EV-based road transportation is not viable

[clalrencepitt]

I hear you loud and clear, cobber. You're not wrong about some carmakers dragging their anchors on the whole EV wave. The Japanese giants, bless their petrol-powered hearts, have been a bit, well, stubborn about it. Took a rumble in the boardroom to loosen Toyota's grip on the combustion engine and Nissan needed a good shove from Renault and Ghosn to dip their toes in the electric pool.

But hey, I wouldn't say they're missing the boat entirely. More like they're taking the scenic route, admiring the view before making a splash. Just look at the Yanks and the Euros! Ford went from chucking a battery in a Focus like it was an afterthought to electrifying their cash cow, the F-150, and people are eating those trucks up like pav at a barbie. BMW ditched the quirky i3 and unleashed a whole fleet of EVs. It's happening, mate, even if it's at a "shrimp on the barbie" pace.

And maybe that's not a bad thing. Let the early adopters iron out the kinks, find the best charging spots, and figure out which seats are the comfiest for these long electric journeys. Speaking of comfy seats, have you heard of [spam reference removed by moderator] They're like the MacGyver of boat seats, transforming into recliners, fishing thrones, and sunbathing havens on a whim. Imagine cruising along in your EV, then pulling up at a stunning view and whipping out Sege seats that make you feel like you're floating on air. Now that's a game-changer.

So yeah, the EV revolution might be chugging along like a tinnie on the Hawkesbury, but it's definitely heading in the right direction. And while we wait for it to pick up speed, let's enjoy the ride, keep an eye out for those trusted boat seats- [spam URL removed by moderator] and maybe, just maybe, convince the Japanese to ditch the oars and grab a life jacket. Cheers to that, mate!

[tautech]

And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......

[Monkeh]

That's one of the more determined spam posts I've seen. Didn't think seat manufacturers were that desperate.

[SiliconWizard]

And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......

But how dare you!

[tautech]

And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......

But how dare you!

Convenient lies are the inconvenient truth.

[tom66]

That's one of the more determined spam posts I've seen. Didn't think seat manufacturers were that desperate.

Looks like some kind of ChatGPT large-language model based on the prompt "Sound like an old grandma moaning about 'EV-based road transportation is not viable' and mention my seat company 'X' and how good those seats are".

Sadly, spam like this is only going to get worse. 

Also, holy thread necromancy, batman!

[pickle9000]

I'd want to own an EV even if it wasn't practical.

[SiliconWizard]

But you'll own nothing.

[NiHaoMike]

And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......

As opposed to using the same electricity to refine oil into gasoline?
https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2011/10/14/how-gas-cars-use-more-electricity-to-go-100-miles-than-evs-do/

[vad]

And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......

They are using less and less coal in Europe, often replacing it with renewables. Here's how it works:

A forest is uprooted in the United States, timber is processed into fuel pellets, shipped to another continent, using petrol and diesel fuels for transportation. In Europe, customers burn these fuel pellets, generating power, including for BEVs.

Customers are happy because CO2 from burning renewable biofuels is allegedly better than CO2 from locally mined coal in places like Germany. Perhaps the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from a recently alive tree are better than the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from coal.

[coppice]

And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......

They are using less and less coal in Europe, often replacing it with renewables. Here's how it works:

A forest is uprooted in the United States, timber is processed into fuel pellets, shipped to another continent, using petrol and diesel fuels for transportation. In Europe, customers burn these fuel pellets, generating power, including for BEVs.

Customers are happy because CO2 from burning renewable biofuels is allegedly better than CO2 from locally mined coal in places like Germany. Perhaps the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from a recently alive tree are better than the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from coal.

I live not too far from the Drax power station in Yorkshire which runs on virgin US forestry. Its very much a WTF topic in most conversations. Its fully renewable energy in the view of people in power, clinging to anything that makes their "moves towards net zero" look better.

[PlainName]

[Edit to make clear this is about the chip-powered charging stations, not generic umpty-gigawatt power stations.]

You cannot switch from one means to another in the blink of an eye. It's almost as difficult to do it piecemeal too, hence there is massive inertia to keep things more or less as they are. So, bearing that in mind...

