Electricity is becoming less dinosaur burning all the time. Coal use is dropping in most industrial nations. Wind and solar generation are becoming much more competitive with gas. Petrol has really no way of becoming less destructive while electricity has lots of possibilities for improvement.
Off Topic The Goodhand Arms
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
OK, let's explode a few myths that get fed to people via mainstream news. EV batteries are easily recyclable, with well over 96% of the materials being able to be reused in new batteries, or kept together but in other less arduous applications, such as solar power storage, in which they will carry on for donkey's years with little degradation. The 'car use' guarantees on them are quite conservative at 8 years, and they will undoubtedly last a whole lot longer than that. For example, another 12 years before you'll probably want to replace them. Then again, I suspect you may have replaced the car itself by then. Early Nissan Leaf batteries, which degraded fairly quickly by today's standards, were using an early battery composite and passive temperature control arrangement which wasn't anywhere near as good as they are today. However, they also were able to be recycled and didn't cost their owners anything because Nissan replaced them under warranty.
In that example of another 12 years, battery costs will have completely plummeted. They've been dropping since EVs first established a demand and continue to drop by 14-16% every year.
There are already 'proper' hybrids on the roads, offering decent electrical only running of 50+ miles [original BMW I3 is over 80] daily. Plenty of owners never use their fossil-fuel [FF] engines, they being there essentially as back-ups. 'Proper' hybrids come in two basic categories. Ones known as 'Extended Range' or EREV, and standard 'Plug-in Hybrid', known as PHEV. So called 'Self-Charging' Hybrids [SCH] are basically FFVs with electrical assistance. They have no Plug-in facility, as every bit of the electricity is generated by petrol, so they have zero 'green' credentials or credibility [Toyota SC Hybrids - Avoid] and are only mildly more efficient than a straight petrol engined car. Basically, if you want to cheapen your motoring and do good by the environment, pass these by.
EREV engines will never drive the car directly, if they are ever needed at all, instead merely charging the battery, which totally depends on the users habits. It's very easy never to use an EREV's engine. PHEV engines do drive the car directly, if needed. There are odd variations to this rule, due to car makers blurring the categories.
As to the carbon footprint of battery electric vehicles or BEVs, their operating carbon footprint is astonishing lower than any FFV or Hybrid. Bearing in mind that any new manufactured vehicle will establish a new footprint as it rolls off the production line, the BEV footprint drops away remarkably afterwards. Of course how quickly it does depends on what electricity is powering it but, even if it is powered by the dirtiest brown, high sulphur coal for 100% of it's electricity, it is still cleaner than the cleanest FFV. Coal power stations are between 35-55% efficient and are filtered to some extent. In any case, the UK grid is rapidly phasing them out. And, on any given day, coal power plants aren't being used, being only required during peak demands.
In comparison, the best efficiency a petrol engine can manage is 21-23% to the road, and the very best the infamous diesel can do is 30-32% for the same. BEVs are typically over 80% efficient to the road. Plus a BEV has the distinction of being able to stop producing any CO2, NOx, SO2, PM2.5 and a few other emissions if it powered by Solar, Wind, Hydro or Nuclear.
So, even if you use an everyday electricity supplier [and I would urge you to find the greenest supplier you can easily afford], where the electricity is a mixture of Nuclear, Gas, Wind, Solar, Hydro and Coal, the electricity you are supplying to your EV is astonishingly cleaner than anything a FFV vehicle can manage.
Of course, the ticket prices of BEVs are still waaaaay too high up front. This is undoubtedly true, but give them a break. To this point, EVs are made in their thousands. FFVs, still in their millions. Economies of scale. And they've only really got going because Tesla is dragging the traditional car makers out of their lethargy. There's a whole background story to that, involving the Fossil Fuel industry which definitely wants us to keep pumping petrol/diesel, and in the future, hydrogen. The hydrogen issue is yet another chapter. Suffice to say, BEV prices will come down and will find ticket price parity in just a few years. They are already cheaper overall, when factoring in operating/servicing costs. Servicing costs are practically zero. No 'emissions' test to pass. There's nothing to do but fill up the washer bottle and eventually change the tyres. Brake pad material tends to last almost forever because of 'regenerative braking', that is, the electric motor becomes an electricity generator, pumping electricity back into the battery when reducing speed.
