Interesting article about electric vehicles

[MHS]

5 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Does the team think gas and oil central heating for houses should also be abandoned in favour of electric heating?

 

Please give your working....

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe ground source or air source heat pumps are the way to go. They are very efficient but expensive to install. 

 

The other thing with houses is to insulate them very well. That way they don’t require much heating. We moved after 17 years in an old cottage to a new steel frame house with an EPC rating B. Our heating cost is 1/3 of the previous one. We had done as much as we could to insulate the old house, but the difference is huge. 

[peterboat]

6 hours ago, Secret Garden said:

There was a study done years and years ago that calculated an average car (which at that time meant 30 mpg burning petrol and lasting 100,000 miles or 10 years), would take 3 times more energy to manufacture than that vehicle would have burnt.

So if we are truly interested in reducing greenhouse gases the immediate short time answer is to make the vehicles last longer.

And they have, there are 10 year old cars in the scrap yard now that I would have given my left arm for 30 years ago, nothing really wrong with them other than "we the consumer" want new and better and to hell with the environment or worse still, we think we are doing the right thing by replacing "old" cars and going for first diesels to increase the mpg and then silly hybrids because diesels kill everything, and now electrics.

 

The only sensible place that I can see for an EV is in the town/city because of the no point of use pollution, but will that really make any difference when the biggest polluters of all in cities are, building heating, buses, diesel trains, delivery vans and taxis, I doubt it...

Things are changing next year towns and cities are going to be banning/charging the worst polluters, so maybe diesels will start to be the odd one out?

[peterboat]

10 hours ago, MJG said:

We can do what we can. It wasn't the fault of VW's customers that the maker of the cars they bought were rigged to cheat emissions tests. (I believe mine actually meets the the new real world driving emissions tests btw). So we buy in good faith, that is all we can in reality do.

 

As for the replacement? I have no idea, a lot will depend on what is available and importantly affordable in 5 or 6 years time.

 

As things stand it will probably be a plug in hybrid as driving to the Italian lakes in a fully electric car is not going to be viable, even five years hence.

 

I agree Martin you bought the right vehicle for the job, I still have an old Toyota lucida diesel that I only use in winter its four wheel drive and I run it on full bio diesel. It's worth nowt but does a great job for four months of the year, I use it to collect coal wood, diesel etc, when it fails its test badly it will be scrapped, but until then..........

[Robbo]

12 hours ago, IanD said:

and diesels can't run on electricity from renewable sources.

Use biodiesel, that’s a renewable source.

[Murflynn]

11 hours ago, stegra said:

The more I learn about electric vehicles the more convinced I am that the future lies in hydrogen fuel cells. Refueling time and range are similar to conventional vehicles and the existing infrastructure of fuel stations seems an obvious platform for fuel supply. I don't know much about hydrogen production but understand most comes from oil so the oil producers can be kept happy, depending on the carbon emissions involved. Clearly, the Holy grail of hydrogen production is HHO separation from water using less energy than produced. Even without that, using renewable electricity to split hydrogen from water is a method of storing the energy.

Any electrical drive not using hydrogen fuel cells is a non-starter because it involves heavy and expensive batteries (the manufacture and disposal of which is far from environmentally friendly).

 

Hydrogen does not derive from oil.  It is derived from electrolysis of water preferably at a location where the electricity supply is renewable.  Ideally think of a fuel station n the Arizona desert near a water source where free solar power converts the water into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen is stored and used to fill cars, the oxygen enriches the atmosphere.  The fuel cell in the car produces water as the only emission.

 

James May on 'Cars of the People' last week came to the conclusion that all we need is a hydrogen infrastructure (in existing petrol stations) to enable cars like the Hyundai to become the truly environmentally friendly car of the future. 

 

 

[Gareth E]

7 hours ago, Secret Garden said:

There was a study done years and years ago that calculated an average car (which at that time meant 30 mpg burning petrol and lasting 100,000 miles or 10 years), would take 3 times more energy to manufacture than that vehicle would have burnt.

