Miolgrips - what do I say then? When people are making easily disproved statements over and over again?
Electric car usage does not make any significant reduction in energy usage or co2 production overall
Well, you don’t have to actually upset people’s lifestyles, necessarily.
Yes you do - thats the point. We cannot make the major reductions in energy usage without massive changes to peoples lifestyles and people will not vote for that.
Miolgrips – what do I say then? When people are making easily disproved statements over and over again?
You say 'I'm not sure I agree that..' or 'there is actually some uncertainty over this..'
You are taking the view that it's absolutely obvious that EVs don't reduce carbon over their lifetime. However, there is a lot of debate over this and what we see on the internet is fraught with problems. All reports contain assumptions, this is necessary in a subject like this. There are lobby groups working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry that write reports with bias hidden in those assumptions, and there are reports made by people who want to support the technology that have similar bias in the opposite direction.
However there are many reports that say the lifetime CO2 of an EV is significantly lower than an ICE. But in my view there are also a few key advantages to the concept of EVs:
1. If everyone has an EV then it would be much easier to decarbonise transport usage because you can change the generation mix (which we are doing, see your own example) and the public doesn't have to do anything.
2. The EV industry will drive development of battery technology that will benefit other areas such as energy storage. I was initially doubtful of this but I am reading stories every day of developments in increasing capacity and longevity, and importantly reducing the environmental impact of battery manufacture.
3. If EVs are widespread then in the future they could well be used as electricity storage for renewable generation. This is already possible, AIUI, and it could become mainstream.
Now, don't get me wrong - I am not saying that changing to EVs will solve everything. That's absurd, of course it is. I absolutely despise car commuting, and I mourn the impact it has on our landscape and our lives. That's one reason I don't do it.
But most people hate it. But they do it because they feel there's no better option. So the discussion needs to be on how to make the other options better. I've been saying on here for a decade or more that we need to reduce the need for people to commute into offices. Yes, the pandemic did it, but we're not following up on the progress we made so now (see above) bosses are just reverting to their old ways. If working in the office is better than remote working, then make remote working better. But this kind of action requires a massive governmental shift. I don't know how to make that happen.
If everyone has an EV then it would be much easier to decarbonise transport usage
How can it when its still relying on fossil fuel generation?
Every extra kw used in an ev means another kw from fossil fuels. Wind can never cover 100% nor can PV
think of the winter high pressure events
I've just ordered some copper pipe and some sheet ally and I'm going to have a go at making a solar water heater which should sit on our shed roof and (hopefully) heat the water enough for home brewing and probs washing the dishes, in the late spring to early autumn anyway.
I'm always curious in a 100% EV future what the roads will be made from. Very heavy cars with loads of torque is likely to need as much if not more road material than we use now. The road material is bound with bitumen which is available at low cost and scale as by product of making transport fuels. I know folk have tried bio binders but nothing commerically viable or at any scale. It doesn't seem to add up that we could go from ICE to EVs at the same scale - something has to give in terms of flying about in big heavy boxes just being a bad idea.
How can it when its still relying on fossil fuel generation?
Well now it's partially from fossil fuels, but that percentage is decreasing and will decrease further.
Every extra kw used in an ev means another kw from fossil fuels. Wind can never cover 100% nor can PV
If we have a 50% renewable mix then one kWh in an EV means 500Wh from fossil fuels no? Or am I missing something? Not counting transmission losses, but according to Wiki they are about 7.7%
But the point is that whatever the generation mix, if it changes, then everyone's EV usage mix also changes at the same time. You don't have to get consumers to do anything or buy any new stuff.
Very heavy cars with loads of torque is likely to need as much if not more road material than we use now.
I'd guess the extra weight of an EV vs a normal car is not significant compared to the weight and torque of all those HGVs on the roads, but it's a guess.
But as we said the number of miles driven needs to go through the floor. What we do now is madness on many levels not just from an ecological perspective.
If we have a 50% renewable mix then one kWh in an EV means 500Wh from fossil fuels no? Or am I missing something?
