Run a car to end of its life

[mercedeslimos]

I think for the transport and haulage sector, diesel will largely be supplemented by CNG and LNG (to a lesser extent). A local company here delivering for Spar all have CNG artics. Quiet and clean, though range only about 200 miles (same truck on diesel maybe 1000 miles). Very dependent on the work being done. The biggest downside for fleets is on-site storage. At work, we have 60,000 litres of diesel on-site and it's safe to store and easy to fill. Gas is another question. Tanks need to be super thick due to the compression, hence the lack of range. Apparently also tales ages to fill due to the compression. However, it's in its infancy and something has to win out as batteries just don't seem ideal in larger machines, which are all about payload and space.

[DonkeyApple]

mercedeslimos said:

I think for the transport and haulage sector, diesel will largely be supplemented by CNG and LNG (to a lesser extent). A local company here delivering for Spar all have CNG artics. Quiet and clean, though range only about 200 miles (same truck on diesel maybe 1000 miles). Very dependent on the work being done. The biggest downside for fleets is on-site storage. At work, we have 60,000 litres of diesel on-site and it's safe to store and easy to fill. Gas is another question. Tanks need to be super thick due to the compression, hence the lack of range. Apparently also tales ages to fill due to the compression. However, it's in its infancy and something has to win out as batteries just don't seem ideal in larger machines, which are all about payload and space.

Haulage and the like are big issues as there really isn't anything more efficient than diesel. It's easy to ship, easy to store and is wedged to the gills with hydrocarbon molecules. As soon as you start looking at simple hydrocarbons the efficiency plummets in all aspects. Storage costs and issues rise rapidly and energy density plummets.

What is planned for hydrogen is for it to replace oil and gas at power stations.

Porsche is a classic example of deception with its £20m investment into hydrogen via the Seimen's HIF project. That project has absolutely nothing to do with 'eFuels' or cars yet VW has spun a tax wheeze into a PR green agenda illusion and many people just read the headlines, as intended, and took it to mean VW was going to be making and selling eFuels on forecourts.

There's also the overseas markets such as Japan which are small locations that generate huge amounts of Hydrogen as a byproduct of a large nuclear energy network combining with the fact that Japan has zero natural resources (hence their empire expansion 90 years ago). China also has no oil and the oil market is controlled by the US so wants energy not controlled by a foreign state.

The EU and China are in a race to control the Hydrogen market. Both have applied huge grants and legislation to push the intent. China is the world's largest producer and Hydrogen is seen as a means to transport electricity generated overseas and as a means to lower national emissions.

But this race to dominate the Hydrogen market has zero intent to create a high cost, low efficiency distribution and retail network for private cars in the West. You can't even use it in place of domestic gas because it is highly corrosive as well as having far too low a calorific value to work. You'd need to replace all the domestic boilers and rip out the National pipe network and replace with a high pressure system and then set up contracts with local mortuaries to clear away the bodies that will start appearing.

What people do need to come to terms with is that the electric motor is infinitely more efficient in every way to our beloved, stinky, noisy and expensive IC engines. And that the actual problem is that batteries are still, 130 years on from their invention, completely rubbish. So utterly inefficient that they strip the electric motor of all its massive advantages over ICE and requires a nation to deliver massive tax breaks and punitive taxation on the other side to try and level the playing field.

So the problem is the energy storage not the engine. And the same crippling inefficiencies arise with Hydrogen if you try and distribute it like petrol. It only has an efficiency if it is converted to electricity at singular locations which are located right next to where the hydrogen is either produced or is imported.

Stepping back to haulage, the reason why firms are playing around with CNG is mostly down to PR. It will be the most consumer facing businesses that will have something to gain from telling their customers that they aren't killing polar bears and should buy more goods that kill polar bears from them. CNG basically being methane is really inefficient because of its very low calorific value. You need enormous amounts of it to begin to replicate the energy density of a gallon of diesel. As you can imagine, there is no silver bullet re CO2, methane is going to produce the same amount of CO2 as diesel when the chemistry behind the energy release stems from the combustion of carbon. Where it scores is that methane contains less sulphur, heavy metals and other toxins than heavier fuels and the particulate waste is smaller which does make it harder for these toxins to be carried into lungs. There are also fewer nitrous oxides and the burn temperature produces less carbon monoxide.

