Give me a counter argument to this article. Please!

[Yev000]

Another reason not to read the Guardian.

1. Manufacture of any vehicle will produce CO2, that is not an argument against EVs. Stop buying stuff period, if you want to reduce your CO2 per sh*t you own quota.

2. Power grid can improve re-emissions over time, car you buy can't unless it's EV.

3. Even if grid is powered by 100% coal most of the population actually don't live near power stations and breathe the air. If you drive something that emits, you breathe that sh*t in every time you drive. Better to have it in a single location - a power station - where it can be better controlled, or better yet, trapped. Rather than have it emitted by millions of exhausts everywhere you look where it can't be controlled.

If The Guardian actually wanted fair comparisons they would compare total emissions, over the life of a car, ICE vs EV. Manufacture, delivery, driving for 10 years and scrappage. I would bet that the total would be less for an EV even if the power grid is 100% coal. The analysis is normally called "dust-to-dust".

Here is some info on the UK motor industry that will shoot that article full of holes: https://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/SMMT-Sustainability-Report-2019.pdf

"Over the past 20 years, the industry has achieved a 53.6% reduction in relative CO2. Thanks to the ongoing decarbonisation of the National Grid, official electricity conversion factors are revised annually to reflect the increasing share of renewable sources. In 2018, green energy made up 46.5% of all electricity used."

Give it a read.

 

[vitesse]

None of the articles i have seen has looked at the complete picture which includes manufacture of vehicle and sourcing the components that went into it and sourcing it's fuel sources. So that includes exploration and developing iron ores and associated metals for the steels as well as the aluminium (about half of which is recycled) as well as extracting our Lithium, cobalt et al and manufacturing the batteries. One should also look at the pollutions caused in all those processes down to the leathers/plastics and computer bits inside the cars. Conventional cars are a tribute to recycling but still not every bit gets reused.
At the simplest end of the scale only less than 25% of the energy from petrol/deisel gets used for propulsion in a car whereas when used for generation that percentage goes up towards 50% conversion to electricity (to do with efficiencies of scale and the fact that a generator can be run at optimal RPM all the time).
And as a dyed-in-the-wool cycnic one should also look at the electricity i waste driving backwards and forwards to the SC getting stuff fixed...

I read that ICE is already only 40% as efficient as EV motors. By the looks of the latest Tesla motors used in M3 and Raven models that figure is getting smaller, too. There is a huge amount of energy used in the extraction and processing of fossil fuels into petrol or diesel, even transporting it, both in crude and refined forms. I'd certainly like to see a comparison in the costs of energy to asemble the raw materials for battery manufacturing, as well as the pollution factor. Tesla has also said that cobalt is being eliminated from future battery designs. Lithium ion batteries also lend themselves well to recycling, first as a second life as a domestic energy store then end of life materials recycling.

 

[Glan gluaisne]

I read that ICE is already only 40% as efficient as EV motors. By the looks of the latest Tesla motors used in M3 and Raven models that figure is getting smaller, too. There is a huge amount of energy used in the extraction and processing of fossil fuels into petrol or diesel, even transporting it, both in crude and refined forms. I'd certainly like to see a comparison in the costs of energy to asemble the raw materials for battery manufacturing, as well as the pollution factor. Tesla has also said that cobalt is being eliminated from future battery designs. Lithium ion batteries also lend themselves well to recycling, first as a second life as a domestic energy store then end of life materials recycling.

Probably not even that, but it depends on how you make the comparison.

A really good diesel might be around 40% peak efficiency, and a really good petrol engine might be around 34% peak efficiency, in terms of potential energy in the fuel in the tank to mechanical energy used to move the car. These are peak figures, though, and the average efficiency figure will be a fair bit worse.

It's not hard to make electric motors that are around 90% efficient overall. Not sure how efficient the Tesla power train is but it's probably somewhere around that figure. You also have to add in charging loss as well, which varies a lot depending on the rate of charge. Charging from the UMC and a 13 A outlet will be pretty inefficient (because the ratio of fixed losses to delivered charge will be fairly high), whereas supercharging may be significantly more efficient (high charge rate plus no internal charger losses).

 

[Ukmgranger]

I knew you guys would come up with some great answers! Massively informative - thanks for all the intelligent responses.

