Talk Morgan Forums Thread Like Summary - EV article from Rowan Atkinson

Some may find this article of interest - it makes sense to me and further reassurance that leaving the jump into EV is a wise move for many reasons.

Some clearly believe that physics and chemistry can be simply brushed aside.

Decarbonising fuel consumes massive amounts of energy, something people turn a blind eye to if if suits your wants and wishes.

Electric vehicles use energy 3x more efficiently than burning it, let alone the inherent transport and creation costs.

What next are you going to De-nitrogenise the air too? The cleanest way other than electric vehicles is fuel cell electric vehicles. This doesn't produce side products other than water.

People say the infrastructure isn't there for electric vehicles, but creating synthetic fuels to continue on the way we use liquid fuels now would actually place a greater demand on the energy infrastructure but hey ho let's just ignore that.

Those fuels should be kept for shipping and aviation.

Nobody is saying transition over night and no one is going to take your internal combustion engines away.

this, from Andy Palmer's twitter gives context & perspective, from someone inside the industry:
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Palmer )

Having read Rowan Atkinson’s article and its “fact check counter” in the Guardian attacking and supporting electric vehicles, I came away feeling particularly bemused by the EV lobby's hatred of alternative forms of propulsion and visa-versa - and I say so as someone who has been dubbed by the media as the ‘Godfather of Electric Cars’.

No solution is perfect and all solutions have side effects. After all, each technology is at a different stage of maturity. When I started development of the Nissan LEAF, arguably the world's first mass EV, the vast majority of public commentary was negative. With that in mind, let us remember that ‘green legislation’ is trying to solve the blight of Co2 emissions and not particulates; the more critical of which are now brake and tyre dust.

It is an inescapable truth that EV’s produce Co2 in their manufacturing. The only reliable reference data we have is the Volvo analysis that suggests an EV produces about 70% more than an equivalent ICE. The Co2 use in running an EV depends on the source of charging electricity, but is cleaner than running an ICE. Over life, an EV’s total footprint will be less than that of a conventional ICE.

But there are alternatives, notably and importantly, now validated by the EU in their interpretation of “zero carbon”. Today there are three major alternatives:

1) Fuel Cell
2) Combustion of hydrogen
3) Combustion of synthetic fuels or E-fuels

Each have advantages and disadvantages; all are an improvement over current state.

Combustion of hydrogen or hot hydrogen is interesting for, heavy goods vehicles, as an example. It uses about 80% carry-over ICE parts and the resultant tail pipe emission is water. The advantage verses EV is lower manufacturing Co2 and virtually no Co2 in operation. The disadvantage is the sourcing and cost of green hydrogen and a small amount of NoX produced.

Combustion of synthetic fuel will become better understood from 2026 as it powers F1. Synthetic fuel takes Co2 from the atmosphere, converts it to gasoline and then burns it in a combustion process - resulting in net zero carbon use. The disadvantage is the maturity and sustainability of the fuels' manufacturing process and the fact that you have tail-pipe emissions, albeit at the level of Euro7.

The EV haters, hydrogen haters, e-fuel haters need to acknowledge that no one solution is the final solution. When government pick winners they always fail. Best solutions come from running and allowing many solutions; allowing them to compete and letting the end consumer pick the winner or winners. Darwinism, if you will.

What I’d like to make clear is that any significant improvement in Co2 consumption is a good improvement. We do not have the technology to produce totally net zero carbon cars today or in the foreseeable future, but we can see ways of significantly reducing the carbon consumption in multiple technologies. Rather than dismissing one technology verses another, I advocate “the engineer's” approach of acknowledging the imperfection of every solution and continuing the improvement/ kaizen of each over time.

There are more alternative solutions ahead of us, that are unknown today; that is the nature of engineering. Let’s not dismiss any of the alternatives which accelerate the journey to net zero carbon travel.

A version of my last epistle appeared as the 2nd letter in the Telegraph Letters Column today.
Fame at last!

Oh, when discussing sources of energy I have it on good authority that we will have working fusion reactors by 2035, but the Green lot will try to get them banned because limitless green energy makes all anti carbon and the green movement's existence pointless....

An interesting article for sure, but electric cars are horses for courses, and I would suggest that they are not yet suitable for long journeys where re-charging is done at unknown charging stations or where time is at a premium. I thought long and hard, (as you would) before buying the cheapest new electric car on the market. It also happened to be the only electric estate car, an MG5 and have been nothing but impressed by it since then.

