Are we on the brink of an electric car revolution?

[kenneal - lagger]

Only a small proportion of the power of the car battery is usually used in these power sharing schemes so the actual available power will be a lot less than the theoretical power available. Useful, none the less.

[Little John]

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.

Nope.



The above infographic is taken from the EPA's own figures, which are, themselves taken from the IPCC. They are a few years old now, but will not be that far off.

To summarize the nonesense I have read on here over the last few days:

Firstly, that ICE vehicles need to be replaced with EVs because EVs produce less CO2 than ICE vehicles and if they are replaced this will only raise electricity consumption by a relatively small amount. However, if it will only raise electricity consumption by a relatively small amount, then the carbon produced by the existing ICE fleet must be commensurately relatively small. 14%, of course, is not tiny. But, then, neither is it " the largest source of CO2 emissions worldwide".

Secondly, nowhere is there any acknowledgement of the 60-70% energy loss in creating and transporting electricity to your home and the commensurate degree to which this will require more hydrocarbons to be burnt at the power station to compensate for this when increasing the supply of electricity for an ICE fleet replaced with EVs. This should be fully factored into any comparison of the carbon credentials of these two forms of locomotion otherwise any comparison is utterly meaningless.

Thirdly, even if we charitably assume that after all losses incurred in production and distribution of electricity are taken into account and assuming that even with those extra loses total carbon pumped into the atmosphere due to EVs is less than for ICE vehicles, it is not unreasonable to speculate that reduction will be nowhere near as dramatic as some of the more breathlessly excited proponents on here are assuming.

Finally, given that the larger proportion of CO2 is produced elsewhere in already existing technologies and societal infrastructure and given there is massive scope for improvements in the efficiency of those existing technologies and infrastructure without the necessity of implementing an entirely new industrial sector with all of the extra technologies and infrastructure that would need to be brought into existence as a consequence, it makes precisely zero sense to replacing the ICE. fleet with EVs

All I am seeing here is the usual techno-fetishistic wankathon masquerading as "being Green".

[adam2]

Please see my recent posts in this thread, where I state, with sources, that a FF car will have carbon emissions at least twice those produced by an electric car charged from UK grid electricity.

The published figures for carbon intensity of grid electricity include losses in generating that power.

[woodburner]

I have thought of a new way to encourage the wider use of electric cars.

Many parents on the school run are utterly desperate to park as close as possible to the school gates.
Double parking, trespassing onto private property, and parking illegally are all common. Some engage in physical combat to get a bit closer.

How about reserving those parking places nearest to the gates for electric vehicles only ?
The thought of the child walking another 100 yards would assuredly encourage adoption of EVs.

A better way to reduce both fuel use and reduce congestion is to stop the use of cars and use coaches and buses to transport children to school. One school I went to was a very short walk to the bus stop, and it dropped us outside the school gates. The next school was a quarter of a mile walk to the station, and then a 3/4 mile walk to school at the other end. The next one was a quarter mile to the bus stop, and 3/4 mile walk the other end. The last one was 1 1/2 mile walk to the bus stop and 2/4 mile the other end. This all needed to be done in reverse going home.

There is quite a bit of public type transport to schools, but nowhere near enough. As for 100 yards .....................

[adam2]

I agree that buses or coaches or walking would be preferable.
However a significant proportion of parents seem to regard driving the little darlings as being essential, and can erupt into a great fury if they cant get really close.

[vtsnowedin]

My wife went to high school riding public buses from one western Mass. suburban town to another back in the early seventies. No parent today would allow their daughter to do the same today due to the number of thugs and gang members ridding the buses today. Back then every adult on the bus would look out for the children riding alone. Today they turn a blind eye not wanting to get involved.

[adam2]

HMG have announced plans to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars, including hybrids, from 2035, rather than from 2040 as was originally proposed.

It remains to be seen exactly what vehicles will be affected.

[kenneal - lagger]

I went to a "Community Climate Conversation" last night run by West Berkshire Council and facilitated by WSP Partnership and WSP said that they thought that the majority of car sales by 2025 would be electric cars. So the government ban on sales may not make a difference apart from sending a message that electric cars are the future, therefore hastening the changeover. That also requires a massive rollout of chargers.

Companies like Volvo have already said that they wouldn't be manufacturing ICEs after 2025.

[Lurkalot]

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.

