|
The comparisons he has chosen make sense, but he has ignored the co2 emissions produced when manufacturing batteries, based on current technology.
If everyone was to have an electric vehicle, would there be enough raw materials for the batteries considering that there is already a vast demand for them.
Here is an interesting video regarding the pros/cons of electric cars.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk
He does say in the video that there is still huge potential for internal combustion engines - will that mean that they get even more complex?
|
It is an interesting video, but coming from different perspectives.
My original post is based on UK/Western Europe energy production, whereas the TED talk is from a global perspective of a stated 67% of electricity coming from fossil fuels.
I have data re the new Megane E-Tech 100% Electric showing that it has a lower combined carbon footprint, again on our typical electricity production, after about 31,500 miles. If we do the same exercise in Poland, for example, it never gets ahead of an efficient petrol engined car due to extensive coal use in energy production. China will produce similar results.
Raw materials - lithium is massively abundant, as is cobalt. But we’re cutting the amount of cobalt in batteries to the point where it’ll be eradicated totally soon. EV batteries will be repurposed as they outlive their host cars, and ultimately the chemical constituents can be extracted and recycled.
So do we not adopt EV’s on our collection of Islands because they don’t make as much sense elsewhere, or do we do all we can to cut co2 production?
|
|
Rapidly evolving technologies means it is possible to claim any solution based on selective and sometimes skewed data.
Over the next 20-50 years current constraints are not a barrier, only a consideration. Current EVs compared to those only a decade ago show improvements possible in range, cost of batteries, use of lithium and cobalt etc.
Ultimately fossil fuels are an economic and environmental dead end - they will run out, the only question is when.
Assuming generation of "green" energy (wind, solar, nuclear, tidal etc) , technology choice will relate to cost and performance. Basic physics suggests when energy is converted from one form to another there is a conversion loss. Using energy generated to:
- charge a battery and drive a motor - low loss.
- produce hydrogen, fuel cell to generate electricity, drive a motor - higher loss
- produce hydrogen which fuels an ICE - large frictional and heat losses
- bio fuels for ICE - processing, friction and heat, food vs fuel tensions
My guess would be that:
- batteries, having gained a substantial lead, will dominate personal transport
- bio fuels may prevail for aviation and shipping - range may preclude batteries
- hydrogen or bio fuels for HGVs due to weight and range needs
- hydrogen could store surplus energy generated for later use, and be cheaper than additional battery storage.
Market pressure will evolve relatively stable solutions. It matters not what the solution is - customers will decide for themselves. The government should only create a flexible regulatory framework, not deliver prescriptive solutions.
|
Rapidly evolving technologies means it is possible to claim any solution based on selective and sometimes skewed data.
But so then are new technologies ona regular basis - because those touting them want investors and governments to help make them very profitable. Remember the next big thing that was combined heat and power - but commercially and in the home, over the last two decades? That went nowhere. I'm not saying some or all of the new tech will do, but just because it's new doesn't mean it will take over.
Over the next 20-50 years current constraints are not a barrier, only a consideration. Current EVs compared to those only a decade ago show improvements possible in range, cost of batteries, use of lithium and cobalt etc.
Ultimately fossil fuels are an economic and environmental dead end - they will run out, the only question is when.
Assuming generation of "green" energy (wind, solar, nuclear, tidal etc) , technology choice will relate to cost and performance. Basic physics suggests when energy is converted from one form to another there is a conversion loss. Using energy generated to:
- charge a battery and drive a motor - low loss.
Charging, yes, transmission from the generating facilitiy if you don't have PV panels and battery storage to cover all your home' needs 24/7, then no, given transmission loses 30% if I recall. Similarly if the electricity is generated by fossil fuels, the overall efficiency is around the 30-40% range.
- produce hydrogen, fuel cell to generate electricity, drive a motor - higher loss
Note that this requires lots of energy (via electrolysis) and fresh water (salt water will cost a lot more in energy to desalinate), as demonstarted by the Toyota plant story.
Effectively the hydrogen (for car fuel cells) is not a traditional 'fuel' but a conduit to transfer energy. I suspect it'll be more efficient to generate elctricity via PV at home/work etc and charge a battery directly.
Storage of hydrogen on a commercial basis (i.e. before being dispensed at 'filling stations' or at 'gasometer' storage sites) is very energy-intensive. Pipe leaks are also more likely.
