At a troubling time for the UK car industry, an increase in sales of electric vehicles represents a rare bright spot for the sector. But are you convinced that electric vehicles represent the best way forward?
Whilst the year to date has seen a dramatic year-on-year decline in registrations of conventionally-fuelled vehicles (56.3 per cent for diesel and 40.2 per cent decline for petrol), new registrations of electric vehicles have grown substantially. Indeed, according to the latest figures from the industry trade body SMMT, September saw an 184.3 per cent increase in demand for battery electric vehicle (BEVs) compared with the same month last year.
The increasing appetite for electric vehicles will be a source of relief for the car industry, which has staked its future on the technology, with most major car makers pledging a shift away from new fossil-fuelled vehicles over the course of the next 10 years. Indeed, here in the UK from 2035 manufacturers will not be able to sell new petrol and diesel cars, vans, or even so-called hybrid vehicles.
But whilst there’s now a seeming inevitability about the shift to electric cars, it’s fair to say that many consumers and observers are still wary of the technology.
For some, concerns over range and the availability of charging infrastructure are still a sticking point, for others electric cars are simply too expensive.
Some also question the decarbonising credentials of the technology, arguing that there’s little point switching to a zero-emissions vehicle if the energy used to charge it up is produced by burning coal or gas (which still accounts for significant chunk of the UK’s energy mix).
There are also concerns over the lifecycle costs of electric vehicles. For instance, a wholesale shift to electric vehicles – without the development of more efficient and sustainable methods of manufacturing and recycling lithium-ion batteries – could, some argue, have dire environmental consequences.
What do you think? Let us know in Comments below. All comments are moderated.
Surely everyone knows 2 things about coal-powered EVs:
1) going electric decouples the car from the power source – so you can add wind power and close a coal power station and get cleaner cars without having to do anything to them. You can alternatively use carbon capture – whatever seems to work for you is fine because the car just needs electricity and doesn’t care where from. Why do people with degree qualifications not get how important this is?
2) Various studies have shown that even with coal power EVs pollute less – so why not mention this instead of inviting people to make all the same thoughtless comments all over again?
Battery storage is not a long term solution even when the infra-structure is in place. More needs to be done with Fuel Cells and hydrogen supply.
I would add that price will also hamper uptake. Also not sure where all the power for these vehicles is going to come from. Interconnectors are going to be busy when the wind doesn’t blow when its supposed to. Everyone will be on Smart meters by that time so it’ll be easier to isolate those who haven’t paid for 24-7.
This false dichotomy between choice of centralised energy source and EV for cleaner air -especially coal which is virtually obsolete – has to stop. I thought you were a progressive engineering journal.
We agree Mike. To be clear we’re not promoting the “false dichotomy”, but merely acknowledging that this is a concern that some people have and attempting to stimulate debate on the topic.
Range anxiety is often overstated. The advantage of EVs is that you can plug in and charge almost anywhere and so driving 10 miles and then charging is reasonable – you wouldn’t do that with an ICE car stopping at every fuel station. With an EV there is probably a fueling point (electricity point) wherever you go. Only if huge distances are essential does a 300 mile or more range come into question – and again, why not charge whenever you stop.
As Timothy stated earlier if you can find a way of replacing all coal-powered generation with greener sources your already green EV gets greener.
Question for the 42.74% (currently) who voted No. Do you own, or have you ever used an EV for more than an hour?
Question for EV owners – would you ever willingly go back to an ICE vehicle?
Well said Timothy. It is utterly mind-boggling that 58% of respondents have so far voted ‘NO’ in the poll. What kind of engineers are these people?! Clearly they’re stuck in the past and incapable of embracing change, unlike our competitors in Japan, China, Korea and Europe. I guess they were in favour of Brexit because their UK couldn’t handle the competition from other member states?
The development of batteries and EVs has been terrific and they are now almost economic without subsidy, although the sales have been entirely subsidy dependent so far. It is hard to understand why the hybrid is so detested when it overcomes two of the major limitations of EVs: i.e. low range and total immobility when the battery discharges.
