just the small matter of having your own particle accelerator, hold on I will nip down to screwf*x for that pmsl
Electric cars.
- Thread starter Polcho
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
just the small matter of having your own particle accelerator, hold on I will nip down to screwf*x for that pmsl
I think you are missing the point it has the potential to be a great transition fuel, not everyone needs a heat pump or can afford one right now, being able to put 10% hydrogen in the gas network straight away reduces emissions do you not agree?
One the main issues with power generation is demand, we have no control when solar, wind or tidal energy is produced, we need a way to store it so why not use a proportion to make hydrogen, we have the networks to store and move it already in place, Imagine using EXISTING gas fired power stations but running on Hydrogen, instant on demand green energy, yes not as as efficient but the point is the flexibility to deliver on demand is the key benefit and not the eye watering costs of building new power stations - we already have them!
long term domestically i see no need for hydrogen, IF every house was fully insulated, fitted with a high efficiency heat pump, solar or wind generation linked to a battery. This would reduce demand on the grid and if every home used a form of smart meter charge the batteries when most efficient. This is the blue sky option decades and multi Billions away. Would I fit a heat pump? yes but only when my boiler needs replacing and the costs come down and the market stops being the wild west
Until then we need decent affordable transition steps, EVs where possible and people are replacing cars who not if the charging situation works for them, I still think we should change tact and allow hybrid vehicles to ease the transition BUT demand better battery only range and extend it every year or agreed period so they can reach the range of EVs and transition into full EV. make the starting figure something actually usable like 100 miles then next 5 years 150 and so on and offer scrapage schemes like before to get the higher polluting vehicles off the road, and give some incentive to go to greener solutions.
I am concerned we are ignoring other options and only focusing on fully electric
Needs a grown up conversation on how we transition safely and securely protecting jobs and communities, its not viable to just turn off fossil fuel overnight, instead look for where small changes can be made to move the dial. Utilising a hydrogen mix in the gas network both commercially and domestically works with almost immediate effect and will lower emissions until the long term solutions are found, this seems to be ignored.
I would like to see a detailed study on the effect of introducing hydrogen into the gas network and see the overall impact.
lets be clear doing something short to medium term is better than doing nothing then moving to final solution long term
I agree I would love to see aerodynamic, lightweight EVs with greater efficiency, this reduces the battery size.
The Kia/Hyundia regen system is very effective and EV drivetrain is well judged, but in my Kona its not big car one of the reasons i chose it and not that heavy for an EV at least.
As said earlier massive efficiency at low speed and good acceleration, how can this be matched to motorway speeds? better aero? some form or gearbox or CVT type solution to keep the motor at optimum efficiency? This is the final piece of the jigsaw to making EVs a true replacement for ICE
I do totally appreciate your points, but I think we also need to be careful not just to focus on stop-gaps. I do agree that there needs to be more independent analysis performed. If you took the money that is being spent on upgrading the national gas network and applied it to grants for property insulation, how far would it go and would it reduce CO2 emissions more than just adding 10% hydrogen to the supply. Surely better to invest money in the "end-game" rather than a stop gap which also buys the fossil fuel industry more security.
I've made my points on hybrid cars in the past. They suit niche cases where people don't yet have easy charging facilities, but for anybody else, they are literally the worst of both worlds. Twice as complex, more points of failure and heavier. As before, if I couldn't have an EV, I'd have a modern efficient 3 cylinder turbo petrol in preference to a hybrid.
Simply aero, thanks to the exponential drag of air. Adding more components and gearing to the drivetrain just adds more friction and therefore losses. The problem is that people don't necessarily like the vehicle shapes which are most aerodynamic; people have become accustomed to SUVs and high vehicles in general. EVs are particularly prone to this because of the addition of batteries below the floorpan - the car often needs to be taller and longer to make the proportions look correct.
You are correct, there is a lot of misinformation. If this sort of info was more readily available across manufacturers then it would be easy to cut through the c**p. The conventional XC40 does 25-30mpg so it’s not hard to spot the limitations of this statistic taken in isolation. I suspect the XC40 an outlier due to the overwhelming inefficiency of both the EV and ICE models.
Ok so US Gallons and Imperial Gallons are different so lets look at the fuel consumption figures side by side.
Combined UK fuel consumption for the XC40 1.5 T2 (Petrol ICE) is 37 to 41 MPG and Co2 emissions are 142-146 g/km, which puts it into Band F and is pretty average for this class of SUV.
If you look at the total life Carbon Footprint graph and ignore the 'use' phase where fuel efficiency is a factor we can see that production of the XC40 ICE only produces about 60% (16.1 Tonnes) of the Co2 that goes into the production of the XC40 Recharge (25.4 Tonnes).
This 9.3 tonnes in the manufacturing phase is the critical difference and I don't think the XC40 is an outlier here unless you know of another model for model comparison using the same ISO 14040:2006 methodology where the manufacturing inputs for the EV variant are starkly less?
With the report using a higher figure of 163g/km (volvo's own average ICE figure) to calculate the 'use phase' for the ICE over 200,000 km the ICE would generate 32.6 Tonnes of Co2 from burning fuel.
The combined use phase total was 41 in Table 5 on page 24 which gives a difference of 9 tonnes of Co2 coming from other factors such as oil and tyres etc over the 200,000 km.
If the ICE became more efficient, say 90g/km, then it would only produce 18 Tonnes of Co2 out the tailpipe over 200,000 km which is 14 Tonnes less and would drop the lifetime total from 58 to 44 at which point the XC40 Recharge using a Global mix of electricity sources (54 tonnes) and the model sourcing electrivity using the mixed EU28 model (45 tonnes) would never break even vs the ICE at all.
If you are using solar panels to make the Hydrogen its green energy all you are producing is water, you could charge an EV but the battery is very heavy its made from precious metals and of course has limits in range and life expectancy.
Last edited:
Maybe.
Photovoltaic solar has the same issue - you’re making electricity, and then inefficiently converting it to hydrogen (and back), whereas you could just charge a battery.
What could work is that there are solar hydrogen panels that cut out the electricity conversion and instead produce hydrogen from atmospheric water vapour and sunlight. Very clever and clean, so there is hope for them.
The problem is that they only exist in research labs at the moment.
When you compare what is used in battery production and the carbon footprint to get them to the factories Hydrogen becomes a far better use of that home made electricity.
W
That is very detailed, thank you! Have you got a link to the full document? I’d really like to have a proper look at it.
erm, only because it's classed as DANGEROUS that it is forbidden to sell it, because @ODNT the US thinks everyone is building a nuke in their back yard or is that just an excuse?
My view on this is IF you have free renewable energy how to use it to make the least impact. Can you afford to convert to hydrogen because whilst less efficient compared to directly charging Bev's less dirty chemistry is involved. I don't know.
Cleaner chemistry is needed but what does that look like? It seems to me that lazar's prototype which he states does have a few challenges that need resolving could be part of the mix. so his car is a gasoline/hydrogen hybrid and Renault sell an lpg/petrol hybrid so this isn't a flight of fancy.
The problem with this study is twofold and it paints a misrepresentation to anyone reading it.
Firstly the Volvo is extremely inefficient. Tesla model Y gets basically double the efficiency so halves the KM to break even
Secondly, Volvo does not take in to account anything but tailpipe emissions in any of it's calculations for comparison in this report. They issued a corrected report that takes in to account the energy used to refine the diesel / petrol and the break even point became 50% lower
For reference the energy consumed for production of a gallon of petrol is around 5KWh for easy to refine thinnish crude oil. Tar sands or thicker oil is much higher. That's 20miles of range 'per gallon' in an EV before the petrol car has even turned a wheel
So once you replace that Volvo with something like a Kia ioniq or Tesla and factor in petrol production the break over point is about a third of what's in the original Volvo report
It was based on Flawed information. Volvo have recently redacted it and brought out new evidence that their vehicles support the modern consensus that an EV will even out after around 18 months or. 13,000 miles.
I’ll link up the peer reviewed data later.
No probs, my post grad in the 90s was in Environmental Science so I think its important that everyone understand the tradeoffs and realities involved, and the only way to really understand these is to look at and compare the total end to end lifecycle of 2 like for like vehicles as Volvo attempted to do. The link was in my original reply but here's it again:
Carbon footprint report : Battery electric XC40 Recharge and the XC40 ICE
Volvo/Polestar/Geely also did a 2nd comparison of the Polestar 2 cf. XC40 ICE which showed similar results. Of course both reports have been criticized for failures in their methodology but you can't get away from the reality that a lot more Co2 producing material goes manufacturing large battery powered EVs than goes into the production of a conventional ICE car. You only have to look at the weight difference to get a feel for this, the XC40 Recharge is 350kg heavier than the ICE variant.
Anyway, the point of my response was that even if you have optimal conditions of 100% renewable generated electricity it takes the average 10,000 mile p.a. EV driver about 3 years to reach equilibrium with the ICE variant let alone produce a net reduction in Co2. With a standardized mix of electricity sources like we typically have here in the UK (the EU28 model in the report) that goes up to 5 years.
The irony here is that it's going to be the 2nd or 3rd owner of most EV cars that really enjoys that benefit, but there would be no benefit at all if the original purchaser hadn't bought the EV in the first place and retired an ICE in the process. It's a real chicken and egg paradox.
The XC40 averages about 3.7 miles per kwh, while a Hyundai Kona is closer to 4.7 Miles per kwh and the Model 3 is about 5.1 miles per kw/h so the report isn't a misrepresentation exactly it's just that there are more efficient EVs which has a direct impact on the calculations, as does the ICE car you are comparing it with when trying to calculate the breakeven point.
I suspect Volvo chose two of thier own cars for no other reason than they know their supply chain, comparing the XC40 Recharge to an Audi Q3 ICE would require so much guesswork as to render the analysis useless. Would be nice to see Hyundai compare the ICE and EV versions of the Kona in the same way.
When thinking about a Tesla Model 3 a key question is what version we're using for the comparison (single motor vs dual/lr) as this obviously impacts the mfg cost in Co2 with the dual motor 82kwh battery model having a much larger Co2 mfg cost than the base model and a corresponding longer break even point when compared to an ICE.
In terms of the car to compare it with I doubt many Model 3 buyers are cross shopping with a Volvo XC 40 ICE, so if for example they were also looking at prestige ICE car with similar 300+ hp performance from a german brand, that car might be producing >250g/km Co2 which would result in an even quicker break even time, maybe even 2 years at 10k miles p.a if using 100% green electricity.
And I think this might illustrate a simple point, the smaller the ICE car's engine is, then the lower the Co2 per mile is going to be generally so when comparing it against a similar EV (compare an MG3 against a 3cyl <1.0l ICE), the longer the break even point will be. Conversely, the larger the engine is in the ICE car used to benchmark against and therefore the higher g/Co2 per mile, the quicker the break even point will be.
I suspect Volvo chose two of thier own cars for no other reason than they know their supply chain, comparing the XC40 Recharge to an Audi Q3 ICE would require so much guesswork as to render the analysis useless. Would be nice to see Hyundai compare the ICE and EV versions of the Kona in the same way.
When thinking about a Tesla Model 3 a key question is what version we're using for the comparison (single motor vs dual/lr) as this obviously impacts the mfg cost in Co2 with the dual motor 82kwh battery model having a much larger Co2 mfg cost than the base model and a corresponding longer break even point when compared to an ICE.
In terms of the car to compare it with I doubt many Model 3 buyers are cross shopping with a Volvo XC 40 ICE, so if for example they were also looking at prestige ICE car with similar 300+ hp performance from a german brand, that car might be producing >250g/km Co2 which would result in an even quicker break even time, maybe even 2 years at 10k miles p.a if using 100% green electricity.
And I think this might illustrate a simple point, the smaller the ICE car's engine is, then the lower the Co2 per mile is going to be generally so when comparing it against a similar EV (compare an MG3 against a 3cyl <1.0l ICE), the longer the break even point will be. Conversely, the larger the engine is in the ICE car used to benchmark against and therefore the higher g/Co2 per mile, the quicker the break even point will be.
Last edited:
Interesting you did your post-grad in Environmental Science. My wife has also got her more recent Masters in it. Hers is nearer Land and CO2 management though. I'm sure you and she could yack for hours.
