RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
At the moment there are still too many impracticalities, for the general public to adopt EVs, Not least the price of them compared to an identical ICE vehicle.
No doubt these issues can be worked through in time.
I will keep my ICE vehicle for as long as absolutely possible, so that by the time I can no longer use it, or when it becomes less practical than using an EV I can just step out of one, and into the other.
One thing that concerns me about EVs, is that unlike an ICE vehicle the battery weighs the same, regardless of whether it is full, or empty. A medium sized ICE vehicle typically has an eleven gallon fuel tank which weighs (Including the weight of the tank itself) 67/70 pounds when full. The tank itself (which can be made from steel, aluminium or plastic typically weighs around 22 pounds. As the vehicle consumes the fuel in the tank, it gets lighter, and its efficiency is consequently improved because in moving vehicles weight is usually the enemy of performance and fuel efficiency.
The weight of the batteries in an equivalent size EV, will be 1200 pounds, and it will have to haul around this weight ALL the time regardless of whether it is fully charged or virtually empty. This means that a significant proportion of the energy in the battery must be used to move the deadweight of the battery around, as well as the weight of the vehicle itself.
If someone was asked to shift some weight, for which they would be paid the exactly same amount for doing so, and there were two piles of `goods' to be moved, one at 70 pounds, and the other at 1200 pounds, which one would `most' of us choose to shift, for the money?
Regen is what helps to compensate for the additional weight. No doubt these issues can be worked through in time.
I will keep my ICE vehicle for as long as absolutely possible, so that by the time I can no longer use it, or when it becomes less practical than using an EV I can just step out of one, and into the other.
One thing that concerns me about EVs, is that unlike an ICE vehicle the battery weighs the same, regardless of whether it is full, or empty. A medium sized ICE vehicle typically has an eleven gallon fuel tank which weighs (Including the weight of the tank itself) 67/70 pounds when full. The tank itself (which can be made from steel, aluminium or plastic typically weighs around 22 pounds. As the vehicle consumes the fuel in the tank, it gets lighter, and its efficiency is consequently improved because in moving vehicles weight is usually the enemy of performance and fuel efficiency.
The weight of the batteries in an equivalent size EV, will be 1200 pounds, and it will have to haul around this weight ALL the time regardless of whether it is fully charged or virtually empty. This means that a significant proportion of the energy in the battery must be used to move the deadweight of the battery around, as well as the weight of the vehicle itself.
If someone was asked to shift some weight, for which they would be paid the exactly same amount for doing so, and there were two piles of `goods' to be moved, one at 70 pounds, and the other at 1200 pounds, which one would `most' of us choose to shift, for the money?
I have a pair of runabout cars which can switch to EV as and when they expire. I tend to buy these cars at three years old and turn them into high quality sheds. A pair of i3 EVs will do the job nicely. They're low tech and fun to drive and I suspect they will garner a cult status that ensures a fair supply of parts over time etc.
For the larger cars that tend to get used for longer journeys and to destinations which aren't going to get a plethora of excess chargers anytime soon, I'm going to keep my eye open for a petrol estate just off its first lease and plan to run that for 15-20 years by which time everything will have sorted itself out.
That’s not quite right.
If you move 2 different masses along a level surface (or even up hill and then down hill again) allowing them to return to rest the no potential energy has been gained. If you recover the kinetic energy during the deceleration phase then no net work has been done and the process is potentially 100% efficient.
(The only thing to consider is any frictional losses in the drivetrain, tyre contact and air resistance.)
EV’s recover most of the kinetic energy from regenerative braking unlike ICE which is another reason why they are so much more efficient.
So the effect of EV weight on efficiency is far less important than you think.
Also this is why accelerating and decelerating in an EV has far less effect of fuel consumption than in ICE (provided you are not braking so hard as to engage the friction brakes.)
The key to greater efficiency for EVs is lower air resistance not just weight.
If you move 2 different masses along a level surface (or even up hill and then down hill again) allowing them to return to rest the no potential energy has been gained. If you recover the kinetic energy during the deceleration phase then no net work has been done and the process is potentially 100% efficient.
(The only thing to consider is any frictional losses in the drivetrain, tyre contact and air resistance.)