What you are missing is this is EXTRA demand. Non fossil fuel sources are limited and at max ( generally) so for every EXTRA kw of electricity used in a car then that KW has to come from 100% fossil fuels as all non fossil are already maxed out so they only way to get that extra kw is burning fossil fuels
Well isn't the answer to increase non fossil fuel generation then?
If your only plan is that everyone should stay at home then you're not really helping
No - my aim is to get folk to understand that reducing CO2 output requires large changes in lifestyle
Wind generation as more than a % of the energy mix is problematic anyway as you need reserve to be called upon at short notice - which needs you guessed it - fossil fuels! Nucler can never be a major player - not enough fuel - its only a few % of worldwide energy consumption and we only have 40 years of fuel at that %. tidal looks promising for the UK but not much use in landlocked countries or those on the med and baltic
The only answer is to use significantly less energy overall and that requires major lifestyle changes.
What you are missing is this is EXTRA demand. Non fossil fuel sources are limited and at max ( generally) so for every EXTRA kw of electricity used in a car then that KW has to come from 100% fossil fuels as all non fossil are already maxed out so they only way to get that extra kw is burning fossil fuels
Either burning more fossil fuels or installing more renewables. I think the amount of fossil fuel usage is still going down despite the increase in EVs..? But given the amount of new EVs being sold we will have to see if that changes. I suspect not.
Don't forget that diesel still takes a shitload of energy to even get to your petrol station from a hole in the ground in the middle east before the at best 33% efficiency of your car comes into play.
More renewables - more wind? what happens in a winter high pressure event? the higher the % of wind the less reliable the generation is as wind fluctuates so much and as above - yo still need fossil fuel top up and always will
No – my aim is to get folk to understand that reducing CO2 output requires large changes in lifestyle
Most people involved in this kind of discussion already know this, to be fair.
Wind generation as more than a % of the energy mix is problematic anyway as you need reserve to be called upon at short notice – which needs you guessed it – fossil fuels!
No, we will have storage before too long. Ironically, this could be done with cars.
The only answer is to use significantly less energy overall and that requires major lifestyle changes.
Not the only answer - we need to BOTH use much less energy via lifestyle changes (and others) AND the energy we do use needs to be from sustainable sources. So the discussion needs to be on both.
Nucler can never be a major player – not enough fuel – its only a few % of worldwide energy consumption and we only have 40 years of fuel at that %.
Not sure on those numbers... I think that things like fast breeder reactors render that argument invalid, however for me the main argument against nuclear is complexity, safety and the waste problem.
yo still need fossil fuel top up and always will
To be fair neither of us are renewable energy engineers, however given a wide enough range of renewable energy sources (e.g. tidal, wave, wind, solar and so on) over a wide enough range, some biofuel, a lot of storage of various types, and serious reductions in consumption, I don't think you can say that some fossil fuel usage is inevitable.
@tjagain I think you are taking 2+2 and making 5.
Every extra kw used in an ev means another kw from fossil fuels.
I think you are assuming that we are utilising every kW from non-fossil fuels and so the only type of power we can turn a tap on and increase the supply on is fossil? I think you are mistaken - we don't use all the potential output from every other source just now (even when its windy and sunny) - there are times of the day where we have too much power and the grid wants to dump that so some providers incentivise charging EV's on that cheap power, and effectively penalise for charging when demand is higher than capacity (= bring on more gas). My understanding is much of this excess power is renewables/nuclear, e.g. when its windier than average, or when its particularly sunny and all those home PVs make power but households are using less. But also that predictable demand is good for nuclear - we aren't typically running nuclear at 100% capacity, but we don't know what will be needed and its quite hard to throttle nuclear. Good demand management from EVs could actually increase nuclear output without building new stations (if you know there are always going to be empty batteries to dump excess supply in you can turn it up, if you know that there will be a million vehicles plugged in overnight which just need to be full by 6am but are flexible which 3 hrs between 2200 and 0600 actually does the charging the owner doesn't care about (this technology is already in use in the UK but not that widely used).
