RE: The best used electric cars to buy right now

RE: The best used electric cars to buy right now

Author
Discussion

Charlie_1

1,004 posts

91 months

Thursday 4th August 2022
quotequote all
Twinair said:
Charlie, Missy, Nik, Macc - well done for sticking with all the opinionated, greensplaining that you have admirably navigated for near 17 pages here…

These things are not the ‘messiah’ - they are just very naughty BEV’s…

If you want a BEV - good for you, but keep your holier than thou - virtue signalling guff in your own energy converter, who knows you may be able to generate enough watts to power up your dashpad…

Let’s not wait for 17 pages on the next one before calling it out.
Thanks if anything this debate has rather proved that for self claimed intelligent people the EVboys dont seem to be able to cope with a opinion different to theirs , amusing really


Edited by Charlie_1 on Thursday 4th August 22:14


Edited by Charlie_1 on Thursday 4th August 22:15

D4rez

1,302 posts

55 months

Thursday 4th August 2022
quotequote all
Missy Charm said:
Nik Gnashers said:
In your obsession to score points, you have 'moved the goal posts' .
My post was about the electricity consumed while charging an EV, not the running costs spread out over time.


It's a very interesting discussion, and I have been reading the posts and enjoying the discussion.

The recent wind generator fire near Hull is a great example of why EV's and this almost blind obsession with net zero power is unsustainable and in fact a lie.
"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." - Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift

The reason the blades of this wind turbine caught fire, was that they are essentially made of plastic. They are fibreglass, ie strands of glass coated in plastic. They have a lifespan of about 20 years (if they dont catch fire), Each turbine has 3 blades weighing 12 tonnes each, they cannot be recycled as the plastic and glass are mixed/melted together, When they are decommissioned, the only method of disposal is to bury them.
If we never built any more from this point in time, in 20 years we will have 11,000 buried turbine blades, that is 396,000 tonnes of plastic which will never decompose, not even in 1000's of years.
What about the concrete foundations ? There is no way to dispose of them.
Every cubic metre of concrete foundation has 100KG of steel embedded inside them, which is now useless.
Does anyone think the mining of all those minerals needed for these 1000's of tones of now useless concrete is any kinder to the environment than coal mining or drilling for oil for example.
Where are those mines I wonder .......
This is a looming environmental disaster. All driven by a blind obsession to produce electricity in a 'green' way, yet electricity bills are soaring and will continue to soar every year.

The exact same philosophy can be applied to EV's, mining all of the unsustainable minerals and metals to produce the batteries.

I think most 'opinion' on EV's and green energy is driven by brainwashed media and emotion, and not really based on anything factual.
And surely we've got to think about the fact that electric cars don't actually produce their own power. All they are, really, are slave units to an external power source, whatever that may be. Siting the power source externally is, for all sorts of reasons, less efficient than making it integral to the vehicle; Kingdom-Brunel's pneumatic railway was an early example.
Surely we have to think about that. Of course. Damn, all those clever people missed that one.

So you’re telling me that drilling for oil, getting it to a refinery, turning it into liquid fuel, transporting it to petrol stations where it gets put into cars and converted to energy at max 20-30% efficiency is less efficient than transmitting power through the grid and using it in an electric car? At 10% transmission loss and then 80-90% conversion efficiency to power at the wheels?

P.S. both a fuel tank and a battery pack store energy and are integral to the vehicle. Both take an energy source externally, store it on board and then convert it to motion in the car. Fancy that…

ZX10R NIN

27,491 posts

124 months

Thursday 4th August 2022
quotequote all
D4rez said:
Surely we have to think about that. Of course. Damn, all those clever people missed that one.

So you’re telling me that drilling for oil, getting it to a refinery, turning it into liquid fuel, transporting it to petrol stations where it gets put into cars and converted to energy at max 20-30% efficiency is less efficient than transmitting power through the grid and using it in an electric car? At 10% transmission loss and then 80-90% conversion efficiency to power at the wheels?

P.S. both a fuel tank and a battery pack store energy and are integral to the vehicle. Both take an energy source externally, store it on board and then convert it to motion in the car. Fancy that…
Both points are correct neither are particulary "green" but both have a place with neither being an out right winner.

Volvo has already stated that you need to drive it's EV C40 for 4-9 years (depending on where the electricity is sourced from) before it offsets the extra carbon footprint that it costs to make the C40 EV over a petrol XC40.

I'm not against EV's but them being the planets saviour is a load of bs.

While people will come on here & say about what's going to happen in the future, what's happening right now is that EV's aren't green, they're better for street emissions of that there is no doubt but so is (again not that efficient to produce at the moment) hydrogen/hydrogen fuel cells/synthetic fuels..



GT9

6,347 posts

171 months

Thursday 4th August 2022
quotequote all
ZX10R NIN said:
Volvo has already stated that you need to drive it's EV C40 for 4-9 years (depending on where the electricity is sourced from) before it offsets the extra carbon footprint that it costs to make the C40 EV over a petrol XC40.
I would recommend reading the whole thread to get a more informed view on this particular point.

The Volvo study is specific to one car, I've already linked to a far more comprehensive and more recent study by Ricardo Engineering, specific to the UK, commissioned by the UK government.

Here it is again: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

This study also (correctly) compares lifetime footprint, NOT breakeven point.

Breakeven tells you when two line cross but does not tell you about the comparative totals over the entire life, which is what actually matters.

Then there is the question of timeline. The Volvo study was a snapshot in time, The Ricardo study looks at 2020, 2030 and 2050, showing how much the situation is likely to improve over time.

I would also point out that the same study that Volvo did was undertaken by other manufacturers as well, such a BMW and Mercedes, with better results for their EVs than Volvo reached.

D4rez

1,302 posts

55 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
ZX10R NIN said:
D4rez said:
Surely we have to think about that. Of course. Damn, all those clever people missed that one.

So you’re telling me that drilling for oil, getting it to a refinery, turning it into liquid fuel, transporting it to petrol stations where it gets put into cars and converted to energy at max 20-30% efficiency is less efficient than transmitting power through the grid and using it in an electric car? At 10% transmission loss and then 80-90% conversion efficiency to power at the wheels?

P.S. both a fuel tank and a battery pack store energy and are integral to the vehicle. Both take an energy source externally, store it on board and then convert it to motion in the car. Fancy that…
Both points are correct neither are particulary "green" but both have a place with neither being an out right winner.

Volvo has already stated that you need to drive it's EV C40 for 4-9 years (depending on where the electricity is sourced from) before it offsets the extra carbon footprint that it costs to make the C40 EV over a petrol XC40.

I'm not against EV's but them being the planets saviour is a load of bs.

While people will come on here & say about what's going to happen in the future, what's happening right now is that EV's aren't green, they're better for street emissions of that there is no doubt but so is (again not that efficient to produce at the moment) hydrogen/hydrogen fuel cells/synthetic fuels..
That's not correct, as posted above - it's just one manufacturer. Other independent studies from universities and other OEMs have found they are 70% better than an equivalent ICE (Model 3 vs C220d for example is 68% better lifetime) today. I understand where you're coming from but it's not factually accurate - especially not the street emissions - hydrogen and particularly synthetic fuels are as bad as conventional fuel. No difference in exhaust content.

They are not planet savers on their own but across multiple countries commited to the switch and seen as part of all of the many, many other de-carbonisation activities happening right now, they are part of the solution

Drl22

764 posts

64 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
ZX10R NIN said:
Both points are correct neither are particulary "green" but both have a place with neither being an out right winner.

Volvo has already stated that you need to drive it's EV C40 for 4-9 years (depending on where the electricity is sourced from) before it offsets the extra carbon footprint that it costs to make the C40 EV over a petrol XC40.

I'm not against EV's but them being the planets saviour is a load of bs.

While people will come on here & say about what's going to happen in the future, what's happening right now is that EV's aren't green, they're better for street emissions of that there is no doubt but so is (again not that efficient to produce at the moment) hydrogen/hydrogen fuel cells/synthetic fuels..
That last bit is the key in my opinion. If they are greener on the street then surely it means it makes localised air that we breathe cleaner and healthier, obviously not around the power stations pumping out the emissions to generate the extra power for charging but electric cars will make your average high street a safer place to breathe this is another important factor to consider.

Bryans69

248 posts

131 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
Drl22 said:
ZX10R NIN said:
Both points are correct neither are particulary "green" but both have a place with neither being an out right winner.