It has advantages but the low calorific value means range and goods storage are hit hard, plus the UK is now a net importer of gas meaning there is an energy security risk which is magnified by the fact that CNG is being used by food distribution networks. What you don't want is for the gas pipe to the UK to get switched off and food distribution impacted! Interestingly, the whole EU vaccine kerfuffle very clearly acts as an example of why energy security is vital.

The reason the haulage industry looked to CNG is a result of the current inefficiency of chemical batteries. Primarily the enormous cost of cells and the number needed but also the recharge times currently means you'll need an excess number of trailers so that they can be swapped around for charging without impacting delivery logistics.

Haulage is by far the most polluting element of the UK transport network. It represents just 5% of the cumulative miles covered but delivers something no steroid like 20% of the pollution. The problem is that there isn't really a solution apart from consumers buying a little less tat so more is being pushed onto the private networks to compensate for this problem.

[bigothunter]

mercedeslimos said:

However, it's in its infancy and something has to win out as batteries just don't seem ideal in larger machines, which are all about payload and space.

Batteries can be readily packaged below the load decks of trucks and vans. That challenge is easier than with cars.

Payload can be maintained by raising GVM of electric vehicles. This has already happened in the medium van sector where the legal limit has increased from 3500kg to 4000kg to accommodate heavy batteries.

[aeropilot]

DonkeyApple said:

Haulage is by far the most polluting element of the UK transport network. It represents just 5% of the cumulative miles covered but delivers something no steroid like 20% of the pollution. The problem is that there isn't really a solution apart from consumers buying a little less tat so more is being pushed onto the private networks to compensate for this problem.

And we have Dr Beeching to thank for that, as the decimation of the rail network, and closure of all the branch lines and small local rail goods yards, meant that lorries had to get bigger, as they were forced to carry more stuff greater distances rather than just local use.
Kind of ironic really that the huge infrastructure built up over a century was dismantled so quickly, and now a little more than half a century later, its replacement that was seen as the great future, is anything but, and there's precious little alternative, as the logical one of full rail electrification (not battery problems) with smaller EV vans from those local goods depots, because range isn't an issue, isn't an option because its all gone.
Even today, too many politicians are obsessed with trains being solely about moving people about rather than objects.

[mercedeslimos]

Thanks for that guys, in the few short years since I left university things really move on (and despite my attempts to keep abreast of technology). I remember doing the calculations on diesel vs other fuels and yes, the calorific energy of diesel puts it head and shoulders above anything else for volume taken for sure. I was talking to a mate about it who used to live in Romania and he said that trolleybuses are all the rage there, and this is something I noticed in a few European cities. My great-grandfather was a trolleybus driver in Huddersfield before they replaced them with diesel in the 1960s. All compromises. I know there was a fad for LPG, whereas now I live in Ireland and with a large agriculture industry they are now using anaerobic digesters to process farm waste (read cowst from farms when the cows are inside) into methane which is powering factories such as the largest cheese factory in the country. I think the UK will be vastly ahead of here in terms of takeup of anything (and legislation, here still allows the use of smoky coal in most places) as we have a relatively small population (and 1/3 of it crammed into one city, Dublin, the rest sparsely spread out. I can almost unequivocally say that my usage of a diesel family hatchback won't change for a decade, as (a) I can't afford an electric car, despite the government grants. An MG ZS electric here is €30,000 after grant. and (b) I do nigh-on 100 miles a day to commute to work when I'm in. Nowhere to charge, our parking is bad enough that we have to leave our keys behind and things get reshuffled around as people come and go. And (c) diesel is cheaper than petrol here and has been for a long time. Petrol efficiency is starting to rise thankfully though(Ford EcoBoost 1.0 surprisingly decent if not necessarily long-lived) and also the fact that most of our homes are heated with diesel or kerosene, most towns don't even have mains gas!

[mercedeslimos]

aeropilot said:

And we have Dr Beeching to thank for that, as the decimation of the rail network, and closure of all the branch lines and small local rail goods yards, meant that lorries had to get bigger, as they were forced to carry more stuff greater distances rather than just local use.
Kind of ironic really that the huge infrastructure built up over a century was dismantled so quickly, and now a little more than half a century later, its replacement that was seen as the great future, is anything but, and there's precious little alternative, as the logical one of full rail electrification (not battery problems) with smaller EV vans from those local goods depots, because range isn't an issue, isn't an option because its all gone.
Even today, too many politicians are obsessed with trains being solely about moving people about rather than objects.

Was only talking to my mother about this the other day. Happened in the UK with Beeching (and what a fiasco that was) and apparently here in Ireland some copycat did the same and now there are no lines anywhere close. My closest railway station is 30 miles away. There were railways everywhere here, every town and village had one, and yet now the virtue-signalling politicians announce a new light-rail system and are applauded for it, The same party that closed the other railway only 60 years ago.

[DonkeyApple]

aeropilot said:

DonkeyApple said:

Haulage is by far the most polluting element of the UK transport network. It represents just 5% of the cumulative miles covered but delivers something no steroid like 20% of the pollution. The problem is that there isn't really a solution apart from consumers buying a little less tat so more is being pushed onto the private networks to compensate for this problem.

And we have Dr Beeching to thank for that, as the decimation of the rail network, and closure of all the branch lines and small local rail goods yards, meant that lorries had to get bigger, as they were forced to carry more stuff greater distances rather than just local use.
Kind of ironic really that the huge infrastructure built up over a century was dismantled so quickly, and now a little more than half a century later, its replacement that was seen as the great future, is anything but, and there's precious little alternative, as the logical one of full rail electrification (not battery problems) with smaller EV vans from those local goods depots, because range isn't an issue, isn't an option because its all gone.
Even today, too many politicians are obsessed with trains being solely about moving people about rather than objects.

Yup but the issue being that back when Beeching was closing lines there weren't millions of Britons buying millions of tons of Chinese tat on credit every year and today, there is no point in politicians wasting time not looking at trains for moving people as reinstating that network is too costly.

[Limpet]

DonkeyApple said:

The electric motor is infinitely more convenient. It's the story of the energy that's the issue.

Without a convenient means of refuelling, it is far from convenient (same goes for any kind of motor). The impact of the inconvenience of BEVs can be debated and argued, and will of course vary from individual to individual, but the refuelling/recharging aspect cannot be seen as anything other than a backward step from the IC engine. I just gave my diesel shed 540 miles of range, using a pay at pump setup, in about 4 minutes. That isn't even next gen tech in a BEV, it's decades away. And this is a £1,500 car, not a £50,000 one.

[bearman68]

DonkeyApple said:

. CNG basically being methane is really inefficient because of its very low calorific value. You need enormous amounts of it to begin to replicate the energy density of a gallon of diesel. As you can imagine, there is no silver bullet re CO2, methane is going to produce the same amount of CO2 as diesel when the chemistry behind the energy release stems from the combustion of carbon. Where it scores is that methane contains less sulphur, heavy metals and other toxins than heavier fuels and the particulate waste is smaller which does make it harder for these toxins to be carried into lungs. There are also fewer nitrous oxides and the burn temperature produces less carbon monoxide.
.

Methane (Ch4) combustion is less Co2 producing because you already have lots of hydrogen tied to the molecule.
C+O2 = C02.
H4 =O2 = H20.

Because the proportion of Hydrogen in the molecule is massively more than long chained carbon molecules like diesel, much of the energy comes from the combustion of H2.
In my view a methane turbo charged hybrid would be a very low Co2 output machine, and easily within current technology. I suspect it would get lower than a pure EV for Co2 output. After all they have been using gas engines on fork lift trucks for years and years.

[Pan Pan Pan]

DonkeyApple said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

When motoring was in its infancy, several fuel types were tried, including electric, steam, diesel, and petrol. For petrol vehicles motorists were obliged to go into chemists shops for their fuel. and we all know .
how that turned out
I am waiting for a bit more certainty over which fuel type is finally deemed to be the most likely choice for the majority of people, but if history is anything to go by, it will be the one that proves to be the most everyday convenient, for the most people.

Yup. Which is why it won't be burning hydrogen in cars.

