if VW really wanted to make the most environmentally sound Passat they could, they could have made it less powerful, limited the top speed, fitted smaller wheels and tyres etc etc etc, but they knew that it wouldn’t sell.
That was what the original Bluemotion thing was. But you don't need to make a diesel less powerful to make it more economical. You just need to drive it more slowly.
the answer to vehicle polution is to drive less.
Amen.
I think TJ is completely right that the real issue re: global warming is total energy usage (notwithstanding the local impacts of pollution in cities which is obviously important too).
Does anyone know how much MPG-equivalent you can get from an electric car, if you take into account the average UK mix of 'green' electricity (wind turbines and the like) and fossil fuel burnt to power the national grid? There are presumably huge inefficiencies in electricity production / storage / transfer. I'd (genuinely) love to be wrong on this, but my sneaking suspicion is that overall electric cars won't save a lot in terms of overall energy use.
I think TJ is completely right that the real issue re: global warming is total energy usage
Everyone bar the idiots already knows this.
So the BBC article just popped up on my feed, it says this:
Transport and Environment's analysis says a key problem with plug-in hybrids is that so many owners rarely actually charge their cars, meaning they rely on the petrol or diesel engine.
So hybrids are good if people actually use them properly. The problem as usual is people not giving a shit.
Does anyone know how much MPG-equivalent you can get from an electric car, if you take into account the average UK mix of ‘green’ electricity (wind turbines and the like) and fossil fuel burnt to power the national grid?
Again this is a well researched question. Tailpipe emissions:
https://www.carbonfootprint.com/electric_vehicles.html
Lifetime newspaper article:
And the study (not read this yet)
Hybrids especially (with the frequent charging) are a natural fit with personal (i.e. on the owner's house) solar panels & batteries (Powerwall etc). All the government needs to do is pump a bit of money into proper subsidies to make it actually attractive/affordable and I'd be the first in the queue! Then instead of burning petrol/diesel or indeed charging from coal-fired power stations etc you've got legitimately green/sustainable electricity for personal transportation.I’d (genuinely) love to be wrong on this, but my sneaking suspicion is that overall electric cars won’t save a lot in terms of overall energy use.
Does anyone know how much MPG-equivalent you can get from an electric car, if you take into account the average UK mix of ‘green’ electricity (wind turbines and the like) and fossil fuel burnt to power the national grid? There are presumably huge inefficiencies in electricity production / storage / transfer. I’d (genuinely) love to be wrong on this, but my sneaking suspicion is that overall electric cars won’t save a lot in terms of overall energy use.
Harry Metcalf made a video about it recently, it varies from region to region, but in South Wales (where I live) despite having wind farms in every direction as far as I can tell, for some reason we have very poor energy creation efficiency, worst in the UK probably so in terms of Co2, it's marginal at best if I'd be doing more good with say a Tesla 3, than my Superb Diesel that's got AdBlue and Stop-start and does a genuine 40mpg urban and 55mpg on a run, and that's me driving, not some lab test. That doesn't factor in the greater cost (in energy) of making an EV or the extra weight of materials needed to build it.
Of course, infrastructure is improving all the time and if we held off until the infrastructure was perfect it all becomes very chicken and egg.
As for costs, plugging in at home is very cheap especially if you get the right tariff and a smart charger, it costs about £6 to fully charge a Nissan Leaf and it will go about 120 miles real-world (I think) so that's about 5p a mile. Diesel costs 1.20 per litre, or £5.40 a gallon / 45mpg (average for my car) that's 12p per mile, but if you need to charge on the move it can be as expensive as running a fairly pokey petrol car, I seem to recall one of the big charging station providers raised their prices 5-fold recently? I did some maths a few months ago and in terms of £ per mile plugging in a EV at a Motorway services costs the same as a 25mpg car.
Of course, that should be a fairly rare occasion and doesn't include Tesla who have their own system. I certainly wouldn't plug in a PHEV at a charging station.
My car can be swapped anytime between next June and June 2023. I'll look at the Superb PHEV and the new Enyaq - I'm aware other brands exist, but I've got a mate who works at Skoda and a get a decent, if not amazing deal from him.
Any idea how efficient, over a lifetime (not yours, the panel and battery), a setup like that is? Over and above commercial generation?
I'm betting at our latitudes we might not find panels and batteries coming out that well.
Back on proper topic, I'm dictionary target market for a PHEV, short commute, the occasional long trip.
Making more commercial sense, was a diesel estate and an old runaround petrol.
so here are some actual facts 😀
100kg weigh saving in a car leads to 0.4l/100km less fuel used. Lets assume that is the same the other way around as well.
a modern car is maybe 200kg more heavy than one from 25 years ago (in canada, reading their graph, but its probably similar here) - so that's 0.8l/100km less efficient than if they'd kept the weight off.
Average lifespan of a car is approx 200,000km - lots go on further, lots die younger, so that's 1600l of fuel used over 15 years or whatever, so from a cost perspective its a small cost (£10/month?) for the additional safety etc
each litre of petrol burned apparently generates about 2.3kg of co2 so on the lifespan of the car, your emitting an extra 3,680kg of co2
Happy to be on our 2nd Hybrid. Misses hates driving but has to for work, she tried a Yaris hyrbid and loved it for the 5 years we had it, kids grew so she wanted something that worked the same so bought a Lexus NX, though I wanted the PHEV as her commute was going to be less, driving in-out of a valley twice a day might not have been on pure battery mind, but the only one that suited was the Mini Countryman PHEV which she didn't like.
Nothing "eco-warrior" about owning one, the main driver just prefers to drive a hybrid over a standard manual or auto. The NX might be better than a standard petrol of similar size/weight but my 13yr old RAV beats it's MPG on average.
Lifetime newspaper article:
That can’t be right TJ says it’s not.
In the meantime the average conventional fuelled vehicle gets ever bigger / heavier, and the trend for large engined fuel inefficient 4x4s and SUVs (I hate that phrase - there is nothing "sports" about most of them) to take the kids to school in or go to the shops at the weekend in continues
Regardless of fuel type we should be driving less - particularly shorter journeys - but if we do have to drive, using smaller vehicles and keeping them longer
Nothing wrong with my VW Up! But then it doesn't show how f*ck off rich I am does it??
100kg weigh saving in a car leads to 0.4l/100km less fuel used. Lets assume that is the same the other way around as well.
That does not seem right. Check my maths: if my car does 4.5l/100km with just me, and I put three more adults in to increase the weight by 200kg then that would suggest 0.8 an increase of 0.8 which would be 5.3l/100km or 52mpg. This does not match my experience - a full car would drop me from 61 to about 58 ish from experience.
just Googling some very rough figures - I live in the South & happen to have an ideal, south facing roof so could potentially generate 3,000kWh per year. The high-performance Tesla has a 100 kWh battery so could potentially be fully charged almost every day (which would be unnecessary anyway). So I suspect a hybrid with a smaller battery (one I was looking at is about 14 kWh) could be charged every night no problem?Any idea how efficient, over a lifetime (not yours, the panel and battery), a setup like that is? Over and above commercial generation?I’m betting at our latitudes we might not find panels and batteries coming out that well.
That 100kg => 0.4l/100km has to de dependant on a particular driving cycle. On single acceleration cycle 100km flat journey the extra fuel will be minimal. Maybe that figure is from a high degree of stop start to moderate (70-80kmph) speed?
That does not seem right. Check my maths: if my car does 4.5l/100km with just me, and I put three more adults in to increase the weight by 200kg then that would suggest 0.8 an increase of 0.8 which would be 5.3l/100km or 52mpg. This does not match my experience – a full car would drop me from 61 to about 58 ish from experience.
depends on the type of driving. I would imagine your 4-up driving is probably longer distances with minimal stopping/starting (?) - whereas the study above probably refers to an overall WLTP (or similar) test which has a moderate amount of stop/start driving. once you're rolling the cost of weight is very small, but if you're using the brakes at all you're throwing energy away.
It might also be that the study was based on cars which are less efficient overall (north american market) - so 0.4l/km might have been a 5% increase, rather than a 10% with your figures
this
has lots of data, but sadly presented with the worlds worst 3d graphs that are almost unreadable. I think the general pattern is 10% weight improvement is 5% fuel economy, with larger numbers on city driving vs highway
Really intresting thread. More interested in PHEV than i was. The looser here seems to be the car tax system and emission measurements
yes obviously at some point they'll need to revise the system (or get the money by inventing a different tax!) as the majority of new vehicles will be exempt!The looser here seems to be the car tax system
It'll be fuel duty that will be the biggest issue in terms of lost revenue and for which an alternative will be required
It’ll be fuel duty that will be the biggest issue in terms of lost revenue and for which an alternative will be required
it'll be an extremely gradual change though - fuel duty only represents 1.3% of national income, down from 2.2% in 2000. If you continued the same rate of decline (0.045% a year), we would be heading towards zero income from the tax in 29 years anyway. Even if the ban on ICE sales kicks in in 15 years time (bearing in mind it doesn't hit commercial vehicles) - that rate is probably managable.