- produce hydrogen which fuels an ICE - large frictional and heat losses
- bio fuels for ICE - processing, friction and heat, food vs fuel tensions
The latter also takes away the land needed for food crops.
My guess would be that:
- batteries, having gained a substantial lead, will dominate personal transport
- bio fuels may prevail for aviation and shipping - range may preclude batteries
- hydrogen or bio fuels for HGVs due to weight and range needs
- hydrogen could store surplus energy generated for later use, and be cheaper than additional battery storage.
Market pressure will evolve relatively stable solutions. It matters not what the solution is - customers will decide for themselves. The government should only create a flexible regulatory framework, not deliver prescriptive solutions.
Unfortunately they are doing (across the world, at the best of the Davos lot) exactly what you say they shouldn't be.
|
|
Agree with some of your observations but note that:
- transmission losses are well below 10%, not 30%
- ALL electricity can be generated without fossil fuels using wind, solar, nuclear, tidal etc. It is completely feasible - the only question is by when.
- all domestic needs can be met by electricity - grid or own generation.
- domestic needs storage to balance fluctuations in "green" supply. Could be hydrogen, battery, superheated sand (apparently), water etc. Probably a hybrid solution.
- how electricity generated by "green" technology is used in transport is up for debate. I am unconvinced by hydrogen except as a means of (inefficient) energy transfer
- world control by the "Davos lot" is up for debate - I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories without clear evidence, although they are powerful if acting in concert
|
|
In addition to the list above, moving to EVs will save a huge amount of energy that's currently used in refining oil, possibly meaning that overall electricity demand might not increase at all.
They say you get about 3 times as much energy from a gallon petrol or diesel that it takes to refine it, but then only about 30% of the energy released by combustion in an engine goes to driving the wheels.
With EVs transmission losses on the power grid are only about 10% and 90% of the energy stored in the battery goes to driving the wheels. There's also some loss in charging.
|
|
With EVs transmission losses on the power grid are only about 10% and 90% of the energy stored in the battery goes to driving the wheels. There's also some loss in charging.
Is that one motor or over several thousand, though I doubt all cars will be EVs powered from the grid as I have said before, as some will use Hydrogen instead to run....eventually....possibly other fuels, but thats in the future
|
|
|
|
Agree with some of your observations but note that:
- transmission losses are well below 10%, not 30%
- ALL electricity can be generated without fossil fuels using wind, solar, nuclear, tidal etc. It is completely feasible - the only question is by when.
- all domestic needs can be met by electricity - grid or own generation.
- domestic needs storage to balance fluctuations in "green" supply. Could be hydrogen, battery, superheated sand (apparently), water etc. Probably a hybrid solution.
- how electricity generated by "green" technology is used in transport is up for debate. I am unconvinced by hydrogen except as a means of (inefficient) energy transfer
- world control by the "Davos lot" is up for debate - I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories without clear evidence, although they are powerful if acting in concert
Fair enough on the transmission losses - I think I was mixing up the overall efficiency (from mining through to usage point) I remembered from college of electricity generation, which was around the 30% mark. Sorry. Even so, a 10% loss is still not insignificant, especially as it's only one of many stages. One of the problems with storing and transferring energy back and forth is (as you said) that losses dictated by the laws of thermodynamics mean the more times it's done, the worse things get.
The problem with a LOT of this 'green' new tech is that it realistically only benefits those with the personal wealth and (spare) space / ability at home to accommodate it all. Even though I'm not exactly poor, I live in a flat (which is only 20 years old) which means no PV array to generate electricity, no hydrogen storage (sapce and safety issues) and unless battery tech improves so much that it can resued the small footprint of my latest gas boiler, there won't be any 'green' tech heating or lighting my home.
Planning/lease issues are likely (as with PV panels) to not allow air source heat pumps to be fitted (outdoor units being the problem. Ground source (including centralised systems) not ferasible/allowed either for many reasons. Unlikely to be able to fit EV charging points (no room and not enough money for the fitting of the local infrastructure/relaying road [non-adopted so we pay])
This is just an example (many who live in council properties or older, smaller terraced housing and a lot of those renting will likely face similar issues which means they won't be able to take advantage of any of the tech you suggest.
This is why I contend that its the uber-rich and powerful who are driving these changes, just when society is least able to afford them and seemingly without any proper feasibility studies conducted on rolling them out for everyone, not just rich people living in large homes with lots of space.
The best solutions will likely be different from country/area/property type to another and will mostly be on new or properties for the well off. Without a huge, co-ordinated investment and planning (see huge [possibly insurmounatble] logistical hurdles for hydrogen use I mentioned before) - not something any government worldwide has been famed for or that didn't bankrupt them (WWII), I can't see things changing for the better for most people (especially thosenot well-off) and it could lead to a global financial meltdown that makes the depression of the 1930s look small fry in comparison.
That is also why I don't trust the Davos lot, given the secrecy about it all and seemingly for their benefit and not ours (you'll own nothing, eat the bugs, etc and be happy - noting that that video go taken down by them). Why all the talk of the need for a 'great reset' (and 'opportunities' for all their plans) when the p(l)andemic occured?
It was all 'very convenient' as if they already had plans ready to go should something like that happen, not because they were good, but because they wanted to take advantage of the chaos to permanently change things significantly in their favour when governments had sweeping powers and spending huge amounts (most of which I'd contend were a complete waste of time, effort and money).
For proper green tech that is affordable and can benefit everyone, there needs to be far more real discussion, and not just here. Much of the problems and downsides never get properly addressed, often ignored or casually waved away.
|
|
Current motivation for those with larger properties to install "green" energy - solar, heat pumps etc - may be financial, environmental, or independence from grid
Assuming an intention for eventually all grid energy to be "green" - the environmental justification goes away.
Even at current high energy costs, payback for a "green" investment takes 10+ years - hardly compelling. Grid independence is as much an emotional as rational argument.
Will future "green" energy be cheaper provided centrally, or dispersed systems? Central has obvious advantage - they can select optimal sites and equipment, and high volumes mean they can buy, install and maintain at a lower cost than a a typical household.
EVs will not be the preserve of the wealthy through a conspiracy by the Davos set - look forward (say) 10+ years and the market will have a vibrant s/h market selling EVs sold 10 years previously, charged mainly by "green" grid energy.
|
|
EVs will not be the preserve of the wealthy through a conspiracy by the Davos set - look forward (say) 10+ years and the market will have a vibrant s/h market selling EVs sold 10 years previously, charged mainly by "green" grid energy.
Its possible the way tech is going no one will want the older EVs, greener electric or not, they will get more efficient Motors and charging methods will change and get faster with more reliable and longer lasting/smaller batteries.
I would be surprised if anyone will want an old one, and assuming prices drop through cheaper production methods, so the old cars could be recycled quicker than they do now...
|
EVs will not be the preserve of the wealthy through a conspiracy by the Davos set - look forward (say) 10+ years and the market will have a vibrant s/h market selling EVs sold 10 years previously, charged mainly by "green" grid energy.
Its possible the way tech is going no one will want the older EVs, greener electric or not, they will get more efficient Motors and charging methods will change and get faster with more reliable and longer lasting/smaller batteries.
I would be surprised if anyone will want an old one, and assuming prices drop through cheaper production methods, so the old cars could be recycled quicker than they do now...
No different to when cars first started appearing - no one wanted the older ones and people want the lastst.
|
|
Current motivation for those with larger properties to install "green" energy - solar, heat pumps etc - may be financial, environmental, or independence from grid
Assuming an intention for eventually all grid energy to be "green" - the environmental justification goes away.
Even at current high energy costs, payback for a "green" investment takes 10+ years - hardly compelling. Grid independence is as much an emotional as rational argument.
Will future "green" energy be cheaper provided centrally, or dispersed systems? Central has obvious advantage - they can select optimal sites and equipment, and high volumes mean they can buy, install and maintain at a lower cost than a a typical household.
EVs will not be the preserve of the wealthy through a conspiracy by the Davos set - look forward (say) 10+ years and the market will have a vibrant s/h market selling EVs sold 10 years previously, charged mainly by "green" grid energy.
I've seen many building services new tech come and go over the years, many of which were touted as the next big thing one way or the other. I'm also not convinced what is proposed / being pushed today is going to work or is in any way for the benfit of the vast majority of the population.
I think we're far apart on the pessimisim - optimism scale on this one, Terry! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