Personally, I’d buy a hybrid (if the price was right) but never an EV. I mainly do short journeys, but occasionally must do several hundred miles in a day, problematic in cold winter or hot summer.
Some recent research from the US suggests EVs (hybrids) are not as energy efficient as their supporters would have us believe. They spend more time on I/c mode and are recharged less frequently. Fleet users are worse offenders than private owners.
It is a matter of time and $$ to place solar panels and windmills all over the Earth to directly convert solar power (sunlight, wind, etc.) to electrical energy. As I recall, our sun during daylight hours provide ~1000W/m^2 of radiant energy on the surface of Earth. Even with inefficient conversion of ~ 10%, this equates to enough energy to power electrically all of our machines, vehicles, boats, etc. several times over.
Issues of limited range batteries, the extremely long re-charge times of them ( from ~ 30min to several hours..) for EV is a problem that must be addressed. Simple solution is wireless inductive (or capacitive ) charging of vehicles while they are moving (or standing still in traffic.) As I understand it, there is really no reason why one cannot imbed power transmitting coils or electrodes in the roadway. There are present-day technologies to accomplish this safely and durably. Just the will power and freedom of interference from the traditional fossil fuel industry. Proof of concept studies have been done or are on-going. I can envision a day where I hop into my EV in San Francisco and use Google Map to set a course for NY City and go to sleep while my vehicle travels at ~ 200 mph for a 20 hr trip that I may stop every 6 hrs or so to visit the sights along the way and not worry about recharging.
Have you ever worried about where the power will come from if others want to have an electric shower (8.5kW – 10.5kW) at the same time you want to? Typical home EV charger power is 7kW, predominantly used overnight when power is cheap.
Wow! I’m astounded. We need to wake up to the fact that ICE cars will soon be dead and lets embrace ev’s we before allow the rest of the world to leave us behind. Battery technology is moving ahead so fast thanks to the likes of Elon Musk and soon many of the legacy car companies will close I’m afraid because they are just too slow. This is much than bigger cars – it’s the whole of the energy industry – oil, gas & coal needed replacing with renewables and cars are just one part of the story!
The car industry should improve engines to run on hydrogen, then we need only water to power them.
Hydrogen is much less efficient than battery for EV cars. It may have other uses.
Ian Cash – the ‘rich’ middle classes can afford to virtue signal/follow fads/follow their beliefs however, I would suggest that the majority of the public would struggle to afford an EV so voting no may be more representative of the real world situation, regardless of pros and cons …
Ownership and use of something is not an indicator of superior knowledge about that thing – for example consider ‘smart’ phones !
The industry is not being honest with people. There may be hidden agendas to accommodate new business opportunities for the scrupulous rich, car companies and energy producers, being masked by so-called, clear at face-value, ‘environmental ‘ concerns.
Understandably, petrol / diesel engines … and including their support industries … are major polluters.
It is also an acceptable argument to state that although current (as in through present production methods) electricity production may be polluting still, this can change in the future with renewables / other systems.
But what about the battery and EV car technologies? How polluting (e.g. extraction technologies to obtain rare earth metals, neodymium, etc. for strong magnets), and how harmful is it to people (e.g. forced child labour in unsafe mines to extract same ) ton produce an electric vehicle?
Unfortunately this argument also applies for other technologies such as Hydrogen, as one still needs strong electric motors and specialised fuel cells to move / power the vehicle.
EV range of 300 miles is not a long journey. 600 mile range with no loss of power or performance whatever the conditions over that distance are a must for greater adoption. Why can’t batteries be standardised and also allow a systemised install procedure so that EV garages could hold a supply of rechargeable / pre-charged batteries and a automated battery exchange system. In this way the vehicle is a simple shell with running gear, and would improve vehicle longevity, and avoid the wasting embedded energy.
There only so much rare earth elements available, so multiple clean solutions are required.
Would that be a “self-charging hybrid” by any chance? Brilliant marketing by Toyota – amazing how many people are still fooled by late 90’s tech badged as the next new thing. For those unfamiliar, a “self-charging” hybrid is 100% powered by fossil petroleum.
FYI – I’m regularly making a 220 mile journey, arriving with 25% battery left (Kona 64kWh)
– Hydrogen fuel cell could be a big player at some point, but seems to have gone quiet recently.
– Hybrids are the worst of all worlds – ICE engine, gearbox, electric motor & batteries all adding weight & complexity. Although the range extender version has more merit, as steady state small ICE engines are more efficient & no complex gearbox arrangement needed to share the power.
– Range anxiety is an issue for quite a few people – seems there should be a way to buy or rent an
extra battery pack to put in your boot when you go on a long journey – until either the million mile battery arrives, or in-road charging arrives.
Surely the real solution is to build vehicles like the Ford Nucleon?
Or even adopt a scaled up Scalextric transport System?
EVs probably are the future but they don’t need to be driven by batteries, fuel cells can do that job. Efficiency will remain an issue and it is possible to directly burn hydrogen in an IC engine. Though the mass of the fuel tank will be significant. But, comparing this mass to that of a battery hydrogen starts to draw ahead again, in the practicality stakes. It’s principle advantage is that it only takes minutes to competely refuel unlike a battery which will always take much longer with any practical grid distribution, generation and connector systems. Something else of significance is that liquid hydrogen can be transported very easily to remote and off-grid locations. Battery chargers cannot. And also consider what happens when several thousand EVs get stranded on a snow bound motorway with flat batteries!
Those arguing for the demise of hydrocarbon IC vehicles don’t consider the wider implications. People are not generally against the vehicles themselves but their practical use in normal real world situations. EVs will be mechanically simpler and probably have mroe standard component use. It is the lack of usable and practical charging infrastructure that limits wide spread take up. This translates incorrectly and over simplistically as ‘range anxiety’. If we cannot get to or locate a vacant charging point at a destination, and then be able to hang around for about an hour the radius of action will always be the limiting factor. If there are sufficient charging points woth rest facilities then range is not an issue. The bigger the battery used to increase the range the longer it will take to charge! The instantaneous energy transfer capability is the key. Multi-megawatt grid connections to replace fossil fuel stations, which can handle many vehicles simultaneously in a matter of minutes is what EVs are up against! That is the elephant in the room. The alternative is lack of flexible personal mobility and all the economic benefits we have from the existing free movement of people and goods.
Sam Ochi – perhaps if you own a ranch in Texas, plenty of land and sunshine … ?
Mean insolation at noon in summer in the UK is 700 W/m²; in winter 200 W/m² (figures are for Birmingham, 2016). So if you charged your car from 10:00 to 14:00 under ‘average’ conditions using PV panels @ 15% efficiency and wanted to replicate a 7 kW mains charger (delivering a 28 kW-h charge or 70% of a full charge for a 40 kW-h Nissan Leaf), in round figures you’d need 67 m² of panels for summer charging (700 W/m² * 67 m² * 0.15 = 7035) and 233 m² of panels for winter charging (200 W/m² * 233 m² * 0.15 = 6990 W)
I do fear a ban on petrol/diesel cars will just price the working poor off the roads. Not everyone can afford a Tesla. Or £8000 for a new battery on an 8 year old electric car. Will electric cars be scrapped sooner because of replacement battery costs? They are hardly greener if they have a shorter lifespan. Think of cradle to grave energy costs, building them, operating, recycling & disposal.
Battery EV’s will never be able to re-charge at anywhere near the rate that an IC car can re-fill so will never be a like-for-like replacement where long journeys are concerned. As an example, Hyundai quote an energy consumption of 13.8 kW.hr per 100 km. In order to re-charge for a 500 mile range in 5 minutes (like re-filling your ICE car) you would need a charger capable of delivering 1.3 MW – al least 5 times the highest Tesla supercharger rating. At 1000 V you’d need a cable and connector capable of delivering 1300 A. How big ad clumsy would hat need to be? On the other hand, a green-hydrogen fuel-cell battery hybrid EV would give an energy efficiency approaching that of a battery EV together with much shorter refuelling times. This is surely the way to go. Elon Musk calling them “fool cells” is confirmation that he’s worried that they’ll damage his business. What better evidence is there?
“Range anxiety is often overstated. The advantage of EVs is that you can plug in and charge almost anywhere and so driving 10 miles and then charging is reasonable – you wouldn’t do that with an ICE……
” stop and re-charge/top-up every 10 miles……??? Strange remark when you can drive a few hundred miles on a full petrol tank………plus a can of juice in case you get low. Try driving down France et al with an electric vehicle?
How long do the batteries last? How much do they cost to replace? Nobody is talking about these items of great interest to all potential users. Check before buying I suggest!
The ultimate electric car may be fuel cell powered- initially using hydrogen but later with liquid fuels. Fuel cell efficiency characteristics (ie higher at part load) are a better match than the ICE.
@Jack – Absolutely Plug in Hybrids are the best option for now., they overcome the limitation of pure electric and drastically reduces the effect of fossil fuel usage and the local pollution from it. Currently have a plug in hybrid and probably for 90% of the time its running on battery (charged via solar during the summer period!), trips to work, shopping, entertainment are all within the 30 mile round trip.
When I do need to go further its not an issue as it would be with pure electric.
Perhaps they could reduce the engine size, reduce fuel tank size on hybrids and add more batteries to the freed space, if it was limited to 50-60 mph on engine it would not be an issue with acceleration coming from the batteries.
Barring a revolution in battery/stored electric energy technology the long term use of hydrogen or other ‘green’ synthesized fuel closer to petrol would perhaps be a better alternative
Actually just bought a new car to replace my old hatchback that is past it, I briefly considered EV or plug in Hybrid but simply cannot afford it. That leads me straight into the “hamper uptake” option, I still think that EVs are the future of cars and figure that my next car might be an EV if they have developed enough, but right now it is too much of a risk.
In countries like Norway EVs already make up a significant portion of total cars and sales are increasing so the momentum is with EVs and I figure it would take some serious market forces to undo it.
Range anxiety – might be decreased with working from home
Power station capacity – most charging will probably be done at night, when demand for power usually drops
I actually love the idea of a smart grid where the eventual millions of batteries in peoples cars can be used as a two way system that irons out variation in supply and demand (if the owners would consent to selling electricity that is – nobody is saying this would be forced on people)
Why do people automatically assume that hydrogen vehicles need fuel cells when you can burn the hydrogen directly, look at the past and current research; Volvo built a petrol engined vehicle which put out zero tailpipe emissions and current diesels actually clean the polluted air in congested city centres.
Converting an existing petrol engine to run on hydrogen would achieve several things; it would keep a proportion of vehicles similar in driving to current petrol/diesel engines, produce much lower emissions, keep the price of vehicles down, and it would generate competition.
Has anyone ever asked the awkward questions? why do Governments want everyone on one type of fuel? Currently we have petrol, diesel, LPG, Electricity, hybrid options, so why do certain bodies want to take away an individuals choice.
Nobody ever asks what happens to the spent batteries, or, how many people are going to be killed by electrocution in accidents, and what about the spontaneous combustion of many of these batteries, and what if your garage is attached to your home!!! sorry you lose your home and possibly your family.
Am I anti electric cars, actually no, but people need to be aware of the realities.
S. Martin: something I came across reading around the subject of an earlier article, https://www.theengineer.co.uk/report-hydrogen-blending-gas-network-cadent/ . Gaseous fuels are rated for internal combustion engine performance according to a “methane number” (analogous to octane number for liquid fuels). The scale is 0=hydrogen to 100=methane. So a fuel gas with a methane number of 80 would have the same ‘knock’ performance as a gas mixture 80% methane, 20% hydrogen (and incidentally this is regarded as the maximum hydrogen % for acceptable IC engine performance ~ and probably why the gas-to-grid researchers self-imposed a 20% limit in their research)
So unfortunately 100% hydrogen would be a terrible fuel for retrofitted IC engines
Incidentally ‘spent’ automotive batteries are being investigated for less exacting ‘second life’ applications e.g. domestic power storage
Perhaps more thought should be given to a more integrated public and freight transport system as in the past. Perhaps Trains, Trams and Trolley bus’s etc using pickup power direct. At their destination/terminals electric verticals can distribute freight and personnel over what will be short distances. Yes our way of moving people and freight around will change but we are in a changing world. Unless we stop raping the earth for more and more rare materials unlike the past and polluting it there will be no earth to live in. Perhaps a pipe dream but unless we change the future for our children and children’s children is bleak.
