EV Discussion thread

Martyn1981

Petriix said:

New ICE cars aren't less polluting than older ones. The growing penchant for SUVs means that new cars are trending towards higher CO2 per mile. It's obvious that new ICE (and hybrid) SUVs need to be rapidly phased out if we want to reduce overall car emissions. Punitive taxation is an obvious path towards this.

There's no agenda other than attempting to minimise the catastrophic effects of global heating. That should be everyone's top priority. 

Article out a few hours ago talking about this, with the same conclusions. BEV's will reverse this trend, but clearly not fast enough.

Peak ICE sales were back around 2017, and peak ICE fleet probably 2021/22, as even the lower sales were still equal to or higher than the sales around 15-20yrs ago, which are the cars ageing out. Peak oil for cars may have been reached in China this year, but for the the World it may be a few more years, as BEV annual sales, and total fleet percentage keeps rising.

Average Tailpipe Emissions Today Higher Than They Were 10 Years Ago

New research by Possible, a UK climate advocacy group, finds that average tailpipe emissions from new internal combustion vehicles today are higher than they were ten years ago. In fact, if a person is interested in purchasing a non-electric car that has the lowest tailpipe emissions, a used car built in 2016 is probably the best choice.

The reason for this rather counterintuitive state of affairs is simple. The average new vehicle today is larger, heavier, and thirstier than the average new car in 2013. Burning more gasoline (or diesel) means more tailpipe emissions. There’s no way to sugarcoat this. As the world gets hotter, humans are doing exactly the opposite of what needs to be done to lower their personal tailpipe emissions profile. People want bigger cars and trucks. In particular, they want SUVs, which now account for half of all new vehicle sales in the US and one third of sales in the UK.

According to the Possible research, the sales price of new ICE cars in the UK in 2023 correlates closely with carbon dioxide emissions — the more expensive the car, the higher its carbon emissions are likely to be. The richest one-fifth of households in England are 81% more likely to own a super heavy emitting car (226gCO2/km or above) than those in other income groups.

In 2021, the UK’s National Audit Office reported that rising sales of SUVs and an increase in road traffic had cancelled out reductions in CO2 emissions from electric car sales.

JKenH

Petriix said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Petriix said:

New ICE cars aren't less polluting than older ones. 

Yes they are.
When I began driving, my old banger would do mid-20's mpg on a good day.  
It was spoken with disbelief that the company fleet cars then would do 30 mpg.
Since, we have been through the whole diesel thing and come out the other side.
Today, even the big, full-fat SUVs will do 40 mpg fitted with a petrol engine..
Massively better than an ICE of old.

TBH, who cared about fuel economy before the oil crisis?  It then took a cycle of car model evolution before marketing would even mention efficiency, just in time for the energy crisis.  Even then, marketing was far more focusing the message that buying a car would boost your libido.

No, they're not...

I'm not talking about the ancient relics of yesteryear but the very real and measurable trend towards less efficient vehicles:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/28/new-cars-producing-more-carbon-dioxide-than-older-models

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/as-their-sales-continue-to-rise-suvs-global-co2-emissions-are-nearing-1-billion-tonnes

Before I start can I apologise for the formatting of what follows

These articles refer to CO2 figures which should not be conflated with pollution. There is some correlation between the two, high CO2 emitting cars generally emit more pollution fuel per fuel. However there have been 2 separate drivers in recent years. Euro emissions standards have by and large concentrated on pollution (emissions other than CO2) whereas government policy has been driving down manufacturer CO2 emissions by setting onerous targets which attracted financial penalties if not met. 

My suggestion that penalties would be counterproductive was in response to this comment.

I suggested that restricting the sale of new ICE vehicles would result “by 2040, instead of virtually all the old ICE cars being Euro 6  (or 7 if it happens) we will still have a significant number of Euro 3, 4 and 5 cars on the road emitting more pollution and CO2 than if a more tolerant regime of transition were implemented.”

You replied: 

New ICE cars aren't less polluting than older ones. The growing penchant for SUVs means that new cars are trending towards higher CO2 per mile.

Again you simply refer to CO2 in response and don’t mention non CO2 emissions (the pollutants). Do you dispute  that pollution levels (non CO2) emissions on Euro 6 cars are lower than on Euro 3, 4, and 5? 

May I remind you that  between Euro 3 and Euro 6, particulate matter emissions were reduced by over 90% on diesel cars - that means a Euro 6 car was required to emit less than 10% of the particulate matter of a Euro 3 car. There were no PM limits on petrol cars before Euro 5. NOX emissions on diesel cars came down from 0.5g to 0.08g on diesel cars and from 0.15g to 0.06g on petrol cars.

Do you still wish to maintain that “New ICE cars aren't less polluting than older ones.”?

thevilla

1961Nick said:

Petriix said:

New ICE cars aren't less polluting than older ones. The growing penchant for SUVs means that new cars are trending towards higher CO2 per mile. It's obvious that new ICE (and hybrid) SUVs need to be rapidly phased out if we want to reduce overall car emissions. Punitive taxation is an obvious path towards this.

There's no agenda other than attempting to minimise the catastrophic effects of global heating. That should be everyone's top priority. 

Top priorities are things like food, clothing, housing, employment, education, job security, healthcare... AGW comes way down the list of things that really matter to anyone alive today. Whatever mess the human race makes of the planet, both will survive in the long term. Humans are very adaptable as we have proved by inhabiting every corner of the earth regardless of the climate. Net Zero should be an ambition, but not at any cost imo.

When we can't grow enough food because we've turned farmland into desert or sea or simply destroyed ecosystems? Millions more climate refugees competing for houses, clothing, education, jobs and healthcare?  The alternative to net zero is not the status quo.

JKenH

Petriix said:

1961Nick said:

Petriix said:

New ICE cars aren't less polluting than older ones. The growing penchant for SUVs means that new cars are trending towards higher CO2 per mile. It's obvious that new ICE (and hybrid) SUVs need to be rapidly phased out if we want to reduce overall car emissions. Punitive taxation is an obvious path towards this.

There's no agenda other than attempting to minimise the catastrophic effects of global heating. That should be everyone's top priority. 

Top priorities are things like food, clothing, housing, employment, education, job security, healthcare... AGW comes way down the list of things that really matter to anyone alive today. Whatever mess the human race makes of the planet, both will survive in the long term. Humans are very adaptable as we have proved by inhabiting every corner of the earth regardless of the climate. Net Zero should be an ambition, but not at any cost imo.

Sadly your response is rather typically... And that's why we're probably ****ed. 

Let’s be honest, if you asked the average man or woman in the street what do you worry about when you wake up at 4 in the morning unable to sleep - is it really going to be climate change? I am lucky, I don’t have to worry about many of the things Nick mentioned - at the moment - but millions do. TBH a lot of the other stuff going on in the world worries me more: Putin, terrorism, the Israeli/Hamas conflict and societal breakdown. An inability to see past one subject would be concerning, but sadly because as a society we perhaps don’t get out as much, mix as much with people with differing outlooks we can’t see past our own obsessions. 

Grumpy_chap

Petriix said:

I'm not talking about the ancient relics of yesteryear

Nor was I.

You seem to want to now amend your statement once challenged to cars that are old but not that old, young but not that bold...

1961Nick said:

Top priorities are things like food, clothing, housing, employment, education, job security, healthcare... 

This is well set out by Maslow's Needs Hierarchy. 

Netexporter said:

It take it you don't have children.

That is largely irrelevant.
Consideration of long-term factors (global warming) and long-term survival will always be a lower priority (for the individual and society) than immediate food and shelter, then stable food, shelter, healthcare and only after that will long term factors start to be considered.
If that was not the case, and the top priority for everyone was climate (as suggested shortly upthread), no-one would continue working on the oil & gas rigs in the North Sea.  Many of those workers have children.

Martyn1981

1961Nick said:

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

Motor Trend drove the new Model 3s with the batteries at 95 percent state of charge at a constant 70 mph. The Model 3 RWD covered 211 miles, while the Model 3 Long Range returned 250 miles. 

Is that a test at constant 70 mph from 95% charge to run out stopped at the side of the road?

It is just, the figures seem far from amazing.
My LR was charged last weekend to 80%
During the week I covered 244 miles, majority motorway, to arriving home on Friday at 8% when I plugged in and charged again.
I accept there is a big difference between my "majority motorway" and the test "constant 70 mph" but, pro-rata, my mileage would be 321 miles from 95% to nil.  (Calculation 244 miles / 72% = 3.38 * 95% = 321 miles).
321 miles is a lot more than 250 miles.

The InsideEV's test on a 2019 Model 3 LR (Pre heat pump) produced a result of 290 miles which looks to be far more accurate. With the heat pump you should easily clear 300 miles... I can nearly get there with 20" wheels on the performance. I find it hard to believe that the Highland has gone backwards in the economy stakes.

Yes, does sound surprisingly low. Not at all scientific, but gave the Y a rather negative/in-efficient test this weekend, meeting with some friends for a weekend of computer gaming.

Involved a ~55mile run, each way each day, with about 95% motorway, a 5 mile stretch of 50mph average speed control, but all the rest at 75-80. Poor weather, all wet, varying from some damp road, through light rain, to peeing down, with loads of surface spray. Managed an average of 282Wh/mile, which I thought wasn't bad, given the size of hole TiMmY has to cut through the air.

Range started at almost full, with an indicated 319miles, and ended 221 miles later with 35 miles indicated to zero (plus the 20miles? left in reserve). Did clock up about 16hrs of sentry mode, so that probably cost me a few percent, 10(ish)? miles. Indicated range adjusted steadily, with each 55 mile run knocking about 70 miles off the range remaining est.. Again, probably about right given the poor conditions and ... driving.

Grumpy_chap

Martyn1981 said:

Range started at almost full, with an indicated 319miles, and ended 221 miles later with 35 miles indicated to zero (plus the 20miles? left in reserve). 

I was wondering about this, and the forecast low charge, particularly with my trip last week when the end charge was 8%.  At what point does the "route planner" pipe up to suggest appropriate SC stops?

silvercar

Grumpy_chap said:

Martyn1981 said:

Range started at almost full, with an indicated 319miles, and ended 221 miles later with 35 miles indicated to zero (plus the 20miles? left in reserve). 

I was wondering about this, and the forecast low charge, particularly with my trip last week when the end charge was 8%.  At what point does the "route planner" pipe up to suggest appropriate SC stops?

Logically it should depend on distance to destination, weather, usage so far into the journey and a whole lot more.
If the weather is as cold as it's is likely to get, there is little downside to factor in. If you have been speeding in the first part of the journey, there is the risk that you will continue to do so. If you are 10 miles from your destination then it is relatively safe to let you go down to 5%, if you are 100 miles away then maybe not.

On a 200 mile journey, with a forecast 14% left at destination it was happy, at 100 miles with a forecast 10% left at destination it suggested a charge. 

JKenH

Something new which if it worked would upset the apple cart.

Chris Ellis: Beyond Tesla – ‘hydrogen batteries’

The next step, which Honda and others are already working on for space applications, will be the introduction of reversible fuel cells. Electricity fed into them will initially recharge the battery and then refill the host vehicle with hydrogen by electrolysing the water collected when the fuel cell system was powering the car’s motors. The diagram below shows the key powertrain features of what might be a 2026 Toyota Mirai or Hyundai NEXO. Or Honda Extra-Clarity?

 

A car with a unitized regenerative fuel cell system (URFC) will be even easier to use than a battery-only EV because it will be much quicker to refuel, rather than recharge, on a long trip, and still just as convenient to re-energise at home. It will also make financial sense to have enough onboard energy capacity to take full advantage of the increasing availability of low-priced off-peak electricity. Simply put, a big hydrogen tank will cost (and weigh) much less than a big battery, and a unitized stack will cost not much more than a single-function stack. Now imagine hydrogen tanks that don’t lose capacity as they get older, and last the life of the vehicle. Oh, they already exist…

So ‘hydrogen batteries’ may have replaced conventional batteries in most new large cars by 2030. Today’s hydrogen vehicles essentially ‘burn’ hydrogen in fuel cells to produce electricity and emit water vapour. A car fitted with a URFC will allow its drivers to minimise their visits to filling stations and radically reduce running costs because it could be refilled with hydrogen using cheap overnight electricity, which will make it much less expensive to run than a conventional car. And it will retain the ability to be refilled in less than five minutes with compressed hydrogen at a filling station during an occasional very long trip.

https://www.racetechmag.com/2023/10/chris-ellis-beyond-tesla-hydrogen-batteries/

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

Something new which if it worked would upset the apple cart.

Chris Ellis: Beyond Tesla – ‘hydrogen batteries’

The next step, which Honda and others are already working on for space applications, will be the introduction of reversible fuel cells. Electricity fed into them will initially recharge the battery and then refill the host vehicle with hydrogen by electrolysing the water collected when the fuel cell system was powering the car’s motors. 

 

I have worked with electrolysis plants in the industrial setting and they need a whole host of safety equipment and control measures in place to prevent the whole plant and half the nearby town being blown sky high.
For all of that to be put into a small, mobile device, and suitably protected against impact damage will be quite a big ask.
There is a difference between developing something for "space applications" and developing for regular automotive applications.  If this is to migrate from "space applications" to road cars, I would expect the time line to be quite long.