Forum menu
Between the lines I read the implication that 50k miles or whatever is not good, and I don’t get it.
Any number here that’s less than the car’s life denotes a car that’s emitting less over its life.
Yes, it is probably better that over its entire lifetime, an EV emits somewhat less CO2 than an ICE car. However, it's not exactly a drastic reduction, and combined with a whole different set of environmental issues (mostly focussed around the sourcing and disposal of the battery pack and all the other electronics), I think it's at least up for debate that owning a petrol car (especially one with no bells and whistles) and driving it less is better for the environment, overall.
However - as I pointed out in my older comment - if it's absolutely essential that we immediately cut our CO2 (as I am assured is true), then buying an EV doesn't achieve that goal. It might take 10 years to drive the necessary 50,000ish miles, and until that point, you have emitted more CO2 compared to someone who doesn't own an EV.
On the subject of fires, my BiL is a fireman and was telling me how electric cars are a real problem for them as they don’t have the tools or methods yet to deal with when they get damaged in crashes. and once they are burning, really hard to put out.
I’m sure they’ll work it out but a bit of a grey area at the moment.
a whole different set of environmental issues (mostly focussed around the sourcing and disposal of the battery pack and all the other electronics)
Before long it will all be recyclable. It will have to be - we'll be sitting on a big pile of valuable materials whilst seeing high demand for those same materials. There'll be a way.
However – as I pointed out in my older comment – if it’s absolutely essential that we immediately cut our CO2 (as I am assured is true), then buying an EV doesn’t achieve that goal. It might take 10 years to drive the necessary 50,000ish miles, and until that point, you have emitted more CO2 compared to someone who doesn’t own an EV.
It doesn't slash emissions immediately, no. But it is a necessary step to e sure lower emissions in the future. And let's not forget not all EVs are bought as greenwash. You can buy one to replace a worn out (or crashed) car and you can drive it very little and you can keep it 20 years. They aren't exclusive.
I think to compare apples with apples we're talking about a new car coming onto the road, with a given expected annual mileage, and whatever its expected life is, and comparing between that car being EV and it being ICE.
The need to reduce car use and to reduce the number of cars manufactured and to do all sorts of other things remains regardless.
In light of that, one should be comparing total environmental impact of the manufacture and use of the car over its life, and picking the best one.
When I did that, I reckoned a comparable ICE car represented 3+ times the carbon emissions overall, when compared with an EV. To me that's a very clear difference, yet it's not out of line with the payback numbers one sees quoted, from which it seems to me that folk don't derive the same conclusion at all.
fireman and was telling me how electric cars are a real problem for them as they don’t have the tools or methods yet to deal with
I went on a fire warden course when I worked at an alloy wheel manufacturer. When the fireman running this found this out he said that when alloys became common place on cars they caused problems as water an magnesium don’t play nicely together.
I’ve made my point regarding language. Fine.
No, it was to do with pair of you starting to ruin a good thread.
Fine, I'll stick to the point as I was trying to in the first place.
As you were...
On the subject of fires, my BiL is a fireman and was telling me how electric cars are a real problem for them as they don’t have the tools or methods yet to deal with when they get damaged in crashes. and once they are burning, really hard to put out.
Tesla make a fire-fighter instruction book. I think all EVs have the same standards (cut-points for 12v system under the bonnet on the passenger side).
Don't think there's anything you can do for a lithium battery fire but try to cool it down and let it burn itself out.
Will be interesting if in the future it leads to major road closures for days at a time if they can't move the cars.
Before long it will all be recyclable. It will have to be – we’ll be sitting on a big pile of valuable materials whilst seeing high demand for those same materials. There’ll be a way.
Maybe, although as it is currently cheaper to use newly-mined minerals, the fact that it will take those minerals becoming more scarce for recycling to become viable means that the cost of a battery pack will increase. It's very hard to extract the lithium from a lithium battery, and most places that currently try to recycle those cells don't bother trying to get the lithium back.
It doesn’t slash emissions immediately, no. But it is a necessary step to ensure lower emissions in the future.
Excellent, then I have 10 years to find a way to cut my transport emissions by 60%, and you have 10 years to find a way to live without your AMG shooting brake 😉
I think to compare apples with apples we’re talking about a new car coming onto the road, with a given expected annual mileage, and whatever its expected life is, and comparing between that car being EV and it being ICE.
