You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
A little googling about regarding the amount of electricity to charge battery vs range vs CO2 produced in production of electricity and using the 15% renewable that the US and UK currently use means a Tesla S produces 127g of CO2 per km, just thought you might be interested.
That seems like a lot. According to https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en
The average emissions level of a new car sold in 2016 was 118.1 grams of CO2 per kilometre
The amount of CO2 produced during the charging of cars is not the issue. The assumption is that over time we'll transition to cleaner forms of electrical production that will reduce this element of their carbon footprint to virtually zero.
The real issue is the carbon footprint of the production of the batteries. The rare earth elements are mined (a lot dirtier than pumping oil/gas from the ground), then the raw materials/ore is shipped (about the filthiest form of transportation we've been able to muster) half way around the world to be processed (again a pretty filthy process in its own right utilising lots of nasty chemicals, a lot of energy and emissions), before being shipped halfway around the earth again to the battery manufacturing plant, then the batteries shipped halfway around the world again to where the cars are manufactured/assembled.
Then you've got the problem of battery recycling/disposal at the other end of the life cycle.
Then you've got the fact that in order to eek more and more range out of the cars you need to make them lighter which pushes you to producing more of the car using carbon fibre.
Conventional cars are assembled from parts mostly manufactured relatively locally so has a much smaller carbon footprint...apparently.
So it's a complex picture. However I still think the future is EV. For one they'll address a lot of the issues mentioned above as the global infrastructure develops and technology matures - conventional car manufactures have been at this for over 100 years now so EV's have some catching up to do. Also it's not just CO2 you need to consider, but more importantly air quality and not pumping out poisonous and toxic fumes into our cities which is killing, or bringing about premature deaths to, 10,000 people a year just in the UK.
I suspect our next cars will be EV's or at least hybrids.
Fix your electricity production then is the answer.
but I bet that will not include the CO2 produced while creating the fuel in the first place, so the real figure would be much higher.The average emissions level of a new car sold in 2016 was 118.1 grams of CO2 per kilometre
Still, the sun shines out your backside while you're driving the thing. I've seen South Park.
On a serious note, it does move most of the nasty emissions out of city centres where they are likely to be most used.
batteries are more of a CO2 sink to make than a regular engine, but its only 15% more and thats easily offset by the reduction in CO2 use over the lifetime of the battery
batteries are mostly lithium, which is harvested from salt flats & dried out by the sun, its the much smaller amount of rare-eart metals that are more costly
battery recycling is a bigger challenge but companies now stepping in EU & now Canada & China have just introduced law to make recycling them responsibility of manufacturers
https://www.ft.com/content/c489382e-6b06-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa
but I bet that will not include the CO2 produced while creating the fuel in the first place, so the real figure would be much higher.
Indeed, just refining it is an enormously power-hungry process. No big surprise that oil refineries and power stations are often in the same places. And then there's getting it out of the ground, getting it to the refinery (often via ship) and on to the petrol station (often via truck) before it gets to your fuel tank to be burned at 118g/km.
Indeed, just refining it is an enormously power-hungry process. No big surprise that oil refineries and power stations are often in the same places. And then there's getting it out of the ground, getting it to the refinery (often via ship) and on to the petrol station (often via truck) before it gets to your fuel tank to be burned at 118g/km.
Allt his often conveniently overlooked by the anti electric car people.
And then if you offset it against the UK's increase in green energy production it becomes even more complex.
So, for instance, if you're like the guy down the road who charges his electric car from solar panels and the windmill in his garden, and puts the waste energy he doesn't use back into the grid, then the OP's argument is even less valid.
Yes, lack of apples to apples in the first couple of posts already spotted.
The CO2 production of IC engines does of course not include the considerable refining costs.
submarined - Member
Indeed, just refining it is an enormously power-hungry process. No big surprise that oil refineries and power stations are often in the same places. And then there's getting it out of the ground, getting it to the refinery (often via ship) and on to the petrol station (often via truck) before it gets to your fuel tank to be burned at 118g/km.Allt his often conveniently overlooked by the anti electric car people.
And then if you offset it against the UK's increase in green energy production it becomes even more complex.
So, for instance, if you're like the guy down the road who charges his electric car from solar panels and the windmill in his garden, and puts the waste energy he doesn't use back into the grid, then the OP's argument is even less valid.
But what about the co2 from making solar panels? 🙄
😉
then the OP's argument is even less valid.
What argument? It was purely a statement, no comparison or other was made. I am neither for nor against electric vehicles, I am fully aware of the other areas of CO2 production involved with vehicles and their fuels, I was just pondering aloud as it were 🙂
But what about the co2 from making solar panels?
Yup, and the C02 from his wood burners he uses for heating.
What argument? It was purely a statement, I am neither for nor against electric vehicles, I am fully aware of the other areas of CO2 production involved with vehicles and their fuels, I was just pondering aloud as it were
Sorry, I should have gone with 'highly contentious faux-facts' :p 😀
How did you calculate that?
UK electricity is now more like 30% renewable.
Sorry, I should have gone with 'highly contentious faux-facts' :p
Haha, thank you
UK electricity is now more like 30% renewable.
UK quoted as 20%, when I did my original calcs the figure I found was 15%, therefore recalculating my faux-facts gives 117g per km
30% renewable predicted by 2020
Very silly thread with no understanding of science, facts, broader picture or the future, 3/10.
Scotland was nearly 60% renewables last year anyway, and nuclear is also considered a low carbon energy source which is also a significant UK electricity source. A friend of mine has just had solar panels fitted to his roof and will soon be charging his tesla from it which is also a great idea.
29.8% in Q2 2017.
So how did you calculate the CO2 emissions?
Quite a lot of research shows it is no cleaner.
However the government has air quality targets and the easiest way to achieve them is to get us driving electric cars. Doesn't mean its right, just the easiest short term solution.
I switched to a hybrid because I could lease one way cheaper than petrol/diesel.
My next car will be electric because they are nicer to drive and cheaper to fuel.
15% renewable is what it says on Wikipedia - but that's a 2013 stat.
Official stats for 2017 are on course for 30ish%
EV technology has far more potential to be cleaner than fossil fuelled cars. They're behind on the development and maturity curve and has to take into account the whole infrastructure and cradle to grave impact, rather than just focussing on service life, but if we do it properly then they have the potential to be far, far cleaner. There is very little more to come out of conventional fossil fuel cars/engines. Small percentage improvements, law of diminishing returns. We need to do something else to get a step change.
There will always be a need for fossil fuelled cars, so may not be completely eradicated - specialist vehicles, vehicles that operate in remote and particularly harsh places and environments, and of course electric aircraft are a much more challenging proposition, although the airline industry is taking on the challenge full bore as it always does, have already flown electric test aircraft and are currently investing billions to develop a whole host of hybrid and electric technologies that will power airliners of the future.
But as a first step moving to electric cars is relatively easy and a no brainer.
EV technology has far more potential to be cleaner than fossil fuelled cars.
This may well be the case but are they ethical? People who are considering EVs may want to do a little research on the mining of cobalt and nickel, both of which are essential components in rechargeable batteries.
This may well be the case but are they ethical? People who are considering EVs may want to do a little research on the mining of cobalt and nickel, both of which are essential components in rechargeable batteries.
will they stop using mobiles, pcs & tablets too?
This may well be the case but are they ethical? People who are considering EVs may want to do a little research on the mining of cobalt and nickel, both of which are essential components in rechargeable batteries.
Are they any worse than oil production and the states supported by it?
So how did you calculate the CO2 emissions?
kwh to charge battery including charger efficiency x CO2 g/kwh, divide this figure by EV range to give CO2/km and then minus renewable percentage = CO2/km. a rough calculation and was a result of me pondering what the CO2 output was for a Tesla S journey ignoring all other things in the same way the ICE vehicles have a CO2 g/km that is used for VED.
No baby robins were harmed during this calculation 😀
Adding to the problem with not including CO2 from fuel production in the comparison.....
I think there's something I read / watched that said that if you took all of the electricity used to find / refine / deliver the fuel for your ICE car and used that to fill a battery, you'd go further than you do by using petrol.
Which means petrol is just effectively a single use energy store which emits CO2.
co2 of a teslas power generation vs co2 output of an ice car is like comparing the energy needed to package a tin of baked beans vs the menthane in your farts after eating them. its not comparable
Also it's not just CO2 you need to consider, but more importantly air quality and not pumping out poisonous and toxic fumes into our cities which is killing, or bringing about premature deaths to, 10,000 people a year just in the UK
There are emissions from any car, which cause air quality problems particularly when used in heavily trafficed areas, such as dust from brakes and tyres. If only there were some simple form of transport around town that had negligible CO2 output and minimised these forms of pollution as well as being far lighter and therefore using a tiny fraction of the energy to produce. Maybe you could reduce the number of wheels to 2 and get exercise whilst you travelled if you really wanted to make it awesome.
Also, I'm fairly confident that the C02 output quoted for power generation excludes the costs of extraction and any refining (gas for instance). It may well be that this is less than the costs of producing petrol/diesel, but it won't be zero added CO2 on either side of the coin (even renewables currently emit CO2 in order to build them in the first place).
In the long run, I agree EVs will be more efficient and you have to start somewhere, but perhaps other things (good cycle infrastructure) would be a better target.
15% renewable is what it says on Wikipedia - but that's a 2013 stat.Official stats for 2017 are on course for 30ish%
Stats from where? I query it, as it doesn't look like that from the National Grid status, more like 25-30% for wind, nuclear and others combined.
The 2017 figures say 0.35156 kgCO2 / KWh (presumably an overall figure, including renewable) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2017
A Tesla Model S has a 100KWh battery (add about 10% for charging inefficiency), and a range of 632km.
So 110 * 0.35156 / 632 = 61 g/km
CraigW - Member29.8% in Q2 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647386/Renewables.pdf
Renewable percentages should be quoted for a year as it varies from summer to winter. In 2016 renewable electricity represented 24.6 per cent of total generation.
Stats from where? I query it, as it doesn't look like that from the National Grid status, more like 25-30% for wind, nuclear and others combined.
I was going by the DUKES report for Q2 this year at 29.8%([url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647386/Renewables.pdf ]as linked by others[/url]) and something I read somewhere about how the trend is increasing quite handsomely - that was about 4% higher than q2 2016 so it's really quite promising at the mo.
But going on IRC's post above, I looked up q1 2017 which was a bit lower at 26.6% (only 1% higher than q1 2016). Will be keen to see how it pans out.
Either way, pretty impressive to think we've gone from c.15% to c.30% since 2013 🙂
Has anyone predicted an overall picture of how the grid / renewables / electricity metering will change to exploit all these EVs that will one day be plugged in? Seems like a dream situation for the National Grid where the end customer has supplied you with a huge battery storage facility FOC.
A friend of mine has just had solar panels fitted to his roof and will soon be charging his tesla from it which is also a great idea.
Not during the winter he won't
Has anyone predicted an overall picture of how the grid / renewables / electricity metering will change to exploit all these EVs that will one day be plugged in? Seems like a dream situation for the National Grid where the end customer has supplied you with a huge battery storage facility FOC.
that conversation is happening, and yes one of the options under discussion is basically what you suggest (but not quite FOC in this case:)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/02/electric-car-battery-savings-nissan-leaf-ovo
[img] 
[/img]
Robert Llewellyn covered this topic recently on his fully charged channel on YouTube.
He was pretty unimpressed by the supposed "facts" used to produce the figures.
Isnt the idea as well that charging of EV’s can take place overnight when there is less conventional demand for electricity?
Not sure I understand that carbon intensity chart. I understand what it's trying to show, I think, but struggling to understand if it is bollox. What are the assumptions behind it? that all the cars are charged from the same source, driven in exactly the same way, on exactly the same roads, by the same driver in exactly the same conditions at exactly the same time to get accurate back to back comparisons? The idea that an Outlander PHEV, a bit hulk of pig iron about as aerodynamic as a brick generates less CO2 than a Nissan Leaf just doesn't pass the sniff test. Especially when my mates one spent about 3 minutes of the journey on electric and the rest on the engine.
A European report has been relaesed on electric cars according to Europe 1 this morning. It states electric cars are half as polluting as ICE size for size over the lifetime of the vehicle.
Europe 1 had asked Renault for comment. Renault pointed out the report was hard on electric cars as it didn't take into account the latest recycling technology and the full life cycle of the batteries used initially in cars. It also assumed a higher proportion of fossill fuels than we have in France and than is likely to be present in Europe over the lifetime of a car bought now.
Anyhow, even an unfavaourable analysis finds electric cars half as polluting globally and with insignificant levels of local pollution.
In answer to some of the worst stuff on this thread:
Wood burning is carbon neutral apart form processing and trnasport - in my case that's electric chain saw and splitter and a wheel barrow.
Brake dust from electric vehicles is a lot less than from ICE vehicles. Driving normally the road brakes only work below 5kmh because the 40kW (Zoé) of braking force available at even town driving speeds is all you need. Hybrids also benefit from this proportionally to how big their electric motor and charger is.
It's as cold in France as it gets in the UK at present, driving up to the mountains (as cold as anywhere in the UK yesterday) took about 5% off the range compared with Summer due to headlights and modest use of the heater. I charged the battery just before we left so it was warm enough not to lose capacity.
The 2017 figures say 0.35156 kgCO2 / KWh (presumably an overall figure, including renewable) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2017A Tesla Model S has a 100KWh battery (add about 10% for charging inefficiency), and a range of 632km.
So 110 * 0.35156 / 632 = 61 g/km
Not quite. You need to add transmission and distribution losses to that figure, taking it to about 0.38, add I doubt the Tesla will achieve that range in the real world. Even so, we're looking at a real world figure of say less than 80g CO2e/km which is way better than anything you'll see from an IC car. And we all know that the reported CO2 average for new IC cars bears little relation to their actual performance.
As an aside, there have been some very large decreases in grid carbon intensity over the last 2 years - I was using a factor of about 0.52 in 2015.
Has anyone predicted an overall picture of how the grid / renewables / electricity metering will change to exploit all these EVs that will one day be plugged in?
The primary issue is capacity. I've written on these pages before that mass converting car transport to EV will take a level of infrastructure that we're not planning for at present.
That's why it's refered to as "la transition énergétique" in France and "Energiewende" in Germany. I assume (would hope) there's a British translation.
We can build solar panels and windmills faster than we can build electric cars - Britain is the proof - check out the UK wind capacity over the past five years.
then the raw materials/ore is shipped (about the filthiest form of transportation we've been able to muster)
Amazing. How is this conclusion reached?
Shipping by the sea is [b]by far[/b] the most fuel efficient way of transporting anything. Yes, an individual ship may appear "dirty" but the scale must be taken into account.
The largest container ships carry around 40,000 truck loads.
Everything we get from the Far East comes by container ship. The World Economy would grind to halt without them.
I agree shipping is a necessary evil and the only option....but it isn't clean. Slugging thousands of tons through water which is like trying to propel something through porridge. The CO2 per ton production will be out of the park compared to any other form of transport. But as you say, there are no other viable options to move the cargo around the world.
Maritime transport per KM is the best in terms of CO2 but often results in very long Journeys which is why Decathlon reckon they produce less CO2 using rail transport from China to Europe.
We can build solar panels and windmills faster than we can build electric cars - Britain is the proof - check out the UK wind capacity over the past five years.
Sure, but we need to do the following:
1. Decarbonize existing supply
2. Stop using gas
3. Stop using IC cars
4. Decomission the existing nuclear fleet
Undoubtedly there's a great deal more we can do on demand side, but nevertheless sufficient capacity is going to be enormously challenging
Time to get on with it then. How much gas and electricity does your house consume, ransos?
UK electricity is now more like 30% renewable.
Serious question: is renewable the same as co2 neutral?
Time to get on with it then. How much gas and electricity does your house consume, ransos?
Quite a bit. It's a consequence of not ruining people's health by burning wood. 😉
The CO2 per ton production will be out of the park compared to any other form of transport.
I'm not sure what you mean by this?
Shipping is incredibly efficient per tonne transported and produces a lot less CO2 compared to moving the equivalent by road.
Slugging thousands of tons through water which is like trying to propel something through porridge
You're not a naval architect are you? 🙂
No, bluebird, just as electric cars aren't CO neutral. But the CO emmitted per kWh is tiny compared with burning fossil fuels. A proportion of the embedded energy in cars, windmills and solar panels is from fossil fuels, and some of the conponents are derived from fossil fuels. Over the lifetime of the windmill it will produce many times more enregy than the embedded energy.
If you have a bag of potatoes you can either eat them all, or plant enough of them to have more potatoes than you've ever had in the future.
Go on, ransos, be specific about your bills and kms covered in your car (diesel or petrol?) and we'll do some calculations on the health risks of me burning 2m3 of wood in an efficient stove, using no gas and producing more electricity than I use with your lifestyle.
I've aimed at doing the best I can and still live a western lifestyle, we'll see how that compares with someone making no effort and slagging anyone off who does with false arguments.
Even if electric cars are currently worse than ICEs, that will ONLY change if they become more prevalent. Recycling will become more economically attractive, and cheaper with scale economies. And there'll be more EOL product to recycle. And the infrastructure will be created because there'll be an opportunity to make money from it.
So if we need to take a hit early on to establish the concept, then that's fine, because we'll benefit in the long term.
Re shipping - not as much friction as you think in water:
Go on, ransos, be specific about your bills and kms covered in your car (diesel or petrol?) and we'll do some calculations on the health risks of me burning 2m3 of wood in an efficient stove, using no gas and producing more electricity than I use with your lifestyle.
I was talking about national infrastructure and having what I thought was an interesting exchange, only for you to make it personal. I've no intention of disappearing down your rabbit hole, and if you can justify your cancer stove, then that's fine with me.
Toodle pip!
It has to be personal because it's all down to personal choices and slagging people off for making the right ones isn't constructive.
It is an interesting exchange, but whilst I'm happy for you to criticise the health implications of wood burning it's hypocritical of you to do so whilst consuming electricity produced from gas and coal, and driving an ICE car which are not only a public health issue but also green housing the planet which burning wood that is replanted does not.
Even so, we're looking at a real world figure of say less than 80g CO2e/km which is way better than anything you'll see from an IC car.
Also bear in mind that the Tesla is a massive boat of a car, so this is waaaaaaay better than anything of a similar size and power...
Wood burning is carbon neutral apart form processing and trnasport - in my case that's electric chain saw and splitter and a wheel barrow.
Only where you are growing at a similar rate to burning. Small caveat.
And wood burning is only a concern where the air doesn't move very much such as in towns and cities. Much like diesels in that respect.
phiiiiil
Even so, we're looking at a real world figure of say less than 80g CO2e/km which is way better than anything you'll see from an IC car.
Also bear in mind that the Tesla is a massive boat of a car, so this is waaaaaaay better than anything of a similar size and power...
and, in the real world, thanks to short journeys, colds starts and poor driving (lots of braking) an ICE generally can't get anywhere near the CO2 figure generated over the certification test cycles that include a nice warm 25degC start, and a smooth, relatively long distance drive cycle
I'd suggest, that on average, drivers in the UK only get at best something like 75% of the certified consumption capability of their ICE
(ie, the cert number is say 50mpg, you get a bit less than 40 as a year round average)
Also the g/km figure corresponds to the combined cycle fuel economy figure. If you only drive round down you'll get 75% of the urban cycle figure (ish) which will be terrible.