Most people don’t get EV’s until they own one, then they never go back. You charge overnight at 5pkwh which means your running costs are 1.5p per mile. You have instant torque so superior performance over your equivalvent ICE competitors, great fun at the traffic lights. Yes they are are expensive to buy but this is a function of demand over supply dictating cost.
A 50Kwh battery costs £7500 so equivalent cars should only cost that much more, they don’t but you sell things at the price people are willing to pay. This opens the market up to cheap electric cars from the far east, you’ve been warned expensive car companies!
Yes they don’t have great range compared to their ICE equivalents but you just drive accordingly stopping every 2 – 3 hours for a 30 min charge. There are more charging points than petrol pumps in the UK so don’t believe there is no infrastructure although Ecotricity are a National disgrace and should let BP Polar take over the electric highway but that’s another story, shame on you Dale Vince!
Electric cars aren’t for everyone, but good luck buying a Hydogen Fuel Cell EV there are only about 20 Hydrogen refuelling stations, it costs the same to run as a Dirty Diesel and the cars are as rare as the proverbial Rocking Horse excrement. I think Toyota imported 12 Mirages for the entire UK this year although Hyundai may have more Nexo’s.
One other thing about Hydrogen is that the pumps don’t like running continuously as they get a bit cold, so the first car may refuel in 5 min but the next one may take 10!
All fellow EV owners out there enjoy your EV’s 🙂
Hydrogen seems like a better long term option. The infrastructure needs to be put in place but so does the charging infrastructure for EV. Existing petrol stations can be easily adapted to supply hydrogen which can provide refueling in minutes. Hydrogen can be produced in the UK from green electricity rather than being dependent on China for the battery supply chain:, for example: https://www.mining.com/chart-chinas-grip-on-battery-metals-supply-chain/
Hydrogen buses are already in use and double decker hydrogen buses have been recently delivered, built in Northern Ireland. As hydrogen becomes more widely adopted for buses and heavy goods vehicles the hydrogen infrastructure will follow.
And of course that is the most expensive way of charging the batteries, by using road fuel! Governments will love this.
For those advocating hydrogen and fuel cells, please note: These are also electric vehicles.
However, a battery gives a plug to wheel efficiency at least double that of hydrogen. It is also needed for regenerative braking. A battery is also significantly cheaper per KW – if not per KWh – than a fuel cell.
If you want to build a hydrogen powered vehicle, you will end up putting a battery in it to provide peak power and regenerative braking. At that point, the fuel cell simply becomes a range extender to a battery vehicle.
So you will end up with battery vehicles and fuel cell range extender option. If you want a small car, you probably won’t bother with the fuel cell. If you regularly drive 500km stretches, then you you might go for the fuel cell option. That applies to trucks (delivery and long distance) as well. It applies to buses: why bother with hydrogen for a city bus that does 150km per day, but for your trans-Europe bus, hydrogen might be essential. It even applies to ships: No need for hydrogen on the Dover-Calais route, but it is needed across the North Sea.
No I don ‘t think you’ll find that there are more accessible charging points, especially in rural areas, or they are very far apart. And of course in ones or twos so the likelihood of them being occupied when you need them is increasingly higher with demand. There are four in our area for example compared to 24 fossil fuel pumps, which take around 5 minutes to refill potentially 288 vehicles per hour. I know plenty of places where there are no electric outlets. So what if you have to re’fuel’ every hour or so, if there are places to do it we can get used to it. But the lack of usable capacity in the charging system is ultimately what limits people’s willingness to take up EVs.
Most electric car batteries are good for at least 1000 full charge cycles. The Opel e-Corsa has a 300km range, so the battery should be good for at least 300,000km. How many Corsas are expected to do 300,000km? The average car does about 12,000km per year – so 25 years to 300K. That translates to an average of 250km per week, meaning one charge needed per week (though in practice, most will be plugged in every night).
After the car is scrapped, the battery can be used to provide power in a house, for another 20 years, before being recycled.
I’m actually planning on charging my car (when I get it) at 2.4KW. The reason is because in summer, I very often have a spare 2.4KW of solar power. I rarely have 7KW spare. The idea is the car should be local-solar powered for 8 months of the year.
In winter, and when it’s not sunny, it can still charge for 7 hours or so at night. That’s about 17KWh, or enough for 100km. I will see if I need a 7KW wall charger as a fall back.
While batteries are the most efficient way of powering EVs the lack of flexibility and awkward charging arrangenents are a major inhibitor to take up. Yes there are issues with hydrogen, but they are a known quantity and replicating or indeed replacing petrol and diesel filling stations for hydrogen is relatively easy. Much much easier that than the grid implications of universal BEV use. What people also fail to consider is the use of hydrogen compared to batteries in any emergency scenario, exactly as not considered by those advocating a cashless society. BEVs will always be , in the absence of a hugely enhanced national grid with commensurate multi kiloamp/kilovolt cabling and connectors, an urban or peri-urban niche. For flexibility and adaptability liquid fuels cannot be beaten, especially in terms of energy density per unit mass. Also liquid fuels (whatever) are easy to store in simple (compared to batteries) containers in principle indefinately. So hydrogen generation from renewable sources, sea and wind/tidal/hydro, solves one issue of power continuity and can as a last resort also be burnt directly in suitable IC power units if needs must.
This EV thing could be seen as a class-based bandwagon, with the objective of recycling taxes rather than making transport quicker and cheaper for everybody
IFF the issue is achieving net carbon, then growing biofuels is the way to go. A round trip for the CO2, with no net accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Remenber, Rudolf Diesel’s engine was developed to run on peanut oil.
The major problem with hybrids is Toyota. Unfortunately their design won with an compromised architecture and paved the way for a wave of hybrid cars which failed to hold up to the expectation or specifications. I am referring to hybrid only (no plugin) power split architecture with relatively low electric motor power which offered limited benefits in cities and were worse that pure ICE cars on motorways. Only recently you could see proper plug-in hybrid cars (I would mention Hyndai Ioniq) but the damage in public opinion is already done, and the rise of new EV’s with long range is not helping.
AlexT. The working poor cannot afford to buy a new e Corsa. You are still pricing the low paid off the roads.
Regardless of the pros and cons of EVs, I’m still not sure how people think our creaking, maxed out power supply infrastructure is going to cope ?
If we go from a baseline of usage now to a scenario in the near future where potentially millions of people are attempting to charge their cars I don’t see how we can cope ? Where is the strategy, where is the investment, where is the money ?
Yes, and what about your plumber, electrician, gardener, etc. can their business support the purchase and running of EVs ?
Not thought through ?
Dacia Spring is only 10k Euros, still a lot of money but probably more affordable than you think. Car ownership is also changing with most cars leased rather than bought outright, you can even rent them on monthly pay as you go basis.
No, not in towns where congestion, creating barriers between communities, air pollution from brake, tyre and road dust are major problems.
On high use routes the tram should be re-introduced served by bus (electric/trolley) feeders. Trams have been proven to create modal shift from car drivers and along with comprehensive traffic management (rat-runs, parking, train , bus, bicycle, scooter, walking) and land-use planning can revitalise a city. Indeed fixed line transport with some planning to allow slightly higher densities (appropriate to the local urbanism) gives developers confidence to invest. Trams on street running with green wave preemption at traffic lights allows fluid traffic flow. Trams per passenger km have low running cost, can run at high frequencies and capacities and long daily service hours.
On a tram one can spread out more easily than on a bus and floor level air extraction can reduce covid risk.
The UK has/is developing innovative very light rail vehicles and prefab quick to install rail slabs that can reduce costs.
France has reintroduced around 30 new lines in the last 30 years…the UK… 8.
see Bathtrams.uk for more info.
TomF. Many of the working poor are wary of any ongoing payments. Their hours can change from week to week. If they are self employed tradesmen, they may find local lockdowns stop them earning. It is easy to say lease it, if you have a secure, white collar job for life (+gold plated pension), but in the precariat of low pay/insecure work, you are wary of a sudden month without income, while still having to pay your way.
David Smart said “what sort of engineers are these?”
They are the ones who have studied the facts and done the sums. Global decarb will require the equivalent of one new 1.5GW nuclear power station built every day for the next 30 years. Ain’t going to happen.
I am 100% solar powered – 3 4WD vehicles and gas fired heating. I’m using the biggest battery on earth, charged by The Sun eons ago. I’m just returning a bit of the CO2 sequestered from that ancient atmosphere.
That’s really why this EV evolution is rolling out from top to bottom. The expensive models come first. In essence the better off people have to do their duty at some point and buy a zero-emission car to make it possible for the next tranche of people to afford theirs.
A great debate, with some very interesting comments and arguments – some with data that directly contradicts the data of others. Can I ask that The Engineer writes a full detailed article with the actual data so we no longer need to conjecture ? I suspect the answer may recommend a variety of powertrain options are “best” depending on what is needed, but either way, I’ll be very happy to see the data and be able to judge objectively. Thanks.
Yes Bill Church, you are one of those engineers living in the past and in denial of scientific facts.
Global decarb can be achieved with no more than the existing nuclear plant. The extra capacity is easily supplied, sustainably, courtesy of the Sun’s power today and for the rest of time – not forgetting that the Moon also has a sizeable contribution to make, long after all the FF is used up, if we are daft enough to follow such an insane scenario.
Your groundless assertions are based on cherry-picking the ‘facts’ and ‘sums’ that suit your bias. That is acknowledged to be ‘motivated reasoning’ and we can all see where that leads by studying the claims of any number of politicians. For unreasoning lies, Trump is in a league of his own.
I will continue using my old gas boiler, rather than take advantage of the government assistance to buy a new one, which would be a waste of everyone’s money. I just use it less and exercise more.
Can we get an agreed definition of low or zero carbon established and understood otherwise we end up with a whole load of contradictory claims and assertions for various fuels and energy sources?
Is zero-emission a myth? A lot of mining , then production, then servicing, then recycling/disposal. Just because a vehicle is electric, does not mean it is zero-emission.
Has anyboby got any figures for the cost of upgrading the distribution infrastructure? Aside from the lack of joined-up thinking on standardisation of battery packs and charging connectors what impact is the lack of supply capacity going to have? I just checked in my road; 25 properties potentially all with an EV (or two?) going on charge at say 7kW roughly at the same time – what capacity is the distribution cable running down our close? When our smart (huh another mis-leading title) meters were installed a few years ago, the main fuse was reduced from 100A to 60A by the fitter – he did not seem to know why, it was just on the job list! So, 7kW to charge the car, 3-5kW for cooking, washing machine, and other loads in winter, possibly another 7kW or so for an electric shower , so potentially getting on for 17ish kW. Simplistically around 70A? What happens when all these loads are ‘on’ simultaneously?
For all the BEV naysayers out there, have a look at the “Now you Know” YouTube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMFmrcGuFNu_59L0pHcR0OA
Electricity is everywhere. Hydrogen is nowhere and is only being promoted by the ICE dinosaurs to try to keep their dying factories and dealer networks alive longer. With a hydrogen or fuel cell ICE the maintenance costs will stay high. BEV has the lowest overall cost per mile and Elon is driving down the cost massively. Tesla are already rolling out 108$ per KWH and the new cells starting production are below 50$/KWH. China have BEV cars from 5K$
Let us not forget individual privacy. I do not have to download an app to fill my ICE vehicle with petrol or diesel. Why should I have to, to use a public charging point? It should be law that you can pay with a contactless debit card instead. Hidden in the small print of the app, is very often the right to access all your personal data on the phone. Why? How is this allowed? We need to extend the 1977 Unfair Contracts Act to cover tech giants.
While The Engineer is concerned with the mechanical side to pollution,there is also social engineering side to be considered,and that is :
Too many people going to too many places too fast.
This could explain how and why the SarsCov2 virus has spread so rapidly and we may have some lessons to be learnt from this,e.g. staying at home is a good thing.It could also explain why we are producing so much carbon dioxide and polluting while doing so.