You make me laugh when you bang on about the UK. I much preferred your recent Barry Bucknall period and discourse when you remodelled your grumbling house to this latest treatise. You sound like an Idealistic Reformer living in some utopian paradise. When I’m not listing 1000 albums per day on my own spinning thread, I read newspapers and watch the TV, honestly - you are living in a parallel UK.! But you do write exceptionally well and you make me laugh, so yes - small change is better than no change .! 
5 Likes
China, India, Pakistan and Russia with 4+ billion people combined will have a significant negative impact on the Earth’s environment over the next 100 years. The US & UK could reduce their emissions to zero, but it is not going to offset the damage those countries are going to do as they become fully industrialized in the decades to come.
bless you
1 Like
no, silly. you rub the car on your head.
1 Like
I am no idealist, just a realist. I had two old diesel cars and very soon after London’s extended congestion charge zone was announced I realised I had to sell them. We live about 600 yards from the zone boundary and from 25 October 2021 it would have cost me £15 ($20) just to take my car to my local shops on the other side of the boundary. That’s an expensive trip for a pint of milk.
The original congestion zone used to be 7am to 6:30pm, so you could go to a show without paying. The mayor then extended it last year to 24/7. So it costs about $50 to enter and park a petrol car in London for half a day, so very few people do and it is so much nicer. Besides little pollution, there is almost no traffic. Consequently you see electric cars everywhere, in our street about 25% of households have one. Some have two.
Being a realist, I also bought the cheapest petrol car I could find that is exempt from the extended congestion charge. My wife and I share the cars, depending where we are going.
The only concern was battery life, but it has not deteriorated at all. It has a range of 155 miles and has remained that for the last two years. It is the same in winter, so I don’t accept what @rower30 says about temperature. You just lose about 10% of the mileage having the heating on full.
There are also big tax breaks for EV’s. I bought it through my company and got a 100% write-off on purchase, and the benefit in kind is assessed at 1% this year, 2% next year. That effectively reduced the purchase cost by 70%. I also got £4,000 (about $5,000) from the government for the car-port installation, which is given as a discount on the purchase price.
If it were not for the extended congestion charge, we would probably still have our little diesel Mercedes, which suited us fine.
The answer to reducing emissions from transport is better public transport, which in London is excellent, so less people feel the need to drive. That’s what my kids do. The only system I’ve seen that is better was in Tokyo, where car ownership is very low.
If I was an idealist, I’d have bought a bike.
See this 2018 Briefing on battery manufacture - page 5:
“Overall, electric vehicles typically have much lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than a typical car in Europe, even when assuming relatively high battery manufacturing emissions. An average electric vehicle in Europe produces 50% less life-cycle greenhouse gases over the first 150,000 kilometers of driving, although the relative benefit varies from 28% to 72%, depending on local electricity production.4 An electric car’s higher manufacturing-phase emissions would be paid back in 2 years of driving with European average grid electricity compared to a typical vehicle. This emissions recovery period is no more than 3 years even in countries with relatively higher-carbon electricity such as in Germany. When comparing to the most efficient internal combustion engine vehicle, a typical electric car in Europe produces 29% less greenhouse gas emissions. We do not account for different driving or charging patterns in different countries; this is a rich area for future work.”
It was attached to a UK government policy document on EV’s as part of its policy to decarbonise all transport. At the end of this report there are examples of end-of-life batteries being used for fixed storage systems.
With regard to Hydrogen, there is another detailed UK government report and it has many potential uses, but not for cars.
I presume many other governments around the world are producing similar reports. What is clear is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions can only be achieved by central planning and not by free market economics.
You do realize the irony here, I hope? The “congestion charge” is not reducing congestion at all, since you’re still driving the same size vehicle.
And think of all of your tax dollars that are being shoveled towards vehicles which contribute more CO2, not less, to the environment. Incredible!!
Allow me to put it another way: what you consider a cost reduction is actually being paid for out of your pocket. Pure insanity.
A bit like the late comedian, John Pinnette, whose humor was centered around his obesity. He said he joined Weight Watchers where, apparently, one eats a diet based on “points”, and he was buying points on the “black market”.