My maths works out regardless. It would be interesting to work out the relative CO2 emissions if the ICE in question were a very small car with no extra toys. It may be that someone driving an old Mini or Fiat 500 - sized car, with no extra bells and whistles, emits less CO2 over the lifetime of the car than someone driving a modern EV.
It’s very hard to extract the lithium from a lithium battery
I don't think lithium is the scarce part of the battery, is it?
Excellent, then I have 10 years to find a way to cut my transport emissions by 60%
Not sure what you mean here. We need to both reduce our collective mileage AND reduce the emission of the fleet. Remember the EVs sold now will be around for 15-20 years, or preferably more if governments get their acts together. And let's also not forget that the only reason they are available now is because people are buying them new instead of ICE cars.
and you have 10 years to find a way to live without your AMG shooting brake
4 days left on the 28 day warranty period 🙂
OK then, Twrch, present your maths for all to see.
My old Mini 850 used about 8l/100km and went to the breakers at just short of 160 000 km on its original engine which was exceptional. So that's 12 800l of petrol + the resourcrs to build it. The Zoe weighs about double but won't but won't burn around 10 tonnes of fuel. In fact given where I live it won't burn any fossil fuel. A better comparison for your maths is the Dacia Spring.
My most recent petrol vehicle, a Dacia Lodgy averaged 5.8l/100km and weighs 1.2 tonnes for a 7 seater car.
There are now muliple studies to demonstrate that EVs always beat ICEs on lifetime resources/CO2 even in China and Germany with their high coal use in electricity production. Article BFM.
I don’t think lithium is the scarce part of the battery, is it?
There are other minerals in a lithium battery that are more scarce. However, lithium is absolutely essential (unlike cobalt, for example - a cell can be designed without it, for various performance tradeoffs). It is not particularly scarce, but still difficult to process and purify. You either have to dig an enormous hole, as the concentration is low, or pump up huge amounts of lithium-containing brine and let it evaporate.
It then takes an enormous amount of water and energy to convert the lithium to a format suitable for use in batteries.
Even so, this is still easier than trying to extract lithium from used cells, and that is due to the chemistry involved, and not due to scale. The most economical current method is "pyrometallurgy" - basically, burning them. It only recovers the cobalt, but it's still more economically viable than trying to leach out the lithium by other methods.
Not sure what you mean here.
I pointed out that a new EV will leave you in "CO2 debt" for around 10 years until you've paid off the manufacturing cost of the battery pack. If that's ok, then I can keep going as I am, as long as I've got a plan to reduce my emissions in 10 years time. Maybe I'll switch to a motorbike. They take much less energy to manufacture, and get much better mpg.
Maybe I’ll switch to a motorbike. They take much less energy to manufacture, and get much better mpg.
a vast majority of second car use cases would be better served by motorbike/moped
how ever by their own admission most road users will tell you - not a ****ing chance on these roads ...... and i see their point.
I pointed out that a new EV will leave you in “CO2 debt” for around 10 years
Ok but if a new car is required, and there is no old one to maintain, should that new car be ICE or EV?
Ok but if a new car is required, and there is no old one to maintain
looking at autotrader we are a significant way off that hypothetical plenty of sunk CO2 to be used and for the technology to mature.
Some more numbers: 265 000 domestic fires a year in France for 29 000 000 households. 1/4 is an electrical fire, 80 000. 22% of those is a clothes drier - 16 000 clothes drier fires. 1/3 households has a clothes drier so roughly 10 000 000 clothes driers
16/10 000 clothes drier fires.
600 000 EVs and plug-in hybrids
You'd expect 900 chargng fires from EVs and plug-in hybribs a year to match the clothes drier. We have single figures, too few to figure on the list of causes.
This is important Drac, there's too much anti-EV propagander and it's important to back up assertiions I've made with facts when they are disputed. In your job you are well placed to k'ow and assess risks.
OK then, Twrch, present your maths for all to see.
I already did, showing that you are in CO2 debt for 50,000 miles (or maybe 10 years) after buying an EV, and demonstrating that buying an EV will not immediately cut your CO2 emissions (in fact they are worse, in the short term). As we are constantly being told that we must cut CO2 right now, I pointed out that buying an EV will not achieve this goal. And if I actually have 10 years to do this, I have that much time to adjust my lifestyle to achieve the goal without demanding the extraction of all sorts of minerals and a huge input of manufacturing energy and resources to do so.
In fact given where I live it won’t burn any fossil fuel.
Yes, you are lucky to live somewhere that is so extensively powered by nuclear power. If only we didn't keep decomissioning existing sites at astronomical cost here in the UK, and cancelling new nuclear projects.
Ok but if a new car is required, and there is no old one to maintain, should that new car be ICE or EV?
Depends. Can the planet handle increased CO2 emissions in the short term, if you buy an EV?
Tesla claim that they can recycle 92% of a battery cell, so there must be other methods than burning them.
Tesla claim many things, including being able to make money from your Tesla by renting it out as a robo-taxi by 2020.
Yes, there are methods which will recover a higher % of the original cell, but as I said, they are less economically viable due to the chemistry invovled, even though they recover a higher percentage of materials.
Do you agree that buying a new ICE is worse than buying a new EV now Twrch given that both cover the same distance over their lifetime?
It's important to compare apples with apples with apples and a new ICE is more harmful long term. Cut down now by all means, ride you bike bit don't buy an ICE unless you know it will be scrapped in less than Whatever mileage is EV payback where you live. Unless you have a terrible accodent record that's almost nowhere according to BFM.
don’t buy anbrand new ICE
an important distinction in the current scenario which will become less relevent as time progresses.
Still EV curious and have considered one previously.
What does it cost you to do say 100 miles in electric. I think it's 20p a KWh at the moment, do you apply for a cheaper charge rate at night ? I say this as my current home leccy use is incredible (hot tub and two gaming PC's in use). My petrol does about 30 to the gallon in town - so minimum cost is about £21 per 100 miles in fuel.
Both me and MrsF are WFH, but in work 2-3 days a week from September. A small EV is a consideration over and above our conventional cars - mine's 19 years old, but hauls 4 bikes round.
The thinking is we might get one as an additional car for local stuff/commuting, and keep the petrols for long distance.
The other thought is stuff it, keep the old cars, and buy a Nissan 370Z or something as daft for weekends (not green).
Other complication, we're both not likely to be working same days - we car shared before the pandemic. If not working same days, I'll commute on my MTB down the canal more (25 mile return), so EV arguments are getting less 'positive'.
I agree with your distinction, Trailrat. If you do less than 3500 miles/year a small second-hand petrol car is no worse over 10 years. But a second-hand EV is even better and the seller is more likely to have replaced with an EV.
Whoever bought my old Zoé got a car with zeo defects apart from xorn front tyres and no measurable loss of battery capacity. I slow charge to 90% when possible.
Can the planet handle increased CO2 emissions in the short term, if you buy an EV?
What's the alternative, how do we get them on the roads without short term carbon emissions? Are short term carbon emissions better than long term ones? If you say no, then we'd never be able to build any solar panels, heat pumps, wind farms, nuclear power stations, fusion reactors, or any of the useful stuff.
don’t buy anbrand new ICE
Someone has to buy them, no? VW don't produce used cars.
You need to work out cost of ownership/lease over the time you intend to own Fossy. The Zoé only gets close to a Clio when the Clio hits expensive services at five years.
But drive one and you might be prepared to pay for the exerience and a 1/3 of the lifetime CO2 in France, someone can perhaps give UK figure.
What does it cost you to do say 100 miles in electric. I think it’s 20p a KWh at the moment, do you apply for a cheaper charge rate at night ?
Anyone with a smart meter can get the Octopus Go tariff which is 5p/kWh between 0030 and 0430 each day. Given that we get over 5 miles/kWh commuting, that means we pay less than 1p a mile, provided we don't use more than about 60% or so in a day and we need it full the next day; given that a full recharge takes about 7h and there's only 4h available at that price. However even the daytime rate on Octopus Go is only 15p/kWh which is pretty good.
Anyone watch Guy Martin on Ch4 last night? Obviously light on detail, but some interesting bits like the battery flammability issue (and putting it out) and an e-trip to John O Groats and back (charger issues, time and cost).
Also interested to know typical charging point rates if you don't have access to a charger at home.
Assuming that you have to drive somewhere to charge up e.g. supermarket car park or charger at service station, how much does that cost in real money and per mile?
Charger cost markedly varied. Some 7kW chargers are free in supermarkets/shopping centres.
50/100kW charger prices vary. Instavolt seem to be 40p/kW but have convenience of just using contactless card.
Assuming that you have to drive somewhere to charge up e.g. supermarket car park or charger at service station, how much does that cost in real money and per mile?
Rapid chargers generally cost 40p per kWh. Gridserve Electric highway are a bit cheaper at 30p per kWh. Fast chargers like you find in Tescos can be free but you won't get much charge during an hours shopping (maybe 30 miles worth) you'll need to find one somewhere you can leave your car for several hours. Just like ICE, EV efficiency depends on the car and how you drive it so efficiency generally is anywhere between 2.5 and 5 miles per kWh.
What’s the alternative, how do we get them on the roads without short term carbon emissions? Are short term carbon emissions better than long term ones? If you say no, then we’d never be able to build any solar panels, heat pumps, wind farms, nuclear power stations, fusion reactors, or any of the useful stuff.
I thought the planet couldn't handle any more CO2, period. How bad will it get, once we start manufacturing lithium cells and solar panels in enormous quantities? Sounds like it's the driving around all the time that's the unsustainable part!
The manufacture of all of those things is incredibly problematic, if we insist they are necessary, and also that we need to cut our CO2 right now. As such, we should look very carefully at the energy required to do so (something I have said since my very first posts on this topic). Really, we should go as near to 100% nuclear as possible, if we want to keep anything like our current lifestyles, and then we wouldn't need to bother manufacturing all those square miles of solar panels. After all, what's the point in mandating that vacuum cleaners (which are used for minutes per day) have a maximum power cap to "save the planet", if we also need to manufacture many square miles (10,000sq mi, in fact, for the UK) of solar panels and wind turbines?
Do you agree that buying a new ICE is worse than buying a new EV now Twrch given that both cover the same distance over their lifetime?
Over the lifetime of the car, yes (and with the caveat that the long-term prospects of mass-produced EVs is yet TBD). Most calculations show they emit around 1/3rd the CO2 over their lifetimes, with the bulk of that upfront in manufacturing (hence my comments on our supposed need to reduce CO2 right now). However - as your EV has already emitted the huge marjority of its lifetime emissions when you buy it, there is a hard limit on just much you can personally cut your transport CO2 costs. If I just cut my car usage, my reduction in petrol use will immediately cut CO2 emissions. With an EV, you may as well drive. Seems to me that it's a way to justify the continued expansion of our (in my opinion) unsustainable and increasingly car-based lifestyle.
Thinking about it, from a CO2 emissions point of view, one of the worst things you could do is buy an EV for short journeys and keep an ICE for longer ones. You're burning loads of fuel for your long journeys, and barely driving the EV enough to justify its manufacture. Worst of all worlds! You need to drive the EV as much as possible, to justify its existance.
On the Guy Martin program last night he was moaning how much it cost - 70p a kWh on the Ionity charger that said it would take 18 minutes to charge but ended up being over an hour.
He also worked out that his diesel transit would have been much cheaper to do the trip & many hours faster - if you watched that & were considering an electric car then I think it would put people off.
Really, we should go as near to 100% nuclear as possible
How long do you think that would take? Nuclear power stations are extremely difficult and energy intensive to build.
Seems to me that it’s a way to justify the continued expansion of our (in my opinion) unsustainable and increasingly car-based lifestyle.
I think car use is decreasing somewhat, isn't it? The number of young people with licenses is falling.
In any case, we can't simply cut consumption, even if we have to, in a realistic democracy. We have painted ourselves into a corner with that, be ause people want vote for people who will do things they don't like, or tell them what they don't want to hear. Ironically the Chinese are just about the only ones who could pull it off.
Our two options are benign eco-dictatorship or huge investment in carbon-lowering tech, which will mean less CO2 reduction to begin with.
On the Guy Martin program last night he was moaning how much it cost – 70p a kWh on the Ionity charger that said it would take 18 minutes to charge but ended up being over an hour.
Ionity are an exception. They charge 70p per kWh becuase they want to discourage drivers without an Ionity subscription from using their chargers. Martin must have used exclusively Ionity chargers for his trip to cost that much. I think he was driving a Hyundai Ioniq 5 which comes with a one year Ionity subscription giving 25p per kWh charging so why didn't he use that? I think he has an agenda. Like I said in my post above rapid charging networks generally charge 40p per kWh which if you were using nothing but rapid charging would work out about half the cost per mile of petrol.
Thanks @jet26 and @uponthedowns
So if my car has a 60KW battery, then a full charge costs £18.00 (at Gridserve).
And that might yield somewhere between 150 and 300 miles of driving, so probably less than 10ppm. Unleaded costs about 15ppm if you're lucky.
Other question is how do supermarkets and other places stop people just using a charging spot as a car parking place for the day? Must be tempting for those that don't have at home chargers.
Really, we should go as near to 100% nuclear as possible
As you said yourself, the manufacture of such things is incredibly problematic.
Still EV curious and have considered one previously.
What does it cost you to do say 100 miles in electric. I think it’s 20p a KWh at the moment, do you apply for a cheaper charge rate at night ? I say this as my current home leccy use is incredible (hot tub and two gaming PC’s in use). My petrol does about 30 to the gallon in town – so minimum cost is about £21 per 100 miles in fuel.
We've not gone down the special tariff route and currently pay £0.14p per KW hour on a green tariff. Our i3 is a 33kWh battery of which only 30kw is usable. To charge the thing from 3% (the lowest I've had it is about £4.20 and for that I get 140-150 miles in the summer at speeds upto around 65mph in mixed driving. it will go down to about 120 miles in the winter with wipers, heaters, blowers and lights on. But whichever way you slice it, it's less than £4.
I’ve come back from my holiday to find the 50Kw chargers have changed to pay to use. So, I’m now using my home charger overnight and will use them or the 350Kw if I need a quick top up. Never mind I have 9700 miles of motoring for £10 so can’t complain.
How long do you think that would take? Nuclear power stations are extremely difficult and energy intensive to build.
They are, but they generate astounding amounts of energy. That's why the EROI (energy returned for energy invested) for nuclear is so high, compared to anything else. 25x better than the worst, which is roof-mounted solar.
Apparently the 10 year CO2 paypack period for EVs is ok, so I think we have time to build nuclear. That's why it's so important we start right now! (etc etc etc)
I think car use is decreasing somewhat
Absolutely not. Until Covid put a spanner in the works, total car miles driven in the UK was continually increasing. Number of licence holders by age is not clear, but even if that's true, then transport CO2 emissions is driven by old codgers who insist on driving for everything 😉
https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/summary
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts02-driving-licence-holders
In any case, we can’t simply cut consumption
Then we are doomed. For that matter, unless you think it's ok for only certain places in the world to be developed, how is it all feasible to provide for the entire planet to consume at the rate we do, and with "sustainable" tech?
Guy Martin in petrol-head EV trashing. Now there's a surprise - not. He's Hammond with actual ability or Clarkson without the gut.
I'm happy to use my EV for long trips when the amount of kit to carry makes the train impractical. In France, Germany and Spain we use Mobive (EDF) and Mobility+. Rates are between the domestic rate in the respective countries. Lunchtime we often charge at Lidl and get about 20 kWh in the free hour German limit. Leclerc, Lidl and Intermarché are 22kWh free unlimitrd in France.
If you want electricity more expesive than the equivalent petrol use a French autoroute charger if you can find one that works - most don't.
Read through this thread from the start for the cheapest fastest chargers in UK regions.
As you said yourself, the manufacture of such things is incredibly problematic.
It is, which is why we need to look at the EROI (energy returned on energy invested). Nuclear is by far the best option, from that point of view.
Edukator agrees, after all, as he has glowing reports of France's sustainable electricity generation.
how is it all feasible to provide for the entire planet to consume at the rate we do, and with “sustainable” tech?
It's not.
But rather than simply not consuming, I think the only practical route (which isn't the best for the planet) is to consume with less impact.
For example, we are doing a good job of making UK holidays better lately, which should help people choose to holiday here rather than overseas.
The continued rise in total road milage predicted bu the government makes the transition to EVs even more important, Twrch.
And please don't put words into my mouth, Twrch, unless it's stupidly transparent trolling. I haven't promoted the use of nuclear power in either France or the UK but have expressed pleasure at the UK's increase in Wind generation.
I'm in favour of reducing overall energy demand and progressivly replace nuclear. I'm not in favour of dropping nuclear overnight as the Germans have done and replacing with brown coal. The effect was pervers, the closing of a relatively safe German station meant a dodgy French one which wad more of a thrrat to the German population syayed opn.