Electric Vehicles - Red Herring?

Mungecrundle wrote:

Regardless of how you feel personally about the suitability of an EV as a replacement for your own ICE powered car right now, EVs are here to stay.

https://europe.autonews.com/sales-market/ev-sales-surge-uk-market-down-2...

Summary: Full EV now 3.4% of market share, increasing sales by 378% over the year to August 2019 against an overall drop in UK car sales of 1.6% in the same period.

 

.....except that the underlying data from SMMT which the article references doesn't support the conclusions of the article. Current data to October,  shows that full electric (BEV) only makes up 1.4% market share YTD. Overall change YTD is a still respectable 125%, but a long way short of the 378% you have quoted.

By far the biggest percentage increase is non-plug in Diesel Hybrid vehicles, which has increased by 796% YTD.  

To add some context, the total sales of full electric (BEV) cars YTD is only 28,259, against a total of over 2 million cars.

Hybrid cars, for anybody who wants to drag around 2 engines and 2 fuel sources, still vastly outsell full electric cars. 

So yes, the numbers are encouraging, but the article is telling porkies.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

ICE cars clearly have their advantages at present but personally the local pollution created by them is the reason I couldn't justify buying another one. If I buy another car it will be an EV.

 

The only advantage is ability to drive 300-500miles without stopping.  

But lets look how most folk drive.  I would not drive more than 200-250miles non stop.  Its approx 4-6hours of non stop driving. That is not recommended for being alert to driving requirements.  

Some will say, but you can refuel in 5 mins and be on your way.  True, but on a long journey, one or more stops are for rest. food, toilet breaks.  This is where 'rapid/supercharging' comes in allowing the EV to recharge to 80/90% capacity in 30-60mins. negating virtually all extra time to recharge.

Charge whilst eating/resting etc.

Long journeys like that are few and far between.  the vast majority (95%) of journeys per day in the western world are 35 miles per day.  EVs are perfect for local commuter type trips.

What is criminal,  75% of vehicle journeys are less than 2 miles per day! 

Polluting to take you kid to school or go to supermarket.  Walk or cycle if its only 2 miles

This is my Wife's car heading to London having done over a 100 miles so far to visit an ill relative in hospital. She will probably do a quick top charge on the return leg, whilst having her lunch

The journey in savings £7 electric overnight charging as opposed to £41 Petrol  

Zero CO2, NO2,  driving emissions

 

The irony of this for me personally is that while car owners make lots of short and unnecessary journeys in the car, by comparison my car usage is completely different. My car can sit for weeks unused, I walk to local shops for groceries but when I do use it I tend to make journeys anywhere between 60 and 600 miles. Most of my journeys this year have been between 400 and 600 miles with a few 60 mile runs for good measure.

Where I live there are a lot of elderly car owners making short journeys and they are the ones who could benefit from an EV. Most of them I speak to don't want an EV though, largely because EVs are outside their price range. There is no charging infrastructure where I live and I haven't seen any move to improve this by the local authority. 

Where I live it is very cold much of the year and an EV would be highly impractical. As I said, my car sits around for weeks unused and an ICE car can handle this better than EV, Batteries don't like cold. I wouldn't be confident about going out to an EV sitting in the cold for weeks and expecting it to have a decent charge and so for me it would need constant charging even when not in use, 

This is putting aside the other impracticalities involved in long distance journeys with an EV. Making stops to recharge, high rates of discharge in winter due to using the heater, lights and blower. 

hobbeldehoy wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

ICE cars clearly have their advantages at present but personally the local pollution created by them is the reason I couldn't justify buying another one. If I buy another car it will be an EV.

 

The only advantage is ability to drive 300-500miles without stopping.  

But lets look how most folk drive.  I would not drive more than 200-250miles non stop.  Its approx 4-6hours of non stop driving. That is not recommended for being alert to driving requirements.  

Some will say, but you can refuel in 5 mins and be on your way.  True, but on a long journey, one or more stops are for rest. food, toilet breaks.  This is where 'rapid/supercharging' comes in allowing the EV to recharge to 80/90% capacity in 30-60mins. negating virtually all extra time to recharge.