so yes, the revenue 'need to be replaced' but if its replaced with an actual, separate, tax, that's political will rather than fiscal need
Yep, total fuel duty income for HMRC is £28bn per year, which is only about 2% of their income, but with Income Tax and NI only bringing in £300bn or so, we'd be looking at a 10% rise in those to recover it.
VAT Brings in £120bn, so you'd need to raise that by 25% or so to recover it, 25% VAT rate is hardly a vote winner either.
The problem is that you can't do it progressively, or people will flood back to fossil fuels.
Anyway, VW / Porsche, despite selling Bugatti to Rimac to get access to their EV tech, say it's a load of old bollocks anyway, the future is carbon neutral synthetic fossil fuels. So that will be fun.
72 mile return trip today. I got 68mpg outward and 72mpg inward from one charge mainly on dual carriageway.
36% emissions.
I think hybrid power is the best solution for most.
Almost all journeys are doable with a small battery.
Almost all people want or need the flexibility to have the potential for additional range.
Seems to make sense.
What's the issue with two power sources? ICE cars already have alternators powering electrics for AC, starter motors, entertainment, heating. What's the problem? Harvesting braking energy also seems like a no brainer.
Loads of things use dual power sources. Don't see the issue.
(I live in a petro-state, so drive a 3.8l V6 4x4 SUV, so there we are)
What’s the issue with two power sources?
Packaging. You need a fuel tank and engine bay. On EVs they can put tons of batteries under the floor, this isn't possible if you have a normal engine and fuel tank in place.
ICE cars already have alternators powering electrics for AC, starter motors, entertainment, heating. What’s the problem?
Completely different thing. The alternator is a tiny generator, the engineering required for electric power trains is far greater.
However it's not really an issue as it's been pretty well engineered by most manufacturers.
On the dual powertrain thing, what's wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains? Is that not how Ampera's worked? Seems a lot more efficient than lugging two separate power trains about. With a light build I seem to recall high 100's mpg.
But still, PHEV's come with exactly the same infrastructure issues as any other EV (if you want to use them as designed). Who is going to pay extra to lug a battery pack around that they can't charge at home? Seems daft.
On the dual powertrain thing, what’s wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains?
You miss out on two things - you need a larger electric motor because you cannot feed ICE and electric power into the transmission and with a system like the prius you get a cvt like effect which gives a significant part of the fuel efficiency.
You also lose energy in the changes from one type of energy to the other - again not an issue with the prius type system
That can’t be right TJ says it’s not.
The article kind of supports TJ, IMO:
Scientists from the universities of Exeter, Nijmegen and Cambridge conducted lifecycle assessments that showed that even where electricity generation still involves substantial amounts of fossil fuel, there was a CO2 saving over conventional cars and fossil fuel heating.
[...]
In the UK, the savings are about 30%. However, that is likely to improve further as electric vehicles grow even more efficient and more CO2 is taken out of the electricity generating system.
So in the UK, electric cars save 30% of fossil-fuel use. Hardly a panacea, is it? Most people could probably buy a smaller / more economical care and drive carefully to achieve a 30% saving in fuel economy. Yes, a 30% improvement is good but it's hardly the sea-change required to reverse global warming. We need people to take fewer journeys by car.
I feel deeply uncomfortable to say it, but I'm firmly agreeing with TJ on this...
On the dual powertrain thing, what’s wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains? Is that not how Ampera’s worked?
I have no idea about the Ampera, but that's how the BMW I3 range-extender works. The wheels are always powered by the battery but there's an engine that can top up the battery from petrol. Seem like it'd be inefficient but I don't know.
that's exactly how the Ford Transit Custom PHEV works, and it makes a lot of sense to me! But clearly not to any other van manufacturer, as all the others are going down the BEV route. I see the eVito is available now... cheaper than the Ford, but a max range of 92 miles makes it suitable only for local deliveries really, whereas the Ford is a lot more versatile as you can just keep topping up the petrol if you need to!On the dual powertrain thing, what’s wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains?
