Talk Morgan Forums Community Vehicle Talk (non-Morgan) Time for Electric Power?

Thanks that shows what I have always thought. Also I suspect by 170,000 kms you would need to replace the batteries or put up with lower performance. Either of which adds to the emissions.

I wonder how the impact of scrapping & recycling works out

[quote=John V6
I wonder how the impact of scrapping & recycling works out[/quote]

No doubt the next generation will find out.

Here is another "data point" ie report on the internet including CO2 production during petrol refining ... a 52mpg car gives .28Kg CO2 per mile. So 100K km gives 44.8 tonnes CO2 per my calculator, a bit more pessimistic than Polestar claims even for a Fiesta and before you even consider manufacturing costs...

Interesting Forbes commentary on Al "batteries" in the news today. Not rechargable though!

The fact that Tesla superchargers are in carparks is what causes ICE blocking. Go to a carpark in town with say 500 car parking spots of which 2 have charge points (local government, NRMA or Tesla but local in the case of my last experience) and every other spot is full, drive around for 5 minutes trying to find a spot, give up and spend 10 minutes getting to the next carpark though all the traffic lights and the same thing - the only spots have chargers in them. So what is the choice.

1, Go home and ring the restaurant to cancel the booking saying you just can't get a carpark in town anywhere.
2, Decide seeing there are two spots for an electric car that are both empty taking one is only half bad so ICE block one of the chargers.
3, Drop wife off near Restaurant, drive out of town and park on the side of a motorway, lift bonnet so car looks broken down and hope you don't get booked and walk 30 minutes back getting to the restaurant very late knowing afterwards you are going to have to walk back to get the car.

I did the last because it was our wedding anniversary otherwise probably would have done 1. But taking one of the empty spots with a charger was very tempting.



A late model Morgan 4/4 is very cute and uses very little fuel

James May and Tesla flat battery.

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsKwMryKqRE[/video]

The motor industry is being cornered into dropping ICE for EV. Target dates are being set for ending ICE manufacture, these being within some of the global emissions timescales. It makes politicians look good from being seen to be proactive with plans. I wonder what will actually happen. Remember the diesel debate? Initially promoted for CO2 as, at the time, it looked positive. Hoodwink effect! Diesels later became the Devil’s chariots when the full picture on NOx hit the public.
An example of political expediency. I see similar with EV. There is an absolute deluge of info promoting them for emissions, cost per mile etc but the background hides major issues. Up front cost for a start. EV significantly more expensive than the ICE equivalent, charging infrastructure, product lifespan and carbon footprint, scrapping at end of life.
I’d get an EV if the one that suits my needs was cheaper. The higher up front cost versus time of ownership and running costs doesn’t add up when I do a costing for the expected time of ownership.
Why, oh why are new EV’s filled with so much non essential tech and gadgets adding weight, cost, power drain. It mirrors ICE cars where the tech and gadgets seems to be the selling point. Look at the adverts showing the“modern tech savvy” targeted buyers.
When solar power was being promoted the costs made some sense but as the enticing tariffs were removed it becomes less economic. The incentives for EV, taking a cynical view, are built in to selling prices...” look how much you are getting off the government” sales pitch for an overspec’d car that generates more profits with a price set at a level that “ the market will tolerate”.

Indeed; political expediency has turned a sensible idea (let's reduce emissions from domestic cars) into a policy with unintended consequences, irrespective of whether the policy achieves the outcome. I'm reminded of catalytic converters being made mandatory - Honda had an engine that met the emissions standards, but still had to have a cat fitted, because the legislators didn't image an engine could be clean without one.


I saw an argument from Gordon Murray that the manufacturing footprint of any new ICE car meant it would typically take some 7 years for its reduced carbon footprint to offset the manufacturing impact, vs running the older car which it replaced. The time for an electric car was more like 12 years than 7. So the short term impact of pushing the industry to produce more electric cars will be an increase in the carbon footprint of the manufacturing industry, with the offset benefit not arriving until the 2030's.

& it's odd that the push to electrify is happening now: battery storage isn't as efficient as it will be in (say) 5 years time. Might it not have been better to legislate for schemes to reduce demand for private cars? By for example encouraging sharing schemes, so that you buy 'transport' from your preferred brand, and only have a car when you need one - having the benefit of being able to choose the type of vehicle to suit that trip's needs. Or to make easily replaceable batteries in cars mandatory?

You'd have thought the 'let's reduce emissions' objective might have recognised that while cars do contribute, they're a lot cleaner than they used to be (taking diesels as a separate case), and the manufacturing industry is already on a trajectory to keep improving/reducing their emissions. And competition from electric cars can only further disrupt the industry, making it cleaner-still.

Meanwhile, other major contributors don't appear to have received the same attention from legislators - domestic gas boilers, HGVs, shipping, and cattle farming, for example. The EU's stance on ICE cars would be a lot more credible if it had put equal effort into disrupting those other industries.

Will

As a supposed part of battling climate change electric cars are a bit of a joke.
I completely see the argument for them in towns to reduce pollution on the high street, but as an energy saving thing perspective is needed.
Take this for instance, culled from the Week magazine:

All but the “truly deluded” now accept we have to do something about climate change, says Damian Carrington. Trouble is, no one backs their words with meaningful action. The UK leads the world in setting CO2 targets, but look what it’s actually doing: building more roads, cutting taxes on domestic flights, scrapping a home-energy efficiency scheme. Other nations are no better. Justin Trudeau calls climate change an “existential threat”, yet owing to Canada’s tar sands exploitation, its emissions have risen since 2015. Japan is a big financier of overseas coal plants; China builds a coal-fired power station every week; Norway is developing giant new oil and gas fields. Meanwhile, companies hide behind pledges about carbon-capture technology or carbon offsets. Oil giant Chevron touts capturing and storing CO2 emissions underground as a solution, but its advertised plans look to cover less than 1% of its 2019 carbon emissions. As a result, by 2030 we’re on track to cut 2010 levels of CO2 emissions by a measly 0.5%, whereas a 45% cut is needed to avoid climate catastrophe. To achieve that we first need to cut the “bullshit”.

Will, domestic gas boilers are next in the firing line, remember the strange question in the recent Census ?

They already are... a number of possibilities:
1. Blend hydrogen into natural gas, this would give an immediate gain, but as most hydrogen is made from natural gas.....
2. Replace natural gas with coal gas... so import coal and produce gas? I don't think so.
3. Use air and ground source heat pumps. This is easy in new houses, but all but impossible in older houses as the circulating water temperature is about 50C, so much larger radiators are needed.

Once again, lots of great intentions, not a lot of thought through logic.