Electric vehicles

[Vulcan]

Ever stopped to ask why is it 93%

I suspect it’s as high as that because people thought about the savings they could make on running costs before they bought an EV. And knew they could install a charger at their property.
I certainly wouldn’t even consider an EV if I couldn’t have my own charger at home.

Edit: I’ve recently been thinking about renting a Tesla for a few days. Not having a charger at home means I’d be reliant on the superchargers at my local Sainsbury’s up the road. I fully expect the cost of doing so is as much if not more than buying petrol though!

 

[user 43593]

Is there sufficient capacity in the national grid to support a much increased use of EVs?

 

[Vulcan]

Is there sufficient capacity in the national grid to support a much increased use of EVs?

Yes, I posted a link earlier? Whether it continues to keep pace with any increase in EV use is another matter.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Without me searching for detail as I have other more productive things to do, I would question the accuracy of those figures as apparently around 23% of UK housing stock is terraced and reportedly only 70% of UkK houses have off street parking which if correct mwans there can never be 93% charging at home. I suggest that's probably based on current EV ownership though stats can be viewed in multiple ways.

Also another issue with home charging is that many households have multiple vehicles and you can, without heavy expenditure and subject to power availability, charge ony one at a time.

I suspect very few people without off road parking have EV today, hence the high percentage of home charging. That’s why I said the proportion will doubtless change but the point still remains it is disingenuous to make direct comparison between ICE refuelling and EV charging.

 

[John Brown]

But a plug in hybrid still retains the ICE so burns fossil fuel.

Only when the battery is "flat". For a lot of people, that's a small percentage of the time. We have a plugin hybrid, and most of our supermarket trips and grandchildren ferrying is done without burning fossil fuels.

 

[Spectric]

That now makes sense, in essence an EV with a built in charger so no worries about finding a charger as it will just keep going until you do.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Those who thus far have paid (or their companies paid) £40k+ for an EV are more likely to be owners of property with off road charging capability. The 93% figure may be broadly accurate.
-------------

Housing stock in England is made up as follows: flats 20%, terraced 25%, semi 32%, detached 23%.

Assume semi and detached property have off road charging capability. Some flats and terraced properties may have dedicated charging depending on car parking logistics - eg: allocated spaces.

Overall a working assumption may be that 60-65% of properties could readily charge off road.

Flats and terraced properties tend to (a) be in larger urban areas, and (b) house lower income groups where car ownership is lower. Possibly 75% of car owners will be able to charge off road.
------------

Plug in hybrids with a typical range of 30-50 miles electric can be attractive depending on the journeys undertaken. Electric would deliver all local and routine journeys without the current range anxiety associated with full EV for occasional longer trips.

Hybrids are inherently far more complex and higher cost than either ICE or EV - IMHO they are short term expedient until public charging capacity improvements eliminate range anxiety.
-------------

A typical car user covers ~150 miles pw (7500 pa). An EV owner could charge once per week - a top up 2/3 times per week would quell anxiety over range.

150 miles = 40-50kwh. For overnight home charging (cheaper rates?) a 7kw charger would need 6-8 hours plugged in. Even a 13amp plug would suffice although this would require top up charging on 2/3 nights. Only very high mileage users would find home charging a constraint.

The issue of infrastructure capacity remains - although the transition to EV will be progressive over probably 15-20 years. It needs a plan and commitment but is not unachievable.

 

[user 43593]

but the point still remains it is disingenuous to make direct comparison between ICE refuelling and EV charging.

I disagree with you. ICE refuelling and EV charging are both forms of fuel replenishment, without which neither vehicle type can move under its own motive power. A direct comparison of engine fuel types is one method by which people can assess the advantages and disadvantages of one form of motive power against the other. How else may a person judge the suitability of one vehicle type when measured against another?

The EV movement is predicated on using less of the natural resources of planet earth and reducing the global carbon footprint of human beings.
As yet, everything I have read about carbon dioxide and its absorption by plant life, in exchange for oxygen, appears to suggest that the planet has more than enough plant life, with enough spare capacity for absorbing the planet's carbon dioxide output. Notwithstanding the fact that the oceans also absorb 25% of planetary CO2 and generate 50% of the oxygen needs for the earth, while capturing 90% of the excess heat produced by these emissions (per the united Nations Climate action website).

What sources of information can lay people trust to be accurate factually and give the public sufficient information to make a judgement call? The act of refuelling an ICE engined vehicle has an analog in EVs, which is charging them. How is this comparison not valid? What are the comparators with which you would suggest that we replace the comparison of refuelling?

 

[DrPhill]

As yet, everything I have read about carbon dioxide and its absorption by plant life, in exchange for oxygen, appears to suggest that the planet has more than enough plant life, with enough spare capacity for absorbing the planet's carbon dioxide output.

So why is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increasing?

Notwithstanding the fact that the oceans also absorb 25% of planetary CO2

And increases acidity at the same time altering the oceans ecology.

while capturing 90% of the excess heat produced by these emissions (per the united Nations Climate action website)

And warming the seas at the same time. You cannot make the heat energy magically disappear. The warmer seas are one of the main sources of climate disruption an arctic ice melt. At least one of the disastrous tipping points is driven by ocean temperature.

EDIT: see What is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?

 

[user 43593]

So why is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increasing?

And increases acidity at the same time altering the oceans ecology.

And warming the seas at the same time. You cannot make the heat energy magically disappear. The warmer seas are one of the main sources of climate disruption an arctic ice melt. At least one of the disastrous tipping points is driven by ocean temperature.

EDIT: see What is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?

All good questions. If there was a consensus in the scientific community, I would have immediate answers. There isn't so I don't. I will come back to you after reviewing some of the scientific papers which I have to hand.

 

[Cobbs]

All good questions. If there was a consensus in the scientific community, I would have immediate answers. There isn't so I don't. I will come back to you after reviewing some of the scientific papers which I have to hand.

I think you'll find that there is a consensus in the scientific community on the harm done by CO2 and the fact that humans are responsible for its increase. To put it in layman's terms, unless we stop pumping more in, in very short order, we're bu99ered.

 

[John Brown]

All good questions. If there was a consensus in the scientific community, I would have immediate answers. There isn't so I don't. I will come back to you after reviewing some of the scientific papers which I have to hand.

If by consensus you mean unanimous agreement, then OK, that's never going to happen - only takes one maverick scientist to upset the apple cart, but then you could probably find a "member of the scientific community" to disagree with the theory of gravity, evolution or the earth being an oblate spheroid.

 

[Just4Fun]

But a plug in hybrid still retains the ICE so burns fossil fuel.

Yes, that's true, but I am starting to look at that in a different light. Rather than expect the batteries to propel the vehicle all the time, it is OK if I can eliminate some of my fossil fuel usage. A bit like my (thermal) solar panels: they will never cover all of my heating needs but they still make a useful contribution.

 

[Jameshow]

Still neglecting the fact that 93% of EVs are charged at home, how many ICE are refuelled at home? That actually suggests that there needs to be LESS public charge points that fuel pumps. For sure the ratios will change over time but so will reliability and availability of public chargers

But on a motorway a similar number of EV will will recharge as ICE as it's down to range tbh. If you need to fill up then you need to fill up.. EV or ice.

 

[user 43593]

I think you'll find that there is a consensus in the scientific community on the harm done by CO2 and the fact that humans are responsible for its increase. To put it in layman's terms, unless we stop pumping more in, in very short order, we're bu99ered.

Um... no, there is not. Tell me how many climate scientists need to disagree with the so-called consensus before you would consider the opposing viewpoint of equal validity? To ascertain your assessment of valid scientific critique, what status would you want your scientists to have before giving their views credence?

That 97% of climate scientists apparently agree with each other is an unbelievably high percentage. Having worked in one field of science all of my adult life, I can tell you that this ultra high percentage (as near to unanimous as makes no difference) indicates that something is very much awry. My question to you is why have so many people, from an inordinate number of diverse fields and backgrounds, apparently agreed with each other? This level of agreement in any field of scientific endeavour is completely unknown. Note that the subject of climate brings together scientists from multiple disciplines.

 

[sploo]

My question to you is why have so many people, from an inordinate number of diverse fields and backgrounds, apparently agreed with each other?

Maybe that's what the available evidence supports?

Unless we're going into tin foil hat conspiracy theories; whereby loads of independent scientists are all being paid by some shadowy lobby of massively wealthy lentil munching tree huggers?

 

[user 43593]

If by consensus you mean unanimous agreement, then OK, that's never going to happen

Correct

- only takes one maverick scientist to upset the apple cart,

No, completely wrong. q.v. Dr Andrew Wakefield who had told the medical world that MMR vaccine was responsible for autism in children. He lost his job and emigrated to Australia but no longer works as a clinician. The rest of the medical world could not look past the methodology he had used to obtain his findings

The Lancet ~ In a statement published on Feb. 2, the British medical journal said that it is now clear that “several elements” of a 1998 paper it published by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues (Lancet 1998;351[9103]:637–41) “are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.

 

[user 43593]

Maybe that's what the available evidence supports?

Have you got any evidential arguments that can substantiate what you said?

 

[sploo]

Correct

No, completely wrong. q.v. Dr Andrew Wakefield who had told the medical world that MMR vaccine was responsible for autism in children. He lost his job and emigrated to Australia but no longer works as a clinician. The rest of the medical world could not look past the methodology he had used to obtain his findings

The Lancet ~ In a statement published on Feb. 2, the British medical journal said that it is now clear that “several elements” of a 1998 paper it published by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues (Lancet 1998;351[9103]:637–41) “are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.

Wakefield is a crank, and, based on his conduct for the trial he ran; should likely have ended up in prison. He undertook highly risky medical procedures on children (where those procedures were not medically indicated - i.e. not necessary for their treatment).

EDIT: For clarity; performing risky medical procedures during clinical trials that are not required as part of a patient's treatment is not something you'll usually get past medical ethics bodies. Doubly so in children because of considerations relating to consent.

 

[sploo]

Have you got any evidential arguments that can substantiate what you said?

No more than yours (see "Hitchens's razor").

Maybe provide some substantive evidence that the general scientific consensus on climate change "indicates that something is very much awry" (per your own statement).