Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

Martyn1981

michaels said:

If you assume that it is biofuels that are burned to grow the biofuels but in reality it is almost certainly just plain ol diesel in the tractors and combines.

If you need a medium that allows you to store PV then there is hydrogen to convert to ammonia or whatever - more efficient than biofuels?

Yes, the FF's being burned, and the related emissions to produce the bio-fuel (assuming the bio-fuel itself is net zero emission across the carbon cycle) is equivalent to 80% to 120% of the emissions of just burning the FF's. Or to put it another way, to produce X amount of bio-fuel, you will consume around 80%-120% of fuel.

The actual issue is far worse, as it uses about 40% of US corn land (about 30m acres) to grow corn for ethanol (a product not edible for humans, more like cardboard), which could be used to grow food, or produce RE leccy. Then there's the water consumption issue, and the large amount of fertilizer run-off (fertilizer production and use is included in that 80-120% figure).

I forget the exact number, but I think it's about 1/3rd to 1/2half of that corn ethanol land was (theoretically) used for PV, it would generate the equivalent of the whole US's future leccy consumption, including 100% BEV road transport.

QrizB

zeupater said:

Regarding the emissions comparison ... we continually see this flawed logic raised,

I don't know who "we" are but you've completely misunderstood.

zeupater said:

The argument invariably concentrates on the differential in energy density

This has nothing to do with energy density.

zeupater said:

In reality - even if considering bio-fuel energy CO2 emissions as being at the top end of the range posed (120% of comparative FF by unit mass),

That's not the argument being made.

The argument is that (inclding fuel production etc) the net carbon released when driving an ICE vehicle 1 mile while running on biofuels is 120% of the carbon released when driving the same vehicle 1 mile with fossil fuels.

Edit to add a few references:

https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/crop30-why-burning-food-for-land-hungry-biofuels-is-fueling-the-climate-crisis

https://www.wri.org/research/rethinking-biofuels-us-midwest

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16022022/corn-ethanol-gasoline-climate-change/

zeupater said:

HTH - Z 

You've missed the point completely, and no it doesn't help.

thevilla

If we left the transition to market forces we would burn coal, oil and gas until the economic impact of climate change finally destroys the economy. Only those holding the reins at the time would be held to account as those getting rich now will have jumped ship long beforehand. 

The idea that governments never need to intervene and facilitate a change is laughable.  It is the short termism of party politics which is massively frustrating. (In my opinion).😁

Martyn1981

thevilla said:

If we left the transition to market forces we would burn coal, oil and gas until the economic impact of climate change finally destroys the economy. Only those holding the reins at the time would be held to account as those getting rich now will have jumped ship long beforehand. 

The idea that governments never need to intervene and facilitate a change is laughable.  It is the short termism of party politics which is massively frustrating. (In my opinion).😁

That's been my thinking for some time about the 'BEVolution'. Legacy auto has been dragging its feet, which it kinda has every right to do, if it really wants. But that will ensure their demise, and the loss of jobs, in the medium to long term.

This short article today from Transport and the Environment covers this issue (and co-incidentally) a bit on alternative fuels too.

The EU’s 2035 Target IS The Certainty That The Industry Needs

The real race is not between the US and Europe. It is between western automakers and Chinese ones. If western car brands want to have any chance of competing in China and emerging markets that are going electric fast, they need a strong home market.

Without regulation there will be no transformation of the legacy auto industry. Instead, scrapping the EU’s car CO2 rules would lead to lower investment and rentseeking. Yes, that might boost short-term profits but it also ensures oblivion in the longer run.

What about biofuels? Wastes like used cooking oil and animal fats don’t grow from the ground and the crop biofuels that do, such as corn, soy and palm oil, require vast amounts of land. These are absurdly complicated and unreliable solutions, especially when you consider an affordable and scalable alternative is available in electric.

michaels

Economics knows all about externalities (missing markets) and that govt intervention is the correct response and yet when it comes to climate change there is a temporal dimension which as we can tell from govt borrowing, the populace discount the future much too heavily.

zeupater

michaels said:

If you assume that it is biofuels that are burned to grow the biofuels but in reality it is almost certainly just plain ol diesel in the tractors and combines.

If you need a medium that allows you to store PV then there is hydrogen to convert to ammonia or whatever - more efficient than biofuels?

Hi

Potentially, that may be the case ... however ... firstly it doesn't have to be as the either biodiesel or electrons can replace process embedded FF emissions and secondly ... note the purposeful inclusion of the caveat "at combustion stage", because that's where simple conversion comparisons are normally made (ie, excluding energy consumed through production, processing, distribution etc), for example the claims that vehicle CO2 emissions from sustainable bio-fuels were worse than those related to FF were simply based on a raw MPG and related exhaust emission calculation, totally ignoring the embedded carbon cycle timelines ... whether this was intentional or simple ignorance is purely down to the competence of those making the claims, but I doubt that it would fool all of the people all of the time, especially if some actually took time to actually think the process through ....  .

What needs to be considered is that, in their most basic form, biofuels can simply be converted into energy through basic combustion, which could be performed extremely close to the point of creation, so very little in the way of physical distribution and virtually no processing inefficiencies. The more complex the processing/refining for onward storage, the less efficient the overall conversion to energy, which effectively describes the issues involved within the economic viability of using hydrogen as an energy storage & delivery medium .... while the cost of energy involved in the processing & delivery of the product remains uneconomical against the value of alternatives the product itself remains unviable, hence the total lack of hydrogen on garage forecourts. 

HTH - Z

Heedtheadvice

On a ( minor) positive not, received this today from Charge Place Scotland ( sort of organisers of the gov scheme of their public chargers in Scotland).

"We’re delighted to share some inspiring news about the collective impact of Scotland’s EV community. 

Thanks to the support of Scotland’s EV drivers, an outstanding £94,681.07 has been donated to Trees for Life, helping restore the ancient Caledonian Forest and rebuild vital habitats across the Scottish Highlands. 

This achievement has been made possible through the partnership between ChargePlace Scotland and Evolt Charging (powered by SWARCO), who operate the ChargePlace Scotland network and facilitated the donation to Trees for Life. 

How Your Support Helps 

The contribution made by Scotland’s EV drivers is enabling Trees for Life to: 

• Plant native tree species such as Scots Pine, Rowan, Birch, Aspen, and Juniper 
• Restore habitats for Red Squirrels, Pine Martens, Golden Eagles, and other wildlife
• Rewild degraded landscapes to boost biodiversity and improve ecological resilience
• Grow nature recovery sites like the Dundreggan Estate, transforming depleted land into thriving woodland 

Together, these efforts are helping rebuild some of Scotland’s most precious natural ecosystems. 

By choosing electric and supporting initiatives like this, Scotland’s EV drivers are playing a meaningful role in shaping a cleaner, greener, and wilder future for Scotland. 

Thank you for making a meaningful difference. "

Well I do not use those public chargers much and wonder if the message is part of a charm offensive? I have had cause to complain about the network of several occasions ( getting remote support where charging fails or sorting out other issues with the network management - approx 5 out of six charges have issues).   or maybe they just have my email address.

Positive news I suppose but a £1m contribution from the Scot Gov would be more impressive.

zeupater

QrizB said:

zeupater said:

Regarding the emissions comparison ... we continually see this flawed logic raised,

I don't know who "we" are but you've completely misunderstood.

zeupater said:

The argument invariably concentrates on the differential in energy density

This has nothing to do with energy density.

zeupater said:

In reality - even if considering bio-fuel energy CO2 emissions as being at the top end of the range posed (120% of comparative FF by unit mass),

That's not the argument being made.

The argument is that (inclding fuel production etc) the net carbon released when driving an ICE vehicle 1 mile while running on biofuels is 120% of the carbon released when driving the same vehicle 1 mile with fossil fuels.