On the dual powertrain thing, what’s wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains?
A series hybrid - Ampera/volt and the i3.
For me, the advantage of this system is that the ICE only needs to be a generator, and not to power the car - so it can in theory be run more efficiently at the same revs and load all the time. It does not need to provide varying amounts of power like a traction ICE would. I think BMW use a two cylinder motorbike engine for this purpose, but I think perhaps an even more carefully designed generator could be yet more efficient. But of course, charging batteries is not very efficient. So they advertise it as a 'range extender' for those odd trips, rather than a normal mode of propulsion.
Yes, a 30% improvement is good but it’s hardly the sea-change required to reverse global warming.
I don't think anyone with any sense is claiming that it is.
You also lose energy in the changes from one type of energy to the other – again not an issue with the prius type system
Actually it is - there isn't an actual CVT with the belts and pulleys - it converts torque to speed by varying the power to and from the electric motors, battery and ICE to give the appropriate effect, and this involves generating power from one motor and feeding it to the other. This is only something like 85% efficient, but when you take into account the fact that a traditional gearbox also has losses the energy lost in the Prius system is more than countered by the other efficiencies it enables.
Yes, a 30% improvement is good but it’s hardly the sea-change required to reverse global warming.
I think we all agree with that. 🤦🏻♂️
Yes, a 30% improvement is good but it’s hardly the sea-change required to reverse global warming. We need people to take fewer journeys by car.
thats why i call it a greenwash. Moving to more sustainable lifestyles is the only answer IMO Hybrids can only make a tiny contribution to overall energy consumption / emissions
its the dark green / light green debate. Best explained I think using fabric conditioner as an example, The light green buys ecover fabric conditioner - the dark green does not use it
the best way to reduce emissions from cars is to make them less convenient and cheap to use and to make the alternatives cheaper and more convenient along with lifestyle changes to make moving people around the country less needed
thats why i call it a greenwash. Moving to more sustainable lifestyles is the only answer IMO Hybrids can only make a tiny contribution to overall energy consumption / emissions
Greenwash is taking whatever you do normally and pretending it's eco friendly. So it's not greenwash to claim that hybrids are better for the environment, because on the whole they are. NO-ONE is claiming that it's the solution to humanity's problems.
the best way to reduce emissions from cars is to make them less convenient and cheap to use and to make the alternatives cheaper and more convenient along with lifestyle changes to make moving people around the country less needed
It is. But Toyota or Ford cannot do that, can they? That takes governments, and governments require voters. The problem lies squarely with governments and ultimately voters, not with car makers.
thats why i call it a greenwash. Moving to more sustainable lifestyles is the only answer IMO Hybrids can only make a tiny contribution to overall energy consumption / emissions
Oooooh! You’re back then.
Owning a hybrid can be part of a sustainable lifestyle TJ just a different one to how you live yours.
Greenwash is taking whatever you do normally and pretending it’s eco friendly.
correct - which is why hybrids are greenwashing. What you actually need to do is drive less.
Owning a hybrid can be part of a sustainable lifestyle TJ
Please tell me how any car owning can be part of a sustainable lifestyle.
Oooooh! You’re back then.
Bollox - forgot I was making me and other cross!
Off for a nice sustainable walk from my house without any use of a car. I am trying to think how many miles I have done in ICE vehicles this year. I think its under 200 in the last 12 months ( plus someone else drove the vehicle back a couple of times so thats another hundred or so miles driven for my usage)
edit - plus 100 miles in ferries
But then it doesn’t show how f*ck off rich I am does it??
...and that there, is the crux of the issue. Unless you can disconnect the car/status symbol relationship, the best anyone can do is make cars more environmentally friendly. Now personally, I'd be more impressed by TJ commuting on a beaten up on CdF with tan wall tyres, than him driving a white Range Rover, but I guess STW isn't the typical audience for those wedded to conspicuous consumption. TJ's view is very laudable but convincing Mr commuter belt, golf club, school run, kitchen island, middle manager to ditch his car will take generations sadly.
TJ’s view is very laudable but convincing Mr commuter belt, golf club, school run, kitchen island, middle manager to ditch his car will take generations sadly.
could be done in a single generation - simply keep on increasing tax on road use and fuel use using that money to improve public transport and rural broadband
simply keep on increasing tax on road use and fuel use using that money on subsidies to bring prices of essential items that need to be transported (eg food)
ftfy
or to give land to everyone so they can grow their own potatoes, and a bike* to commute from home to their allotment
(* delivered by a ship with a sail and thence by cargo bike, of course, and made from steel smelted in a parabolic mirror solar furnace) 😉
Please tell me how any car owning can be part of a sustainable lifestyle.
Well there’s no point well all know your views on car ownership I’ve more chance of convincing you to wear a helmet. However, owning a one that is more environmentally friendly is better than owning a planet killing juice guzzler.
correct – which is why hybrids are greenwashing. What you actually need to do is drive less.
No, it's not greenwash. It IS environmentally MORE friendly to drive a hybrid. And that's what Toyota tell us. It's not up to Toyota how much you drive it, that part is up to you.
It would be greenwash if a company said 'we're super eco friendly now because we've given all our sales reps Priuses' when they have a far better option which would be doing all their sales meetings remotely.
could be done in a single generation – simply keep on increasing tax on road use and fuel use using that money to improve public transport and rural broadband
I can't believe how naive you can be at times TJ.
The electorate won't vote for continued tax increases. They would have to WANT that for a government to do it. And if they wanted mileage reduced, they'd do it themselves. But the fact is we have a democracy, and that means the government has to do what we want - and we want our nice big cars and to drive everywhere.
Reversing that is going to take a lot of time, effort and skill unfortunately.
Your phrasing is telling, @Drac:
However, owning a one that is more environmentally friendly is better than owning a planet killing juice guzzler.
Alternatively:
However, owning a planet killing juice guzzler that is fractionally more environmentally friendly is better than owning a standard planet killing juice guzzler.
NO-ONE is claiming that it’s the solution to humanity’s problems.
Well, not all of humanity's problems, no. But there are plenty of people that think that BEVs are going to save the planet. There are plenty more that will think BEVs absolve them of eco-guilt. In reality, all that will happen is that BEVs will preserve our favoured way of life for a bit longer.
taking whatever you do normally and pretending it’s eco friendly.
That is precisely what driving an "eco friendly" car is...
There's another point here. People want to buy new cars, that's what they do. By encouraging people to buy EVs they are forcing the manufacturers to put the R&D into EVs. This means that they will only become more common. Then we will need more electricity, which (if done right) will end up creating more renewable options.
So the promotion of EVs *could* end up reducing our emissions by say 10% or so. This is significant. Obviously it's not going to save the world on its own, but no single technology is. We clearly need to drive far less, but when we DO drive, we should be driving as low-impact a car as possible. Along with all the other things we need to do.
There's no point complaining it's not the silver bullet - there IS NO silver bullet. We will need to do all the things.
That is precisely what driving an “eco friendly” car is…
The correct term is 'more eco friendly' not 'eco friendly'. As I said - you need to reduce your mileage AND drive a more eco friendly car. Complaining it's greenwash is unproductive in my opinion. This kind of internecine bickering is what leads the average man on the street to end up saying 'it's all bollocks who cares?'
However, owning a planet killing juice guzzler that is fractionally more environmentally friendly is better than owning a standard planet killing juice guzzler.
Yeah you could word it like that too but the more people who switch to these ‘fractionally’ more environmentally cars the better. My post was obviously too subtle for you to realise it was play on greenwashing.
Regardless of fuel type we should be driving less – particularly shorter journeys – but if we do have to drive, using smaller vehicles and keeping them longer
Nothing wrong with my VW Up! But then it doesn’t show how f*ck off rich I am does it??
This is the other issue. SUVs are starting to dominate the the normal family car market. What efficiencies you gain through hybrid technology are being thrown away in the name of fashion.
drive a more eco friendly car.
Once you factor in the environmental cost of the batteries, from mining to disposal, they seem less friendly.
It's like saying nuclear is a clean source of energy. As long as you ignore the fact that we don't have a way of dealing with the fuel rods, except to bury them. Which is just hiding the dirt.
Having said that here and europe is much better than North America, where the phev concept is to make an SUV with the same emissions more powerful, not the same power for less emissions
Its not naivety Molgrips - its how other countries do things. Carrot and stick. You simply balance it with reductions elsewhere. Read up on the carbon economy and carbon taxes. Read up on how the dutch got their cycle lanes. that took less than a generation to completely alter the dutch urban transport systems
Once you factor in the environmental cost of the batteries, from mining to disposal, they seem less friendly.
Seem but not
A bit like say nuclear fuel
OMG chromolly - do you realise how many bits of blue touchpaper you just lit with one post!
Molgrips - we use taxation to drive behavior all the time
OMG chromolly – do you realise how many bits of blue touchpaper you just lit with one post!
It’s ok it’s evident he’s running on an old script, you can tell as he thinks batteries are disposed of.
It’s like saying nuclear is a clean source of energy.
That would be pretty daft tbh. Good job only idiots would claim such a thing. Low carbon on the other hand...
Its not naivety Molgrips – its how other countries do things.
It's naive to think that whatever happens in other countries can easily happen here! The relationship between government and people is really quite different in different countries. Any UK govt that tried to raise taxes on *anything* would get shot to bits at the next election. That's why no-one sticks their neck out. And motoring is a massively emotive issue.
I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, I am saying it's nearly impossible. There may however be other ways to change behaviour - such as incentivising WFH for example, which I've talked about for years.
Around here the system to tax trucks was abandonned at great cost and the gilets jaunes got the better of the increases in fuel tax. Trucks and cars are untouchables in terms of the stick so the carrot is the only way, and do you really want to be encouraging the use of any car? Our bonus/malus system discourages the use of biger vehicles but so big that the people who buy them have so much spending power the price dosen't matter and camper vans are exempt. :/
you can tell as he thinks batteries are disposed of.
He knows most batteries are disposed of. About 5% on average, of consumer batteries are recycled. Lead acid car batteries run about 90%. Lithium batteries are low because we haven't got a large scale way of recycling the litium and it costs about 7 times what mined stuff does it's improving though. Part of the problem is you need about 98% purity to put it back into batteries and most processes so far get about 70%. There is a promising process but it requires quite a lot of manual work, which is a bit risky to humans.
It's possible to recycle nuclear fuel, unless it's from a candu reactor. Around 4 countries do it. The US doesnt. They bury and they've got a lot. Thank Obama for that. It's not really economic though.
There's a plant sucessfully recycling lithium car batteries in France, it's been on the news. Yes it's labour intensive, the risks to humans are well mangaged and the main thing they lack is batteries to recycle because most of them are still in cars. All they've got to work with at present is the ones from accident damaged cars because even the batteries from the first Zoés and Leafs are still in use either in the cars or as energy storage.
The Hague site in France deals with most of Europes nuclear waste. What proportion is recycled I don't know. The objective is the highest proportion possible because the nation that sends it gets the unrecyclable nasites back to deal with themselves.
I suspect you are talking about the Veolia plant. They reclaim the materials but most get used in other things e.g.to make metals for various industries. They don't go into new batteries. So it is more a reuse than recycle.
Did you actually read the link to the end drac? Says pretty much the same thing. So you still have cobalt mining in DRC which is an environmental and human disaster. Lithium is still mined in bolivia which uses about 2 million litres of water per tonne, pollutes agricultural land and water and displaces farmers. Because we cannot yet make new batteries without new material. We may be able to at some point. It may even becomes economic. Most EVs don't sell without significant subsidies to manufacturing or end users from govts. When those disappear the market tanks.
I think EVs are the future but to say they are eco friendly ignores the background to them. I think despite the drawbacks the small ICE engine powering electric motors was the way to go. If they'd been pursued more vigorously we'd all be driving them now, putting out 10% of the pollution. Instead we aimed for 0% and still aren't there. And won't be for some time to come. Never let perfection drive out the good, eh?
Something that frustrates me about all this is just how woolly the debate is made, especially by those who should know better. The BBC article is poor quality and while Harry points out a calculation to show gCO2 per mile for electric, he goes on to compare a full lifecycle gCO2 per mile for electric with tailpipe only emissions for ICE.
Harry (caveat, I didn't watch every second of that video) needs to compare full lifecycle emissions for both, covering mining, extraction, refinement and transport of fuel, whether that's liquid or electricity. And of course manufacturing of the car too. EVs are far from perfect, and of course the perfect answer would involve a dramatic reduction in car miles travelled, but they're vastly better on this than ICE. ICE lifecycle emissions looked at this way are I understand it 3-4x BEV. PHEV in the right use case can be heading towards BEV but it depends heavily on the user's behaviour. Mild hybrid cannot be more than just a more efficient ICE, since whatever happens it's petrol in for miles out, with more miles achieved by regenerative braking and some improvement by avoiding using the ICE in traffic when it's least efficient, but that's it, and PHEV/BEV do the same anyway.
So moving from pure ICE to mild hybrid is an improvement, sure, but moving from mild hybrid to PHEV is another, and used correctly it can be a bigger one. So having the ITV hub hammer a Lexus advert every tdf highlights break illustrates another big issue of deeply cynical marketing. The "self charging hybrid" "you never have to plug in" "for those who see the bigger picture"... The words may be true but the clear implication is a lie.
On top of all this, so far every 70 plate car I've seen has been a big suv, and worse, the kind of 4x4 (or whatever) that no-one who actually needed a 4x4 would buy. Pure gas guzzling vanity objects that are in each case less useful and not safer, faster or anything much else than the equivalent normal format car. A sample size of ****** all but still a damning indictment on the importance folk here place on our environment.
Yes I’ve read that link before that’s how I knew about it. Are EVs 100% environmentally friendly of course not that’s near in impossible but no one has claimed that. More reuse than recycling? That’s what recycling is.
More reuse than recycling? That’s what recycling is
Then why is the phrase reduce - reuse - recycle, as if they are different things?
Seriously though as I alluded to in that post, you have to look at the two components. You could dispose of lithium, it's pretty inert, makes a useful drug, pretty safe. If you have vast amounts it might be a problem. But if you don't reclaim it, it isn't so bad. The heavy metals in the other hand you really want to keep them out of the environment. So reclaim/reuse/recycle.
The second and in some ways more important part is the other end. You need them to make batteries. We will need more as battery demand increases, not just in cars but phones, laptops, tablets, bike lights etc li ion are the battery. So if we cannot take every spent battery and get the component parts out and put them into new batteries then we have to keep digging them out of the ground. That is by far the bigger environmental problem. Which largely gets ignored. Is it more eco friendly than the alternatives? That's debatable. But the fact that it doesn't feature into the thinking of EV drivers is part of the green washing problem.
It's not Veolia, Chromollyolly. The quality of lithium recovered is useable in new batteries, they don't burn the batteries to recover the metals, they dissolve them:
I haven't found the French company I'm looking for but here's one in Quebec, 95% recovery of materials of a qualtity reuseable in batteries:
Then why is the phrase reduce – reuse – recycle, as if they are different things?
Because it’s catchy they’re not different recycling is reuse.
I think EVs are the future but to say they are eco friendly ignores the background to them.
EVs are more eco friendly. Cobalt mining in the DRC is not. Who is responsible nasty cobalt mining? Toyota, the mining companies or the DRC govt? Who needs to fix the situation?
Oil companies have done some pretty monstrous things over the years too don't forget.
They are different things! Reduce - use less. Reuse - you do not change the object - you use it again. Recycle - you reduce the object to its base materials and make a new object
Take water bottles
Reduce - you don't buy water in plastic bottles. You get it from the tap. Reuse - you buy a plastic bottle of water and you then use this bottle again. Recycle - you put your plastic bottle in the recycling bin and it is re-manufactured into another plastic object.
Thats why reduce, reuse recycle - its a hierarchy of reducing waste. Reduce is always the best way of reducing waste.
EVs (and phevs) right now are not suitable for many on an individual basis. But, they need to be adopted by some to help the money feed into the correct pots to fund the development.
A used modern petrol car is potentially a better solution on an individual basis as you are not feeding the supply chain of fossil fuel cars.
Now is the time (a number of years) to make the transition. There are many who still need an ICE car and many who should be changing to ev.
Nope - the only answer is to rebalance the economy away from motoring and on a polluter pays basis
EVs are more eco friendly. Cobalt mining in the DRC is not. Who is responsible nasty cobalt mining? Toyota, the mining companies or the DRC govt? Who needs to fix the situation?
Everyone has a role. No demand for cobalt, no problem in the DRC. EVs allow first world cities to have cleaner air at the cost of making parts of 2nd and 3rd world countries uninhabitable. Not what I'd call eco friendly.
The oil industry is bad but a) it is a mature industry and is a lot better environmentallly than it used to be. B) It also has the advantage that economic factors influence. Tarsands are an environmental disaster. Fortunately, they are only really viable when oil is >$80 barrel. So they aren't doing much and probably won't until venezuela is empty.
I haven’t found the French company I’m looking for but here’s one in Quebec, 95% recovery of materials of a qualtity reuseable in batteries:
Lithion are at the pilot plant stage. The problem I suspect they will run up against is when they try to scale up. So far there are a bunch of companies who can reclaim usable materials but only in a pilot scale. It either doesn't work at scale or is uneconomic. Like plasma gassification for waste. Every few years another company decides to have a crack at it. Pilots well. Doesn't scale. There is an Indian outfit iirc that is trialling orange peel as the extraction material. Works in the lab, makes reusable lithium. So get eating.
EDI in Moselle? (Which is a bit of a truck question because EDI are a subsidiary of Veolia but are known by their own name)
Thats why reduce, reuse recycle – its a hierarchy of reducing waste. Reduce is always the best way of reducing waste.
Oh! Hi TJ, not sure why you’re bringing reduce into this. Anyway recycling is reusing too either as the item as a whole or stripping it down to use its parts. We got here Cromoly seems to think EV batteries are disposed of, which they’re not.
Anyway bored now.
Lithion are at the pilot plant stage
600 batteries a year. The French unit is at about the same stage because as already stated they don't have enough batteries to get to existing capacity, more batteries will be available in a few years time.
An why the scepticism Chromollyolly? You just come across as anit-EV on all these threads and dream up new imaginary problems each time we prove your previous imaginary problem was rubbish. Turn your attention to ICE vehicles, you'll have far more success in proving that the 8 tonnes or so of fuel burnt in a ICE in its lifetime are unrecyclable and not recyled or reused. They're just turned into CO2, heat and air pollution. That's after extracting and refining by the super messy oil industry.
Where does the energy for your EV come from?
its energy usage that is the issue - not what form it is in
Where does the energy for your EV come from?
I could say the solar panels on the roof which produce more than my consumption including car charging and holiday accomodation, but in fact I reckon it's better to feed into the grid in the day when there's high demand and charge the car at night when demand is lower.
Drac - you said reduce. reuse, recycle was a hollow slogan and clearly you don't understand the difference between reuse and recycle. Recycle costs energy, Reuse does not.
you said reduce. reuse, recycle was a hollow slogan and clearly you don’t clearly you don't understand the difference between reuse and recycle. Recycle costs energy, Reuse does not.
No I didn’t. Stop lying. I said reuse is recycling.
Drac, it isn't the same, TJ and Molgrips are right. Reuse means to use the object as you find it, like the water bottle in his example. Recycling is what you do when you can no longer reuse something, you break it down and turn it into something else. They are very much not the same thing.
An why the scepticism Chromollyolly? You just come across as anit-EV on all these threads and dream up new imaginary problems each time we prove your previous imaginary problem was rubbish. T
Scepticism is a good idea when we are talking about claims around eco friendlyness. As I mentioned read up on plasma gassification as a solution to waste.
I'm not anti EV. I am against regarding EVs as a solution. Partly because they bring their own challenges - environmental and otherwise. If the problems I raise are imaginary then it isn't me who is imagining them. When you actually prove anything I've said not factual, we can discuss that. But you've put the battery ahead of the car again.
I think EVs have displace what would have been good, viable. Affordable alternatives. Not great but good. The EV market has been utterly distorted by interventions that had nothing to do with the environment. Which caused problems elsewhere. It's easy to ignore children digging up cobalt in mines polluted by uranium if it means I can live exactly as I did before but in an 'environmently friendly ' way. There will come a time when batteries are much better than they are now, including using different and much better materials. We aren't there yet and won't be for some time. So I don't view EVs as nearly as good as they are made out to be.
As an aside. One of the things that improvements in battery technology has done is made products viable where they weren't before. Take electric lawnmowers. Now you can have one with a battery instead of a lead. Very convenient but creates a problem that needn't exist.
You won't be ditching oil even when we are all driving EVs - you'll still need tyres and plastic.
It’s easy to ignore children digging up cobalt in mines polluted by uranium if it means I can live exactly as I did before but in an ‘environmently friendly ‘ way
But as I said - the polluting mines are not a requirement for EVs are they? Maybe instead of ditching the EV idea we should fix the problems with the mining? Why are there problems with mining? Because of careless or ineffective governments. I'm pretty sure there are kids working in awful conditions for other things that are not related to EVs, aren't there?
The risk is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
