Environmental effects of EV`s

[ff1d1l]

OK, getting rather more than ad-hom adjacent now.

If you can't win an argument without resorting to ad hom about your opponent, then maybe your argument needs a bit of a polish.

Exactly what I thought of replying when you accused me of being ad hom upthread.

I was, of course far too polite.

But since this is the second time you've accused me of being ad hom (surely ad hom in itself), you might indulge in a little self examination before you give it a third go, and maybe take your own point about paucity of argument to heart.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Well I asked you for your argument and got fatuous drivel in reply, whereas I did at least give some supporting points for my position.

But happy new year, anyway.

 

[paul rich]

I think that the EV manufacturers missed a trick in not developing small, light urban vehicles and campaigning for tax/congestion charge breaks over big vehicles. Still, what do I know? The marketing depts ought to know what people want to buy. The marketing people aren't idiots, aftef all. Then again, scratch that. I've met marketing people working for food manufacturers.

With a shortage of batteries, if you were marketing type would you:

a) put them in low cost, low profit margin small city cars

or

b) stick then in 2.5Tonne+ monsters costing £60k and upwards?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

With a shortage of batteries, if you were marketing type would you:

a) put them in low cost, low profit margin small city cars

or

b) stick then in 2.5Tonne+ monsters costing £60k and upwards?

Or, put one third of the 2.5 tonne car's batteries into each of 3 small, light cars which, even at lower margin, are much easier to sell and thus probably put as much on your bottom line as one big car?

 

[paul rich]

You know,the National Grid may well have been thinking about that already. If they say there isn't a problem which they do, I would be inclined to agree with them. And in any case, the relative thermal efficiencies of power stations and car engines mean that electrification will actually reduce the amount of energy needed unless you add in the inefficiencies of hydrogen production (more than for batteries).

And on boots, I want a car to survive well enough to protect my kids in the back if something drives in the back of me. Any car with crumple zone designed in for safety will result in higher rebuild costs but I think my family is worth that costs.

I read a bit in the industry magazines and I am not getting the same message as you are from National Grid. Yes, NG say they are ready to support the expansion but they are entirely reliant on the funding being given to them, and that's the problem.

Carbon Change Committee says we need to at least double electricity generation by 2050 to become net zero on carbon.

As opposed to rolling out new grid infrastructure OFGEM cut spending by 17% in 2022 on the previous year. Yet "Britain’s first electricity networks commissioner, Nick Winser, warned in a landmark report earlier this year that the UK would need to connect about four times as much new transmission capacity to the network in the next seven years as has been built since 1990" - the Guardian.

"National Grid’s influential industry forecast report, the Future Energy Scenarios, estimates that onshore wind capacity needs to increase to more than 30 gigawatts across Great Britain by 2030. At the current pace, it would take 4,690 years for England to meet its share of this target, according to the IPPR"

I could go dragging up figures from the net, but the point is, what the Government and NG say about how we'll be net zero by 2050 and what they do appears to be two quite different things.

 

[gingermrkettle]

I read a bit in the industry magazines and I am not getting the same message as you are from National Grid

Living in Leamington we know some people who are fairly senior in National Grid, and by fairly senior that includes one who was at COP28 in their delegation and knows people like the CEO of Gridserve. So YMMV but I will take that over some magazines.

 

[paul rich]

Or, put one third of the 2.5 tonne car's batteries into each of 3 small, light cars which, even at lower margin, are much easier to sell and thus probably put as much on your bottom line as one big car?

Range would be too poor. The small cars aren't a third of the weight of the big one. Believe me, the margins rise somewhat exponentially with purchase cost (and perceived prestige of the marque), I worked in automotive manufacture for 16 years .

 

[paul rich]

It does. No need for it. Its an expensive dead end that leaves a toxic turd for our children, our children's children and their descendants down the millenia to deal with. Renewable is cheaper - why would we go with this technology whose major - only - useful by-product is material to make nuclear bombs?

The one thing that it does have going for it is that too many days per year in the UK the wind doesn't blow hard enough and cloud cover blights solar for renewables to support the countries needs. Of course gas and coal could achieve the same stop gap function, albeit trading radioactive waste for CO2 emissions. Better still use renewables to produce synthetic fuel/hydrogen/charge batteries in times of sufficient wind and sun.

All that is lacking is a proper (ie one that stands up to an engineering/science based evaluation) plan for how we will power our country 365 days per year in prevailing climate conditions, in a carbon neutral manner, without planning permission barriers, with adequate generating payments to attract renewable installers, that successive governments will not derail to suit their electioneering requirements over the next 30 years and with adequate funding to achieve said plan. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

No such thing as "infinitesimally small" odds when it comes to engineering.

As far as I'm concerned one battery fire in a new (ish) well maintained EV is one fire too many. All these videos that are just saying "oh don't worry it's fine" are totally irresponsible in my view. Name one other consumer good that if a handful of the product spontaneously combusted, having anybody in the media saying "oh don't worry it's fine" would be accepted.

I would hazard a guess that ICE vehicles also sometimes catch fire. As do houses. So the real question would be the balance of risks, costs, etc.

 

[ff1d1l]

The one thing that it does have going for it is that too many days per year in the UK the wind doesn't blow hard enough and cloud cover blights solar for renewables to support the countries needs. Of course gas and coal could achieve the same stop gap function, albeit trading radioactive waste for CO2 emissions. Better still use renewables to produce synthetic fuel/hydrogen/charge batteries in times of sufficient wind and sun.

All that is lacking is a proper (ie one that stands up to an engineering/science based evaluation) plan for how we will power our country 365 days per year in prevailing climate conditions, in a carbon neutral manner, without planning permission barriers, with adequate generating payments to attract renewable installers, that successive governments will not derail to suit their electioneering requirements over the next 30 years and with adequate funding to achieve said plan. What could possibly go wrong?

"As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage."

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

And as another general clarification, CO2 emissions from coal, oil and gas powered generation will ultimately render the whole planet uninhabitable, whereas even the worst nuclear accident will be confined to a broadly regional basis. As has been said, upthread, it's a matter of risk assessment: likelihood vs severity. We seem to have a near certainty of global climate catastrophe, which weighs pretty heavily in the scales against fossil fuel large scale baseload generation. So, find another large scale baseload generation capability quick. If you rule out nuclear, better have a good alternative ready to roll out imminently.

 

[paul rich]

Google is your friend, the numbers are out there. "Far greater" is an emotive statement. It's more, but "far greater" is subjective and IMO misleading. You're using emotive language to make a point. Rather like the original article.

I think that the generally accepted figure is that an EV takes about 50k miles to claw back the difference, when everything is calculated, including energy cost to manufacture the extra batteries, mine the minerals, etc. After 50k miles the EV is in front in terms of lifetime emissions, including manufactuire. How much this takes into account typical recycling rates I wouldn't know, I'm not sure how mature the EV recycling processes are in sharp contrast with ICE car recycling which is mature, well established and generally (I would hope) efficient. One of the benefits of EVs over combustion engines are that the batteries are contained in a case and so the contents ought to be relatively easy to recycle/reuse. End of life fossil fuel is gone for ever. The lead in a conventional car battery gets reused. Of course it does, it has a commercial value and the car recycling industry isn't going to walk away from money. Lithium is going to be the same.

But the numbers are out there. So if you want to make a statement that it's a "far greater" cost to planet to manufacture an EV then it's the holiday season, you probably have a bit of spare time, let's see your sums.

I think a better way to look at the CO2 lifecycle emissions is not to consider EV/ICE break even point in years, but instead CO2 emissions to provide say 20 years worth of transportation (I choose 20yrs because that's what I think a well maintained EV/ICE should last before rust kills it). Then real world operating factors that are not normally considered like:

a) will the EV need a second battery and what's the CO2 footprint of this
b) will a second battery be economically viable in an aged EV with the usual structural rust issues, or will the EV be recycled instead and a new EV be built.
c) replacement parts, lubricants etc to keep both type of car running for 20 years.
d) Carbon footprint of all recycling activities for both vehicle types. Its not carbon free, its actually quite energy intensive and does not achieve 100% recyclability.

Only then do we get to the truth of the matter. This is important as the right decision needs to be made. The EU were unsatisfied with the studies so far (they employed an automotive consultancy, Ricardo, to assess these studies) and concluded they did not adequately cover true lifecycle CO2 footprint. The EU are starting legislation to properly define and require manufacturers to provide true lifecycle data.

 

[paul rich]

"As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage."

Ounce for ounce wouldn't be the metric I chose, I'd go for radiation that cannot be contained pre, during and post power generation per kWhr of electricity generated.

 

[paul rich]

I'm not sure about the maths in UK, but it will become more and more common as electricity gets more expensive (which I understand it is). The perceived value of a building with solar has always been too low where I am from IMO, which discourages developers from installing it on new homes and discourages existing owners from installing it, unless they see themselves staying put for a very long time (which most don't - 7.4 years average here from what I read). I hope this value perception will change soon.

I encourage it on commercial builds when I can during the design process. These clients burn most of their electricity during the day (i.e. it makes a better business case than many homes, due to the reduced need for storage, plus many have big, accessible roof areas). However, many still don't install it, as once the owners do the sums, it still seems to come down to personal or company principles, often not the cost/benefit calculations.

In the 4 firms I have worked that could have installed solar all would shy away from any investment that didn't pay back in less than 3 years.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

"As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage."

However, coal burning doesn't *create MORE* radioactivity in its waste products than was in the coal+air that combusted. The snag with fission is that it *creates* new radioactive elements. In the reactor parts, etc, as well as in the direct fission products. Hence the large storage of the results for many, many years after + what escaped into the environment due to bad planning/operation, failing infrastructures, suprises, etc, for pretty much all existing examples of reactors.

Its a crock that over-fills itself.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I could go dragging up figures from the net, but the point is, what the Government and NG say about how we'll be net zero by 2050 and what they do appears to be two quite different things.

I'm shocked! (Not an electric shock, though.)

 

[ff1d1l]

However, coal burning doesn't *create MORE* radioactivity in its waste products than was in the coal+air that combusted. The snag with fission is that it *creates* new radioactive elements. In the reactor parts, etc, as well as in the direct fission products. Hence the large storage of the results for many, many years after + what escaped into the environment due to bad planning/operation, failing infrastructures, suprises, etc, for pretty much all existing examples of reactors.

Its a crock that over-fills itself.

Very good point.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Another point about nuckle-leer fission plants is one we tend to not think about - but I suspect people in Ukraine will be concerned about nowdays. This is that they make big tempting targets for a foe during a war! Is everyone 100% certain Putin *won't* decide to attack the reactors there and release a lot of radioative material that will spread across a wide area?

And once you have such reactors even their remains after use can make a similar target for many years as engineers dicker over how to deal with it beyond 'storage as we work on it'.

Fission is like fossil fules. A finite fuel supply followed by having lots of damaging waste product to deal with later on. Borrowing from our grandchildren. In effect, burning them to keep ourselves warm. No wonder they are so angry.

I know they are designed to cope with impacts of various kinds. But hypersonic missiles / other non-conventional arms / etc?...

In a total war with a dictator they are potential "Sh1t and stomp in it!" targets a dictator may go for if their main plans are thwarted, or simply to be used as a threat of "surrender or else". Putin is not well known for having a reverse gear. Nor is that a trait for dictators around the globe.

After the action, then either "He made me do it, miss!" or "Oops!" afterwards. Follows on from claiming to be "fighting Nazis".