Electric vehicles

[johnb80]

Urine may be sterile when it leaves, but it plays a huge part in the nitrogen cycle, breaking down into ammonia and its by products and is a seriously good plant fertiliser - commercially made nitrogen fertilisers take the nitrogen directly from the air and are massively energy intensive to produce. As far as the solids go, grazing animals don't produce the best dung, just a lot of it - think of chicken or pig manure, both famous for their value in agriculture/horticulture and both from omnivores (by nature at least). When you use "farmyard manure" in your garden, the bigger part of the value of it is in the urine that has soaked into the straw and broken it down. You can turn principle this to your advantage by peeing in your compost heap, which will help it heat up to destroy pathogens and speed up the composting process.
Some treated human waste does still make it to the land, though without looking it up, I'd be guessing if I said how much.

Thanks for the info, it is food for thought (no pun intended).

 

[paulrbarnard]

It always used to be used to great benefit, only stopped with the introduction of flush toilets and let's not forget that the largest amount of waste we produce is in the form of urine, which is hugely beneficial to growing stuff.

It’s amazing that what we flush away today was a thriving business for centuries.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

In China the "night soil" was used as manure - that's why the Chinese don't tend to use salad crops and vegetables uncooked.

 

[Ozi]

As far as fertiliser goes, we all produce significant quantities of it every day (some more than others...!) then spend huge amounts of money and use lots of scarce water to treat it and throw it away, though I accept that some of it does end up on the land.. Would it not make much more sense to see all that "waste" as a valuable resource of methane for fuel and manure for the fields? It would go a long way towards cleaning up the rivers too.

A significant proportion already does. A lot of methane is harvested both from sewage and landfill then used to generate electricity. After bio digestion sewage ends up as "Cake" which has to be allowed to cool which entails it giving off a lot of ammonia to become "black earth" a very sterile product that is then spread on fields.

When the process is followed fully and all works well the only real pollution is the ammonia. Obviously we hear of many instances where things go wrong and rivers get fouled mainly because we lack the infrastructure to handle rain surges.

 

[Ozi]

Until a cheaper way is developed for harvesting the Hydrogen AND an efficient way of storing / transporting Hydrogen it simply will not happen. It's way too expensive, storage tanks are extremely heavy and the pressures involved are dangerously high.

The storage tanks are much liter than you would expect, agreed the pressures involved are frighteningly high and compression requires a lot of energy, but I have seen the results of crash and fire testing on automotive tanks and been pleasantly surprised.

Aye, take a look at the work done by Toyota on the same thing with massively different results. JCB have a resonable argument for fuelling plant and equipment on a building site and the expense Hydrogen may be acceptable in this usage case but not for day to day transport. Have you seen the take up of JCB's Hydrogen offerings? there is almost zero interest.

Very different systems. Toyota use hydrogen in fuel cells and have sold hardly any as there is not the infrastructure to support ownership YET. JCB face a very different problem, I don't think anyone has the first idea how to make a battery powered earth-mover, they produced an IC engine designed to run of hydrogen and proved by designing from scratch rather than converting that efficient operation was possible. For either to be viable requires a regular supply and distribution of green hydrogen at or below the cost of diesel and we are nowhere near that yet.

There is a lot of work currently being done on hydrogen power for buses and other fleet vehicles. The justification here is that there are many inner city bus depots. If you have ever worked in one you will know space is at a premium. An electric bus takes time to charge when it is unavailable for service, so to maintain service you need more busses - where do you put them. Secondly they would need huge amounts of power, running in additional capacity through a city is difficult and costly. Hydrogen may provide an answer to these issues and also reduce vehicle weight which is a benefit. IF this succeeds then the production of hydrogen becomes more viable the cost comes down and availability makes other uses viable. Which in turn makes it cost effective to install more wind generation as power at peak generation can be used rather than being a problem leading to more power being available at times of lower output.

It's hard to see how it could be more attractive, charging overnight at 5p kWh giving 1p per mile fuel cost or from solar energy making it free.


Im sure youre right there are a lot of fringe industries surrounding the oil industry but necessity is the mother of invention, we will find ways when need is established to either manage without the fertiliser or make the fertiliser by other processes.

Agreed necessity is the mother of invention. I refer to a report from the CEGB written in the early 1980s. Some very competent engineers proved that the national grid could not be stable with more than 10% renewable energy.

That's the last twelve months power supply. Some very competent engineers many with the CEGB fixed that. The tinny orange box is power returned from storage - more work to be done.

 

[johnb80]

The storage tanks are much liter than you would expect, agreed the pressures involved are frighteningly high and compression requires a lot of energy, but I have seen the results of crash and fire testing on automotive tanks and been pleasantly surprised.

The tanks are NOT lighter than I expect, theyre very thick metal items that weigh a lot. The fact that you need more Hydrogen than fossil fuels further hinders Hydrogen operation. To hold 5kg of Hydrogen the tank weighs in at 100kg and that is sufficient fuel for around 270 miles in a fuel cell equipped vehicle.. If you run the fuel in a converted ICE then the range drops to around 130 miles with a fuel that costs at very least 3 x the cost of fossil fuels. So whilst crash testing may impress the weight and the cost of fuel will not.

Very different systems. Toyota use hydrogen in fuel cells and have sold hardly any as there is not the infrastructure to support ownership YET.

Toyota as well as the fuel cell powered vehicles also tried converting existing ICE as a concept with dreadful results.

Have a look at this guy, great explanations.

JCB face a very different problem, I don't think anyone has the first idea how to make a battery powered earth-mover, they produced an IC engine designed to run of hydrogen and proved by designing from scratch rather than converting that efficient operation was possible.

Thats the problem, how do you measure 'efficient operation' Hydrogen as a fuel is not efficient compared to fossil fuels, the energy in it is about 1/3. The cost of manufacture is way higher, its an absolute non starter in every respect other than emissions.

For either to be viable requires a regular supply and distribution of green hydrogen at or below the cost of diesel and we are nowhere near that yet.

Exactly what I said previously.

There is a lot of work currently being done on hydrogen power for buses and other fleet vehicles. The justification here is that there are many inner city bus depots. If you have ever worked in one you will know space is at a premium. An electric bus takes time to charge when it is unavailable for service, so to maintain service you need more busses - where do you put them.

They charge up at bus stations where theyre at the end of their route like the Tesla Semi.

Secondly they would need huge amounts of power, running in additional capacity through a city is difficult and costly.

You would think so except in London for example, standing charges on electricity meters are considerably lower than the rest of the UK

Hydrogen may provide an answer to these issues and also reduce vehicle weight which is a benefit.

That will not happen due to fuel tank weight

IF this succeeds then the production of hydrogen becomes more viable the cost comes down

It still takes the same amount of electricity to get the Hydrogen whether your getting 1 tonne or a 10000 tonnes, the energy required is 3x the amount that the Hydrogen produces when it's used. Why waste such a lot of energy?

Have a look at this with prof David Cebon, he knows his stuff and explains it in a very easy manner. (start at 06:30 to avoid Llewelyns rabbiting). Hydrogen currently is not viable.

and availability makes other uses viable. Which in turn makes it cost effective to install more wind generation as power at peak generation can be used rather than being a problem leading to more power being available at times of lower output.

Omit the wasteful Hydrogen process, store it in batteries 3x more efficient.

Agreed necessity is the mother of invention. I refer to a report from the CEGB written in the early 1980s. Some very competent engineers proved that the national grid could not be stable with more than 10% renewable energy.

Just goes to show how things change.

View attachment 188490That's the last twelve months power supply. Some very competent engineers many with the CEGB fixed that. The tinny orange box is power returned from storage - more work to be done.

Im not sure what your graphic is really portraying. The live stats from the grid regularly show high % renewables.

 

[Ozi]

The tanks are NOT lighter than I expect, theyre very thick metal items that weigh a lot. The fact that you need more Hydrogen than fossil fuels further hinders Hydrogen operation. To hold 5kg of Hydrogen the tank weighs in at 100kg and that is sufficient fuel for around 270 miles in a fuel cell equipped vehicle.. If you run the fuel in a converted ICE then the range drops to around 130 miles with a fuel that costs at very least 3 x the cost of fossil fuels. So whilst crash testing may impress the weight and the cost of fuel will not.



Toyota as well as the fuel cell powered vehicles also tried converting existing ICE as a concept with dreadful results.