Tesla - where would we be without them in the world? Well, there would be the Nissan Leaf and the Renault Zoe, a few hybrids and that would pretty much be it. And maybe, not even that many. Over a decade ago, ex-Nissan/Renault CEO Carlos Ghosn drove them to production, to be in the vanguard of EV transport. Without him the Leaf and Zoe simply wouldn't exist. More manufacturers are now promising EVs.
Back to Tesla - one could write a book about their technology and performance advantages. Because BEVs are all they make. They are conservatively 5 years ahead of the competition in every single category of the benefits EVs bring. They make profits on their cars - nobody else does, as yet. Their batteries are the most efficient, longest lasting, and cheapest. At present they are closing in on the magical $100 per KW for the entire battery [$116 at present] There's another 'cell level' measurement where they've already dipped under the $100 mark. Their motors are the lightest, cheapest, most efficient, and most able to deliver power. In each class they exist, their cars are the safest ever measured vehicles. All cars, not just EVs. The whole car is said to be designed for one million miles of motoring. And they [and all BEVs] are 11 times less likely to catch fire than any FFV. [BMW FFVs are so prone to fire that South Korea has gone as far as banning them until their problems are solved] So why doesn't Tesla take over? Their major problem is growing big enough, and quickly enough, to satisfy demand, and maintain quality and service. To put that into perspective, traditional car makers project manufacturing upcoming new EV models at around 10-20K per year. Tesla manufactures over 30K per month. When the new Gigafactory 3 gets upto full speed early next year that will double. And vehicle manufacturing from Gigafactory 1 will start at some point in the near future too. At present it makes batteries only.
Incidentally Nissan Leafs and Renault Zoes are thought to be made at around 10K per month each, which is fine, but demand isn't satisfied for them either.
I could provide you with all the details to back this information up. This independent factual information is out there for all to see, only the mainstream media seem to be quite happy with hearsay, folklore, and what the bloke down the road says. That's fine by traditional car makers and especially the oil industry. Both are quite happy for customers to be confused about the benefits of electric transport. So, instead, I'll point you in the direction of the oldest Youtube channel on Electrical Transport and Clean Power Generation. Overall, it's probably the most widely respected reporting outlet on the subject. It is run by Robert Llewellyn. Does the name seem familiar? Yep, it's Kryten from Red Dwarf, in his serious guise as a promoter of Sustainable Energy.
Here's the website address: https://www.fullychargedshow.co.uk/
And here's the Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/fullychargedshow
Word of warning - because Robert is a comic actor, he can't help but try to make things entertaining. This is one reason for his enormous popularity. The important thing is, his information is on point. The Fully Charged Show has been running on Youtube since 2010 [before that he did Carpool in a Plug-In Hybrid] and has now got so big that it runs events in the UK, Europe and, later this year for the first time, the USA. This June 7,8,9th at Silverstone [in a couple of weeks] will be the second Fully Charged LIVE Show, featuring every last bit of BEVs, and Clean/Sustainable Power Generation. You'll be able to book test drives in all the vehicles, and there will be talks and events to explain and remove the fog about sustainable energy. Here's a typical Fully Charged episode from last week. Note the Tesla Model 3 using the ferry.
You must log in or register to see media
Last edited:
My wife thinks she is funnier than me and she keeps making bird puns!
I told her Toucan play at that game.
I told her Toucan play at that game.
Thanks, TSS. If/when Tesla comes down to a “reasonable” price, I’m extremely interested. I think, unfortunately, the car manufacturers and government are interested in keeping the prices high, so I’ll continue to use my car as little as I can and hope things can get sorted. Love Robert Llewellyn - he’s brilliant and a great exponent
One thing I'd like to quickly add to my earlier post on FFVs vs BEVs. Every single time you look at emissions from either format, mainstream sources quote fanciful figures for the CO2 impact of making the BEV and the generation of its electricity. Then they compare that to the output from a FFV exhaust emission. And still the BEV is a little bit cleaner. So why is this widespread myth allowed to carry on? Generally it is ignorance and, of course, oil companies want you to keep buying fuel.
So, let's start a fairer comparison by showing the path of energy for the traditional FFV. Just like making the BEV, one has to make the FFV. OK, so we're reasonably even. Then, for the FFV, one has to extract the fuel from the Earth. That needs to be pumped ashore and stored in tanks, where it is vented. Remember that the pumping is powered by the oil rig platform, and that takes electricity from burning bunker fuel. OK, the crude oil is now ashore in vented tanks. Then it has to be cracked and refined. All this takes enormous amounts of power [I can never find a reliable figure but it's very big. Something like 12KWh per US gallon to get this far] and during the process there are more emissions. Then the refined fuels are stored in vented tanks. Then, if we continue to keep the process simple, the fuel is put into diesel fuel transportation trucks and sent across country to fuel stations, where it is pumped into vented tanks waiting to be bought by the customer. In every case of venting, the fuel is polluting its environment. In every case of transportation, it is polluting its environment indirectly. And that's before it even gets into the customer's fuel tank, where it will eventually directly pollute some more in our city streets. Now that's a fairer comparison to a BEV.
Of course, one could argue against the BEV by bringing in the cost of making new power generators themselves. A good example of the general confused folklore that occurs through mainstream media happened only a fortnight ago. I was informed that "a wind turbine never recoups in clean power generation the carbon footprint it makes to construct it". That's not true. It recoups it within 6-8 months. The sentence in quotes is what's known as FUD, or Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. And it is generally what anyone will hear when a new technology comes along to supersede the previous one. Especially when it involves superseding the oil industry.
Humans make things. Every time we do it takes power in some form. Currently, almost any construction we do releases CO2. If we have to release CO2 there are better, more efficient ways of doing it, until we get to the point where we've stopped. Carrying on regardless is not a recipe for success.
So, let's start a fairer comparison by showing the path of energy for the traditional FFV. Just like making the BEV, one has to make the FFV. OK, so we're reasonably even. Then, for the FFV, one has to extract the fuel from the Earth. That needs to be pumped ashore and stored in tanks, where it is vented. Remember that the pumping is powered by the oil rig platform, and that takes electricity from burning bunker fuel. OK, the crude oil is now ashore in vented tanks. Then it has to be cracked and refined. All this takes enormous amounts of power [I can never find a reliable figure but it's very big. Something like 12KWh per US gallon to get this far] and during the process there are more emissions. Then the refined fuels are stored in vented tanks. Then, if we continue to keep the process simple, the fuel is put into diesel fuel transportation trucks and sent across country to fuel stations, where it is pumped into vented tanks waiting to be bought by the customer. In every case of venting, the fuel is polluting its environment. In every case of transportation, it is polluting its environment indirectly. And that's before it even gets into the customer's fuel tank, where it will eventually directly pollute some more in our city streets. Now that's a fairer comparison to a BEV.
Of course, one could argue against the BEV by bringing in the cost of making new power generators themselves. A good example of the general confused folklore that occurs through mainstream media happened only a fortnight ago. I was informed that "a wind turbine never recoups in clean power generation the carbon footprint it makes to construct it". That's not true. It recoups it within 6-8 months. The sentence in quotes is what's known as FUD, or Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. And it is generally what anyone will hear when a new technology comes along to supersede the previous one. Especially when it involves superseding the oil industry.
Humans make things. Every time we do it takes power in some form. Currently, almost any construction we do releases CO2. If we have to release CO2 there are better, more efficient ways of doing it, until we get to the point where we've stopped. Carrying on regardless is not a recipe for success.
Last edited:
Yep, I would do exactly that Dave. Keep it in good fettle and drive it as little as possible, like combining all car journeys into as few as possible. I can't afford an EV at present. I was told the other day that I was a hypocrite for that. I ride a bicycle everywhere I can and I ride a motorbike or drive elsewhere. One has to live and function in the real world. One can still use the tools of the previous technology and aim for the incoming one. The main thing is to minimise one's impact.
