This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
With the price of Diesel being equal to or lower than Petrol now, and me getting close to needing a new car, is there anything new to consider regarding different fuels? Im currently thinking of getting a Diesel as I do long journeys and about 20k a year which would be the usual approach, but then new cars seem to have more efficient smaller petrol engines so not sure.
1
In reply to Pesda potato:
If buying newish I'd choose based on which you enjoy driving more, TBH. But I would avoid anything with the PSA 1.6 commonrail turbodiesel (this is the one Citroen use in things like the Picasso but it is very common) because it has a serious design flaw which will result in repeated turbo failures (effectively not repairable once the muck gets in) if not serviced *exactly* as specified (including not vacuuming the old oil out through the dipstick hole as is very common practice at Kwikfit etc). Other engines are much more tolerant.
If you do choose a car with that engine, make sure you are strict on sticking to service intervals (maybe even do it more often) and budget for main-dealer servicing unless you do it yourself or have a *very* trusted independent to go to who will follow the instructions and not try to cut corners. I wouldn't go near one used because you simply don't know what has been done to it, if you *really* want to buy used check it has a full and timely main dealer service history.
If buying more than a few years old, petrol will be more reliable and has fewer potential expensive faults.
If buying newish I'd choose based on which you enjoy driving more, TBH. But I would avoid anything with the PSA 1.6 commonrail turbodiesel (this is the one Citroen use in things like the Picasso but it is very common) because it has a serious design flaw which will result in repeated turbo failures (effectively not repairable once the muck gets in) if not serviced *exactly* as specified (including not vacuuming the old oil out through the dipstick hole as is very common practice at Kwikfit etc). Other engines are much more tolerant.
If you do choose a car with that engine, make sure you are strict on sticking to service intervals (maybe even do it more often) and budget for main-dealer servicing unless you do it yourself or have a *very* trusted independent to go to who will follow the instructions and not try to cut corners. I wouldn't go near one used because you simply don't know what has been done to it, if you *really* want to buy used check it has a full and timely main dealer service history.
If buying more than a few years old, petrol will be more reliable and has fewer potential expensive faults.
Post edited at 09:36
3
In reply to Pesda potato:
We have a modern small petrol with a turbo (63 plate Leon). I like the engine a lot, loads of power for ordinary driving and efficient, but probably 7-8 mpg less than the equivelent diesel. We do 13-14,000 miles a year, but might go a couple of weeks without a decent blast on the motorway. I opted against the diesel model because it was more expensive and I felt there was more likely to go wrong, compensating for slightly higher fuel costs with the petrol. Hard to say if I was right, but have been happy with the petrol and had not problems with it at all.
We have a modern small petrol with a turbo (63 plate Leon). I like the engine a lot, loads of power for ordinary driving and efficient, but probably 7-8 mpg less than the equivelent diesel. We do 13-14,000 miles a year, but might go a couple of weeks without a decent blast on the motorway. I opted against the diesel model because it was more expensive and I felt there was more likely to go wrong, compensating for slightly higher fuel costs with the petrol. Hard to say if I was right, but have been happy with the petrol and had not problems with it at all.
In reply to Pesda potato:
You could make your mind up based on fuel efficiency or you could look at all the crap that diesel engines push out the exhaust.
Only today there has been a report showing that engine manufacturers are taking the piss again with regards to emissions regarding the exceptions permitted to protect the engines in excessively hot and cold environments so that they disable parts of their emission control systems at temperatures below 18 C (which apparently is around 80% of the time in this country) . And as a comparison, in the US where the regs on diesels are tighter these exceptions are only allowed at temps below 5C.
You could make your mind up based on fuel efficiency or you could look at all the crap that diesel engines push out the exhaust.
Only today there has been a report showing that engine manufacturers are taking the piss again with regards to emissions regarding the exceptions permitted to protect the engines in excessively hot and cold environments so that they disable parts of their emission control systems at temperatures below 18 C (which apparently is around 80% of the time in this country) . And as a comparison, in the US where the regs on diesels are tighter these exceptions are only allowed at temps below 5C.
4
In reply to Pesda potato:
I think tax on diesel fuel will be increased to reduce their use, as the emissions evidence seems to show that a mistake was made promoting diesel .
When that will be I don't know.
I think tax on diesel fuel will be increased to reduce their use, as the emissions evidence seems to show that a mistake was made promoting diesel .
When that will be I don't know.
2
In reply to Pesda potato:
My next car will be electric. I will either keep an old diesel about or rent a car for the 2-3 times a year I will need it.
My next car will be electric. I will either keep an old diesel about or rent a car for the 2-3 times a year I will need it.
3
In reply to Pesda potato:
I had a feeling there would be something coming regarding Diesel, thats why I started this thread, thanks for the replies, but keep em coming
I had a feeling there would be something coming regarding Diesel, thats why I started this thread, thanks for the replies, but keep em coming
In reply to wintertree:
Is that because of the environmental benefit?
I'm really not sold on electric cars. Unless you live in a country with a high percentage of renewable energy generation. In the UK I'm not sure you are doing the environment a favour. They also are much more energy intensive to manufacture, so you need to get at least 100,000 miles over the lifetime for it to have any real benefit over petrol or diesel.
> My next car will be electric. I will either keep an old diesel about or rent a car for the 2-3 times a year I will need it.
Is that because of the environmental benefit?
I'm really not sold on electric cars. Unless you live in a country with a high percentage of renewable energy generation. In the UK I'm not sure you are doing the environment a favour. They also are much more energy intensive to manufacture, so you need to get at least 100,000 miles over the lifetime for it to have any real benefit over petrol or diesel.
3
In reply to stella1:
electric isnt an option for me untill they massively increase the range, so petrol or diesel?
electric isnt an option for me untill they massively increase the range, so petrol or diesel?
In reply to Pesda potato:
I'd go for whichever is cheaper, and its difficult to argue against diesel on that basis given your mileage.
Forget the eco warrior/particulates/NO2 angle, i don't think personal gestures make any difference to the big picture. Costs for you and your family are what count IMHO.
I'd go for whichever is cheaper, and its difficult to argue against diesel on that basis given your mileage.
Forget the eco warrior/particulates/NO2 angle, i don't think personal gestures make any difference to the big picture. Costs for you and your family are what count IMHO.
1
11
In reply to Pesda potato:
Interesting thread....
My last 3 have been diesels as I do big commuting and climbing mileage and *believed* that this would be cheaper and more reliable/efficient in the long run.
The engines have certainly been great until an issue with a diesel particilate filter (dpf) last year. Then I discovered that dpfs are the bane of some diesel drivers lives and cause random problems in lots of cases.
I don't think there's a simple answer to your question but the thread is throwing up lots of factors.
Interesting thread....
My last 3 have been diesels as I do big commuting and climbing mileage and *believed* that this would be cheaper and more reliable/efficient in the long run.
The engines have certainly been great until an issue with a diesel particilate filter (dpf) last year. Then I discovered that dpfs are the bane of some diesel drivers lives and cause random problems in lots of cases.
I don't think there's a simple answer to your question but the thread is throwing up lots of factors.
1
In reply to Pesda potato:
My last previous car ( Octavia Estate what else - I'm a UKCer FFS) was a 1.9 turbo diesel, but when I changed almost 4 years ago my annual mileage had dropped dramatically, so opted for a petrol engined model.
At the time I was also able to get a much higher spec petrol model for a lower price than more basic diesel model.
Well chuffed with it -- My 1.4 litre engine is quicker and quieter than the equivalent 1.6 litre of 2.0 litre equivalent diesel models, and almost as economical. It would probably have taken me 9-10 years to recoup the extra cost of the Diesel engined car over what I paid for the petrol engined model.
And yes - true to form I did get another Octavia Estate - but in Elegance trim - as they had a great offer on at the time, as opposed to the more basic S trim Diesel model that had no big discounts.
Even so - if I'd been doing 20k a year, I'd have probably gone for the diesel, as the break even point would be around 4 years - but by then I'd probably be looking at replacing it anyway!
My last previous car ( Octavia Estate what else - I'm a UKCer FFS) was a 1.9 turbo diesel, but when I changed almost 4 years ago my annual mileage had dropped dramatically, so opted for a petrol engined model.
At the time I was also able to get a much higher spec petrol model for a lower price than more basic diesel model.
Well chuffed with it -- My 1.4 litre engine is quicker and quieter than the equivalent 1.6 litre of 2.0 litre equivalent diesel models, and almost as economical. It would probably have taken me 9-10 years to recoup the extra cost of the Diesel engined car over what I paid for the petrol engined model.
And yes - true to form I did get another Octavia Estate - but in Elegance trim - as they had a great offer on at the time, as opposed to the more basic S trim Diesel model that had no big discounts.
Even so - if I'd been doing 20k a year, I'd have probably gone for the diesel, as the break even point would be around 4 years - but by then I'd probably be looking at replacing it anyway!
In reply to Pesda potato:
Diesel is increasingly being targeted as the "Evil" fuel now. Expect big road tax hikes for diesel specific pollutants. - London already has it's low emissions zone and I understand is looking at ways to reduce specifically diesel usage
Diesel is increasingly being targeted as the "Evil" fuel now. Expect big road tax hikes for diesel specific pollutants. - London already has it's low emissions zone and I understand is looking at ways to reduce specifically diesel usage
In reply to Pesda potato:
I've got a 2.0 diesel. If I drive sensibly I get over 60mpg, record is 66mpg on long journeys. For what I want I don't think one of the small petrol engines would do the job. I need a big car, do long journeys with lots of gear. If it was for shorter journeys and didn't need the space I would buy petrol.
As mentioned further up the thread the crap coming out of the exhaust does concern me. I bought a bluemotion, thinking I was being environmentally responsible (tax is £30). Since finding out that VW cheated the emissions tests, plus increasing my awareness of the other crap they produce, I'm not sure it was a good decision in turns of environmental impact. If that is a major concern of yours the decision becomes a lot more complicated.
In terms of running costs I am better off with a diesel compared to a similarly powerful petrol engine.
I've got a 2.0 diesel. If I drive sensibly I get over 60mpg, record is 66mpg on long journeys. For what I want I don't think one of the small petrol engines would do the job. I need a big car, do long journeys with lots of gear. If it was for shorter journeys and didn't need the space I would buy petrol.
As mentioned further up the thread the crap coming out of the exhaust does concern me. I bought a bluemotion, thinking I was being environmentally responsible (tax is £30). Since finding out that VW cheated the emissions tests, plus increasing my awareness of the other crap they produce, I'm not sure it was a good decision in turns of environmental impact. If that is a major concern of yours the decision becomes a lot more complicated.
In terms of running costs I am better off with a diesel compared to a similarly powerful petrol engine.
2
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I don't think that they will retrospectively tax diesel owners though. There is talk of increasing VED for the first year on new diesels.
> Diesel is increasingly being targeted as the "Evil" fuel now. Expect big road tax hikes for diesel specific pollutants. - London already has it's low emissions zone and I understand is looking at ways to reduce specifically diesel usage
I don't think that they will retrospectively tax diesel owners though. There is talk of increasing VED for the first year on new diesels.
1
In reply to stella1:
Yes.
This is somewhere between "simplistic" and "wrong". There are two environmental impacts.
1) Overall efficiency of use of fossil fuels and CO2 - you can argue all you like over this but there is a lot of evidence that electric cars overall are more efficient. You conveniently discount nuclear with your "renewable" comments. Further, we are decarbonisng our electricity generation and an electric car therefore decreases its carbon footprint over its lifetime, the same can't be said for ICE cars which become worse as the engine degrades. Some basic thermodynamics and lots of practical evidence shows how much more efficient central, external combustion plants can be than small internal combustion engines - more than enough to make up for transmission losses in the electricity (I note this as most simplistic views assume that petrol/diesel magically refines and distributes itself to the levels needed for ICE cars..)
2) Filth - ICE cars emit filthy exhausts that contribute strongly to 8 million deaths worldwide, per year. Using the same fossil source in external combustion power plants and electric cars drastically cuts the emission of filth as larger plants and static plants can be much more carefully controlled in terms of pollution emissions. That's even before you factor in the growing fraction of non air polluting generation and the increased overall efficiency of the electric approach.
My first car is sold on but is now approaching 190,000 miles. My second expired at 130,000 miles. My current car is heading for the big 100,000. I don't see a problem in this - someone will own my electric car well beyond 200,000 miles I suspect. Having far fewer parts they will be far easier to maintain and will therefore have far lower total environmental costs driven by longer lifetimes or easier recoiling.
Define "real" - for me spending more and knowing I'm not contributing filth to the air of the city I commute in to every day is a real and tangible benefit, as it knowing that I am in real, measurable terms contributing to reduced CO2 generation and worldwide air pollution deaths. It will also be cheaper in real terms given current energy and tax costings.
Do you have some hard citations to back this up? I've looked at various cars in the flesh and other than batteries there is a lot less "stuff" in them. The batteries are a tough one, but I don't look at them as single use - various car makers are starting to repurpose them as load balancing after they degrade by ~10% (roughly 10 years) in automotive use, and they can be recycled efficiently so raw resource usage is bounded in the long term.
> Is that because of the environmental benefit?
Yes.
> I'm really not sold on electric cars. Unless you live in a country with a high percentage of renewable energy generation. In the UK I'm not sure you are doing the environment a favour.
This is somewhere between "simplistic" and "wrong". There are two environmental impacts.
1) Overall efficiency of use of fossil fuels and CO2 - you can argue all you like over this but there is a lot of evidence that electric cars overall are more efficient. You conveniently discount nuclear with your "renewable" comments. Further, we are decarbonisng our electricity generation and an electric car therefore decreases its carbon footprint over its lifetime, the same can't be said for ICE cars which become worse as the engine degrades. Some basic thermodynamics and lots of practical evidence shows how much more efficient central, external combustion plants can be than small internal combustion engines - more than enough to make up for transmission losses in the electricity (I note this as most simplistic views assume that petrol/diesel magically refines and distributes itself to the levels needed for ICE cars..)
2) Filth - ICE cars emit filthy exhausts that contribute strongly to 8 million deaths worldwide, per year. Using the same fossil source in external combustion power plants and electric cars drastically cuts the emission of filth as larger plants and static plants can be much more carefully controlled in terms of pollution emissions. That's even before you factor in the growing fraction of non air polluting generation and the increased overall efficiency of the electric approach.
> so you need to get at least 100,000 miles over the lifetime
My first car is sold on but is now approaching 190,000 miles. My second expired at 130,000 miles. My current car is heading for the big 100,000. I don't see a problem in this - someone will own my electric car well beyond 200,000 miles I suspect. Having far fewer parts they will be far easier to maintain and will therefore have far lower total environmental costs driven by longer lifetimes or easier recoiling.
> for it to have any real benefit over petrol or diesel.
Define "real" - for me spending more and knowing I'm not contributing filth to the air of the city I commute in to every day is a real and tangible benefit, as it knowing that I am in real, measurable terms contributing to reduced CO2 generation and worldwide air pollution deaths. It will also be cheaper in real terms given current energy and tax costings.
> They also are much more energy intensive to manufacture,
Do you have some hard citations to back this up? I've looked at various cars in the flesh and other than batteries there is a lot less "stuff" in them. The batteries are a tough one, but I don't look at them as single use - various car makers are starting to repurpose them as load balancing after they degrade by ~10% (roughly 10 years) in automotive use, and they can be recycled efficiently so raw resource usage is bounded in the long term.
Post edited at 13:53
10
1
In reply to LG-Mark:
Pretty irresponsible. Personal gestures are the only thing that will make a difference (in large enough numbers).
You could wait for air pollution legislation to make diesel engines more expensive to use, or you could choose to try and help the situation.