So if we are truly interested in reducing greenhouse gases the immediate short time answer is to make the vehicles last longer.

And they have, there are 10 year old cars in the scrap yard now that I would have given my left arm for 30 years ago, nothing really wrong with them other than "we the consumer" want new and better and to hell with the environment or worse still, we think we are doing the right thing by replacing "old" cars and going for first diesels to increase the mpg and then silly hybrids because diesels kill everything, and now electrics.

 

The only sensible place that I can see for an EV is in the town/city because of the no point of use pollution, but will that really make any difference when the biggest polluters of all in cities are, building heating, buses, diesel trains, delivery vans and taxis, I doubt it...

How very interesting; that cars take 3 times more energy to manufacture than energy they use in their lifetime. I'm sure this won't be widely publicised as it will completely debunk the myth that it's somehow 'green' to scrap a perfectly healthy petrol or diesel car in favour of a supposedly 'green' electric one.

 

I think many of us knew all along that really, the best way to minimise the impact on the environment is not to constantly throw away perfectly good things in favour of things that have marginal environmental advantages but rather, build things that last. Obviously this won't happen, obsolescence is a key requirement in the constant growth and profit thing and while it continues, shows that we're only really paying lip service to environmental issues, and we'll only implement measures when there are profits to be made from them.

 

Any chance of a link to the research?  

[Dr Bob]

16 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

 

 

Hydrogen does not derive from oil.  It is derived from electrolysis of water preferably at a location where the electricity supply is renewable.  Ideally think of a fuel station n the Arizona desert near a water source where free solar power converts the water into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen is stored and used to fill cars, the oxygen enriches the atmosphere.  The fuel cell in the car produces water as the only emission.

 

 

 

Yep. No hydrogen available from oil. Refineries use all the hydrogen they generate to react back in to make decent gas oil etc. Hydrogen is  scarce commodity. Like the old alchemists trying to turn lead into gold, chemists for the last 50 years have tried to move hydrogen from 'cheap' sources like Methane (CH4) to the heavy end of the barrel with no commercial success at all.

Hydrogen from water for fuel cells sounds the right way to go but storing hydrogen is huge hurdle. 

[stegra]

7 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

Yep. No hydrogen available from oil. Refineries use all the hydrogen they generate to react back in to make decent gas oil etc. Hydrogen is  scarce commodity. Like the old alchemists trying to turn lead into gold, chemists for the last 50 years have tried to move hydrogen from 'cheap' sources like Methane (CH4) to the heavy end of the barrel with no commercial success at all.

Hydrogen from water for fuel cells sounds the right way to go but storing hydrogen is huge hurdle. 

Ok. Not oil, natural gas. It's currently the cheapest and most common method of producing hydrogen.

 

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_production.html

[Pluto]

Surely the real problem is our reliance on excessive use of transport, in particular for commuting and for moving goods around. Why can't we eat local products at specific times of the year, rather than import food from around the globe? Support local manufacturing as well, rather than move half-built items expensively, in terms of pollution, around the continent of world. Unfortunately, that would require a major change in our economic model - I can't see much evidence of a policy - which ensures that a small minority accrue vast fortunes at the expense of the majority, not just financially, but also in terms of declining health resulting from pollution of all types. The problem can also be seen in the Brexit negotiations with regard to the Irish border. Those with money want to maintain an open border for trade, whist I suspect the majority of those voting for Brexit wanted a closed border to control immigration. Once again, those accumulating the most money are making others pay for their greed. 

[MHS]

This is the Irish solution to the issue. 

[Graham Davis]

So the 46 year old MG Midget I collect today can be considered to be a "green" car? I must remember to tell that to the next "green" who criticises cars!

[IanD]

Hydrogen is a non-starter because the whole cycle to produce it and convert to electricity in file cells is horribly inefficient, far worse than using BEV, and this is down to basic thermodynamics so no magic wand can fix it. If the energy comes from fossil fuels (short term) the overall energy efficiency is even worse than petrol/diesel engines. If it comes from renewables we need to decrease transport energy usage, not increase it. Hydrogen powered cars are pretty much the least environmentally friendly transport method yet decided when you look at the whole picture. See SEWTHA for details...

Edited October 23, 2018 by IanD
Typo

[Stilllearning]

8 hours ago, Secret Garden said:

There was a study done years and years ago that calculated an average car (which at that time meant 30 mpg burning petrol and lasting 100,000 miles or 10 years), would take 3 times more energy to manufacture than that vehicle would have burnt.

So if we are truly interested in reducing greenhouse gases the immediate short time answer is to make the vehicles last longer.

And they have, there are 10 year old cars in the scrap yard now that I would have given my left arm for 30 years ago, nothing really wrong with them other than "we the consumer" want new and better and to hell with the environment or worse still, we think we are doing the right thing by replacing "old" cars and going for first diesels to increase the mpg and then silly hybrids because diesels kill everything, and now electrics.

 

The only sensible place that I can see for an EV is in the town/city because of the no point of use pollution, but will that really make any difference when the biggest polluters of all in cities are, building heating, buses, diesel trains, delivery vans and taxis, I doubt it...

The desire for newness and trendy cars has  made the life of cars shorter than it needs to be. As you say, cars being scrapped that I would love to be able to afford. We should be keeping cars much longer, and recycling older models by using them and repairing them. Years ago when I worked for a national conservation charity, I tried to convince the directors that those of us who had company cars (yes I am well aware of the irony of a conservation charity having company cars), should instead be given classic cars to drive, as this would not only look good, but be active recycling, with the benefit that after a few years the cars could be sold for a profit. Classic cars tend to appreciate in price. My manager just gave me a funny look and pointed out the tax benefits to the charity of having leased company cars. The system needs to be changed.

[Chewbacka]

In theory hydrogen is the perfect fuel (ignoring for the moment the impact of making it) but the reality is going to be a lot different as there will be losses of hydrogen into the atmospher, (Leakage in distribution, escapes after accidents etc) this hydrogen will being very light float up safely into the upper atmosphere.  Hydrogen in the upper atmosphere will then react with the ozone, and we will be back with a big hole in the ozone layer.

The only answer to a better planet is too use a lot less energy than we do now, anything else is just a con.  Though of course, the cleaner the energy the better.

[Gareth E]

37 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

So the 46 year old MG Midget I collect today can be considered to be a "green" car? I must remember to tell that to the next "green" who criticises cars!

Yes I'd say it was green, in the grander scheme of things. It would need to have done over a million miles just to make up for the energy used to make replacement cars, had it been scrapped as normal. Anyway it's a nice car, not like those vile soulless suv things that masquerade as cars these days. 

[Chewbacka]

1 minute ago, Gareth E said:

Yes I'd say it was green, in the grander scheme of things. It would need to have done over a million miles just to make up for the energy used to make replacement cars, had it been scrapped as normal. Anyway it's a nice car, not like those vile soulless suv things that masquerade as cars these days. 

If your priority is reducing global warming it’s much better to use it than scrapping it and buying a new car, but if it is being used in a town or more so a city and you don’t wish to emit vast amounts of NOx and particulates, not to mention CO as it’s a pre cat car then a new car will do a lot less harm to growing children etc.  So on one hand it’s green on the other hand it’s disgustingly polluting.  

[Gareth E]

10 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

If your priority is reducing global warming it’s much better to use it than scrapping it and buying a new car, but if it is being used in a town or more so a city and you don’t wish to emit vast amounts of NOx and particulates, not to mention CO as it’s a pre cat car then a new car will do a lot less harm to growing children etc.  So on one hand it’s green on the other hand it’s disgustingly polluting.  

Oops, doesn't sound like my 40 year old 2 stroke motor bike is great news either then.

[Detling]

14 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

But the main reason for electric cars is that you don’t fill the city’s air with NOx and particulates which are shortening people’s lives.  So get diesel out of the cities.  Longer term we need more clean electricity for recharging, but short term and from a global impact, electric cars don’t help, but at least kids that live in the city can breathe clean air, so much better than now..........