You are right that there are times when its dark, there's no wind and so we need other sources of power. There are even some initiatives to use EVs a grid connected batteries though - charge my car when its sunny, then trickle that back into the grid when its dark if I tell my car/charger that I'm not going to be driving it or I'll only be doing 150 miles tomorrow so you can take the rest out. Essentially each EV becomes like a mini Cruachan powerstation. Not all cars support it, and certainly not many UK energy companies support it, but its more than just a concept. Of course we should also be heavily investing in tidal and wave energy to diversify the mix and waste to energy, biomass etc are often overlooked as stable "green" energy sources.
... or in germany where they have a lot of nuclear every
Eh? Germany has been phasing down nuclear since Fukishima and panned to be nuclear free this year - this is part of the reason they use so much russian gas.
KW used byy an electric car is an extra kw produced from fossil fuels. its a basic fact that you cannot refute. Alternatives do not and cannot supply 100%. Everything using electricity means more fossil fuels as that is the only way we have of increasing generation
So I guess I am refuting it! It is possible to increase demand AND use less fossil fuel at the same time. Its counter-intuitive - but its possible if the type of demand is well managed, and clearly we haven't reached the limits for renewable capacity building either. Indeed demand in the UK has generally fallen over the last few years despite EV uptake.
But once again you refuse to accept that the only solution is major lifestyle changes and that includes commuting.
I think you are shouting at seagulls here! Almost everyone thinks lifestyle change will be key to reducing energy demand/waste, the question is - if there's not an immediate economic or security driver to make that happen quickly, how are government going to encourage it? Frankly, if EVs weren't part of that it would seem to be an error.
No, we will have storage before too long.
Really - Its been the holy grail for renewables for years and nothing on the horizon looks at all likely. What is the answer that will be here soon?
I think that things like fast breeder reactors render that argument invalid
Its a shame no one has been able to produce a breeder reactor that works on a commercial level despite decades of trying. Lithium looks hopeful but again is a long time in the future
We need solutions now. the only solution available now is reduced energy usage
So I guess I am refuting it! It is possible to increase demand AND use less fossil fuel at the same time.
Not at the levels needed to convert all UK transport to electric. Yes car batteries could be used for smoothing demand but its an edge effect.
EVs allow people to think they are doing something to help when really its not. thats why evs are greenwash. They do not reduce energy usage
If everyone knows huge lifestyle changes are the only option why do so many refute this - on this thread as well?
Nucler can never be a major player – not enough fuel – its only a few % of worldwide energy consumption and we only have 40 years of fuel at that %. tidal looks promising for the UK but not much use in landlocked countries or those on the med and baltic
where do you get the 40 years number from? This report suggest current supplies and technology would service 230 years of current reactors, although fast breader reader reactors could make that 30,000 years and novel extraction methods might get 60,000 years event without fast breaders. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
this source quotes different numbers but still a minimum of 80 years:
Globally you may be right - and from a CO2 perspective it probably is right to think globally, but I'm guessing the trigger for the thread was actually about energy security which very much is a local issue [there may be other issues with Ur security if you aren't extracting from sea water]. Nuclear actually produces about 15-20% of UK demand, so it shouldn't be dismissed.
If your only plan is that everyone should stay at home then you’re not really helping
Hmm. You don't need to stay at home to reduce your oil and gas dependence, just walk or cycle when you go out.
40% what was what we found last time we did this
Even at 80 years supply when nucler is providing only a few % of worldwide energy we do not have enough fuel to make it a majr player - like 25% of the worlds energy - that would see the fuel gone in a decade or so
anyway nuclear takes too long to build. we need serious action now
And yes - i am looking globally - this is a global issue. I lead low energy lifestyle for the west having made compromises most of you would never do - and if everyone on the planet had my lifestyle guess what - runaway global warming. I bet I use 1/4 the energy of most of us on here
This is the scale off the problem - we need to be using 10 - 20 % of the energy we use now in the west not a reduction of a few % but massive wholesale reductions.
If everyone knows huge lifestyle changes are the only option why do so many refute this – on this thread as well?
