Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

Grumpy_chap

CKhalvashi said:

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

, big and powerful BEVs may be in the same range as most diesel or petrol vehicle

Shouldn't "big and powerful" EVs be compared to "big and powerful" ICEs rather than "most" ICEs?

The issue is that you're then looking at a 1000+ mile range, as Jeremy Clarkson proved driving a Jag from somewhere in France to Blackpool, most of it not economically.

Bearing in mind the only comparable car is already £100k+, is this realistically a viable option at this time?

Aaah, I wonder whether my shortened extract caused confusion in the use of the word "range"?
It was not "range" as in distance per charge / tank of fuel. 

I had extracted a short part of a post by @JKenH referring to whether or not EV's are "green" - I copy the whole post below for ease of reference.

That article appeared to be comparing the life cycle emissions of "big and powerful EV's" against "most diesel or petrol vehicles", so I was simply saying (or trying to say) that vehicles should be compared on as close to like-for-like as possible, so compare the environmental impact of:

• MG5 vs Focus Estate
• Mercedes EQS vs Mercedes S Class
• Tesla S vs Jaguar XJ (though I think that is going to be swapped to an EV at next launch)
• Tesla X vs Range Rover Sport

It's not a fair comparison to assess the "big and powerful" EV against "most" ICEs' as "most" ICE's is smaller and less powerful cars.

Hope that makes sense, but I may have just added confusion.

JKenH said:

New Green NCAP emissions ratings cast doubt on electric cars’ green credentials

A significant conclusion drawn by Green NCAP is that “while compact and mid-sized BEV show slightly less life cycle GHG emissions than conventional powertrain cars in the context of the European average electricity mix, big and powerful BEVs may be in the same range as most diesel or petrol vehicles”.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/357817/new-green-ncap-emissions-ratings-cast-doubt-electric-cars-green-credentials

Edit: The green cap press release:
https://www.greenncap.com/press-releases/lca-how-sustainable-is-your-car/

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

CKhalvashi said:

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

, big and powerful BEVs may be in the same range as most diesel or petrol vehicle

Shouldn't "big and powerful" EVs be compared to "big and powerful" ICEs rather than "most" ICEs?

The issue is that you're then looking at a 1000+ mile range, as Jeremy Clarkson proved driving a Jag from somewhere in France to Blackpool, most of it not economically.

Bearing in mind the only comparable car is already £100k+, is this realistically a viable option at this time?

Aaah, I wonder whether my shortened extract caused confusion in the use of the word "range"?
It was not "range" as in distance per charge / tank of fuel. 

I had extracted a short part of a post by @JKenH referring to whether or not EV's are "green" - I copy the whole post below for ease of reference.

That article appeared to be comparing the life cycle emissions of "big and powerful EV's" against "most diesel or petrol vehicles", so I was simply saying (or trying to say) that vehicles should be compared on as close to like-for-like as possible, so compare the environmental impact of:

• MG5 vs Focus Estate
• Mercedes EQS vs Mercedes S Class
• Tesla S vs Jaguar XJ (though I think that is going to be swapped to an EV at next launch)
• Tesla X vs Range Rover Sport

It's not a fair comparison to assess the "big and powerful" EV against "most" ICEs' as "most" ICE's is smaller and less powerful cars.

Hope that makes sense, but I may have just added confusion.

JKenH said:

New Green NCAP emissions ratings cast doubt on electric cars’ green credentials

A significant conclusion drawn by Green NCAP is that “while compact and mid-sized BEV show slightly less life cycle GHG emissions than conventional powertrain cars in the context of the European average electricity mix, big and powerful BEVs may be in the same range as most diesel or petrol vehicles”.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/357817/new-green-ncap-emissions-ratings-cast-doubt-electric-cars-green-credentials

Edit: The green cap press release:
https://www.greenncap.com/press-releases/lca-how-sustainable-is-your-car/

I think the point of the article is that we need a more nuanced discussion - we cannot simply say all EVs are more sustainable than all ICE cars in all situations. 

If for instance, you have traditionally run an economical small ICE car because you are concerned about your motoring budget you might find you are able to run a bigger EV on the same budget (taking advantage of significant tax and fuel savings) and therefore opt to move up a class in size/list price.

In practice a lot of the new EVs being sold are largish cars displacing smaller ones. For years the Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus used to dominate the new car sales charts but where are they now? Yes, there is the electric Corsa but other than that most of the best selling cars are quite a bit more expensive. How much is a Model Y? Were there any £50k plus cars topping the charts 3 or 4 years ago. 

So should we compare cars based on weight, physical size or price or if we want to gauge the impact on CO2 levels from the vehicle fleet perhaps just compare what new cars are selling today with what were selling most 3 or 4 years ago? 

Grumpy_chap

I agree that everything is all rather nuanced. 
Any discussion that is based upon current car sales as part of the metric also needs to have consideration as to what cars are actually available given current supply constraints.  That impacts sales probably more than any other factor right now.

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

I agree that everything is all rather nuanced. 
Any discussion that is based upon current car sales as part of the metric also needs to have consideration as to what cars are actually available given current supply constraints.  That impacts sales probably more than any other factor right now.

Indeed, some manufacturers are concentrating on more expensive (profitable) bigger battery models which of course have a greater CO2 manufacturing footprint but offer no environmental benefit over the same model with a smaller battery. As the article said more weight/mass is the enemy of efficiency.

Once we were happy driving round in 24 kWh Leafs or 22 kWh Zoes but no one wants much less than a 60 kWh battery now. 

I have been thinking about the big battery MGZS EV as a replacement for my Leaf but environmentally that would be a retrograde step. I dare say it will turn out to be the most popular model in the range just like the bigger battery Kona and E-Niros. Perhaps a tax based on battery size would help redress the problem.

CKhalvashi

Grumpy_chap said:

CKhalvashi said:

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

, big and powerful BEVs may be in the same range as most diesel or petrol vehicle

Shouldn't "big and powerful" EVs be compared to "big and powerful" ICEs rather than "most" ICEs?

The issue is that you're then looking at a 1000+ mile range, as Jeremy Clarkson proved driving a Jag from somewhere in France to Blackpool, most of it not economically.

Bearing in mind the only comparable car is already £100k+, is this realistically a viable option at this time?

Aaah, I wonder whether my shortened extract caused confusion in the use of the word "range"?
It was not "range" as in distance per charge / tank of fuel. 

I had extracted a short part of a post by @JKenH referring to whether or not EV's are "green" - I copy the whole post below for ease of reference.

That article appeared to be comparing the life cycle emissions of "big and powerful EV's" against "most diesel or petrol vehicles", so I was simply saying (or trying to say) that vehicles should be compared on as close to like-for-like as possible, so compare the environmental impact of:

• MG5 vs Focus Estate
• Mercedes EQS vs Mercedes S Class
• Tesla S vs Jaguar XJ (though I think that is going to be swapped to an EV at next launch)
• Tesla X vs Range Rover Sport

It's not a fair comparison to assess the "big and powerful" EV against "most" ICEs' as "most" ICE's is smaller and less powerful cars.

Hope that makes sense, but I may have just added confusion.

JKenH said:

New Green NCAP emissions ratings cast doubt on electric cars’ green credentials

A significant conclusion drawn by Green NCAP is that “while compact and mid-sized BEV show slightly less life cycle GHG emissions than conventional powertrain cars in the context of the European average electricity mix, big and powerful BEVs may be in the same range as most diesel or petrol vehicles”.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/357817/new-green-ncap-emissions-ratings-cast-doubt-electric-cars-green-credentials

Edit: The green cap press release:
https://www.greenncap.com/press-releases/lca-how-sustainable-is-your-car/

Sorry, yes, got you now.

I compare the Ioniq to a Focus quite often, so this makes a lot of sense. No way the weight of a 500+ miles battery pack would be economical though, which was what I thought you meant.

Everything makes sense now, so sorry for that

CKhalvashi

JKenH said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I agree that everything is all rather nuanced. 
Any discussion that is based upon current car sales as part of the metric also needs to have consideration as to what cars are actually available given current supply constraints.  That impacts sales probably more than any other factor right now.

Indeed, some manufacturers are concentrating on more expensive (profitable) bigger battery models which of course have a greater CO2 manufacturing footprint but offer no environmental benefit over the same model with a smaller battery. As the article said more weight/mass is the enemy of efficiency.

Once we were happy driving round in 24 kWh Leafs or 22 kWh Zoes but no one wants much less than a 60 kWh battery now. 

I have been thinking about the big battery MGZS EV as a replacement for my Leaf but environmentally that would be a retrograde step. I dare say it will turn out to be the most popular model in the range just like the bigger battery Kona and E-Niros. Perhaps a tax based on battery size would help redress the problem.

But would the larger batteries not be a bit of a counterbalance in removing more emissions from the environment later on?

Taxi drivers etc require large-ish batteries with decent ranges, as do sales rep-types. If you can remove petrol/diesel from this type of driver the longer term environmental benefits (subject to fuel mix etc) should be much larger. This to me would make the bigger battery models less of a double edged sword.

I'm finding the Ioniq will do about 3 days to a charge at the moment instead of 2 and a bit, so summer weather is better for it too. We aren't at air conditioning stage in the year yet though.

orrery

JKenH said:

Indeed, some manufacturers are concentrating on more expensive (profitable) bigger battery models which of course have a greater CO2 manufacturing footprint but offer no environmental benefit over the same model with a smaller battery....

I don't agree. I've had various models of Leaf, with 24/30/40kWh batteries, but now I have an 80kWh Enyaq.

In parallel, as the new car has significantly better range, I've got rid of my petrol estate* and gone down to one car. A move which has been enabled by the much bigger battery, in a much bigger car, which now provides the facilities that the large petrol estate once did.

* a win win, as I gave it to my daughter, who was then able to terminate the lease on her even bigger diesel car.

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

Once we were happy driving round in 24 kWh Leafs or 22 kWh Zoes but no one wants much less than a 60 kWh battery now. 

I am in broad agreement with your overall post, except cannot agree on that part.  The level of market penetration of the earlier vehicles with smaller batteries seems to demonstrate that the majority of people were not happy in them.

24 kWh battery and 4 miles / kWh is a range of just under 100 miles.  With winter conditions, the range will be lower.  There are many people that would be doing that type of round trip for regular commute, family days out and need greater range with sufficient regularity that 100 miles or so would be insufficient.

Improving public charging infrastructure will work to mitigate that to some extent, but we probably have not reached that being good enough yet.

60 kWh means range nearer to 240 miles so you'll still get 160 - 180 miles under harsh conditions.  Makes a more amenable purchase and less stressful experience in terms of avoiding range anxiety for the majority.  Hence the sales are higher.

JKenH

I understand why people buy big battery cars, after all that’s what I am thinking of doing. I have suggested several times to my wife that she should have an electric car but she has range/charging anxiety and insists she needs a car with 300 mile range which means she would need to move up to a substantially bigger/more expensive car. The very fact that large batteried cars are selling so well suggests many others are of a similar mind. 

EVs are therefore getting bigger and heavier and perhaps it is not unreasonable therefore to compare ICEs with cars from the class above. 

Let me make this clear, I love EVs. I got rid of both my 600 mile range Golf and Mercedes for a 140 mile range Leaf because I regard the Leaf as a far better car. I just didn’t want to drive the other cars anymore. I just don’t  see the argument about CO2 emissions as being quite so back and white as others. It’s almost as though no one is allowed to say that some ICE cars can have comparable CO2 emissions to some EVs which is what the article is about.

As batteries constitute a huge part of the environmental impact of EVs (particularly those like mine which cover low mileages) it makes sense that if you double the size of an EV battery you will significantly increase its emissions and that is what we are currently doing. 

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

Once we were happy driving round in 24 kWh Leafs or 22 kWh Zoes but no one wants much less than a 60 kWh battery now. 

I am in broad agreement with your overall post, except cannot agree on that part.  The level of market penetration of the earlier vehicles with smaller batteries seems to demonstrate that the majority of people were not happy in them.

24 kWh battery and 4 miles / kWh is a range of just under 100 miles.  With winter conditions, the range will be lower.  There are many people that would be doing that type of round trip for regular commute, family days out and need greater range with sufficient regularity that 100 miles or so would be insufficient.

Improving public charging infrastructure will work to mitigate that to some extent, but we probably have not reached that being good enough yet.

60 kWh means range nearer to 240 miles so you'll still get 160 - 180 miles under harsh conditions.  Makes a more amenable purchase and less stressful experience in terms of avoiding range anxiety for the majority.  Hence the sales are higher.

OK, we weren’t happy driving round in 22/24 kWh EVs but at the time many said they were - perhaps the same people who now are buying cars with 3 x the battery capacity. My first EV was a 30kWh Leaf which I didn’t keep very long. It convinced me I wanted an EV but needed one with bigger range.

As soon as 100kWh batteries become widely available we will be buying those. There may be a point when with ever increasing battery size and ever more demanding ICE emissions regulations some EVs may need to be driven 100k miles to be competitive on  CO2 emissions. 

For some drivers, particularly those of low mileage second cars, something like the Ionic PHEV may deliver the lowest CO2 emissions when charged 90% of the time at home. In fact with my usage profile it would probably be the best car for me - except it’s not an EV.