Would you wait 45 minutes when filling up to get it free?

[DoubleD]

InitialDave said:

thegreenhell said:

DoubleD said:

PixelpeepS3 said:

Results so far:

Apart from liking cheap fuel every now and then what does this actually prove?

That fewer than 300 people care enough to be bothered to vote?

Also I think a lot of people need the third option of "most of the time, yes, but that's going to be inconvenient sometimes"

And another option of do you want an EV, as that is what he is trying to prove with this poll.

[Jinx]

otolith said:

What do you have in mind?

Current Euro VI ICE vehicles provide clean enough transportation with an existing infrastructure that does not require replacing anytime soon. Commercial vehicles are unsuited to EV and will remain diesel powered for the foreseeable future also using the same infrastructure. Each EV substitute (though frequently only a "second car") reduces the efficiency of the current infrastructure and requires additional infrastructure to support it.
The environmental benefits of EV are over egged and don't take into account the power generation mix, the resources argument nor the disruption elements. There is a time and place - now seems rather premature to be "plugging" them quite so much.

[crofty1984]

kambites said:

Absolutely.

I generally fill up at Asda and the usual weekly shop takes about 45 minutes so it'd make absolutely no practical difference. Even if I had to hang around the car, we generally go to the supermarket together so the wife could go shopping while I waited or vice versa (sitting in the car is arguably preferable to wondering around Asda).

So is sticking pins in your bell end.

[InitialDave]

The primary benefit in emissions terms isn't that there aren't any, with them just being displaced to a power station. It's that it gets the emissions out the built up area. So for the same nominally emissions, it is probably a bit nicer for more people, in the area most problematic for it.

[Mr2Mike]

FiF said:

I don't think less than 9k for a top spec 63 plate Leaf Tekna is a rather high entry fee tbh.

I was really thinking about cars that the average PHer would enjoy rather than an amorphous blob on wheels. You can pick up some truly great ICE cars for £9k. However that is an impressive level of deprecation unless you happen to own one. Does the 9k include the battery or do you have to lease it?

[otolith]

Jinx said:

otolith said:

What do you have in mind?

Current Euro VI ICE vehicles provide clean enough transportation with an existing infrastructure that does not require replacing anytime soon. Commercial vehicles are unsuited to EV and will remain diesel powered for the foreseeable future also using the same infrastructure. Each EV substitute (though frequently only a "second car") reduces the efficiency of the current infrastructure and requires additional infrastructure to support it.
The environmental benefits of EV are over egged and don't take into account the power generation mix, the resources argument nor the disruption elements. There is a time and place - now seems rather premature to be "plugging" them quite so much.

Ah, OK. I wondered if you were coming at it from the "Climate change is a fraud and urban air quality doesn't do any harm" angle.

Euro6 diesel in-service emissions of NOx are better than Euro5 but still considerably in excess of NEDC test levels - they're about what Euro4 should have achieved but didn't.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/in-service-emissions-per...

When you say "Each EV substitute (though frequently only a "second car") reduces the efficiency of the current infrastructure and requires additional infrastructure to support it", which infrastructure are you talking about, and how are you considering efficiency?

[Dempsey1971]

InitialDave said:

The primary benefit in emissions terms isn't that there aren't any, with them just being displaced to a power station. It's that it gets the emissions out the built up area. So for the same nominally emissions, it is probably a bit nicer for more people, in the area most problematic for it.

Indeed. There is not a huge amount of control over the emissions of cars / lorries, only a single yearly MOT test after year 3. It may be Euro 4/5/6/x compliant at manufacture, but who knows after that. Any attempt to clamp down too much on emissions causes generally negative political repercussions, so there is no great push for it. We all know that generating electricity causes emissions, but this is centralised to a few locations, and with some political will and engineering skill, these emissions could also be greatly reduced without jeopardising the political futures of those lawmakers voting for it. It may end up costing the consumer in higher bills, but this is an arms length problem, and because it is spread across the whole population, less volatile.

All whilst actually making the air we breath better quality.

[Jinx]

otolith said:

Ah, OK. I wondered if you were coming at it from the "Climate change is a fraud and urban air quality doesn't do any harm" angle.

Euro6 diesel in-service emissions of NOx are better than Euro5 but still considerably in excess of NEDC test levels - they're about what Euro4 should have achieved but didn't.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/in-service-emissions-per...

When you say "Each EV substitute (though frequently only a "second car") reduces the efficiency of the current infrastructure and requires additional infrastructure to support it", which infrastructure are you talking about, and how are you considering efficiency?