I don't think anyone did! You argued with Mols partially quoting him when he said he "didn't think Lifestyle changes were needed" but left off the rest of his post which then described things I think most people would call lifestyle changes - a massive shift to public transport subsidised by the state. Or are you actually suggesting that people shouldn't leave the house?
All modern countries should have switched over a combination of nuclear and green fifty fricking years ago.
Those are minor changes compared to what we need to do.
I suggest you look at this sort of calculation to see just how huge the issue is. According to that my low energy lifestyle ( for the west) still requires 4 earths !
https://www.footprintcalculator.org/home/en
You argued with Mols partially quoting him when he said he “didn’t think Lifestyle changes were needed” but left off the rest of his post which then described things I think most people would call lifestyle changes – a massive shift to public transport subsidised by the state
Quite, what I meant was that you could still go to work in different places, you could still commute to your normal job - just via PT rather than car. I don't call this a major lifestyle change, just a small one. It doesn't change what you do or where you live.
A major change would be changing careers just so you could live closer to work etc.
anyway nuclear takes too long to build. we need serious action now
and therein lies the problem - we are only interested in instant fixes and there are none which are going to be acceptable, so the easy answer seems to be to say "do nothing and hope some magic solution comes along in the future".
And yes – i am looking globally – this is a global issue.
that's also the reason why lots of people do nothing - ah it won't matter what I do china will blow my contribution out the water. BUT I think there is a difference between climate and energy security - each country really does need its own strategy for energy security.
I lead low energy lifestyle for the west having made compromises most of you would never do
comes across as a little preachy! However, I agree I almost certainly am worse than you. But if you want to tackle the problem I think you need a more realistic solution than just ride your bike everywhere. I WFH so I don't commute anyway. What other big lifestyle changes do you think I should make so I can feel superior to other people in the country and claim I did my bit?
This is the scale off the problem – we need to be using 10 – 20 % of the energy we use now not a reduction of a few % but massive wholesale reductions
well anyone who's using the internet to argue with people is almost certainly wasting energy pointlessly. If they are doing it on STW with its tendency to make my phone overheat they are doing it even worse than on other sites.
And there in lies the problem - that sort of measure will not make the reductions needed. Its pretending there is another solution that does not require massive change in lifestyles
We need our energy consumption down to 10 or 20% of what it is now. Not 95%
You wouldn't be happy with my lifestyle ( no car, no flights, no kids, no pets, very little out of season food, no buying of consumer electronics etc etc etc and my lifestyle is still unsustainable by a long way
Molgripos and Poly - try that calculator.
What is the answer that will be here soon?
Widespread EV adoption will drive huge advances in battery production. This will make batteries far cheaper, and much less polluting to produce given the advances I am reading about. Once they are cheap enough then battery storage in your house would also be cheap and straightforward to install. Then if battery storage takes off we will be able to move to renewables further.
the only solution available now is reduced energy usage
As I said, this is essential regardless. We need hugely reduced consumption AND renewable generation AND storage AND electric vehicles AND a public transport overhaul.
Molgripos and Poly – try that calculator.
Done those things endlessly in the past, it's not new.
EDIT did it for a laugh, I got 1.7 Earths, no idea how you got 4! But it's American so most of those answers will be tailored for the US.
POly - I do not know you well enough to know but the big ones that i am sure you know
Stop breeding
do not use a car,
do not fly for holidays
Never "upgrade" only replace when worn out
Eat local food only
Keep your house cold(er)
No pets
MOlgrips - it is pointless to say we will have these things in the future.
We do not have anything in line for energy storage, batteries are becoming better yes but nothing like the scale of energy density needed
EVs make no significant difference to energy consumption thus are part of the problem not part of the solution.
edit - I usually get just over one on those calculators - it didn't seem to like no car and never drive ( almost) - not been in a car for 10 weeks)
MOlgrips – it is pointless to say we will have these things in the future.
We will have them. But remember, I'm not saying 'everything's going to be fine we can carry on as we are'. I am absolutely not saying that. I'm saying that we need to do ALL the things ASAP, and storage is one of them.