Most nox in cities comes from gas central heating about 50% I think and if you are near an airport a jumbo taking off produces as much nox as 100 busses running for 8 hours. The pollution report for London found that 11% of nox came from cars, but they are an easy target and central heating is politically untouchable.

[Robbo]

4 minutes ago, Detling said:

Most nox in cities comes from gas central heating about 50% I think and if you are near an airport a jumbo taking off produces as much nox as 100 busses running for 8 hours. The pollution report for London found that 11% of nox came from cars, but they are an easy target and central heating is politically untouchable.

The sources I find say gas central heating is around 16%, where road transport is 50% - what sources have you seen?

[Chewbacka]

8 minutes ago, Detling said:

Most nox in cities comes from gas central heating about 50% I think and if you are near an airport a jumbo taking off produces as much nox as 100 busses running for 8 hours. The pollution report for London found that 11% of nox came from cars, but they are an easy target and central heating is politically untouchable.

I have also read (from memory) and it was greenpeace funded so hardly impartial, that about a 1/3rd of the NOx in London’s air comes from road transport, mainly diesel.  Probably the definition of London has an impact, including LHR and other airports will reduce the traffic percentage, but just going for the more inner city residential areas will be higher for vehicles.  I suppose it’s a case of selecting the zones to support what you are trying to prove.  So I don’t trust any reports, though I do know that air quality monitors (which tend to be on the side of busy roads) show levels are high.  But then that is hardly surprising if you sample air close to vehicle exhaust levels.........

[Onionman]

13 hours ago, stegra said:

The more I learn about electric vehicles the more convinced I am that the future lies in hydrogen fuel cells. Refueling time and range are similar to conventional vehicles and the existing infrastructure of fuel stations seems an obvious platform for fuel supply. I don't know much about hydrogen production but understand most comes from oil so the oil producers can be kept happy, depending on the carbon emissions involved. Clearly, the Holy grail of hydrogen production is HHO separation from water using less energy than produced. Even without that, using renewable electricity to split hydrogen from water is a method of storing the energy.

 

Can't be done, I'm afraid; the universe doesn't let you get away with that particular trick. Some energy must be lost.

[Chewbacka]

1 minute ago, Onionman said:

 

Can't be done, I'm afraid; the universe doesn't let you get away with that particular trick. Some energy must be lost.

That can’t be true as I keeping seeing offers for my car that supplies a little jar that uses almost no energy but makes so much Hydrogen that I can reduce my fuel consumption by 15%.   Next you will be telling me that the Bank Executive offering me a share of a lost fortune in exchange for ten grand upfront isn’t true either...........

[peterboat]

Over the year's I have converted many classic car's to LPG, this is a great way of cleaning up old car's. I have watched the not guys trying to work out what's going on when they stuck a probe up it's exhaust

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

So the 46 year old MG Midget I collect today can be considered to be a "green" car? I must remember to tell that to the next "green" who criticises cars!

This was an argument that used to rage on Land Rover forums years ago when the whole concept of gas guzzlers first came to the fore in the media.

 

Land Rover owners frequently pointed out that something like 70% of all Land Rovers ever made were still on the road. I don't know if the figure is as high as that but it would be close I would say. So in terms of overall emissions compared to other 'disposable' cars they are pretty low.

 

But it's a figure lots of so called 'environmentalists'  are not interested in because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[Detling]

14 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

But the main reason for electric cars is that you don’t fill the city’s air with NOx and particulates which are shortening people’s lives.  So get diesel out of the cities.  Longer term we need more clean electricity for recharging, but short term and from a global impact, electric cars don’t help, but at least kids that live in the city can breathe clean air, so much better than now..........

Most nox in cities comes from gas central heating about 50% I think and if you are near an airport a jumbo taking off produces as much nox as 100 busses running for 8 hours. The pollution report for London found that 11% of nox came from cars, but they are an easy target and central heating is politically untouchable.