Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[henry]

Comparative CO2 Lifecycle comparative analysis eGolf vs. Diesel Golf:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-fina ... r-beckman/

I know some of you will say, CO2 is only part of the problem but, INHO it's the biggest problem because it's damaging the whole planet (global warming).

What will the case be in the future? As more manufacturing is enabled by renewable electricity the manufacturing cost, in CO2 tonnes, will come down for all. As the renewable mix comes down the eGolf, and equivalents, will reduce their CO2 mileage, the Diesel Golf won’t. At the end of life if the battery is reused for grid storage it’s CO2 cost goes down by the amount it costs to make a new battery.

So once again it comes to long term views.

Oh and the Tesla looks bad but where’s the comparison with a $100k Mercedes?

[jjn9128]

The Tesla shown in the final graph is amazingly high! Shows how the whole "EVs are clean and green" idea is somewhat flawed.

Production volume is a huge asset to reducing monetary costs as well as wastage, Tesla's output is paltry compared to the behemoth that is VW. I get annoyed when these graphs factor battery manufacture into the CO2 footprint of an EV but not oil drilling, transport, refining and the associated waste and pillage of the environment from that into a ICE car. There was a study from MIT (independent) which shows that including everything into production that even charging in Poland where 95% of power is coal fire EV's come out as cleaner than ICE over their lifetime.

EV's are not going to save the environment on their own, there's a whole heap of other issues to resolve (BBC report the other day about tyre and brake dust being polluting - but ignoring that with regen brakes are used significantly less in an EV but that's another issue), but they are a step. In the UK certainly we need new build houses to be more energy efficient (expensive). We need the government to reinstate tax breaks for solar panels (Tories are anti-environment). The national grid could be broken up into more efficient blocks, and use of massive battery stations like the Tesla system in Australia could reduce CO2 when power stations have to suddenly ramp up supply (e.g. at half time in a football match, or at the end of Eastenders when 15million kettles suddenly get switched on). If public transport was better, or bike paths were more readily available you could get millions of cars off the road around the country, but those are expensive to implement and raising taxes doesn't win elections.

[Tommy Cookers]

there's just one study (using 30 year old data) - claiming to have shown that people had their lives shortened by 0.1%
if your preferred football team has red shirts there will be statistics showing that shortens your life by more than 0.1%
but WHO officials are weak-minded indecisive cowards - and anyway intend never to surrender their power over us
now others are using the bogus claims of that study as pseudo-evidence to feed into policy models
its not science - it's politics manifested as scientific fraud whose only excuse is that it's motivated by muddled sincerity

Rubbish you said? Yes, this part is utter rubbish supported only by your prejudices #-o

to Andres ...
what I regard as my knowledge you regard as my prejudice
what you regard as your knowledge I regard as your prejudice
(but until now I haven't called it that)

you clearly think that I imagined the 'reports' that people die 5 weeks 'early' due to current levels of air pollution
here in the UK the reports are TV reports of the UK Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Medicine 'report'
which is a literature study of other unevidenced 'reports' and 'studies'
afaik in response to legal action our TV now refers to a death imagined to be 5 weeks 'early' as premature (not early)
(and the recent TV 'expose' of EV emissions was driven by the TV company's lawyers - to offset in law their green partiality)

the WHO is in proclaiming millions of deaths globally accounting for air pollution 100-1000 times the WHO/EU 'safe' level
(eg there's 100 million or more who cook on free-standing fires (no fireplace or chimney) inside their homes)
but can claim to know how many EU people will die 'early' because of our breaching the new WHO safe limit
though we didn't breach the previous WHO-issued safe limit, which is now apparently unsafe
ie the WHO are in the same alarmist game as the RCPCM - they are both campaigning bodies and clearly not impartial

only one of your links has worthwhile ie scientific information
this shows that asthma (such asthma as is triggered by air pollution) is largely caused by indoor pollution
eg dust mites which populate the UK's houses now that they are never cold in the winter
it also vindicates me by showing that much atmospheric pollution is natural ie fragmented pollen and spores etc
natural pollutants cause natural photochemical smog just like they always did - more so now we grow oil plants

the UK is at times in breach of the new WHO/EU 'safe' limit .... so as .....
75% of London air particulate pollution comes from half a million wood-burners that exist to help the climate ...
doesn't that kill people ?

[rgava]

[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 2943252015

[henry]

Interesting paper. It suggests other mechanisms will be needed to control PMs. Urban street washing?

[Just_a_fan]

75% of London air particulate pollution comes from half a million wood-burners that exist to help the climate ...
doesn't that kill people ?

Why do Londoners have wood burning stoves? They're a thing for country people to stay warm during power cuts.

[Tommy Cookers]

afaik
wood-pellet fired central heating boilers
the purchase subsidised by the recent Renewable Heat Incentive scheme - and their usage generating an income ?

the 75% figure came onto my TV from Quentin Willson the motoring personality (the half million is my estimate)
I assume it was correct information - or he would have been conspicuously crucified by greenies

[roon]

Burning wood is pretty last decade. I burn only peat sourced from politically allied landlords cut with reclaimed cannabis harvest chaff inside of a repurposed chicken coop which was built from a recycled Trabant chassis. The cannabis content makes the smoke (I prefer the term aroma) healthy for me and my neighbors to breath, with the side benefit of making us all more intelligent. The shade the plume provides in summertime also reduces our reliance upon grid-dependant air conditioning.

[Tommy Cookers]

Interesting paper. It suggests other mechanisms will be needed to control PMs. Urban street washing?

the significant thing to me was that EVs are broadly as polluting as ICEVs or hybrids
as EVs greater weight causes greater tyre wear and suspension of particulates (negating their pollution advantages)


btw
isn't hydrogen intended for fuel call use (fuel to electricity directly) not (NOx producing) in heat engines) ?
(thanks to J a F for UK total energy vs electrical energy figures)

then there's oxygen ...
some say Amazon etc forests are big in oxygen as much there lives w/o light and photosynthesis
Russia is oxygen biggie - but some there say kickstart mammoth production to reduce forest as forest warms the climate
some UKs even say meadow grassland produces unusually high oxygen (how ?) - so build more meadows

[Andres125sx]

Comparative CO2 Lifecycle comparative analysis eGolf vs. Diesel Golf:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-fina ... r-beckman/

I know some of you will say, CO2 is only part of the problem but, INHO it's the biggest problem because it's damaging the whole planet (global warming).

Another flawed analysis...

1- Any reason they do include the production of the energy the car need to run only for the electric? Oil wells don´t pollute? Refineries don´t pollute? Oil tankers and trucks wich distribute the petrol/diesel don´t pollute? Ignoring this is extremelly biased if yo ask me.

2- They´re comparing the emissions they produce while working when they´re new. But the electric grid is cleaner year by year as all countries are increasing their renewables, so EVs will pollute less in 5 years than they pollute today.

3- OTOH ICEs are exactly the opposite, they pollute less today with a new engine, than they will pollute in 5 years with an engine wich is not new, many parts have some play, some other will be covered by... cinder? soot? (sorry not sure what´s the correct term), so their efficiency will drop and their emissions will increase, but they also ignored this


And even with this flawed analysis, EVs pollute a 15% less. Imagine with a proper analysis taking everything into account.

[Andres125sx]

there's just one study (using 30 year old data) - claiming to have shown that people had their lives shortened by 0.1%
if your preferred football team has red shirts there will be statistics showing that shortens your life by more than 0.1%
but WHO officials are weak-minded indecisive cowards - and anyway intend never to surrender their power over us
now others are using the bogus claims of that study as pseudo-evidence to feed into policy models
its not science - it's politics manifested as scientific fraud whose only excuse is that it's motivated by muddled sincerity

Rubbish you said? Yes, this part is utter rubbish supported only by your prejudices

to Andres ...
what I regard as my knowledge you regard as my prejudice
what you regard as your knowledge I regard as your prejudice
(but until now I haven't called it that)

you clearly think that I imagined the 'reports' that people die 5 weeks 'early' due to current levels of air pollution
here in the UK the reports are TV reports of the UK Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Medicine 'report'
which is a literature study of other unevidenced 'reports' and 'studies'
afaik in response to legal action our TV now refers to a death imagined to be 5 weeks 'early' as premature (not early)
(and the recent TV 'expose' of EV emissions was driven by the TV company's lawyers - to offset in law their green partiality)

the WHO is in proclaiming millions of deaths globally accounting for air pollution 100-1000 times the WHO/EU 'safe' level
(eg there's 100 million or more who cook on free-standing fires (no fireplace or chimney) inside their homes)
but can claim to know how many EU people will die 'early' because of our breaching the new WHO safe limit
though we didn't breach the previous WHO-issued safe limit, which is now apparently unsafe
ie the WHO are in the same alarmist game as the RCPCM - they are both campaigning bodies and clearly not impartial

only one of your links has worthwhile ie scientific information
this shows that asthma (such asthma as is triggered by air pollution) is largely caused by indoor pollution
eg dust mites which populate the UK's houses now that they are never cold in the winter
it also vindicates me by showing that much atmospheric pollution is natural ie fragmented pollen and spores etc
natural pollutants cause natural photochemical smog just like they always did - more so now we grow oil plants

the UK is at times in breach of the new WHO/EU 'safe' limit .... so as .....
75% of London air particulate pollution comes from half a million wood-burners that exist to help the climate ...
doesn't that kill people ?

Sorry Tommy but I´ll need some clarification, my english is not that good and I´m struggling to understand what you´re trying to say here, even after reading your reply three times. Sorry my english sucks.

Specially the part I bolded has no sense to me. What made you think I think that mate? I´ve stated repeatedly that air pollution is a BIG problem into cities. It´s me who said the CO2 comparison is absurd because ICEs emit a lot more harmful substances wich are causing respiratory diseases into cities, so not sure if I´m not understanding your reply, or you didn´t understand mine

[rgava]

Comparative CO2 Lifecycle comparative analysis eGolf vs. Diesel Golf:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-fina ... r-beckman/

I know some of you will say, CO2 is only part of the problem but, INHO it's the biggest problem because it's damaging the whole planet (global warming).

Another flawed analysis...

1- Any reason they do include the production of the energy the car need to run only for the electric? Oil wells don´t pollute? Refineries don´t pollute? Oil tankers and trucks wich distribute the petrol/diesel don´t pollute? Ignoring this is extremelly biased if yo ask me.

2- They´re comparing the emissions they produce while working when they´re new. But the electric grid is cleaner year by year as all countries are increasing their renewables, so EVs will pollute less in 5 years than they pollute today.

3- OTOH ICEs are exactly the opposite, they pollute less today with a new engine, than they will pollute in 5 years with an engine wich is not new, many parts have some play, some other will be covered by... cinder? soot? (sorry not sure what´s the correct term), so their efficiency will drop and their emissions will increase, but they also ignored this


And even with this flawed analysis, EVs pollute a 15% less. Imagine with a proper analysis taking everything into account.

Andres,

If you open your mind you will see that, the things you mention will only change the point in time where the EV start to be less polutant (in CO2 terms) than the ICE.

I agree with your defence of EV, but in the transition period there is a strong need to further develop, as carbon neutral as possible ICE powered vehicles.

Market analysis shows that, being optimistic, by 2030 only one fourth of the world fleet will be EV powered.

[Andres125sx]

Interesting paper. It suggests other mechanisms will be needed to control PMs. Urban street washing?

the significant thing to me was that EVs are broadly as polluting as ICEVs or hybrids
as EVs greater weight causes greater tyre wear and suspension of particulates (negating their pollution advantages)

True, but they also reduce their PM from brakes thanks to regen. I once chattted with a taxi driver owner of a prius, and he told me the car barely waste any discs or brake pads as most braking is done by the regen.

That was some years ago, but lately I drive an hybrid Yaris frequently and it´s fun tyring to not use brakes further than the regen zone to drive efficiently, if you´re smooth, on normal commuting you never need to go further than that

[Andres125sx]

Comparative CO2 Lifecycle comparative analysis eGolf vs. Diesel Golf:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-fina ... r-beckman/

I know some of you will say, CO2 is only part of the problem but, INHO it's the biggest problem because it's damaging the whole planet (global warming).

Another flawed analysis...

1- Any reason they do include the production of the energy the car need to run only for the electric? Oil wells don´t pollute? Refineries don´t pollute? Oil tankers and trucks wich distribute the petrol/diesel don´t pollute? Ignoring this is extremelly biased if yo ask me.

2- They´re comparing the emissions they produce while working when they´re new. But the electric grid is cleaner year by year as all countries are increasing their renewables, so EVs will pollute less in 5 years than they pollute today.

3- OTOH ICEs are exactly the opposite, they pollute less today with a new engine, than they will pollute in 5 years with an engine wich is not new, many parts have some play, some other will be covered by... cinder? soot? (sorry not sure what´s the correct term), so their efficiency will drop and their emissions will increase, but they also ignored this


And even with this flawed analysis, EVs pollute a 15% less. Imagine with a proper analysis taking everything into account.

Andres,

If you open your mind you will see that, the things you mention will only change the point in time where the EV start to be less polutant (in CO2 terms) than the ICE.

Obviously, but that´s exactly the point of the report, isn´t it?. If the point in time where the EV start to be less polutant than a ICE is reduced, difference in total pollution in its lifetime will be increased, wich is exactly the reason the report is flawed, they´re ignoring factors wich have a direct impact on final result

I agree with your defence of EV, but in the transition period there is a strong need to further develop, as carbon neutral as possible ICE powered vehicles.

Market analysis shows that, being optimistic, by 2030 only one fourth of the world fleet will be EV powered.

Agree with first paragraph. Second will depend on battery technology improvement and governments investment on charge points, as that´s the aspect wich stop most people from purchasing EVs.

But I agree with the estimation, only the release of a new battery technology improving energy density may change that

[Big Tea]

Not sure of this, but I was told by someone who knows, so any confirmation or correction appreciated, but is it not correct that a tanker burns over a ton of oil per mile to transport it just to the terminal. Then there is refining and delivering. as long as the comparison is not with oil generated power this is a consideration in the balance.

Also, sea weed and algi is one of the largest producers of oyygen