Volvo has already stated that you need to drive it's EV C40 for 4-9 years (depending on where the electricity is sourced from) before it offsets the extra carbon footprint that it costs to make the C40 EV over a petrol XC40.

I'm not against EV's but them being the planets saviour is a load of bs.

While people will come on here & say about what's going to happen in the future, what's happening right now is that EV's aren't green, they're better for street emissions of that there is no doubt but so is (again not that efficient to produce at the moment) hydrogen/hydrogen fuel cells/synthetic fuels..
That last bit is the key in my opinion. If they are greener on the street then surely it means it makes localised air that we breathe cleaner and healthier, obviously not around the power stations pumping out the emissions to generate the extra power for charging but electric cars will make your average high street a safer place to breathe this is another important factor to consider.
Yes. That's a point I've been trying to make in several posts. EV's are better for the planet, but only a small contribution, and only with much wider adoption. But they do make a significant difference to the local environment

Charlie_1

1,004 posts

91 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
D4rez said:
That's not correct, as posted above - it's just one manufacturer. Other independent studies from universities and other OEMs have found they are 70% better than an equivalent ICE (Model 3 vs C220d for example is 68% better lifetime) today. I understand where you're coming from but it's not factually accurate - especially not the street emissions - hydrogen and particularly synthetic fuels are as bad as conventional fuel. No difference in exhaust content.

They are not planet savers on their own but across multiple countries commited to the switch and seen as part of all of the many, many other de-carbonisation activities happening right now, they are part of the solution
umm on Hydrogen from a US gov website , there are others , and you want me to accept your EV 'facts' lol

About half of the U.S. population lives in areas where air pollution levels are high enough to negatively impact public health and the environment. Emissions from gasoline and diesel vehicles—such as nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter—are a major source of this pollution. Hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles emit none of these harmful substances—only water (H2O) and warm air.



Edited by Charlie_1 on Friday 5th August 09:21

ajap1979

7,899 posts

186 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
bennytheball said:
Nik Gnashers said:
The recent wind generator fire near Hull is a great example of why EV's and this almost blind obsession with net zero power is unsustainable and in fact a lie.
"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." - Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift

I think most 'opinion' on EV's and green energy is driven by brainwashed media and emotion, and not really based on anything factual.
I think it's you that's the victim of brainwashing and emotion. Here's what was actually said, written by David Hughs, in a book edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon:

“The concept of net energy must also be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.”

Mr Homer-Dixon said about the misquote you used that "It’s worth noting that it would be pointless to put wind turbines in poor locations, and it’s trivial, or meaningless, to say that a turbine would never pay back its embedded energy in a poor location. So, 1) I didn’t write the text, 2) the text itself is selectively quoted, and 3) the argument it makes, taken in isolation, is meaningless. Three strikes."

Can you spot the difference? Can you see how someone selectively quoted him to try and make a point that isn't true? Can you see how you've been duped?
laugh Oh dear

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
Nik Gnashers said:
The recent wind generator fire near Hull is a great example of why EV's and this almost blind obsession with net zero power is unsustainable and in fact a lie.
"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." - Thomas Homer-Dixon, Carbon Shift
False quote. Deliberate misinformation aka lies.

Nik Gnashers said:
The reason the blades of this wind turbine caught fire, was that they are essentially made of plastic. They are fibreglass, ie strands of glass coated in plastic. They have a lifespan of about 20 years (if they dont catch fire),
FGRP is widely used in industry. It's not the reason something catches fire.

Poor attempt at a lie.

Nik Gnashers said:
Each turbine has 3 blades weighing 12 tonnes each, they cannot be recycled as the plastic and glass are mixed/melted together, When they are decommissioned, the only method of disposal is to bury them.
Again, false information. There's plenty of opportunity to reuse old fibre glass. Yes, you won't return to the constituent parts, but through pyrolysis (increasingly used at industrial scale) you can extract gas, polymers and ash-like materials that can be combusted, reprocessed into polymers or used as bulking agents in construction.

So another lie.

Nik Gnashers said:
What about the concrete foundations ? There is no way to dispose of them.
Every cubic metre of concrete foundation has 100KG of steel embedded inside them, which is now useless.
Does anyone think the mining of all those minerals needed for these 1000's of tones of now useless concrete is any kinder to the environment than coal mining or drilling for oil for example.
Why assume the foundation is life limited?

