RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
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.
500TORQUES said:
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.
I suspect this scheme is planned to dovetail into the plans to never actually sell the cars but to retain them beyond the current 1-3 lease cycles to be rented perpetually along with the endless subscription model for the use of onboard features? If they are keeping the vehicle on their balance sheet for 10-15 years then they retain control as to when the batteries are either replaced or junked with the whole car. 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.
500TORQUES said:
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.
It comes back to cost doesn't it, and I'd say the indications are that longer term it will be cheaper to recycle than buy-in newly extracted material.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.
The recycling thing is two-fold:
Are there enough minerals?
Can we further reduce carbon footprint and evironmental damage?
On the first point, it would be a bit of a hollow argument to say that there are never going to be enough minerals to support their widespread use AND that we choose not to retrieve minerals that are already in circulation.
On the second point, legislation is already in place and will most likely evolve to be fairly encompassing. Needs to be policed of course...
Both of these interesting positions point to a much more expensive product over its life cycle.
It wont work unless legislated for, which again puts the politicians in a place where they are actively making the lower paid poorer and pricing them out of the lifestyle they are used to.
That may well damage growth and GDP and drive down living standards.
Not an easy sell.
It wont work unless legislated for, which again puts the politicians in a place where they are actively making the lower paid poorer and pricing them out of the lifestyle they are used to.
That may well damage growth and GDP and drive down living standards.
Not an easy sell.
500TORQUES said:
Both of these interesting positions point to a much more expensive product over its life cycle.
Not as expensive as hydrogen or synthetic fuel will end up being.Whatever challenges the EV pathway faces, the alternative pathways have their challenges turned up to 11.
Which brings me back to my opening post on this thread.
The future of mainstream cars is a mix of EV and good old petrol.
GT9 said:
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.
For me I have a different problem with mass - it stops a car being as fun.Heaviest car I've owned is c.1,350kg. Most have been 1,200kg or less.
Heaviest (performance) car I've driven is probably 1,700kg.
Heaviest car I've driven was an L322 RR at c.2.5t.
...and you really feel the difference.
I don't want my daily driver to be 2 tonnes and silent - for me that'll turn every drive into boring drudgery. But I do recognise I might be a bit of an outlier...
GT9 said:
We know today that the batteries are close to 100% recyclable
I thought we did this one a couple of pages ago - they may be, but we've not yet wholly quantified the inputs (power, unpleasant additives, pollutants) required to achieve that, nor has it been demonstrated at scale.They probably WILL get there, and I agree it's likely in notably less than 20 years. But it's got to be a question mark right now, if far less of one than any suggestion of continuing to rely on oil.
DonkeyApple said:
Then factor in taxes once used as a road fuel and the cost of engine set up and maintenance. And of course the reality that the amount that can be manufactured is insignificant compared to naptha consumption. 'Efuel' is just a silly rebranding of hundred year old tech that was bypassed over a hundred years ago for the same reason it remains infeasible as a transport solution to replace either batteries or petrol.
All the EU would be doing by permitting its use for a few affluent punters in toys is heaping more demand pressure on the minuscule supply of green hydrogen for industries that need to decarbonise by stopping using grey hydrogen.
There seems to be this misconception that in the near future you'll be able to pull into a petrol station and fill your ICE car up with eFuel. That's defeating the whole object of getting rid of the polluting ICE engine altogether.All the EU would be doing by permitting its use for a few affluent punters in toys is heaping more demand pressure on the minuscule supply of green hydrogen for industries that need to decarbonise by stopping using grey hydrogen.
If the foot stamping and tantrums of Italy and Germany to protect their car industry result in them being given an exemption to the ICE engine phase out, it will only apply to certain cars approved to use Efuels, maybe, just like the leaded petrol phase out, they have a different size petrol pump nozzle for Efuels that simply won't fit a regular ICE car.
I have my doubts that the EU will bow down to Germany and Italy because it won't take long for Toyota, Honda etc to say "If they can continue making and selling ICE cars, then why can't we?"
https://europe.autonews.com/environmentemissions/e...
NMNeil said:
...it will only apply to certain cars approved to use Efuels, maybe, just like the leaded petrol phase out, they have a different size petrol pump nozzle for Efuels that simply won't fit a regular ICE car.
I doubt it, because efuels, AIUI (and contrary to DA's extended blathering about methanol), are intended to be high-grade, high-octane creations, which would be (and I'm sure intended to be) perfectly suitable for use in all sorts of classics.havoc said:
I doubt it, because efuels, AIUI (and contrary to DA's extended blathering about methanol), are intended to be high-grade, high-octane creations, which would be (and I'm sure intended to be) perfectly suitable for use in all sorts of classics.
Right, now I'm confused.Is this a scenario where both petrol and e-fuel are available at the forecourt?
If so, how does that prevent 'a post-ban ICE' from filling up with petrol and circumventing the ban?
Especially if e-fuel costs more...
If there is no petrol, and we are talking 2035, the queue for the e-fuel pump will be a few hundred miles long, due to production capacity.
If this is a post-2050 scenario, when the dwindling number of ICEs left might eventually be met by the production capacity, what's the point worrying about that now.
The only other alternative I can think of is a 2035 scenario where you buy a raffle ticket and hope your numbers come up.
havoc said:
NMNeil said:
...it will only apply to certain cars approved to use Efuels, maybe, just like the leaded petrol phase out, they have a different size petrol pump nozzle for Efuels that simply won't fit a regular ICE car.
I doubt it, because efuels, AIUI (and contrary to DA's extended blathering about methanol), are intended to be high-grade, high-octane creations, which would be (and I'm sure intended to be) perfectly suitable for use in all sorts of classics.It seems that the tantrums of Germany may be falling on deaf ears.
"Some automakers are also pushing for the exemption, including sports-car makers, such as Porsche who see e-fuels as a way to avoid weighing down their high-performance vehicles with batteries."
What next, Porsche asking for an exemption for mandatory sped limiters because nobody wants a Porsche that can only go as fast as a Prius?
https://europe.autonews.com/environmentemissions/a...
"Some automakers are also pushing for the exemption, including sports-car makers, such as Porsche who see e-fuels as a way to avoid weighing down their high-performance vehicles with batteries."
What next, Porsche asking for an exemption for mandatory sped limiters because nobody wants a Porsche that can only go as fast as a Prius?
https://europe.autonews.com/environmentemissions/a...
Soupdragon65 said:
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.
Sorry, but trying to convince people, that the energy needed to move the 70 pound weight of the fuel tank (including the weight of the tank itself, and which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed) in a medium sized ICE vehicle, is going to be anywhere near the energy required to move the weight of a 1200 pound EV battery (which stays the same weight, whether or not it is full or empty) is just clutching at straws.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.
EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
havoc said:
I doubt it, because efuels, AIUI (and contrary to DA's extended blathering about methanol), are intended to be high-grade, high-octane creations, which would be (and I'm sure intended to be) perfectly suitable for use in all sorts of classics.
Nope. The liquid that VW plan to ship from Chile and use is an alcohol. There is not FT plant planned for HIF in any of the pre funded phases. There are also no FT plants in plan within the EU that are close to any funding rounds. What these company's PR depts are rolling out is not aligned with what is happening.
Harry even had a few litres of tramo juice from Coryton a month or so ago after his trip to Saudi to watch VW burn some booze.
To then run FT on efuel to get a blend of hydrocarbons delivers a fuel of ludicrous expense and restricted supply when proper petrol is and will remain freely available and cheap.
The real question just boils down to whether one wants to believe proven science or a company with a devout and resolute track record of corporate dishonesty that is surrounded by age old motorsport punters with long track records of issues with the truth.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Sorry, but trying to convince people, that the energy needed to move the 70 pound weight of the fuel tank (including the weight of the tank itself, and which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed) in a medium sized ICE vehicle, is going to be anywhere near the energy required to move the weight of a 1200 pound EV battery (which stays the same weight, whether or not it is full or empty) is just clutching at straws.
EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
Doesn't ICE waste 80% of its energy though? So it'll waste more energy than it takes to move the object?EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
NMNeil said:
It seems that the tantrums of Germany may be falling on deaf ears.
"Some automakers are also pushing for the exemption, including sports-car makers, such as Porsche who see e-fuels as a way to avoid weighing down their high-performance vehicles with batteries."
What next, Porsche asking for an exemption for mandatory sped limiters because nobody wants a Porsche that can only go as fast as a Prius?
https://europe.autonews.com/environmentemissions/a...
Let’s hope so. And if they can remove nonsense like lane keep assist while at it that would be good also. It’s about time someone stood up to the regulatory nonsense coming from wherever it’s coming from. "Some automakers are also pushing for the exemption, including sports-car makers, such as Porsche who see e-fuels as a way to avoid weighing down their high-performance vehicles with batteries."
What next, Porsche asking for an exemption for mandatory sped limiters because nobody wants a Porsche that can only go as fast as a Prius?
https://europe.autonews.com/environmentemissions/a...
Pan Pan Pan said:
Sorry, but trying to convince people, that the energy needed to move the 70 pound weight of the fuel tank (including the weight of the tank itself, and which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed) in a medium sized ICE vehicle, is going to be anywhere near the energy required to move the weight of a 1200 pound EV battery (which stays the same weight, whether or not it is full or empty) is just clutching at straws.
EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
You appear to be the only person who needs convincing, and your posting on this particular aspect has now reached 'airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow' levels of silliness.EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
GT9 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Sorry, but trying to convince people, that the energy needed to move the 70 pound weight of the fuel tank (including the weight of the tank itself, and which reduces in weight as the fuel in the tank is consumed) in a medium sized ICE vehicle, is going to be anywhere near the energy required to move the weight of a 1200 pound EV battery (which stays the same weight, whether or not it is full or empty) is just clutching at straws.
EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
You appear to be the only person who needs convincing, and your posting on this particular aspect has now reached 'airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow' levels of silliness.EVs may have regen, but the energy used in accelerating the weight of a 1200 pound battery, up to the required speed, is always going to be greater than the energy consumed in accelerating an equivalent ICE vehicle with a 70 pound fuel tank, up to the same speed.
Interesting Engineering said:
Answering the main question here, the "airspeed velocity" of an unladen swallow (European) is something like 20.1 miles per hour (32.4 kph) or 29.5 feet per second (9 meters per second). However, some have been clocked at 46 mph (74 kph) in the past!
https://interestingengineering.com/science/monty-p...
https://interestingengineering.com/science/monty-p...
If you had perfectly efficient regen, a 1000 ton car wouldn’t use any more energy over a journey than a 500kg car.
Well, not quite true, because rolling resistance would become significant with that sort of differential, but in the schoolboy physics world of smooth surfaces and light inelastic strings the net energy dissipated to accelerate and decelerate the mass would be the same.
Worth pointing out of course that regen is the reason weight is less of a problem for hybrid ICEs too.
Well, not quite true, because rolling resistance would become significant with that sort of differential, but in the schoolboy physics world of smooth surfaces and light inelastic strings the net energy dissipated to accelerate and decelerate the mass would be the same.
Worth pointing out of course that regen is the reason weight is less of a problem for hybrid ICEs too.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff