Organisations unable to ever fully adopt electric vehicles
Discussion
Two Turning Two Burning said:
Why would I put references onto an internet forum post? And if I'm conversing with 'experts' here (as so many claim to be) then you should all be familiar with the sources, shouldn't you? If I specifically refer to "the studies on EV vs. ICE lifetime emissions" then surely you should know what I'm talking about?! There aren't many of them and surely if you're an expert or in any way credibly want to make statements about the need or even sense in pushing for EVs at all then you have to have read them, right?
If you're referencing studies on a forum then yes, providing a link to said study is considered good practice. It's quite simple. I've not read any study that supports your position that many EVs will not complete enough miles to have a lower lifetime CO2 than an ICE, or that studies use unfair examples of ICE. So please, enlighten us with your extensive bibliography.Two Turning Two Burning said:
Do you often converse with experts in your field and have to provide references to them? Especially to the very basics of the subject?
Yes. That's how you write a technical paper, you provide references...Perhaps you're a non-technical person in your industry.
Two Turning Two Burning said:
And I believe that Jeebus will come and change all human waste into biofuel which we can use in ICE engines making them far less polluting than EVs. No wait, that's already true...
Have you smelt it though? I went to a FOBEX some years ago where they had a toilet that dried and burned the waste for power...you want to stay a long way upwind of it!DickyC said:
Megaflow said:
A question for all of those people that still come up with hypothetical reasons why BEV’s won’t work in the ‘real world’, do you come up with similar reasons why the sun won’t rise tomorrow? Because that is basically what you are arguing against!
Just about every industry that uses ICE, with the possible exception of commerial aviation, is investigating electricity because we just cannot keep on burning fossil fuels. How that electricity makes its way to motor is about the only part under debate.
No one is saying they don't work. The debate here is about whether or not they are the whole one-size-fits-all solution or if, in some applications, battery powered vehicles are not appropriate. I wondered about the armed forces and the emergency services. You said commercial aviation. There may be others for whom electric vehicles are not the 100%, across the board, 'it's electric vehicles or nothing' solution.Just about every industry that uses ICE, with the possible exception of commerial aviation, is investigating electricity because we just cannot keep on burning fossil fuels. How that electricity makes its way to motor is about the only part under debate.
Note in the last paragraph I said just every using using ICE is investigating electricity. Note batteries. That because there are different ways about achieving and electric vehicle and the industry has recognised there isn’t a one size fits all solution.
But, as Max Torque pointed out, BEV’s do suit the military, because they are investing in them already. Even electric planes are being investigated, by they are not likely to scale to commercial aviation.
Two Turning Two Burning said:
tamore said:
new battery chemistries/architecture will come along to make this a non argument. won't be next year, but certainly within a decade given the level of research being done.
And I believe that Jeebus will come and change all human waste into biofuel which we can use in ICE engines making them far less polluting than EVs. No wait, that's already true...RizzoTheRat said:
Have you smelt it though? I went to a FOBEX some years ago where they had a toilet that dried and burned the waste for power...you want to stay a long way upwind of it!
I meant how sewage treatment plants (and landfills) gather biomethane which can be used as fuel just as natural gas is used (as it's the same stuff = methane).Evanivitch said:
Two Turning Two Burning said:
Why would I put references onto an internet forum post? And if I'm conversing with 'experts' here (as so many claim to be) then you should all be familiar with the sources, shouldn't you? If I specifically refer to "the studies on EV vs. ICE lifetime emissions" then surely you should know what I'm talking about?! There aren't many of them and surely if you're an expert or in any way credibly want to make statements about the need or even sense in pushing for EVs at all then you have to have read them, right?
If you're referencing studies on a forum then yes, providing a link to said study is considered good practice. It's quite simple. I've not read any study that supports your position that many EVs will not complete enough miles to have a lower lifetime CO2 than an ICE, or that studies use unfair examples of ICE. So please, enlighten us with your extensive bibliography.Two Turning Two Burning said:
Do you often converse with experts in your field and have to provide references to them? Especially to the very basics of the subject?
Yes. That's how you write a technical paper, you provide references...Perhaps you're a non-technical person in your industry.
As I said: there are not many studies on the subject, and if you haven't read them then you probably shouldn't be commenting on it.
I said "converse". So you provide references when you converse with your colleagues?
tamore said:
Two Turning Two Burning said:
tamore said:
new battery chemistries/architecture will come along to make this a non argument. won't be next year, but certainly within a decade given the level of research being done.
And I believe that Jeebus will come and change all human waste into biofuel which we can use in ICE engines making them far less polluting than EVs. No wait, that's already true...Oh, the whole country having billions stolen from us because we are ruled by corrupt totalitarian fascists and surrounded by unintelligent programmable lemmings? What's the excuse they've told you? Can you even word it out for me?
Two Turning Two Burning said:
No, I assume that anyone making claims about these subjects should have read the relevant material. I will not start digging up and linking anything just for lazy, uninformed people spewing nonsense they made up without having even done any basic research.
As I said: there are not many studies on the subject, and if you haven't read them then you probably shouldn't be commenting on it.
I said "converse". So you provide references when you converse with your colleagues?
Like I said, I've read the relevant materials and what you're stating does not align with those materials. Likely because you've completely made it up. Which seems to be your M.O.As I said: there are not many studies on the subject, and if you haven't read them then you probably shouldn't be commenting on it.
I said "converse". So you provide references when you converse with your colleagues?
And yes, I make references to reports and technical documents in conversation when I'm referencing reports and technical information. That's standard fair.
But that's just confirmed your non-technical background in battery tech.
Two Turning Two Burning said:
What is inevitable and why?
Oh, the whole country having billions stolen from us because we are ruled by corrupt totalitarian fascists and surrounded by unintelligent programmable lemmings? What's the excuse they've told you? Can you even word it out for me?
electrification fed by cleaner energy. why? because that's the direction of travel and rapidly. How? the thinking that burning stuff to move about and generate power has serious issues and there's a better way on the horizon. whether you agree or disagree is immaterial.Oh, the whole country having billions stolen from us because we are ruled by corrupt totalitarian fascists and surrounded by unintelligent programmable lemmings? What's the excuse they've told you? Can you even word it out for me?
and can i 'word it out'? erm..... probably not in a way you'd accept. not exactly a disciple anyway. diesel car, gas heated home, gas aga, own an electrically fired brewery with a diesel delivery van. all of these can and should be powered in a better (cleaner) way than they are currently.
you sound like you could do with a drink and a lie down
tamore said:
electrification fed by cleaner energy. why? because that's the direction of travel and rapidly. How? the thinking that burning stuff to move about and generate power has serious issues and there's a better way on the horizon. whether you agree or disagree is immaterial.
and can i 'word it out'? erm..... probably not in a way you'd accept. not exactly a disciple anyway. diesel car, gas heated home, gas aga, own an electrically fired brewery with a diesel delivery van. all of these can and should be powered in a better (cleaner) way than they are currently.
you sound like you could do with a drink and a lie down
What is cleaner energy than what? and can i 'word it out'? erm..... probably not in a way you'd accept. not exactly a disciple anyway. diesel car, gas heated home, gas aga, own an electrically fired brewery with a diesel delivery van. all of these can and should be powered in a better (cleaner) way than they are currently.
you sound like you could do with a drink and a lie down
What direction of what travel? Don't all cars mainly go forward?
What issues are there with "burning stuff to move about"?? What is a better way? What do you mean by "on the horizon"?
Why do you speak in vague riddles?
Why don't you just wish for biodiesel for your diesel car, instead of making yourself and all of us pay TRILLIONS for a useless EV fascist future (and billions of that to corruption, and also helping China win over the west) that doesn't even reduce emissions?
Two Turning Two Burning said:
What is cleaner energy than what?
What direction of what travel? Don't all cars mainly go forward?
What issues are there with "burning stuff to move about"?? What is a better way? What do you mean by "on the horizon"?