Air quality has been mentioned by mainstream media occasionally but is generally swept under the rug. It is a serious issue, especially for those who suffer from asthma (luckily I don't, but I know it sucks for those who do).
> Forget the eco warrior/particulates/NO2 angle, i don't think personal gestures make any difference to the big picture. Costs for you and your family are what count IMHO.
Pretty irresponsible. Personal gestures are the only thing that will make a difference (in large enough numbers).
You could wait for air pollution legislation to make diesel engines more expensive to use, or you could choose to try and help the situation.
Air quality has been mentioned by mainstream media occasionally but is generally swept under the rug. It is a serious issue, especially for those who suffer from asthma (luckily I don't, but I know it sucks for those who do).
6
1
In reply to wintertree:
Seems entirely reasonable. Would also be my choice if I had the money.
jk
> My next car will be electric. I will either keep an old diesel about or rent a car for the 2-3 times a year I will need it.
Seems entirely reasonable. Would also be my choice if I had the money.
jk
2
In reply to Pesda potato:
Get what you enjoy driving because that may only be for another 9 years if the UK (in or out of the EU) follows Norway's lead in banning fossil fueled cars on her roads from 2025 onwards.
Get what you enjoy driving because that may only be for another 9 years if the UK (in or out of the EU) follows Norway's lead in banning fossil fueled cars on her roads from 2025 onwards.
In reply to Pesda potato: I met someone who had a Tesla. He was doing several hundred miles/day for his job and the Tesla worked out far cheaper to run because he had no fuel costs - if you charge your Tesla at Tesla points it's free - included in the cost of the car. Basically he got a much more luxurious car for the amount of money he could afford.
The downside - he had to slightly revise how he drove everywhere so that he made stops at Tesla charging points - the network is growing, but overall his journey time wasn't significantly increased.
The downside - he had to slightly revise how he drove everywhere so that he made stops at Tesla charging points - the network is growing, but overall his journey time wasn't significantly increased.
4
In reply to Trangia: Absolutely zero chance of that happening in UK in anything like that timeframe.
1
In reply to Michael Hood:
Yes - and if nothing is done to address the looming black hole in electricity generation, there will be no power to plug elecric cars in to irrespective of whether enough charging points can be built.
Yes - and if nothing is done to address the looming black hole in electricity generation, there will be no power to plug elecric cars in to irrespective of whether enough charging points can be built.
2
In reply to LG-Mark:
Forgive me if I call that a selfish point of view.
> I'd go for whichever is cheaper, and its difficult to argue against diesel on that basis given your mileage.
> Forget the eco warrior/particulates/NO2 angle, i don't think personal gestures make any difference to the big picture. Costs for you and your family are what count IMHO.
Forgive me if I call that a selfish point of view.
4
1
In reply to Michael Hood:
ha! you try living in rural areas north wales and looking for a charging point
I dont get the point of a DPF, dont they just dump all the crud theyve stored when the DPF does a regen/self clean?
Ive been behind far too many diesels that create a massive black cloud, presumably from the dpf clearing itself, both on bike and in the car, not nice.
ha! you try living in rural areas north wales and looking for a charging point
I dont get the point of a DPF, dont they just dump all the crud theyve stored when the DPF does a regen/self clean?
Ive been behind far too many diesels that create a massive black cloud, presumably from the dpf clearing itself, both on bike and in the car, not nice.
1
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Keep in mind that at times we currently pay wind farms not to export to the grid, because the demand is not there. We are brining more wind onstream. Electric cars that normally drive less per day than their range (most journeys in the UK) have an important role to play in using that energy effectively. Most of the time most cars are not driving. As well as more energy generation we need for more parked cars to be hooked up to it.
We are also not short of total generating capacity, but peak generating capacity. Again EVs given the right infrastructure can exploit this.
I do agree with you that we are not doing enough on energy generation.
> Yes - and if nothing is done to address the looming black hole in electricity generation, there will be no power to plug elecric cars in to irrespective of whether enough charging points can be built.
Keep in mind that at times we currently pay wind farms not to export to the grid, because the demand is not there. We are brining more wind onstream. Electric cars that normally drive less per day than their range (most journeys in the UK) have an important role to play in using that energy effectively. Most of the time most cars are not driving. As well as more energy generation we need for more parked cars to be hooked up to it.
We are also not short of total generating capacity, but peak generating capacity. Again EVs given the right infrastructure can exploit this.
I do agree with you that we are not doing enough on energy generation.
Post edited at 15:02
2
In reply to wintertree:
Before I get into this, I by no means meant this as an argumentative post. I genuinely am not fully convinced by electric cars as being the ultimate green alternative as things stand today. I say this as an academic in a similar field.
I gave a quick reply, not an indepth breakdown. I believe at present nuclear is about 20% of our current energy generation in the UK at present. However, almost half of this will be retired within the next ten years. We shall see how successful the government are at delivering the new generation of plants on time.
Yes but we are not talking about centralised plants vs small combustion systems.
I agree with you re the ability to better capture pollution in large scale plants. There are however a number of problems which come from the manufacturing of electric vehicles. See the link at the bottom of this post.
With the range limitations, I would imagine that most electric vehicles will probably have a lower average mileage than a traditional petrol or diesel car. This is purely based on my own reasoning not on any study I have read. The point is that to offset the initial impact of manufacture you need the car to clock up a high mileage.
By real I was talking about the potential to decrease global warming potential (GWP). Hawkins et al. (2013) found that for a mileage of 100,000km the impact of EVs was pretty much the same as a diesel vehicle. I think this is based upon an average of European energy generation.
As far as I am aware the cost savings are small and very long term. Based upon the high initial cost, even with the plug in grants. Financial incentives are probably needed for widespread adoption.
Sure I do.This is one of the most cited articles with regards to electric vehicles:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full
The production phase is far more environmentally intensive. 10% degradation in 10 years. Would like to see the citation for that.
Again, please don't take this as a personal attack. I'm genuinely interested in the topic and agree with a number of your points. I mostly wanted to know if it was because of environmental impact that you wanted to buy an EV and what had made you come to this opinion.
Before I get into this, I by no means meant this as an argumentative post. I genuinely am not fully convinced by electric cars as being the ultimate green alternative as things stand today. I say this as an academic in a similar field.
> You conveniently discount nuclear with your "renewable" comments.
I gave a quick reply, not an indepth breakdown. I believe at present nuclear is about 20% of our current energy generation in the UK at present. However, almost half of this will be retired within the next ten years. We shall see how successful the government are at delivering the new generation of plants on time.
> Some basic thermodynamics and lots of practical evidence shows how much more efficient central, external combustion plants can be than small internal combustion engines
Yes but we are not talking about centralised plants vs small combustion systems.
> 2) Filth - ICE cars emit filthy exhausts that contribute strongly to 8 million deaths worldwide, per year. Using the same fossil source in external combustion power plants and electric cars drastically cuts the emission of filth as larger plants and static plants can be much more carefully controlled in terms of pollution emissions. That's even before you factor in the growing fraction of non air polluting generation and the increased overall efficiency of the electric approach.
I agree with you re the ability to better capture pollution in large scale plants. There are however a number of problems which come from the manufacturing of electric vehicles. See the link at the bottom of this post.
> My first car is sold on but is now approaching 190,000 miles. My second expired at 130,000 miles. My current car is heading for the big 100,000. I don't see a problem in this - someone will own my electric car well beyond 200,000 miles I suspect. Having far fewer parts they will be far easier to maintain and will therefore have far lower total environmental costs driven by longer lifetimes or easier recoiling.
With the range limitations, I would imagine that most electric vehicles will probably have a lower average mileage than a traditional petrol or diesel car. This is purely based on my own reasoning not on any study I have read. The point is that to offset the initial impact of manufacture you need the car to clock up a high mileage.
> Define "real" - for me spending more and knowing I'm not contributing filth to the air of the city I commute in to every day is a real and tangible benefit, as it knowing that I am in real, measurable terms contributing to reduced CO2 generation and worldwide air pollution deaths. It will also be cheaper in real terms given current energy and tax costings.