It was in stock for a start, so no wait involved, it does no less than 170 miles to a full charge - in winter, when they are at their worst, and in the last few days I have been seeing over 200 real life miles. For my use, which is always local driving, with my longest journey no more than 60 miles away, that is perfect. In a year and a half I have never needed a public charger, always charging on a 13amp socket in my garage over night and ready for use the next morning, at under half the cost of petrol/diesel, even now.

It is great to drive with a real turn of speed when accelerating, overtaking for example, quiet and smooth, what more could you want. I obviously keep a stable of vehicles for all needs, including an old Hilux for moving stuff, an X5 for those long journeys and obviously the Mog for spirited driving when nothing except a manual gearbox will do.

I'm afraid I have conveniently closed my mind to other associated environmental costs, such as batteries, build costs and end of life cost, etc etc. I do not know enough about that side of it and even though I should find out, there is enough going on in my life already.

Time will tell on electric cars and in 5 years time, no doubt someone will resurrect this post and comment favourably or adversely on our comments today.

Struck me as a well-balanced article - perhaps light on science, but then it's in a daily newspaper.

I can see that as the volume of synthetic fuel rises, its cost will fall. You'd think that production would be relatively local to consumption, so the distribution footprint would be lower than that of petrol - there's no need to move unrefined oil around the planet on highly polluting ships. And if the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process is less than the process to produce petrol, then it's an all-round win. (Even if the main source of pollution from cars are already the tyres & brakes.)

An aside, on battery life. The owner of an i8 had his battery capacity tested as it came up to 8 years old, at the end of the manufacturer's warranty. The car's been used per BMW's guidance, and plugged in when not in use. He found negligible deterioration in the capacity, which is very encouraging. The eight year warranty is apparently a consequence of international legislation and has nothing to do with the inherent physical properties of the battery. Which indicates that the battery likely has a longer life in the car than might have been expected. That's a good thing.

Will

Well I still feel duped as does RA but for a different reason which even Simon Evans won't debate. If the Western world went to all electric vehicles tomorrow (which of course is not possible) it would not make a significant difference to the progress of climate change, the majority of factors effecting climate change are generated in the non western countries. The single biggest issue that no one wants to tackle is the rampant destruction of the worlds Rain Forrest's, this in itself is the catastrophic catalyst in climate change but also the most difficult factor to challenge. EVs make the western wealthy feel better and able to blame the rest for not making an effort, but still pollute the oceans and purchase palm oil based products, meat, etc.

Here is something to think about; the cruise line industry has exploded over the last 20 years with the ships getting ever bigger and more prolific, all for our pleasure. There are around 500 cruise ships in operation globally carrying around 600,000 passengers, more than ever before and I bet a number on this forum go cruising. On average a cruise ship smokestack produces the emissions equivalent of 12000 automobiles a day, let's not get into the oil bilge water, human waste and damage to habitats.

Just picking up on some of Peter's points here, because I have a friend who is retiring and wishes to relocate nearer to her daughter, now in Norwich. My friend is adamant she wants a new build house to avoid the faff of repairs as she ages, despite I and a few others agreeing that as most appliances and systems now work on the cheapest option, a decade's useful life is all they have.

But the new build has absolutely zero future proofing for climate change options. There is still the minimum building regulation thickness of insulations, no upgraded capacity for an induction hob let alone an EV on the drive..! No EV panel work built or offered as an option.

Surely if these things are important, builders and developers should be taking the lead here.

I'm also getting very twitchy these days, over the limitations upon our personal freedoms to travel. We seem to be treated like cattle and financially herded onto currently non existent public transport 'solutions', when these solutions don't serve your intended locations, destinations or timings.

Take attending my local hospital for my old mums appointment, for example. She was almost immobile, so we had to take apparatus with us, with all that entails with slowness and patience, all of which would be a point of conflict in public transport. To try and do it in a car is now penalised with ULEZ, high or non existent parking charges, and congestion charges, all of which do nothing except make the schemes money. It certainly doesn't help the environment..!

There are so many leaping on to this bandwagon of late, under the guise of stopping oil. Such is the corruption of this agenda, that vast amounts of money are being paid to politicise it & make this mass clamping down on freedom of movement far clearer.

We all in our own way, wanting to help. But this whole green cause is being hijacked for personal gain & fame nowadays.