My way to being greener atm is just to walk if I can. An example is tomorrow when I am getting my hair cut. Just over a mile and I used to drive. For the last year I walk. If it is raining...who cares I can dry off.
Every Little Helps....
PS. It does mean though that my car is two years old this month and has 5000 miles on it. Doesn't help I work from home as well. Or maybe it does if you see what i mean
Every Little Helps....
PS. It does mean though that my car is two years old this month and has 5000 miles on it. Doesn't help I work from home as well. Or maybe it does if you see what i mean
Newport isn't a big town, but I walk everywhere within it's boundaries. I would think to go from my house to go to some shops is a couple of miles....wouldn't get the car out for that. nothing to do with being green....just that I don't think it's worth driving and parking. I used to walk a couple of miles to school when I was 5...didn't think anything of it as driving wasn't an option. My car does about 2,500 a year...not being smug as I know many people have to use cars, especially for work.
Exactly Fran. Sometimes you have to drive and can’t avoid it. I just think that whilst I can walk, I will walk.
I was just reading a piece on people's perceptions. Many people don't like to step on a plane because of an irrational belief that it will fall out of the sky, whereas they'll text while driving. It doesn't matter that planes go millions of miles before one has a major problem, or that the previous day 100 people died while texting at the steering wheel. I made those precise numbers up, but you get the idea. I know they weren't wildly wrong.
Basically, people react to what they see on the TV news headlines and what they read in the newspapers. Unless these newspoints are put into their proper perspective at the time of publishing, or the constant misdirection, say from newspapers is not refuted to the same degree and the same frequency, people will, more often than not, adopt those false perceptions as truth. People die from texting while driving all the time. So often that it isn't deemed newsworthy anymore. And planes stay in the air 99% of the time, yet every one that doesn't is news.
So, someone who is extremely white-knuckled about boarding an airliner, but happy to sit in a moving car, is suffering from a life altering false perception. Yet nothing you can say or show them will stop them from feeling the same.
Incidentally, that works in politics too.
Basically, people react to what they see on the TV news headlines and what they read in the newspapers. Unless these newspoints are put into their proper perspective at the time of publishing, or the constant misdirection, say from newspapers is not refuted to the same degree and the same frequency, people will, more often than not, adopt those false perceptions as truth. People die from texting while driving all the time. So often that it isn't deemed newsworthy anymore. And planes stay in the air 99% of the time, yet every one that doesn't is news.
So, someone who is extremely white-knuckled about boarding an airliner, but happy to sit in a moving car, is suffering from a life altering false perception. Yet nothing you can say or show them will stop them from feeling the same.
Incidentally, that works in politics too.
Flying doesn't bother me, but I do understand why people may not like it despite the stats. A question of survivability...you can survive car crashes...indeed most of us may have already done so. May also be part claustrophobia...no opening windows for instance (and a few air passengers have tried) or getting out when you like (so lack of control). Strangely (and I'm not alone in this) I hate heights and keep away from balconies and cliff edges...yet I'm the first to press my nose against a plane window as I love looking down at the passing land, water and clouds.
Yep, I share the height thing with balconies and such, yet like you I love the window seat in planes.
Just reminded me - when I made my one and only trip up the Eiffel Tower, way back in 1990. We got to the top and exited from the lift. There we were inside the cupola looking out the windows, when I spotted the stairway that took you outside on top of the cupola. And I made myself go out and stand at the railings, basically because the chances of my having the courage to do it again was almost none. I can actually feel decidedly iffy just thinking about it now.
@thereisonlyoneno7
I see your friend has made it through to the live finals of BGT.......we'll deserved.
I see your friend has made it through to the live finals of BGT.......we'll deserved.
Last edited:
We are away next week so will miss the live shows......hopefully he makes the final so we can watch him then:
The Toronto Raptors are playing for an NBA title. I'm going gray; the last time one of my teams played for a title, I was eight.
You support Saints, of course you’re going grey (note correct spelling
).We all are *
* although some of us cherry blossom up in denial... @thereisonlyoneno7
