Forum menu
It is true that EVs have their problems, but technology is at least as likely to engineer solutions to building recyclable and more efficient batteries than to make more efficient electrolysis and fuel cell systems.
At least as likely - I don't necessarily agree, but in any case it's not an either / or.
It is also quite possible in the long term we will have a method of producing as much low cost renewable electricity as we want and perhaps then H2 may be more generally used. But I’ll be long dead before then and I think we should start saving the planet a bit sooner than than.
Me too. But as well as saving the planet we need to keep it saved, and on paper at least using infinite sources of solar or wind power to generate renewable fuel in new electrolysis plants that starts as water and ends up as water sounds like a better long term solution than other finite resources needed for batteries. And if we don't start on that, we'll never reach it.
My opinion is that since every non-CO2 power generation option (wind onshore, wind off shore, solar, nuclear) provokes fierce of resistance from one section of the population or the other we will have trouble getting enough green power for all our EVs and for our future domestic heating heat pumps, without the problem of needing even more green power for H2.
That's not a technical problem, it's a political one and could be solved overnight. That of course is a massive oversimplification but if legislatively we decided to approve as many wind and solar farms as we need, there's enough wind and sun to last forever. Or at least, when the sun runs out and we can't generate electricity from it any more then the solar system and planet is ****ed anyway.
BMW supporting Hydrogen
I am sure you did not mean to use that phrase to imply BMW had switched from EVs to H2.
BMW say in the article that "Hydrogen remains an important alternative . . we have a fleet of hydrogen cars out testing and why we’re working intensively on improving the technology further".
At the same time as testing a few H2 cars, just last year 2023 BMW supplied 376,183 all-electric cars. So while they "support" H2 by keeping involved in it as an alternative , it is clear that for the foreseeable future BMW is all about the change over from ICEs to electric vehicles.
No of course not. Again you snipped out the highly relevant bit about it being a massive oversimplification, and while politicians go around in 5 year terms trying to keep the public sufficiently onside to be allowed another 5 year term then no, that choice won't get made.
But you could pass legislation to remove planning constraints on wind farms in a few weeks if you wanted to is what i mean.
When it is that same clean energy can be used to create clean hydrogen which can be stored and doesn’t require batteries made from unpleasant and non recyclable materials.
The link above explains that Lithium isn’t as dirty as fossil fuel extraction. Also, once it’s in the eco-system, it can be reused, unlike fossil fuels. . Like titanium, it’s valuable enough to be worth the effort.
Hydrogen also requires substantial energy to produce, even more to compress, vast amounts more to keep as a liquid and enormous amounts of energy to move it around. It’s also damaging to the environment when it’s released, which happens all the time due to boil off and leakage.
you have to store it as a liquid as the space requirements to support even a single aspect of transportation would be so vast, it would make the idea of 1000km2 of solar panels look like a good idea.
Hydrogen will be part of the solution, but it will be made near to where it’s used. Offshore wind, access to water, gas turbine or SOFC generators, the very last thing you want to do is move it.
I work in aerospace research and we’re looking at this in depth and trust me, it’s bloody difficult. At least for power generation, it’s all on the ground so cast iron pumps (one of the only materials which works okay over long periods when subject to LH2) isn’t so much of an issue.
Oh, and round trip efficiency for a typical lithium ion battery is 92-96%. When you add thermal control to that, it rises by a couple of %. Anything that moves electrons around is pretty efficient.
Look at Airbus Zephyr. Solar powered high altitude pseudo satellite. Using only solar power, lithium sulphur batteries and electric motors, it can stay airborne and on station for ~90days. All the while surveying the ground and relaying comms. Charging and climbing through the day, descending slowly at night. You couldn’t do that with hydrogen or FF.
Solar, wind and batteries work and they work really bloody well. We just need to find a solution for when it’s neither sunny nor windy and that’s where hydrogen comes in.
I work with research engineers who are spending huge amounts of time and money looking for a viable battery. Until then it’s not viable. I agree they are better than fossil fuels but that’s a long way from a sustainable answer. Batteries are still dependent on digging up rare earth minerals which by definition finite and limited
And recyclable?
And recyclable?
Yes.
But (and I genuinely don't know) is there enough of the materials needed to be able to create the future battery requirements for an ever more industrialized planet. Not just the major western nations but for every car worldwide to be an EV? And is it accessible enough to be mined and refined cleanly, etc.
