heavy at 1.5metric tonnes, this is were the problem arises for range and potential extra pollution burning fossil fuel). That weight is not just the batteries but all the gizmos and ‘safety’/driving aids etc all add up to a LOT of weight. MKII Ford Escort 1.3L 5 door was 878kg, bigger space internally yet nearly half the weight and with lots of heavy gauge steel/steel wheels/iron bloc.
In our throwaway society these ‘plastic’ cars won’t be around anywhere near as long as the ICE life span they are replacing.
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.
Yet we’re not doing that at all and Labour aren’t a party that support that clear and obvious option either, not even close, it’s continuing down the path of building MASSive vehicles that will still kill and maim with virtual impunity in the hands of morons and the actual real life cycle emissions are doubtful even when using one of the better EVs in lab conditions.
fukawitribe
kt26 wrote:A point that is yet to be mentioned here is that humanities addiction to the car will atleast drive a surge in battery technology – which is going to be necessary to move the grids to more renewable sources. In fact major advances are already happening – the man credited with inventing the Lithium Ion battery, may have just create (along with his assistant) the first solid state battery which is sodium based – so not a rare earth material, this battery:– Doesn’t suffer from the combustibility problem most convential batteries do
– Have a much better energy density – can be lighter and store more energy
– Much shorter charging times.
Hell yeah, and looks like they should have
* cheaper and easier manufacturing
* far greater active lifespan (lower cell degradation/charge cycle)
* much wider operating temperature range
He also absolutely has the best name going *
* ..and also part of the group that created the first ‘modern’ RAM modules. Still working, late nineties, boy’s a legend.
PRSboy
Its worth considering that
Its worth considering that today’s EVs will be looked at in 10 yrs in the same way we look at 10 yr old phones.
People like having cars, for many there is no practical alternative.
I read two articles today – one said that VW estimate cost parity for EV vs ICE car production by 2025. Another said that BMW are launching the i4, which has a 350+ mile range and a 5 minute, 70 mile charge. This is interesting because it shows the speed at which the big manufacturers are getting their act together having been caught napping (though BMW in their defence were on it quite quickly with the i3)
The take-up of EVs will be exponential, provided the infrastructure can keep up.
Battery technology will trickle down. I have certainly seen more e-bikes around… a 70yr old friend of ours now uses one for trips to her local town (over in very hilly West Wales) rather than taking the car.
As you say, to the benefit of us all.
Some interesting points
Some interesting points raised here. I tend to agree that EVs are no silver bullet to the car problem, But they are atleast a step in the right direction.
A point that is yet to be mentioned here is that humanities addiction to the car will atleast drive a surge in battery technology – which is going to be necessary to move the grids to more renewable sources. In fact major advances are already happening – the man credited with inventing the Lithium Ion battery, may have just create (along with his assistant) the first solid state battery which is sodium based – so not a rare earth material, this battery:
– Doesn’t suffer from the combustibility problem most convential batteries do
– Have a much better energy density – can be lighter and store more energy
– Much shorter charging times.
These advances will be critical in solving a raft of human made problems, and EVs will drive investment in such areas as the juggernaut car makers look for ways to maintain relevance. It’s not ideal – anything rarely is – but such developements stand to be to the benefit of us all.
hobbeldehoy
Articles promoting electric
Articles promoting electric cars only tend to look at on the road emissions and pollution. The impact from manufacturing an electric car is rarely discussed, such as lithium mining and other rare earth minerals. There is also the matter of recycling used batteries. Then there is the matter of electricity generation. Will it be from nuclear or coal fired power stations? Either way massive investment in electricity generation would be necessary. I would like to see a more balanced presentation of data when it comes to electric car promotion.
vonhelmet
Well, yeah, that’s the real
Well, yeah, that’s the real solution to all of this – people getting out of their damn cars. -
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.