Charge whilst eating/resting etc.

Long journeys like that are few and far between.  the vast majority (95%) of journeys per day in the western world are 35 miles per day.  EVs are perfect for local commuter type trips.

What is criminal,  75% of vehicle journeys are less than 2 miles per day! 

Polluting to take you kid to school or go to supermarket.  Walk or cycle if its only 2 miles

This is my Wife's car heading to London having done over a 100 miles so far to visit an ill relative in hospital. She will probably do a quick top charge on the return leg, whilst having her lunch

The journey in savings £7 electric overnight charging as opposed to £41 Petrol  

Zero CO2, NO2,  driving emissions

 

 

The irony of this for me personally is that while car owners make lots of short and unnecessary journeys in the car, by comparison my car usage is completely different. My car can sit for weeks unused, I walk to local shops for groceries but when I do use it I tend to make journeys anywhere between 60 and 600 miles. Most of my journeys this year have been between 400 and 600 miles with a few 60 mile runs for good measure.

Where I live there are a lot of elderly car owners making short journeys and they are the ones who could benefit from an EV. Most of them I speak to don't want an EV though, largely because EVs are outside their price range. There is no charging infrastructure where I live and I haven't seen any move to improve this by the local authority. 

Where I live it is very cold much of the year and an EV would be highly impractical. As I said, my car sits around for weeks unused and an ICE car can handle this better than EV, Batteries don't like cold. I wouldn't be confident about going out to an EV sitting in the cold for weeks and expecting it to have a decent charge and so for me it would need constant charging even when not in use, 

This is putting aside the other impracticalities involved in long distance journeys with an EV. Making stops to recharge, high rates of discharge in winter due to using the heater, lights and blower. 

If you have a drive to park a car, then an EV home 7kw charger will do 99% of your usage. We dont have a supercharger or Chademo within 25 miles of our house. We rarely use rapid chargers. Most EVs have sophisticated battery management systems. These control level of charge so not to prematurely age the battery. You can leave them plugged in on trickle.

Your own situation is a little unusual, so possibly an EV isnt for you. The majority just seem reluctant to embrace new-ish propulsion.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

 

This is my Wife's car heading to London having done over a 100 miles so far to visit an ill relative in hospital. She will probably do a quick top charge on the return leg, whilst having her lunch

The journey in savings £7 electric overnight charging as opposed to £41 Petrol  

Zero CO2, NO2,  driving emissions

 

23 degrees, I've never been in a mobile sauna before!

Griff500 wrote:

I've always thought hydrogen was the answer, as it is considerably cleaner than any current battery technology. If we want clean, we are backing the wrong horse. While there are now a few hydrogen vehicles on sale (most notably the new Hyundai), I doubt there will be the appetite to roll out hydrogen infractructure in addition to chargers.

Alas hydrogen is a pretty dire thing to use for a fuel - current production techniques don't help (vast majority of it is still produced using steam reformation) but even so you're bleeding efficiency at every stage. Currently, electricity consumption per mile seems to be reckoned to be several times worse for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles over straight EV, and that's without considering greenhouse-gas emissions. It's a lovely idea, but it just doesn't add up at the moment (maybe never).

kt26 wrote:

A point that is yet to be mentioned here is that humanities addiction to the car will atleast drive a surge in battery technology - which is going to be necessary to move the grids to more renewable sources. In fact major advances are already happening - the man credited with inventing the Lithium Ion battery, may have just create (along with his assistant) the first solid state battery which is sodium based - so not a rare earth material, this battery:

- Doesn't suffer from the combustibility problem most convential batteries do

- Have a much better energy density - can be lighter and store more energy

- Much shorter charging times.