By real I was talking about the potential to decrease global warming potential (GWP). Hawkins et al. (2013) found that for a mileage of 100,000km the impact of EVs was pretty much the same as a diesel vehicle. I think this is based upon an average of European energy generation.
As far as I am aware the cost savings are small and very long term. Based upon the high initial cost, even with the plug in grants. Financial incentives are probably needed for widespread adoption.
> Do you have some hard citations to back this up? I've looked at various cars in the flesh and other than batteries there is a lot less "stuff" in them. The batteries are a tough one, but I don't look at them as single use - various car makers are starting to repurpose them as load balancing after they degrade by ~10% (roughly 10 years) in automotive use, and they can be recycled efficiently so raw resource usage is bounded in the long term.
Sure I do.This is one of the most cited articles with regards to electric vehicles:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full
The production phase is far more environmentally intensive. 10% degradation in 10 years. Would like to see the citation for that.
Again, please don't take this as a personal attack. I'm genuinely interested in the topic and agree with a number of your points. I mostly wanted to know if it was because of environmental impact that you wanted to buy an EV and what had made you come to this opinion.
3
1
In reply to wintertree:
Slightly off topic -- It's an 'ill wind that blows no-one any good' - as they say. Windfarm constuction kept our company ticking over when the recession was at its worst, and is now contributing to a healthy order book as we move in to the next phase of offshore development.
PS I'd have a Tesla if they were giving them away for free, of if I could afford one just because they are awesome pieces of engineering and look damn cool to boot - however I'll stick with my Octy Estate for lugging my bike and gear around.
> Keep in mind that at times we currently pay wind farms not to export to the grid, because the demand is not there. We are brining more wind onstream.
Slightly off topic -- It's an 'ill wind that blows no-one any good' - as they say. Windfarm constuction kept our company ticking over when the recession was at its worst, and is now contributing to a healthy order book as we move in to the next phase of offshore development.
PS I'd have a Tesla if they were giving them away for free, of if I could afford one just because they are awesome pieces of engineering and look damn cool to boot - however I'll stick with my Octy Estate for lugging my bike and gear around.
1
In reply to stella1:
I agree with all this - it's circa 20% of electricity generation which is not so significant if you include the energy used by cars that is not currently electric. I do hope we replace and indeed increase nuclear generation capacity but am not optimistic.
But we are - an EV powered in the UK is powered primarily by large central nuclear and CCGT (gas) plant, where-as ICE cars are powered by small, mobile internal combustion plants.
It's not just capture - the generation of pollution (as opposed to CO2) is far better controlled in central, large scale external combustion plant compared to small, mobile, internal combustion plant.
100,000 km is much less than 100,000 miles formally discussed and is an abnormally short lifetime for an ICE car, let alone a less maintenance intensive EV. My reading of the paper you cite is that an EV has reduced lifetime CO2 by less than 100,000 km and this gap widens in favour of EVs for higher lifetimes. Edit - I think it reasonable to assume that most EVs will exceed 150,000 km and that the cleanliness of the supply will increase over their lifetime.
We have a massive financial incentive currently in the cost of grid power vs road fuel.
This covers the implied toxicity of particular Lithium production which is undeniably required for EVs. In my mind this has to be offset against the toxicity of ICE air pollution which it will offset, and which is killing very large numbers annually. Consideration also needs to be given as I said before to battery repurposing and recycling in the long run. I have not seen "academic level" studies of the long term costs and benefits of making this shift - I would be very interested in references for the relative impacts of mining Lithium vs the fossil supply chain. In terms of rare earth metals, Tesla have made it plain that they are not needed for the motors, and paradoxically EVs can contain significantly less electronics than ICE cars, as various control systems are no longer required.
There is some interesting crowd sourced data on Tesla Model-S cars up to 85,000 km below, from which I have projected to 10% at 10 years. I'm not going to defend my methodology mind you, but it seems reasonable, no least given the apparent asymptote in the data.
http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-battery-degradation-data/
There is a study suggesting more significant battery fade is not a large issue for most people, even before you consider the after market services emerging to recondition packs (testing and replacing at the per-cell level) and repurposing battery packs or cars to different classes of users as they age, and ultimately recycling the metals in the battery.
The study - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775315000841
My main motivation is not CO2 but a wish to stop pushing polluting filth into the air around me on a daily basis whilst maintaining the lifestyle and flexibility of having a car. Whilst I will contribute to more Lithium mining in doing so, I see this as offset by decreasing the amount of fossil fuel mining I will contribute to, through tapping in to fission+wind+solar and the overall increased efficiency.
> I gave a quick reply, not an indepth breakdown. I believe at present nuclear is about 20% of our current energy generation in the UK at present. However, almost half of this will be retired within the next ten years. We shall see how successful the government are at delivering the new generation of plants on time.
I agree with all this - it's circa 20% of electricity generation which is not so significant if you include the energy used by cars that is not currently electric. I do hope we replace and indeed increase nuclear generation capacity but am not optimistic.
> Yes but we are not talking about centralised plants vs small combustion systems.
But we are - an EV powered in the UK is powered primarily by large central nuclear and CCGT (gas) plant, where-as ICE cars are powered by small, mobile internal combustion plants.
> I agree with you re the ability to better capture pollution in large scale plants. There are however a number of problems which come from the manufacturing of electric vehicles. See the link at the bottom of this post.
It's not just capture - the generation of pollution (as opposed to CO2) is far better controlled in central, large scale external combustion plant compared to small, mobile, internal combustion plant.
> By real I was talking about the potential to decrease global warming potential (GWP). Hawkins et al. (2013) found that for a mileage of 100,000km the impact of EVs was pretty much the same as a diesel vehicle. I think this is based upon an average of European energy generation.
100,000 km is much less than 100,000 miles formally discussed and is an abnormally short lifetime for an ICE car, let alone a less maintenance intensive EV. My reading of the paper you cite is that an EV has reduced lifetime CO2 by less than 100,000 km and this gap widens in favour of EVs for higher lifetimes. Edit - I think it reasonable to assume that most EVs will exceed 150,000 km and that the cleanliness of the supply will increase over their lifetime.
> As far as I am aware the cost savings are small and very long term. Based upon the high initial cost, even with the plug in grants. Financial incentives are probably needed for widespread adoption.
We have a massive financial incentive currently in the cost of grid power vs road fuel.
> Sure I do.This is one of the most cited articles with regards to electric vehicles:
This covers the implied toxicity of particular Lithium production which is undeniably required for EVs. In my mind this has to be offset against the toxicity of ICE air pollution which it will offset, and which is killing very large numbers annually. Consideration also needs to be given as I said before to battery repurposing and recycling in the long run. I have not seen "academic level" studies of the long term costs and benefits of making this shift - I would be very interested in references for the relative impacts of mining Lithium vs the fossil supply chain. In terms of rare earth metals, Tesla have made it plain that they are not needed for the motors, and paradoxically EVs can contain significantly less electronics than ICE cars, as various control systems are no longer required.
> The production phase is far more environmentally intensive. 10% degradation in 10 years. Would like to see the citation for that.
There is some interesting crowd sourced data on Tesla Model-S cars up to 85,000 km below, from which I have projected to 10% at 10 years. I'm not going to defend my methodology mind you, but it seems reasonable, no least given the apparent asymptote in the data.
http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-battery-degradation-data/
There is a study suggesting more significant battery fade is not a large issue for most people, even before you consider the after market services emerging to recondition packs (testing and replacing at the per-cell level) and repurposing battery packs or cars to different classes of users as they age, and ultimately recycling the metals in the battery.
The study - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775315000841
> Again, please don't take this as a personal attack. I'm genuinely interested in the topic and agree with a number of your points. I mostly wanted to know if it was because of environmental impact that you wanted to buy an EV and what had made you come to this opinion.
My main motivation is not CO2 but a wish to stop pushing polluting filth into the air around me on a daily basis whilst maintaining the lifestyle and flexibility of having a car. Whilst I will contribute to more Lithium mining in doing so, I see this as offset by decreasing the amount of fossil fuel mining I will contribute to, through tapping in to fission+wind+solar and the overall increased efficiency.
Post edited at 15:47
In reply to wintertree:
Interesting points. I think I read the study about battery degradation not being a significant problem for most users. But that kind of backs up my point that electric vehicles on the whole make short journeys. Unless you can guarantee being able to charge at your destination.
Are we though? We are talking about a centralised plant, transmission loses and the efficiency of the charging process against the efficiency of a small mobile plant.
If we look at the thermal efficiency. A modern petrol engine might have a thermal efficiency of 30%, diesel is typically a bit higher depending on the compression ratio. (some studies suggest 35% is achieved in petrol engines).
The thermal efficiency of a coal fired power station is anywhere between 30 and somewhere in the low 40s. This is pretty much the same for gas power plants in the UK. Transmission loses are about 7-8% on average in the UK. I believe the charging process is pretty efficient. It will obviously depend upon how you are charging it. I seem to remember reading a tesla document which said 94% efficiency. One of my colleagues in EEE, has a nissan leaf and based upon measuring the draw from the plug and the in car readings he has averaged about 80%. Totally anecdotal but still.
Anyway, until there is either a greater percentage of renewable energy generation or nuclear, some quick back of the fag packet calcs suggest it is a pretty close thing.
I think you have highlighted an important point. The air around "you". The study I linked suggested that EVs increased human toxicity potential by between 180-290%. It's just that the problem has been shifted. Setting aside the issues due to the mining of additional copper, nickel, etc. The amount of fossil fuel mining required for the manufacturing of an EV would be greater than a ICEV. With regards to in use, if you are charging your vehicle from a solar array at your house then in use you have a good argument. If you are getting it from the grid with 65% coming from coal, oil and gas I'm not so sure.
Interesting points. I think I read the study about battery degradation not being a significant problem for most users. But that kind of backs up my point that electric vehicles on the whole make short journeys. Unless you can guarantee being able to charge at your destination.
> But we are - an EV powered in the UK is powered primarily by large central nuclear and CCGT (gas) plant, where-as ICE cars are powered by small, mobile internal combustion plants.
Are we though? We are talking about a centralised plant, transmission loses and the efficiency of the charging process against the efficiency of a small mobile plant.
If we look at the thermal efficiency. A modern petrol engine might have a thermal efficiency of 30%, diesel is typically a bit higher depending on the compression ratio. (some studies suggest 35% is achieved in petrol engines).
The thermal efficiency of a coal fired power station is anywhere between 30 and somewhere in the low 40s. This is pretty much the same for gas power plants in the UK. Transmission loses are about 7-8% on average in the UK. I believe the charging process is pretty efficient. It will obviously depend upon how you are charging it. I seem to remember reading a tesla document which said 94% efficiency. One of my colleagues in EEE, has a nissan leaf and based upon measuring the draw from the plug and the in car readings he has averaged about 80%. Totally anecdotal but still.
Anyway, until there is either a greater percentage of renewable energy generation or nuclear, some quick back of the fag packet calcs suggest it is a pretty close thing.
> My main motivation is not CO2 but a wish to stop pushing polluting filth into the air around me on a daily basis whilst maintaining the lifestyle and flexibility of having a car. Whilst I will contribute to more Lithium mining in doing so, I see this as offset by decreasing the amount of fossil fuel mining I will contribute to, through tapping in to fission+wind+solar and the overall increased efficiency.
I think you have highlighted an important point. The air around "you". The study I linked suggested that EVs increased human toxicity potential by between 180-290%. It's just that the problem has been shifted. Setting aside the issues due to the mining of additional copper, nickel, etc. The amount of fossil fuel mining required for the manufacturing of an EV would be greater than a ICEV. With regards to in use, if you are charging your vehicle from a solar array at your house then in use you have a good argument. If you are getting it from the grid with 65% coming from coal, oil and gas I'm not so sure.
In reply to stella1:
A handy site for anyone interested in the UK energy mix. (note, unmetered solar PV is aorund ~10GW installed capacity which is not included, neither are other unmetered sources like small scale wind, hydro etc.)
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
A handy site for anyone interested in the UK energy mix. (note, unmetered solar PV is aorund ~10GW installed capacity which is not included, neither are other unmetered sources like small scale wind, hydro etc.)
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
In reply to Timmd:
And also Jimbo C
Absolutely and unreservedly it is a selfish point of view. Why should I, or anyone else pay more just to be an eco-warrior?
If i have a choice, and the money is required for other things i will pay less. Should we also insist that developing nations utilise only expensive green technology to grow their economies?
Would you also direct your selfish point of view statement to those countries who are using cheap and cheerful (and very polluting) technology to assist the mobility of their population?
It will only be fundamental policy change that makes people change their habits and make a real difference.
And also Jimbo C
> Forgive me if I call that a selfish point of view.
Absolutely and unreservedly it is a selfish point of view. Why should I, or anyone else pay more just to be an eco-warrior?
If i have a choice, and the money is required for other things i will pay less. Should we also insist that developing nations utilise only expensive green technology to grow their economies?
Would you also direct your selfish point of view statement to those countries who are using cheap and cheerful (and very polluting) technology to assist the mobility of their population?
It will only be fundamental policy change that makes people change their habits and make a real difference.
2
1
In reply to Pesda potato:
No, they burn it off by increasing the exhaust temperature, possibly also with the use of catalysts. The products of that combustion are gaseous.
That's more likely to be an old diesel which never had a DPF (because the it wasn't required to meet the emissions regulations when that engine was made), or a more recent one which has had its DPF removed in order to "allow the engine to breathe" (and sod the rest of us, I suppose).
There seems to be an argument building that modern low-emissions petrol engines should also be fitted with particulate filters. Apparently some can emit 10x as much particulates as a EURO 5 or EURO 6 diesel.
> I dont get the point of a DPF, dont they just dump all the crud theyve stored when the DPF does a regen/self clean?
No, they burn it off by increasing the exhaust temperature, possibly also with the use of catalysts. The products of that combustion are gaseous.
> Ive been behind far too many diesels that create a massive black cloud, presumably from the dpf clearing itself, both on bike and in the car, not nice.
That's more likely to be an old diesel which never had a DPF (because the it wasn't required to meet the emissions regulations when that engine was made), or a more recent one which has had its DPF removed in order to "allow the engine to breathe" (and sod the rest of us, I suppose).
There seems to be an argument building that modern low-emissions petrol engines should also be fitted with particulate filters. Apparently some can emit 10x as much particulates as a EURO 5 or EURO 6 diesel.
1
In reply to Martin W:
My modern diesel doesn't emit a large cloud, but it smells pretty bad when the dpf is being cleaned. Not pleasant at all.
My modern diesel doesn't emit a large cloud, but it smells pretty bad when the dpf is being cleaned. Not pleasant at all.
In reply to Martin W:
I think the black clouds can be the result of over fuelling when the engine's sensors aren't correctly telling it how much air there is to mix the fuel with. They shouldn't happen much even with an older non-DPF turbodiesel. There's plenty of piping after the turbo and if any of that is loose or cracked then turboboosted air gets out and confuses the situation. I had most of the pipes replaced on my old Seat TDI.
I've got an Octavia now. They lied about the emissions and fuel consumption. I'd go for petrol (or even more ideally electric) next time.
I think the black clouds can be the result of over fuelling when the engine's sensors aren't correctly telling it how much air there is to mix the fuel with. They shouldn't happen much even with an older non-DPF turbodiesel. There's plenty of piping after the turbo and if any of that is loose or cracked then turboboosted air gets out and confuses the situation. I had most of the pipes replaced on my old Seat TDI.
I've got an Octavia now. They lied about the emissions and fuel consumption. I'd go for petrol (or even more ideally electric) next time.