 

[LukeT]

To be fair, despite my severe criticism of Germany's knee-jerk abandonment of nuclear, they have rapidly installed a lot of wind turbines but most of these are land-based as Germany doesn't have much coast. But they should have managed the switch away from nuclear much better than they have done.

To be fair, Germany was pretty good on wind generation, and solar too, before this point. I would think they were ahead of the UK in this regard.

 

[mswlogo]

Some folks here mind enjoy a Series on Bill Gates. In particular Part 3 where the Gates Foundation basically organized and helped fund the development of a Nuclear Power Plant design that cannot have a melt down in the event of a power loss. And the fuel would come from the already spent fuel from existing nuclear plants that are in storage.

He was ramping up to install larger scale plants in China until our fearful leader in the WH F’d up relations with China which put a hold on progress.

inside bill's brain: decoding bill gates episode 3

The whole series is jaw dropping on what Melinda and Bill Gates have done and still trying to do.

 

[LukeT]

I have been grappling with this same point. Lots of info out there on emissions but hardly ever do they:
1. reflect carbon intensity of UK grid
2. properly reflect emissions associated with both fuel upstream of the petrol station, and emissions associated with "whole life" of both power plants and the car

In the end I started off my own analysis. Now, it isn't very sophisticated, but it does try at least to reflect the upstream position so EV and ICE are presented on a a like-for-like basis.

See here:

Upstream carbon emissions

......

 

[Adopado]

Well I normally say like them I couldn’t give a crap about abusing our environment with a car that produces obnoxious fumes that is killing people and also I would gladly run my car on liquified kittens if it made it 0.2 seconds faster to 60.

Our older Fiesta needed a new cat recently. It was very expensive ... is that what produces the liquified kittens?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

To be fair, despite my severe criticism of Germany's knee-jerk abandonment of nuclear, they have rapidly installed a lot of wind turbines but most of these are land-based as Germany doesn't have much coast. But they should have managed the switch away from nuclear much better than they have done.

Germany has dramatically reduced wind turbine installation this year because they haven't invested in the infrastructure needed to move the power. China has a similar problem.

Texas, had the same problem, but they built the connections and now they continue to fill the panhandle with renewables, with solar installations accelerating.

Germany's slow investment in electricity infrastructure is affecting Austria as well, because they have to get to the Northern European grid through it.

 

[Andywil]

"Green energy" production also has very large CO2 production from the manufacturing, transport and installation of such equipment.

 

[vitesse]

"Green energy" production also has very large CO2 production from the manufacturing, transport and installation of such equipment.

But this is largely one-off and we now have manufacturers using the green energy these installations produce. We need to look at the bigger picture.

 

[Cogarch]

It has always been very clear to me that, short of direct solar heating, water power or wind-power, it is in our interest to migrate all energy-consuming appliances to be powered by the grid as this decouples the consumption of energy from its generation, allowing maximum resources to be applied to optimising efficiency and sustainability of one universal and flexible source of energy.

 

[Jason71]

TBH If you are claiming climate change green credentials as your main justification for buying a Tesla you'd better be a vegetarian or I am calling BS and saying that that may not be your primary motivation...

 

[vitesse]

It has always been very clear to me that, short of direct solar heating, water power or wind-power, it is in our interest to migrate all energy-consuming appliances to be powered by the grid as this decouples the consumption of energy from its generation, allowing maximum resources to be applied to optimising efficiency and sustainability of one universal and flexible source of energy.

Unfortunately, natural gas is still a lot cheaper than electricity for domestic heating. Despite universal availability of electricity, instead of planning for an all-electric domestic heating future there is now talk of switching from natural gas to hydrogen boilers. That's going to mean large-scale gas supply infrastructure changes for a start. Surely the target should be plentiful, cheap, green, electricity to fulfil all our energy needs?

 

[pgkevet]

Unfortunately, natural gas is still a lot cheaper than electricity for domestic heating. Despite universal availability of electricity, instead of planning for an all-electric domestic heating future there is now talk of switching from natural gas to hydrogen boilers. That's going to mean large-scale gas supply infrastructure changes for a start. Surely the target should be plentiful, cheap, green, electricity to fulfil all our energy needs?

And where is the hydrogen coming from? Either from methane from natural gas or electrolysis of water...using electricity. No that's fine if the electricity used is 'spare' and a way of storing x/s but otherwise it's just an inefficient middle step

 

[WannabeOwner]

instead of planning for an all-electric domestic heating future ...

Just insulate houses properly. Passive House / EnerPHit needs virtually no heat (nor aircon) input. The top-up needed is trivial to achieve
using electricity. The PEAK heating requirement (i.e. outside temperature well below 0C) for an average sized 3-bed house is 1kW - that's for the whole house)

Much better to insulate than carry on chucking heating energy at the building, year after year, particularly if the fuel is imported and distorts the balance of payments.

 

[vitesse]

Just insulate houses properly. Passive House / EnerPHit needs virtually no heat (nor aircon) input. The top-up needed is trivial to achieve
using electricity. The PEAK heating requirement (i.e. outside temperature well below 0C) for an average sized 3-bed house is 1kW - that's for the whole house)

Much better to insulate than carry on chucking heating energy at the building, year after year, particularly if the fuel is imported and distorts the balance of payments.

Very sensible but it's not realistic for a lot of the existing housing stock - it certainly should be mandatory for all new house building, though. Why it isn't already is a scandal.

 

[arg]

whereas supercharging may be significantly more efficient (high charge rate plus no internal charger losses)

I suspect Supercharging has gone too far in the opposite direction, with I²R losses from the high currents dominating. There's probably a sweet spot somewhere in the middle...

Unfortunately, natural gas is still a lot cheaper than electricity for domestic heating.

I don't think that's true if you get your electric heating with heat pumps - certainly for space heating.

Looking at the price I pay for kWh for electricity vs gas, the electricity is 2x the price for E7, or 3.5x the price for daytime. So even without allowing for the gas boiler being less than 100% efficient, the heat pump only has to achieve a CoP of 2 for nighttime or 3.5 for daytime, which is quite plausibly achievable.

Water heating is more troublesome as the high target temperature gives poor CoP and/or needs resistive supplementary heat. Still, water heating has a useful side-benefit of giving easy storage (so you should be working with the E7 figure), and even if you decide to do it with just resistive heating (CoP=1) that is therefore more expensive per unit than gas, you can now scrap your gas boiler and offset the standing charge and maintenance costs against the higher cost of the electric option.

So I think it's fairly cost neutral.

However, for domestic heating the real win would be from better insulation so you don't need to buy the energy in the first place; if only someone could crack the politics of making this happen, particularly for rented accommodation where landlords currently have little incentive to make improvements.

 

[Glan gluaisne]

Unfortunately, natural gas is still a lot cheaper than electricity for domestic heating. Despite universal availability of electricity, instead of planning for an all-electric domestic heating future there is now talk of switching from natural gas to hydrogen boilers. That's going to mean large-scale gas supply infrastructure changes for a start. Surely the target should be plentiful, cheap, green, electricity to fulfil all our energy needs?

Depends.

We're off the gas grid, so our house is all-electric. Heating is via an ASHP that seems to run at an average COP of well over 3, close to around 3.5. 90% of our heating is overnight, with the ASHP heating up a well-insulated concrete slab, using UFH. We're on E7, so that 90% of our heating is at the cheap rate, meaning that the average rate we pay for electricity for heating (90% off-peak, 10% peak) is about 9p/kWh.

Assuming a COP of 3 for the ASHP (a bit pessimistic) then our electric heating cost is ~3p/kWh. That's about 25% cheaper than mains gas, I believe.

 

[WannabeOwner]

it's not realistic for a lot of the existing housing stock -

Its difficult for many existing houses, for sure. Easiest is a terraced house with only front-and-back, and the lid, to sort out

But the improvement is for the "lifetime of the building", so the savings in the long term are massive. Government could decide that the cost of protecting fuel-supply from e.g. Middle East means it is worthwhile to just sort out the housing stock. I haven't read at the Greens manifesto, but the sound bytes I heard suggest that would be in their game plan. Reduction in sick-days would be good for GDP too ...

I also heard a soundbyte that the Greens would spend £100B p.a. which would include fixing the housing stock. Lot of do$h ... but ... if we've got to fix the problem for Climate Change anyway then why wait? spend the money now, get on and get it done, and have the benefit straight away.

it certainly should be mandatory for all new house building, though. Why it isn't already is a scandal.

+1 +1