You gotta start somewhere and it's no good killing oil and switching entirely to electrics if there is (relatively) nothing to consume that. And there won't be consumers if there is nothing to consume. Classic chicken and egg. So why not get the provision going somehow and let the consumers build up (meantime reducing consumption for non-preferred supplies). Once that's all working you can switch the backend to whatever you fancy. Currently, wood chips shipped across the globe allow for the generators to be generating, and once your consumers just consume electricity you can bugger about with how you generate it. Hell, use coal if you want, or gas or chips or solar or shit - your consumers won't notice or care.

I would see a good case for having charging stations using petrol, just to get the charging stations in place and used. Later, they can be wired to the grid and/or use whatever the green source du jour is, but many tiny steps is better than a huge leap usually.

[tom66]

[Edit to make clear this is about the chip-powered charging stations, not generic umpty-gigawatt power stations.]

You cannot switch from one means to another in the blink of an eye. It's almost as difficult to do it piecemeal too, hence there is massive inertia to keep things more or less as they are. So, bearing that in mind...

You gotta start somewhere and it's no good killing oil and switching entirely to electrics if there is (relatively) nothing to consume that. And there won't be consumers if there is nothing to consume. Classic chicken and egg. So why not get the provision going somehow and let the consumers build up (meantime reducing consumption for non-preferred supplies). Once that's all working you can switch the backend to whatever you fancy. Currently, wood chips shipped across the globe allow for the generators to be generating, and once your consumers just consume electricity you can bugger about with how you generate it. Hell, use coal if you want, or gas or chips or solar or shit - your consumers won't notice or care.

I would see a good case for having charging stations using petrol, just to get the charging stations in place and used. Later, they can be wired to the grid and/or use whatever the green source du jour is, but many tiny steps is better than a huge leap usually.

Yup.

Even an electric vehicle running off the UK grid with its mix of gas, tiny bit of coal, wind, nuclear, biomass etc.   has a carbon footprint of around 250 grams CO2eq per kWh.  That is around 60 grams per vehicle mile, around a third of a petrol car.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.  Yes, EVs are not "the solution" to climate change, they represent one of the many ways we can seek to decarbonise road transport, and would be combined with longer vehicle lifecycles, improved battery manufacturing techniques, more public transport provision, more cycling provision, more opportunities for hybrid/remote working and so on.

It seems the anti-green people mostly think in binary, something is either dirty or clean; and anything that is not completely clean, is dirty, and therefore not worth considering.

[vad]

The inconvenient truth is that tons of CO2 are thrown into the atmosphere before an EV's first charge. The actual emission values are not reported by the industry and are estimated in a range from 30 to 200 kg of CO2 per kWh capacity of the battery, depending on the mining and manufacturing process. Taking the midpoint of 115 kg/kWh would estimate 9 metric tons of CO2 for a typical Tesla Model 3.

If a person believes that CO2 emissions are bad for the climate and, for that reason, opts for a BEV, he/she is kidding him/herself. The person prepays the emissions by allowing mining companies in Africa and battery manufacturing companies in China to pollute the atmosphere with many tons of CO2 before the car even leaves the manufacturing plant.

Whether the prepayment is justifiable, due to presumably lower carbon emissions per mile driven compared to an ICE vehicle, depends on many factors, such as the make and model of the specific BEV and alternative ICE vehicle, lifetime of the vehicles, driver's habits, average miles driven, local climate, electricity source, energy required to dispose of the vehicle and its hazardous materials, driver’s luck, etc.

As I mentioned in a parallel thread, a tradie who would swap a RAM 1500 for a Cybertruck and drive 50K miles per year would probably cause fewer carbon emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle, assuming the car is kept for several years and doesn't get into minor accidents causing battery damage or deformation requiring replacement. However, a casual, climate-concerned driver with low annual mileage might be better off keeping their current VW Golf instead of trading it for a Chinese-made Tesla Model 3 to be faithful to their beliefs.

[tggzzz]

And keep burning coal to charge them.
Or as witnessed in a recent WA trip, most of their power is from gas turbines......

They are using less and less coal in Europe, often replacing it with renewables. Here's how it works:

A forest is uprooted in the United States, timber is processed into fuel pellets, shipped to another continent, using petrol and diesel fuels for transportation. In Europe, customers burn these fuel pellets, generating power, including for BEVs.

Customers are happy because CO2 from burning renewable biofuels is allegedly better than CO2 from locally mined coal in places like Germany. Perhaps the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from a recently alive tree are better than the quantum properties of a carbon atom that comes from coal.

I live not too far from the Drax power station in Yorkshire which runs on virgin US forestry. Its very much a WTF topic in most conversations. Its fully renewable energy in the view of people in power, clinging to anything that makes their "moves towards net zero" look better.

And soon to get £40e9(!) to employ carbon capture storage https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/16/drax-gets-go-ahead-for-carbon-capture-project-at-estimated-40bn-cost-to-bill-payers

Without Drax we would be in a bind. Currently a 4 reactors are unexpectedly offline, and even though wind power is high we are still importing >7GW of electricity.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-station/daily-statuses

A lot of German "coal" is actually brown lignite, an especially polluting source.

[PlainName]

The inconvenient truth is that tons of CO2 are thrown into the atmosphere before an EV's first charge.

This is a bit orange and apples, isn't it? Because:

However, a casual, climate-concerned driver with low annual mileage might be better off keeping their current VW Golf instead of trading it for a Chinese-made Tesla Model 3

This is the only argument that makes sense for EV being similarly polluting to ICE: taking account of the manufacturing cost for EV where there is none at all for ICE. Of course that's going to be in ICE favour! In reality  we should be looking at replacements - where you go to get a new car to replace the one you have, the choice is EV or ICE, and then EV wins every time.

That's not an argument not to get an EV. It's an argument not to replace your existing motor, that's all.

[vad]

My point was: the manufacturing of a BEV causes much greater CO2 pollution than the manufacturing of an ICE vehicle because of the battery.

Whether a casual driver replaces an old vehicle or chooses between a BEV and a brand new greenish-green ICE that meets Euro 7 emissions standards, there is always a mileage threshold. If you drive under that mileage, you would be contributing more to CO2 pollution. The exact value of the threshold depends on a myriad of factors.

[coppice]

A lot of German "coal" is actually brown lignite, an especially polluting source.

If you are capturing the entire flue output for CCS, won't all those nasties be captured too?

[tom66]

My point was: the manufacturing of a BEV causes much greater CO2 pollution than the manufacturing of an ICE vehicle because of the battery.

Whether a casual driver replaces an old vehicle or chooses between a BEV and a brand new greenish-green ICE that meets Euro 7 emissions standards, there is always a mileage threshold. If you drive under that mileage, you would be contributing more to CO2 pollution. The exact value of the threshold depends on a myriad of factors.

We've been here before.  The emissions are typically "paid off" within about 30,000 - 50,000 miles, depending on the manufacturing location of the battery, the source of the electricity used to power the car and so on.  The figure provided is a typical one from one of the many studies available.

It is true you could create a scenario of say a 100kWh SUV driven 4000 miles a year powered by average electricity where an ICE possibly wins out if the car meets its maker within say 10 years (crash damage for example...)

But the average use case will certainly be more negative in CO2 emissions than not which is why it is the case that EVs are promoted as a good alternative to ICE cars for the average person, if they can accommodate them.

Remember most cars, EVs included, made today with reasonable maintenance should last at least 15 years, maybe more.  So even if the first owner doesn't work out, the second or third owner might. 

A lot of German "coal" is actually brown lignite, an especially polluting source.

If you are capturing the entire flue output for CCS, won't all those nasties be captured too?

No.  Most CCS systems work by using amine gas treatment which only works on CO2 and H2S.  The flue itself isn't stored so you get other emissions still like NOx.

[tggzzz]

A lot of German "coal" is actually brown lignite, an especially polluting source.

If you are capturing the entire flue output for CCS, won't all those nasties be captured too?

The Germans don't.
Capturing CO2 consumes noticeable energy.
The nasties would probably gunk up the pipes, in a way CO2 doesn't. Think coal/tobacco tar

[coppice]

A lot of German "coal" is actually brown lignite, an especially polluting source.

If you are capturing the entire flue output for CCS, won't all those nasties be captured too?

No.  Most CCS systems work by using amine gas treatment which only works on CO2 and H2S.  The flue itself isn't stored so you get other emissions still like NOx.

Most CO2 capture to date has been for pulling H2S and CO2 out of a mix of stuff, and amine processing is widely used for that. A flue is basically CO2, H2O and some nasty trace contents. Amine capture is a high energy consumption process, and only works well with high pressure gas. That's not very compatible with an energy production process, with a low pressure flue. I assume they must be targeting other ways of doing CCS at Drax. Possibly storing the stuff in old mines around Yorkshire. That's certainly an approach to CCS from flues I keep hearing about. Of course, if you can't seal those mines well enough, the CO2 will leak out. Most things I see proposed for CCS don't sound like they are likely to offer good reliability.

[tom66]

Most CO2 capture to date has been for pulling H2S and CO2 out of a mix of stuff, and amine processing is widely used for that. A flue is basically CO2, H2O and some nasty trace contents. Amine capture is a high energy consumption process, and only works well with high pressure gas. That's not very compatible with an energy production process, with a low pressure flue. I assume they must be targeting other ways of doing CCS at Drax. Possibly storing the stuff in old mines around Yorkshire. That's certainly an approach to CCS from flues I keep hearing about. Of course, if you can't seal those mines well enough, the CO2 will leak out. Most things I see proposed for CCS don't sound like they are likely to offer good reliability.

CCS for power plants, in general, doesn't really work in the real world.  There's a reason most plants are doing pilot studies here or there but there are limited practical examples.  The energy usage of a hypothetical 99% CCS, that would capture all of the CO2 from a plant, would represent a significant proportion of the production output of that plant.  In any case, it hugely increases the cost of fossil fuel energy, to the point where it would be uncompetitive with renewables, so it could only ever form a small part of the grid.

This is a good video:

[coppice]

CCS for power plants, in general, doesn't really work in the real world.  There's a reason most plants are doing pilot studies here or there but there are limited practical examples.  The energy usage of a hypothetical 99% CCS, that would capture all of the CO2 from a plant, would represent a significant proportion of the production output of that plant.  In any case, it hugely increases the cost of fossil fuel energy, to the point where it would be uncompetitive with renewables, so it could only ever form a small part of the grid.

So why did you throw amine techniques into the discussion? Drax is, apparently, due to get a pile of cash which they need to waste by putting it into some vague unworkable concept of CCS. So, there must be a principal they are pushing. Filling old mines is the only one that comes to mind for Yorkshire. On the other hand they ship in the wood they burn from the US, so maybe they want to send the CO2 back to the US to be pumped into underground US cavities. Its doesn't need to make any sense.

[tggzzz]

CCS for power plants, in general, doesn't really work in the real world.  There's a reason most plants are doing pilot studies here or there but there are limited practical examples.  The energy usage of a hypothetical 99% CCS, that would capture all of the CO2 from a plant, would represent a significant proportion of the production output of that plant.  In any case, it hugely increases the cost of fossil fuel energy, to the point where it would be uncompetitive with renewables, so it could only ever form a small part of the grid.

So why did you throw amine techniques into the discussion? Drax is, apparently, due to get a pile of cash which they need to waste by putting it into some vague unworkable concept of CCS. So, there must be a principal they are pushing. Filling old mines is the only one that comes to mind for Yorkshire. On the other hand they ship in the wood they burn from the US, so maybe they want to send the CO2 back to the US to be pumped into underground US cavities. Its doesn't need to make any sense.

I suspect it is the offshore caverns that used to contain North Sea gas. They are more likely to be taught than coal mines!

[coppice]

CCS for power plants, in general, doesn't really work in the real world.  There's a reason most plants are doing pilot studies here or there but there are limited practical examples.  The energy usage of a hypothetical 99% CCS, that would capture all of the CO2 from a plant, would represent a significant proportion of the production output of that plant.  In any case, it hugely increases the cost of fossil fuel energy, to the point where it would be uncompetitive with renewables, so it could only ever form a small part of the grid.

So why did you throw amine techniques into the discussion? Drax is, apparently, due to get a pile of cash which they need to waste by putting it into some vague unworkable concept of CCS. So, there must be a principal they are pushing. Filling old mines is the only one that comes to mind for Yorkshire. On the other hand they ship in the wood they burn from the US, so maybe they want to send the CO2 back to the US to be pumped into underground US cavities. Its doesn't need to make any sense.

I suspect it is the offshore caverns that used to contain North Sea gas. They are more likely to be taught than coal mines!

Good point. All the underwater pipework must still be in place to feed stuff into those wells. Drax is about 50 miles from the coast. All they need is some pipe across land, some huge compressors, and a lot of energy to drive the compressors. Maybe they can build an extra power station to power those compressors.