Edit to add a few references:

https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/crop30-why-burning-food-for-land-hungry-biofuels-is-fueling-the-climate-crisis

https://www.wri.org/research/rethinking-biofuels-us-midwest

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16022022/corn-ethanol-gasoline-climate-change/

zeupater said:

HTH - Z 

You've missed the point completely, and no it doesn't help.

Hi

A little confused here .... in order ...

1. Regarding "We" ... on this forum and elsewhere there has been plenty on mention of biofuel being more CO2 emission intensive per unit travelled than FF with that being claimed to be the ultimate proof that FF wins the CO2 emissions argument and everyone should avoid bio-fuels ... (for clarity ... this is the employed logic flaw)

2, "nothing to do with energy density" ... well this is strange .... isn't it the case that ethanol based bio-petroleum is ~70% as energy dense (MJ per unit volume) as standard FF petrol, with bio-diesel achieving ~90%, which results in the bio alternative achieving a lower MPG with similar CO2 emissions per unit volume??? ... if so, the CO2 emission it's definitely proportional to the relative energy density and therefore is of the utmost relevance....    

3. "that's not the argument" .... well, thank you for confirming that the CO2 emissions for driving a mile is higher on bio-fuels than FF .... now what about addressing the pertinent argument made against FF , that being that the relative (and sustainable) carbon cycle of the less efficient (MPG) fuel vs that of FF as per .... 

• The carbon embedded in the bio-fuel currently exists as atmospheric gasses, it's converted to bio-mass, processed, distributed and through combustion is simply returned to the atmosphere ... that's where the -120+120=0 comes from, it's effectively the definition of net zero.  
• The combustion of FF hydrocarbons actively depends on the removal of long sequestered (millions of years ago) carbon and adds the carbon back into the atmosphere, and that's effectively what the whole argument about hydrocarbons and man-made climate change is based on ... -0+100=100.
• Whether the relative CO2 comparison is made at for the tail-pipe combustion products or includes all embedded process CO2 essentially makes no significant difference to the conclusion other than changing a set of FF figures that add up to a considerable sum to one for bio-fuels that is, due to cycle dilution, practically zero .... yes, arguments can be made for and against processed product distribution etc, however, as these mainly exist in both cases, they effectively cancel out and thus become irrelevant to the comparison exercise. 

In summary, the bio-fuel is less energy dense which results in lower MPG when compared to the equivalent FF ... however, whatever the relative efficiency, the low carbon cycle simply recycles the same carbon time-and-time-again so the relative energy efficiency based on energy density is irrelevant when looking at the mitigation of anthropogenic climate change via chasing 'net-zero' targets ... 

4. "Missed the point" .... Really ??  ... I'd pretty much see the point being in the bullseye, providing a logical appraisal of how the continued combustion of FF can be, and is often, misrepresented as being the better option.

HTH - Z .... (macroeconomics & geopolitical issues next??, because that's where the comparisons become really interesting/sticky!  ...  ) 

QrizB

zeupater said:

A little confused here ...

Yes, I can tell.

You're still tilting at the wrong windmill.

zeupater said:

" ... on this forum and elsewhere there has been plenty on mention of biofuel being more CO2 emission intensive per unit travelled than FF with that being claimed to be the ultimate proof that FF wins the CO2 emissions argument and everyone should avoid bio-fuels ... (for clarity ... this is the employed logic flaw)

There's no logic flaw as you're still failing to understand the point being made.

You come across as being moderately smart, so I'm not able to tell whether you're genuinely misunderstanding or being deliberately awkward.

zeupater said:

2, "nothing to do with energy density" ... well this is strange .... isn't it the case that ethanol based bio-petroleum is ~70% as energy dense (MJ per unit volume) as standard FF petrol, with bio-diesel achieving ~90%, which results in the bio alternative achieving a lower MPG with similar CO2 emissions per unit volume???

No. Miles per gallon and volumetric fuel consumption play no part.

And also no, there's less carbon emitted at point of use from combustion of a gallon of ethanol than from a gallon of petrol.

See for example:

https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/biomass-energy-resources/reference-biomass/facts-figures/carbon-emissions-of-different-fuels/

Mineral petrol is 2329 g/litre, ethanol is 1504 g/litre.

zeupater said:

3. "that's not the argument" .... well, thank you for confirming that the CO2 emissions for driving a mile is higher on bio-fuels than FF .... now what about addressing the pertinent argument made against FF , that being that the relative (and sustainable) carbon cycle of the less efficient (MPG) fuel vs that of FF ...

That's still not the argument. MPG is irrelevant.

zeupater said:
In summary, the bio-fuel is less energy dense which results in lower MPG when compared to the equivalent FF ... 

MPG is oirrelevant.

zeupater said:

...the low carbon cycle simply recycles the same carbon time-and-time-again ...

But it doesn't. The biofuel cycle requires carbon inputs (and other GHGs) to grow the crops and refine the fuel. Carbon which is additional to the "recycled" carbon in the fuel itself. This carbon is greater than the carbon present in an equivalent amount of fossil fuel.

Have you read any of the peer-reviewed academic reports from the past decade or so that have investigated this?

zeupater said:

4. "Missed the point" .... Really ??

Yes.

ed110220

QrizB said:

zeupater said:

A little confused here ...

Yes, I can tell.

You're still tilting at the wrong windmill.

zeupater said:

" ... on this forum and elsewhere there has been plenty on mention of biofuel being more CO2 emission intensive per unit travelled than FF with that being claimed to be the ultimate proof that FF wins the CO2 emissions argument and everyone should avoid bio-fuels ... (for clarity ... this is the employed logic flaw)

There's no logic flaw as you're still failing to understand the point being made.

You come across as being moderately smart, so I'm not able to tell whether you're genuinely misunderstanding or being deliberately awkward.

zeupater said:

2, "nothing to do with energy density" ... well this is strange .... isn't it the case that ethanol based bio-petroleum is ~70% as energy dense (MJ per unit volume) as standard FF petrol, with bio-diesel achieving ~90%, which results in the bio alternative achieving a lower MPG with similar CO2 emissions per unit volume???

No. Miles per gallon and volumetric fuel consumption play no part.

And also no, there's less carbon emitted at point of use from combustion of a gallon of ethanol than from a gallon of petrol.

See for example:

https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/biomass-energy-resources/reference-biomass/facts-figures/carbon-emissions-of-different-fuels/

Mineral petrol is 2329 g/litre, ethanol is 1504 g/litre.

zeupater said:

3. "that's not the argument" .... well, thank you for confirming that the CO2 emissions for driving a mile is higher on bio-fuels than FF .... now what about addressing the pertinent argument made against FF , that being that the relative (and sustainable) carbon cycle of the less efficient (MPG) fuel vs that of FF ...

That's still not the argument. MPG is irrelevant.

zeupater said:
In summary, the bio-fuel is less energy dense which results in lower MPG when compared to the equivalent FF ... 

MPG is oirrelevant.

zeupater said:

...the low carbon cycle simply recycles the same carbon time-and-time-again ...

But it doesn't. The biofuel cycle requires carbon inputs (and other GHGs) to grow the crops and refine the fuel. Carbon which is additional to the "recycled" carbon in the fuel itself. This carbon is greater than the carbon present in an equivalent amount of fossil fuel.

Have you read any of the peer-reviewed academic reports from the past decade or so that have investigated this?

zeupater said:

4. "Missed the point" .... Really ??

Yes.

This all misses the most important issue with biofuels: the very low efficiency of crops at converting sunlight to fuel means there just isn't enough land for biofuels to replace more than a small part of FF. A vehicle fuelled with bio ethanol takes 80 to 200 times more land than an equivalent EV powered by PV to drive the same distance. 

Nature is already under huge pressure from habitat loss for agriculture, there are food shortages in parts of the world, I would argue that biofuels are ridiculously wasteful and mostly just subsidy schemes for agribusiness. 

It's becoming moot anyway with the growth of EVs eg Vietnam has just reached 40% from practically nothing less than five years ago.