Why do you speak in vague riddles?
Why don't you just wish for biodiesel for your diesel car, instead of making yourself and all of us pay TRILLIONS for a useless EV fascist future (and billions of that to corruption, and also helping China win over the west) that doesn't even reduce emissions?
You like reading, maybe educate yourself on biofuel viability. What direction of what travel? Don't all cars mainly go forward?
What issues are there with "burning stuff to move about"?? What is a better way? What do you mean by "on the horizon"?
Why do you speak in vague riddles?
Why don't you just wish for biodiesel for your diesel car, instead of making yourself and all of us pay TRILLIONS for a useless EV fascist future (and billions of that to corruption, and also helping China win over the west) that doesn't even reduce emissions?
Two Turning Two Burning said:
...and change all human waste into biofuel which we can use in ICE engines making them far less polluting than EVs. No wait, that's already true...
Just to pick up on this point in particular... It doesn't matter the source of fuel you use in an ICE, the fact of the matter is it's always going to be more polluting than an EV because the ICE process itself is fundamentally wasteful of energy. Run it off totally 'clean' hydrogen if you wish, but unfortunately the process of collecting and distributing hydrogen fuel is itself so inefficient compared to simply charging a battery that even an a double what we have today thermally efficient ICE would still lose out overall.Use turds to generate electricity by all means - but it's definitely best overall to leave the turds at the power plant and send the electricity to a cars batteries than it is to try and process the turds so they go directly in to the car.
Grid loss in the UK is 1-2% tops. Battery efficiency is 99%, motor efficiency 90%... Overall an EV is 85-90% efficient compared to an ICE that is at best low 20%'s efficient. The first and obvious thing to do in terms of seeking better efficiency is to sack off the complex ICE with it's many moving parts and bleeding of energy as heat and sound. It's simply no longer the sensible solution - whatever level of s
te you intend to run it on.TheDeuce said:
Two Turning Two Burning said:
...and change all human waste into biofuel which we can use in ICE engines making them far less polluting than EVs. No wait, that's already true...
Just to pick up on this point in particular... It doesn't matter the source of fuel you use in an ICE, the fact of the matter is it's always going to be more polluting than an EV because the ICE process itself is fundamentally wasteful of energy. Run it off totally 'clean' hydrogen if you wish, but unfortunately the process of collecting and distributing hydrogen fuel is itself so inefficient compared to simply charging a battery that even an a double what we have today thermally efficient ICE would still lose out overall.Use turds to generate electricity by all means - but it's definitely best overall to leave the turds at the power plant and send the electricity to a cars batteries than it is to try and process the turds so they go directly in to the car.
Grid loss in the UK is 1-2% tops. Battery efficiency is 99%, motor efficiency 90%... Overall an EV is 85-90% efficient compared to an ICE that is at best low 20%'s efficient. The first and obvious thing to do in terms of seeking better efficiency is to sack off the complex ICE with it's many moving parts and bleeding of energy as heat and sound. It's simply no longer the sensible solution - whatever level of s
te you intend to run it on.
TheDeuce said:
Grid loss in the UK is 1-2% tops. Battery efficiency is 99%, motor efficiency 90%... Overall an EV is 85-90% efficient compared to an ICE that is at best low 20%'s efficient. The first and obvious thing to do in terms of seeking better efficiency is to sack off the complex ICE with it's many moving parts and bleeding of energy as heat and sound. It's simply no longer the sensible solution - whatever level of ste you intend to run it on.
In defence of 2Bvot not 2B, this isn't entirely correct.te you intend to run it on.UK grid losses are nearer 10% when you consider transmission and distribution systems. Charging losses are another circa 10%. Then there's the pre-conditioning energy that's rarely accounted for and the cabin heating during use. Further losses in rapid charging (cooled cables, pre-conditioning packs etc) and parasitic losses over time.
That's not to say they're inefficient by any means, the numbers are just a contentious issue.