GT9

6,347 posts

171 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
Drl22 said:
That last bit is the key in my opinion. If they are greener on the street then surely it means it makes localised air that we breathe cleaner and healthier, obviously not around the power stations pumping out the emissions to generate the extra power for charging but electric cars will make your average high street a safer place to breathe this is another important factor to consider.
I think what you are trying to say is that EVs move emissions from urban areas to power stations.

There is some truth in that statement, but as always, it's far more nuanced.

Just considering carbon dioxide first, this has been covered so many time already in this thread, and whilst I appreciate that this thread takes a long time to read, there were several 'killer revelations' posted yesterday that have already been debunked.

Power stations in the UK that burn natural gas to produce electricity can achieve up to 60% thermal efficiency. This is much higher than the average efficiency that an engine in a car can achieve over a typical usage pattern. By a factor of 2 or more.

You also need to consider that the upstream energy consumption (and there carbon production) of refining and producing liquid fuels for cars is significantly higher than what is required to get natural gas to a power station.

Additional things that need to be factored in:
Losses between power station and EV battery
Losses in EV drivetrain and energy recovery by regenerative braking
Losses in ICE transmission and drivetrain
Relative carbon footprint of the production phase between an EV and an ICE

Factor all of those things in and you will find that even if ALL electricity to charge EVs was generated from natural gas, the lifetime carbon footprint between the two would generally be lower for the EV.

The fact that half of our electricity is already renewably sourced means that the lifetime carbon footprint of a UK EV in 2020 is at least half that of an ICE.

What about other harmful emissions?
Again, because the EV pathway consumes far less fuel per mile than the ICE, and the nature of the fuel and the combustion process is very different at a power station, the production of NOx and particulates is orders of magnitude lower per mile than what comes out the back of a car.
Particularly so if it's a diesel.

Yes, you move the emissions, BUT you also massively reduce them.

J4CKO

41,284 posts

199 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
My wife had her first EV experience yesterday, her friend picked her up for a coffee, I was working and they arrived back a couple of hours later and all I could hear from outside was Mexican horns, farts, goat noises and the like as she went through the full list of horn sounds on her new Tesla model 3, I knew what it was before i saw it.

Anyway, my wife seemed pretty impressed with the car, the interior design, the smoothness but less impressed by the acceleration which made her feel sick, even worse than my car as there is no blaring exhaust to forewarn you, just rapidly gathering momentum and your stomach getting left behind. I think she would like one next, she best get saving up !

Model 3's are everywhere now, from scarcity a couple of years back they are like Mondeos used to be in terms of frequency of seeing them, do they just work out cheaper than say a 3 series or similar ? Or is it the novelty, running costs that convert folk ?

Taycans as well, for an 80 grand plus motor, lot of them around, 2 on our road alone, of 22 houses, one narrowly avoided getting flattened by several tonnes of tree that fell off on Tuesday evening but the owner had managed to clear the stuff off his driveway so could park on it, if he left it a day it would have been a goner, almost like the poor Dominos girl delivering a Pizza, who just managed to get away save for a whack with a smaller branch, her car then completely blocked in at the end of the cul de sac until the following morning.

Jex

837 posts

127 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
I am sure many of us have a foot in each camp. I have a BEV two 4 cylinder ICE cars, one a modern COD turbo, one a 60s twin-cam, two V8s and a V12. Which do I drive most? The BEV. Local trips so no range anxiety. One of the motivations for buying it was the imposition of zero emission zones in parts of London and the concern they might appear near me. With a BEV I could still get elderly parents into or through those zones. Is it green? I think so, but having solar panels as well I am confident that it is (well I need somehow to offset the other cars!).

ashenfie

704 posts

45 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
My wife had her first EV experience yesterday, her friend picked her up for a coffee, I was working and they arrived back a couple of hours later and all I could hear from outside was Mexican horns, farts, goat noises and the like as she went through the full list of horn sounds on her new Tesla model 3, I knew what it was before i saw it.

Anyway, my wife seemed pretty impressed with the car, the interior design, the smoothness but less impressed by the acceleration which made her feel sick, even worse than my car as there is no blaring exhaust to forewarn you, just rapidly gathering momentum and your stomach getting left behind. I think she would like one next, she best get saving up !

Model 3's are everywhere now, from scarcity a couple of years back they are like Mondeos used to be in terms of frequency of seeing them, do they just work out cheaper than say a 3 series or similar ? Or is it the novelty, running costs that convert folk ?

Taycans as well, for an 80 grand plus motor, lot of them around, 2 on our road alone, of 22 houses, one narrowly avoided getting flattened by several tonnes of tree that fell off on Tuesday evening but the owner had managed to clear the stuff off his driveway so could park on it, if he left it a day it would have been a goner, almost like the poor Dominos girl delivering a Pizza, who just managed to get away save for a whack with a smaller branch, her car then completely blocked in at the end of the cul de sac until the following morning.
Hard to Say if it cheaper, cheaper than what?

There is a tidal wave of EVs that have hit or are hitting the market right now. So much so that some of the more established cars like the Jag I-pace are looking. expensive now. The model 3 is a well sorted but expensive in terms of buying and insurance like Taycans another well sorted car, but you can't ignore Kia and Co who are offering just as good cars at more reasonable prices. It seams so much so that Samsung have decided no to release cars. and focus on component supplies.

Untimely when supply catches up with demand some manufactures will have to offer deals to shift car in volume. With interest rate moving up , prices of PCPs will no longer make top end car like the Taycan only be only a couple of hundred more than a Tesla 3 and well ahead on image and looks.

DodgyGeezer

40,152 posts

189 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
I guess one worry that does keep on cropping up is that of grid stability - this isn't a dig at EV's, more the grid itself. I remember a decade or so ago we were warned that the likelihood of brownouts was going to increase to the point of being a regular inevitability (and this coming from the power companies themselves rather than outsiders). In the meantime we've all kept on ramping up electricity usage to the point where some new estates in West London cannot be built due to lack of availability of power and yet charging (potentially) 10m extra electric vehicles is suddenly no problem? Something is off (and I do appreciate we could have been lied to a decade ago)

SWoll

18,206 posts

257 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
My wife had her first EV experience yesterday, her friend picked her up for a coffee, I was working and they arrived back a couple of hours later and all I could hear from outside was Mexican horns, farts, goat noises and the like as she went through the full list of horn sounds on her new Tesla model 3, I knew what it was before i saw it.

Anyway, my wife seemed pretty impressed with the car, the interior design, the smoothness but less impressed by the acceleration which made her feel sick, even worse than my car as there is no blaring exhaust to forewarn you, just rapidly gathering momentum and your stomach getting left behind. I think she would like one next, she best get saving up !

Model 3's are everywhere now, from scarcity a couple of years back they are like Mondeos used to be in terms of frequency of seeing them, do they just work out cheaper than say a 3 series or similar ? Or is it the novelty, running costs that convert folk ?

Taycans as well, for an 80 grand plus motor, lot of them around, 2 on our road alone, of 22 houses, one narrowly avoided getting flattened by several tonnes of tree that fell off on Tuesday evening but the owner had managed to clear the stuff off his driveway so could park on it, if he left it a day it would have been a goner, almost like the poor Dominos girl delivering a Pizza, who just managed to get away save for a whack with a smaller branch, her car then completely blocked in at the end of the cul de sac until the following morning.
Company cars and salary sacrifice. The BIK tax savings that are available make EV's an absolute no brainer.

As an example for 40% tax payer a BMW 320d would cost neary £5k in BIK alone per year. A RWD Model 3, £300. Take those cars on today for 3 years and by 2025 you'll have paid £14k in BIK on the BMW or £900 for the Tesla.

Model 3's are also available far more quickly than many alternatives and have been available for a lot longer. We had ours pretty early back in 2019 when they were first released and you'd be lucky to see another for weeks.

If you're earning £100k+ and can get one on a salary sacrifice scheme a Taycan could be yours for around £500 a month..An equivelant Panamera would cost 3 times that.

Edited by SWoll on Friday 5th August 10:52

JD

2,769 posts

227 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
do they just work out cheaper than say a 3 series or similar ? Or is it the novelty, running costs that convert folk ?
Or you know, the more obvious answer, in that people think they are better.

Jex

837 posts

127 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
DodgyGeezer said:
I guess one worry that does keep on cropping up is that of grid stability - this isn't a dig at EV's, more the grid itself. I remember a decade or so ago we were warned that the likelihood of brownouts was going to increase to the point of being a regular inevitability (and this coming from the power companies themselves rather than outsiders). In the meantime we've all kept on ramping up electricity usage to the point where some new estates in West London cannot be built due to lack of availability of power and yet charging (potentially) 10m extra electric vehicles is suddenly no problem? Something is off (and I do appreciate we could have been lied to a decade ago)
If you charge electric cars at night when demand is low, there is no capacity problem and it is cheaper to do so.

SWoll

18,206 posts

257 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
Jex said:
DodgyGeezer said:
I guess one worry that does keep on cropping up is that of grid stability - this isn't a dig at EV's, more the grid itself. I remember a decade or so ago we were warned that the likelihood of brownouts was going to increase to the point of being a regular inevitability (and this coming from the power companies themselves rather than outsiders). In the meantime we've all kept on ramping up electricity usage to the point where some new estates in West London cannot be built due to lack of availability of power and yet charging (potentially) 10m extra electric vehicles is suddenly no problem? Something is off (and I do appreciate we could have been lied to a decade ago)
If you charge electric cars at night when demand is low, there is no capacity problem and it is cheaper to do so.
And how many are really going to need to charge every night? Even on a lowly 3 pin plug pulling just 2.2kW thats 70-80 miles per night, how many drivers are covering 25k miles per year? Get a dedicated 7kW charger and that's 2-250 miles per night or 80k per year..

GT9

6,347 posts

171 months

Friday 5th August 2022
quotequote all
Charlie_1 said:
umm on Hydrogen from a US gov website , there are others , and you want me to accept your EV 'facts' lol

About half of the U.S. population lives in areas where air pollution levels are high enough to negatively impact public health and the environment. Emissions from gasoline and diesel vehicles—such as nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter—are a major source of this pollution. Hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles emit none of these harmful substances—only water (H2O) and warm air.



Edited by Charlie_1 on Friday 5th August 09:21
Like the EV, you cannot just overlook the upstream side of hydrogen.

It's either produced from reforming natural gas or it's produced from electrolysis.

It is of course possible to produce green hydrogen by electrolysis from renewable electricity, but it is unfortunately not very efficient to use it to power vehicles.

The reason being the number of steps required to convert it from electricity to hydrogen, compress it and then convert it back to electricity.

The comparison between EVs using green electricity and hydrogen cars using green electricity has been studied extensively across the world for decades, and discussed at length of multiple threads in the EV sub-forum on here for 5 or 6 years.

It's also included in the Ricardo study I kept asking you to read.

It is generally accepted that the amount of source electricity required to move a hydrogen fuel cell car is about 2.5 times higher than for an EV charged from that same electricity.

That means 2.5 times as many wind turbines, a massive investment in itself, along with a massive investment in electrolysis plant.

Once you have the hydrogen, you then need to compress it. The reason being that hydrogen in gaseous form has a very low volumetric energy density, so to get enough of it into a passenger car, it needs to be compressed to 700 times atmospheric pressure.

Even then, it only achieves a volumetric energy density of around one tenth of petrol, so you need several large high pressure tanks in the car to store it. These tanks are made from thick walled carbon fibre cylinders that consume a lot of valuable space in the car, as well as a sizeable mass of high-grade materials in their construction.

Liquid hydrogen is not feasible for cars as it needs to be stored at -250C and boils off over the course of a week or so, so unless you use it, you lose it.

The low efficiency of the energy pathway using hydrogen combined with the onboard storage challenges makes hydrogen a niche product for the passenger car sector.

Basically, the passenger car sector is way too large an energy consumer for it to be viable to use such a low efficiency pathway, because the amount of upstream infrastructure investment that is required is insurmountable in the foreseeable future. It's hard enough trying to convince anyone that we can get enough electricity to charge EVs, let alone a technology that would require 2.5 time as much electricity per car.

It potentially has a role to play in larger vehicles, and in the shipping and aviation industries, where total energy demands are significantly lower.

Even if you could achieve the investment required, there are no studies to date that can demonstrate that hydrogen fuel cell cars have a lifetime carbon footprint anywhere comparable to battery electric vehicles. This is not surprising, as there is simply too much energy lost to waste heat during the usage phase for this to be the case. The manufacturing footprint of a fuel cell car is not significantly different to a BEV, due to the high grade materials and complex componentry required, which include a battery and an electric drivetrain, along with the fuel cell and the storage tanks.