Post edited at 17:13
In reply to stella1:
Why not, they've done it before.... in 2008 they retrospectively hiked everyone's tax and categorised them based on emissions (I had a 2006 car that nearly doubled in tax)
Why not, they've done it before.... in 2008 they retrospectively hiked everyone's tax and categorised them based on emissions (I had a 2006 car that nearly doubled in tax)
In reply to LG-Mark:
Because 'We're all in this together', and lots of small actions can make a difference.
It's 'possibly' a different question, because there are issues of mass poverty related to whether developing countries should use cheaper and more polluting technologies to remove their populations from poverty and to grow their economies, where as we in the west can (often) afford to have less spare money by taking the greener option - but it's always personal decision to make based on personal finances, which is probably why I said 'Forgive me if I say...'.
I don't see it as always being a case of either/or, since there are *some* people who make personal lifestyle changes because they see that as being the 'fair' thing to do, without waiting for a policy change.
If we can afford to make changes to our lifestyles and still have an okay standard of living, I genuinely think there's a moral imperative that we do so - with what people do being their personal choice.
I think ultimately we all have an element of hypocrisy in us when it comes to things to do with the environment etc, but I half think part of making progress may be 'mutual finger pointing' to get us to collectively make steps in the right direction.
> And also Jimbo C
> Absolutely and unreservedly it is a selfish point of view. Why should I, or anyone else pay more just to be an eco-warrior?
Because 'We're all in this together', and lots of small actions can make a difference.
> If i have a choice, and the money is required for other things i will pay less. Should we also insist that developing nations utilise only expensive green technology to grow their economies?
> Would you also direct your selfish point of view statement to those countries who are using cheap and cheerful (and very polluting) technology to assist the mobility of their population?
It's 'possibly' a different question, because there are issues of mass poverty related to whether developing countries should use cheaper and more polluting technologies to remove their populations from poverty and to grow their economies, where as we in the west can (often) afford to have less spare money by taking the greener option - but it's always personal decision to make based on personal finances, which is probably why I said 'Forgive me if I say...'.
> It will only be fundamental policy change that makes people change their habits and make a real difference.
I don't see it as always being a case of either/or, since there are *some* people who make personal lifestyle changes because they see that as being the 'fair' thing to do, without waiting for a policy change.
If we can afford to make changes to our lifestyles and still have an okay standard of living, I genuinely think there's a moral imperative that we do so - with what people do being their personal choice.
I think ultimately we all have an element of hypocrisy in us when it comes to things to do with the environment etc, but I half think part of making progress may be 'mutual finger pointing' to get us to collectively make steps in the right direction.
Post edited at 17:32
In reply to stella1:
Nationwide statistics on average journey length are highly illustrative here. Most journeys in the UK are short - much shorter than modern EV ranges. I think UKC people tend to be at the higher end of the mileage range .
This is the 2-3 times a year this actually limits me, I will hire a car or keep an old car for it. With fast charging becoming more prevalent at motorway services and slow chargers spreading it's becoming a smaller problem. Battery density in EVs is increasing quite reliably at 5% a year, so this problem is ever decreasing in scope as a lot of lab based research transitions into production.
I believe the grid tends to win if you factor in the additional refinement required for heavy oils (ICE) vs gas (Grid CCGT) and the energy required to distribute petrol/diesel (they have their own "transmission losses). The ICE still has some efficiency gains to yield; I am rather fond of the 6-stroke hybrid internal combustion/steam engines, but as I say the grid is often just as efficient when all costs are accounted for, and it's improving in terms of CO2 as we continue to decarbonise.
Coal is being phased out for CCGT which is now the largest source of grid power. These are up to 50%-55% now. This changes things quite significantly and accesses a kind of efficiency that is not available to ICE plants without something like an additional steam power stroke. The efficiency would be even higher if we tied district heating to the CCGT plants but the UK is pretty poor at that. It may be that the UK gas plant is not as efficient as the benchmark CCGT plants I am assuming and this is where we diverge in the conclusions we reach.
I would agree - but there is a lot more mileage to improve the EV side of things through decarbonised generation whereas the ICE is towards the end of a very long refinement process - there are not many more gains to be had there.
I remain skeptical of some of these numbers, but either way you again have to factor in increasing decarbonisation of supply. Honestly the induction motor in a RWD Tesla Model S isn't that much larger than an alternator and starter motor, both of which are eliminated. The nickel and lithium costs of the battery I do not think should be fairly assigned to a single vehicle even with more realistic lifetimes than the paper you linked, as they will be extensively recycled meaning their cost can me amortised over far longer than the linked paper, unlike the toxic emissions of ICE vehicles.
As I've said before, gas (CCGT) is vastly cleaner and more efficient than ICE cars. Something like 50% more efficient, before the ~ 15% grid transmission and charging losses. Further, the grid is decarbonising and a purchase now will continue to benefit from that over its life time. My hope is for a rooftop solar array that directly charges the car where possible.
The only repeated point I have made you seem to be skirting around is the cleanliness of the exhaust - the case for EVs may be marginal in terms of overall CO2 output compared to ICE, but the deal with air pollutants (NOx, particulates etc) is absolutely clear cut. In the long term we will decarbonise successfully, consider the difference to the climate of switching to electric cars now when the case is not clear cut, or in say fifteen years when it is. That is quite minor. The difference to air pollution, quality of life and early deaths however is much more significant as pollutants cycle out of the atmosphere far quicker than excess CO2, and their effect is far more concentrated.
> Interesting points. I think I read the study about battery degradation not being a significant problem for most users. But that kind of backs up my point that electric vehicles on the whole make short journeys.
Nationwide statistics on average journey length are highly illustrative here. Most journeys in the UK are short - much shorter than modern EV ranges. I think UKC people tend to be at the higher end of the mileage range .
> Unless you can guarantee being able to charge at your destination.
This is the 2-3 times a year this actually limits me, I will hire a car or keep an old car for it. With fast charging becoming more prevalent at motorway services and slow chargers spreading it's becoming a smaller problem. Battery density in EVs is increasing quite reliably at 5% a year, so this problem is ever decreasing in scope as a lot of lab based research transitions into production.
> Are we though? We are talking about a centralised plant, transmission loses and the efficiency of the charging process against the efficiency of a small mobile plant.
I believe the grid tends to win if you factor in the additional refinement required for heavy oils (ICE) vs gas (Grid CCGT) and the energy required to distribute petrol/diesel (they have their own "transmission losses). The ICE still has some efficiency gains to yield; I am rather fond of the 6-stroke hybrid internal combustion/steam engines, but as I say the grid is often just as efficient when all costs are accounted for, and it's improving in terms of CO2 as we continue to decarbonise.
> If we look at the thermal efficiency. A modern petrol engine might have a thermal efficiency of 30%, diesel is typically a bit higher depending on the compression ratio. (some studies suggest 35% is achieved in petrol engines).
> The thermal efficiency of a coal fired power station is anywhere between 30 and somewhere in the low 40s. This is pretty much the same for gas power plants in the UK.
Coal is being phased out for CCGT which is now the largest source of grid power. These are up to 50%-55% now. This changes things quite significantly and accesses a kind of efficiency that is not available to ICE plants without something like an additional steam power stroke. The efficiency would be even higher if we tied district heating to the CCGT plants but the UK is pretty poor at that. It may be that the UK gas plant is not as efficient as the benchmark CCGT plants I am assuming and this is where we diverge in the conclusions we reach.
> Anyway, until there is either a greater percentage of renewable energy generation or nuclear, some quick back of the fag packet calcs suggest it is a pretty close thing.
I would agree - but there is a lot more mileage to improve the EV side of things through decarbonised generation whereas the ICE is towards the end of a very long refinement process - there are not many more gains to be had there.
> I think you have highlighted an important point. The air around "you". The study I linked suggested that EVs increased human toxicity potential by between 180-290%. It's just that the problem has been shifted. Setting aside the issues due to the mining of additional copper, nickel, etc. The amount of fossil fuel mining required for the manufacturing of an EV would be greater than a ICEV.