Not exactly sure how your point is really any different to mine.
Stop breeding
You don't have to stop, just don't have more than two kids.
We do not have anything in line for energy storage, batteries are becoming better yes but nothing like the scale of energy density needed
I would disagree with that based on the research articles I am reading daily.
Re EVs - bear in mind that people are buying new cars anyway. Given the choice, would you rather that new car be EV or ICE? Of course it would be better if they didn't drive at all, but that change cannot happen overnight and we're not politically in a position to mandate it, nor are we socially in a place where everyone will do it voluntarily.
Given the two options, I vote for EV because of all the reasons outlined above.
Not exactly sure how your point is really any different to mine.
Its because you are planning on having all these pie in the sky things that will apparently happen in the future. We have to work with what we have now. None of the things you mention will be able to make a significant difference in the timescales available
so where is this storage for GW of energy? What form? Where is the battery with even ten times the energy density let alone 100 times thats needed
You don’t have to stop, just don’t have more than two kids.
You really do . Bringing two more humans onto the planet is about the worst thing you can do for future energy consumption. This really shows that yo uare not prepared for the changes needed
bear in mind that people are buying new cars anyway.
I would prefer ICE because they are taxed on pollution whereas EVs are not and also have low additional energy costs so used more. EVs increase private car mileage and do nothing for congestion. either that or start taxing EVs fairly ( ICE cars are not taxed enough anyway)
stop the massive subsidy to drivers and EVs get even more of it.
None of the things you mention will be able to make a significant difference in the timescales available
Ok, you're the boss.
also have low additional energy costs so used more.
You have a source for that?
Scotland reducing oil and gas consumption? Well it still makes up 78% of our energy consumption.
2019-20 stats. Page 11 at
Im poor so cant afford to have the heating on all day, even in winter, and no kids needed to run to school, holidays, and only have a bike for transport. I think im quids in and can keep on the same without having to make any changes 😀
Changes mean no more what car threads(unless they're EV), and for sure no more what camper/van.But i think this forum being representative of the general public, how we see reactions here, actual changes and not just talk, is how it will go with the general public as a whole.
You have a source for that?
Yup - its a well known phenomenon
Even in the worst case scenario where an EV is charged only from a coal-fired grid, it would generate an extra 4.1 million grams of carbon a year while a comparable gasoline car would produce over 4.6 million grams, the Reuters analysis showed.
From molgrips link
so its a marginal benefit of just over 10% in its lifetime - and that is simply not enough to make the difference especailly when you factor in the EV is likely to be driven more because its cheaper per mile
Stop breeding
do not use a car,
do not fly for holidays
Never “upgrade” only replace when worn out
Eat local food only
Keep your house cold(er)
No pets
If we stop breeding, what's the point in bothering to do all the other stuff? Surely the whole point of saving the environment is that we are really trying to live more sustainably, rather than stop living altogether. And if we can live sustainably, then it won't matter if we have kids or not?
The effects of "top heavy" aging population are quite significant for everyone's quality of life too.
too many people on the planet to be sustainable. Large parts are going to become uninhabitable
Every extra kw used in an ev means another kw from fossil fuels. Wind can never cover 100% nor can PV
think of the winter high pressure events
That's where vehicle-to-grid comes in. If a decent majority of homes have electric cars parked outside with full tanks of electricity, you only need to cream off a fraction of this power to cover the shortage.
so its a marginal benefit of just over 10% in its lifetime
That's full coal-fired generation though. Coal accounts for between 0 and 5% of our generation (at the moment, admittedly).
hat’s where vehicle-to-grid comes in. If a decent majority of homes have electric cars parked outside with full tanks of electricity, you only need to cream off a fraction of this power to cover the shortage.
Really? to provide 20+ % of the UKs energy needs? and BTW - there is no chance of a majority having EVs any time soon. Vast numbers of us have no way of charging them because we do not have off street parking
so its a marginal benefit of just over 10% in its lifetime
Surely you aren't cherry picking statements out of context to boost your own argument?! How could you stoop so low?! And you claim to be a rational man!