Have a look at this guy, great explanations.





Thats the problem, how do you measure 'efficient operation' Hydrogen as a fuel is not efficient compared to fossil fuels, the energy in it is about 1/3. The cost of manufacture is way higher, its an absolute non starter in every respect other than emissions.


Exactly what I said previously.


They charge up at bus stations where theyre at the end of their route like the Tesla Semi.


You would think so except in London for example, standing charges on electricity meters are considerably lower than the rest of the UK


That will not happen due to fuel tank weight


It still takes the same amount of electricity to get the Hydrogen whether your getting 1 tonne or a 10000 tonnes, the energy required is 3x the amount that the Hydrogen produces when it's used. Why waste such a lot of energy?

Have a look at this with prof David Cebon, he knows his stuff and explains it in a very easy manner. (start at 06:30 to avoid Llewelyns rabbiting). Hydrogen currently is not viable.




Omit the wasteful Hydrogen process, store it in batteries 3x more efficient.


Just goes to show how things change.

Im not sure what your graphic is really portraying. The live stats from the grid regularly show high % renewables.

Just going to comment on some of this.

The tanks I have tested were made of composite materials and very lite weight.
Toyota tried to convert an IC engine and failed which is why JCB started from scratch and succeeded.
You can't just charge busses at the end of the route without additional busses many finish one shift and are taken straight out on the next.
You can't necessarily get enough power to the bus station to run all the chargers, it would be easier to replace the road tanker that currently brings in diesel with one bringing in hydrogen. This is why there are currently hydrogen busses running around the test tracks at MIRA.
I don't know where you get the 3x figure from but it is very optimistic but the return of petrol is around 3% and that seems to work

Good night

 

[johnb80]

Just going to comment on some of this.

The tanks I have tested were made of composite materials and very lite weight.

Possibly relatively light weight BUT they would be very expensive.

Toyota tried to convert an IC engine and failed which is why JCB started from scratch and succeeded.

Yep, I'm aware of both of those points, it still gets back to the cost of the fuel which makes it nigh on impossible to use. Watch the video above from Prof David Cebon.

You can't just charge busses at the end of the route without additional busses many finish one shift and are taken straight out on the next.

The point is you can do just this. At the terminus where busses typically wait for half an hour or so before commencing their next journey thay can substantially replace the amount of energy used on their route. My neighbour works for a company that converts vehicles to electric operation, one of their most popular conversions is to dustbin lorries. The trucks can do a full shift with recharging and then at the depo recharge overnight. Running costs, maintenance etc very low compared to diseasel.

You can't necessarily get enough power to the bus station to run all the chargers, it would be easier to replace the road tanker that currently brings in diesel with one bringing in hydrogen.

but you need 18 tankers to transport the same amount of energy in Hydrogen compared to diesel. Storage is still a major problem, thats why Hydrogen is generally harvested at point of use.

This is why there are currently hydrogen busses running around the test tracks at MIRA.

Odd that electric busses are already well beyond test track stage and in service, because electric works and Hydrogen does not.

I don't know where you get the 3x figure from but it is very optimistic but the return of petrol is around 3% and that seems to work

Watch the video from David Cebon, it's all very clear.

Good night

Aye, good night to you too, thanks for the discussion, it's excellent to have a real debate on this subject, sad that with current technology and know how, Hydrogen simply cant work. Hopefully, one day we will get there, it probably wont happen due to the pace in development of EV and battery technology but we will see.

 

[mg123]

Possibly your choice of EV isnt the most favourable. I run 2 EV's a BMW i3 and an MG5 Trophy. Both of them have fully coimprehensive insurance with Direct Line at under £300 each. The MG5 can be purchased new, all the bells and whistles, 7 year warranty, 250 mile range for under £20k now (Perrys at Leeds IIRC). Servicing, I bough a 4 year service plan for my MG5 and that cost £520 for the whole 4 years, my i3 a 3 year service plan was £490.
In terms of running costs both cars manage 5 miles/kWh unless you need to do 70+ mph where it drops a little, with the Tomato Energy EV tariff at 5p kWh that returns 1p per mile. Consider this aspect against a diesel of say 45mpg you would save £1400 on the fuel cost alone over 10,000 miles.

EV's aren't for everyone but for most people they are an excellent choice.

I ran my comparison with an MG4 as well, it was my preferable car as it felt a lot better during the test drive vs the Enyaq, it was just a little too small internally for my general use (but not a delay breaker)
The insurance was still a lot more, I've 9 years NCD and quote for 10k miles. I also have solar and still couldn't quite make the costs work in my instance. Still a huge fan and want to be in the EV world. Just still not able to do so

 

[John Hughes01]

I am on my third Niro hybrid but for my latest Niro I opted for the PHEV version having calculated that,being retired and considering the vast majority of trips it made sense to pay £5000 more and spend most of my trips using electric - in fact, Ihave to make sure I use petrol from time to time but I normally do about 1000 miles between petrol fill ups which cost about £40 as larger battery = smaller tank. I am delighted with the outcome for my circumstances especially when I use the third level of regen. braking. The point I am making is do what suits your needs. I have had my PHEV two years now and am delighted with the outcome especially charging and doing washing etc at 7p a unit at the moment. I don't think full EV is the answer but we don't plug(no pun intended) the PHEV as an alternative enough in my opinion. Charging at home only using your own charger is a very important consideration as well as you are not being fleeced and you take good care of your charger.

 

[Ozi]

Possibly relatively light weight BUT they would be very expensive.

True. I don't know what the actual cost is but it must be much more than a current diesel tank

Yep, I'm aware of both of those points, it still gets back to the cost of the fuel which makes it nigh on impossible to use. Watch the video above from Prof David Cebon.


The point is you can do just this. At the terminus where busses typically wait for half an hour or so before commencing their next journey thay can substantially replace the amount of energy used on their route. My neighbour works for a company that converts vehicles to electric operation, one of their most popular conversions is to dustbin lorries. The trucks can do a full shift with recharging and then at the depo recharge overnight. Running costs, maintenance etc very low compared to diseasel.

Batteries which withstand rapid charging may well have won this argument, I think I may be guilty of not updating my opinion as technology develops, a despicable trait in other people, minor oversight in my case.

but you need 18 tankers to transport the same amount of energy in Hydrogen compared to diesel. Storage is still a major problem, thats why Hydrogen is generally harvested at point of use.


Odd that electric busses are already well beyond test track stage and in service, because electric works and Hydrogen does not.


Watch the video from David Cebon, it's all very clear.

He makes a lot of very good points obviously knows what he is talking about. I'm not convinced that that's it for hydrogen completely but it certainly knocks back a lot of the potential.

Which leaves the problem of how to store huge amounts of energy from times of surplus generation to cover the times of minimal generation, this is where I thought hydrogen could be an answer turning what if not stored becomes a problem as much as a waste product, you may have just changed my mind here.

The figure I showed from mygrigb shows that currently hardly anything in our grid comes back from storage, what does is short term and expensive, the technology is in it's infancy, there are people developing sand batteries storing energy as heat - good if heat is what you need, I take his point about recovering electricity and the inefficiency of doing so, but it works as delayed CHP if you will except the term. Mega batteries are being tried and as weight is not then an issue are possible but cost and efficiency are massive problems. On smaller scale compressing air then using it to run a turbine is also possible, only used in remote and micro generation as far as I know where better (not good) alternatives are impracticable.

He did dismiss fuel cell vehicles by saying electric out number them 1000:1 time to give up, the same could be said of electric and steam cars just pre WW1 until Clive Sinclair showed us the way with the C5. My point being there is a lot of research currently going into fuel cells not just sponsored by the petrochemical industry, it would be a mistake to dismiss it.

Aye, good night to you too, thanks for the discussion, it's excellent to have a real debate on this subject, sad that with current technology and know how, Hydrogen simply cant work. Hopefully, one day we will get there, it probably wont happen due to the pace in development of EV and battery technology but we will see.

And good morning to you, debate always welcome

 

[johnb80]

True. I don't know what the actual cost is but it must be much more than a current diesel tank

Batteries which withstand rapid charging may well have won this argument, I think I may be guilty of not updating my opinion as technology develops, a despicable trait in other people, minor oversight in my case.

Developments happen at a **** of a pace, very difficult to keep up for sure.

He makes a lot of very good points obviously knows what he is talking about. I'm not convinced that that's it for hydrogen completely but it certainly knocks back a lot of the potential.

I agree but we need to find an efficient way of harvesting the Hydrogen, with the current tech 3 x the amount of energy to harvest it than it produces when used is a killer IMHO.

Which leaves the problem of how to store huge amounts of energy from times of surplus generation to cover the times of minimal generation, this is where I thought hydrogen could be an answer turning what if not stored becomes a problem as much as a waste product, you may have just changed my mind here.

We really should look at wavepower more, there's always 2 tides per day and waves always active, if we developed a system to cover the background load of the UK that would be Utopia IMHO. I dont jknow how efficient pumped storage is, that may be a possibility.

The figure I showed from mygrigb shows that currently hardly anything in our grid comes back from storage, what does is short term and expensive, the technology is in it's infancy,

I was very surprised when I looked at the grid monitors how little battery storage use is shown. I suppose all of the domestic batteries (I have 21 kWh) should be taken into account but difficult to grab the data.

there are people developing sand batteries storing energy as heat - good if heat is what you need, I take his point about recovering electricity and the inefficiency of doing so, but it works as delayed CHP if you will except the term. Mega batteries are being tried and as weight is not then an issue are possible but cost and efficiency are massive problems. On smaller scale compressing air then using it to run a turbine is also possible, only used in remote and micro generation as far as I know where better (not good) alternatives are impracticable.

I'm sure boffins everywhere will be working on these technologies and ideas to find the possible solutions.

He did dismiss fuel cell vehicles by saying electric out number them 1000:1 time to give up, the same could be said of electric and steam cars just pre WW1 until Clive Sinclair showed us the way with the C5.

The ratio isnt a good enough reason to write them off, the problems in obtaining the Hydrogen and the in efficiency in use doesnt help the Hydrogen case though.

My point being there is a lot of research currently going into fuel cells not just sponsored by the petrochemical industry, it would be a mistake to dismiss it.

I agree, I think more effort in the harvesting of Hydrogen is needed.

And good morning to you, debate always welcome

Thank you.

Prof David Cebon is a really nice character and explains things so well, the video about Hydrogen is a real education. Theres another one of his where he talks about lorries and fuels which is also a really interesting watch.

 

[woodieallen]

I love the idea of an EV, the issues preventing me going that way include the fact the electric equivalent is still more expensive than their comparative ICE. Insurance costs based on my own comparisons is double that of the ICE cars, some cases more. For example, 840 per annum vs 360. This was for a skoda enyaq vs a karoq.
The loss of the VED is also a problem.
The servicing cost/interval being pushed by the manufacturers is a joke. I know there is very little to service with an EV, yet they were charging way more to "service" when I was looking into it (might be better now)
I haven't looked recently, but that was what I found approx 18 months back when I started to look for an EV. I looked at several models at the time and reviewed overall costs for all elements. Charging vs fuelling, insurance, service etc. The EV was staggeringly more expensive over the 3, 4 and 5 year comparison. I did spreadsheet for the whole exercise but can't find this now. I may revisit in the future. I'm highly in favour of EV's, I just can't afford it.

Edit: EV's at the time we're a great option for buying through a business due to the minimal BIK.

This might interest you.

 

[johnb80]

This might interest you.
View attachment 188587

Interesting if you look at their figures.

43mpg which they say is 12.5p per mile. - That means theyre buying diesel at 5.37 per gallon or £1.18 per litre, Really? Never let facts get in the way of a good story eh?
They quote 80p per kWh and 3.3 miles / KWh which is as they say 24p per mile. A few points on these facts too - Tesla Rapid chargers are 43p per kWh not 80p and they also quote 3.3 miles/kWh which is very much on the low side, 4.5 would be nearer an average, both of my EV's manage 5 miles / kWh. Using 43p and 4.5 gives a fuel cost of 9.5p per mile. Now add the fact that the majority of drivers can charge at home at 5p / kWh, the journey to Penzance from London could look very different in a real world analysis.

Distance = 300 miles
A diesel achieving 45 mpg and an average fuel cost of £1.47 per litre (todays average diesel price according to RAC) = £44.50
MG5 EV managing 4.5 miles / kWh with a range of 230 miles would give £2.55 for the first 230 miles, the remaining 70 miles using a rapid charger would cost a further £6.63 giving a total of £9.18.

That gives real world figures of 14.8p per mile diesel and 3p per mile electric.

Typical myths promoted in the media, I really dont understand why they feel the need to do this.

 

[AJB Temple]

^^^ Spot on. We have diesel, petrol (classic car) and EV Tesla. The Tesla is used for 99% of journeys as it basically costs next to nothing to run in terms of fuel as we get free supercharging. But even if we didn't the 32Kw home charger is cheap off peak and MUCH less than petrol. Insurance is more expensive PA by about £200 compared to similar sized diesel. Maintenance is near zero apart from washing. (The diesel old but kept because it can pull a really big trailer and do a boat launch).

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Comparing ICE with EV costs is fraught. Many simply select those that best fit a preconceived notion.

Electricity costs between zero and 80p per KWH depending on whether it is fast charged at premium rate or direct from a home PV installation. Mile per KW will vary between 3 and 5 depending on the size and use of vehicle.

ICE does not suffer price variability - diesel or petrol typically £1.30-1.40 per litre. MPG again depends on size of vehicle and usage - somewhere between 30-60 mpg would be typical.

To make sense of comparative costs for a mid size hatchback:

• assume cheap rate electricity costs at home are 10p per KWH - the price cap is currently 22p
• assume petrol and diesel at £1.35 per litre
• assume commercial recharging is 60p per KWH
• assume 4 miles per kwh, and 45 mpg (10 miles per litre)

Per 1000 miles - EV wholly charged at home = £25, EV charged wholly at commercial recharging points £150, ICE = £135. What this demonstrates is that it all depends on use and the ability to home charge.

Making it rather more personal - I am looking for a new car and EV is an option. I do about 10000 miles pa of which I estimate 7000 could be home charged. 3000 on longer journeys would incur commercial rates. Resulting fuel cost - EV = £625, ICE = £1350

Saving £625 pa is non-trivial, but about the same as an extra tank of fuel each month so hardly disastrous. Put into context - if bought said car for (say) £25k it will depreciate ~£3k pa. If on PCP contract the monthly payments will be £3-400 per month.

For me the jury is out - I still have some range anxiety (quite possibly illusory), the fuel saving is nice to have but not the largest motoring expense, EV technology is advancing at pace raising the possibility of early obsolescence and/or limited spares availability.

 

[AJB Temple]

Range anxiety is NOT an illusion. You should factor it in. A lot depends on where you live. I have a 32kw home charger and 3 supercharger stations in different directions within 10-15 miles of where I live in Kent. I can easily combine shopping and free supercharging. I go to Oxford a lot and can easily charge there or Heathrow or a coupe of other places.

However, last week we were in Wales with my in-laws and we bunkered in Aberystwyth - chosen because there are superchargers within 2 miles of the Marina. We travelled extensively around Wales and one day we had 240 miles estimated range on the car (not fully charged). We visited a NT garden in the north and had two diversions and traffic jams, such that prior to reaching our destination the car was forecasting 2% battery left by the time we got back. We could have gone to a closer supercharger but that would have involved an extra 110 miles in diversionary routes. The destination superchargers en route were 7kw - which is useless. Wales is not the place for an electric car!

On the other hand I can get to The Hague (offspring) and our place near Koln with no range anxiety at all as there are tons of superchargers.

I would not buy an EV without being very aware of the charging network I plan to use vs the trips I most often make.

 

[woodieallen]

such that prior to reaching our destination the car was forecasting 2% battery left by the time we got back

I call that a proper buttock-clenching moment

 

[Rhossydd]

chosen because there are superchargers

That's why some people don't want EVs... who wants their travel plans dictated by their car.

 

[paulrbarnard]

My wife just bought a new car, picks it up next week. She didn’t have the guts to go full electric as she goes to our daughters once a week in Cardiff to babysit the grandson. The return trip is just within the range of the latest EVs but she would need to use a public charger in Cardiff if she did much running around while there and didn’t want deal with that. She has bought a PHEV. It’s the Mercedes GLC which has an 80 mile battery range. Obviously less in real life but that is a very handy range for every day use.