I give up, you just change the "facts" to suit your restricted point of view.No, you're just angry because I actually read the document and had answers for your made-up argument. Enjoy life in that little universe; the rest of us live out here.
mnem
I vote we settle these arguments as follows https://youtu.be/Ggt9qKpbzxI
(Probably NSFW)
It does kind of make you wonder if the government decision to ban the sale of fossil fuelled cars after 2030 is the best move they could have made. There still seem to be massive strides to be made to make electric cars a serious rival. Sure they are clean in use (but about the manufacture as a whole + the shipping of parts around the world), fast, quiet, but what about the range and recharge times plus of course the sheer cost differences?
E-vehicles as they are now are a boon to the petroleum industry, not competition. They get approx 10x the carbon footprint of a conventional vehicle in their pockets up front due to the much more complex manufacturing process and the energy required to make them, plus as long as they keep a stranglehold on energy production across the grid, they get paid for the fuel to make the electricity they run on, which is approx 1/10 as efficient as burning the fossil fuel directly due to shite delivery of the eternally under-provisioned and prehistoric-technology power grid.
Our electrical power delivery grid will literally need to be 5x as efficient and half comprised of solar, plus incorporate mid-term and long-term storage we haven't even devised yet, before this ceases to be true.
Meanwhile, we can't even get our leaders to agree on a 30% reduction in greenhouses gases in the next decade... literally the smallest possible change that could in any way impact the impending ecological disaster.
mnem
and Henson's Dinosaurs TV show predicted all this nearly 3 decades ago...
Where do you get "which is approx 1/10 as efficient as burning the fossil fuel directly due to shite delivery of the eternally under-provisioned and prehistoric-technology power grid." from?
A petrol engine is about 20% thermal efficiency, a Biomass power plant is about 45% (combined cycle natural gas is over 50%) so even allowing for 90% power transmission and 60% battery/motor efficiency that is still about 24% NOT 2%
And that is not even considering regenerative braking, or non fossil fuel power generation.
You are just making stuff up . It's getting close to trolling.
NG is still a melting snowbank. It still is huge carbon footprint. It is still all the same greedy motherfuckers as the oil industry. Our electricity is still primarily produced by fossil fuels, and the efficiencies you claim are a tiny percentage of the grid overall. My 10X and 5X guess is just a guess... but once you actually do ALL the math, I bet it's pretty fucking close.
If you feel trolled, that's on you.
Thanks for playing,
mnem
No, thank you.
I do know that there are many ways of looking at it, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that to produce a running car and get it into the showroom, the electric car at that point is by all accounts that read and heard about is not the greenest at all. It might well end up being greener at a certain point in its life, but there are so many factors at play here that I refuse to be drawn one way or the other.
@Specmaster
You are correct, I did not take enough notice the "marginally safe" qualifier. That said mnementh has given no justification for his assertion that a cylindrical cell is safe(r) and a prismatic is unsafe. My question about that is still valid with or without the qualifier.
I do know that there are many ways of looking at it, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that to produce a running car and get it into the showroom, the electric car at that point is by all accounts that read and heard about is not the greenest at all. It might well end up being greener at a certain point in its life, but there are so many factors at play here that I refuse to be drawn one way or the other.
That's a moot point. The only basis for comparison that makes any sense is to do full life end-to-end evaluations. That means for fossil fuel vehicles starting with the crude oil in the ground, and all the processes involved in making and transporting the fuel and the vehicle, operating it over a realistic normal lifetime and disposing of it at the end of that life. For a electric vehicle doing the same process, making the vehicle, making and transporting the electricity for it, operating it and the final disposal.
Talking about just one bit or the other of the full life cycle of the vehicle and its fuel allows too many opportunities for people to cherry-pick their arguments.
Right, I'm going to ask a question about electric cars, has anyone here either got one, or has driven one? I have no experience of them personally, but I have been told that they are extremely difficult to control the speed of when you are driving them. A friend of a friend claimed that they had been told by someone who has a Tesla that it was hard to control the speed of it, claiming that felt like the motor was either full power or no power with almost nothing in between. My question is, is this sort of correct? Logic tells me that it can't be, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to be on the road?
I do know that there are many ways of looking at it, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that to produce a running car and get it into the showroom, the electric car at that point is by all accounts that read and heard about is not the greenest at all. It might well end up being greener at a certain point in its life, but there are so many factors at play here that I refuse to be drawn one way or the other.
That's a moot point. The only basis for comparison that makes any sense is to do full life end-to-end evaluations. That means for fossil fuel vehicles starting with the crude oil in the ground, and all the processes involved in making and transporting the fuel and the vehicle, operating it over a realistic normal lifetime and disposing of it at the end of that life. For a electric vehicle doing the same process, making the vehicle, making and transporting the electricity for it, operating it and the final disposal.
Talking about just one bit or the other of the full life cycle of the vehicle and its fuel allows too many opportunities for people to cherry-pick their arguments.Isn't that more or less what I have said, but with one important differance, you're bringing into the equation the oil production and the continued operating costs throughout the cars life. I was only looking at the energy used to produce the total car, and transport it to the car showroom. From that point on I said that it could well be greener once it leaves the showroom, but that has yet to be proven either way.
