Thoughts on electric vehicles?

[lurker]

zactly Mike!!

The other thing about all this electric car red herring

Has anyone considered the environmental impact of the batteries.
I mean really considered cradle to grave??

 

[Night Train]

Well, the electric vehicle thing is, IMO, a step on a ladder.
If we have transport that runs on electricity then we can find ways of generating that electricity without consuming as much fossil resource.
If we don't then we continue to use oil inefficiently. There are better things to do with oil then to burn it.

Batteries are a bit messy environmentally but many can be easily recycled and reused. However, there are other ways of storing electricity, flywheel batteries and capacitors for example. Also there are other ways of storing energy, hydrogen is a popular one as is compressed air.
Anyone considered how much oil a car uses in its lifetime? Apart from fuel it is still quite a lot - except that cars seem to be throw away commodities nowadays with a very short life.

Hydrogen is the red herring IMO. It is more of a pain to produce, compress, store and transport then straight forward electricity is given we already have a transmission network. However, it allows people to act as if nothing has changed and so it doesn't change attitude or behaviour.

Electricity allows the option of local generation and storage more so then hydrogen would.

 

[MikeG.]

Unfortunately the civil service & Politicians were (and still are) scientifically illiterate so they were listening to Greenpeace & Porritt rather than the facts.

And the fact is, Lurker, that we haven't the first clue what to do with the terribly dangerous waste that nuclear power produces. That is why environmentalists don't want nuclear. Until proponents answer that one, it is just another inter-generational nighmare we are leaving for our kids.

Have you also forgotten Chernobyl?

Mike

 

[woodbloke]

...we haven't the first clue what to do with the terribly dangerous waste that nuclear power produces. That is why environmentalists don't want nuclear. Until proponents answer that one, it is just another inter-generational nighmare we are leaving for our kids.

Mike

Fusion is the only solution to the nuclear debate...but that ain't going to happen for a very, very long time No waste products, and unlimited free fuel - Rob

 

[Night Train]

I can't accept that the Temperature increase is man made.

But at least you accept it is happening.

Whatever one believes to be the cause doesn't change the effects that stem from it.

We can either do something about it or do nothing about it.

If you were out in blazing sunshine you don't need to question why it is sunny or who's fault it is to realise that you either get in some shade or you get heat stroke.
I am the one who will get in the shade and grab a bottle of water while others swelter in the sun denying the wisdom of doing something to ease their discomfort.

Some people are trying to do something about the effects of global temperature increase. Others are trying to stop them and then do nothing.
TBH I am still investigating the causes for myself but regardless of the cause I would rather do something to help in the meantime.
If reducing atmospheric GHGs will help then I say 'lets do that'.
If as a sideline we protect fossil reserves for a better use then great.
If it also stops humanity from being a miniscule organic blip in the eons of archeological history then hopefully that would be a good thing, though in my mind the jury is still out on that one.

 

[lurker]

the terribly dangerous waste that nuclear power produces.
Mike

Not only is most waste less hazardous than you think. some of the really bad stuff could be used in new reactors.

Do you have any idea of the radioactivity pumped out be an ordinary coal fired powerstation per day?? Cos it would scare me silly living down wind of one. And I spend a goodly part of most working days quite literally standing on top of Nuclear Reactors

Compareing Chernobyl is another favourite of the illiterates.
Its like comparing a Ford model T with the latest Ford Focus

Wastes from modern reactors are quite tolerable IMHO

 

[MikeG.]

Lurker,

please don't call me illiterate.

I may disagree with you on some things, this in particular, but I am actually very well educated and well read on these subjects. I find that description of me to be offensive.

Mike

 

[Night Train]

THIS IS MY THREAD, STOP BASHING EACH OTHER!

Just because someone doesn't agree doesn't always make them wrong or you right. It just means that you don't agree.

However name calling is just plain rude.

Perhaps this thread should be locked if the rudeness isn't stopped or taken elsewhere.

 

[lurker]

Lurker,

please don't call me illiterate.

I may disagree with you on some things, this in particular, but I am actually very well educated and well read on these subjects. I find that description of me to be offensive.

Mike

In which case you will know its impossible (fairly basic Physics) for modern reactors to run away like Chernobyl so why are you trotting out that old myth.

 

[lurker]

Sorry Night train

 

[woodbloke]

In which case you will know its impossible (fairly basic Physics) for modern reactors to run away like Chernobyl so why are you trotting out that old myth.

Wasn't that said in 1912 about a certain well documented liner and the chances of it sinking?...nothing is ever impossible- Rob

 

[skyechem]

Well, the electric vehicle thing is, IMO, a step on a ladder.
If we have transport that runs on electricity then we can find ways of generating that electricity without consuming as much fossil resource.
If we don't then we continue to use oil inefficiently. There are better things to do with oil then to burn it.

Batteries are a bit messy environmentally but many can be easily recycled and reused. However, there are other ways of storing electricity, flywheel batteries and capacitors for example. Also there are other ways of storing energy, hydrogen is a popular one as is compressed air.
Anyone considered how much oil a car uses in its lifetime? Apart from fuel it is still quite a lot - except that cars seem to be throw away commodities nowadays with a very short life.

Hydrogen is the red herring IMO. It is more of a pain to produce, compress, store and transport then straight forward electricity is given we already have a transmission network. However, it allows people to act as if nothing has changed and so it doesn't change attitude or behaviour.

Electricity allows the option of local generation and storage more so then hydrogen would.

Night train,
I agree entirely with your first two paragraphs. What did you mean with the bit I put in bold? The production of hydrogen doesn't stop people changing behaviour?

I think that local production and storage is the way to go. Why have the national grid, when there are such losses in transmission? I am struggling to find benefits for hydrogen over electricity for storing energy (other then it can be transported without wires, which could be useful for some remote locations). However, I believe hydrogen power is better then fossil fuel power, and so welcome it.

Mike,
Perhaps I was wrong with the efficiency of coal/gas power plants: I could have pulled that number out of the air. But I would be astonished if transmission losses were as high as 40-50%. (Wikipedia puts it at 7.4% or something.) If they were as high as you suggest, surely the voltage of the transmission lines would simply be increased further.

 

[MikeG.]

..........hmmmmm, as often, I can't remember how I came to "know" that figure for transmission losses. I don't generally make stuff up, so I'll have a hunt around at home this evening to see whether I can find where I read it.

In the meantime................avoid Wikipedia like the plague!!!

Mike

 

[lurker]

..nothing is ever impossible- Rob

You are quite right Rob, lets just say the same physics suggest it's as likely as me spontaneously combusting sitting here typing.


for those who might be remotely interested Mike & I have kissed & made up, off forum :lol:





Got to go - I can smell burning :lol:

 

[woodbloke]

for those who might be remotely interested Mike & I have kissed & made up, off forum :lol:

...the mind truly boggles :shock: :lol: :lol: - Rob

 

[Night Train]

Well, the electric vehicle thing is, IMO, a step on a ladder.
If we have transport that runs on electricity then we can find ways of generating that electricity without consuming as much fossil resource.
If we don't then we continue to use oil inefficiently. There are better things to do with oil then to burn it.

Batteries are a bit messy environmentally but many can be easily recycled and reused. However, there are other ways of storing electricity, flywheel batteries and capacitors for example. Also there are other ways of storing energy, hydrogen is a popular one as is compressed air.
Anyone considered how much oil a car uses in its lifetime? Apart from fuel it is still quite a lot - except that cars seem to be throw away commodities nowadays with a very short life.

Hydrogen is the red herring IMO. It is more of a pain to produce, compress, store and transport then straight forward electricity is given we already have a transmission network. However, it allows people to act as if nothing has changed and so it doesn't change attitude or behaviour.

Electricity allows the option of local generation and storage more so then hydrogen would.

Night train,
I agree entirely with your first two paragraphs. What did you mean with the bit I put in bold? The production of hydrogen doesn't stop people changing behaviour?

The theory, and is is only a theory from my point of view, is that currently people drive to a filling station, fill their tank with petrol or diesel, pay and drive off. Few think about how much they have used or where it comes from or how much is left. It is just fill the car up and then drive it all away before refilling again.
The hydrogen economy works in the same way. People will carry on as if nothing has changed, they will fill their cars and drive wthout a thought about where it comes from, how it is made, etc.

What happens with the 'Business as Usual' model is that people carry on using as much as they can afford to buy, the only change is the description on the pump.

Without the hydrogen economy we end up with less energy, energy that takes time to produce and store, energy that sometimes may not be there so we have to rely on stored energy or go without.
That sounds unpleasent, and it is, I wouldn't like it BUT it causes people to think.
They will have to think 'Is there enough to waste?'

Electric car drivers tend to conserve every last drop of energy in their batteries, they don't run air con, seat heaters, loud stereos, electric windows or burn up the BMW at the lights.
As a result they use a lot less which means that they may be able to recharge by renewable means, a solar panel at home and at work, a local wind turbine, it is peanuts in energy but then again they don't need much.

The same applies at home. If people only had to turn a tap or a switch and you got instant heating by natural gas, oil or hydrogen they would carry on using as they do now.
If they had to rely on intermittent generation and a stash of batteries then they would insulate and insulate and then not turn the heating on unless it was really necessary. That results in less energy consumption.

You don't have to be an environmentalist to see a benefit in changing the way people use energy. An economist will also see the effects.
If you cherished every last drop of petrol in your car you would save an awful lot of money even if you didn't care or believe in the other effects.

I drive in such a way that I get better then 60mpg from my 1.9TDi estate. I have driven from Manchester to Burnley and back and got 76.1mpg trying to out do a Prius in America.
If nothing else it saved me money because I changed my behaviour.

 

[Night Train]

Sorry Night train

Apology accepted.

I won't send you to the naughty step as if you are anything like me there will be a mouse carved into the newel post by the time you are allowed out to play again! :lol:

 

[skyechem]

Interesting point Night Train. The advantage of providing hydrogen fuel in the same way as petrol/diesel is that people are more likely to adopt it (I would think). Most hydrogen gas is currently produced from natural gas reforming, so it doesn't really help in terms of CO2 emissions. But if the hydrogen is produced from the electrolysis of water, powered by renewable sources, then the hydrogen is clean.

 

[Night Train]

It takes a lot of electricity to electrolise hydrogen from water and then compress it for storage. My gut feeling is that the electricity might just as well be sent down a cable to the end user rather then convert H2 back to water in a fuelcell. If you look at the whole chain of processes and the losses at each stage together with all the embodied energy in pumps, insulation, high pressure tanks, etc. I wouldn't think it would be as efficient as electrical losses in transmission given the grid is already here.
Might as well just make electricity and store it in existing technology like pumped storage, compressed air, flywheels and standard proven batteries for the time being.

Also the H2 fuelcells (and catalytic converters in current cars) uses platinum in the catalyst and platinum is mined by blasting away mountain sides with high pressure water jets to produce a slurry from which the platinum is extracted. Very damaging and very energy intensive.

Granted lead acid batteries contain nasty lead but that lead has already been mined, and used before and is readily recycled further.

 

[Russ]

I own 2 electric cars, both of which are Mini Coopers. They're great and work well but if you misjudge the corners they have a tendency to fly off and smack the skirting board, and I'm forever plucking the fluff from the braided contacts.