Hell yeah, and looks like they should have

* cheaper and easier manufacturing

* far greater active lifespan (lower cell degradation/charge cycle)

* much wider operating temperature range

He also absolutely has the best name going *

* ..and also part of the group that created the first 'modern' RAM modules. Still working, late nineties, boy's a legend.

vonhelmet wrote:

The most economical and ecological thing you can do car wise is run an old reliable car into the ground. The carbon footprint of manufacturing an old car is a sunk cost, so all you have to deal with is the marginal impact of repairs and miles. The impact of manufacturing new cars is vast. What's the impact of mining all that lithium compared to running an old Volvo (other reliable cars are available) to 200,000 miles? It's almost like the car industry is more concerned with selling new cars without regard to their actual lifetime environmental impact.

THIS THIS THIS.

Not only does the world now think that they are saving the earth by doing their bit and buying an EV but us consumers are driven into a frenzy by being told you'll have to get on a waiting list as they can't produce the batteries fast enough. We're all being mugged off. 

vonhelmet wrote:

The most economical and ecological thing you can do car wise is run an old reliable car into the ground. The carbon footprint of manufacturing an old car is a sunk cost, so all you have to deal with is the marginal impact of repairs and miles. The impact of manufacturing new cars is vast. What's the impact of mining all that lithium compared to running an old Volvo (other reliable cars are available) to 200,000 miles?

It's almost like the car industry is more concerned with selling new cars without regard to their actual lifetime environmental impact.

Don't forget about the extra air pollution that older vehicles produce.

hawkinspeter wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

The most economical and ecological thing you can do car wise is run an old reliable car into the ground. The carbon footprint of manufacturing an old car is a sunk cost, so all you have to deal with is the marginal impact of repairs and miles. The impact of manufacturing new cars is vast. What's the impact of mining all that lithium compared to running an old Volvo (other reliable cars are available) to 200,000 miles? It's almost like the car industry is more concerned with selling new cars without regard to their actual lifetime environmental impact.

Don't forget about the extra air pollution that older vehicles produce.

Vonhelet's argument about 'ecological cost of manufacture' does hold water IMO.

My household's cars are vintage, and we couldn't possibly afford to replace them either with ICE or EV.

We just try to make sure we drive them as little as we have to, and make sure we feel suitably guilty about it when we do.

hawkinspeter wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

The most economical and ecological thing you can do car wise is run an old reliable car into the ground. The carbon footprint of manufacturing an old car is a sunk cost, so all you have to deal with is the marginal impact of repairs and miles. The impact of manufacturing new cars is vast. What's the impact of mining all that lithium compared to running an old Volvo (other reliable cars are available) to 200,000 miles?

It's almost like the car industry is more concerned with selling new cars without regard to their actual lifetime environmental impact.

Don't forget about the extra air pollution that older vehicles produce.

Do you mean older as in older designs or older as in more worn ie less efficient? Either way, let's do some back of an envelope maths. Googling suggests a Volvo 240 (very old) has co2 emissions of about 180g/km. Let's assume we'd got a knackered one and it does, I dunno, 300. Googling suggests an electric car causes 9 tonnes of co2 emissions in its production. You could drive the 240 for another 30,000 miles before the electric car had even been built. I can't be arsed doing the maths to work out when the electric car breaks even but I bet it's moon miles and it may in fact be impossible if you have to replace the batteries at astronomical cost before you get there.

If you mean other nasty emissions besides co2 then that's a trickier one, yes.

vonhelmet wrote:

Do you mean older as in older designs or older as in more worn ie less efficient? Either way, let's do some back of an envelope maths. Googling suggests a Volvo 240 (very old) has co2 emissions of about 180g/km. Let's assume we'd got a knackered one and it does, I dunno, 300. Googling suggests an electric car causes 9 tonnes of co2 emissions in its production. You could drive the 240 for another 30,000 miles before the electric car had even been built. I can't be arsed doing the maths to work out when the electric car breaks even but I bet it's moon miles and it may in fact be impossible if you have to replace the batteries at astronomical cost before you get there.

If you mean other nasty emissions besides co2 then that's a trickier one, yes.

The lifetime CO2/km of the latest Renault Zoe is 60g. That means that you'd break even at 46,000 miles assuming your old Volvo was working well (180g/km).

If it was running at 300g/km it would be 23,500 miles.

The average car in the UK does about 7100 miles per year so you're looking at about 6.5 years and 3.25 years respectively.

I know the cars aren't exactly equivalent but I only has the Zoe's figures to hand.

Given that UK electricity production is getting less carbon intensive every year you can expect that time frame to get shorter and shorter. If you lived in France or Norway it would already be.

There's also the small matter of noxious gases and particulates which are far more damaging to your local community than CO2 and which your old Volvo probably emits by the bucket load.

Rich_cb wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Do you mean older as in older designs or older as in more worn ie less efficient? Either way, let's do some back of an envelope maths. Googling suggests a Volvo 240 (very old) has co2 emissions of about 180g/km. Let's assume we'd got a knackered one and it does, I dunno, 300. Googling suggests an electric car causes 9 tonnes of co2 emissions in its production. You could drive the 240 for another 30,000 miles before the electric car had even been built. I can't be arsed doing the maths to work out when the electric car breaks even but I bet it's moon miles and it may in fact be impossible if you have to replace the batteries at astronomical cost before you get there. If you mean other nasty emissions besides co2 then that's a trickier one, yes.

The lifetime CO2/km of the latest Renault Zoe is 60g. That means that you'd break even at 46,000 miles assuming your old Volvo was working well (180g/km). If it was running at 300g/km it would be 23,500 miles. The average car in the UK does about 7100 miles per year so you're looking at about 6.5 years and 3.25 years respectively. I know the cars aren't exactly equivalent but I only has the Zoe's figures to hand. Given that UK electricity production is getting less carbon intensive every year you can expect that time frame to get shorter and shorter. If you lived in France or Norway it would already be. There's also the small matter of noxious gases and particulates which are far more damaging to your local community than CO2 and which your old Volvo probably emits by the bucket load.

In real world use with bio fuel/vege oil (standard operation all year round) my 18 year old large estate diesel runs cleaner than some EUROVI based on the real world testing of both the EURO standards in independant testing, particularly E4, some of the E6 vehicles were absolutely shocking.

The factory spec for mine CO2 wise was 151g/km, when the garage last MOT'd it (126,000) the opacity test level was ridiculously low and that was on first run, so low that they tested it again (they're a top independant winning garage of the year in the UK a couple of times so no cowboys) I no longer use it but was down to less than 3,000 per year. If I were to do similar (with regards bio fuel/vege oil) to my folks Skoda Fabia 3 cycl 99g/km, I reckon it would be even cleaner, I used it for a 100mile outing this summer when vsiting and managed to get 80mpg with a 10-15% of that getting across the city and through a small town at the other end. I expect them to use it (2014 model) until they can no longer drive, so probably another 15 years or so.

Taking that car changes the comparison hugely.

In any case, I honestly don't trust the figures given for EVs, there seems to be no accounting for the non recycling of the cobalt and lithium, no account for the additional and very massive infra that needs putting in place and the pollution that comes from that, it takes no account of the increase in burning fossil fuels because we simply won't have enough capacity nor enough renewables to supply the demand.

Also, as you've said, the Zoe is a tiny car (which most people won't buy) but ridiculously heavy at 1.5metric tonnes, this is were the problem arises for range and potential extra pollution burning fossil fuel). That weight is not just the batteries but all the gizmos and 'safety'/driving aids etc all add up to a LOT of weight. MKII Ford Escort 1.3L 5 door was 878kg, bigger space internally yet nearly half the weight and with lots of heavy gauge steel/steel wheels/iron bloc.

In our throwaway society these 'plastic' cars won't be around anywhere near as long as the ICE life span they are replacing.

Now if they were to knock out a Sinclair stylie vehicle similar to the one I pictured above Or the Iris E Trike, made it in the UK, made it free from all the weighty crud as the ETrike is (hence 55kg incl battery) that would change the balance of a viable/covered transport mode for up to 20-25 miles each way then that would smash the argument out of sight. 

Yet we're not doing that at all and Labour aren't a party that support that clear and obvious option either, not even close, it's continuing down the path of building MASSive vehicles that will still kill and maim with virtual impunity in the hands of morons and the actual real life cycle emissions are doubtful even when using one of the better EVs in lab conditions.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

In real world use with bio fuel/vege oil (standard operation all year round) my 18 year old large estate diesel runs cleaner than some EUROVI based on the real world testing of both the EURO standards in independant testing, particularly E4, some of the E6 vehicles were absolutely shocking.

The factory spec for mine CO2 wise was 151g/km, when the garage last MOT'd it (126,000) the opacity test level was ridiculously low and that was on first run, so low that they tested it again (they're a top independant winning garage of the year in the UK a couple of times so no cowboys) I no longer use it but was down to less than 3,000 per year. If I were to do similar (with regards bio fuel/vege oil) to my folks Skoda Fabia 3 cycl 99g/km, I reckon it would be even cleaner, I used it for a 100mile outing this summer when vsiting and managed to get 80mpg with a 10-15% of that getting across the city and through a small town at the other end. I expect them to use it (2014 model) until they can no longer drive, so probably another 15 years or so.

Taking that car changes the comparison hugely.

In any case, I honestly don't trust the figures given for EVs, there seems to be no accounting for the non recycling of the cobalt and lithium, no account for the additional and very massive infra that needs putting in place and the pollution that comes from that, it takes no account of the increase in burning fossil fuels because we simply won't have enough capacity nor enough renewables to supply the demand.

Also, as you've said, the Zoe is a tiny car (which most people won't buy) but ridiculously heavy at 1.5metric tonnes, this is were the problem arises for range and potential extra pollution burning fossil fuel). That weight is not just the batteries but all the gizmos and 'safety'/driving aids etc all add up to a LOT of weight. MKII Ford Escort 1.3L 5 door was 878kg, bigger space internally yet nearly half the weight and with lots of heavy gauge steel/steel wheels/iron bloc.

In our throwaway society these 'plastic' cars won't be around anywhere near as long as the ICE life span they are replacing.

Now if they were to knock out a Sinclair stylie vehicle similar to the one I pictured above Or the Iris E Trike, made it in the UK, made it free from all the weighty crud as the ETrike is (hence 55kg incl battery) that would change the balance of a viable/covered transport mode for up to 20-25 miles each way then that would smash the argument out of sight. 

Yet we're not doing that at all and Labour aren't a party that support that clear and obvious option either, not even close, it's continuing down the path of building MASSive vehicles that will still kill and maim with virtual impunity in the hands of morons and the actual real life cycle emissions are doubtful even when using one of the better EVs in lab conditions.

If your parents Skoda fabia emits 99g/km then its lifetime emisions per km (including manufacture, maintainance etc) will be higher still. It would probably end up not far off double the lifetime emissions of the Zoe.

If there's a market for the type of vehicle you describe I'm sure one will be produced but if I'm honest I don't think there is.

I don't think the growth in EVs will lead to more fossil fuels being used in electricity generation as the charging can easily be scheduled for off peak times when electricity is often in surplus and when CO2 emisions per KWh are the lowest.

Batteries and electric motors are being improved all the time and electricity generation is getting less CO2 intensive every year. That together with improved efficiency in EV manufacture will tip the argument decisively in favour of EVs in the next few years.

Rich_cb wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

In real world use with bio fuel/vege oil (standard operation all year round) my 18 year old large estate diesel runs cleaner than some EUROVI based on the real world testing of both the EURO standards in independant testing, particularly E4, some of the E6 vehicles were absolutely shocking.

The factory spec for mine CO2 wise was 151g/km, when the garage last MOT'd it (126,000) the opacity test level was ridiculously low and that was on first run, so low that they tested it again (they're a top independant winning garage of the year in the UK a couple of times so no cowboys) I no longer use it but was down to less than 3,000 per year. If I were to do similar (with regards bio fuel/vege oil) to my folks Skoda Fabia 3 cycl 99g/km, I reckon it would be even cleaner, I used it for a 100mile outing this summer when vsiting and managed to get 80mpg with a 10-15% of that getting across the city and through a small town at the other end. I expect them to use it (2014 model) until they can no longer drive, so probably another 15 years or so.