You know that statement only applies to a hypothetical 100% coal fired energy mix, it even says that in the quote. Most of Europe has lots of renewables and natural gas, and renewables are going up all the time. You actually read past the bit where it said that with the US energy mix it would only take 13,500 miles for the EV to represent a net saving. You also ignored the graph that showed after 13 years the EV has generated HALF the CO2 of the modest petrol car. Very poor show, TJ.
Yup – its a well known phenomenon
Hmm well firstly, that article says an average of 370 miles per year extra, from around 14k miles, so the extra is trivial; secondly that's just average miles reported by drivers and there's no examination of other factors such as for example maybe EV drivers buy EV because they are high mileage drivers or they are affluent and drive more. We know that people who do very low miles know it's not worth spending the considerable extra sum on EVs, that comes up regularly on the EV thread on this forum.
Poor debating skills and analysis I'm afraid!
Really? to provide 20+ % of the UKs energy needs?
Well let's see. Two thirds of households have a drive, that's just under 20m households and let's say for the sake of argument 30m cars. If they were all EVs, with an average of ooh, 50kWh battery capacity, that's 1.5TWh sitting on people's driveways. Current power consumption is about 27GW according to the grid stats page, and it looks like it's roughly about 30GW or so average between 8am and 8pm. So all those cars are enough to power the entire country for 50 night-time hours. Obviously we wouldn't want to drain them all, but clearly there's a very useful amount of power there even if everyone just agreed to float up 10% of their charge.
Then you can also factor in the likely strong second hand market for batteries to use in energy storage (are they already doing this?) When the cars get scrapped or the batteries lose capacity they will repurpose the batteries into home powerbanks which will do the same job and become very useful for renewable storage. And this will only happen if people buy the EVs and the car manufacturers invest battery development. If you don't think that is going to make a difference, check out this graph - it already is. The black numbers and bar height represents the price in USD per kWh.
You know that statement only applies to a hypothetical 100% coal fired energy mix, it even says that in the quote
and as has been pointed out every kw used in an EV comes from fossil fuel in one way or another until we have infinite amounts of on alltime renewables and / or smart charging at a level we do not have now. Every extra kw of electricity used is a KW created from fossil fuel ( until we have the smart charging when it will be a mix still)
very useful amount of power there even if everyone just agreed to float up 10% of their charge.
so 5 nighttime hours. thats going to keep the lights on in a multiweek winter high pressure event
Yes batteries are becoming cheaper and better but a long long way of what they need to be to store the amount of electricity needed at an affordable price
Two thirds of households have a drive
Yo sure on that? seems remarkably high.
BTW - very nippy post wight several personal attack molgrips - I thought yo were trying to move away from personal attacks
Every extra kw of electricity used is a KW created from fossil fuel
I still don't understand this statement. What you said doesn't make sense to me.
so 5 nighttime hours. thats going to keep the lights on in a multiweek winter high pressure event
That's not even what I was talking about. You know what - this is pointless. Whatever. You can win if you want.
very nippy post wight several personal attack molgrips
No, your arguments are poor, I was criticising those arguments. But I've made my points, you've made yours, so there we go.
still don’t understand this statement. What you said doesn’t make sense to me.
We have a finite amount of renewable generation, If you increase energy consumption you need more generation. the only way you have of getting that extra electricity is fossil fuel. so every time you charge your EV more fossil fuel is burnt.
That’s not even what I was talking about
What on earth were you then - you stated draining every possible EV would produce enough electricity for 50 nigh time hours then yo suggested 10% of capacity - tharts 5 night time hours by your own sums - and the number of EVs you stated is abusrd imo 30 million evs in the UK?
No, your arguments are poor, I was criticising those arguments.
No - you made pejorative and frankly unpleasant statements directed at me personally - the very thing you warned me off for earlier
its not about winning at all - its about try to get people to understand. The scale of the problem cannot be met by fiddling around the edges with technological solutions. But when I point out flaws in what you are saying then you make it personal and make personal attacks - something you have ( rightly) warned me off for doing
Greenswashing will not make the significant changes needed.
