The push for us to have electric cars
Discussion
Lincsls1 said:
To truly look at saving the environment, we all need to be prepared to sacrifice a good amount of luxury and unnecessary good living and I don't think we are truly prepared to do that. Instead we make small token gestures which in make sweet FA of a difference..
Local air quality is massively dependent on whether you choose to drive a zero emissions vehicle or an ICE.Lincsls1 said:
Nobody trading in and buying a luxury 2 ton EV brimmed with full leather, superior sound systems, 2 massive high power motors and so on are saving the planet!! If that was their true intent they'd be buying a basic Leaf or equivalent.
.
Whist i totally agree in principal, you could go on to sy they would be trading in their current 2 tonne SUV and simply not buying any other car if they were being green!.
Yes, that would be better, but givewn that people are selfish and we like our luxuries, consider trading in a Range rover sport and buying a tesla model x
If they do this, this is huge reduction in their carbon and pollution footprint. The Model X manages about 100 eMPG, the Rangie, just 24 mpg.
If for each and every journey they make, at an "energy put into the car" level (tank fill, or battery charge) that swap means they are using something like 4 times less total energy for any journey! That is an absolutely enourmous reduction. Yes, it would be better they cycle, walk or drive a leaf, but if they aren't going to do that, and lets face it, most aren't, then the BEV SUV is the least worst option and does bring very a real reduction in impact
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I do, because you appear to be victim to the perfect being the enemy of the good. You’re saying that BEVs are not a perfect solution but not offering any alternative vision. We can decarbonise electricity generation, and are doing. We can decarbonise much of the energy which goes into building a car, and are doing. We can’t decarbonise burning fossil fuels in cars. That’s the bottom line. So then we end up with the question of how we get decarbonised electricity to drive cars, which basically comes down to batteries, hydrogen, or e-fuels. Of those, batteries are by far the most energy efficient.So, if not BEVs, what?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Within certain transport segments I suspect you're right, and by that I mean heavy plant, trains, boats, planes etc. However within the passenger car sector, the huge issue that any alternative to BEV or ICE has is supply and sale infrastructure. We already know the fun rolling out charging can be, and that's quite simple in terms of power and parking spaces. And with a reasonable number able to charge at home, at least for them there's an alternative.
But rolling out places to refill with hydrogen, or something else means new facilities, new storage and new distribution. And then the chicken and egg problem. People won't buy a HFC or HC car when they can't go and fill it up nearby. And likewise no one is going to build one nearby until enough people have bought a HFC/HC car. So just like charging infrastructure you have slow growth until you reach a threshold, and that could take many many years.
And in that time, more chargers will be installed, and cars and batteries will improve in range. HFC/HC has pretty much lost the race, and won't be able to grow anywhere quickly enough to be any real option.
For the other sectors mentioned at the start it'll be a different story, as they work from central depots, and don't need a filling station at their local supermarket. That's where you'll see alternatives used. IMHO
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Those are valid concerns. All the problems go away when we're in a position of a surplus of clean energy, but we're not likely to get there for a long time. There are also questions about the environmental impact, materials sourcing and lifecycle management of a large enough installed base of clean energy to be able to afford to be profligate. Wind turbines also contain neodymium magnets, for example.I think the market will also have an effect here. I think BEV is really the only game in town for the immediate future of personal transportation, and I think that once people are used to mostly just plugging their car in at home and occasionally using ever-faster chargers, they will baulk at the idea of having to routinely drive to a filling station. BEV costs will fall with scale, ICEs will get more expensive with lower volumes and more emissions equipment required and their use will be increasingly restricted. I think coming along with an HFC or an e-fuel ICE in 20 or 30 years will mean trying to introduce a tech with a poor filling network, high fuelling cost, and a high sticker price, which won't really offer anything much that people still value.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You claimed EVs use far more neodymium than ICE. They currently use more, but the manufacturers are aware of the supply issues and have committed to minimising their use, so what's the issue?Have the few manufacturers of FCEV /HC vehicles said they've got similar plans to reduce their reliance on even more supply constrained rare earth minerals? If not, then surely that's a major issue you should be highlighting too.
otolith said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Those are valid concerns. All the problems go away when we're in a position of a surplus of clean energy, but we're not likely to get there for a long time. There are also questions about the environmental impact, materials sourcing and lifecycle management of a large enough installed base of clean energy to be able to afford to be profligate. Wind turbines also contain neodymium magnets, for example.I think the market will also have an effect here. I think BEV is really the only game in town for the immediate future of personal transportation, and I think that once people are used to mostly just plugging their car in at home and occasionally using ever-faster chargers, they will baulk at the idea of having to routinely drive to a filling station. BEV costs will fall with scale, ICEs will get more expensive with lower volumes and more emissions equipment required and their use will be increasingly restricted. I think coming along with an HFC or an e-fuel ICE in 20 or 30 years will mean trying to introduce a tech with a poor filling network, high fuelling cost, and a high sticker price, which won't really offer anything much that people still value.
D4rez said:
Exactly this. It's not even interesting to see how this plays out because it is obvious. The EU regs announced will say the target tailpipe emission has to be 0g/km from 2035 timeframe (though interestingly they are tech agnostic) and the UKs are no combustion engine (I believe) so synthetic fuels in new cars won't be feasible. Therefore the available technologies are only Hydrogen (Combustion or FCell) or BEV. With the huge scaling of recharging infrastructure (a lot of which is OEM backed) do you really think they will promote a technology that wastes that investment, doesn't comply with legal requirements and forces consumers to re-learn yet another form of propelling cars? Even Toyota/Hyundai, who are dipping a toe in Hydrogen propulsion, are still planning - or already have - a mass rollout of BEV through their ranges.
If zero tailpipe emissions is the objective then hydrogen internal combustion is a non-starter. Burn hot stuff in air, get NOx.anonymous said:
[redacted]
It appeared that there were two simplistic assumptions being made:You presented the 'amount of Neodymium' as 2-5 kg per EV.
You presented an assumption that power=mass when it comes to magnets.
Both of these are very misleading, and all I was doing was pointing this out.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff