Are electric cars the new diesel gate

[Marlinleg]

   

 

The International Energy Agency found that hybrid cars save about the same amount of CO2 as electric cars over their lifetime. Moreover, they are already competitive with petrol cars price-wise — even without subsidies — and, crucially, they don’t have most of the electric car downsides outlined above.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that if every nation achieves their ambitious targets on increasing electric car ownership, it will reduce CO2 emissions in this decade by 235 million tons.

That, according to the UN Climate Panel’s standard model, will reduce global temperatures by about one ten-thousandth of a degree Celsius (0.0001c) by the end of the century.

 

Full article link below 

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10483317/Are-electric-cars-new-diesel-scandal-Expert-looks-future-road-travel.html

 

 

[NemesisUK]

Also worth a read

https://epha.org/electric-vehicles-and-air-pollution-the-claims-and-the-facts/

 

[Phil xxkr]

13 hours ago, NemesisUK said:

Also worth a read

https://epha.org/electric-vehicles-and-air-pollution-the-claims-and-the-facts/

 

As always Peter too many "experts" chasing their version of the facts /truth. Will us ordinary people ever really know? Irrespective of the answer it's clear that the end objective is to control how often you will be allowed to travel justified using the climate change farago. 

[ColinBarber]

The recent Volvo report is possibly the most comprehensive study out there at the moment which shows over 100k mile lifetime it does save CO2, even if there is more used during initial manufacture.

A signifiant part of the lifetime CO2 contribution is the electricity generation used to charge the vehicle, that will improve each year as countries move more of their generation to renewal energy sources, so even if this IEA study finds them the same now, the EV will pull away over time from the hybrid.

But it shouldn't be just about overall CO2 emissions, there is also the health benefit of having emissions controlled and contained in centralised places, not spewing out in our towns, something the hybrids help towards but don't totally solve.

I think there are two ways to look a hybrids - the best of both worlds, or a compromise making it the worst of both.

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, ColinBarber said:

The recent Volvo report is possibly the most comprehensive study out there at the moment which shows over 100k mile lifetime it does save CO2, even if there is more used during initial manufacture.

A signifiant part of the lifetime CO2 contribution is the electricity generation used to charge the vehicle, that will improve each year as countries move more of their generation to renewal energy sources, so even if this IEA study finds them the same now, the EV will pull away over time from the hybrid.

But it shouldn't be just about overall CO2 emissions, there is also the health benefit of having emissions controlled and contained in centralised places, not spewing out in our towns, something the hybrids help towards but don't totally solve.

I think there are two ways to look a hybrids - the best of both worlds, or a compromise making it the worst of both.

When a firm such as Volvo funds such a report how much credence can we honestly have? And CO 2 is still being promoted as the worst kind of pollutant when it's essential to all life on the planet. But for balance here is an another expert, and an excerpt from his recent report. 

Gautam Kalghatgi is a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Mechanical 
Engineers and the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has been a visiting professor at Oxford Uni-
versity, Imperial College, Sheffield University, KTH Stockholm and TU Eindhoven. He has 39 years of 
experience in combustion, fuels, engine and energy research; 31 years with Shell and 8 years with 
Saudi Aramco.

"Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are not zero emission. Battery 
manufacture is both energy intensive and greenhouse gas inten-
sive. On a lifecycle basis, including vehicle manufacture, use and 
disposal, BEVs with large batteries could have worse emissions 
than comparable conventional vehicles, although smaller BEVs 
in areas with low-carbon electricity supplies will have lower but 
non-zero emissions than comparable conventional cars. 
• The very serious health issues associated with mining for met-
als are simply exported away from where the BEV is used. Particu-
late emissions can be almost eliminated in modern engines. That 
being the case, tyre wear will soon become the dominant source 
of particulates, and will be much higher for BEVs because of their 
greater weight. 
• Even if BEV numbers in the UK increase to ten million by 2030, 
when the proposed ban on the sale of new cars with internal 
combustion engines (ICEs) comes into force, around 80% of all 
transport and 70% of cars and vans will still run on fossil fuels. The 
ban will simply exclude UK customers from access to any further 
improvements in ICE technology. If enough people do not buy 
BEVs because of high up-front costs and charging anxiety, the UK 
automotive industry will be destroyed."
 

 

 

 

[ColinBarber]

4 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

When a firm such as Volvo funds such a report how much credence can we honestly have?

Volvo, like all legacy manufacturers, don't make as much money selling BEVs and cannot make nearly enough vehicles as they are Battery constrained. So they have no interest in trying to make them look better than they are and they actually highlighted that the upfront emissions where higher than expected, painting ICE as the better option for now.

Quote

He has 39 years of experience in combustion, fuels, engine and energy research; 31 years with Shell and 8 years with Saudi Aramco.

No conflict of interest there then!

[gb1600e]

Given that electric vehicles are a green washing PR exercise until other liquid fuels can efficiently propel the internal combustion engine the question is will there be a scrapage scheme for redundant EV's in 5 to 10 years? 🤔 

So "will electric cars be the new dieslegate" Yes, I fully expect so if there are still lawyers wanting to earn a living.

🤷‍♂️😉

 

[Phil xxkr]

35 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

Volvo, like all legacy manufacturers, don't make as much money selling BEVs and cannot make nearly enough vehicles as they are battery constrained. So they have no interest in trying to make them look better than they are and they actually highlighted that the upfront emissions where higher than expected, painting ICE as the better option for now.

No conflict of interest there then!

We are in violent agreement Colin, in the triangular metaphor for life I represent the foundational layer like most people. All I am asking/seeking /foi - ing/attempting to discover where the true facts lie, and seeking any authors sub-agenda I believe to be part of the investigative process. 

[steve2006]

Sorry missed all this, I was just putting another shovel of coal on the fire....now where were we 😀

Also had a bit of a setback with my irradiated water hydrogen production experiment.

[Marlinleg]

😂😂😂 👏👏👏👏

[DBIZO]

10 hours ago, ColinBarber said:

The recent Volvo report is possibly the most comprehensive study out there at the moment which shows over 100k mile lifetime it does save CO2, even if there is more used during initial manufacture.

A signifiant part of the lifetime CO2 contribution is the electricity generation used to charge the vehicle, that will improve each year as countries move more of their generation to renewal energy sources, so even if this IEA study finds them the same now, the EV will pull away over time from the hybrid.

But it shouldn't be just about overall CO2 emissions, there is also the health benefit of having emissions controlled and contained in centralised places, not spewing out in our towns, something the hybrids help towards but don't totally solve.

I think there are two ways to look a hybrids - the best of both worlds, or a compromise making it the worst of both.

I don't have much patience or polite words for the choices carbuyers make, but the systemic world view is rather simple once you go through the complexities to bring them to their conclusion: hybrids would be much more desirable for emission curbing because they deliver much more and much faster within the constraint of our global industrial capacity.

People can't get their head around the fact that full BEVs, particularly with Li-ion chemistries, are the worst way to deploy resources to eliminate fossil energy. Also, EVs are not a form of energy generation, so we are not really solving much with them without transforming the grid, in return for immense investments, mining and manufacturing capacity. EVs are additional consumers on the grid, so the CO2 intensity of their consumption should be calculated on the margins. In many many places, that's going to be dispatchable power in the form of gas fired plants for lot of the time. Of course, in Norway, the calculation is very favourable. Or in France. We are neither Norway, the UK grid is currently 8x the carbon intensity of Norway's, and 2x of France's (it's usually considerably worse, but it's a windy night tonight), tighter on supply, and relies on massive fossil generation as standby backup. Much of the US, Germany, Poland make EVs pointless.

Before we put too fine a point on debating EVs, PHEVs etc, it doesn't really matter, the IEA data is right. We are talking about a tiny fraction of a fractional part of transport, and one where fossil fuels are really quite difficult to displace.

Instead, the rage should be all about cleaning up the grid and building HVAC by transitioning away from coal and gas, insulating buildings, and probably fully electrifying and investing in the expansion of public transport so cars are needed less in day to day life, etc. 

Let's forget that private car ownership can be in any shape or for be good for sustainability. Buy what you want/need. I'd have gone for a PHEV but there is no charger in the underground garage, and no charger in this neighbourhood at all.

[Phil xxkr]

8 hours ago, DBIZO said:

I don't have much patience or polite words for the choices carbuyers make, but the systemic world view is rather simple once you go through the complexities to bring them to their conclusion: hybrids would be much more desirable for emission curbing because they deliver much more and much faster within the constraint of our global industrial capacity.

People can't get their head around the fact that full BEVs, particularly with Li-ion chemistries, are the worst way to deploy resources to eliminate fossil energy. Also, EVs are not a form of energy generation, so we are not really solving much with them without transforming the grid, in return for immense investments, mining and manufacturing capacity. EVs are additional consumers on the grid, so the CO2 intensity of their consumption should be calculated on the margins. In many many places, that's going to be dispatchable power in the form of gas fired plants for lot of the time. Of course, in Norway, the calculation is very favourable. Or in France. We are neither Norway, the UK grid is currently 8x the carbon intensity of Norway's, and 2x of France's (it's usually considerably worse, but it's a windy night tonight), tighter on supply, and relies on massive fossil generation as standby backup. Much of the US, Germany, Poland make EVs pointless.

Before we put too fine a point on debating EVs, PHEVs etc, it doesn't really matter, the IEA data is right. We are talking about a tiny fraction of a fractional part of transport, and one where fossil fuels are really quite difficult to displace.

Instead, the rage should be all about cleaning up the grid and building HVAC by transitioning away from coal and gas, insulating buildings, and probably fully electrifying and investing in the expansion of public transport so cars are needed less in day to day life, etc. 

Let's forget that private car ownership can be in any shape or for be good for sustainability. Buy what you want/need. I'd have gone for a PHEV but there is no charger in the underground garage, and no charger in this neighbourhood at all.

Reading the IEA conclusion doesn't it have the same echoes of mandated control as wearing face masks? Despite evidence to the contrary people are being "nudged" into directions by emotional blkmail - do it, its good for the planet, other people, it's your duty etc, you know the routine. 

[DBIZO]

3 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

Reading the IEA conclusion doesn't it have the same echoes of mandated control as wearing face masks? Despite evidence to the contrary people are being "nudged" into directions by emotional blkmail - do it, its good for the planet, other people, it's your duty etc, you know the routine. 

You could say government action to contain the pandemic was as well judged, explained and effective as government action in sustainability. But after all, it's the government, shaped by the invisible forcefields of gross incompetence, stealing, and nastiness - the triple-bladed Ockham's razor of political analysis. 

[Phil xxkr]

22 minutes ago, DBIZO said:

You could say government action to contain the pandemic was as well judged, explained and effective as government action in sustainability. But after all, it's the government, shaped by the invisible forcefields of gross incompetence, stealing, and nastiness - the triple-bladed Ockham's razor of political analysis. 

Crikey Dan, I certainly felt the edge of that particular blade 🤣. I suspect they might argue you just don't understand the size of the Gordanian knot that they have to deal with every day, after all, all you represent is being part of the very knot. 😎

 

[Linas.P]

I would say - yes and no... same as diesel was both good and bad. 

Diesel is still most efficient and environmentally friendly fuel for long distance driving, as long as one maintain same speed, low and constant RPM diesel is great and it is less polluting than petrol. Where it went downstairs? In early 2000's pollution was all about CO2 - politicians misunderstood the benefits of diesel and made purely political move (not based on any science) to incentivise it across the board and thus being able to claim they reduced CO2 emissions. Then people started buying into diesel because of lower tax and higher claimed MPG and using it inappropriately for short drives in the city. Politicians did not care and car makers didn't want to do the right thing and educate consumers... decade later it was other groups which really made it public and only then politicians jumped onto bandwagon demonising the fuel despite it being basically their fault to promote and incentivise it incorrectly. Diesel is right fuel, just used for wrong purpose.

It is exactly the same with BEVs just in reverse. BEVs are great when they are used strictly for short distance driving and come with tiny Battery and 50 Miles range, so somebody living in the city and doing say 20 miles per day BEV is perfect solution. Where it goes down hill? That is long range driving where it not only sucks because of charging, but as well because such cars require large batteries which are insanely polluting even before car rolls over from factory lot. Yet as expected politicians blindly jumped onto band wagon promoting BEVs across the board and going as far as banning ICEVs without understanding anything about the impact. As before car makers are not interested educating customers and trying to profit whilst they can  Imagine how much worse diesel gate would have been if politicians would have banned petrol in early 2000s to promote diesel, but that is what is happening with BEV - they taking extreme measures without understanding the consequences. 

