I need your opinion

NottinghamKnight

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

No, that's just greenwashing. You are not counting all the costs of production of raw materials, it's a very selective assessment.

DrEskimo

NottinghamKnight said:

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

No, that's just greenwashing. You are not counting all the costs of production of raw materials, it's a very selective assessment.

Well how much does that produce? 

I don't know about 1950s land rover but 1998 one produces 262g/km. Ignoring the fact that over 50,000 miles the emissions will be much greater than that, as people don't drive like the testing procedure, that itself will be over 21tonnes of CO2. That also ignores the extraction, refinement and transportation of fuel.

We can take your 15 tonnes (which I deeply dispute as you have yet to provide any sources for it. The report I linked suggests something like my Zoe produced in France would be closer to 10 tonnes) for the production of the entire EV.
As for energy to drive it 50,000 miles, that would require 12,500kWh of energy assuming my average of 4miles/kWh. Accounting for 10% charging loses, that's 13,750kWh. Today the average CO2/kWh in the UK is 256g, however many would charge off peak when it's cheaper, and the CO2/kWh is typically between 50-100g CO2/kWh. So that would be around 0.6-1.3 tonnes.
So the EV is anywhere from 10.6-16.3 tonnes, whereas the 1998 Land Rover tailpipe emissions alone are 21 tonnes (assuming it's driven like the test procedure for the entire 50,000 miles).

Still think it's green washing?

ontheroad1970

Hunyani_Flight_825 said:

Petriix said:

.....as part of a general move to reduce our impact, switching to an EV will certainly be a positive step in comparison to continuing to use diesel. 

What about the child Mica miners (as a single example there are many more) in places like Madagascar, do they not figure in the pursuit of your EV revolution ?

 As I have said before EV is the Betamax of personal transportation.

You do realise that although not as popular as VHS, Betamax was actually considerably superior to VHS, don't you?  Broadcast companies continued (and continue still) to use Betamax tapes for years to come.  

Grumpy_chap

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

Yes, that is correct.  Certainly not "greenwashing".

When I was at University, they had a whole programme that did LCA Life Cycle Analysis and, generally, for items such as cars, washing machines, TVs, where there was technological development, the amount of embedded energy / carbon in manufacturing unit product was a small fraction of the total energy / carbon of the product throughout the full life cycle and therefore a nett environmental benefit did come from getting new and saving the impacts through operational life.

At that time, the comparisons were all a "modern" ICE versus old ICE.  ICE efficiency has continued to evolve even further and, obviously, the calculations for EV will be different.  The same principles of how to do the analysis would be the same and I am sure suitable peer-reviewed reports are available if they are searched out.

The other benefit of EV over ICE is that an EV can be operated from green energy, whereas an ICE can only be operated from fossil fuels.  I accept that current infrastructure means that a high proportion of EV miles are from fossil-fuel derived energy, but that situation will improve.

Biggus_Dickus

ontheroad1970 said:

Hunyani_Flight_825 said:

Petriix said:

.....as part of a general move to reduce our impact, switching to an EV will certainly be a positive step in comparison to continuing to use diesel. 

What about the child Mica miners (as a single example there are many more) in places like Madagascar, do they not figure in the pursuit of your EV revolution ?

 As I have said before EV is the Betamax of personal transportation.

You do realise that although not as popular as VHS, Betamax was actually considerably superior to VHS, don't you?  Broadcast companies continued (and continue still) to use Betamax tapes for years to come.  

Let’s not forget the infinitely superior but long defunct ‘Video 2000’. Sometimes the good die young. 

fred246

Most of the journeys that these cars end up doing could easily be done on a bicycle. If only there was the political will to enable it.

DrEskimo

Grumpy_chap said:

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

I accept that current infrastructure means that a high proportion of EV miles are from fossil-fuel derived energy, but that situation will improve.

Today it's already in a pretty good situation. Typically the UK has about 1/3rd of electricity generation from fossil fuels, whereas during off peak hours this drops to about 1/5th (all gas, coal is very rare, if at all over night). Of course many like me will always try to charge between 00:30-04:30, because it's only £0.05/kWh!

https://gridwatch.co.uk/

In Scotland renewables are typically the vast majority of electricity generation, and during the summer this improves significantly for England.

Grumpy_chap

The options to use cheap electricity to balance loads and avoid peaks are good.

However, not always effective.  I know at least one major industrial user subject to the very excessive TRIAD rates at peak demand.  The company response is not to load-shift, but to simply run diesel generators at that time instead because it is cheaper.

Scrapit

DrEskimo said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

No, that's just greenwashing. You are not counting all the costs of production of raw materials, it's a very selective assessment.

Well how much does that produce? 

I don't know about 1950s land rover but 1998 one produces 262g/km. Ignoring the fact that over 50,000 miles the emissions will be much greater than that, as people don't drive like the testing procedure, that itself will be over 21tonnes of CO2. That also ignores the extraction, refinement and transportation of fuel.

We can take your 15 tonnes (which I deeply dispute as you have yet to provide any sources for it. The report I linked suggests something like my Zoe produced in France would be closer to 10 tonnes) for the production of the entire EV.
As for energy to drive it 50,000 miles, that would require 12,500kWh of energy assuming my average of 4miles/kWh. Accounting for 10% charging loses, that's 13,750kWh. Today the average CO2/kWh in the UK is 256g, however many would charge off peak when it's cheaper, and the CO2/kWh is typically between 50-100g CO2/kWh. So that would be around 0.6-1.3 tonnes.
So the EV is anywhere from 10.6-16.3 tonnes, whereas the 1998 Land Rover tailpipe emissions alone are 21 tonnes (assuming it's driven like the test procedure for the entire 50,000 miles).

Still think it's green washing?

Yes.
Also if the landy is run on veggie where does that leave us?

DrEskimo

Scrapit said:

DrEskimo said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Petriix said:

It's a common misconception that continuing to run an old vehicle will be better for the environment. In just 5 years, the lower emissions will offset the entire CO2 cost of building and running my new EV compared to just fueling an old Land Rover. 

No, that's just greenwashing. You are not counting all the costs of production of raw materials, it's a very selective assessment.

Well how much does that produce? 

I don't know about 1950s land rover but 1998 one produces 262g/km. Ignoring the fact that over 50,000 miles the emissions will be much greater than that, as people don't drive like the testing procedure, that itself will be over 21tonnes of CO2. That also ignores the extraction, refinement and transportation of fuel.

We can take your 15 tonnes (which I deeply dispute as you have yet to provide any sources for it. The report I linked suggests something like my Zoe produced in France would be closer to 10 tonnes) for the production of the entire EV.
As for energy to drive it 50,000 miles, that would require 12,500kWh of energy assuming my average of 4miles/kWh. Accounting for 10% charging loses, that's 13,750kWh. Today the average CO2/kWh in the UK is 256g, however many would charge off peak when it's cheaper, and the CO2/kWh is typically between 50-100g CO2/kWh. So that would be around 0.6-1.3 tonnes.
So the EV is anywhere from 10.6-16.3 tonnes, whereas the 1998 Land Rover tailpipe emissions alone are 21 tonnes (assuming it's driven like the test procedure for the entire 50,000 miles).

Still think it's green washing?

Yes.
Also if the landy is run on veggie where does that leave us?

Yes, as in yes it is still green wash? Care to elaborate...?

Running on veggie oil will have little impact on tail pipe emissions with regard to CO2 (or indeed other emissions).