Electric Cars - Saviours of our environment or just another fad?

Too late to edit but the same report shows that 94% of car journeys in the UK are under 25 miles and 56% are under 5 miles so plenty of scope there even with current technology.

Don

Given that you are a pilot - why did you not rent a plane for your trans Canadian journeys

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...y-senior-merkel-aide

I remain baffled by the inability of the mainstream makers (and Don) to see the game-changer that electric vehicles represents.

Since you quote a German politician, I'd like to report that in 2010 the German government planned to have 1 million electric cars on the streets by 2020. That goal was missed by far and was more or less silently dropped by Merkel this year. Furthermore there is a Government fund of 1.2 billion EUR to pay every buyer of an electric car a bonus of about 3000 to 4000 euros, depending on the specific kind of electric engine. So far only 5000 households have applied for the bonus. Apparently the Germans don't like electric cars.

A large part of the German population (like myself) lives in flats, often without associated parking places for the cars. Many people would need to have their car fully charged in the morning when commuting 50 km or more to the office (considering the range of the smaller EVs). Public charging stations are scarce and accounting is difficult and inconsistent due to complex business models (there are companies that own the charging stations, companies that sell the electric power and companies that produce it).  So I wonder if one is supposed to carry the 300kg or so battery into the flat every night for recharging or run hundred meters of power cable across the sidewalks to the car?

Add to that that electric cars are way more expensive then fuel driven cars, that the longevity of the batteries is unknown and that batteries are not very friendly to the environment either.

My bet, like that of others in thread here, is on hydrogen driven cars. 

OTOH, pedelecs are booming in Germany. I have one myself now and it's an almost ideal way to get to work (10 km distance). And I can conveniently carry the battery into the flat for recharging. 

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...y-senior-merkel-aide

I remain baffled by the inability of the mainstream makers (and Don) to see the game-changer that electric vehicles represents.

From the subsequent posts it seems it's not just me (and the mainstream makers) who are baffling you, winky.

Now my plan to stay over in Chilliwack was changed. So today I wound up leaving Vernon at 07:00 and driving to Vancouver 450 km away for my 12:00 meeting. No problem in the CRV. A quick 15 min stop at Hope to stretch the legs and top-up the fuel to make sure I avoid the pricey stuff in Vancouver. It would need about 50 to 100 recharge points to service the cars I saw, with people spending 45 mins rather than 15. Park in the Sutton Place underground and note there are TWO electric recharge points. If they weren't occupied I guess I could have recharged an electric vehicle, but they were occupied when I arrived. But TWO chargers.......they need more like 102.......  and a 500 km range for a 450 km journey is pushing your luck IMHO.

Meeting over and on my way out of town by 14:30 with another 15 min stop at Hope and back in Vernon in time for supper by 19:30.

Tomorrow, about 600 km to Canmore.

Now I don't do journeys like these too often. So, do I hire  a petrol vehicle for these "special" occasions or do I need two cars, one for the local journeys and the other in reserve for the big ones.

Nah, I'll stick with the CRV for the time being.

Will BC Hydro be able to cope if we all changed to all-electric cars ? Or would they need to import French/Chinese nuclear stations ?

 

The amount of driving you do sounds miserable. 

So if there were more electric cars we would need more places to charge them? Thanks, Captain Obvious.

Just pointing out that the infrastructure isn't in place at the moment to adequately cope with the few cars that ARE on the roads. At present, it just doesn't make sense for most of us to have an all-electric car. 

Will the infrastructure lag behind or simply stunt the growth ? I' m not sure. Who is going to invest in the additional power generation and distribution. 

And will it continue to be economical once the tax revenue gets adjusted.

Many were presumably sceptical regarding the uptake of gasoline burning cars. After all, their horses could just refuel along the trail.

Derek Wright posted:

Don

Given that you are a pilot - why did you not rent a plane for your trans Canadian journeys

Good question.

I often do. But the runway here in Vernon is being re-surfaced so the airfield is closed until 31st August.

I had planned to stay with friends en-route and the car would have been more convenient for that. 

Ditto for Canmore. Springbank is the nearest airfield about 50 km away, but then I would need to rent a car to get to/from our hiking areas.

Planes are useful and I shall be using one in September, but the CRV is incredibly versatile. Even more so than an electric car. It can do a 600 km journey, followed by lots of 50 - 100 km journeys then another 600 km journey. And if necessary, I can put an extra 20 gallons of "go-juice" in a jerry can and do an even longer, more remote journey.

As I said earlier, I have about a year of experience with two electric cars. They are not for me. But others with that sort of experience might have decided otherwise.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...y-senior-merkel-aide

I remain baffled by the inability of the mainstream makers (and Don) to see the game-changer that electric vehicles represents.