The ratio of the useful work (number of users) to the total energy expended (in construction, supply and maintenance of fuel stations and network) . As number of users goes down this ratio drops (the slight dip in supply energy -fuel - doesn't offset the user reduction).

[FiF]

Mr2Mike said:

FiF said:

I don't think less than 9k for a top spec 63 plate Leaf Tekna is a rather high entry fee tbh.

I was really thinking about cars that the average PHer would enjoy rather than an amorphous blob on wheels. You can pick up some truly great ICE cars for £9k. However that is an impressive level of deprecation unless you happen to own one. Does the 9k include the battery or do you have to lease it?

See what you did there, possibly accidentally, ho hum.

But agree it's a massive amount of depreciation, even for a blob on wheels, including the battery, and there are rather a lot of ICE blobs on wheels too I'd say.

Introducing the extra indefinable parameter of something the average PH'er might enjoy tilts the playing field to a level that imo excludes all EVs. People report the amusement factor of eg the Tesla acceleration, that would pall very quickly in my view, seeing as all reports seem to indicate they are very dead pan in the bendy bits.

Equally there are some PHers who own quite interesting transport who also enjoy an EV when the purpose of that journey is simply to get to the other end with as little effort as possible, for example a city bound commute.

To combine the fun, acceleration and commute issues, sometimes see a guy who commutes in his Maserati into Worcester, wonderful noise etc etc, but frankly his fairly generous throttle openings as he accelerates through hordes of milling pedestrians outside Foregate Street station rather marks him out. That's quite an expensive entry fee with fair old depreciation into the being a bit of a dick subset. Sorry if disapproval means handing in PH card, but if that's behaviour an average member should applaud then not in my name.

[anonymous-user]

InitialDave said:

The primary benefit in emissions terms isn't that there aren't any

Absolute hogwash.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th September 15:26

[GT119]

InitialDave said:

The primary benefit in emissions terms isn't that there aren't any, with them just being displaced to a power station. It's that it gets the emissions out the built up area. So for the same nominally emissions, it is probably a bit nicer for more people, in the area most problematic for it.

This is oversimplifed, especially at a national level.
Noxious emissions from power stations are very different from diesels in particular (per unit of fuel burnt) and skewed further by renewable/nuclear contributions.
On the other GG EV thread I highlighted that there is an established estimate (but not universally agreed) for the electrical consumption required to refine petrol and diesel at the refinery, which means the additional electrical power required may actually only be about half what you are thinking it is, if all of the electricity that would have been used in the refining of these fuels is redeployed (either directly or indirectly) for EV charging.
The caveat here is that the demand for crude is driven by diesel and petrol and not the other fractions, which is a point for discussion.
However, on the basis that there is a reduced level of refining, for every million EVs that replace ICEVs, CO2 production will reduce by nearly 1 million tonnes per year. That would also bring a corresponding further eduction in noxious emissions.
And then there is the import of refined fuels and electricity to add into the equation.
If most of the displaced fuel was imported in the first place then the benefit of the electrical savings from reduced refining won't be seen locally, but on the flip side, any EV charging that is provided by imported electrical power will not increase emissions locally either.

Edited by GT119 on Tuesday 19th September 15:25

[InitialDave]

Max_Torque said:

InitialDave said:

The primary benefit in emissions terms isn't that there aren't any

Absolute hogwash.

So you believe that EVs are completely free of emissions, then?

EVs effectively displace emissions to the point of power generation rather than point of vehicle use. I don't think that is a controversial statement.

GT119 said:

This is oversimplifed, especially at a national level.
Noxious emissions from power stations are very different from diesels in particular (per unit of fuel burnt)and skewed further by renewable/nuclear contributions.

I agree it's over simplified. My point was simply that a street full of EVs means people in that street breathing cleaner air.

Edited by InitialDave on Tuesday 19th September 15:33

[otolith]

Jinx said:

otolith said:

When you say "Each EV substitute (though frequently only a "second car") reduces the efficiency of the current infrastructure and requires additional infrastructure to support it", which infrastructure are you talking about, and how are you considering efficiency?

The ratio of the useful work (number of users) to the total energy expended (in construction, supply and maintenance of fuel stations and network) . As number of users goes down this ratio drops (the slight dip in supply energy -fuel - doesn't offset the user reduction).

The sunk costs there are sunk - the costs of expanding provision for EVs are yet to be realised, but they don't look particularly onerous in comparison. The maintenance will surely contract as the demand shrinks and stations close, I would have thought.

[Efbe]

InitialDave said:

Max_Torque said:

InitialDave said:

The primary benefit in emissions terms isn't that there aren't any

Absolute hogwash.

So you believe that EVs are completely free of emissions, then?

EVs effectively displace emissions to the point of power generation rather than point of vehicle use. I don't think that is a controversial statement.

GT119 said:

This is oversimplifed, especially at a national level.
Noxious emissions from power stations are very different from diesels in particular (per unit of fuel burnt)and skewed further by renewable/nuclear contributions.

I agree it's over simplified. My point was simply that a street full of EVs means people in that street breathing cleaner air.

Edited by InitialDave on Tuesday 19th September 15:33

unless of course you have a different way of generating the electricity.

[thegreenhell]

Efbe said:

unless of course you have a different way of generating the electricity.

EVs should have a little wind turbine mounted on the roof to generate electricity as they drive along. Perpetual motion - I just invented it

[GT119]

thegreenhell said:

Efbe said:

unless of course you have a different way of generating the electricity.

EVs should have a little wind turbine mounted on the roof to generate electricity as they drive along. Perpetual motion - I just invented it

Add a solar panel to the roof and you might even exceed unity.
Problem is that's how black holes start and you might end up swallowing the whole planet.

[InitialDave]

Efbe said:

unless of course you have a different way of generating the electricity.

I'd say emission free methods are still a low enough part of our power generation that it'd be a bit disingenuous to claim them as making EVs an emissions free option.

[anonymous-user]

InitialDave said:

So you believe that EVs are completely free of emissions, then?

Of course not.

InitialDave said:

EVs effectively displace emissions to the point of power generation rather than point of vehicle use. I don't think that is a controversial statement.

There is some very clear ground between being "completely emissions free" and "EVs only displace emissions to elsewhere" which is the bit that is b*ll*cks!

[InitialDave]

I don't understand your point.

If take my Zoe out, I'm not producing emissions from the car, but a power plant somewhere is.

If I take one of my other cars, the emissions are coming out the exhaust.

I assume people around me in a built up area benefit more from the former scenario.

Edit: are you getting hung up on the idea that the emissions from the power plant are the same kind of emissions as from a car? That's not what I'm saying.

Edited by InitialDave on Tuesday 19th September 16:15

[anonymous-user]

InitialDave said:

If take my Zoe out, I'm not producing emissions from the car, but a power plant somewhere is.

If I take one of my other cars, the emissions are coming out the exhaust.

Correct.

However, consider the amount of energy each of those cars use.

Lets say you do the same journey in each car.

Both times you "start" at say 12degC, you drive for 30 miles, at an average speed of, 35mph.

Which car uses more energy?


The answer, is that your Zoe is a significantly lower consumer of energy than your ICE. It doesn't need to warm up, it has tiny parasitic losses in it's motor and 'transmission', it's on eco tyres, it's probably more aero dynamic, and critically, it has regen braking.

In fact, you'll find that iof we consider the car, a comparable EV uses around 3.5 to 4 times less energy than a similar (size, performance/mass) ICE.


Consider a VW golf diesel vs an i3 (similar size, similar performance (i3 is actually quicker)) driven over the NEDC cycle (best case for an ICE, being a nice warm 25degC start, and having a very gentle road load profile).

The Golf returns 109 g/km and 59mpg, so over that 11.023Km drive cycle the Golf uses 18.89 MJ of energy

The i3, which does 12.6 kWh/100km over the same cycle uses just 5.0 MJ of energy


That's 3.8 times less energy to drive exactly the same distance and speed


So even if we only charged our EV from a coal fired power station that had the same thermal efficiency as your ICEthen the tailpipe (chimney) emissions from that powerstation are enormously lower than the local emissions from the tailpipe of an ICE, even including the 7% electrical transmission loses and around 3% battery charging losses. (And we haven't accounted for the emissions produced actually getting the fuel into the fuel tank of your ICE)


But, even old tech coal fired powerstations are more efficient (by large margins due to thermodynamic scaling (surface area to volume) effects and large scale heat recuperation (waste heat pre-warms inlet air etc))) than ICE in passenger cars, especially passenger cars driven under variable, non ideal conditions.

Finally, in reality, our Grid is no longer just coal based. Today, low carbon generation assets (wind, solar, nuclear) are contributing something like 25% of our total yearly load (and peaking at up to 50% for short periods). And whilst those assets are not "zero carbon" compared to classical sources they are decades lower in terms of emission per kWhr.