1 Like
Remember, GDP is the Nominal GDP– the total value of all goods and services produced at current market prices. This is automatically adjusted to US dollars and based on the world market value of products. There are less comparable methods, yes, but nominal GDP is the best as it is a consistent comparison to the WORLD market price. If a product is deemed too expensive it is not purchased and the buyer goes elsewhere. This is why electric cars aren’t market driven at all…they are FAR, FAR too expensive in real terms of ownership right now. They simply redistribute the wealth to electric car buyers off everyone’s back right now. Politics aside, follow the money because it doesn’t care…it is math.
We’re talking TOTAL emission, that’s what matters. The earth sees no demarcation on how it is produced, just the total amount. And again, the USA produces lots of products for the entire world and is the world market place both ways. The united Kingdom has lost heavy industry so it enjoys the dirty labor of the rest of the worlds, same as the USA, but you have to also look again at efficiencies. How well you use what you have reduces your CO2 output.
UNITED KINGDOM $35,046.59 per capitaRanked 21st.
USA $45,759.46 per capitaRanked 8th. 31% more than United Kingdom
It is true that USA per capita we emit more than mostly rural China;
Of the major emitters we see large differences in per capita emissions: in the US, the average person emits more than 18 tonnes ; in China its less than half, at 8 tonnes; and in India, emissions are much smaller at around 2.5 tonnes This second source agrees with your chart. The fact is, China puts far more beavers in the world pond than the USA and that’s that. You won’t win the CO2 race nibbling at the smallest percentage contributors.
As far as temps this is physics and the periodic table of the elements and redox equations speed with respect to temperatures. Electric cars don’t work well at low temps if you try to go anywhere. It pretty simple…you don’t go near anywhere in Europe! A 350 mile range is NOT going to cut it in the USA as you AC, heat and drive in colds temps and the data could care less about your feelings. The real range is half that, and yes I have friends with TESLA’s this last winter that were range restricted 40%-50%. Spot on with the data in the table. Worse, the charge time in cold weather is MUCH longer as it is a chemical reaction and it is slowed down with cool temps.
Hydrogen, same as any flammable gas can be used in fuel cell cars just fine. The early governmental favorite is electric is all. The true utility of that bias, and it is a bias, will all come out in the wash as the data can’t lie. No, it won’t remove batteries (it may remove Lithium) but it will properly establish a performance range and regional limits. And yes, those restrictions can be adequate in many places. Most of us are poorly educated on the true limits of lithium cars. They have a terrible in-use life based on the batteries cost in relatively few miles. This is true TODAY with the cost advantages rolled in. It will get asymptotically better but the big gains in cell performance have been made…the chemistry says so. The cell voltage is only going so high with lithium. The last few trends are in manufacturing efficiency to make the limited range a better cost trade-off.
The USA out produces per acer in farming the world over but remember that even with this we are falling behind the requirements as they exist today…everywhere. Even with a conversion to mostly eating grains verses feeding it to live stock won’t fix this jam. Too many people. Don’t worry, mother nature has a plan in place. She’s seen all this before.
Best,
Galen
1 Like
This is against every facet of physics and chemistry there is and is a damaging false agenda to the facts. As they say extraordinary arguments need extraordinary evidence. You have none and won’t. This isn’t a moveable point. Two years? Lets’ see the eight year charge retention numbers. Fast charge damages the lithium metal, no way around it and we ALL are impatient devils, yes? This wears out the battery, plain and simple in a set number of charges. The science has been plenty well covered by the auto manufacturer’s and warranty periods for batteries. I think you need to keep the battery warranty period over the two years. Low temps will SLOW charging down and again, this isn’t a debate. Atoms have this weird property with temps. I know the ones in my body sure do.
PLEASE go here and educate yourself on the chemistry and temperature related issues in your car’s battery. This isn’t “my” decision but pure physics at work.
To what degree does temperature impact EV range? | Geotab
Let’s delete all the “free” subsidies stuff, too. What is electric costing society as a whole is that that subsidy costs comes home to roost no matter what YOU strip out of the system on a car’s initial purchase. It’s the math. I agree the push is needed here and there for tech, but to place pure play favorites is WRONG. Remember SOLYNDRA? And no, their claims of 50% efficiency were never were reached but was all a fraud., We’re at a touch over a real 20% efficiency or so right now but most are less than 20% as the COST sky(a pun there) rockets above 20%. Solyndra debacle ran through nearly a trillion dollars for NOTHING! Solyndra had no value, ever, even if the name was good.
Best,
Galen
1 Like
This ^^.
Governments are picking winners and losers but they are not changing the laws of physics.
It’s good politics but it’s not good policy.
This is often the most difficult point of reality for people to deal with.
2 Likes
Ron,
Yes it is. But we have to go with the facts. The graphs and separate statement concerning PER CAPITA CO2 generation is highest in the USA, and that’s that. Two separate sources show the same data so you can be pretty confident that the numbers are near as can be to correct.
We don’t get to “reimagine” (how I hate that word now!) per capita CO2 consumption as it is defined, CO2 divided into the population. You can slice it up more accurately into industry, transportation and the like but…sticking to the easiest definition we are high CO2 emitters.
At the same time, we contribute far less to global CO2 by far compared to China. If US stops ALL CO2 it won’t matter at all as China is so, so high.
But the free market will drive down CO2 as it is less expensive to make less of it! Yep, 50 MPG is cheaper than 30 MPG and same, same for making anything that uses energy. The less you use the more competitive you are in tha market. False federal oversight screws-up the equation and tries to make winners (Solyndra). True market forces reduce CO2 markedly and will continue to do so. I won’t buy an IC engine that gets less than 30 MPG expressway today, even a big car. For a smaller car I look for 40 MPG expressway, real world not the EPA sticker. The Pananmera is a 32 MPG car on average. The shot below isn’t over a long enough cycle. After 3,800 miles it is 32 MPG combined 30 city/70 expressway. Not bad for a full sized car.
Steven’s LEAF should see about 100 MPG electric at the worst in city use. How he gets 50 MPG I’m not sure, I think he’s under rated his performance. The RANGE on a LEAF for city is 225 max miles. Take 60% of that in cooler weather and then cut that some for range anxiety to hunt for a charger and you end up at 110 miles really quick. This is a city commuter car. Sold this way it is fine. The City is where it will get the best range it can by design so a good application of current tech. Just don’t think it is a Toyota Corolla or VW Golf and go cross country in the winter. And I mean USA cross country.
Subsidies exist BECAUSE the current state of electric isn’t competitive. The Feds are artificially trying to make a specific tech a winner ahead of it’s tech tac time clock. This will tarnish the actually pretty good in-use city cycle opinions on electric cars. The limitations are far better addressed than earlier cars to where we do have a small subset that could use ONLY and electric car. I see no issues with that. But to say they can replace the freedom of an IC engine is still wrong. That can slowly change but it is wrong as the tech is available and “affordable” (not really if subsidies are removed).
The feds are reviewing the subsidies as sales numbers phase them out and will undoubtedly back-in “fines” by increasing IC MPG requirements to FORCE them to be noncompetitive to Electric. And yes folks, this makes ALL cars cost far more as BOTH designs move up the price ladder. So even with no subsidies on electric, IC can see unrealistic artificial forces that push the prices way up, or the product off the market. At that point, there will be no need for subsidies on the only game in town and the electric tech will consolidate at a true cost of manufacture as electric is far more skate board same, same across the board than IC designs. Electric’s price will be forced to look “mature” before the product is.
I bought a new car, and I looked all this over. The next car might be electric with lighter, more durable and safer SS batteries. I am not a fan of lithium batteries on counts over and above those mentioned here. We’ll see in 15 years what’s available.
Best,
Galen
Our LEAF performance does not deteriorate in winter, and last winter and spring was pretty cold. If it was doing 80 miles on a charge we’d have noticed. You suggest losing 60% in the cold. That’s just rubbish. I’ve never searched for a charging point as I charge at home. Anyway the dashboard navigation software will direct you to the nearest available charger.
Domestic chargers are not fast chargers. A full charge takes 5 hours. The car does an automatic timed charge overnight.
Our petrol car did about 46 mpg driving 1,800 last week around Scotland on clear roads at 50-70mph. Urban would be much less. The EV does 155 miles on a charge. It is 42kwh, petrol is about 33.4kwh/g, so the EV does the equivalent of 123mpg. It has a highly efficient edrive system, which you drive on one pedal. EVs consume almost no power sitting in urban traffic, whereas 20mpg urban is not unusual. EVs are therefore 4 or 5 times more efficient in urban use, which is how we use it 95% of the time.
At best my petrol car costs 16 cents per mile in fuel alone. My EV costs 2.3 cents. That’s a saving of about $1,000 per annum. The electricity is not subsidised.
If you looked at the UK govt policy on hydrogen, it is better suited to buses and trucks, but also heating buildings etc.
Petrol Is about $7.50/gallon in the UK, of which 60% is tax. Some of that is used as subsidy, more for infrastructure.
The fact is that it is UK government policy to ban the sale of new petrol/diesel vehicles by 2030. The world economy is going green because there is no choice and it offers massive economic benefits. The problem for the USA is that half the population just don’t get it.
Please just don’t use the word: “green”. There is nothing green about the 125,000 km worth of CO2 released when each battery is made.
There is nothing renewable about the chemicals that go into the LiOn cells.
Range drops by about 50% in cold weather. That’s not up for debate. I think you need to look at the watts/hr used, rather than the range. Range is just an estimate based on what the algorithm “thinks” you will drive, it’s not the instant/current consumption.
The cells deteriorate with each charge/discharge. It’s no different from a smartphone, the cells are exactly the same. Whether you notice it or not is a different matter. But it’s a fact that capacity deteriorates over time. Let us know after 100,000 km and 5+ years how the batt is doing. More than likely you will need a new batt, at huge cost, both financially and to the environment. And good luck getting the carmaker to cover it under warranty. You’ll have to prove your range has dropped below the fine print in the warranty. It’s just not going to happen, except in rare cares. They will not be comping customers a battery that costs $15-20,000.
Electricity prices will skyrocket - that gap in price between filling up will flip in a few years. Just wait.
1 Like
It is difficult to compare gasoline and electricity. Both are typically subsidized and both are taxed, although electricity is lightly taxed. In the States, electricity costs are kept artificially low as it is a heavily regulated utility.
One also needs to take into account the entire chain of each. Gasoline is refined once and the transported. Electricity is produced (lots of natural gas burned in the U.K. for power), then sent down power lines with its concomitant loss, used to charge a battery (another loss), and then the battery discharges (another loss). There is also the infrastructure costs.
In any event, whether a given technology is cheaper for the end consumer or not does not make it “better,” just less expensive.
My opinion is mixed on subsidies. Some level of subsidized investment into new technologies is valid so that R&D is performed and we learn what works. Subsidizing electric cars and allowing them to be expensed so that well-off people can enjoy their new electric toy more cheaply is silly.
1 Like
One thing is for certain, if you are going to burn fossil fuels for energy, by far the most least polluting and efficient way is in a modern power station. Electric motors are also vastly more efficient than petrol, especially in urban driving. The health benefits are probably more the issue than cost.
There are lots of electric cars available in the UK in the £15,000 to £30,000 range, which is relatively cheap and compares very favourably to the basic Tesla Model 3 at £41,000. Our LEAF cost £31,000.
They are not expensive toys, thanks to congestion charges. For many years I used to drive into central London every day and park. If I did that now it would cost me about $20,000 annually just on congestion charges and parking. With an EV it would cost me $500. Anyway, it’s not my car, my wife drives it most of the time.
Companies get tax write-offs for cars over 5+ years, but for EV you get the whole cost as a deduction on purchase. Accelerated deductions is a common form of incentive.
Company provision of big cars was disincentivised for decades with high taxable benefits, which were based on the price and CO2 output of the engine. This has been the case for 20+ years. This policy extended car life ownership. Policy encouraged employees to be reimbursed mileage for using their own vehicle for work. This policy worked. Government policy is now to encourage companies to buy their employees electric vehicles, and to make it work the taxable benefit was reduced to almost nothing.
So all I did is what the government wanted me to do in accordance with their green policies.
I don’t know what electric car you drive, but if it drops 50% in the cold I’d return it as faulty or relocate from the Arctic. We have no issues.
I’ll tell you in 8 years as our EV does about 10,000 km per annum. 100,000 km will have cost me $1,500 in electricity rather than $19,000 in petrol, so if I were to replace the battery, which costs $10,000 before deducting the resale value, it would be a good deal.
Let’s get over the 125,000km figure. That’s old rogue data based on coal-dependent energy. UK government data published 6 weeks ago states that the higher energy in manufacturing is paid back by savings within 2 to 3 years, which is after about 20,000 to 30,000 km.