I've read that idea , of using vehicles as additional storage and can see how it would work in theory . In practice , however , i doubt that it would be viable. I just can't see people charging their cars and then being prepared to leave them connected for the grid to drain them. In the example you quote i can see the cynical saying that connecting a car to the businesses they are parked at is little more than subsidising those businesses.
A fossil fuel comparison would be allowing ones petrol to be siphoned at times of great demand. People wouldn't be happy and most likely wouldn't let it happen now and i think their own self interests won't let it happen in the future.

[Little John]

That kind of system could only work if:

(a) only a defined "surplus" over and above a given amount of charge, could be siphoned off.

(b) any that was siphoned off was immediately reimbursed to the owner of the vehicle in monetary terms straight into their bank accounts. Preferably with some small premium attached so that it was, if only marginally, profitable for them to allow such siphoning of energy to happen

An organizationally simpler alternative could take the form of some secondary battery system on the car that was fully isolated from that which the car owner put in and consumed themselves. When they went to charge their car, this secondary storage would also be filled up/siphoned off as per the requirements of the grid.

[adam2]

For both technical reasons, and customer acceptance, I am rather doubtful about the use of vehicle batteries to supply power into the grid at times of shortage.

What should be achievable is smart charging whereby the EV charger can pause charging at times of electricity shortage.

This would be almost as useful. Once EVs become mainstream then the ability to pause perhaps 1Gw of EV charging demand at times of scarcity would reduce peak demand by about the same figure.

Some drivers of EVs would require a full charge as quickly as possible, and this should be available, but at a higher price.
Too much choice would confuse people, but an EV charger with three simple, colour coded push buttons should be achievable.

"Press the red button to fully charge as quickly as possible, at a higher price.
press the yellow button to charge at a variable rate, but receiving a full charge within 8 hours. This is cheaper.
Press the green button to charge to at least 80% within 8 hours, this is the cheapest option"

For charging in say a supermarket car park, just two options could usefully be offered.
"For charging as fast as possible, insert your debit card. This service costs £5.
For a green eco-charge, which may be delayed for up to 30 minutes, do NOT insert your card, this service is free to our customers"

[vtsnowedin]

Think a car park where the same workers regularly park there. The computers in the "smart chargers" will know whose Tesla they are charging and how many miles you drive home each day. With a 200 mile range if you live say thirty miles from home 100 miles would be sufficient for you to go home and return the next work day. The smart chargers could use the other 100 miles of range in and out as needed without you even knowing or caring about it. An override would have to be there for non routine trips and probably most would want a full charge by the start of the weekend but that should not be difficult. If smart charging is cheaper then keeping yours fully charged all the time you will probably buy into it as long as your total charging cost are less then putting gas through an ICE car you are ahead.
California already has enough roof top solar installed to depress demand during daylight hours with a big spike in demand when the sun goes down. Having the EVs charge up mid day while the sun is shining and you are slaving away in at your job will be a way to level out that load curve.

[Lurkalot]

Having seen the reaction on social media to the announcement of bringing in the ban on ice vehicles five years earlier i'd have to say the answer to the original question is a resounding no. There seems to be a huge amount of resistance to ev's.

[adam2]

Having seen the reaction on social media to the announcement of bringing in the ban on ice vehicles five years earlier i'd have to say the answer to the original question is a resounding no. There seems to be a huge amount of resistance to ev's.

Indeed, some petrol heads are becoming hysterical about this.
EVs are already greatly improved, and further improvements seem likely in 15 years.
And remember that the ban applies only to new registrations and does not prohibit continued use of pre existing vehicles, nor the re-sale of already registered vehicles.
There should be plenty of good used petrol/diesel vehicles available for at least five years after the ban, and a diminishing but still significant supply for at least 15 years after the ban.

I suspect that classic, vintage, or historic petrol vehicles will be allowed forever. Thinking of the London to Brighton historic car run for example.
Steam driven road vehicles are still allowed, and the coal or heating oil that they burn is readily available.

IMHO, the priority is to get the great majority of "everyday" petrol and diesel cars and vans replaced with electric alternatives.
A small number of historic vehicles that burn coal, heating oil, diesel fuel, or petrol are of little concern. Such vehicles are, or will become, valuable antiques with high maintenance costs and therefore cover minute mileages.

[Lurkalot]

One argument that constantly comes up is a lack of infrastructure , not enough charging points and so on and i do have to ask why we adopted ICE vehicles in the first place , after all we had no infrastructure for them , no petrol stations or workshops to repair them , unsuitable roads and they were slow , expensive and unreliable. I normally get ignored or criticised when i say that though.