The big fat Electric Vehicle bashing thread.

MacPingu1986

TooManyPoints said:

 "Working in an office is the way we've always done it", but when it *had* to happen it did and it worked. 

No it didn't and it still doesn't. It was an emergency stop-gap measure that should have had a defined end date (or at least an end determined by the progress of the pandemic). Anybody who has had to deal with any organisation in the last two years -  whether government or private - will tell you of the problems they have had when trying to have their affairs dealt with. Tales of the DVLA and the Passport Office are the stuff of legend. Only last week I eventually got through to a large commercial organisation after waiting about 40 minutes to speak to somebody. After a couple of minutes the agent had to ask me to hold on because it had begun to rain and she needed to get the washing in. Sorry, that's not the description of something that works.

In fact, now many workers and many companies say they prefer it this way and aren't returning to offices.

I dare say they do. But nobody seems to have asked their customers what they would prefer.

Since managers and directors seem to have lost the will to manage and direct their staff, WFH will blunder along, together with all the adverse effects it has on the businesses concerned, their customers and the economy in general. Similarly, so will EVs. Both will contribute quite nicely to the UK's economic decline.

Technically coal is renewable.

Indeed it is. As I mentioned earlier, even more renewable than that is felling thousands of acres of mature trees, processing them in huge, energy hungry plants and shipping them, usually by diesel powered ship, 5,000 miles to be burned in Drax power station. And the fact that people accept that speaks volumes about the argument in favour of "renewable" energy.

This really is just turning into a bit of a rant against change TooManyPoints...

We're getting somewhat off topic but:

1) - Working from home, whether full time or hybrid does, for a large amount of office based roles, work and work pretty well. Delays and problems with the DVLA/Passport Office arn't anything particularly new, or due to home working - it generally sounds like a lack of resourcing (inc from Covid absences) or failure to invest in the right IT systems to let the work happen efficiently, not a problem of whether staff are sat in an office or at home. You're complaining about call centre response times - that's *not* a work from home problem but something specific to how businesses resource their customer facing teams. I work in a mid-management role in a large household name business -  With home working I'm getting more out of my predominantly home based team, people start earlier, finish later and it's been easier to recruit good people as I can look at a wider geographical net of applicants, including those who need flexibility with working hours (or just the lack of a commute) for caring or family stuff.

2) - Just for clarity... What do you mean when you suggest that home working and EV's are contributing to the UK's economic decline, how so? Could you give us a bit of detail?

3) - The Drax power station. You've mentioned this twice now... Again this is massively off topic but the existence in the UK of a large pellet burning power station *isn't* an argument against electric cars. Its one site, converted to make it better for the environment than the former coal fired station. That's it - people "accept" it in the sense that its cleaner than coal - which it is. The UK isn't rolling out similar pellet burning plants - the big rollout is offshore and onshore wind, plus replacing existing nuclear plants.

4) - If we don't tackle climate change and air quality with even the most gentle steps like cleaner power and reducing transport emissions - concerns about whether someone on a business trip can accommodate 30 minutes of charging on a 400 mile drive will be the least of our worries as a species.

Herzlos

I work for a multinational corporate who discovered that most people can work better from home than in the office. Obviously some people need to be in the office to deal with physical mail and stuff like that, but when most of your staff spend their day on the phone, in meetings or dealing with Excel/Powerpoint, there's absolutely no benefit to making them sit in an office to do so. We're now even hiring people who live nowhere near their nearest office on a permanent work from home basis.

Work From Home was virtually unheard of before Covid, and it's now business as usual after Covid.

Ergates

TooManyPoints said:

 "Working in an office is the way we've always done it", but when it *had* to happen it did and it worked. 

No it didn't and it still doesn't. It was an emergency stop-gap measure that should have had a defined end date (or at least an end determined by the progress of the pandemic). Anybody who has had to deal with any organisation in the last two years -  whether government or private - will tell you of the problems they have had when trying to have their affairs dealt with. Tales of the DVLA and the Passport Office are the stuff of legend. Only last week I eventually got through to a large commercial organisation after waiting about 40 minutes to speak to somebody. After a couple of minutes the agent had to ask me to hold on because it had begun to rain and she needed to get the washing in. Sorry, that's not the description of something that works.

In fact, now many workers and many companies say they prefer it this way and aren't returning to offices.

I dare say they do. But nobody seems to have asked their customers what they would prefer.

Since managers and directors seem to have lost the will to manage and direct their staff, WFH will blunder along, together with all the adverse effects it has on the businesses concerned, their customers and the economy in general. Similarly, so will EVs. Both will contribute quite nicely to the UK's economic decline.

Technically coal is renewable.

Indeed it is. As I mentioned earlier, even more renewable than that is felling thousands of acres of mature trees, processing them in huge, energy hungry plants and shipping them, usually by diesel powered ship, 5,000 miles to be burned in Drax power station. And the fact that people accept that speaks volumes about the argument in favour of "renewable" energy.

Except that the majority of office jobs aren't customer facing  Clearly not all jobs can be done as effectively from home, but there are vast numbers of workers doing things that can.  I write database design documents.  Driving 20 minutes to a train station, sitting on a train for 20 minutes then walking 10 minutes to an office building doesn't somehow magically improve my ability to write database design documents.  You sound like Alan Sugar - totally out of touch with the modern workplace, do you also believe that wearing a shirt and tie (or even a suit) makes you more efficient?

Also, coal is not "technically renewable" within the timeframe of the continued existence of the human race, and nobody (other than politicians) argues that importing wood pellets from the US is renewable energy.  But even that statement isn't true - using trees for fuel is still more renewable than burning coal (not less as you suggest) because trees grow back a *lot* faster than coal takes to form - several orders of magnitude faster.  (especially as the first step of coal formation is.... trees growing).

Thrugelmir

Ergates said:

Benny2020 said:

But Germany will be powering their EVs with coal.

Missed this earlier:    Even if fossil fuels are used to generate the electricity, BEVs are still cleaner because power stations are a lot more efficient than ICEs  (because they don't have to be light weight and moveable).

Obviously it is better if the power source is renewable

The resources required to build an off shore wind farm are so much greater than an equivalent gas fired plant.  Around 100 times more concrete is used for example. 

No one talks about using less of anything. Instead just how to maintain their personal lifestyle. 

Benny2020

But wind farms use much less gas?

Ergates

Grumpy_chap said:

Ergates said:

Benny2020 said:

But Germany will be powering their EVs with coal.

Missed this earlier:    Even if fossil fuels are used to generate the electricity, BEVs are still cleaner because power stations are a lot more efficient than ICEs  (because they don't have to be light weight and moveable).

Obviously it is better if the power source is renewable

An ICE is about 1.2 miles per kWh.  Diesel car at 60 mpg and 1 gallon diesel is about 50 kWh.

An EV is about 4 miles per kWh.  Three time as efficient.

How many kWh of fossil fuel go into a power station to generate 1 kWh of electricity at the plug?

Most diesels don't get close to 60mpg, the average efficiency of a diesel is about 43 mpg, 36 mpg for petrol.
Petrol has about 44 kWh per gallon, diesel has about 45.

Then there is the energy to extract, refine and transport the fuel, which is around 4-6 kWh per gallon (lets call it 5), which, I think means the effective energy densities are: 49kWh and 50kWh.

So, an *average* petrol car runs about 0.72 miles per kWh and an average diesel runs about 0.86 miles per kWh.

Coal has about 6.7 kWh per kg.

Which is about as far as I can take it - how do you compare 1 kg of coal to a liquid....?

Thrugelmir

Benny2020 said:

But wind farms use much less gas?

Tesla's contain between 1,000 and 3,000 microchips. The average family ICE uses between two and three dozen.  ESG can be construed in many different ways. An EV uses around three times as much copper. The world's resources are finite. 

Grumpy_chap

Ergates said:

Grumpy_chap said:

An ICE is about 1.2 miles per kWh.  Diesel car at 60 mpg and 1 gallon diesel is about 50 kWh.

An EV is about 4 miles per kWh.  Three time as efficient.

How many kWh of fossil fuel go into a power station to generate 1 kWh of electricity at the plug?

Most diesels don't get close to 60mpg, the average efficiency of a diesel is about 43 mpg, 36 mpg for petrol.
Petrol has about 44 kWh per gallon, diesel has about 45.

Then there is the energy to extract, refine and transport the fuel, which is around 4-6 kWh per gallon (lets call it 5), which, I think means the effective energy densities are: 49kWh and 50kWh.

So, an *average* petrol car runs about 0.72 miles per kWh and an average diesel runs about 0.86 miles per kWh.

Coal has about 6.7 kWh per kg.

Which is about as far as I can take it - how do you compare 1 kg of coal to a liquid....?

OK - so the EV is 4 or more time as efficient as the ICE.
BUT - that needs adjusting for kWh into the power station vs kWh out of the plug.

Thrugelmir said:

Tesla's contain between 1,000 and 3,000 microchips. The average family ICE uses between two and three dozen. 

That is a significant variance - are both the figures current?
Is the comparison like-for-like?  Do the figures compare equivalent equipment specifications of vehicle?
To compare the demand of the two technologies, any chips associated with "non-core" functions such as in-car entertainment, electronic boot release, heated seats, etc., etc. should be discounted.  It is a separate choice whether to have or not have a 16-speaker stereo in an ICE or an EV.

iwb100

Working from home absolutely works in many cases and anyone who suggests otherwise is either Jacob Rees Mogg or just very very bitter. And the issues the passport office have are nothing to do with home working.

EVs will work too my point is that we should be doing far more to get the infrastructure in place far more rapidly. The plan for EVs is good but as ever in this country our infrastructure lags behind and is under resourced compared to other major European economies. 

Martyn1981

Ergates said:

TooManyPoints said:

 "Working in an office is the way we've always done it", but when it *had* to happen it did and it worked. 

No it didn't and it still doesn't. It was an emergency stop-gap measure that should have had a defined end date (or at least an end determined by the progress of the pandemic). Anybody who has had to deal with any organisation in the last two years -  whether government or private - will tell you of the problems they have had when trying to have their affairs dealt with. Tales of the DVLA and the Passport Office are the stuff of legend. Only last week I eventually got through to a large commercial organisation after waiting about 40 minutes to speak to somebody. After a couple of minutes the agent had to ask me to hold on because it had begun to rain and she needed to get the washing in. Sorry, that's not the description of something that works.

In fact, now many workers and many companies say they prefer it this way and aren't returning to offices.

I dare say they do. But nobody seems to have asked their customers what they would prefer.

Since managers and directors seem to have lost the will to manage and direct their staff, WFH will blunder along, together with all the adverse effects it has on the businesses concerned, their customers and the economy in general. Similarly, so will EVs. Both will contribute quite nicely to the UK's economic decline.

Technically coal is renewable.

Indeed it is. As I mentioned earlier, even more renewable than that is felling thousands of acres of mature trees, processing them in huge, energy hungry plants and shipping them, usually by diesel powered ship, 5,000 miles to be burned in Drax power station. And the fact that people accept that speaks volumes about the argument in favour of "renewable" energy.

Except that the majority of office jobs aren't customer facing  Clearly not all jobs can be done as effectively from home, but there are vast numbers of workers doing things that can.  I write database design documents.  Driving 20 minutes to a train station, sitting on a train for 20 minutes then walking 10 minutes to an office building doesn't somehow magically improve my ability to write database design documents.  You sound like Alan Sugar - totally out of touch with the modern workplace, do you also believe that wearing a shirt and tie (or even a suit) makes you more efficient?

Also, coal is not "technically renewable" within the timeframe of the continued existence of the human race, and nobody (other than politicians) argues that importing wood pellets from the US is renewable energy.  But even that statement isn't true - using trees for fuel is still more renewable than burning coal (not less as you suggest) because trees grow back a *lot* faster than coal takes to form - several orders of magnitude faster.  (especially as the first step of coal formation is.... trees growing).

Coal is now arguably not renewable. To form coal you need swampy areas that turn to peat bogs, but the planet now has far less such swampy areas. Then you need tectonic activity to bury that material under about 3 miles of sediment, but again, the planet is less unstable (insert joke here). But the main problem is that the fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) were formed before fungi developed (about 200 million years ago) that can digest and breakdown plant material, so now the material rots and gives of methane. It's possible I suppose for some material to be buried quickly enough (somehow), but would still need many millions of years to get the depth and pressure to make coal.

So really, coal (FF's) on the scale that we have, and have been extracting, can no longer be formed. But if it could then you'd be looking at millions of years, v's 20-30yrs for the short term carbon cycle for bio-mass, even as low as 6 months in the case of hemp.

But bio-mass, as you correctly point out is a controversial subject, other bio-energy products, such as anaerobic digestion of waste food, not so much. I think bio-mass is popular as a way to bash RE in general, which is a shame. locally sourced and used, not a bad idea, but shipping it 1,000's of miles, not so great. But if used locally and renewably sourced (US and Canadian forestry is actually expanding, and does better, perversely, when wood/wood products are in higher demand as greater re-investment takes place) then bio-mass has some positives, such as on-site storage, predictability, and even the ability to demand follow, like gas generation. Since carbon capture is now needed to give us any hope of limiting the temp rise to 1.5C to 2.0C, then BECCS (bio-energy carbon capture and sequestration) provides a source of concentrated CO2, and if permanently stored, then it's actually carbon negative.

Fossil fuel CCS has proven to be a busted flush. All attempts and trials have proven uneconomic. Not only is FF generation struggling now against RE generation, but the additional fuel consumption to power CC increases costs about 25%, and of course far short of 100% of the CO2 will be captured, so more cost, and still FF CO2 emissions.

Not trying to push bio-mass burning, but at least it's not as bad as coal/FF's, as you say.