I remain skeptical of some of these numbers, but either way you again have to factor in increasing decarbonisation of supply. Honestly the induction motor in a RWD Tesla Model S isn't that much larger than an alternator and starter motor, both of which are eliminated. The nickel and lithium costs of the battery I do not think should be fairly assigned to a single vehicle even with more realistic lifetimes than the paper you linked, as they will be extensively recycled meaning their cost can me amortised over far longer than the linked paper, unlike the toxic emissions of ICE vehicles.
> With regards to in use, if you are charging your vehicle from a solar array at your house then in use you have a good argument. If you are getting it from the grid with 65% coming from coal, oil and gas I'm not so sure.
As I've said before, gas (CCGT) is vastly cleaner and more efficient than ICE cars. Something like 50% more efficient, before the ~ 15% grid transmission and charging losses. Further, the grid is decarbonising and a purchase now will continue to benefit from that over its life time. My hope is for a rooftop solar array that directly charges the car where possible.
The only repeated point I have made you seem to be skirting around is the cleanliness of the exhaust - the case for EVs may be marginal in terms of overall CO2 output compared to ICE, but the deal with air pollutants (NOx, particulates etc) is absolutely clear cut. In the long term we will decarbonise successfully, consider the difference to the climate of switching to electric cars now when the case is not clear cut, or in say fifteen years when it is. That is quite minor. The difference to air pollution, quality of life and early deaths however is much more significant as pollutants cycle out of the atmosphere far quicker than excess CO2, and their effect is far more concentrated.
In reply to Pesda potato:
Just to add in a variable, LPG. Have been running LPG for a few years now and very happy with it. The price is crazy cheap and although still a fossil fuel, burns much more cleanly and effectively than petrol or diesel. It's an expensive thing to set up initially but I reckon I got my money back within half a years driving. Only trouble is finding it in the UK, but for longer journeys it's great...
Just to add in a variable, LPG. Have been running LPG for a few years now and very happy with it. The price is crazy cheap and although still a fossil fuel, burns much more cleanly and effectively than petrol or diesel. It's an expensive thing to set up initially but I reckon I got my money back within half a years driving. Only trouble is finding it in the UK, but for longer journeys it's great...
In reply to wintertree:
You keep talking about ccgt. I'm well aware of the efficiency of this, but what percentage of plants in the UK are using it?
The cleanliness of the exhaust is fantastic. Electric cars would do a lot for the air quality in our cities. This was my point about moving the problem. How do you feel about the huge levels of harmful toxins released in extracting the necessary materials? The links to water pollution etc. Overall more harmful toxins are released in the lifecycle of an EV. Sure it won't directly effect you or me. Probably some poor people in a developing country.
You keep talking about ccgt. I'm well aware of the efficiency of this, but what percentage of plants in the UK are using it?
The cleanliness of the exhaust is fantastic. Electric cars would do a lot for the air quality in our cities. This was my point about moving the problem. How do you feel about the huge levels of harmful toxins released in extracting the necessary materials? The links to water pollution etc. Overall more harmful toxins are released in the lifecycle of an EV. Sure it won't directly effect you or me. Probably some poor people in a developing country.
In reply to stella1:
I was under the impression it's the single largest contributor to our grid electricity.
It does not move it, it eliminates much of it. Because central external combustion gas plants are far, far cleaner than small internal combustion oil plants. This is separate to the issue of toxicity of battery production.
As I've said several times it is in my view wrong to attribute them to one car for 100,000 km as in your source. I would divide the figures by 3 to account for realistic life and then probably divide by 2 again to account for battery reconditioning or repurposing, all of which ignores heavy recycling of materials at battery end of life. Numbers pulled out of my behind but with some rational.
Only if the materials in the battery are discarded at the end of the EVs life. They only need to be reused once or twice to reduce net toxic harm over internal combustion. Battery packs are already being reconditioned, repurposed and recycled. Petrochemicals result in plenty of toxic harm to poor people in developing countries. The resources for EVs - largely copper, nickel and lithium - can be heavily recycled, burned oil can't.
> You keep talking about ccgt. I'm well aware of the efficiency of this, but what percentage of plants in the UK are using it?
I was under the impression it's the single largest contributor to our grid electricity.
> The cleanliness of the exhaust is fantastic. Electric cars would do a lot for the air quality in our cities. This was my point about moving the problem.
It does not move it, it eliminates much of it. Because central external combustion gas plants are far, far cleaner than small internal combustion oil plants. This is separate to the issue of toxicity of battery production.
> How do you feel about the huge levels of harmful toxins released in extracting the necessary materials? The links to water pollution etc.
As I've said several times it is in my view wrong to attribute them to one car for 100,000 km as in your source. I would divide the figures by 3 to account for realistic life and then probably divide by 2 again to account for battery reconditioning or repurposing, all of which ignores heavy recycling of materials at battery end of life. Numbers pulled out of my behind but with some rational.
> Overall more harmful toxins are released in the lifecycle of an EV. Sure it won't directly effect you or me. Probably some poor people in a developing country.
Only if the materials in the battery are discarded at the end of the EVs life. They only need to be reused once or twice to reduce net toxic harm over internal combustion. Battery packs are already being reconditioned, repurposed and recycled. Petrochemicals result in plenty of toxic harm to poor people in developing countries. The resources for EVs - largely copper, nickel and lithium - can be heavily recycled, burned oil can't.
Post edited at 18:05
In reply to wintertree:
But that is still less than 30% of the total energy generation was my point. Although looking at the website someone posted higher up the thread that suggest right now it is 50%. Also while CCGT can achieve over 60% efficiency I think the average in UK is closer to 45%.
The 180% - 290% increase in human toxicity potential in the paper I referenced is assuming mileage of 100,000 and 200,000 km. So if we take 200,000 km that's a 180% increase, I'd say 125, 000 miles is a bit off what you might expect a car to do in its lifetime. I have heard 200,000 miles is supposedly the new norm. So yeah, we can probaly divide the 180% by about 2. I would argue that reducing it further due to re-purposing of batteries may be taking it too far. I very much doubt any current EV will do 200,000 miles without replacing the batteries. So would argue that any benefit from repurpossing and recycling of the original batteries is mitigated by having to replace them.
Totally agree with you, if everything can be recycled at the end of life then it is a big swing in favour of electric cars. I was under the impression that this is not currently mainstream. It probably will be eventually.
I'm not saying that they don't.
I think the major component which causes most of the harm in the manufacture of the batteries is the cobalt. Not an expert but I have read a number of articles not only about the health and pollution risks but of child labourers dying extracting it.
I'm not against electric cars. I just don't think it is the glorious solution a number of people seem to think they are. I was in Texas a few months ago, and was talking to someone who had one. Seemed so smug about how they were saving the world. Yet Texas use almost 75% coal and gas to generate electricity and was totally oblivious to any impact in the production of the car.
> I was under the impression it's the single largest contributor to our grid electricity.
But that is still less than 30% of the total energy generation was my point. Although looking at the website someone posted higher up the thread that suggest right now it is 50%. Also while CCGT can achieve over 60% efficiency I think the average in UK is closer to 45%.
> As I've said several times it is in my view wrong to attribute them to one car for 100,000 km as in your source. I would divide the figures by 3 to account for realistic life and then probably divide by 2 again to account for battery reconditioning or repurposing, all of which ignores heavy recycling of materials at battery end of life. Numbers pulled out of my behind but with some rational.
The 180% - 290% increase in human toxicity potential in the paper I referenced is assuming mileage of 100,000 and 200,000 km. So if we take 200,000 km that's a 180% increase, I'd say 125, 000 miles is a bit off what you might expect a car to do in its lifetime. I have heard 200,000 miles is supposedly the new norm. So yeah, we can probaly divide the 180% by about 2. I would argue that reducing it further due to re-purposing of batteries may be taking it too far. I very much doubt any current EV will do 200,000 miles without replacing the batteries. So would argue that any benefit from repurpossing and recycling of the original batteries is mitigated by having to replace them.