EV whole lifecycle impact
Vehicle ‘lifecycle analyses’ - which take account of all the emissions right the way from the mining of ores, the manufacture of vehicles and batteries, and in-use energy consumption of petrol, diesel or electricity - show large overall CO2 savings for EVs compared to conventional vehicles.
The British Government’s key 2018 publication The Road to Zero stated that EVs “have substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions than conventional vehicles, even when taking into account the electricity source and the electricity used for battery production. Assuming the current UK energy mix, battery electric vehicles produce the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of all the energy sources and fuels assessed, irrespective of vehicle type and operation.”11
The Road to Zero estimated that in 2018 an EV car in the UK currently has total [i.e. whole life cycle] associated greenhouse gas emissions 66% lower than a petrol car and 60% lower than a diesel car.
It also estimated that by 2050 emissions from UK electricity generation would fall by 90% because renewables will dominate generation, and that the emissions associated with EV use will fall in parallel.
Right, I'm going to ask a question about electric cars, has anyone here either got one, or has driven one? I have no experience of them personally, but I have been told that they are extremely difficult to control the speed of when you are driving them. A friend of a friend claimed that they had been told by someone who has a Tesla that it was hard to control the speed of it, claiming that felt like the motor was either full power or no power with almost nothing in between. My question is, is this sort of correct? Logic tells me that it can't be, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to be on the road?
In Sweden, as in Norway, we're doing our electricity from water, wind, sun and boiling water by neutron bowling. An EV charged from our ...from Megawatt Valley (the likes of Drax, Ferrybridge and Eggborough)...
Diesel cars were considered cleaner when the main concerns were CO2 and lead emissions. They were cleaner in that respect. A diesel engined car 15 to 30 years ago produced a LOT less CO2 than the same petrol model.
When you consider NOx and particulates it's not such a clear picture. A direct injection turbocharged petrol engine will now produce less CO2 than a modern diesel with adblue and DPF but may actually produce more particulates ans NOx depening how the cars are driven.
The push for electric and hybrid vehicles is from governments who have signed up to global reductions on CO2 emissions. Electric cars and "zero carbon" electricity are big part of the effort. However converting Drax to wood pellets is not really zero carbon, it just meets the agreed political definitions. That is a whole other can of worms.
Full disclosure: I'm pro nuclear power and drive a plug-in hybrid (bought second hand and gets me to and from work on a charge that I can do for free at work)
I do know that there are many ways of looking at it, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that to produce a running car and get it into the showroom, the electric car at that point is by all accounts that read and heard about is not the greenest at all. It might well end up being greener at a certain point in its life, but there are so many factors at play here that I refuse to be drawn one way or the other.
That's a moot point. The only basis for comparison that makes any sense is to do full life end-to-end evaluations. That means for fossil fuel vehicles starting with the crude oil in the ground, and all the processes involved in making and transporting the fuel and the vehicle, operating it over a realistic normal lifetime and disposing of it at the end of that life. For a electric vehicle doing the same process, making the vehicle, making and transporting the electricity for it, operating it and the final disposal.
Talking about just one bit or the other of the full life cycle of the vehicle and its fuel allows too many opportunities for people to cherry-pick their arguments.Isn't that more or less what I have said, but with one important differance, you're bringing into the equation the oil production and the continued operating costs throughout the cars life. I was only looking at the energy used to produce the total car, and transport it to the car showroom. From that point on I said that it could well be greener once it leaves the showroom, but that has yet to be proven either way.
There's no point in just talking about what it costs environmentally just to get the car to the showroom. It's a vehicle, not an ornament that's going to sit on the mantelpiece and do nothing. Looking at the manufacturing aspect in isolation makes no sense. If it doesn't have to be a practical vehicle that does practical work then obviously a nicely painted model of a car with no working engine or running gear would be the greenest of all. (This is obviously reductio-ad-absurdem, but that's a fitting comparison for any argument that treats a car's environment costs only up until just before the point it is put into use.)
As to the unsupported assertion that the jury's still out on the whole issue of which is greener:EV whole lifecycle impact
Vehicle ‘lifecycle analyses’ - which take account of all the emissions right the way from the mining of ores, the manufacture of vehicles and batteries, and in-use energy consumption of petrol, diesel or electricity - show large overall CO2 savings for EVs compared to conventional vehicles.
The British Government’s key 2018 publication The Road to Zero stated that EVs “have substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions than conventional vehicles, even when taking into account the electricity source and the electricity used for battery production. Assuming the current UK energy mix, battery electric vehicles produce the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of all the energy sources and fuels assessed, irrespective of vehicle type and operation.”11
The Road to Zero estimated that in 2018 an EV car in the UK currently has total [i.e. whole life cycle] associated greenhouse gas emissions 66% lower than a petrol car and 60% lower than a diesel car.
It also estimated that by 2050 emissions from UK electricity generation would fall by 90% because renewables will dominate generation, and that the emissions associated with EV use will fall in parallel.