Discussion
98elise said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
Phil. said:
Genuine question. Why are some of the big car companies still spending their resources developing hydrogen, Mercedes for example?
They must be stupid (according to some of the logic on here).I'm no expert on hydrogen, and I've read the various list of issues. It still seems to be me there are a number of use cases for hydrogen, perhaps where you need zero emissions, *very* large batteries, and want to keep the upfront capital costs as low as possible (and so are prepared to accept the lower efficiency of hydrogen as a fuel together with the other well documented issues).
battery ev is the way to go for simple reliable and cheap transport. even slows the car down without using brakes..... your life cycle costs are minimal compared to an IC engine and then you have more issues with your car as mileage rises. an EV just hums along.
98elise said:
The up front capital costs are not low though. Hydrogen cars are both expensive to buy, and to run.
True. But a portion of the currently high upfront cost is linked to the very low production volumes. I'm more referring to a stable state situation when a company might be making a million of them a year.In that situation, the production cost would be lower than vehicles with very large batteries.
But I still agree with the general consensus that battery tech will be the solution for the majority of us here in Europe. But I can see why some very large companies might still spend a (small) portion of the R+D budget on hydrogen-related tech.
EddieSteadyGo said:
True. But a portion of the currently high upfront cost is linked to the very low production volumes. I'm more referring to a stable state situation when a company might be making a million of them a year.
In that situation, the production cost would be lower than vehicles with very large batteries.
But I still agree with the general consensus that battery tech will be the solution for the majority of us here in Europe. But I can see why some very large companies might still spend a (small) portion of the R+D budget on hydrogen-related tech.
Yup. If you can deliver to market an EV that doesn’t have an enormous and extremely expensive battery pack then you’d be able to dramatically undercut the market by shifting that expense on and away from the initial purchase price. That is incentive enough to seek different means of powering electric motors. In that situation, the production cost would be lower than vehicles with very large batteries.
But I still agree with the general consensus that battery tech will be the solution for the majority of us here in Europe. But I can see why some very large companies might still spend a (small) portion of the R+D budget on hydrogen-related tech.
Can anyone point me to a reliable study that demonstrates, comparative to a petrol car, the full lifetime costs of an electric car, particularly the cost (financial and environmental) of battery production and recycling, including fuel?
I have a number of unanswered questions about the feasibility of EV cars and heavy goods vehicles not least:
- What is the source of minerals for the batteries (which I gather often uses slave labour to dig it out the ground) and how long will these natural resources last?
- What is the source of all this electric power for replacing the majority of the present (and growing) number of petrol/diesel cars?
I had a run up/down the M1 yesterday and saw only 2 EV’s. That’s a lot of cars to replace before we consider the HG’s. Are we investing in new power stations to satisfy this need and if so what will be the source (gas, nuclear)? Or are we all going to have a big windmill in our back gardens? What will the power requirements be and how will this be facilitated? It seems there is going to be a massive capital investment required funded by tax payers and none of the planning has even begun yet?
- What is the overall environmental impact of mass EV’s versus petrol/diesel?
- Are we simply being sold a nice story by politicians, because that’s was the main driver for EV’s initially in California, and everyone else seems to have followed their lead, blindly possibly?
- When will we ‘all’ be driving an EV and when will we stop buying new petrol/diesel cars? I assume this will be country dependent due to politics.
BTW I quite agree that electric scooters/mopeds will take off in hot countries where their use is already high. It makes sense for someone to have a small solar panel at home and charge one daily for short city journeys. But I’m not yet convinced about when the mass use of EV cars and HG’s across the world will happen.
I have a number of unanswered questions about the feasibility of EV cars and heavy goods vehicles not least:
- What is the source of minerals for the batteries (which I gather often uses slave labour to dig it out the ground) and how long will these natural resources last?
- What is the source of all this electric power for replacing the majority of the present (and growing) number of petrol/diesel cars?