EV’s recover most of the kinetic energy from regenerative braking unlike ICE which is another reason why they are so much more efficient.
So the effect of EV weight on efficiency is far less important than you think.
Also this is why accelerating and decelerating in an EV has far less effect of fuel consumption than in ICE (provided you are not braking so hard as to engage the friction brakes.)
The key to greater efficiency for EVs is lower air resistance not just weight.
Soupdragon65 said:
That’s not quite right.
If you move 2 different masses along a level surface (or even up hill and then down hill again) allowing them to return to rest the no potential energy has been gained. If you recover the kinetic energy during the deceleration phase then no net work has been done and the process is potentially 100% efficient.
(The only thing to consider is any frictional losses in the drivetrain, tyre contact and air resistance.)
EV’s recover most of the kinetic energy from regenerative braking unlike ICE which is another reason why they are so much more efficient.
So the effect of EV weight on efficiency is far less important than you think.
Also this is why accelerating and decelerating in an EV has far less effect of fuel consumption than in ICE (provided you are not braking so hard as to engage the friction brakes.)
The key to greater efficiency for EVs is lower air resistance not just weight.
When any person drives to a specific point, and returns by the same route (as most do) then effectively the road is flat, because all the up gradients on the out journey will be cancelled out by the down gradients of the return journey. If you move 2 different masses along a level surface (or even up hill and then down hill again) allowing them to return to rest the no potential energy has been gained. If you recover the kinetic energy during the deceleration phase then no net work has been done and the process is potentially 100% efficient.
(The only thing to consider is any frictional losses in the drivetrain, tyre contact and air resistance.)
EV’s recover most of the kinetic energy from regenerative braking unlike ICE which is another reason why they are so much more efficient.
So the effect of EV weight on efficiency is far less important than you think.
Also this is why accelerating and decelerating in an EV has far less effect of fuel consumption than in ICE (provided you are not braking so hard as to engage the friction brakes.)
The key to greater efficiency for EVs is lower air resistance not just weight.
There is just no getting away with the physics.
If someone has to move a one ton vehicle over a given distance, whilst the next person has to move a 2 ton vehicle over the same distance, Air resistance at legal road speeds will hardly come into it, There are no prizes for guessing which one will have to expend the most energy to move the vehicle in question. Especially when an ICE vehicle gets lighter as its fuel is consumed, whereas an EV has to haul haul the entire weight of its battery (Empty or Full) for ALL of the time.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Soupdragon65 said:
That’s not quite right.
If you move 2 different masses along a level surface (or even up hill and then down hill again) allowing them to return to rest the no potential energy has been gained. If you recover the kinetic energy during the deceleration phase then no net work has been done and the process is potentially 100% efficient.
(The only thing to consider is any frictional losses in the drivetrain, tyre contact and air resistance.)
EV’s recover most of the kinetic energy from regenerative braking unlike ICE which is another reason why they are so much more efficient.
So the effect of EV weight on efficiency is far less important than you think.
Also this is why accelerating and decelerating in an EV has far less effect of fuel consumption than in ICE (provided you are not braking so hard as to engage the friction brakes.)
The key to greater efficiency for EVs is lower air resistance not just weight.
When any person drives to a specific point, and returns by the same route (as most do) then effectively the road is flat, because all the up gradients on the out journey will be cancelled out by the down gradients of the return journey. If you move 2 different masses along a level surface (or even up hill and then down hill again) allowing them to return to rest the no potential energy has been gained. If you recover the kinetic energy during the deceleration phase then no net work has been done and the process is potentially 100% efficient.
(The only thing to consider is any frictional losses in the drivetrain, tyre contact and air resistance.)
EV’s recover most of the kinetic energy from regenerative braking unlike ICE which is another reason why they are so much more efficient.
So the effect of EV weight on efficiency is far less important than you think.
Also this is why accelerating and decelerating in an EV has far less effect of fuel consumption than in ICE (provided you are not braking so hard as to engage the friction brakes.)
The key to greater efficiency for EVs is lower air resistance not just weight.
There is just no getting away with the physics.
If someone has to move a one ton vehicle over a given distance, whilst the next person has to move a 2 ton vehicle over the same distance, Air resistance at legal road speeds will hardly come into it, There are no prizes for guessing which one will have to expend the most energy to move the vehicle in question. Especially when an ICE vehicle gets lighter as its fuel is consumed, whereas an EV has to haul haul the entire weight of its battery (Empty or Full) for ALL of the time.
Just focus on the gravitational potential and kinetic energies in the various stages for the two examples you give and you will see where you have gone wrong.
Soupdragon65 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Soupdragon65 said:
That’s not quite right.
If you move 2 different masses along a level surface (or even up hill and then down hill again) allowing them to return to rest the no potential energy has been gained. If you recover the kinetic energy during the deceleration phase then no net work has been done and the process is potentially 100% efficient.
(The only thing to consider is any frictional losses in the drivetrain, tyre contact and air resistance.)
EV’s recover most of the kinetic energy from regenerative braking unlike ICE which is another reason why they are so much more efficient.
So the effect of EV weight on efficiency is far less important than you think.
Also this is why accelerating and decelerating in an EV has far less effect of fuel consumption than in ICE (provided you are not braking so hard as to engage the friction brakes.)
The key to greater efficiency for EVs is lower air resistance not just weight.
When any person drives to a specific point, and returns by the same route (as most do) then effectively the road is flat, because all the up gradients on the out journey will be cancelled out by the down gradients of the return journey. If you move 2 different masses along a level surface (or even up hill and then down hill again) allowing them to return to rest the no potential energy has been gained. If you recover the kinetic energy during the deceleration phase then no net work has been done and the process is potentially 100% efficient.
(The only thing to consider is any frictional losses in the drivetrain, tyre contact and air resistance.)
EV’s recover most of the kinetic energy from regenerative braking unlike ICE which is another reason why they are so much more efficient.
So the effect of EV weight on efficiency is far less important than you think.
Also this is why accelerating and decelerating in an EV has far less effect of fuel consumption than in ICE (provided you are not braking so hard as to engage the friction brakes.)
The key to greater efficiency for EVs is lower air resistance not just weight.
There is just no getting away with the physics.
If someone has to move a one ton vehicle over a given distance, whilst the next person has to move a 2 ton vehicle over the same distance, Air resistance at legal road speeds will hardly come into it, There are no prizes for guessing which one will have to expend the most energy to move the vehicle in question. Especially when an ICE vehicle gets lighter as its fuel is consumed, whereas an EV has to haul haul the entire weight of its battery (Empty or Full) for ALL of the time.
Just focus on the gravitational potential and kinetic energies in the various stages for the two examples you give and you will see where you have gone wrong.
As Newton once might have said, if he was a northerner, You dont, and never do get owt for nowt !
It really is just physics although I can see why you do not grasp it.
Firstly ignore drag which as you correctly say is insignificant at low speeds.
Also ignore rolling resistance and friction within the drive train and between the tyres and road for the moment. Although these are not zero, they are small beer by comparison and are not that dependent on mass alone.
Just think about the energy states of the car.
At rest it has:
1) gravitational potential energy (GPE) which is defined as mgh, mass x gravitational constant x height
2) kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2 which is obviously 0 at rest as v=0
As the car starts and ends at the same altitude, there has been no change in GPE so you can ignore it.
As the car accelerates, energy is converted from fuel (petrol or electricity) into kinetic energy. Clearly the heavier (technically more massive) the car the more energy is required. Absolutely yes, and this is our experience of moving bricks or whatever, the heavier they are the more work you need to do and the more energy required to do that work (work = force x distance)
The difference comes when the car slows down (again ignoring friction and drag). The ICE vehicle uses its friction brakes to slow down and the kinetic energy is converted to heat which is 100% wasted. The heavier (sic) the car the more waste.
The killer advantage of the EV is that it recapture most of that energy via regenerative braking. It’s not a free lunch, just a cyclical and therefore much less wasteful way to move.
(The other simplistic way to think about is to look at heat. Heat = wasted energy. How hot do brakes get? That’s all waste compared to an EV)
So weight only really affects tyre resistance and drive train resistance and then not by as much as you might think. So heavier EVs are not inherently that much less efficient than lighter ones, whereas for ICE cars they definitely are.
(Air resistance however is related to the square of the velocity and so higher speeds are much less efficient for all vehicles as we all know.)
It’s just O level physics even if it seems paradoxical.
Firstly ignore drag which as you correctly say is insignificant at low speeds.
Also ignore rolling resistance and friction within the drive train and between the tyres and road for the moment. Although these are not zero, they are small beer by comparison and are not that dependent on mass alone.
Just think about the energy states of the car.
At rest it has:
1) gravitational potential energy (GPE) which is defined as mgh, mass x gravitational constant x height
2) kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2 which is obviously 0 at rest as v=0
As the car starts and ends at the same altitude, there has been no change in GPE so you can ignore it.
As the car accelerates, energy is converted from fuel (petrol or electricity) into kinetic energy. Clearly the heavier (technically more massive) the car the more energy is required. Absolutely yes, and this is our experience of moving bricks or whatever, the heavier they are the more work you need to do and the more energy required to do that work (work = force x distance)
The difference comes when the car slows down (again ignoring friction and drag). The ICE vehicle uses its friction brakes to slow down and the kinetic energy is converted to heat which is 100% wasted. The heavier (sic) the car the more waste.
The killer advantage of the EV is that it recapture most of that energy via regenerative braking. It’s not a free lunch, just a cyclical and therefore much less wasteful way to move.
(The other simplistic way to think about is to look at heat. Heat = wasted energy. How hot do brakes get? That’s all waste compared to an EV)
So weight only really affects tyre resistance and drive train resistance and then not by as much as you might think. So heavier EVs are not inherently that much less efficient than lighter ones, whereas for ICE cars they definitely are.
(Air resistance however is related to the square of the velocity and so higher speeds are much less efficient for all vehicles as we all know.)
It’s just O level physics even if it seems paradoxical.
Most of your typical cross country driving can be done without touching the brakes.
Your typical long motorway drive can be done with very little brakes application.
Most comuting within a city generates very little heat in the brakes, the energy loss is small.
It's really only on a type of run where you are hitting lots of short straits and roundabouts where regen will bring an advantage.
Your typical long motorway drive can be done with very little brakes application.
Most comuting within a city generates very little heat in the brakes, the energy loss is small.
It's really only on a type of run where you are hitting lots of short straits and roundabouts where regen will bring an advantage.
You guys trying to use your ICE rule book to judge EVs by are, as usual, very wide of the mark.
Here are the power demand curves for a 2.5 ton EV SUV.
Blue and yellow 'cruising' curves are read from the left axis and the black 'acceleration' curves from the right axis.
The largest consumer of energy over the life of the car is the vehicles aerodynamic drag, followed by the energy lost to rolling resistance.
Kerb mass has zero effect on drag, and a linear effect of rolling resistance.
The kinetic energy lost to friction braking is a small fraction of what you are familiar with from your ICE rule book, probably about a quarter or less.
Seriously, just throw the old rule book away, and spend more time reading than preaching.
The mass of material being carried in the battery is the price of entry to gain access to the massive reductions in energy consumption AND the huge gains in renewability of that energy, when measured at a system level, i.e. how the planet see it.
The mass NEVER gets consumed, is indefinitely recyclable, which makes it worth its weight in gold, several time over.
It's past time to stop seeing batteries as a threat and rather recognise them for the monumental opportunity that they represent.
Here are the power demand curves for a 2.5 ton EV SUV.
Blue and yellow 'cruising' curves are read from the left axis and the black 'acceleration' curves from the right axis.
The largest consumer of energy over the life of the car is the vehicles aerodynamic drag, followed by the energy lost to rolling resistance.
Kerb mass has zero effect on drag, and a linear effect of rolling resistance.
The kinetic energy lost to friction braking is a small fraction of what you are familiar with from your ICE rule book, probably about a quarter or less.
Seriously, just throw the old rule book away, and spend more time reading than preaching.
The mass of material being carried in the battery is the price of entry to gain access to the massive reductions in energy consumption AND the huge gains in renewability of that energy, when measured at a system level, i.e. how the planet see it.
The mass NEVER gets consumed, is indefinitely recyclable, which makes it worth its weight in gold, several time over.
It's past time to stop seeing batteries as a threat and rather recognise them for the monumental opportunity that they represent.
Edited by GT9 on Saturday 18th March 14:00
GT9 said:
The mass NEVER gets consumed, is indefinitely recyclable, which makes it worth its weight in gold, several time over.
It's past time to stop seeing batteries as a threat and rather recognise them for the monumental opportunity that they represent.
Is it though. We are 20 years away from knowing how long term recyclable EV are.It's past time to stop seeing batteries as a threat and rather recognise them for the monumental opportunity that they represent.
Edited by GT9 on Saturday 18th March 14:00
From my perspective the big issue with EV is the cost burden for your average person and the reduction in practicality for those without access to home charging. Both become bigger issues when we move from the early adopters to the next stage.
There is nothing suitable on the larger scale movement of goods coming so far either from EV.
500TORQUES said:
Is it though. We are 20 years away from knowing how long term recyclable EV are.
From my perspective the big issue with EV is the cost burden for your average person and the reduction in practicality for those without access to home charging. Both become bigger issues when we move from the early adopters to the next stage.
There is nothing suitable on the larger scale movement of goods coming so far either from EV.
We know today that the batteries are close to 100% recyclable, we just haven't got the feedstock to demonstrate it at a significant level.From my perspective the big issue with EV is the cost burden for your average person and the reduction in practicality for those without access to home charging. Both become bigger issues when we move from the early adopters to the next stage.
There is nothing suitable on the larger scale movement of goods coming so far either from EV.
The carbon footprint of batteries produced from recycled batteries is something like 70% lower than those produced from newly extracted minerals.
It's a fundamental part of the long term proposition for electrifying passenger cars.
The manufacturers are far more clued into this than I suspect many on here give them credit for.
Pan Pan Pan said:
When any person drives to a specific point, and returns by the same route (as most do) then effectively the road is flat, because all the up gradients on the out journey will be cancelled out by the down gradients of the return journey.
There is just no getting away with the physics.
If someone has to move a one ton vehicle over a given distance, whilst the next person has to move a 2 ton vehicle over the same distance, Air resistance at legal road speeds will hardly come into it, There are no prizes for guessing which one will have to expend the most energy to move the vehicle in question. Especially when an ICE vehicle gets lighter as its fuel is consumed, whereas an EV has to haul haul the entire weight of its battery (Empty or Full) for ALL of the time.
Drag (or air resistance as you call it) is substantial at road legal speeds.There is just no getting away with the physics.
If someone has to move a one ton vehicle over a given distance, whilst the next person has to move a 2 ton vehicle over the same distance, Air resistance at legal road speeds will hardly come into it, There are no prizes for guessing which one will have to expend the most energy to move the vehicle in question. Especially when an ICE vehicle gets lighter as its fuel is consumed, whereas an EV has to haul haul the entire weight of its battery (Empty or Full) for ALL of the time.
Try putting your hand out of the window at 70mph.
Your gradients cancelling out theory is also nonsense. There is drag and rolling resistance in either direction (against), so you will NEVER regain the energy on the downhill that you expended on the uphill.
GT9 said:
We know today that the batteries are close to 100% recyclable, we just haven't got the feedstock to demonstrate it at a significant level.
The carbon footprint of batteries produced from recycled batteries is something like 70% lower than those produced from newly extracted minerals.
It's a fundamental part of the long term proposition for electrifying passenger cars.
The manufacturers are far more clued into this than I suspect many on here give them credit for.
We don't know that.The carbon footprint of batteries produced from recycled batteries is something like 70% lower than those produced from newly extracted minerals.
It's a fundamental part of the long term proposition for electrifying passenger cars.
The manufacturers are far more clued into this than I suspect many on here give them credit for.
Nothing at scale is setup to achieve that.
Just building the things from their raw materials is expensive, recycling the materials out to a state that is then reusable is going to be energy intensive and costly. Where are these high throughput recycling centres going to be built? Will they compete on price with buying in raw materials?
Maybe you can educate me to show this isn’t the case.
500TORQUES said:
There is nothing suitable on the larger scale movement of goods coming so far either from EV.
It's really annoying that there are two concurrent 'ICE ban' threads running in general gassing where the same thing is being discussed in both.I'm losing track of what 's been posted on each, so at the risk of repeating myself, here is the opportunity I'm referring to:
This shows what would happen in terms of ongoing annual energy demands for the entire UK road transportation sector if all vehicles can be electrified.
To be clear, I'm not saying that they all will be, but it gives an insight into why electrification is the ONLY viable decarbonisation option.
The sector energy demands fall from over 400 TWh to just over 100 TWh.
For reference today's entire UK grid demand is 300 TWh.
Try the same thing with e-fuels and rather than a fourfold reduction in energy it actually increases to something like 600 TWh.
Try the same thing with fuel cell vehicles powered by green hydrogen and it would be marginally less than 400 TWh.
Not only would both of those pathways not reduce the sector energy demands, but they will also significantly slow the rate of reduction of fossil fuel demand.
Those pathways are nothing more than Trojan horses for selling fossil fuels, a totally unnecessary distraction for car enthusiast like you and me.
The electrification pathway is much quicker AND results in a much lower over energy demand.
The chart combines all road vehicles, but I can tell you that the lion's share of the energy, more than 75%, is being used to fuel cars.
It's the cars that are the biggest culprits as far as footprint and emissions are concerned.
Singling out the contribution from UK cars, the carbon footprint as it stands today is around 75 million tons a year.
Go to the end of the chart, at 2050, and it would be around 15 million tons or less (as I explained 2 weeks ago on this thread).
Those footprints I've referred to include new car production.
For the time period shown, there is an breakable relationship between the sector's ongoing energy demands and its ongoing carbon footprint, and unfortunately that relationship cannot be broken without a miracle such as commercially available nuclear fusion.
The only thing that the hand-wringing about battery mass and minerals extraction is going to achieve is adding a bit more heat to the already massive waste heat footprint that burning fossil fuels produce.
500TORQUES said:
We don't know that.
Nothing at scale is setup to achieve that.
Just building the things from their raw materials is expensive, recycling the materials out to a state that is then reusable is going to be energy intensive and costly. Where are these high throughput recycling centres going to be built? Will they compete on price with buying in raw materials?
Maybe you can educate me to show this isn’t the case.
https://group.mercedes-benz.com/company/news/recycling-factory-kuppenheim.htmlNothing at scale is setup to achieve that.
Just building the things from their raw materials is expensive, recycling the materials out to a state that is then reusable is going to be energy intensive and costly. Where are these high throughput recycling centres going to be built? Will they compete on price with buying in raw materials?
Maybe you can educate me to show this isn’t the case.
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/...
https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/en/electric-and-hybri...
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/deta...
https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/ev-battery-recycling...
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-ne...
https://www.drivingelectric.com/your-questions-ans...
GT9 said:
It's really annoying that there are two concurrent 'ICE ban' threads running in general gassing where the same thing is being discussed in both.
I'm losing track of what 's been posted on each, so at the risk of repeating myself, here is the opportunity I'm referring to:
This shows what would happen in terms of ongoing annual energy demands for the entire UK road transportation sector if all vehicles can be electrified.
To be clear, I'm not saying that they all will be, but it gives an insight into why electrification is the ONLY viable decarbonisation option.
The sector energy demands fall from over 400 TWh to just over 100 TWh.
For reference today's entire UK grid demand is 300 TWh.
Try the same thing with e-fuels and rather than a fourfold reduction in energy it actually increases to something like 600 TWh.
Try the same thing with fuel cell vehicles powered by green hydrogen and it would be marginally less than 400 TWh.
Not only would both of those pathways not reduce the sector energy demands, but they will also significantly slow the rate of reduction of fossil fuel demand.
Those pathways are nothing more than Trojan horses for selling fossil fuels, a totally unnecessary distraction for car enthusiast like you and me.
The electrification pathway is much quicker AND results in a much lower over energy demand.
The chart combines all road vehicles, but I can tell you that the lion's share of the energy, more than 75%, is being used to fuel cars.
It's the cars that are the biggest culprits as far as footprint and emissions are concerned.
Singling out the contribution from UK cars, the carbon footprint as it stands today is around 75 million tons a year.
Go to the end of the chart, at 2050, and it would be around 15 million tons or less (as I explained 2 weeks ago on this thread).
Those footprints I've referred to include new car production.
For the time period shown, there is an breakable relationship between the sector's ongoing energy demands and its ongoing carbon footprint, and unfortunately that relationship cannot be broken without a miracle such as commercially available nuclear fusion.
The only thing that the hand-wringing about battery mass and minerals extraction is going to achieve is adding a bit more heat to the already massive waste heat footprint that burning fossil fuels produce.
Thats all great, but you haven't answered my questions or addressed the issues i raised for future adoption or recycling. I'm losing track of what 's been posted on each, so at the risk of repeating myself, here is the opportunity I'm referring to:
This shows what would happen in terms of ongoing annual energy demands for the entire UK road transportation sector if all vehicles can be electrified.
To be clear, I'm not saying that they all will be, but it gives an insight into why electrification is the ONLY viable decarbonisation option.
The sector energy demands fall from over 400 TWh to just over 100 TWh.
For reference today's entire UK grid demand is 300 TWh.
Try the same thing with e-fuels and rather than a fourfold reduction in energy it actually increases to something like 600 TWh.
Try the same thing with fuel cell vehicles powered by green hydrogen and it would be marginally less than 400 TWh.
Not only would both of those pathways not reduce the sector energy demands, but they will also significantly slow the rate of reduction of fossil fuel demand.
Those pathways are nothing more than Trojan horses for selling fossil fuels, a totally unnecessary distraction for car enthusiast like you and me.
The electrification pathway is much quicker AND results in a much lower over energy demand.
The chart combines all road vehicles, but I can tell you that the lion's share of the energy, more than 75%, is being used to fuel cars.
It's the cars that are the biggest culprits as far as footprint and emissions are concerned.
Singling out the contribution from UK cars, the carbon footprint as it stands today is around 75 million tons a year.
Go to the end of the chart, at 2050, and it would be around 15 million tons or less (as I explained 2 weeks ago on this thread).
Those footprints I've referred to include new car production.
For the time period shown, there is an breakable relationship between the sector's ongoing energy demands and its ongoing carbon footprint, and unfortunately that relationship cannot be broken without a miracle such as commercially available nuclear fusion.
The only thing that the hand-wringing about battery mass and minerals extraction is going to achieve is adding a bit more heat to the already massive waste heat footprint that burning fossil fuels produce.
GT9 said:
We know today that the batteries are close to 100% recyclable, we just haven't got the feedstock to demonstrate it at a significant level.
The carbon footprint of batteries produced from recycled batteries is something like 70% lower than those produced from newly extracted minerals.
It's a fundamental part of the long term proposition for electrifying passenger cars.
The manufacturers are far more clued into this than I suspect many on here give them credit for.
I think the true issue is that, as of yet, there is no legal framework as to who is responsible for the cost of the recycling. I know the EU were running something in this regard but I don't believe there is anything in law as of yet. The carbon footprint of batteries produced from recycled batteries is something like 70% lower than those produced from newly extracted minerals.
It's a fundamental part of the long term proposition for electrifying passenger cars.
The manufacturers are far more clued into this than I suspect many on here give them credit for.
The auto manufacturers attempting to palm the issue off onto the static storage industry isn't ideal.
What we seem to have at the moment is a situation very similar to property lease expiry in that the last entity holding the baby gets stuffed with the cost. Which in the case of batteries just incentivises the continuation of the practice of either burning the cells or accidentally dumping them at see during a particularly treacherous exporting event.
This is certainly an area where govt needs to mandate a set of rules along with upfront payments for recycling from the initial product vendor. We do need to stick the end of life costs onto the car manufacturers' balance sheets and make them pay up front or each country and its inhabitants are going to be stuffed with the costs.
GT9 said:
Shame I can't seem to get the Mercedes link to go 'blue', that's definitely worth reading as it's only a few weeks old.
You cant post a link as the first part of a post, to make it linkable you need to type something else first.Crap forum software basically.
Thanks for the links. Thats obviously a pilot scheme with high ambitions, how long until it's scaled to cope with millions of cars anually, rather than the small numbers in the pilot, and how is the cost and CO2 to transport end of life vehicles back to the plant, (shipping your old car back to germany) rather than to a local scrap yard whrre its simply crushed and thrown into a smelt pot.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff