MSE Guide - Electric vehicles

MSE_Andrew

Hi all,

We have new Electric vehicles guide, and we'd love to hear your feedback.

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

Thanks for your help,

MSE Andrew

wild666

Gave up driving in 2010 because of a stroke, if you ask me EV's are an overpriced gimmick that will be dropped in favour of hydrogen powered vehicles.

Verdigris

wild666 said:

Gave up driving in 2010 because of a stroke, if you ask me EV's are an overpriced gimmick that will be dropped in favour of hydrogen powered vehicles.

I think the evidence points the other way. Toyota have dropped hydrogen fuel cell cars. Many big cities are abandoning plans for hydrogen busus, in favour of electric buses. If hydrogen production from electricty was near 100% efficient, you might have a point but, so far, efficiencies are nearer 50%. Better to store and use the leccy directly in vehicles.

Ectophile

Hydrogen is already a gimmick that's been dropped in favour of battery powered vehicles.  It may make sense for bulk energy storage in big tanks, but it doesn't make any sense for cars.

There are two common ways to make hydrogen:

• Make it from natural gas.  The waste profuct from this is carbon dioxide.  So you're taking a fossil fuel, turning the carbon dioxide from it into carbon dioxide, and "burning" what's left.  You might as well power your car from compressed natural gas and avoid wasting the extra energy in the carbon.
• Make it from electricity.  But making hydrogen, compressing it into tanks, shipping it around the country, pumping it into cars, and then turning it back into electricity in a fuel cell is far less efficient than just charging a battery.
  

Xbigman

But how vehicles are powered is not the only issue. EV's are the short term answer to the specific problem of atmospheric pollution. An issue that was allowed to get so out of hand that pollution levels in cities are at illegal levels and are causing a quantifiable number of early deaths each year. 
In all other metrics EV's are a disaster. They are heavier than the equivalent sized FF vehicle so cause more wear and tear on the roads, roads we can't maintain properly already. The extra weight means more PM2.5 and PM10. Those are the tiny particles from the tyre's and brake pads that never go away but just build up in the atmosphere and soil like micro plastics. Then there's the resources needed to make them in the first place. 100's of thousands of tons of earth needs to be dug up to find the metals to build a single EV. And then there's recycling. The batteries currently can't be recycled nor can they be dumped in landfill as they are toxic as hell. 
Finally there is the small matter of where the electricity is coming from to power them.

Not a fan.


Darren

QrizB

Someone's been taken in by the propaganda, it seems.

I'm replying on mobile so I'll let someone else debunk it.

Verdigris

The extra weight means more PM2.5 and PM10. Those are the tiny particles from the tyre's and brake pads

EVs have regenerative braking, so mechanical braking systems are used much less.

agentcain

Verdigris said:

The extra weight means more PM2.5 and PM10. Those are the tiny particles from the tyre's and brake pads

EVs have regenerative braking, so mechanical braking systems are used much less.

They do, but braking systems are still required for safety reasons. 
Then the question becomes "whether or not EVs with their extra weight produce more or less particulates than ICE vehicles, tyre and brake wear inclusive" An on that, we need more studies.

What we can however do, is reduce the generation of particulates in the first place. That is done by a) reducing the reason for someone to use a car (WFH, better mass transit system etc) and b) improve vehicle flow (better flowing traffic=less reason for sudden speed fluctuations)

Ectophile said:

Hydrogen is already a gimmick that's been dropped in favour of battery powered vehicles.  It may make sense for bulk energy storage in big tanks, but it doesn't make any sense for cars.

There are two common ways to make hydrogen:

• Make it from natural gas.  The waste profuct from this is carbon dioxide.  So you're taking a fossil fuel, turning the carbon dioxide from it into carbon dioxide, and "burning" what's left.  You might as well power your car from compressed natural gas and avoid wasting the extra energy in the carbon.
• Make it from electricity.  But making hydrogen, compressing it into tanks, shipping it around the country, pumping it into cars, and then turning it back into electricity in a fuel cell is far less efficient than just charging a battery.
  

Agree on the 1st point. It doesn't make sense to produce it from natural gas. You can very easily convert petrol vehicles to use gas instead. 

Disagree on the 2nd point. Everything is not a matter of conversion efficiency but also about storage, weight and time efficiency. Hydrogen sits higher on the specific energy scale, offering more energy per unit of mass, which means less weight to move around. It also offers the benefit of faster refuelling, something battery technologies still can't touch. Verdigris said:

wild666 said:

Gave up driving in 2010 because of a stroke, if you ask me EV's are an overpriced gimmick that will be dropped in favour of hydrogen powered vehicles.

I think the evidence points the other way. Toyota have dropped hydrogen fuel cell cars. Many big cities are abandoning plans for hydrogen busus, in favour of electric buses. If hydrogen production from electricty was near 100% efficient, you might have a point but, so far, efficiencies are nearer 50%. Better to store and use the leccy directly in vehicles.

I hope that's a trolleybus, because moving batteries around fixed routes in a city is a stupid idea.

Petriix

Ignoring the pseudoscience about particulate emissions and batteries which need replacing every two years (or whatever nonsense the fossil fuel lobby dream up next)... 

My 14 months and 12000 miles of EV ownership have cost me ~ £140 in electricity, £0 in VED, £10 for congestion charge exemption, £250 for insurance, £33 for maintenance, £350 in interest and £500 in depreciation. That roughly totals half what it would have taken to keep my old diesel car on the road for the same period.

Petriix

MSE_Andrew said:

Hi all,

We have new Electric vehicles guide, and we'd love to hear your feedback.

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

Thanks for your help,

MSE Andrew

On the article itself: there's some useful information in there, unfortunately hidden within a lot of nonsense. It seems to have been written by someone who's read about EVs without actually having experienced one. 

Firstly (and probably most significantly) Octopus very much are taking new customers on their Go tariff which (while not quite as cheap as it used to be) still offers 4h at just 7.5p per kWh every night and only marginally over the new price cap for the peak period. That works out at ~ 2.5p per mile.

Secondly PHEVs really shouldn't feature in an article about EVs. They are petrol or diesel cars which offer virtually none of the advantages of driving an EV while costing a similar amount to purchase and vastly more to run.

Thirdly 'range' is a confusing topic which is covered poorly here. EVs are typically advised with the range achieved in the WLTP test which is a standardised and controlled assessment not indicative of the real world. Actual range varies massively depending on various factors including speed, temperature, driving style, journey type, weather conditions etc. The range in winter at 70mph can be as low as half what you'd achieve in summer at 50mph.

Other points to note: While it's generally accepted that operating between 80-20% will prolong the battery health, you would always charge to 100% if driving anywhere close to the full range of the vehicle. Typical (rapid) charging stops are 30-40 minutes, not several hours and, unless you're driving over 150 miles, aren't usually required at all with a modern EV. Yes, shorter, slower routes are much better for energy consumption. No, most sat navs don't typically offer you that option.

Finally there is an unfortunate divide between those of us with access to home charging (or, in a small minority, free charging e.g. at work) and those who don't. There are some localised solutions for people who park on the street outside their own homes but mostly it's those with driveways who can benefit. And only those with functional smart meters which reliably collect 30 minute data can benefit from the cheaper time-of-use tariffs which make EVs so cheap to run. I'd absolutely recommend an EV for anyone on the right side of this divide.

agentcain

Petriix said:

Ignoring the pseudoscience about particulate emissions and batteries which need replacing every two years (or whatever nonsense the fossil fuel lobby dream up next)... 

My 14 months and 12000 miles of EV ownership have cost me ~ £140 in electricity, £0 in VED, £10 for congestion charge exemption, £250 for insurance, £33 for maintenance, £350 in interest and £500 in depreciation. That roughly totals half what it would have taken to keep my old diesel car on the road for the same period.

Granted that batteries indeed last longer than they used to (mainly due to improvements in their design and their BMS), the particulate issue is far from pseudoscience and something science actually looks into. All cars have wheels and breakpads, wheels and pads wear out, this produces particulates. How much is relevant only to make an argument for which produces less and of what size. 

The point about cost is rather moot. Much of the cost you're describing is tied to the person and current policies. You're paying less tax because of the government's agenda to force people to buy EVs. Your insurance is a quote specific to you; EVs in general cost more to insure due to their complex nature. I expect that the added fire risk inflates the price even more. You are currently lucky to be charging your car on the same price as someone cooking but nothing stops policy makers from forcing a different pricetag specifically for charging cars (as another form of tax)