I had a run up/down the M1 yesterday and saw only 2 EV’s. That’s a lot of cars to replace before we consider the HG’s. Are we investing in new power stations to satisfy this need and if so what will be the source (gas, nuclear)? Or are we all going to have a big windmill in our back gardens? What will the power requirements be and how will this be facilitated? It seems there is going to be a massive capital investment required funded by tax payers and none of the planning has even begun yet?
- What is the overall environmental impact of mass EV’s versus petrol/diesel?
- Are we simply being sold a nice story by politicians, because that’s was the main driver for EV’s initially in California, and everyone else seems to have followed their lead, blindly possibly?
- When will we ‘all’ be driving an EV and when will we stop buying new petrol/diesel cars? I assume this will be country dependent due to politics.
BTW I quite agree that electric scooters/mopeds will take off in hot countries where their use is already high. It makes sense for someone to have a small solar panel at home and charge one daily for short city journeys. But I’m not yet convinced about when the mass use of EV cars and HG’s across the world will happen.
he's correct, it pretty easy really, gas on demand supply stations provide 40% of electricity supply, and as the term on demand means, they can be switched on and off to supply ev extra demand, so no more power stations needed as there is capacity but more fossil fuels for the foreseeable future
Phil if you have any understanding of how much the world has been f
ked up by oil, how terrible the oil extraction and refining process is you'd not be worried at all about the shift to ev's.
No one is saying it's perfect or has no impact. It's just oil is an entirely different destructive scale.
The press are happy to report every single ev fire they can, a handful a year at most, makes a big deal about it.
Why? When there are thousands of ice car fires?
USA had over 140 major oil spills last year alone! Reported? Were they fk.
ked up by oil, how terrible the oil extraction and refining process is you'd not be worried at all about the shift to ev's.No one is saying it's perfect or has no impact. It's just oil is an entirely different destructive scale.
The press are happy to report every single ev fire they can, a handful a year at most, makes a big deal about it.
Why? When there are thousands of ice car fires?
USA had over 140 major oil spills last year alone! Reported? Were they f
k. Phil. said:
Apologies I am late to this debate. I don’t want to appear ignorant. Is anyone going to point me towards all this information which you appear to share and agree with? Genuine question. I will review and respond.
https://jalopnik.com/enough-with-the-actually-electric-cars-pollute-more-bu-1834338565https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactiv...
Thanks Rob
A link in your first source confirms some of my environmental and human fears:
https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-dirty-truth-about-...
‘’But even with more recycling and technological breakthroughs it’s hard to escape the conclusion that a battery and renewably-powered future will mean more mining, especially in the near future. And if today’s mining industries are any indicator, that will have environmental and human consequences.
Take cobalt, which many lithium ion battery manufacturers add to improve energy density. Today, nearly 60 percent of it is sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo, contributing to some of the worst pollution on the planet as mining and smelting cause heavy metals to seep into the air, water and soil. Cobalt mining has also fueled notorious human rights abuses, including relying extensively on child labor and forcing miners to work in incredibly dangerous conditions.
Or you can look at lithium, which is mined mainly in the “lithium triangle” between Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. While many mines seem well managed the industry’s presence has raised concerns about freshwater contamination and conflict with local communities, per the new report. Or the a nickel refinery in Australia that closed after it was found to be dumping toxic wastewater onto the Great Barrier Reef. Last year, that refinery was set to re-open amidst rising nickel demand fueled by the EV sector.’’
BTW Sam, put up or shut up
I am interested in an adult debate rather than petty sniping.
Edited to say that Sam deleted his latest post.
A link in your first source confirms some of my environmental and human fears:
https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-dirty-truth-about-...
‘’But even with more recycling and technological breakthroughs it’s hard to escape the conclusion that a battery and renewably-powered future will mean more mining, especially in the near future. And if today’s mining industries are any indicator, that will have environmental and human consequences.
Take cobalt, which many lithium ion battery manufacturers add to improve energy density. Today, nearly 60 percent of it is sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo, contributing to some of the worst pollution on the planet as mining and smelting cause heavy metals to seep into the air, water and soil. Cobalt mining has also fueled notorious human rights abuses, including relying extensively on child labor and forcing miners to work in incredibly dangerous conditions.
Or you can look at lithium, which is mined mainly in the “lithium triangle” between Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. While many mines seem well managed the industry’s presence has raised concerns about freshwater contamination and conflict with local communities, per the new report. Or the a nickel refinery in Australia that closed after it was found to be dumping toxic wastewater onto the Great Barrier Reef. Last year, that refinery was set to re-open amidst rising nickel demand fueled by the EV sector.’’
BTW Sam, put up or shut up
I am interested in an adult debate rather than petty sniping. Edited to say that Sam deleted his latest post.
Edited by Phil. on Saturday 18th May 23:16
jjwilde said:
All your questions have been answered dozens of times before, but I will just let you know that no more power stations are required at all. See the national grid's website for a detailed break down of why.
Thanks JJI assume this is what you are referring to?
https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case-studies/el...
So an 11% increase in electricity consumption is feasible by 2050 based on the current 30 millions vehicles (cars) in the UK which but the number of vehicles will no doubt increase over the next 30 years.
Nothing is said about HGV’s.
As Rob says...
Funny how there has been an absence of debate about the numerous toxic and environmentally unfriendly materials in ICEs over the last century. Sure, it comes up sometimes but it doesn't flood every forum thread about the latest BMW 3 series like this does.
If anything the EV association with "green" is thankfully encouraging an entire debate on the sustainability and ethics of supply chains - but that does not mean that EVs are suddenly opening this hell hole of unsustainable supply chains that is bigger than the already appalling impact oil has on the environment even before someone sets it alight. Nor all the metals required for the electronics in cars, or in plating of the components etc etc...
If nothing else, the push for recyclability of batteries is going to be deafening. I support any progression to a platform that encourages people to look at the whole life cycle, and rewards them for doing so. Everyone who will be buying a mainstream EV (i.e. not a Tesla) to replace an ICE will be counting the pennies and efficiency, and sustainability will probably be part of that cost model by then thanks to incentives.
Anyway, back to Dyson - another downside to this whole push is that they have historically shown little regard for environmental economy - pushing hardware with hundreds (thousands!) of patents and parts is not the future of sustainable engineering - simplicity is. Not sure Dyson are who I want leading the charge on the future of EV even if they do have some smart people.
Funny how there has been an absence of debate about the numerous toxic and environmentally unfriendly materials in ICEs over the last century. Sure, it comes up sometimes but it doesn't flood every forum thread about the latest BMW 3 series like this does.
If anything the EV association with "green" is thankfully encouraging an entire debate on the sustainability and ethics of supply chains - but that does not mean that EVs are suddenly opening this hell hole of unsustainable supply chains that is bigger than the already appalling impact oil has on the environment even before someone sets it alight. Nor all the metals required for the electronics in cars, or in plating of the components etc etc...
If nothing else, the push for recyclability of batteries is going to be deafening. I support any progression to a platform that encourages people to look at the whole life cycle, and rewards them for doing so. Everyone who will be buying a mainstream EV (i.e. not a Tesla) to replace an ICE will be counting the pennies and efficiency, and sustainability will probably be part of that cost model by then thanks to incentives.
Anyway, back to Dyson - another downside to this whole push is that they have historically shown little regard for environmental economy - pushing hardware with hundreds (thousands!) of patents and parts is not the future of sustainable engineering - simplicity is. Not sure Dyson are who I want leading the charge on the future of EV even if they do have some smart people.
Phil. said:
Thanks Rob
A link in your first source confirms some of my environmental and human fears:
https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-dirty-truth-about-...
‘’But even with more recycling and technological breakthroughs it’s hard to escape the conclusion that a battery and renewably-powered future will mean more mining, especially in the near future. And if today’s mining industries are any indicator, that will have environmental and human consequences.
Take cobalt, which many lithium ion battery manufacturers add to improve energy density. Today, nearly 60 percent of it is sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo, contributing to some of the worst pollution on the planet as mining and smelting cause heavy metals to seep into the air, water and soil. Cobalt mining has also fueled notorious human rights abuses, including relying extensively on child labor and forcing miners to work in incredibly dangerous conditions.