Lithium isn’t particularly rare. Nor do you actually need a lot of it. It’s the anode and cathode materials that’re rare earth and they’re already being reduced.
You need on average only 8kg of Lithium for an average EV. There’s estimated to be between 88 and 190million tonnes of lithium on land and in the ocean. 22 million tonnes of that is easily accessible, which equates to 2.8bn typical EVs. There are currently 1.4bn vehicles on the planet.
We’ve already established that lithium extraction is dirty, but not as dirty as FF. Further, we’ve established that at current energy mixes an EV will pay for its environmental footprint in two/three years. This will then reduce emissions and this number will become even more positive over time as the grid becomes more green (we did 6months last year (4000miles) just using our solar for charging) Finally we’ve determined that it’s easily resourceable with current reserves. None of the above even considers recycling.
EVs are valid right now. Battery research is currently looking to improve upon what we have but that’s no reason at all not to start down the road. It works.
Its just another greenwash. We use far to much energy moving individuals around in 2 tonne metal boxes. EV, petrol or hydrogen makes little differnce - its all energy usage and all means more fossil fuels burnt
the H2 market isn’t really about todays world. It is really aimed at 3-5+ years down the line
The people on the thread who are looking at facts and stats agree that batteries are so much more efficient that much more generation would be needed to make hydrogen a viable alternative. And that hydrogen needs to be produced with renewable electricity. In Germany , BMW's home, about 2/3 is rewable. It's rising slowly but having the kind of surplus that would make hydrogen viable is 30-50 years away rather than 3-5.
Only at the tailpipe - not overall all as every bit of electricity used in an EV ( most of the time) comes from fossil fuel burning
Check out the EV thread, TJ, the vast majority of users charge at night when in the UK at least the majority of electrictiy is renewable. Even in Germany the electricity is only 1/3 fossil and in Germany there's even more incentive to charge at night.
In France there are a few very high demand days when most of the extra is from gas or coal, they're announced on the news a few days before, I make sure I have a full battery going into those days. Living where I do I doubt my EV is charges with anything other than nuclear or renewable except when I charge on a long journey during the day.
The Japanees cars and new R5 which allow people to use the car to power the house can do even more to reduce demand for fossil fuel electricity. You can program them to charge to say 90% over night but return 20% to teh grid before you go to work to help with peak deamnd. plug in when you return from work and the grid will take power then return it overnight to reach you 90% max charge and 70% available when you go to work.
edukator - and unless there is a surplus of renewables ( which does happen sometimes) the electricity used in EVs comes from fossil fuels as increasing fossil fuel generation is the only way to increase output
Demand management is good - but fiddling around the edges.
They are still hugely inefficient ways of moving folk around. Thats the real issue.
Only at the tailpipe – not overall all as every bit of electricity used in an EV ( most of the time) comes from fossil fuel burning
Only when you employ creative and somewhat absurd accounting techniques trying to score a point you never will.
Its just another greenwash. We use far to much energy moving individuals around in 2 tonne metal boxes. EV, petrol or hydrogen makes little differnce – its all energy usage and all means more fossil fuels burnt
Not really greenwash, yes we should be a huge push to move away from car dependency but also look for alternatives fossil fuels for vehicles.
I work with research engineers who are spending huge amounts of time and money looking for a viable battery. Until then it’s not viable
It’s very viable, they can be recycled but yes there is are better alternatives to provide more range, faster charging and easier production.
Only when you employ creative and somewhat absurd accounting techniques trying to score a point you never will.
Actually its the EV enthusiasts that do this. You conveniently forget that making EVs is highly polluting - that much of the time the electricity comes from fossil fuel burning as renewables are maxed out and that nuclear and renewables are not zero carbon
EVs do reduce pollution yes - but they are the wrong answer to the wrong question. We need to stop using so much energy to move folk around.
The green car is the one that does not exist and is not used
That's interesting Daffy, thanks. Still a bit concerning though in the timeframes we are talking....
there are 1.4Bn cars on the planet right now and (while I agree with TJ that we should be reducing reliance on them) demand will increase overall as more countries industrialise - what is car ownership per capita in China, India, Philippines, Brazil, a lot of Africa, etc.
Most of them are ICE (26M EV currently, I looked up) and if in a future state we remove FF for other types, that's a lot of batteries needed to replace even the stock we have. Enough for 2.8Bn from accessible Lithium is 'only' two rounds of EV batteries. Of course recycling, and of course technology will improve and of course there is more to be extracted from inaccessible places - but I'm not seeing an answer to this sum that's making me think in the long term there's no issue. That's just on availability, let alone how dirty extraction is, for Li or other rare earth metals.
@TJ, a large part of the last couple of pages has been on whether / when we can be entirely sufficient on renewables. Ed's graph and post says 30-50 years, with the right intent and political support that could be (a lot) sooner. Even then 30 years is 'in my lifetime' sort of timescales and so I consider that still medium term. In the long term - my kids and grandkid's timescales - then I believe that will happen and electricity will be so abundant that the equations balance.
That's not to say - 'ah don't worry about it then, we'll find a solution eventually' - I want my grandkids to live on a hospitable planet, not some fiery hellhole but where they can have and EV or HV that's economical. So yes, we do need action now and that's why I think both EV and HV continue to be worth investment and development, and why politicians need to act sooner to drive that investment and development AND to force the hand by removing obstacles.
And so another thread ruined - diverted from the actual topic and a constructive discussion into pointless arguments, nit pickiness and point scoring - by the usual suspects.
Sigh.
https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix
In Summer the fossil part often drops to zero and in Winter at night the only fossil plants still running are the ones with long start up and shut down times. If I charged now I'd be using gas ( 7% of the mix, coal 1%) but the charge finished 05:00 when the only fossil was the coal plant ticking over because they couldn't turn it off, that in statistically the coldest week of the year.
In the late 1700/ early 1800's, slavery provided all the power we needed to do the things we wanted to do. Steam engines were around, and had some uses as an alternative technology but development was slow. We'd have got there in the end but at what cost in the meantime. Some visionary folks said that something had to be done and against the odds turned a massive tide that led to slavery being abolished DESPITE the issues that was causing - because it was the right thing to do.
That created a massive stimulus and the speed of development of engines and the industrial revolution happened (the irony that the IR is what now leads to greenhouse gases and global warming but stick with it)
If we banned all ICE cars from 2030 or 2035, then the development of the technologies needed would speed up hugely. All the barriers to windfarms would come down. There's a massive tide to swim against, just like Wilberforce had but there is already line of sight to the solution. We aren't staring at a blank piece of paper thinking 'I don't know' - we know, pretty much exactly what the solution looks like, we just need to colour in the sketch.
Over simplifies, there's a lot of hard and clever work in that but it will happen, and with the right stimulus it could happen a lot faster.
As for alternatives to the private car, TJ,there are routes from teh suburbs into Pau which are really well served by the bus and train network and have pretty good cycle paths. I rarely see more than half a dozen utility cyclists on the cycle path coming the other way as I ride out of town in th emorning (many more joggers and dog walkers), the buses run nearly empty and there's a continuous stream of cars I can ride faster than if I turn round. Any gtovernment that ries to change that won't last a month.
Macron tried a few very minor dissasive measures and it was a big diesel driving woman on social media who reacted by starting the gilets jaunes which ended with a U-turn and fuel tax reductions. You are right with what needs to be done, now you have to persuade millions to walk to the nearset public transport, wait in the cold and rain, get on when it eventually arrives late if it hasn't been cancelled because the driver has a cold, put up with anti-socail behaviour for the time of the journey, get off, change because most journeys will need a change so you now need a second driver who doesn't have a cold or a hangover, get coughed and sennzed on, eventually get off and then walk (God forbid) to your destination. I use public transport (maybe more than you do despite owing a car) it's often a grim experience. The alternative: walk 10m to the garage, get into a pre-warmed EV, chose which radio sation to listen to, get wafted by the machine to the doorstep of my destination whilst breathing air that's been through a particle filter. Y a pas photo. 🙁
Interesting thread this one.
The renwable source that is glaringly absent from the discussion is tidal. Can someone with a better knowledge please let me know why, as a nation, we are no doing more to generate our electricity from tidal?
I get that a tidal stream system, some sort of subsea turbine, is more expensive to make, install, maintain, and porobably has a shorter life span than a wind turbine.
And a tidal height system, some sort of barage, will have an ecological effect.
But it's the predicability of it. At anytime of the day or night, the tidal stream is flowing around the UK, it doesn't just wash in and out. High water and low water are in a cycle, literally, moving clockwise/anticlockwise, swinging around our islands. Future tidal calculations are accurate and only effected slightly by weather, and even this can be accounted for.
My point being, yes, tidal power might be a less cost effective renewable solution, but surely the ability to generate a large amount of power on a predictable schedule offsets this?
When I was working on a offshore windfarm, I had this dicussion with the Client Rep who was on our ship. Cynically, he said that the power companies are not keen on tidal systems as they can't be seen, and therefore harder to promote as a green alternative. They love their marketting!
Less cycnically I worked with the guy who had done a lot of the impact assessment of the Avonmouth tidal barrier project decades ago ; the list of headaches was long, too long. Creating a brackish water swamp which will silt up being the main one. The Durance one in France works but it has impacted many aspects of life along the river for not very much electricity.
A French state funded underwater turbine project destined to take advange of tidal currents was abandonned a few years back:
https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2018/qSEQ180906729.html
TJ - you are talking nonsense and using incorrect data. I'm on 100% renewables , end of story, and europe will go that way. Why? In the long term, cost and price., There are teething problems, and a complete solution isn't there yet, but ultimately the OPEX of renewables compared to fossil generation will get you there, compared to continually burning expensive stuff.
Plus no one has come up with a way to make the battery green, or even recycle them once they are useless for powering a vehicle
And cost will make this happen as well. They can obvs. be recycled , but historically it hasn't been done as there haven't been any large batteries to recycle, so ...
or even recycle them once they are useless for powering a vehicle
A French company is recycling EV batteries. Having validated the process they've opened a pilot factory. 99% of the metals are recovered and 70% of the lithium:
Edit: I see you've edited, wbo, you corrected your error whilst I was typing the response and finding the vid. 🙂
One thing to remember is it's not all about CO2
If I remember my chemistry correctly, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. So if there is a demand for hydrogen, which can be made from methane, will we see an increase the capture of methane from industry emissions, as it is an in demand commidity?
If I remember my chemistry correctly, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Between 20 and 100 times more potent, depending on where in the atmosphere, time scale and which report you read.
And pretty much every manufacturer of EVs or EV batteries is investing heavily in recycling/reuse/reclamation of used cells.
Even completely shagged cells (WCA's leaf for example) would work well in a domestic storage role. Will still produce more power than a house could even use. Even with a welder and/or three phase...
If I remember my chemistry correctly, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. So if there is a demand for hydrogen, which can be made from methane, will we see an increase the capture of methane from industry emissions, as it is an in demand commidity?
Probably not,
a) "industrial" emissions are already tightly regulated, other large emitters like landfill sites and sewage treatment are better than they were 30-40 years ago (e.g. well managed landfill is now capped with soil overnight and once filled the top is covered in a membrane and the gas collected and used as fuel rather than just vent) the other large emitters are livestock and silage / manure treatment.
b) It's always been in demand, it's the main component of "gas" as in the stuff that fires your cooker/boiler.
TBH electric cars and hydrogen are really just solutions being presented by car manufacturer lobbying groups and get siezed on by people who don't want to face changing their behaviors now.
"Why should I change my behavior now, if I just keep driving for the next 30-100 years there'll be flying hydrogen* cars like Blade Runner".
"No I've never actually seen Blade Runner and wasn't aware the whole premise of the film was an ecological collapse and that it was basically Mad Max but we invented hydrogen powered flying cars"
*I don't think this is cannon, but they do explode on impact so lets assume it's some sort of flammable fuel.
For anyone wanting to debate the wider renewables energy source and solutions - please, read this as it addresses a lot of the topics being brought up by several people on the thread in a factual, data based manner. It's freely available as a PDF download and written by David MacKay FRS -Regius Professor of Engineering at the University of Cambridge.
https://www.withouthotair.com/
It looks at the various options for energy sources and usage, and (spoiler alert) concludes that the solution needs to be a mix of various sources and usage models - at the time of writing he concluded that Nuclear needed to be part of the mix but of course things change.
TJ – you are talking nonsense and using incorrect data. I’m on 100% renewables , end of story,
Aye right - and where do you get your power from in a winter high pressure event - when its cold, little solar, little wind
TBH electric cars and hydrogen are really just solutions being presented by car manufacturer lobbying groups and get siezed on by people who don’t want to face changing their behaviors now.
this
This is why we have now hit 1.5C global warming , 2 C is now baked in and 3Cplus is looking likely as no one will take the action needed
https://www.withouthotair.com/
/blockquote>Yes it’s an excellent book by someone who knows what he’s talking about, rather than some bloke on You Tube with an opinion.
Isn't this just capitalism at work?
Everyone agrees that the age of the ICE is coming to and end, like the horse powered era 100-120 years ago everyone realised that the future wasn't horse shaped, but what shape it would be was still up for grabs. For a while it looked like it was going to be steam driven...Same thing here; which system the public like won't necessarily be the most efficient or 'best' it'll be the one that they go for...Whoever has that market (like the Model T) will make a killing...That's what's happening here. It's most likely going to be EVs but there's an outside chance that it won't, so have that "something else" ready to go...JIC
Place your bets
Aye right – and where do you get your power from in a winter high pressure event – when its cold, little solar, little wind
Drax burning imported Canadian spruce obviously.
The other big problem with these so-called green tariffs is they don't really work. The principle is you pay a bit extra for the certificates that come with the green energy to say this was yours*. The problem is that market isn't competitive, it adds about £2.50 to an annual bill so isn't really necessary. Renewable supply outstrips demand for renewables.
Then you hit the real problem that if you've ticked the box that says "my energy is renewable" then you're probably mentally no longer bothered by the ~1.5tonnes of CO2 your house produces per person each year, because it's not producing CO2 is it? Obviously it's not, you ticked the right box. It's that poorer family down the road on the cheap pre-pay meter, they need to get their act together. Doesn't matter that they don't have a car, use less energy because they can't afford to have the heating at 21C, and don't go abroad for their holidays. You're green because your on a green tariff, it charges your Tesla so that's green too right? And then you can justify a few flights a year with all that carbon you've saved.
*it's a hypothetical you not explicitly aimed at the quoted poster, a greenwashing straw man
Only at the tailpipe – not overall all as every bit of electricity used in an EV ( most of the time) comes from fossil fuel burning
Wrong - this is the UKs electrical energy mix for the last year. 66% renewable. Once you include the typical 2.5-4GW transfer from France (80% nuclear) and Norway (hydro), the % of non-co2 emissions is above 75%. I'm sorry to break this to you TJ, but EVs are sustainable and so long as renewable generation and storage capacity is matched to EV (and ASHP) uptake, it will just get better.
Renewables are not zero co2 but lower as is nuclear
Yes those numbers are right - but whaty you miss is that renewables are maxed out most of the time - shortfall is made up by fossil fuels. So increase demand and ( much of the time) that increased demand is supplied by fossil fuels as nuclear and renewables are maxed out.
Obviously on a windy day when renewables are not maxed out more turbines can be turned on. But the reality is that most of increased demand caused by EVs comes from fossil fuels
Daffy - what about that winter high pressure event? Pretty common. What renewables are you getting then?
but EVs are sustainable and so long as renewable generation and storage capacity is matched to EV (and ASHP) uptake, it will just get better.
Storage We have a few hours in the UK - a winter high pressure event can last weeks
Renewable generation - again - what about when the wind does not blow?
I agree that if those two things are met then yes EVs would be lower ( not zero) carbon and an improvement ( but still not sustainable) over ICEs
NOw how are you going to meet those two conditions?
Yes those numbers are right – but whaty you miss is that renewables are maxed out most of the time – shortfall is made up by fossil fuels. So increase demand and ( much of the time) that increased demand is supplied by fossil fuels as nuclear and renewables are maxed out.
Obviously on a windy day when renewables are not maxed out more turbines can be turned on. But the reality is that most of increased demand caused by EVs comes from fossil fuels
Daffy – what about that winter high pressure event? Pretty common. What renewables are you getting then?
Who gives a flying f*ck about individual events that happen seasonally? Burn gas for those until hydrogen (which most gas turbines can burn at a 50% mix right now) comes online. On AVERAGE, you're looking at a near 75% (minimum) reduction in emissions during the in life phase of use.
Everyone that's driving an EV right now in the UK is reducing their in-life emissions by 90% compared to a FF car based on 2023 data. That's part due to the energy mix (75%) and part due to the burning products of gasoline vs natural gas (15%) as per unit of energy, you get 20% more Co2 from petrol, than from gas.
Assuming you ignore the co2 from making them and the shortened lifespan of EVs because batteries degrade much faster than fossils fuel tanks