Taking that car changes the comparison hugely.

In any case, I honestly don't trust the figures given for EVs, there seems to be no accounting for the non recycling of the cobalt and lithium, no account for the additional and very massive infra that needs putting in place and the pollution that comes from that, it takes no account of the increase in burning fossil fuels because we simply won't have enough capacity nor enough renewables to supply the demand.

Also, as you've said, the Zoe is a tiny car (which most people won't buy) but ridiculously heavy at 1.5metric tonnes, this is were the problem arises for range and potential extra pollution burning fossil fuel). That weight is not just the batteries but all the gizmos and 'safety'/driving aids etc all add up to a LOT of weight. MKII Ford Escort 1.3L 5 door was 878kg, bigger space internally yet nearly half the weight and with lots of heavy gauge steel/steel wheels/iron bloc.

In our throwaway society these 'plastic' cars won't be around anywhere near as long as the ICE life span they are replacing.

Now if they were to knock out a Sinclair stylie vehicle similar to the one I pictured above Or the Iris E Trike, made it in the UK, made it free from all the weighty crud as the ETrike is (hence 55kg incl battery) that would change the balance of a viable/covered transport mode for up to 20-25 miles each way then that would smash the argument out of sight. 

Yet we're not doing that at all and Labour aren't a party that support that clear and obvious option either, not even close, it's continuing down the path of building MASSive vehicles that will still kill and maim with virtual impunity in the hands of morons and the actual real life cycle emissions are doubtful even when using one of the better EVs in lab conditions.

If your parents Skoda fabia emits 99g/km then its lifetime emisions per km (including manufacture, maintainance etc) will be higher still. It would probably end up not far off double the lifetime emissions of the Zoe. If there's a market for the type of vehicle you describe I'm sure one will be produced but if I'm honest I don't think there is. I don't think the growth in EVs will lead to more fossil fuels being used in electricity generation as the charging can easily be scheduled for off peak times when electricity is often in surplus and when CO2 emisions per KWh are the lowest. Batteries and electric motors are being improved all the time and electricity generation is getting less CO2 intensive every year. That together with improved efficiency in EV manufacture will tip the argument decisively in favour of EVs in the next few years.

My folks car will last at least 20 years, how many EVs will be gone through in that time, how many extra batteries and cobalt/lithium mined?

I'm not saying diesels are better, I'm saying the pollution numbers given for EVs is not as good as is being made out and using far fetched scenarios that exclude many factors to get to those numbers, the differential is not that big and as I have said all along there are better solutions that are being ignored pretty much completely despite their obviousness.

I will continue to not run a motorvehicle for the forseeable though at times it is bloody difficult and does shut down certain options you may want to enjoy/explore unless one borrows a car which I have done three times in a 26 month period, the alternates are not impossible but just very, very impractical and very expensive.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

My folks car will last at least 20 years, how many EVs will be gone through in that time, how many extra batteries and cobalt/lithium mined?

I'm not saying diesels are better, I'm saying the pollution numbers given for EVs is not as good as is being made out and using far fetched scenarios that exclude many factors to get to those numbers, the differential is not that big and as I have said all along there are better solutions that are being ignored pretty much completely despite their obviousness.

I will continue to not run a motorvehicle for the forseeable though at times it is bloody difficult and does shut down certain options you may want to enjoy/explore unless one borrows a car which I have done three times in a 26 month period, the alternates are not impossible but just very, very impractical and very expensive.

We don't know how EVs are going to fare long term as we are only just seeing mass market EVs appear.

That being said the battery degradation for older Nissan Leafs has been less than predicted a few years ago. The rest of the car generally needs less maintenance than an ICE car so should last as long if not longer.

ICE cars clearly have their advantages at present but personally the local pollution created by them is the reason I couldn't justify buying another one. If I buy another car it will be an EV.