Evanivitch said:
TheDeuce said:
Grid loss in the UK is 1-2% tops. Battery efficiency is 99%, motor efficiency 90%... Overall an EV is 85-90% efficient compared to an ICE that is at best low 20%'s efficient. The first and obvious thing to do in terms of seeking better efficiency is to sack off the complex ICE with it's many moving parts and bleeding of energy as heat and sound. It's simply no longer the sensible solution - whatever level of ste you intend to run it on.
In defence of 2Bvot not 2B, this isn't entirely correct.te you intend to run it on.UK grid losses are nearer 10% when you consider transmission and distribution systems. Charging losses are another circa 10%. Then there's the pre-conditioning energy that's rarely accounted for and the cabin heating during use. Further losses in rapid charging (cooled cables, pre-conditioning packs etc) and parasitic losses over time.
That's not to say they're inefficient by any means, the numbers are just a contentious issue.
The same goes for cabin heating and pre-conditioning etc etc. All cars suffer from a cold start one way or another and ancillary losses such as heating/AC. Simpler to just focus in on the core efficiencies imo. I do agree that failing to address and compare all the other numbers that have a very mild impact can lead to contention - but only amongst those that would rather argue a fringe point than accept the overwhelming evidence for electrification - vs bumbling down the road powered by a machine designed to suffer an internal explosion at least 2000 times a minute. Those that want to hang on to the explosion-mobile forevermore, probably won't grasp the full argument however deftly you present it.
Megaflow said:
DickyC said:
Megaflow said:
A question for all of those people that still come up with hypothetical reasons why BEV’s won’t work in the ‘real world’, do you come up with similar reasons why the sun won’t rise tomorrow? Because that is basically what you are arguing against!
Just about every industry that uses ICE, with the possible exception of commerial aviation, is investigating electricity because we just cannot keep on burning fossil fuels. How that electricity makes its way to motor is about the only part under debate.
No one is saying they don't work. The debate here is about whether or not they are the whole one-size-fits-all solution or if, in some applications, battery powered vehicles are not appropriate. I wondered about the armed forces and the emergency services. You said commercial aviation. There may be others for whom electric vehicles are not the 100%, across the board, 'it's electric vehicles or nothing' solution.Just about every industry that uses ICE, with the possible exception of commerial aviation, is investigating electricity because we just cannot keep on burning fossil fuels. How that electricity makes its way to motor is about the only part under debate.
Note in the last paragraph I said just every using using ICE is investigating electricity. Note batteries. That because there are different ways about achieving and electric vehicle and the industry has recognised there isn’t a one size fits all solution.
But, as Max Torque pointed out, BEV’s do suit the military, because they are investing in them already. Even electric planes are being investigated, by they are not likely to scale to commercial aviation.
How come this degenerated to an argument about electricity being bad? Oh well...
I am no EV bigot and I am not an environmentalist. However, I have seen that a focus on localized emissions can and does make a big impact. We should be pushing for cleaner cars that getter better MPG and EV's absolutely have their place. Are EV's the answer to everything? Probably not, but to take strawman arguments about the electricity generation process doesnt make a lot of sense. Yes, a lot of electricity isnt exactly 'clean', but it is improving and a lot of countries are slowly getting better.
But lets put it another way for a second - eating healthily. We all know we should do it and not everyone does. But drawing arguments that people in China dont eat well, or that the USA has an obesity issue means I shouldnt, makes zero sense. Yeah, some people in some places arent going to do the right thing. But I can and should eat better and as a result, I will. Are the products that I eat better? Some are, some not so much, but I am trying. Am I personally going to fix the bad eating issues we have? Nope, but I can try and I can try and convince my kids too. And maybe, just maybe, things might just improve for everyone as a result.
Same for EV's. Never going to push them on anyone - as its not a one-size-fits-everyone model. But, if I can do something, thats great. And if my energy company can continually improve in its breakdown of energy production, then the electricity that I consume gets better too. That has to be something, right?
I am no EV bigot and I am not an environmentalist. However, I have seen that a focus on localized emissions can and does make a big impact. We should be pushing for cleaner cars that getter better MPG and EV's absolutely have their place. Are EV's the answer to everything? Probably not, but to take strawman arguments about the electricity generation process doesnt make a lot of sense. Yes, a lot of electricity isnt exactly 'clean', but it is improving and a lot of countries are slowly getting better.
But lets put it another way for a second - eating healthily. We all know we should do it and not everyone does. But drawing arguments that people in China dont eat well, or that the USA has an obesity issue means I shouldnt, makes zero sense. Yeah, some people in some places arent going to do the right thing. But I can and should eat better and as a result, I will. Are the products that I eat better? Some are, some not so much, but I am trying. Am I personally going to fix the bad eating issues we have? Nope, but I can try and I can try and convince my kids too. And maybe, just maybe, things might just improve for everyone as a result.
Same for EV's. Never going to push them on anyone - as its not a one-size-fits-everyone model. But, if I can do something, thats great. And if my energy company can continually improve in its breakdown of energy production, then the electricity that I consume gets better too. That has to be something, right?
off_again said:
How come this degenerated to an argument about electricity being bad? Oh well...
But lets put it another way for a second - eating healthily. We all know we should do it and not everyone does. But drawing arguments that people in China dont eat well, or that the USA has an obesity issue means I shouldnt, makes zero sense. Yeah, some people in some places arent going to do the right thing. But I can and should eat better and as a result, I will. Are the products that I eat better? Some are, some not so much, but I am trying. Am I personally going to fix the bad eating issues we have? Nope, but I can try and I can try and convince my kids too. And maybe, just maybe, things might just improve for everyone as a result.
That analogy doesn't work at all. Unless you believe that you get fat as a result of what the Americans eat. But lets put it another way for a second - eating healthily. We all know we should do it and not everyone does. But drawing arguments that people in China dont eat well, or that the USA has an obesity issue means I shouldnt, makes zero sense. Yeah, some people in some places arent going to do the right thing. But I can and should eat better and as a result, I will. Are the products that I eat better? Some are, some not so much, but I am trying. Am I personally going to fix the bad eating issues we have? Nope, but I can try and I can try and convince my kids too. And maybe, just maybe, things might just improve for everyone as a result.
Richard-D said:
Megaflow said:
DickyC said:
Megaflow said:
A question for all of those people that still come up with hypothetical reasons why BEV’s won’t work in the ‘real world’, do you come up with similar reasons why the sun won’t rise tomorrow? Because that is basically what you are arguing against!
Just about every industry that uses ICE, with the possible exception of commerial aviation, is investigating electricity because we just cannot keep on burning fossil fuels. How that electricity makes its way to motor is about the only part under debate.
No one is saying they don't work. The debate here is about whether or not they are the whole one-size-fits-all solution or if, in some applications, battery powered vehicles are not appropriate. I wondered about the armed forces and the emergency services. You said commercial aviation. There may be others for whom electric vehicles are not the 100%, across the board, 'it's electric vehicles or nothing' solution.Just about every industry that uses ICE, with the possible exception of commerial aviation, is investigating electricity because we just cannot keep on burning fossil fuels. How that electricity makes its way to motor is about the only part under debate.
Note in the last paragraph I said just every using using ICE is investigating electricity. Note batteries. That because there are different ways about achieving and electric vehicle and the industry has recognised there isn’t a one size fits all solution.
But, as Max Torque pointed out, BEV’s do suit the military, because they are investing in them already. Even electric planes are being investigated, by they are not likely to scale to commercial aviation.
Which brings me neatly back to my original point, all of the EV’s deniers might as well be arguing against the sunrising, because the change has started. You can stress yourselves out fighting it, or embrace it.
ETA: I should also add, the general public are under the impression that the switch to EV is being driven by the worlds government’s, in reality they are just taking credit for what vehicle manufactures were already doing. Pure ICE cars might be banned by 2030, in reality you are going to struggling to by a pure ICE normal car 3 or 4 years before that because the manufactures stopped ICE development in any volume about 3 years ago.
Edited by Megaflow on Friday 4th February 09:14
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff