The joys of electric car ownership!

[worn thumbs]

ULEZ is also about particulate emissions and as I mentioned in an earlier post,old woodburners are doing a fair amount of damage and they may last for decades,centuries even.For greenhouse gases see these: Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/climate-change/how-does-the-greenhouse-effect-work/
Which may just bring us back to the topic of electric cars as some of the generating processes emit lots of the gases in question.The transport of choice in future needs to be clean from generating station to vehicle.Its no use believing a woodburning power station,running on pellets shipped from Canada is in some way green.You might go further and include the building and de-commissioning of the power stations in the debit/credit account too.

 

[Jacob]

ULEZ is also about particulate emissions and as I mentioned in an earlier post,old woodburners are doing a fair amount of damage and they may last for decades,....

nowhere near as bad is ICE and also coming under regulation anyway
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-effect-banned-new-refurbished-homes-london

 

[cmoops2]

I don't think we've got 20 years. We need to stop all fossil fuel use now.
A big threat to the UK is the breakdown of the food supply chain - 46% imported. Becoming more self sufficient barely gets a mention whilst people burble on about EVs - probably the least of our problems!
Sea level rise is another.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/celebs-tv/sir-david-attenborough-warns-just-8325236I think the science community are now making a last desperate effort to turn things around with strong announcements and discussions every day. They have understated it in the past and the CC sceptics have dominated the dialogue, helped by massive propaganda from the fossil fuel industry who were well aware of the CC threat many years ago but did nothing
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...nal documents,earlier, from around the 1950s.

Jacob - if we stop using fossil-based fuels right now, how does that 46% of imported food arrive in this country - horse & cart ? (I'm still not hearing anybody shouting from the roof tops about stopping the VAST mount of crude bunker fuel used by the merchant shipping fleets or the gazzilions of tons of aviation fuel being used by cargo aircraft) ...

 

[Alistairmckinnon1961]

ULEZ is also about particulate emissions and as I mentioned in an earlier post,old woodburners are doing a fair amount of damage and they may last for decades,centuries even.For greenhouse gases see these: Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/climate-change/how-does-the-greenhouse-effect-work/
Which may just bring us back to the topic of electric cars as some of the generating processes emit lots of the gases in question.The transport of choice in future needs to be clean from generating station to vehicle.Its no use believing a woodburning power station,running on pellets shipped from Canada is in some way green.You might go further and include the building and de-commissioning of the power stations in the debit/credit account too.

Hydrogen has to be the longterm solution, produced by splitting water (by product oxygen) using electricity generated from renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro).

Hydrogen then supplied via the gas pipe network to homes etc (natural gas boilers etc converted back (to the spec for town gas) to run on hydrogen. Also piped/shipped to petrol filling stations (converted) to fuel up (in 5 mins) vehicles.

Hydrogen burned, consumes oxygen again - emissions produced water. The “perfect” clean solution.

Once efficiency of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen improves (it’s currently about 57% efficient) it’s the final solution!!

 

[Fergie 307]

Nonsense.

In 20 years the diesel and petrol engines have hardly changed. Honda introduced the first "Lower Emission" engine in 1975, then another in 1986. 1990 the VTec engines were launched.

The only additions were increasing efficiency from 50+ mpg to close to 100 mpg, and a lot of that was due to the "self stopping" technology when the vehicle was stationary in traffic or lights.

Almost all the innovations in engine technology in the last 20 years have come from LPG, Hybrid or full EV's.

https://csr.honda.com/environment/timeline/
In 20 years we WILL NOT have "community cars" doing 1000km range because battery technology in the last 20 years has had exactly 1 innovation, from Ni-Cad to Lithium which changes the CHEMISTRY but not the SIZE of the battery.

If we had gone from a chunky 12v Ni-Cad to a 36v Lithium that was the size of a box of matches than I might agree with you, but we haven't. The chemistry is limited and always will be.

Samsung had a crack at making smaller Li batteries and look what happened.... umm they exploded.

EV's are still self combusting now.

So true, the most significant steps in cleaning up petrol engines were probably the Catalytic Converter, and electronic engine management. Both go back to the 1980s or earlier. The significant difference in any comparison with battery development is that in many cases with innovations in ICE they were known about long before they were implemented. Take fuel injection as just one example. You could argue it goes back to before the first world war. Certainly used in the second, where the DB engines in the Me 109 had fuel injection, and direct fuel injection at that. Didn't reach the mainstream of car production until the 1980s, and indeed direct injection probably only in the last decade or so. Manufacturers continued to produce cars with carburettors because they were cheaper, and for a long time people weren't that concerned about fuel economy or emissions. There is no similar situation with battery technology, with proven ideas ready to be dusted off and implemented. And the idea that demand will drive forward change has limited legs. After all companies have been busily beavering away doing their very best to make smaller, more power dense, batteries for at least thirty years, to power mobile phones, laptops and so forth. I am quite sure if they had found a way to dramatically improve them they would have already done so. And the batteries in your EV are essentially the same technology. Most of the recent progress seems to be in facilitating rapid charging, the performance of the batteries themselves has changed very little. So they are still hopelessly poor in comparison to fossil fuels. A battery the size of a small suitcase holds less energy than a mug full of petrol, and weighs many many times more. As an environmental exercise, laying waste to huge areas all over the world to produce the many millions of tons of lithium and other materials to build the things, and provide the supporting infrastructure, seems utterly bonkers. Hydrogen power cells would be far less environmentally damaging to produce, require far simpler infrastructure, and are much, much more efficient than I suspect any battery will ever be.

 

[Fergie 307]

Jacob - if we stop using fossil-based fuels right now, how does that 46% of imported food arrive in this country - horse & cart ? (I'm still not hearing anybody shouting from the roof tops about stopping the VAST mount of crude bunker fuel used by the merchant shipping fleets or the gazzilions of tons of aviation fuel being used by cargo aircraft) ...

I think Jacobs idea is that we wouldn't need it if we became self sufficient. A noble idea but really not going to work. The primary reason we import so much is because it is cheaper to do so than to grow it, or make it ourselves. People would need to drastically alter their eating habits, and even then you would probably see prices increase to levels that many would simply not be able to afford.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I am unconvinced by hydrogen other than its specialist use - eg: HGVs, site equipment where energy density is more critical.

The reason is simple inefficiency.

Battery EVs deliver 75-80% of the energy used to charge the battery to the wheels. Hydrogen comes out at ~35% efficient - losses arise through electrolysis, compression, fuel cell losses before finally driving an electric motor.

Leaving aside other complexities (eg: distribution via tanker for hydrogen or power lines), hydrogen could be green - but power demand at 2-3 times higher than for battery means that investment cost for additional capacity would be material.

The major negative with battery power at present is the use of scarce minerals. Research is being undertaken into alternatives (eg: sodium ion). I am optimistic that there will be a better development although the re are no guarantees.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob - if we stop using fossil-based fuels right now, how does that 46% of imported food arrive in this country - horse & cart ?

The obvious answer to that is that we reduce our diet by that 46%. In carbon footprint terms this is quite feasible merely by stopping meat consumption but it would be a very boring diet.
Or wind power and the revival of sail.
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is... meat accounts for,two years and four months.Alternative technological solutions are on the way of course, with wind/solar looking good.
But basically the question is not being answered as we wait instead for technological solutions.
I suppose the start would be cessation of all non essential use, which is fairly easy to identify. And then organising essential use efficiently with a view to reducing it as fast as possible
We need to act as though in a wartime emergency situation, the threat being far more serious than any war so far in history - and global - there are no hiding places.
The emphasis on EV and personal transport is just fooling around and irrelevant.
If we don't do these things they get done for us by climate change, but in ways beyond our control.

 

[trvlr]

A year ago a Brit Gas engineer - servicing/checking out my gas boiler - informed me that they're already taking training course on how to replace "one" component (the valve/burner?) in a typical/curent gas boiler; so as to permit the use of hydrogen as part of the gas feed... Seems it's a relatively straightforward job...

