Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

Also a shame he seems to criticise a BEV transition in areas with higher coal generation, since that will need to fall over time anyway, so better to lock into BEV's asap that get cleaner over time, than an ICEV that will always emit CO2 and localised pollution for ~15yrs (just my opinion). However, it's possible he's talking about VWG pushing their BEV's into regions with cleaner generation first, thus managing the supply shortage.

Don't we need to be doing whatever leads to the least CO2 emissions over the next, say, 20 years?  If that means keeping ICEVs going in certain locations a bit longer then why not?  Even though he may have a vested interest, I think Herr Diess is right.  The outcome is more important that trying to stick to the ideology regardless.

Yep, whatever is better over the lifetime of the vehicle, but also localised pollution. Hopefully that's a BEV now, but of course the faster countries can transition away from coal (and other FF) generation the better.

As I said, perhaps given the challenge they face reaching even 50% BEV's by 2030, then they may focus on targeting that limited supply into areas with 'cleaner' grids, which would I suppose make sense in context.

Hopefully this all becomes acedemic over the next 5yrs or so if BEV/battery production can ramp up enough to pull down costs. As BEV's become clearer winners in economic terms, the side issues/arguments mostly disappear.

Martyn1981

orrery said:

michaels said:

Even if we weren't then there may be some markets where the expectation is that over the vehicle's lifetime an EV is more dirty than an efficient iceV because of how dirty the grid is and will remain.

From what I recall, it has already been determined that an EV is cleaner than an ICE even if the grid is 100% coal powered.

Yeah that's my thinking too, but it's a tricky position depending on which study is used, how the grid is expected to change, and over what time period, and especially the issue of local air pollution v's CO2 emissions. Also some studies compare the additional emissions from producing a battery v's the emissions from the ICEV rather than all of the emissions involved in finding, extracting, transporting, refining and transporting (again) that fuel too (the long tailpipe argument).


If you're bored then a recent article contains a handy list of reports to peruse and consider - see the long list of here here's.

Snarky Answers To Uninformed & Misinformed EV Questions

EV-curious friend: Are EVs really green? I heard that EVs are actually worse for the environment than gas cars. And the media has, like, totally ignored this issue.

EV owner: That’s actually a reasonable question. What you’re talking about is called the “long tailpipe” issue, and it’s been discussed extensively in both scientific journals and mainstream media outlets for the last decade. Everything we do has environmental consequences, and it’s true that producing cars, and generating the electricity that powers them, emits pollutants. Are you very knowledgeable about science?

EV-curious friend: Uh … well, not really, I guess.

EV owner: I’ll explain it anyway. The carbon footprint of any vehicle depends on many factors, but studies have found that, even if powered 100% by coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, an EV emits less carbon and other pollutants than the average gas vehicle. The lifecycle emissions of an EV, including raw material mining, manufacturing and recycling, have also been shown to be considerably lower than those of a typical fossil-burner. Do you believe me?

EV-curious friend: Uh … Usually if I see something on Facebook, I assume it’s true.

EV owner: You might want to have a little more information. The lower environmental footprint of EVs has been demonstrated by various scientific studies, which you can read about here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

orrery said:

michaels said:

Even if we weren't then there may be some markets where the expectation is that over the vehicle's lifetime an EV is more dirty than an efficient iceV because of how dirty the grid is and will remain.

From what I recall, it has already been determined that an EV is cleaner than an ICE even if the grid is 100% coal powered.

Yeah that's my thinking too, but it's a tricky position depending on which study is used, how the grid is expected to change, and over what time period, and especially the issue of local air pollution v's CO2 emissions. Also some studies compare the additional emissions from producing a battery v's the emissions from the ICEV rather than all of the emissions involved in finding, extracting, transporting, refining and transporting (again) that fuel too (the long tailpipe argument).


If you're bored then a recent article contains a handy list of reports to peruse and consider - see the long list of here here's.

Snarky Answers To Uninformed & Misinformed EV Questions

EV-curious friend: Are EVs really green? I heard that EVs are actually worse for the environment than gas cars. And the media has, like, totally ignored this issue.

EV owner: That’s actually a reasonable question. What you’re talking about is called the “long tailpipe” issue, and it’s been discussed extensively in both scientific journals and mainstream media outlets for the last decade. Everything we do has environmental consequences, and it’s true that producing cars, and generating the electricity that powers them, emits pollutants. Are you very knowledgeable about science?

EV-curious friend: Uh … well, not really, I guess.

EV owner: I’ll explain it anyway. The carbon footprint of any vehicle depends on many factors, but studies have found that, even if powered 100% by coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, an EV emits less carbon and other pollutants than the average gas vehicle. The lifecycle emissions of an EV, including raw material mining, manufacturing and recycling, have also been shown to be considerably lower than those of a typical fossil-burner. Do you believe me?

EV-curious friend: Uh … Usually if I see something on Facebook, I assume it’s true.

EV owner: You might want to have a little more information. The lower environmental footprint of EVs has been demonstrated by various scientific studies, which you can read about here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Wasn't there something very recent from VW that said the all impacts lifetime can go either way depending on the grid - this for CO2 as you say rather than local NO and particulates.

JKenH

orrery said:

michaels said:

Even if we weren't then there may be some markets where the expectation is that over the vehicle's lifetime an EV is more dirty than an efficient iceV because of how dirty the grid is and will remain.

From what I recall, it has already been determined that an EV is cleaner than an ICE even if the grid is 100% coal powered.

That is the claim of certain climate campaign groups, like Transport and Environment. Different studies produce different results. I linked to this study https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/electric-vehicles-emit-less-carbon-on-average-than-combustion-engine-vehicles-301467548.html  yesterday which says generally EVs are cleaner than ICEs over their lifetime but used in certain locations they may not be. Even the UK grid has been putting out emissions close to 300g/km of CO2 over the last few days. I hate to think what the Polish or even German grid looks like. Some of China’s electricity production produces emissions of 1000g/km. That is assuming you take average CO2 values but there is a very strong argument that one should look at the marginal emissions. 

China to keep up with its industrial output is building more coal fired stations and at the same time is adding more EVs to the grid. Without those EVs being built and put in the road there would be less demand and less need for new coal fired generation, either to power the cars or build them. The same might be true in Germany but I don’t have the figures for there. 

In China the move to EVs and the push for more renewable generation (at the same time as they add more coal is not for environmental reasons but political ones. China is resource poor in fossil fuels and wants energy independence. There is an added benefit however that if the world can be directed away from fossil fuels towards renewables the West will become relatively weaker.

The other important point to bear in mind is that EVs are front end loaded when it comes to emissions. Their manufacture emits more CO2 than an ICEV. Eventually those excess emissions in manufacture are wiped out as the emissions in use are less (in many locations) but CO2 in the atmosphere has a cumulative effect (the area under the curve). For several years therefore the move to EVs is worsening the climate problem and that damage cannot be undone in later years. Various figures have been put forward as to when the EV starts winning on CO2 but the consensus seems to be it is probably not until around 50,000 miles or so. For some people that is 10 years driving. My wife’s 2011 Picanto which has 99g/km emissions still has not reached that milestone. For small low mileage cars like that an EV will never be a better CO2 option. My motorhome has done 12000 miles in 5 years. At what point does an electric powered motorhome become a better option? The discussion has to be more nuanced than maintaining that EVs emit less CO2 in every situation.

I think EVs as taxis, repmobiles, local delivery vans, buses, dustbin lorries make perfect sense and should be incentivised but many EV use cases are hard to justify on a CO2 basis, particularly when we have an imperfect grid. Personally I think the economic case for EVs is usually as good if not better than the CO2 argument in the UK and probably in many other European countries. As I have said several times, buying a new EV on salary sacrifice is a no brainer compared to buying an ICEv. 

The other point being raised is that there is a finite battery supply - we just can’t make them fast enough to meet demand so perhaps more consideration needs to be given, as VW are doing, as to how to maximise the CO2 savings from the limited battery production capacity. Here, the much loathed (by EV campaigners) Toyota made a lot of sense with their argument that it is better to put lots of small batteries into many vehicles than large ones into a few. Hybrids do offer significant emissions reductions while taking up few resources. For me, a correctly used PHEV is an excellent solution. Most journeys are only a few miles and with a battery size perhaps a fifth of a full EV the potential for CO2 saving is huge. Is it better to have one EV with a 60KWh battery and 4 ICEVs on the road or 5 PHEVs with 12kWh batteries? Yes, we have heard stories in the past of PHEVs bought just for the tax savings and never being plugged in but if you look at the EV forums you will find far more stories of PHEVs (unnecessarily in some eyes) taking up charging spaces that should be prioritised for BEVs. That wouldn’t be happening if PHEVs weren’t using their batteries.

The problem for me is that much of the debate is dominated by ideologues - anything other than a pure EV is bad, coupled with a hatred of the fossil fuel industry (and to a lesser extent OEM manufacturers - witness the vitriol aimed at Toyota).

We really do need a more nuanced discussion and an acknowledgment that in a world where battery supply is limited;

a) pure EVs in some use cases are not always a better solution than PHEVS or hybrids
and
b) in some situations they may be inferior to ICEVs from a CO2 perspective. 

One final point and something I mentioned in another thread, we need to move away from this obsession with net zero. Electric vehicles in many situations make more sense environmentally and economically than ICEVs and in those cases they should be encouraged and incentivised but there comes a point when both environmentally and economically there are more effective ways of directing money and resources at reducing CO2. 

It doesn’t have to be so binary.

JKenH

Government pledges £60m to double number of charging points for electric cars

The Scottish Government hopes to double the number of public electric vehicle (EV) charging points in the next few years with a new £60 million fund.

However, opposition MSPs say it will fall short of delivering the 4,000 new charging points needed annually in order to meet growing demand for EVs.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-government-government-scottish-parliament-msps-scotland-b2001288.html

I’m not sure the Scots realise how lucky they are when it comes to charging,points.

Anyway, an excuse for a moan. I went to IKEA Leeds today, just a little too far to be able to get there and back on a home charge so a charge would be needed.

There are 2 rapid charging stations (1 Chademo, CCS,1 x 2 CCS and a 22kw AC charger). When we arrived the two rapids were occupied but the 22kW AC charger was free so we plugged in there. Unfortunately it only charged at 3.3kW but actually that was a bonus as it meant we could park there for a couple of hours and get enough charge without running  up too big a bill/having to move.

My moan is about parking etiquette. When we arrived we had a coffee from our flasks (proper MSE style). While sitting there I noticed that the iD4 in one bay was sitting at 80% for 15 minutes (presumably an 80% charge limit setting is an option on the iD4). The other bay had a Corsa at 97% which went up to 99% by the time the owner arrived. After doing our shopping we returned to the car for a picnic lunch. The ID4 had been replaced by a TM3 which was sitting at 100%. Eventually the Tesla owner appeared and shortly afterwards a Kona and another car (I forget the model) arrived apparently to start a slow charging race from around 80%. By the time we left both cars were neck and neck on 89% and charging at around 1kWh/4 minutes. Meanwhile I had reached 71%, enough to give me a comfortable run home at motorway speeds. 

The problem, as I have often commented before is that when the EV charging points are just outside the entrance door, then, whether someone needs a charge or not, they may decide to plug in just for the convenient parking spot. It is hardly likely given the distribution of IKEA stores that the TM3 or ID4 would have needed to charge to get home.

Personally I feel it is bad etiquette to leave a car plugged in occupying a charging spot when it is no longer charging (but that is an inevitable problem with installing rapids as destination chargers). It is frustrating for other users and hardly conducive to profitable operation of chargers. 

For the record, these were not free chargers - 39p rapids/30p ac.

JKenH

UK electric vehicle charging network is lagging behind, says Volkswagen

The lack of a widespread electric vehicle charging network in the UK is holding back the mass adoption of zero-emission cars, according to carmakers and industry analysts.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/26/uk-electric-vehicle-charging-network-is-lagging-behind-says-volkswagen

EricMears

orrery said:

From what I recall, it has already been determined that an EV is cleaner than an ICE even if the grid is 100% coal powered.

Indeed,  even if the generated electricity caused just as much pollution as an IC engine (which I'm not for a moment suggesting) ,  discharging that at high level from a power station chimney is far less likely to poison passers-by than tailpipe emissions do.

EricMears

JKenH said:

UK electric vehicle charging network is lagging behind, says Volkswagen

The lack of a widespread electric vehicle charging network in the UK is holding back the mass adoption of zero-emission cars, according to carmakers and industry analysts.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/26/uk-electric-vehicle-charging-network-is-lagging-behind-says-volkswagen

So apart from putting their name on Podpoint  chargers at Tesco ,  what are VW doing to help ?

JKenH

Charging etiquette and safety: a heated discussion

As always the spirited Flaviana has a point of view and does not hesitate to make it known

https://youtu.be/3iZ5qVDigIE

Swan_Valley

Not sure whether to post this here on in the general RE news thread, but will try here, as it is EV related:

Maersk launches the world’s first offshore electric vessel-charging station venture

"Maersk Supply Service, a subsidiary of Danish shipping giant Maersk, is launching Stillstrom – an offshore vessel-charging venture to support the decarbonization of the maritime industry by eliminating idle emissions.

Stillstrom will deliver offshore electric charging solutions to vessels at ports, hubs, and offshore energy operations. Offshore charging for idle vessels is critical to facilitating the decarbonization of the maritime industry, since it allows vessel owners to replace fossil fuels with electricity while moored to a charging buoy"