Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[vidya31]

Excellent thread..!!

[subcritical71]

no wind or solar farm is 100% clean because of the carbon cost of replacing the whole thing every 20 or 30 years
and the carbon cost of the plant that covers the intermittency of the solar or wind farm

Completely agree with what you say here. I'm veering from the topic here but there is even more unclean part of this solar/wind equation. In order for the grid to be stable you need a backup power source as clouds and sudden drops in wind speed will cause generation problems and grid instabilities. Guess what that backup power source is today? In the US it will most likely be a Gas Turbine operating in close proximity to the solar/wind field. It will also be running in minimum environmental load meaning it is running at the lowest load that is allowed without exceeding its air permit, usually around 50% of max load. This puts the gas turbine at several factors above its most 'clean' setting (say 25 or 50ppm CO vs <2ppm).

[Andres125sx]

....We´re talking about emissions, so we´re talking globally. You can´t take a single plant whatever it is, and use it as a reference. If so, I may take a solar or wind farm and say electricity is 100% clean, because it is, right?
It´s the average what counts, and on most countries except third world the percentage of electricity wich produces significant emissions, even if you include wood burning, is a small percentage of the total. It will depend on the country obviously, but we´re talking about maybe 20-50% range

no wind or solar farm is 100% clean

Obviously, but when emissions in the 2-3 decades of its lifespan are limited to the manufacturing process wich is one moment time and then 2-3 decades generating electricity constantly, with no emissions at all, that´s considered negligible.

Anything does pollute when it´s manufactured, solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear plants, hydro plants... We can´t avoid that.. yet. But if we avoid polluting for the decades it will be working constantly, that´s a step forward so huge, emissions are reduced so drastically, that criticizing manufacturing emission in my eyes looks completely absurd, almost childish

If you know something better, some way to generate electricity with no pollution at all at the manufacturing or working stages, you´re missing a great oportunity to become billionaire

and the carbon cost of the plant that covers the intermittency of the solar or wind farm

What about nuclear plants or hydro plants? They can, and actually cover, the intermitency of solar and wind energy without any carbon cost

London etc would have better air quality keeping ICE cars and replacing the 'green' renewable-burners with proper heating

Maybe, maybe not. But they surely will have better air quality replacing ICE with EVs, AND replacing wood burners, fuel boilers, etc. with thermic panels. We don´t need to choose between both options, we can, and actually we are replacing both at the same time

At least here in Spain thermic panels are mandatory in any new building, and old buildings receive subsidies and fundings to replace their old equipment

[Big Tea]

I know its off topic, but I have seen several of this sort of thing lately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak

People who were very anti nuke really looking it things and realising wee need them

[subcritical71]

I know its off topic, but I have seen several of this sort of thing lately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak

People who were very anti nuke really looking it things and realising wee need them

Nukes, in my opinion, should be the majority (all!) of the non-renewable mix. But they are not as good with cycling so there needs to be some source which is.

[roon]

no wind or solar farm is 100% clean because of the carbon cost of replacing the whole thing every 20 or 30 years
and the carbon cost of the plant that covers the intermittency of the solar or wind farm

Have to start somewhere. Since sudden 100% replacement of infrastructure is not practical, transition to full renewable or non-carbon will necessarily be incremental. If a fully renewable or hydrocarbon free global power grid is ever realized, the replacement intervals for components will be less relevant in terms of environmental impact. It may essentially be closed loop at that point and you could recycle and remanufacture components only limited by monetary concerns. All forms of power generation require maintenance. How long does a steam turbine last? A stationary diesel?

Musk often makes the point that shifting all global automotive production to electric powertrains immediately will replace the global automotive fleet in something like 20+ years. Trying the best with what we have still renders long lead times. Long lead times alone are not necessarily a reason to abandon realizing a long term goal. It's an old line of thought in some circles: cease worship of short term profit margins.

[J.A.W.]

I expect that once a 'quantum computer' gets 'on steam', we'll soon have nuclear fusion reactors, & in units
scaled to provide primary energy in vehicles, (that is of course, if the 'AI Singularity' isn't co-relational)...

Then humanity & its geo-formy shenannigans - may well be rapidly circumscribed. I guess we'll see.

[Ferry]

I´ve seen several, stating only when 100% of electricity comes from a coal plants, then emissions are comparable to ICEs. Any other scenario, and EVs are less harmfull for environement, wich actually means in 90% of countries EVs are better than ICE, everywhere except India and countries wich only rely on carbon.

From the reports I have seen, one of the main criteria is that the battery is replaced at 150.000 km. And that the energy used for production of the battery has high CO2 emissions. Now that EVs has been in the market for several years, it seems the batteries should last a fair bit longer. As an example, BMW states for the i3 that the battery is meant to last as long as the rest of the car. (And then is reused for energy storage etc.) Energy gets cleaner every year, and if you were to produce a battery from 100% renewables and not replace it during the cars lifetime, the picture would be completely different. The most optimistic report I've read states the EV is on par with ICE within 20.000 - 30.000 km. On the other end I've seen claims of more than 600.000 km (!)
One of the more optimistic studies here: https://www.transportenvironment.org/pr ... lectricity

[hollus]

... And that the energy used for production of the battery has high CO2 emissions...
... and if you were to produce a battery from 100% renewables ...

That's a common problem when analyzing game changers. It is not only your product that changes, but the whole ecosystem around it.
Right around the time when electric vehicles become viable (AKA, batteries get light enough, cheap enough and last long enough), transport trucks, construction sites, mining machines, factories... they'll all shift more and more to electric energy, much of it from renewables, and battery production would not have high CO2 emissions anymore.

The middle period in the transition from an oil economy to an electric economy might be tricky and messy, but once we are at 90% electric, everything should run smoothly again, as it runs smoothly now on a 90% fuel economy, I think.

Fun factoid (I did not check carefully, this just sounds right):
The first breed of electric cars 120 years ago were built on machines running on fossil fuel.
The first breed of mass produced gasoline cars were produced on machines running on electricity.

[Tommy Cookers]

today commences 'the world's first ultra-low emissions zone' - central London
(to be extended over most of London by 2021)
diesel vehicles over 4 years old and petrol vehicles over 13 years old are liable to a £12 - £100 charge daily
this is in addition to the existing 'congestion' charge for this zone
the mayor of London, Mr 'Saddo' Khan, apologises for (his party's) pressuring Joe Public into buying diesels
he doesn't mention his party's pressuring millions to go to wood-fired heating - producing 75% of London air particulate
Leeds and Birmingham have just announced thet they will introduce ULEZ schemes similar to London's

there is of course less air pollution than ever before - eg Pm 2.5 levels are 20% of what they were 50 years ago
there is no public health emergency - but schoolchildren are being taught that there is

2 weeks ago we were told with taxpayer money that the cyclone in Mozambique etc was caused by global warming
1 week ago we were similarly told that the air pollution in Ulan Bator (city full of open coal fires) is caused by global warming
(Mongolians now don't want to live as subsistence pastoralists in the wilderness - they want a weekly wage in the city)

so can we now expect to be told of a step up in the viability of EVs ?
a taxpayer-funded 50% subsidy of purchase price (for city-dwellers of course) ?
while London's bizarre Crossrail vanity project heads for a £5 billion overrun -'they' lied and cheated
its carbon saving (now to take maybe 25 years) would disappear if there's a mass takeup of EVs
£20 billion EV subsidy would have been better in terms of carbon value than Crossrail is

[AJI]

today commences 'the world's first ultra-low emissions zone' - central London
(to be extended over most of London by 2021)...

TC, come and live in Australia.
We're about to solve the problems of the world by introducing a '50٪ of all car sales to be electric by 2030' policy.
All powered by coal and a grid that can't support it.
I guess we could shift our standard working hours to 9pm - 5am, then we could use solar to for the extra demand?
It'd also help align our business hours with Europe and solve the skin cancer problem!

[Just_a_fan]

The ULEZ is about making money in the process of reducing car numbers in the city. The aim is to just have fewer cars on the road.

It'll hit the wrong people, of course.

[Andres125sx]

The ULEZ is about making money in the process of reducing car numbers in the city. The aim is to just have fewer cars on the road.

It'll hit the wrong people, of course.

Same in Madrid, now if you have a small and old car with a small engine, you cant go into the city. Sell it, purchase a 2 ton SUV with 500bhp and you´re allowed to go into the city even if it does pollute more than double your previous car...

But they don´t care about those who can´t purchase a new car... not their problem... The most ironic part is they´re leftists

[Sulman]

But they don´t care about those who can´t purchase a new car... not their problem... The most ironic part is they´re leftists

I know you're suggesting it's not that ironic, but it is because of half-arsed government intervention that EVs will have an uphill struggle in some places; the best way to get things rolling is and will always be a competitive market. The whole picture is distorted at the moment by subsidies, and not just for EVs.

Until there is a 'Model T' moment for EVs they will remain expensive, out of reach for the privileged. The other problem is that they're still not ideal as soon as you get beyond the suburbs and vehicle mileage shoots up.

I still see them as very much city/suburb appliances, and the question of clean energy is still important and cannot be brushed aside.

The other factor is the eye-watering KWh numbers required for the electrical revolution. Nobody wants to admit it but the the only game in town to get this at an affordable level is nuclear.

[Big Tea]

Mentioning SUV's v small cars above, it is not really on the right track, but last week we were in a Spanish airport lounge, waiting for the fight call, and something I had never seen before fascinated me.

A guy (not a youngster by any means) came out of the washrooms and from a standard 'Euro size' carry on bag, with wheels, he extended the handle and folded out a 'scooter-like' extension hopped on and rides off!!!

I was enthralled and got to wondering if larger wheels, a small battery pack and motor would make these viable to use in cycle lanes in towns?

As I say, not directly affecting the electric car thread, but if parking was out of town and something like this caught on...? I still can not accept why segway style ride-ons are not more popular. A 'mobility device' that takes a footprint hardly bigger than a person would solve many problems. Perhaps its time to work on a genuine 'personal transport' that can use the miles and miles of cycle lanes that are being installed?