 

[Jacob]

I am unconvinced by hydrogen other than its specialist use - eg: HGVs, site equipment where energy density is more critical.

The reason is simple inefficiency.

Battery EVs deliver 75-80% of the energy used to charge the battery to the wheels. Hydrogen comes out at ~35% efficient - losses arise through electrolysis, compression, fuel cell losses before finally driving an electric motor.

Leaving aside other complexities (eg: distribution via tanker for hydrogen or power lines), hydrogen could be green - but power demand at 2-3 times higher than for battery means that investment cost for additional capacity would be material.

The major negative with battery power at present is the use of scarce minerals. Research is being undertaken into alternatives (eg: sodium ion). I am optimistic that there will be a better development although the re are no guarantees.

Actually "efficiency" isn't critical but reducing carbon footprint is. It can be severely inefficient as long as it is sustainable.

 

[paulrbarnard]

So true, the most significant steps in cleaning up petrol engines were probably the Catalytic Converter, and electronic engine management. Both go back to the 1980s or earlier. The significant difference in any comparison with battery development is that in many cases with innovations in ICE they were known about long before they were implemented. Take fuel injection as just one example. You could argue it goes back to before the first world war. Certainly used in the second, where the DB engines in the Me 109 had fuel injection, and direct fuel injection at that. Didn't reach the mainstream of car production until the 1980s, and indeed direct injection probably only in the last decade or so. Manufacturers continued to produce cars with carburettors because they were cheaper, and for a long time people weren't that concerned about fuel economy or emissions. There is no similar situation with battery technology, with proven ideas ready to be dusted off and implemented. And the idea that demand will drive forward change has limited legs. After all companies have been busily beavering away doing their very best to make smaller, more power dense, batteries for at least thirty years, to power mobile phones, laptops and so forth. I am quite sure if they had found a way to dramatically improve them they would have already done so. And the batteries in your EV are essentially the same technology. Most of the recent progress seems to be in facilitating rapid charging, the performance of the batteries themselves has changed very little. So they are still hopelessly poor in comparison to fossil fuels. A battery the size of a small suitcase holds less energy than a mug full of petrol, and weighs many many times more. As an environmental exercise, laying waste to huge areas all over the world to produce the many millions of tons of lithium and other materials to build the things, and provide the supporting infrastructure, seems utterly bonkers. Hydrogen power cells would be far less environmentally damaging to produce, require far simpler infrastructure, and are much, much more efficient than I suspect any battery will ever be.

But most of those innovations became mainstream until legislation or consumer demand forced the situation. The reason for that was the cost vs what could be made from them. It’s the same with batteries now. Current legislation is pushing the adoption of battery vehicles and there is now money to be made. Now the consumer demand for more range/efficiency will drive the inovation.

 

[Blackswanwood]

A year ago a Brit Gas engineer - servicing/checking out my gas boiler - informed me that they're already taking training course on how to replace "one" component (the valve/burner?) in a typical/curent gas boiler; so as to permit the use of hydrogen as part of the gas feed... Seems it's a relatively straightforward job...

It is planned to trial the use of hydrogen to replace gas.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...etworks/more-about-the-hydrogen-village-trial
It was going to be in a village within Ellesmere Port but I seem to recall it is going to be somewhere else now.

 

[Fergie 307]

I am unconvinced by hydrogen other than its specialist use - eg: HGVs, site equipment where energy density is more critical.

The reason is simple inefficiency.

Battery EVs deliver 75-80% of the energy used to charge the battery to the wheels. Hydrogen comes out at ~35% efficient - losses arise through electrolysis, compression, fuel cell losses before finally driving an electric motor.

Leaving aside other complexities (eg: distribution via tanker for hydrogen or power lines), hydrogen could be green - but power demand at 2-3 times higher than for battery means that investment cost for additional capacity would be material.

The major negative with battery power at present is the use of scarce minerals. Research is being undertaken into alternatives (eg: sodium ion). I am optimistic that there will be a better development although the re are no guarantees.

I agree with some of what you say, however efficiency return from batteries has never been in doubt, and is not the issue. Yes they return a very high percentage of the power that goes into them. The problem, in this application particularly, is their capacity to store charge in the first place is very poor when viewed from the point of size and weight for a given power output. And yes there would need to be significant investment in the power supply chain to produce hydrogen in quantity, but it would be localised in a few large plants, probably adjacent to existing power generation facilities. You would not be digging up every other street around the country to install charging points, with all the costs and upgrades to the grid that would entail.
as for distribution, we already know how to do this. Yes we would have to install tanks and pumps on station forecourts, and deliver the fuel to them by tanker. We already do this with petrol and diesel, or perhaps more pertinently LPG, also a liquefied gas under pressure. Of course there will be the need to develop hardware and vehicles appropriate to the particular needs of hydrogen, but this would be a relatively simple matter, not least because it has already been done on a small scale. Ask yourself how many vehicles refuel at an average filling station every day and consider that in the future, the very near future if there was the will, these could be hydrogen fuel cell EV. Now ask yourself how many charging points need to be available to maintain supply to the same number of vehicles if they are battery EV? It really is a no brainer.

 

[Fergie 307]

It is planned to trial the use of hydrogen to replace gas.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...etworks/more-about-the-hydrogen-village-trial
It was going to be in a village within Ellesmere Port but I seem to recall it is going to be somewhere else now.

That is interesting, they will presumably use some kind of evaporator/regulator as they do on an LPG setup to turn the high pressure liquefied gas back into a low pressure regulated supply of gas before it goes into the boiler itself.

 

[Fergie 307]

That is from a tank, presumably? I can't imagine they are planning to actually run hydrogen gas through existing pipes, not sure how confident I would feel about that. Anyone know how they are proposing to do it in detail?

 

[Spectric]

Jacob - if we stop using fossil-based fuels right now, how does that 46% of imported food arrive in this country

If we did stop in the UK the difference is quote " nothing more than a rounding error " because we are only a very small contributor to the problem so it is the bigger players who need to address the issue first to make any significant change. So much of all these problems comes down to over populating the planet, it is this continous increase that is actually fueling the main issues and then our lifestyles are to hard on the planets resources so in reality we will still be talking about global warming and EV's when we reach the point of needing EB's and houses on stilts as the sea levels rise.

 

[Fergie 307]

Ok should have read the article, upgraded existing pipework is the answer. Very interesting.

 

[Spectric]

I agree with some of what you say, however efficiency return from batteries has never been in doubt, and is not the issue. Yes they return a very high percentage of the power that goes into them. The problem, in this application particularly, is their capacity to store charge in the first place is very poor when viewed from the point of size and weight for a given power output.

If you compare size for size the battery packs for an EV and a gallon of petrol then the problem becomes very clear, the concept of using an electric motor is nothing new and most people will realise it is a much better source of propulsion than the ICE and motors have been in use for decades in both diesel electric and all electric trains. The issue is still the battery and at this point in time we should not be jumping for all electric vehicles, we should be looking at hybrids where the combustion engine has no direct link to the wheels, ie not there for propulsion only as a power source for generating electricity and maybe even look at a very small gas turbine as the power source and then we have removed the issues with providing enough charging points and our national grid to just concentrating on the vehicle.

It has been said this push for all electric has been driven by the energy providers so as they can increase there profits and get the infrastructure updates paid for, then consider that they are mostly oversea's companies like EDF and Scottish power .

 

[worn thumbs]

nowhere near as bad is ICE and also coming under regulation anyway
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-effect-banned-new-refurbished-homes-london

While you were looking through the Guardian archives did you see this? Wood burners emit more particle pollution than traffic, UK data shows

I did read the link about woodburners in London becoming restricted in new builds,but that won't remove the older and even dirtier examples that are currently in use.

It isn't all gloom though,the government website shows how particulate emission is on a steady decline in recent times. Emissions of air pollutants in the UK – Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

 

[Spectric]

While you were looking through the Guardian archives did you see this? Wood burners emit more particle pollution than traffic, UK data shows

And going by the fact there is a huge waiting list round here to get one fitted it is only going to get worse, driven by high energy prices.