Or you can look at lithium, which is mined mainly in the “lithium triangle” between Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. While many mines seem well managed the industry’s presence has raised concerns about freshwater contamination and conflict with local communities, per the new report. Or the a nickel refinery in Australia that closed after it was found to be dumping toxic wastewater onto the Great Barrier Reef. Last year, that refinery was set to re-open amidst rising nickel demand fueled by the EV sector.’’
BTW Sam, put up or shut up I am interested in an adult debate rather than petty sniping.
And what is your current ICE powered vehicle made from? The answer, is of course, a large number of equally toxic precious metals and an enormous amount of high grade (and hence carrying a large carbon footprint) metallic elements.A link in your first source confirms some of my environmental and human fears:
https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-dirty-truth-about-...
‘’But even with more recycling and technological breakthroughs it’s hard to escape the conclusion that a battery and renewably-powered future will mean more mining, especially in the near future. And if today’s mining industries are any indicator, that will have environmental and human consequences.
Take cobalt, which many lithium ion battery manufacturers add to improve energy density. Today, nearly 60 percent of it is sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo, contributing to some of the worst pollution on the planet as mining and smelting cause heavy metals to seep into the air, water and soil. Cobalt mining has also fueled notorious human rights abuses, including relying extensively on child labor and forcing miners to work in incredibly dangerous conditions.
Or you can look at lithium, which is mined mainly in the “lithium triangle” between Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. While many mines seem well managed the industry’s presence has raised concerns about freshwater contamination and conflict with local communities, per the new report. Or the a nickel refinery in Australia that closed after it was found to be dumping toxic wastewater onto the Great Barrier Reef. Last year, that refinery was set to re-open amidst rising nickel demand fueled by the EV sector.’’
BTW Sam, put up or shut up
I am interested in an adult debate rather than petty sniping. Your catalyst contains Platinum, Cerium, Copper, Iron, manganese, Nickel, Palladium, and Rhodium.
Your cylinder bores contain Nickle, Chromium,Cobalt and Vanadium
Your engine bearings contain sintered copper, aluminium, and possibly lead (depending on the age of your car)
Your electronic modules contain copper, gold, silver, tin and bronze
In fact, the list of Precious metals used is long and wide spread across the many many complex and highly engineered components required to make a modern ICE perform as well as it does.
So indeed, no car is truly "green" but an EV is significantly less polluting that a comparable ICE today when a comparison is done at comparable production volumes. (to date studies showing EVs are more polluting to make are based on low volume productions, where the amortisation of the production overheads becomes the largest denominator. Those studies also tend fail to appreciate that a newly built state of the art production line (like those required for EVs) is fundamentally a lot less polluting, often using a high proportion of renewable energy and generally being highly automated (consider the carbon footprint of 10,000 people turning up for work each day at a major car manufacturing plant, compared to that of a main automated / robotised plant that runs 24/7 with a significantly lower workforce.
I’ve reviewed Rob’s Guardian link and it’s says:
‘’But what about the environmental effects of building the car? A report by the Ricardo consultancy estimated that production of an average petrol car will involve emissions amounting to the equivalent of 5.6 tonnes of CO2, while for an average electric car, the figure is 8.8tonnes. Of that, nearly half is incurred in producing the battery. Despite this, the same report estimated that over its whole lifecycle, the electric car would still be responsible for 80% of the emissions of the petrol car.’’
I take this that EV will move the emissions from the city to elsewhere but there is an overall 20% emissions improvement over petrol. Have I missed something?
This article doesn’t include the mining and mineral environmental considerations.
Please guys remove the emotion and focus on the facts. I’m on a learning curve. If you can’t debate EV’s on PH reasonably here where else can we do this?
‘’But what about the environmental effects of building the car? A report by the Ricardo consultancy estimated that production of an average petrol car will involve emissions amounting to the equivalent of 5.6 tonnes of CO2, while for an average electric car, the figure is 8.8tonnes. Of that, nearly half is incurred in producing the battery. Despite this, the same report estimated that over its whole lifecycle, the electric car would still be responsible for 80% of the emissions of the petrol car.’’
I take this that EV will move the emissions from the city to elsewhere but there is an overall 20% emissions improvement over petrol. Have I missed something?
This article doesn’t include the mining and mineral environmental considerations.
Please guys remove the emotion and focus on the facts. I’m on a learning curve. If you can’t debate EV’s on PH reasonably here where else can we do this?
Phil. said:
Have I missed something?
Yes the report quoted typically uses the worst electricity generation mix in the USA and assumes no improvements.Grid electricity is improving rapidly.
Plus it assumes battery production uses that same electricity, where almost every EV plant is looking to use renewable (tesla is close to entirely renewable for gigafactory 1 , but not fremont).
Consider myself, all my electricity is renewable (hydro), that changes the equation massively.
Also people often install solar to power their own cars/houses.
There have been other studies showing the payback on an electric vehicle is 6-12 months of use, in NZ our cars have an average age of 15 years.
RobDickinson said:
Yes the report quoted typically uses the worst electricity generation mix in the USA and assumes no improvements.
Grid electricity is improving rapidly.
Plus it assumes battery production uses that same electricity, where almost every EV plant is looking to use renewable (tesla is close to entirely renewable for gigafactory 1 , but not fremont).
Consider myself, all my electricity is renewable (hydro), that changes the equation massively.
Also people often install solar to power their own cars/houses.
There have been other studies showing the payback on an electric vehicle is 6-12 months of use, in NZ our cars have an average age of 15 years.
I am correct in understanding that a 20% overall emissions improvement (excluding the mining and mineral issues) is the starting point and as various countries move towards renewable energy generation this figure will improve? Grid electricity is improving rapidly.
Plus it assumes battery production uses that same electricity, where almost every EV plant is looking to use renewable (tesla is close to entirely renewable for gigafactory 1 , but not fremont).
Consider myself, all my electricity is renewable (hydro), that changes the equation massively.
Also people often install solar to power their own cars/houses.
There have been other studies showing the payback on an electric vehicle is 6-12 months of use, in NZ our cars have an average age of 15 years.
Any idea what the comparative emissions figure would be if we achieved 100% electricity generation from renewables?
Phil. said:
I am correct in understanding that a 20% overall emissions improvement (excluding the mining and mineral issues) is the starting point and as various countries move towards renewable energy generation this figure will improve?
Any idea what the comparative emissions figure would be if we achieved 100% electricity generation from renewables?
I am assuming (as usual with these studies) that literally every nut and bolt is included in the EV production costs, including resources, and that the same for ICE cars is not (mining shipping refining, shipping oil etc).Any idea what the comparative emissions figure would be if we achieved 100% electricity generation from renewables?
Ass for 100% renewable you have those production figures above, if an EV is powered by renewable completely its co2 cost would never rise above its production cost (bar tyres etc)
Thanks Rob
You appear to be in an enviable position in NZ. You generate you own electricity though renewable means and fuel your EV from this.
The UK and other highly populated countries have a way to go. EV’s do appear to improve overall emissions but the amount it is dependent on the source of the electricity. Battery production and mineral mining remains an environmental concern.
I take this that EV’s are a marginal step forward but not a holy grail. Ultimately people will have to adopt a change to their lifestyle and transportation if they wish to reduce emissions significantly and positively effect climate change.
Let me so bold to say they eating less meat (adopting a plant based diet) will probably have more of an impact on environmental issues than adopting EV’s. Something for another thread
You appear to be in an enviable position in NZ. You generate you own electricity though renewable means and fuel your EV from this.
The UK and other highly populated countries have a way to go. EV’s do appear to improve overall emissions but the amount it is dependent on the source of the electricity. Battery production and mineral mining remains an environmental concern.
I take this that EV’s are a marginal step forward but not a holy grail. Ultimately people will have to adopt a change to their lifestyle and transportation if they wish to reduce emissions significantly and positively effect climate change.
Let me so bold to say they eating less meat (adopting a plant based diet) will probably have more of an impact on environmental issues than adopting EV’s. Something for another thread
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff