RE: All good things come to an end in 2035
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
monty quick said:
Heralded as being 'Green' but in fact their carbon footprint is arguably worse than the latest ICE cars.
Only by people who like to loose those arguments because they have just made their own mind up that EV's are no better than ICE's rather than actually look at the numbers and facts behind this claim.The actual data shows that in the UK, a typical EV, driven in a typical manner by a typical driver (lets say a nissan leaf vs a ford focus for example) uses around 2.6 times less energy during it's use. That is the actual fact, and it stems from the advantages of:
1) Not requiring any warming up (ICE run at low efficiency / high consumption when cold, uk ave temp = 12 degC, people drive mostly short distances)
2) Not requiring complex, lossy multispeed gearboxes (ICE loose significant power in their complex transmissions, even more so when cold)
3) Having a truely bi-directional powertrain and hence able to recapture energy held in their mass at speed (in the real world, drivers change speed a lot!)
4) Not having a complex, narrow operating zone where they operate efficiently. (ICE must run in the right gear, at the right speed to be efficient and clean, poor drivers (the average driver) = [high consumption) EVs operate highly efficiently under all conditions
5) Having fewer critical wearing parts ( ICE have a myriad of parts which as they wear, reduce efficiency and increase emissions, EVs work or don't work)
SidewaysSi said:
Max_Torque said:
monty quick said:
Heralded as being 'Green' but in fact their carbon footprint is arguably worse than the latest ICE cars.
Only by people who like to loose those arguments because they have just made their own mind up that EV's are no better than ICE's rather than actually look at the numbers and facts behind this claim.The actual data shows that in the UK, a typical EV, driven in a typical manner by a typical driver (lets say a nissan leaf vs a ford focus for example) uses around 2.6 times less energy during it's use. That is the actual fact, and it stems from the advantages of:
1) Not requiring any warming up (ICE run at low efficiency / high consumption when cold, uk ave temp = 12 degC, people drive mostly short distances)
2) Not requiring complex, lossy multispeed gearboxes (ICE loose significant power in their complex transmissions, even more so when cold)
3) Having a truely bi-directional powertrain and hence able to recapture energy held in their mass at speed (in the real world, drivers change speed a lot!)
4) Not having a complex, narrow operating zone where they operate efficiently. (ICE must run in the right gear, at the right speed to be efficient and clean, poor drivers (the average driver) = [high consumption) EVs operate highly efficiently under all conditions
5) Having fewer critical wearing parts ( ICE have a myriad of parts which as they wear, reduce efficiency and increase emissions, EVs work or don't work)
Wrong again i'm afraid.
EVs are both simpler than ICEs and CRITICALLY highly parallel, in that they use a lot of the same part, both across single vehicles and across platforms.
For example, an engine is a collection of highly complex very different parts. You can't make a spark plug with a crank grind machine, you can't use the material you make a piston out of to make a valve etc etc.
An EV, is scalable, and parallel, meaning your upfront development and production overheads can be amortised across a FAR higher production quantity.
Today, whilst EVs are niche, yes, they have around the same carbon footprint as an comparable ICE, but when production volume parity is met, every study i've seen that matters (the ones done by the OEs and teir1's that actually make these parts) suggest an reduction in around 1/3 in carbon emissions compared to ICEs.
And of course, because EVs are only just being made, the lines they are built on are more modern and much cleaner / greener than the old (age and tech) ICE lines. For example, BMW's "i" line is entirely powered by renewables, and has a far lower workforce (consider the carbon footprint of 1000 car assembly workers driving each day to and from work to put the cars together, compared to a robotised line with just 50 staff for example)
And again, consider the development "costs" (monetary and environmental) that currently go into developing, validating and certifying an ICE vehicle. Take just the On Board Diagnostics task. To sell an ICE, it must meet, and be proven to meet OBD standards for the markets in which it is sold. Just that exercise takes around 500 to 1000 people, 3 years, and costs approx 100 million (for a worldwide product). EVs don't have OBD, because they don't have systems that polute excessively when the fail (no tailpipe emissions) So right there, an EV has am enormous saving in cost and pollution.
And because of the intrinsically modular and scaleable nature of electric machines, the effort to develop the motor and battery can be easily spread across multiple platforms, either by direct scaleing (same motor, but longer (more lams)) or multipes (2 motors in performance vehicle, just 1 motor in the lower powered version). An ICE must be calibrated, validated and certified for EACH AND EVERY MODEL. Yes a Nissan micra and Nissan Juke might use exactly the same 1.6 litre engine, but because they have different masses, gearing and drag, both those models must be individually tested and certified.
The evidence is infact un-deniably in EVs favour right across the board.
Max_Torque said:
SidewaysSi said:
Max_Torque said:
monty quick said:
Heralded as being 'Green' but in fact their carbon footprint is arguably worse than the latest ICE cars.
Only by people who like to loose those arguments because they have just made their own mind up that EV's are no better than ICE's rather than actually look at the numbers and facts behind this claim.The actual data shows that in the UK, a typical EV, driven in a typical manner by a typical driver (lets say a nissan leaf vs a ford focus for example) uses around 2.6 times less energy during it's use. That is the actual fact, and it stems from the advantages of:
1) Not requiring any warming up (ICE run at low efficiency / high consumption when cold, uk ave temp = 12 degC, people drive mostly short distances)
2) Not requiring complex, lossy multispeed gearboxes (ICE loose significant power in their complex transmissions, even more so when cold)
3) Having a truely bi-directional powertrain and hence able to recapture energy held in their mass at speed (in the real world, drivers change speed a lot!)
4) Not having a complex, narrow operating zone where they operate efficiently. (ICE must run in the right gear, at the right speed to be efficient and clean, poor drivers (the average driver) = [high consumption) EVs operate highly efficiently under all conditions
5) Having fewer critical wearing parts ( ICE have a myriad of parts which as they wear, reduce efficiency and increase emissions, EVs work or don't work)
Wrong again i'm afraid.
EVs are both simpler than ICEs and CRITICALLY highly parallel, in that they use a lot of the same part, both across single vehicles and across platforms.
For example, an engine is a collection of highly complex very different parts. You can't make a spark plug with a crank grind machine, you can't use the material you make a piston out of to make a valve etc etc.
An EV, is scalable, and parallel, meaning your upfront development and production overheads can be amortised across a FAR higher production quantity.
Today, whilst EVs are niche, yes, they have around the same carbon footprint as an comparable ICE, but when production volume parity is met, every study i've seen that matters (the ones done by the OEs and teir1's that actually make these parts) suggest an reduction in around 1/3 in carbon emissions compared to ICEs.
And of course, because EVs are only just being made, the lines they are built on are more modern and much cleaner / greener than the old (age and tech) ICE lines. For example, BMW's "i" line is entirely powered by renewables, and has a far lower workforce (consider the carbon footprint of 1000 car assembly workers driving each day to and from work to put the cars together, compared to a robotised line with just 50 staff for example)
And again, consider the development "costs" (monetary and environmental) that currently go into developing, validating and certifying an ICE vehicle. Take just the On Board Diagnostics task. To sell an ICE, it must meet, and be proven to meet OBD standards for the markets in which it is sold. Just that exercise takes around 500 to 1000 people, 3 years, and costs approx 100 million (for a worldwide product). EVs don't have OBD, because they don't have systems that polute excessively when the fail (no tailpipe emissions) So right there, an EV has am enormous saving in cost and pollution.
And because of the intrinsically modular and scaleable nature of electric machines, the effort to develop the motor and battery can be easily spread across multiple platforms, either by direct scaleing (same motor, but longer (more lams)) or multipes (2 motors in performance vehicle, just 1 motor in the lower powered version). An ICE must be calibrated, validated and certified for EACH AND EVERY MODEL. Yes a Nissan micra and Nissan Juke might use exactly the same 1.6 litre engine, but because they have different masses, gearing and drag, both those models must be individually tested and certified.
The evidence is infact un-deniably in EVs favour right across the board.
otolith said:
What they achieved was a shift away from nuclear. You may think that was idiotic and that they should instead have used it to shift away from coal (I do), but that was their political priority.
Yep, that was one part of the energy agenda. What also plays into it is employment in coal and fossil energy generation. They are trying to manage the transition very gradually. Conflict of interest with the renewable sector on one side and "old energy" on the other. They need to step on it a bit, but will need to wait for the next government.Another aspect is the cause of Co2 generation in Germany and especially China. A good amount of the energy used is to fulfil the product demand somewhere else. It's a bit easier for a service industry to limit energy use if the material goods it consumes are made somewhere else. One could say this is another problem of a big trade surplus, but entirely different debate.
Regarding the 2035 date -- personally, I'm really looking forward to EVs, at least as main car. They need to become a bit cheaper, charging needs to be sorted for people in cities but both is doable. Main issue still seems to be the battery tech. Energy density still sucks, expensive to make and some raw materials difficult to source ethically. But it is improving, at least incrementally. And we've seen a couple of true tech breakthroughs in our lifetime. Not totally unlikely there will be a big improvement in the next years.
I'm 43, in 2035 I will be 58. I will take another 15 years beyond 2035 to make running a Petrol car truly inconvenient in the UK, even the greenies acknowledge that it will take 15 years to get rid of most, I'll then be 73. That's the 2050 deadline.
If I get to enjoy petrol cars until I'm 73 that'll do me.
If I get to enjoy petrol cars until I'm 73 that'll do me.
monty quick said:
I have had the luxury of a quiet afternoon and have enjoyed watching the various points of view. You are clearly a strong supporter of the EV. However, this is the first comment that I firmly disagree with. You cannot make and run an electric car without emitting any CO2 - that is like saying perpetual motion is possible. In the manufacturing, operating, decommissioning and recycling of an electric car (and all of its components) there will be huge amounts of CO2 emitted (and of course this is true of any vehicle). The biggest problem for EVs will always be the storage device (battery, super capacitor, whatever). All current technologies are 'dirty' in many senses, including the resultant carbon footprint. My projection of the future was small, low power electric vehicles with direct charging via photoelectric cells - these would not directly emit any CO2 but they would still have a fairly dirty carbon footprint.
In practice we produce very little without emissions, because fossil fuels are so baked into our economies - but in principle we could run all of the production processes on renewable energy. We could in principle produce an EV with no CO2 emissions in use or in manufacture. Obviously a car which burns fossil fuels in use can’t do that in principle, let alone practice. 
Politicians don't understand the science, never did and never will. It is why we had dieselgate. It is why we abandoned nuclear power and now have to ask the French and Chinese for help. Politicians are useless and why companies like Apple, Sky and Drax are now all setting their own targets. It is why we exploited North Sea Oil and Gas, and why the majority of homes are heated by gas.
We humans don't like change. Carrying on as we are clearly will not end nicely, but going electric?
Gas is 2.87p/kWh whereas electricity is 13.6p/kWh!! Almost five times as much and is that price really going to come down?! That said the oil reserves are finite and we will run out within our lifetimes anyway.
Banning internal combustion rules out hydrogen powered cars.
Not banning diesel lorries, vans and buses means the air will still be polluted.
Making everyone go electric needs batteries that will last how long before they are scrap?
So human kind rapes the earth again for lithium.
Why did they not put CO2 scrubbers on all the power plants?
Why are we in the UK building CO2 scrubbing factories?
If the Chinese can build a 1,000 bed hospital in a fortnight why can't they build some?
We humans don't like change. Carrying on as we are clearly will not end nicely, but going electric?
Gas is 2.87p/kWh whereas electricity is 13.6p/kWh!! Almost five times as much and is that price really going to come down?! That said the oil reserves are finite and we will run out within our lifetimes anyway.
Banning internal combustion rules out hydrogen powered cars.
Not banning diesel lorries, vans and buses means the air will still be polluted.
Making everyone go electric needs batteries that will last how long before they are scrap?
So human kind rapes the earth again for lithium.
Why did they not put CO2 scrubbers on all the power plants?
Why are we in the UK building CO2 scrubbing factories?
If the Chinese can build a 1,000 bed hospital in a fortnight why can't they build some?
robi4387 said:
Why did they not put CO2 scrubbers on all the power plants?
Why are we in the UK building CO2 scrubbing factories?
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/19/carbon-captur...Why are we in the UK building CO2 scrubbing factories?
otolith said:
...We could in principle produce an EV with no CO2 emissions in use or in manufacture...
Love to know how you're going to produce steel without emitting any CO2 but we digress. If it's possible to produce an EV without CO2 emissions then it's easier to produce an ICE without any too; at present cars 'cost' between 10 and 30 tonnes of CO2 to produce (from compact to SUV); an equivalent size EV costs about 15% more to produce than ICE. To put that in context the average size car over an average life emits about 20 tonnes. One of my neighbours has both a Tesla S and an X and very nice they are too... unfortunately we live on a small island and get all our power from diesel generators! 
Point is, the total lifetime CO2 footprint of ICE vs. EV is not as clear cut as is often presented; like for like EV's have a lower carbon footprint but not by so much that a small ICE isn't better than a big EV.Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 6th February 02:25
Max_Torque said:
So you think an EV makes more pollution to manufacture?
Wrong again i'm afraid.
...
Whilst I appreciate your knowledge of the subject I haven't read any research that agrees with you on this point.Wrong again i'm afraid.
...
"Under the average U.S. electricity grid mix, we found that producing a midsize, midrange (84 miles per charge) BEV typically adds a little over 1 ton of emissions to the total manufacturing emissions, resulting in 15 percent greater emissions than in manufacturing a similar gasoline vehicle." Further... ''A full-size long-range (265 miles per charge) BEV, with its larger battery, adds about six tons of emissions, which increases manufacturing emissions by 68 percent over the gasoline version."
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/...
Max_Torque said:
So you think an EV makes more pollution to manufacture?
Wrong again i'm afraid.
The evidence is infact un-deniably in EVs favour right across the board.
At least I do not have to argue with you on this - because I know I am correct. However, I am happy to look at the evidence you are basing your confidence on Wrong again i'm afraid.
The evidence is infact un-deniably in EVs favour right across the board.
robi4387 said:
Politicians don't understand the science, never did and never will.
Banning internal combustion rules out hydrogen powered cars.
It seems like you are the one who doesn't understand science. You really should have done a quick Google to find out what a hydrogen fuel cell is before posting rubbish. Banning internal combustion rules out hydrogen powered cars.
dvs_dave said:
Yes yes yes, but what about all the cobalt mines for all the batteries that can’t be recycled, and the coal fired power stations providing all the electricity!?
You do know cobalt is used in petroleum manufacture too? and it can only be used once?Obviously batteries are more but this includes all the batteries, not just EV.
For complete fairness:
fblm said:
otolith said:
...We could in principle produce an EV with no CO2 emissions in use or in manufacture...
Love to know how you're going to produce steel without emitting any CO2 but we digress.fblm said:
If it's possible to produce an EV without CO2 emissions then it's easier to produce an ICE without any too
Yes, in principle you can decarbonise manufacturing for either. What you can’t decarbonise is driving round a car burning fossil fuels.fblm said:
like for like EV's have a lower carbon footprint but not by so much that a small ICE isn't better than a big EV.
And rail isn’t better than flying if you compare flying London to Bristol with the trans-Siberian express. If you don’t compare like for like, at a system level, you’re lost. If you are talking about feeling holier than thou, it’s a valid consideration but people have been buying bigger, more powerful cars than they need forever. That’s hard to change.monty quick said:
Max_Torque said:
So you think an EV makes more pollution to manufacture?
Wrong again i'm afraid.
The evidence is infact un-deniably in EVs favour right across the board.
At least I do not have to argue with you on this - because I know I am correct. However, I am happy to look at the evidence you are basing your confidence on Wrong again i'm afraid.
The evidence is infact un-deniably in EVs favour right across the board.
Edited by rick.e on Thursday 6th February 08:45
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff