Are we on the brink of an electric car revolution?

[Little John]

Do you have any evidence that it doesn't? And why does the existing feedstock for the electric grid need to be changed at the same time as EVs are adopted? Worst problems first don't you think?

I have aked two questions

(a) a comparison of the total carbon emissions/energy consumtion (cradle to grave including total energy consumed in terms of energy feed-stock from its generation to the vehicles battery/gas tank) comparison for EV's versus ICE

(b) what is the total amount of renewables required to completely replace the carbon input into the national grid.

The first question is a foundational one because, in the absence of being able to answer it, any claim as to EV's lower carbon emissions/greater energy efficiency is so much unsubstantiated bollocks.

The second question is very nearly as important because if the requirement of EVs are such that they soak up all/most available renewable energy that is produced, that would be a demonstrably bad use of that energy since it could be consumed with little to no extra technological infrastructure simply by feeding it into the grid for use with existing electricity consuming technologies, in turn producing an equal reduction in carbon emissions, if not more.

You have yet to even begin to address these questions.

I am not the one making the evidence free claims.

[clv101]

I have aked two questions

(a) a comparison of the total carbon emissions/energy consumtion (cradle to grave including total energy consumed in terms of energy feed-stock from its generation to the vehicles battery/gas tank) comparison for EV's versus ICE

This is not an original question, at all. Google is your friend, there have been many studies looking at just this.

(b) what is the total amount of renewables required to completely replace the carbon input into the national grid.

Again, not at all original. Many studies have looked at this. A new Zero Carbon Britain report was published very recently for example.

The best way to find answers to these questions is to research yourself.

[Little John]

I have aked two questions

(a) a comparison of the total carbon emissions/energy consumtion (cradle to grave including total energy consumed in terms of energy feed-stock from its generation to the vehicles battery/gas tank) comparison for EV's versus ICE

This is not an original question, at all. Google is your friend, there have been many studies looking at just this.

(b) what is the total amount of renewables required to completely replace the carbon input into the national grid.

Again, not at all original. Many studies have looked at this. A new Zero Carbon Britain report was published very recently for example.

The best way to find answers to these questions is to research yourself.

So, you make the claim but do not feel it necessary to provide evidence to back it up.

Rightho.

You don't actually know the answer do you. I'm not talking about vague aspirational generalities. I am talking about a hard number analysis.

[clv101]

I'm not making any claim! I just showed how it doesn't take much electricity to power half the UK's cars were they to be EVs.

[Little John]

I'm not making any claim! I just showed how it doesn't take much electricity to power half the UK's cars were they to be EVs.

So, what are the environmental benefits to be gained given that if it doesn't take much electricity then it also, by definition, doesn't take much hydrocarbon directly fueling ICE cars to do the same. Or, to the extent that EV vehicles, at point of use, are more efficient, in energy consumption terms than ICE cars at the point of use, do you know by how much this is mitigated by the massive losses incurred in the distribution of electricity from the power station to your domestic plug socket?

In the absence of being able to answer these question, even a claim as relatively modest as your own is meaningless.

[clv101]

I'm not making any claim! I just showed how it doesn't take much electricity to power half the UK's cars were they to be EVs.

So, what are the environmental benefits to be gained from that?

I'm not making any environmental claims. I've written before how I see EVs as a big missallocation of resources, I think the $billions spent on EV R&D would have been better spent elsewhere (grid decarbonisation and insulation). Decarbonising transport (via electrification) is harder than decarbonising buildings - we should focus on buildings before transport IMO.

[vtsnowedin]

I'm not making any environmental claims. I've written before how I see EVs as a big missallocation of resources, I think the $billions spent on EV R&D would have been better spent elsewhere (grid decarbonisation and insulation). Decarbonising transport (via electrification) is harder than decarbonising buildings - we should focus on buildings before transport IMO.

Considering that 70% of petroleum is used in transportation (US figure) and only 3% in housing the potential for carbon reduction is much higher in transportation. What can be done on grid decarbonisation is being implemented as well as can be expected. Just switching from coal to natural gas has made significant reductions.

[Little John]

I'm not making any claim! I just showed how it doesn't take much electricity to power half the UK's cars were they to be EVs.

So, what are the environmental benefits to be gained from that?

I'm not making any environmental claims. I've written before how I see EVs as a big missallocation of resources, I think the $billions spent on EV R&D would have been better spent elsewhere (grid decarbonisation and insulation). Decarbonising transport (via electrification) is harder than decarbonising buildings - we should focus on buildings before transport IMO.

Maybe you aren't but plenty on here are and it is to them my questions are directed.

[Little John]

I'm not making any environmental claims. I've written before how I see EVs as a big missallocation of resources, I think the $billions spent on EV R&D would have been better spent elsewhere (grid decarbonisation and insulation). Decarbonising transport (via electrification) is harder than decarbonising buildings - we should focus on buildings before transport IMO.

Considering that 70% of petroleum is used in transportation (US figure) and only 3% in housing the potential for carbon reduction is much higher in transportation. What can be done on grid decarbonisation is being implemented as well as can be expected. Just switching from coal to natural gas has made significant reductions.

70% of petrol is used on transport because transport uses petrol. Your point is? If that hydrocarbon is no longer used to produce petrol, it will, instead still need to be consumed at the power station on one form or another to provide the extra electricity to power EVs.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. This is like thermodynamics 101.

[vtsnowedin]

I'm not making any environmental claims. I've written before how I see EVs as a big missallocation of resources, I think the $billions spent on EV R&D would have been better spent elsewhere (grid decarbonisation and insulation). Decarbonising transport (via electrification) is harder than decarbonising buildings - we should focus on buildings before transport IMO.

Considering that 70% of petroleum is used in transportation (US figure) and only 3% in housing the potential for carbon reduction is much higher in transportation. What can be done on grid decarbonisation is being implemented as well as can be expected. Just switching from coal to natural gas has made significant reductions.

70% of petrol is used on transport because transport uses petrol. You point is?

That that is the largest source of CO2 emissions worldwide and has to be addressed to have any significant impact on the problem.

[adam2]

This website states that the average carbon intensity of UK grid electricity is 164 grams per Kwh.

http://electricityinfo.org/carbon-intensity-archive/

As an electric car gets three and a bit miles per Kwh, that gives an average carbon intensity of about 50 grams of carbon dioxide per mile with a typical EV charged from average UK grid electricity.

If charged overnight, then the carbon intensity of the EV would be less as night time electricity is on average greener.

[adam2]

And this website states average carbon emissions per mile of newly registered cars as being 120 grams per mile.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/enviro ... sales-boom

Figures for previous years registrations are very similar, so no significant inaccuracy is introduced by considering only new registrations.

Therefore these figures show that the carbon emissions of an electric car are less than half of those cars burning fossil fuels.

For short trips in urban areas, I expect the difference to be even greater, FF cars waste a lot of fuel when stopped in traffic, EVs do not.

[adam2]

I'm not making any environmental claims. I've written before how I see EVs as a big missallocation of resources, I think the $billions spent on EV R&D would have been better spent elsewhere (grid decarbonisation and insulation). Decarbonising transport (via electrification) is harder than decarbonising buildings - we should focus on buildings before transport IMO.

Considering that 70% of petroleum is used in transportation (US figure) and only 3% in housing the potential for carbon reduction is much higher in transportation. What can be done on grid decarbonisation is being implemented as well as can be expected. Just switching from coal to natural gas has made significant reductions.

70% of petrol is used on transport because transport uses petrol. Your point is? If that hydrocarbon is no longer used to produce petrol, it will, instead still need to be consumed at the power station on one form or another to provide the extra electricity to power EVs.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. This is like thermodynamics 101.

My two posts just before this one give actual figures showing that under present conditions, that an EV emits less than half of the carbon dioxide emitted by a FF vehicle.
Why are you assuming that power stations will burn more hydrocarbons to produce this electricity ?
The recent past, and reasonably expected future trends are towards more renewables and LESS hydrocarbon input to the UK grid.

For reasons already given, to make the UK grid entirely carbon free will be an enormous challenge. However to further reduce the carbon intensity of UK grid electricity, is easy.
Build more wind turbines.
Install more PV.
Encourage use of smart controls for EV chargers, space heating and water heating.
Install more hydro electric capacity, the potential is limited as the best sites are already in use, but every little helps.
Install grid scale battery storage, and yes I am well aware that that this does not produce electricity. Storing renewably generated power for later can however displace hydrocarbons that would otherwise have been burnt.

[kenneal - lagger]

The potential for new hydro in this country is mainly in the form of micro hydro. This can vary from a few kilowatts on a small stream with very high head in Wales or the Pennines, millions of those potentially, to 10 to 15 kw per old mill site on smaller rivers, more on larger rivers, in the UK, tens of thousands of those potentially.

We have six old mill sites on the River Kennet in the West Berkshire District Council area which after a rainy spell with water coming down stream from the chalk catchment could supply the town with 60 to 90 kw, not much but a contribution to Newbury's requirements. The output from these sites in West Berkshire is limited by the fall of the river as the head difference is achieved from the difference in height between the Kennet and Avon Canal and the river. 1.8 to 2 metres difference is required.

Then we have the North Hampshire and Berkshire Downs for wind. It's virtually ruled out at the moment by the racing industry, wind turbines on the Downs scare race horses using the gallops on the same downs apparently, and the fact that there is an AONB over most of the Downs.

Then there are wave and tidal which are virtually untapped at the moment. Wave, tidal and microhydro are quite predictable, tidal especially, so they can all provide reliable, if variable, sources of local electricity.

So they future of renewables in the UK looks abundant if exploited.

The increase in battery powered EVs and the advance of smart charging and metering will allow for more storage as there are a few experimental schemes now operating which use the cars to provide storage for the businesses that they are parked at during the day while guaranteeing enough fuel to get home.

[vtsnowedin]

Tesla delivered 8000 units to the Uk in the last two years. That amounts to about 650MW of battery storage. If you could use half of that to shift power from peak production hours to peak demand hours you could reduce the need for load following generation plants. And sales continue so you will probably get 400 +MW more potential each year going forward from all EV suppliers.