Electric vehicles miles per KWh

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I understand that, but I'm talking about external temperatures (not vehicular) and VW's new attempt to mislead on emissions and their 'dieselgate' fix. The court filings in Germany are that when VW settled the dieselgate case, they actually cheated with their software fix. :eek:

Effectively, when tested, the vehicles appeared to have been fixed. Tested of course in testing centres ....... inside testing centres.

But the fix only works when outside temps are between 10C and 32C.

So far this case applies to the software fix on the Tiquan, but could expand.


Plus you also have to consider VW going forward, and they seem to still be obsessed with the mythical 'clean diesel':

Sebastian Willman head of VW engine development recently said - "Diesel has always been very economical and now it is absolutely clean. Vehicles with the latest emissions technology, such as our current diesel engines, emit only very low nitrogen oxide emissions."

They could argue that it's clean enough and it probably is
You can view diesel gate as a car company breaking the regulations or that the regulations were overly tight.

People do all sorts of stuff that are dangerous to their health
From being fat and obease to eating red meat smoking doing drugs and drinking alcohol
For most people modern diesel coal gas emmissions are a negligible impact on their health and wellbeing

In sure you'll point to fifty studies saying otherwise
But those are mostly nonsense
Studies are not mathematical proofs they aren't not experimentation which can be replicated they are mostly confirmation bias. Scientists are also not pure angles they lie and ommit and make up results. Plus even in politically uncharged studies like what the impact of a high fat or high carb or high protein diet is many studies contradict each other. That's not to say there is a anti fat lobby and a pro fat lobby making !!!! up it probably means the health impact is quite negligible hence why there is a broad range of results from these studies

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

1. They may be cleaner, but they are still vastly dirty, and ICEV's can never meet the zero target for CO2 that we need to meet. [Not even possible if bio-energy was used, since the demand would be far too great.]

2. You say 'after the dieselgate scandal', I assume you mean Dieselgate 1, not Dieselgate 2 that has just popped up as it's been found that the VW 'fix' only works within a temperature window, and they failed to explain that in cold or hot weather it doesn't work. This has resulted in new litigation.

3. As ICEV's get older, their emissions actually rise per mile as the ICE wears.

4. Again, we need to be careful when talking about emissions, as we may only focus on CO2 (which of course is a BEV winner too) but with ICEV's we also have to consider the enormous localised pollution that they create, regardless of efficiency.

There is no enormous localised pollution
There is pollution at a level which has negligible impact on health (relative to other factors)

This can be seen by simple observation that the Scots live shorter lives than those in much more dense SE England who are subject to much more 'pollution'

The answer is other factors have a much bigger impact on heath and well being than petrol or diesel emmissions. If you care so much about heath spend more on heath don't pretend we can massively improve health outcomes by going to BEVs or closing down coal plants.

I'm still waiting for my share of the NHS savings since we've cut coal use by 90%....

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Your whole argument is bogus.

The grid leccy mix is falling FF, and rising RE. The rate at which FF's are being pushed off the grid is around 3%pa, probably around 10x greater than the additional demand from BEV's.

So, in marginal terms, all additional BEV's are now powered from the additional generation from RE, whilst the 'old' demand and supply is also slowly moving from FF to RE.

So, the true question, yet again, comes back to this -

Why, when we have a motoring forum, and extensive EV discussions on there, would you create a thread on the Green & Ethical Board to promote diesel over BEV's?

As with all your new threads, this one also appears to be nothing more than a 'vehicle' (see what I did there?) for your campaign against RE, AGW and FF emissions.

Green is a colour and ethics is subjective

If you want this part of the forum to be.... Wind and solar energy discussion only, and only what Marty boy finds ethical, then write the owners an email asking the title to be changed to such

Otherwise we've all heard this from you now a hundred times, repeating it another 100 times isn't adding anything it's just trolling so stop.

JKenH

JKenH wrote: »

I’m not defending GA, only his right to post without you attacking him because of who he is rather than what he says.

I don’t believe diesels are cleaner than BEVs. But BEVs are not pure as snow. They are better but because of the manufacturing cost and the fact we are a long way from a perfectly clean grid they will never be zero carbon.

Please have a read of this ICCT paper. Here is just one quote to demonstrate my point but please read the whole paper which is pro BEV.

An average electric vehicle in Europe produces 50% less life-cycle greenhouse gases over the first 150,000 kilometers of driving, although the relative benefit varies from 28% to 72%, depending on local electricity production.

Here is the link to the ITCC paper I forgot to attach

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

I’m not defending GA, only his right to post without you attacking him because of who he is rather than what he says.

I don’t believe diesels are cleaner than BEVs. But BEVs are not pure as snow. They are better but because of the manufacturing cost and the fact we are a long way from a perfectly clean grid they will never be zero carbon.

Please have a read of this ICCT paper. Here is just one quote to demonstrate my point but please read the whole paper which is pro BEV.

An average electric vehicle in Europe produces 50% less life-cycle greenhouse gases over the first 150,000 kilometers of driving, although the relative benefit varies from 28% to 72%, depending on local electricity production.

No, sorry, but you always jump to his defence, trolling thread, after trolling thread. It's always you.

You demand those that placed him on ignore show him more respect, then complain when I read his posts and point out that he's trolling the G&E board.

So Ken, if you can't defend his claims, arguments, positions - such as being a self declared AGW denier, and repeatedly claiming the science is wrong on the health impacts of FF burning, then please don't have a go at me everytime I point out what he's doing.

This board is about green issues, not defending FF's, denying AGW, spreading old anti-wind reports from the UK's most infamous anti-wind propaganda organisation, or defending diesel v's electric transport. And using false arguments is not ethical.

So, please respect my position and opinion, and stop defending GA every single time, whilst failing to support any of his claims. And while you're at it, perhaps stop using identical terminology (to him) when you insult me, or complaining over and over because you've confused things I've said about him, as being about you. Weird that!

Thank you.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Manufacturers have been fiddling the figures ever since engine management systems were invented. It started with simple stuff like leaning the mixture at 56mph & 75mph to improve fuel test cycle results. Everyone knew this was happening, including the authorities, and because of that it became accepted practice to tune an engine for testing. All VAG did was to take it one step too far at a time when the threshold for acceptable behaviour was increasing.

Even before engine management systems, it was normal practice to select gear ratios to enable a performance car to reach 60mph in second gear.

Not sure I'd agree with that. Certainly the courts don't given the vast $bn's VW has had to pay out.

Do you really want to apologise for VW's past and (now) repeated actions?

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

I think this is false accounting

You would, but then you're neither green nor ethical. Also you deny the science of AGW and FF emissions, so why accept this science.

GreatApe wrote: »

They use a lot of energy while stationary

No they don't.

Have you forgotten about the energy consumption and emissions from ICEV's when idling?

GreatApe wrote: »

If the grid is 90 units wind 10 unit coal and you plug an EV in what happens?

The grid is neither 90% wind nor 10% coal.

Coal doesn't demand follow, its generation is almost always contractual. Gas is used to demand follow.

Coal makes up around half that figure already (5%) for UK generation and is falling. Any calculations you do based on coal emissions are wantonly misleading.

But, as previously explained, RE is displacing FF's on the UK grid, far faster than any increase in leccy demand, such as EV's or HP's.

GreatApe wrote: »

They could argue that it's clean enough and it probably is
You can view diesel gate as a car company breaking the regulations or that the regulations were overly tight.

I view it as deliberate and illegal misrepresentations. If you think what they did was justifiable, then ring them up and tell them, and suggest they weren't found guilty of multiple offences in multiple countries.

GreatApe wrote: »

The UK while now is marginal gas it will soon be marginal clean (mostly marginal french nuclear imports)

Not sure how 2GW (when importing) can be 'most' of an average 40GW power demand.

GreatApe wrote: »

For most people modern diesel coal gas emmissions are a negligible impact on their health and wellbeing

In sure you'll point to fifty studies saying otherwise
But those are mostly nonsense

Science is wrong, you are right? Ken will be pleased.

GreatApe wrote: »

There is no enormous localised pollution
There is pollution at a level which has negligible impact on health (relative to other factors)

Science is wrong, you are right? Ken will be pleased.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Have you forgotten about the energy consumption and emissions from ICEV's when idling?

By comparison negligible

Coal doesn't demand follow

Shoes how much you know
What do you think was demand following before the 1990s dash for gas?
Nuclear or coal cos that's more or less all we had

Coal demand follows in China the world's biggest user of coal
It also demand follows in Germany

It doesn't in the UK now since it's almost all gone and we all await our coal phase out NHS divided....

Gas is used to demand follow.

Quite recnelty in the UK yes. For most of your lifetime no

Coal makes up around half that figure already (5%) for UK generation and is falling. Any calculations you do based on coal emissions are wantonly misleading

.

I didn't do any emmissions calculations I said EVs are roughly on par on efficiency of converting chemical to kinetic energy and provided calculations to show it yet all you did was...once again...troll me and my threads

But, as previously explained, RE is displacing FF's on the UK grid, far faster than any increase in leccy demand, such as EV's or HP's.

Which I agree with and already started soon the UK is marignal clean not marginal gas (at least a lot of the time)

I view it as deliberate and illegal misrepresentations. If you think what they did was justifiable, then ring them up and tell them, and suggest they weren't found guilty of multiple offences in multiple countries.

In a logical world both nuclear and fossil fuel harm would be priced in correctly but we live in an illogical world where both harms are grossly exgerrated

Not sure how 2GW (when importing) can be 'most' of an average 40GW power demand.

Average UK demand is 38GW and soon we will have 7.4GW links to France. Two new links coming online in the next 12 months.

Science is wrong, you are right? Ken will be pleased.
Science is wrong, you are right? Ken will be pleased.

A study isn't conclusive and many studies contradict each other
Plus this study you talk of probably agrees with me
That combustion has a negative impact when Ch is negligible compared to normal human activities



But most importantly stop trolling my threads!!

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Not sure I'd agree with that. Certainly the courts don't given the vast $bn's VW has had to pay out.

Do you really want to apologise for VW's past and (now) repeated actions?

Mart, it's been common knowledge for years that if you put a VAG vehicle on a dynamometer you have to constantly wiggle the steering wheel to stop it running the "emissions test" map. It's inconceivable that with millions of people knowing about this, the authorities weren't also aware of it.

Dieselgate is no more than retrospective sanctions for a modern day interpretation of the rules. As for Americans getting all 'holier than thou' about their precious air being polluted by VWs.....don't make me laugh!

JKenH

The irony in all this is that the supervisory board of VW is made up of 10 worker and 10 shareholder representatives. Of the latter, two represent the state government of Lower Saxony. The head of the IG Metall union even served as interim chairman when the diesel scandal first broke. So we can’t just blame the capitalists.