As promised, apologies, I was on my phone earlier and it's much more difficult to link things up.
Anyone who has a few hours to spare and loves reading proper research, the Argonne National Laboratory have some scintillating bedtime reading here:
https://greet.anl.gov/publication-c2g_lca_us_ldv
As for the other sources, Politifact have actually linked up most of the places I found with decent research.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxide-released-during-production-electric/
As for Volvo themselves, as above, they said that their initial values were flawed and reviewed them in 2021. And in the EX30, they've also said that its environmental cost is 60% less than the XC40 and that they expect that environmental cost to keep dipping.
https://www.media.volvocars.com/uk/...print-of-any-fully-electric-volvo-car-to-date
You can wrap your poo in glitter, but an ICE is never going to get much better - after all, we've had 140 years to get it to the point its at and frankly, it's terrible for the environment.
Either way, even if you decide that 67,000 km is the break-even point (that's around 40,000 miles), for many of us who do decent company mileage, that's barely 18 months of driving (Before Covid, I would do 500 miles a week, just to get to work, leave alone weekend stuff - around 27k a year). Our lease cars are 3 years or 60k, whichever comes first. I've not made 3 years in forever, however, the next one will as I mostly work from home now.
As promised, apologies, I was on my phone earlier and it's much more difficult to link things up.
Anyone who has a few hours to spare and loves reading proper research, the Argonne National Laboratory have some scintillating bedtime reading here:
https://greet.anl.gov/publication-c2g_lca_us_ldv
As for the other sources, Politifact have actually linked up most of the places I found with decent research.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxide-released-during-production-electric/
As for Volvo themselves, as above, they said that their initial values were flawed and reviewed them in 2021. And in the EX30, they've also said that its environmental cost is 60% less than the XC40 and that they expect that environmental cost to keep dipping.
https://www.media.volvocars.com/uk/...print-of-any-fully-electric-volvo-car-to-date
You can wrap your poo in glitter, but an ICE is never going to get much better - after all, we've had 140 years to get it to the point its at and frankly, it's terrible for the environment.
Either way, even if you decide that 67,000 km is the break-even point (that's around 40,000 miles), for many of us who do decent company mileage, that's barely 18 months of driving (Before Covid, I would do 500 miles a week, just to get to work, leave alone weekend stuff - around 27k a year). Our lease cars are 3 years or 60k, whichever comes first. I've not made 3 years in forever, however, the next one will as I mostly work from home now.
Thanks for the links, I'll dive in later. Mine was a Masters too, but marriage, moving from NZ to London, and paying the rent got in the way so I converted to P.G.Dip once I started work in IT. B.Sc. in Geology preceded.
I think I've found the updated 2021 report and only looked at the tables so far though the final analysis moved by about 5% in favor of the C40 Recharge over XC40 Recharge which improved it against the XC40 ICE too, but not by a huge margin. Volvo-c40-recharge-lca-report.pdf
What I think is important in this discussion is realizing that the environment doesn't care where the Co2 comes from, so if people really care about reducing their Co2 footprint they have to look at the big picture and take into account the greater upfront day zero impact of mfg an EV vs their own particular use case. This starts with basing any comparison with the car the drive now or a smaller Co2/km ICE car that they could drive in the future, the mileage they drive it for, and on the EV side of the equation, the size of the battery (do they really need >70 kwh), where they're going to source electricity from, etc, etc. It's simply not a one size fits all equation as the EV marketing teams would have everyone believe.
I know several people who do large commutes or drive within their jobs like you do and for them a full EV makes a lot of sense, on the other hand I know people who have them who do very few miles and for whom solar panels and other lifestyle measures may have been more effective in reducing their Co2 foot print if that is really what they want to achieve.
Here I'm talking about air-flown fruit and vegetables from South America, MENA, etc, as well as water imported from Italy, France, short haul flights to Europe, using public transport or cycling more, changing job to commute less, holiday at home, the whole enchilada.
And not thinking about the big picture is where the moral risk side of this issue comes in. Like cyclists who take greater risks because they're wearing a helmet, it doesn't help the environment if people are morally justifying additional air-miles because they drove to the airport in an EV.