From the subsequent posts it seems it's not just me (and the mainstream makers) who are baffling you, winky.

Now my plan to stay over in Chilliwack was changed. So today I wound up leaving Vernon at 07:00 and driving to Vancouver 450 km away for my 12:00 meeting. No problem in the CRV. A quick 15 min stop at Hope to stretch the legs and top-up the fuel to make sure I avoid the pricey stuff in Vancouver. It would need about 50 to 100 recharge points to service the cars I saw, with people spending 45 mins rather than 15. Park in the Sutton Place underground and note there are TWO electric recharge points. If they weren't occupied I guess I could have recharged an electric vehicle, but they were occupied when I arrived. But TWO chargers.......they need more like 102.......  and a 500 km range for a 450 km journey is pushing your luck IMHO.

Meeting over and on my way out of town by 14:30 with another 15 min stop at Hope and back in Vernon in time for supper by 19:30.

Tomorrow, about 600 km to Canmore.

Now I don't do journeys like these too often. So, do I hire  a petrol vehicle for these "special" occasions or do I need two cars, one for the local journeys and the other in reserve for the big ones.

Nah, I'll stick with the CRV for the time being.

Will BC Hydro be able to cope if we all changed to all-electric cars ? Or would they need to import French/Chinese nuclear stations ?

 

The amount of driving you do sounds miserable. 

So if there were more electric cars we would need more places to charge them? Thanks, Captain Obvious.

Just pointing out that the infrastructure isn't in place at the moment to adequately cope with the few cars that ARE on the roads. At present, it just doesn't make sense for most of us to have an all-electric car. 

Will the infrastructure lag behind or simply stunt the growth ? I' m not sure. Who is going to invest in the additional power generation and distribution. 

 

Must have been a challenge in the early days of motor cars with petrol engines, but a network of petrol stations was developed. I guess that infrastructure would be likely to be a lot quicker to match up to demand these days.

Possibly. But I'm not convinced. Building new power generation/distribution doesn't happen overnight.

Instead of recharging the batteries it would be quicker to exchange them for fully charged batteries. Just saying.

Dozey posted:

Instead of recharging the batteries it would be quicker to exchange them for fully charged batteries. Just saying.

No kidding. There isn't the demand for this yet, though.

Don Atkinson posted:

Building new power generation/distribution doesn't happen overnight.

Thanks again, Captain Obvious.

Don Atkinson posted:

As I said earlier, I have about a year of experience with two electric cars. They are not for me. But others with that sort of experience might have decided otherwise.

Your "experience" is perhaps limited by your cynicism. You admit you don't even know what model the Tesla is. Have you driven it more than once or twice?

Oh, it's a Model S. what I don't know for sure is which battery it has, but I assume it's similar to yours on the basis that it claims to be capable of c. 400km when fully charged. So this would make it their top-of-the range I guess ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Oh, it's a Model S. what I don't know for sure is which battery it has, but I assume it's similar to yours on the basis that it claims to be capable of c. 400km when fully charged. So this would make it their top-of-the range I guess ?

The  Model S100D now claims around 600km, depending on use. Real world range likely between 450-500km. I'd agree that for regular long distance drives it wouldn't be most people's first choice. But electric cars can certainly do those sorts of trips and are only getting better. For the vast majority of motoring that people do they are already more than adequate. Round here, I suspect that electric vehicles (which are extremely common) may be, in many cases, the household's second car. With the vast majority of households having AT LEAST 2 cars, electric vehicles for half of the total on the road seems easily practical.

I've never seen a complete assessment of electric vs fuel cars.  I know the rare earths that make the batteries are limited and big price for gouging it out of the earth.  Plus the cost of electricity, either at home or a charging station, often comes from big power stations fouling the air.  In 2012 I had to buy a car, I went with the redesigned Ford Focus hatchback gas engine.  I didn't want a hybrid tho I only test drove 2 and had been in a few others.  Now in retirement I don't drive much, but it is so much fun in my Focus getting 31MPG average. 

mudwolf posted:

I've never seen a complete assessment of electric vs fuel cars.  I know the rare earths that make the batteries are limited and big price for gouging it out of the earth.  Plus the cost of electricity, either at home or a charging station, often comes from big power stations fouling the air.  In 2012 I had to buy a car, I went with the redesigned Ford Focus hatchback gas engine.  I didn't want a hybrid tho I only test drove 2 and had been in a few others.  Now in retirement I don't drive much, but it is so much fun in my Focus getting 31MPG average. 

My mathematics show that the GHG emissions for an electric vehicle, charged with electricity generated by burning Alberta coal for power, are about the same as for a conventional engine. I had access to some good data as part of a GHG project we were working on (I'm a consulting engineer). If your electricity is generated by pretty-much anything else, then you're better off with an electric car.

It is my view that the issues around rare earths is overstated.

The major component, lithium is actually plentiful and readily mined. The current major source where it is derived from evaporation of salars in the high Atacama does have a  detrimental effect on the scarce groundwater in the region and will likely phase out. It will be replaced by conventional mining. Some other rare earths that are used in NiMH batteries (used in test-cheating "plug-in" hybrids) and in the powerful rare-earth magnets used for some motors are not used in Teslas (as best I can tell). Tesla's Li-ion Batteries can, in theory at least, be recycled if the economics dictate it. The vast majority of batteries ever put into Teslas are still in use and still under warranty, so it hasn't yet been a real issue.

Isn't that Tessla guy developing a Mars rocket, so he can mine NiMH.

I can't see battery powered rockets taking off.

Thanks Winky. I'm sure you know the right stuff.  Most of the articles seem to compare milage and emissions but don't take in the whole scope of the issue.  Out here in the Palm Springs desert we have a huge wind farm they aren't always working but PS doesn't benefit from it, we get our electricity back from SoCal Edison which encompasses the San Onofre Nuclear facility on the coast that has been a boondogle with one of the reactors out of commission and can't be fixed. I think LA now has converted from coal to LNG power plant.

 Lots of houses here are going solar, I can't since I'm on a golf course and far ranging balls would be a disaster, plus I'm in a prefab mobile home, light weight construction.  Tho there was one salesman that has been around  a couple of times, my neighbor said it just doesn't make sense for 3 months of the year .  

mudwolf posted:

Thanks Winky. I'm sure you know the right stuff.  Most of the articles seem to compare milage and emissions but don't take in the whole scope of the issue.  Out here in the Palm Springs desert we have a huge wind farm they aren't always working but PS doesn't benefit from it, we get our electricity back from SoCal Edison which encompasses the San Onofre Nuclear facility on the coast that has been a boondogle with one of the reactors out of commission and can't be fixed. I think LA now has converted from coal to LNG power plant.

 Lots of houses here are going solar, I can't since I'm on a golf course and far ranging balls would be a disaster, plus I'm in a prefab mobile home, light weight construction.  Tho there was one salesman that has been around  a couple of times, my neighbor said it just doesn't make sense for 3 months of the year .  

LNG has about 60% of the lifecycle GHG emission per unit of power generated compared to coal. My numbers for whole lifecycle costs are 1,022 tonnes per GWh for coal and 622 tonnes per GWh for LNG. Everything else is much, much lower. For a 100kwh Tesla model S charged with electricity generated from burning coal, the specific emissions are 27.2 kg CO2 per 100km, assuming 500km of driving out of a full 100kwh charge and an assumed charging efficiency of 75%. For comparison, a 2017 BMW 540i gets ~25mpg or 9.4 l/100km in the real world. This equates to a specific emission of 27.7 kg CO2 per 100km. The Tesla, if using electricity from burning LNG gets 16.6 kg per 100km. If your power is renewable or nuclear, then the Tesla has virtually no attributable GHG emissions.

Best to stick with the nuclear or hydro options for comparisons, until we figure out how to store wind and solar.

And yes, I appreciate that Tesla batteries are, of themselves, part of the storage system.

Not sure how Mrs D's C 220, doing 60mpg+ (average) and lasting an estimated 30 years works out. If I drive it at a reasonably steady 60 mph, I get over 70mpg.

Admittedly, the E Class isn't quite as frugal. But I understand that more recent cars get even better mpg.

Just so long as you don't take cars with Stuart engines (usually wrongly called Diesel engines) into cities where they cause excessive pollution from NOx.

Don Atkinson posted:

Best to stick with the nuclear or hydro options for comparisons, until we figure out how to store wind and solar.

And yes, I appreciate that Tesla batteries are, of themselves, part of the storage system.

Not sure how Mrs D's C 220, doing 60mpg+ (average) and lasting an estimated 30 years works out. If I drive it at a reasonably steady 60 mph, I get over 70mpg.

Admittedly, the E Class isn't quite as frugal. But I understand that more recent cars get even better mpg.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/merc...id=&submodel_id=

You're an outlier for sure at 60+ mpg. Well done. 35 mpg to 45 mpg seem to cover the vast majority of real-world consumption for diesel C220s according to this website. Of course, the C-class is quite a small car and is perhaps better compared to a Model 3 Tesla, rather than a Model S. The Model 3 looks like it has 25% less GHG emissions than a Model S. The C220 at 60+ mpg it is probably still lower in GHG, but of course that's not really a fair comparison. The C220 is an extremely slow car (especially when driven to deliver 60+ mpg) compared to even a base-model Tesla Model 3 which is more in the performance class of the new C43 AMG or C63 AMG models which, of course get nothing like that fuel economy.

The storage problem for renewables, like the electrical distribution problems for charging are ones that arise gradually as uptake of electric vehicles continues, and as renewables take greater and greater shares of the energy market. Investment will follow demand. Up to a certain market penetration, storage of renewable energy is essentially in the form of fossil fuels not burnt. for example, if a solar farm provides electricity, that the gas plant doesn't have to, during the day, the gas stays available for when it is needed at night. It's not going to be the most capital efficient solution in the long-term, but is a real thing for a while yet. (Electricity market contracts severely distort the picture in some cases - witness wind turbines being turned off during windy periods so gas-powered utilities can deliver their contracted minimums. $$ drives it all)

I am a big fan of nuclear power. It is by far the safest power source we've ever come up with. Unfortunately, poor risk assessment by voters and consequent poor policy decisions by politicians mean that we are stuck with far inferior and more dangerous solutions for the time being.

Huge posted:

Just so long as you don't take cars with Stuart engines (usually wrongly called Diesel engines) into cities where they cause excessive pollution from NOx.

Yes. It is interesting to contemplate whether, if we already all only had electric cars (at current technology levels), and someone invented gasoline and diesel-powered cars, they would ever be allowed on the road, especially in cities. The benefits of the new oil-burners would be characterised as minimal, and the downsides of the rough-running, sluggish performance, GHG emissions, farty noise and noxious air pollution would make them extremely unpopular. People would wonder who was going to pay for all the new gas stations that would be needed. And why they couldn't refuel them at home.

The UK is planning to build c. 20GW replacement nuclear power generation, over the next 20 years. IIRC.

If we convert half our cars to electric, running about 10k miles per year, that would require a further 10GW of additional power generation.

Or have I added a "Zero" or dropped a "zero" ?

Don Atkinson posted:

The UK is planning to build c. 20GW replacement nuclear power generation, over the next 20 years. IIRC.

If we convert half our cars to electric, running about 10k miles per year, that would require a further 10GW of additional power generation.

Or have I added a "Zero" or dropped a "zero" ?

All cars in the UK total about 390 billion km per year. At 4km per kwh (400km from a 100kwh of battery charge - about right for a Model S - better for smaller electric vehicles) the total energy is 97,600 Gwh. For a power station that runs 24/7 (8760 hours per year) it needs a capacity of 11.1GW. Round up for efficiency effects and shutdowns, but it seems that the 20GW nuclear plant would easily power ALL vehicles on UK roads.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The UK is planning to build c. 20GW replacement nuclear power generation, over the next 20 years. IIRC.

If we convert half our cars to electric, running about 10k miles per year, that would require a further 10GW of additional power generation.

Or have I added a "Zero" or dropped a "zero" ?

All cars in the UK total about 390 billion km per year. At 4km per kwh (400km from a 100kwh of battery charge - about right for a Model S - better for smaller electric vehicles) the total energy is 97,600 Gwh. For a power station that runs 24/7 (8760 hours per year) it needs a capacity of 11.1GW. Round up for efficiency effects and shutdowns, but it seems that the 20GW nuclear plant would easily power ALL vehicles on UK roads.

Good, so my estimated 10 GW of extra power generation is about right for HALF the UK's cars. ( which you suggested earlier was a reasonable target, given we have c.2 cars per household.)

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The UK is planning to build c. 20GW replacement nuclear power generation, over the next 20 years. IIRC.

If we convert half our cars to electric, running about 10k miles per year, that would require a further 10GW of additional power generation.

Or have I added a "Zero" or dropped a "zero" ?

All cars in the UK total about 390 billion km per year. At 4km per kwh (400km from a 100kwh of battery charge - about right for a Model S - better for smaller electric vehicles) the total energy is 97,600 Gwh. For a power station that runs 24/7 (8760 hours per year) it needs a capacity of 11.1GW. Round up for efficiency effects and shutdowns, but it seems that the 20GW nuclear plant would easily power ALL vehicles on UK roads.

Good, so my estimated 10 GW of extra power generation is about right for HALF the UK's cars. ( which you suggested earlier was a reasonable target, given we have c.2 cars per household.)

 

10 GW does almost all the mileage driven by cars. I actually think half the cars is a low target in terms of what could easily be achieved. 20GW does all cars trucks and buses with plenty to spare....