> Only if the materials in the battery are discarded at the end of the EVs life. They only need to be reused once or twice to reduce net toxic harm over internal combustion. Battery packs are already being reconditioned, repurposed and recycled.
Totally agree with you, if everything can be recycled at the end of life then it is a big swing in favour of electric cars. I was under the impression that this is not currently mainstream. It probably will be eventually.
> Petrochemicals result in plenty of toxic harm to poor people in developing countries.
I'm not saying that they don't.
> The resources for EVs - largely copper, nickel and lithium - can be heavily recycled, burned oil can't.
I think the major component which causes most of the harm in the manufacture of the batteries is the cobalt. Not an expert but I have read a number of articles not only about the health and pollution risks but of child labourers dying extracting it.
I'm not against electric cars. I just don't think it is the glorious solution a number of people seem to think they are. I was in Texas a few months ago, and was talking to someone who had one. Seemed so smug about how they were saving the world. Yet Texas use almost 75% coal and gas to generate electricity and was totally oblivious to any impact in the production of the car.
1
In reply to stella1:
I think we more or less agree on most things although I'm more optimistic on the battery reuse and recycling. For example Nissan are already repurposing old batteries.
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/05/nissans-new-xstorage-battery-wants-to-c...
So we're away from peer review and into corporate PR but that is the nature of the beast. Tesla are moving to almost total recycling of the battery packs. How efficient it really is I can't say, but it only has to recover ~ 50% of the raw materials at each recycling to reduce the comparative harm in the paper you cite to parity with ICE cars; more than that and its better.
https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-progr...
Texas must be one of the more insane examples of centralised electricity generation I can think off...
> I would argue that reducing it further due to re-purposing of batteries may be taking it too far
I think we more or less agree on most things although I'm more optimistic on the battery reuse and recycling. For example Nissan are already repurposing old batteries.
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/05/nissans-new-xstorage-battery-wants-to-c...
> Totally agree with you, if everything can be recycled at the end of life then it is a big swing in favour of electric cars. I was under the impression that this is not currently mainstream. It probably will be eventually.
So we're away from peer review and into corporate PR but that is the nature of the beast. Tesla are moving to almost total recycling of the battery packs. How efficient it really is I can't say, but it only has to recover ~ 50% of the raw materials at each recycling to reduce the comparative harm in the paper you cite to parity with ICE cars; more than that and its better.
https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-progr...
> ... Texas ...
Texas must be one of the more insane examples of centralised electricity generation I can think off...
In reply to wintertree:
It's such an interesting area. There is no simple answer, no perfect solution. We need to move away from fossil fuels but I don't think there is one right answer. My solution for the next few decades, nuclear generation and hydrogen fuel cells. Then kick back and wait for fusion to be cracked. My solution seems prone to Hindenburg/Chernobyl incidents.
It's such an interesting area. There is no simple answer, no perfect solution. We need to move away from fossil fuels but I don't think there is one right answer. My solution for the next few decades, nuclear generation and hydrogen fuel cells. Then kick back and wait for fusion to be cracked. My solution seems prone to Hindenburg/Chernobyl incidents.
1
In reply to stella1:
Just had a look at a Tesla - it says £118,000 to £184,000 new.
How annoying.
I've suddenly gone off the idea
Just had a look at a Tesla - it says £118,000 to £184,000 new.
How annoying.
I've suddenly gone off the idea
In reply to stella1:
It is all very interesting.
One wild card - autonomous cars. These should expand shared ownership models to many more people. I'd live to have less capital invested in deprecating hulks on my drive, and access to a smaller car for commuting and a larger car for the occasional use. As well as benefits to the shared owners, it would allow for an absolute reduction in the number of EV battery packs, as well as allowing for battery pack sizes to be better matched to the journeys they do, both of which would further economise resource usage.
I'm not so sure about hydrogen for various reasons. Fission - massively, bring it on. Things have moved on incredibly since the era of Chernobyl. The UK could make a fortune reprocessing waste for the world and powering ourselves off it. It needs to be handled with transparency and politically neutral scientific oversight on safety but it's by far and away the best opportunity.
My optimistic side hopes that one of the dark horse commercial fusion research projects will break through. My pessimist sees it never happening outside of naval and space applications; why? Project the trends in solar-PV and battery technology (cost per unit power produced or energy stored, resource usage, efficiency etc.) ahead 30 years and ITER/DEMO style fusion won't be required any more...
It is all very interesting.
One wild card - autonomous cars. These should expand shared ownership models to many more people. I'd live to have less capital invested in deprecating hulks on my drive, and access to a smaller car for commuting and a larger car for the occasional use. As well as benefits to the shared owners, it would allow for an absolute reduction in the number of EV battery packs, as well as allowing for battery pack sizes to be better matched to the journeys they do, both of which would further economise resource usage.
> My solution for the next few decades, nuclear generation and hydrogen fuel cells. Then kick back and wait for fusion to be cracked. My solution seems prone to Hindenburg/Chernobyl incidents.
I'm not so sure about hydrogen for various reasons. Fission - massively, bring it on. Things have moved on incredibly since the era of Chernobyl. The UK could make a fortune reprocessing waste for the world and powering ourselves off it. It needs to be handled with transparency and politically neutral scientific oversight on safety but it's by far and away the best opportunity.
My optimistic side hopes that one of the dark horse commercial fusion research projects will break through. My pessimist sees it never happening outside of naval and space applications; why? Project the trends in solar-PV and battery technology (cost per unit power produced or energy stored, resource usage, efficiency etc.) ahead 30 years and ITER/DEMO style fusion won't be required any more...
2
In reply to Babika:
Wow. One of my friends in the US has one. I think they must be a lot cheaper over there. Or he is much better off than I thought... Might chase him for the extra round of drinks I bought last time we met up.
Wow. One of my friends in the US has one. I think they must be a lot cheaper over there. Or he is much better off than I thought... Might chase him for the extra round of drinks I bought last time we met up.
In reply to stella1:
However we generate it, it doesn't move away from the fact that cars are not an energy-efficient way to move people around unless full. So, electric or no, we still need to discourage driving in cities altogether, and promote more cycling, use of public transport etc. This is why I don't get the "self driving pod" thing being promoted in MK at present - it's still a car.
However we generate it, it doesn't move away from the fact that cars are not an energy-efficient way to move people around unless full. So, electric or no, we still need to discourage driving in cities altogether, and promote more cycling, use of public transport etc. This is why I don't get the "self driving pod" thing being promoted in MK at present - it's still a car.
1
In reply to Michael Hood:
How many in the UK? 20 outside London?
The sound of a diesel puts me off so I've never seen the attraction; if I wanted a tractor I'd buy one.
> if you charge your Tesla at Tesla points it's free -
How many in the UK? 20 outside London?
The sound of a diesel puts me off so I've never seen the attraction; if I wanted a tractor I'd buy one.
1
In reply to Kipper:
I've always had diesel but will probably go petrol next time, at 20,000 miles per year I will be a little worse off but compensated by lower car price. Main reasons are reduced particulates emissions, smoother and quieter ride and performance. After renting a 1.4 petrol VW Golf I was amazed at how petrol engine technology has advanced. In the UK the only real benefit of electric cars is reduced pollution locally (which is a very good reason in a city) When you compare CO2 emissions of electricity and petrol/diesel taking account of engine efficiency etc there's not a lot of difference
I've always had diesel but will probably go petrol next time, at 20,000 miles per year I will be a little worse off but compensated by lower car price. Main reasons are reduced particulates emissions, smoother and quieter ride and performance. After renting a 1.4 petrol VW Golf I was amazed at how petrol engine technology has advanced. In the UK the only real benefit of electric cars is reduced pollution locally (which is a very good reason in a city) When you compare CO2 emissions of electricity and petrol/diesel taking account of engine efficiency etc there's not a lot of difference
In reply to Pesda potato: If you tend to do lots of short journeys, you might get DPF problems with a diesel, which can be expensive.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...