Note as well - average BEVs claimed to have 30% lower emissions over lifetime compared to average ICEVs. This comes from European Environment Agency study is probably most comprehensive yet independent study to the day. The issue is that this statement both correct in isolation and highly misleading for general ignorant public. First of all, what general joe thinks is that BEV = 0 emissions, which obviously false, the step above that are the people who look at the study and say "aha it is 30% better even after all things being considered", sadly not true either... and all because of this "average" part. So what is the "average" they have used? They more or less checked the cars on sale and figured out what average pollution will be, for Europe the average ICEV is ~2L mid-size vehicle (in UK they used Mondeo 2.2 Ecoboost as example) and what exactly average BEV is? Here is an issue - study was published in 2018, completed in 2017 and they used data between 2002 and 2016. As you may guess average BEV for this period was not what is selling today, they mostly had short ranges and small batteries - Nissan Leaf would be representative of "average" title... so if they say that Nissan Leaf is 30% more economical than Mondeo 2.2 Ecoboost I have not issue with that.... but so is Golf 1.0 TSFI... What they certainly don't mean is that Tesla Model X is more environmentally friendly, because it isn't - it is actually horrible for the environment because of it's massive Battery. Other thing to note - most of what we consider "gas guzzlers" in ICEV world don't much miles, people who drive a lot usually have fuel efficient cars. So this skews it even further - most miles are done in ICEVs who are more economical than "average".

Now it is very clear where the issues is - because our brainless politicians promoting BEVs as a single solution, this means most people are buying into "long range" BEVs, which are bad for environment, same as driving diesel car in the city for short distance is bad. As well, they misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring the what study actually says and going with 30% reduction claim, despite something like Tesla Model X or Porsche Taycan Turbo S (most stupid name ever), or to be honest any BEV with large Battery being actually worse for environment than "average" ICEV. I think at some point down the line we will have BEV bans on driving on motorway or long distance, similar as we have bans on diesels entering the city centres. 

In short - I don't know if BEVs going to be like diesel gate, but by all that is happening so far it seems they will take what is good solution (like diesel was) and implement it poorly, therefore not reducing pollution at all.

[DBIZO]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

BEVs are great when they are used strictly for short distance driving and come with tiny battery and 50 Miles range, so somebody living in the city and doing say 20 miles per day BEV is perfect solution. Where it goes down hill? That is long range driving where it not only sucks because of charging, but as well because such cars require large batteries which are insanely polluting even before car rolls over from factory lot. Yet as expected politicians blindly jumped onto band wagon promoting BEVs across the board and going as far as banning ICEVs without understanding anything about the impact. As before car makers are not interested educating customers and trying to profit whilst they can  Imagine how much worse diesel gate would have been if politicians would have banned petrol in early 2000s to promote diesel, but that is what is happening with BEV - they taking extreme measures without understanding the consequences. 

 

This. A thousand times. And when someone wants the option to travel afar, they should buy one with a petrol generator - a petrol-electric powertrain. LEVC taxis use this unusually sensible approach. Quite shocking really.

[Linas.P]

23 minutes ago, DBIZO said:

This. A thousand times. And when someone wants the option to travel afar, they should buy one with a petrol generator - a petrol-electric powertrain. LEVC taxis use this unusually sensible approach. Quite shocking really.

Or diesel... but the point is the same - BEV for short distance with small Battery with some form of ICEV (maybe even indirectly driving wheels like range-extender generators). This would be best we can get with our current technology. But our politicians don't care what is best for long term, they only care on what is popular now. There are ecomentalists shouting about climate, so let's please them with unworkable promise of banning all ICEV by 2030... when comes 2030 it will be an issue of the government at the time, or like with diesel-gate it will be passed onto consumers punished them for following government advise. 

[Mr Vlad]

Bit of a typo Linas. Ford ecoboost engines were 2.0 or 2.3 (excluding smaller engines like the 1.0 1.5 1.6) the 2.2 was a diesel and a ruddy good one. (I had the mondeo titanium x sport 2.2 diesel in both manual and auto gearbox) (yes I was ford bloke lol)

[Las Palmas]

On 2/12/2022 at 7:20 PM, DBIZO said:

This. A thousand times. And when someone wants the option to travel afar, they should buy one with a petrol generator - a petrol-electric powertrain. LEVC taxis use this unusually sensible approach. Quite shocking really.

2010 Chevrolet Volt was trying to get shares of the market of Prius. 2019 No longer trying. Opel Ampera and in UK probably Vauxhall.