The electric motor is infinitely more convenient. It's the story of the energy that's the issue.

Besides which transporting and storing hydrogen for burning in cars is extremely inefficient and inconvenient.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Tuesday 23 March 21:44

They said that about transporting and storing petrol for use in cars, and we all know how that turned out.

Electric motors are more convenient,, but the means of making them run is not.
What is a driver who pulls into a motorway service station on a low battery going to do, when he finds a queue of other cars already there, all waiting for their access to the next charging point?
Even If each vehicle only takes 30 minutes for a quick top up charge (which some may not) a driver could be waiting there for hours, possibly even a day, before gaining access to a charge point. particularly if the driver chooses to wait at the `wrong' charging point, where those already on it, are of the full charge, rather than quick top up type, This will only get worse as the switch to EV`s grows in the UK.
Until a charging point is provided at every vehicle parking space, this scenario will be a major drawback for EV`s. and those parking spaces will be at a premium, as ever more vehicles spend much more time, stopped at a service area. being re charged, or just waiting for access to a charge point. There are just too many unknowns to make switching to an EV now, a sound idea.

[DonkeyApple]

mercedeslimos said:

Thanks for that guys, in the few short years since I left university things really move on (and despite my attempts to keep abreast of technology). I remember doing the calculations on diesel vs other fuels and yes, the calorific energy of diesel puts it head and shoulders above anything else for volume taken for sure. I was talking to a mate about it who used to live in Romania and he said that trolleybuses are all the rage there, and this is something I noticed in a few European cities. My great-grandfather was a trolleybus driver in Huddersfield before they replaced them with diesel in the 1960s. All compromises. I know there was a fad for LPG, whereas now I live in Ireland and with a large agriculture industry they are now using anaerobic digesters to process farm waste (read cowst from farms when the cows are inside) into methane which is powering factories such as the largest cheese factory in the country. I think the UK will be vastly ahead of here in terms of takeup of anything (and legislation, here still allows the use of smoky coal in most places) as we have a relatively small population (and 1/3 of it crammed into one city, Dublin, the rest sparsely spread out. I can almost unequivocally say that my usage of a diesel family hatchback won't change for a decade, as (a) I can't afford an electric car, despite the government grants. An MG ZS electric here is €30,000 after grant. and (b) I do nigh-on 100 miles a day to commute to work when I'm in. Nowhere to charge, our parking is bad enough that we have to leave our keys behind and things get reshuffled around as people come and go. And (c) diesel is cheaper than petrol here and has been for a long time. Petrol efficiency is starting to rise thankfully though(Ford EcoBoost 1.0 surprisingly decent if not necessarily long-lived) and also the fact that most of our homes are heated with diesel or kerosene, most towns don't even have mains gas!

This touches on a key aspect of the electrification of private cars in that 100% conversion is not required. The largest gains will come from switching the first 50% of cars, after that it is rapidly climbing diminishing returns. This is compounded by the reality that the last to switch will generally be the poorest and so there will be no political desire to to force them to change when there is no environmental upside.

Long before we get to that 50% level the focus will have switched to domestic pollution and gas boilers and the like along with the other significant polluters.

There is also the aspect that within the next 20 years we will crack the commercial replacement of massively inefficient chemical batteries and start having access to new tech which has much higher storage density, recharge times etc.

The reality is that in the UK the largest polluters of GHG are transport homes and aviation which have all net increased as consumers have become more wealthy and buy more goods, heat houses more and fly more.

The elephant in the room for the UK is that excessive consumer spending is the root cause of GHG issues as a nation but our economy is constructed entirely IPM this excess consumption. Hence why we have all these eco solutions built around consuming more rather than consuming less, which is the only genuine solution.

[strain]

My first car was my dads 2 year old fiesta with 55k on it

i took it to 142k when I needed a bigger car and it had issues (CV joint, rear brake lines, fraying seatbelts IIRC)

I ended up stripping it for parts and my brother bought the shell and has rebuilt it with an ST150 engine.

Been in the family for about 15 years now and no plans for it to ever go

[Lincsls1]

DonkeyApple said:

The elephant in the room for the UK is that excessive consumer spending is the root cause of GHG issues as a nation but our economy is constructed entirely IPM this excess consumption. Hence why we have all these eco solutions built around consuming more rather than consuming less, which is the only genuine solution.

Absolutely bang on! Truth is, most of us aren't prepared to consume less, we want new and shiny, which when added to population growth is why we're fked! It is not sustainable indefinitely!

[Byker28i]

I've had almost all my cars for 10-12 years and put huge mileage on them. Only difference is the newer cars seem to take it. Last three cars were 140K miles on a Renault espace , that was traded in after my wife put it in a ditch, for a Nissan Primera we had for ten years and 170K miles, which was traded in for our mazda 6 thats not 8 years old with 120K miles on it. Lockdown has saved it's life by a year...

All the motorbikes I ever owned were long term ownership, 100K miles plus

[bigothunter]

Byker28i said:

I've had almost all my cars for 10-12 years and put huge mileage on them. Only difference is the newer cars seem to take it. Last three cars were 140K miles on a Renault espace , that was traded in after my wife put it in a ditch, for a Nissan Primera we had for ten years and 170K miles, which was traded in for our mazda 6 thats not 8 years old with 120K miles on it. Lockdown has saved it's life by a year...

All the motorbikes I ever owned were long term ownership, 100K miles plus

Regular durability target for passenger cars is 150k miles or 10 years for 90th percentile customer. So not surprising that high utilisation cars reach 200k miles or more.

[anonymous-user]

RDMcG said:

I have a 2008 Cayenne S bought new, currently 275,000km including many very long trips with a heavy trailer. Many dents but my intention is to keep it until something catastrophic breaks, and a 2003 SL500 also bought new which is low mileage and will outlast me, no doubt.

I have a 150k mile 2008 Touareg. It's worthless now, dents all round, door locks haven't worked for 5 years and every warning light you can think of is on but there's not much I'm inclined to swap it for that can pull 8000lb up a slippery boat ramp without breaking sweat and it still looks quite fresh IMO. Speaking of which it's hard to believe that SL is almost 20 years old; they've aged so well!

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 24th March 14:32

[mercedeslimos]

DonkeyApple said:

This touches on a key aspect of the electrification of private cars in that 100% conversion is not required. The largest gains will come from switching the first 50% of cars, after that it is rapidly climbing diminishing returns. This is compounded by the reality that the last to switch will generally be the poorest and so there will be no political desire to force them to change when there is no environmental upside.

Long before we get to that 50% level the focus will have switched to domestic pollution and gas boilers and the like along with the other significant polluters.

There is also the aspect that within the next 20 years we will crack the commercial replacement of massively inefficient chemical batteries and start having access to new tech which has much higher storage density, recharge times, etc.

The reality is that in the UK the largest polluters of GHG are transport homes and aviation which have all net increased as consumers have become more wealthy and buy more goods, heat houses more and fly more.

The elephant in the room for the UK is that excessive consumer spending is the root cause of GHG issues as a nation but our economy is constructed entirely IPM this excess consumption. Hence why we have all these eco-solutions built around consuming more rather than consuming less, which is the only genuine solution.

Absolutely spot on. It's always going to be the "next big thing" the legislators focus on. Generally, the poorest in life will be encouraged in large to change their boilers, etc with grants or provided by the local authority which is a good thing. At the moment for me, smoky coal is still cheap and easily accessible, as is diesel so these are what we use as it's what everyone in the majority uses. As things change and people are incentivised, usage changes. If the government gave me a HUGE grant to go buy a battery-electric car (saloon or estate, so SUV here thanks) I would do it in a heartbeat, as I measure the cost of my motoring, and it would want to be comparable or cheaper to run as diesel or there's no point as people vote with their pockets. Virtue signalling is fine if you have the deep pockets, but the sad reality is the average Joe does what suits them best. I don't think my using 3,000 litres a year of diesel is going to make a huge difference to emissions when you consider that the diesel coach I drive has a 1,000-litre tank and can use that up in a few days. being involved in haulage and road transport I see a lot of change on the horizon, but not in some massive brick wall like a supposed 2030 "ban", just not feasible. Gradual adjustment, people get used to. Major upheaval tends to garner significant backlash and the last thing politicians want is to not get re-elected, so the softly softly approach is probably the one that will work best. Lots of incremental changes will eventually work towards the same goal. Maybe stopping ships using bunker fuel (the worst of any liquid fuel for pollution) and the endless replacement of things when they are old or unfashionable needs to stop, but this keeps the world economy train rolling so it seems a way off now. I'm 32, I wonder what it will be like by the time I come to retire, will the world be a completely different place or will we have realised that every single person is not a great offender in the grand scheme of things.

[annodomini2]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I am pleased to say I already have some silly things for the weekend
but part of my present reluctance to buy an EV, is that I don't know for sure which path future vehicles will take Electric or hydrogen. I would personally prefer hydrogen, in the hope that this type of vehicle wont have the range issues that currently affect EV`s (not least because it is not just range which is a problem, but also charging times when a destination has been reached.
Just like the fantasy land we get in films, where the hero pulls up, and parks up right outside the place he want to go to. Vintage Voltage were showing someone on a long distance trip, pulling up to a motorway charging point, and being able to go right onto it and recharge his EV.
The reality will be, that he would more likely have had to wait in queue to access the charging points, and could end up in the service area for hours, before his vehicle was charged enough to reach the required destination, (and then wait `there' for hours to charge the vehicle up enough for the return journey)
I have nothing against EV`s generally because I find the idea of being able to refuel my car right outside my front door every night, appealing.
But given my particular driving pattern (with the current range /charging issues), an EV would not be suitable for me.

Hydrogen is popular with oil companies, mainly because most mass produced hydrogen comes from methane reforming... I'll let you think about that one.

The main problem with Hydrogen is that it is not a fuel, it's an inefficient energy transport medium.

There's a long thread here: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

For Aircraft, some commercial vehicles, hydrogen makes more sense where weight and range is much more of a factor.

For most car users EV makes more sense.

......................................................................................

On a side note...


I think the government have dropped the ball with HS2, it's based on technology used for Eurotunnel, they have car transporters, need a long journey

e.g. London to Cornwall, or Birmingham to Newcastle etc

As basic passenger transport, it makes no sense.

Drive on a train, have a relatively comfortable ~200mph journey to your destination drive off with your car and repeat for the return.

[anonymous-user]

Limpet said:

Without a convenient means of refuelling , it is far from convenient (same goes for any kind of motor). The impact of the inconvenience of BEVs can be debated and argued, and will of course vary from individual to individual, but the refuelling/recharging aspect cannot be seen as anything other than a backward step from the IC engine. I just gave my diesel shed 540 miles of range, using a pay at pump setup, in about 4 minutes. That isn't even next gen tech in a BEV, it's decades away. And this is a £1,500 car, not a £50,000 one.

my bold. We've actually driven an EV for 5 years now, and nothing is more convient that having 99.9% of your charging done at home where you park the car. In 5 years, i can count the number of times i've sat waiting for a charge on the figures of one hand. The reason you need a fossil fuelled car to refuel quickly is only because you can't really do it at home (legally/safely)

After 5 years of actual first hand EV experience i can tell you the opposite becomes true, in that having to drive somewhere to refuel becomes not just tedious, but when you've done so, you have to part with about £75 each and every time which hurts ;-)

[DonkeyApple]

annodomini2 said:

Hydrogen is popular with oil companies, mainly because most mass produced hydrogen comes from methane reforming... I'll let you think about that one.

The main problem with Hydrogen is that it is not a fuel, it's an inefficient energy transport medium.

There's a long thread here: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

For Aircraft, some commercial vehicles, hydrogen makes more sense where weight and range is much more of a factor.

For most car users EV makes more sense.

......................................................................................

On a side note...


I think the government have dropped the ball with HS2, it's based on technology used for Eurotunnel, they have car transporters, need a long journey

e.g. London to Cornwall, or Birmingham to Newcastle etc

As basic passenger transport, it makes no sense.

Drive on a train, have a relatively comfortable ~200mph journey to your destination drive off with your car and repeat for the return.

It's a nice idea but people just hire a car at the other end like they do with plane journeys. It's why the number of places you can transport your car by train on the continent has been declining rapidly.