CO2 cost of motoring

Sesshoumaru

MYOB wrote: »

EVs are heavier than an ICE car and hence harder to ship, require far more rare earth metals than an ICE car. Its fairly widely known that the environmental damage of building an EV is worse than building an equally sized ICE car.

My thread comparing a 25k Leaf to a 25k Golf BlueMotion was a comparison of two similarly sized and priced cars. It could easily have been comparing two ICE cars, one petrol and diesel. A diesel car also requires more energy to create than a petrol one, but we rarely stray on to environmental topics when discussing diesel cars. Mostly we discuss DPF failure.

So just thought I'd start a new thread in reply to this and anyone else who is concerned about green motoring issues and the impact of cars on the environment.

An EV does cost more to manufacture than a regular ICE car. However it seems pointless to only measure the environmental impact at time of manufacture. Both EV and ICE continue to emit CO2 throughout their life cycle.

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2077537/electric-vehicle-lifecycle-emissions-undercut-conventional-cars

Electric vehicles (EVs) produce more emissions than conventional cars in production, but still have far lower carbon footprints over their lifetimes, according to a new study that "dispels the myth" that low carbon cars transfer emissions from exhaust to manufacture.

The research conducted by UK advisory group LowCVP calculates that a typical medium-sized family car will pump out 24 tonnes of CO2 compared to just 19 tonnes for EVs and plug-in hybrids, and 21 tonnes for standard hybrids.
However, producing EVs cranks out a sizeable 8.8 tonnes of carbon, compared to 5.6 tonnes for standard fuel cars, meaning that 46 per cent of an EV's lifetime emissions are generated before the car even hits the road.

Almost half of an EV's embedded emissions are down to its battery, which shows the importance of decarbonising the process for making batteries and the national electricity supply if a shift to electric transportation is to be genuinely low carbon, LowCVP said.

I highlighted the last part because another point I wanted to raise was that the battery is still valuable and useful after the car phase of its life. This video is a recent interview with Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn. He discusses reducing the cost of the battery packs EV's use and how Nissan are developing the second life uses of those battery packs.

As I posted in another thread, the user manual for the Nissan Leaf has now been updated to say fast charging multiple times per day is okay. I believe Nissan wouldn't make this change unless batteries were holding up better than expected.

http://www.torquenews.com/1075/nissan-leaf-webchat-answers-questions-electric-car-fast-charging-and-more

Mark Perry: "We updated the owners manual. Multiple quick charges are ok. The BMS protects the battery in all cases. If temperatures get outside normal range the charging rates simply slow down."

I personally am looking forward to using my battery pack as storage for night rate electricity and halving my electricity bill in my home. Even 80% of a 24kw/h battery pack would run most homes during peak hours.

So according to that recent report just under 50% of an EV's production costs are down to its battery. But over the life cycle of the car it still emits less CO2 than a conventional car. If you can make the national grid emit less CO2 for each kw/h of electricity produced, then an EV continues to get greener.

I think it is also worth pointing out that numerous studies have shown that EV owners currently are charging predominantly at night, which uses electricity we would otherwise waste. I'm not sure if the above report counted this electricity as zero CO2 emissions in relation to EV charging, I suspect not! But since this electricity is produced at night and not used regardless of EV's, it seems fair to point out that EV's contribute even less CO2 emissions when they are run on electricity generated during night time hours.

Mr Benevolent

EV production or ownership doesn't need to be justified. If I bought one it wouldn't be because it saved the planet, it'd because it suited my needs. The CO2 thing is a load of bull brought up by people who are inherently against the concept of an EV.

BigEejit

Whats the deal with the amount of rare earth minerals used in a EV that are not in an internal combustion engined car?

L1011

Confab wrote: »

EV production or ownership doesn't need to be justified. If I bought one it wouldn't be because it saved the planet, it'd because it suited my needs. The CO2 thing is a load of bull brought up by people who are inherently against the concept of an EV.

The "CO2 thing" is the sole reason that EVs are even slightly affordable, as clueless governments subsidise the purchase and TCO of having one.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I personally am looking forward to using my battery pack as storage for night rate electricity and halving my electricity bill in my home. Even 80% of a 24kw/h battery pack would run most homes during peak hours.

Why is your car at home and charged during sufficient peak hours to "half" your bill? If you actually need a car its not going to be there during the day, for starters.

If you're using it for work, you're going to arrive home with a close to empty battery, which you'd likely damage by draining completely.

If you charge it overnight and then use the battery to power the house during the morning, you aren't going to be able to drive the car.

If you have an EV solely for weekend and occasional use, you're instantly back to the problem of why the taxpayers (of this country, and Japan) are subsidising your car for spurious CO2 reasons.

Stinicker

The Toyota prius has the same manufacturing footprint as a Hummer yet this never gets mentioned. What really needs to happen is a mass conversion over to both CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) and LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas), this way old Petrol cars can be converted and run for longer on a cheaper fuel which produces less carbon emissions and vastly less air particulates which Diesel engines belch out.

My Petrol car does 28-30mpg and is 15 years old, this year I am facing the possibilty of having to replace it because of the crazy taxation placed upon Petrol, If I could convert it to Gas it would help the environment alot.

savagecabbages

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Most people wouldn't be against EV cars but what bugs me is people that use EV`s as status symbol or a way to look down on people. I can accept the failings of an ICE car but that idea seems to be something alien to most EV car owners.

Lots of people would buy luxury marques to do the exact same. To have a better car in the driveway than the neighbours...
Just wait till Audi release an EV:rolleyes:

The failings thing is a bit of a confrontation area. To one person the lack of range on current EVs would constitute a failure, whereas to someone who doesn't need 500km range between potential charging opportunities its not a problem at all.

Pkiernan

Stinicker wrote: »

The Toyota prius has the same manufacturing footprint as a Hummer yet this never gets mentioned. .

Total red herring and unsound.

Here - try educating yourself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-grayson/eco-etiquette-is-a-new-pr_b_257154.html



What is it with people who can never embrace new technology??

Burning oil to move a car or heat a home is one of the most stupid things we can do.

There are a lot of idiots out there who do not understand how important oil is - not as a fuel, but as a source of all the plastic items we need.

challengemaster

Stinicker wrote: »

The Toyota prius has the same manufacturing footprint as a Hummer yet this never gets mentioned. What really needs to happen is a mass conversion over to both CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) and LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas), this way old Petrol cars can be converted and run for longer on a cheaper fuel which produces less carbon emissions and vastly less air particulates which Diesel engines belch out.

My Petrol car does 28-30mpg and is 15 years old, this year I am facing the possibilty of having to replace it because of the crazy taxation placed upon Petrol, If I could convert it to Gas it would help the environment alot.

Problem there is, LPG is taxed like a mofo just like petrol/diesel, so the fuel doesn't work out that much cheaper, so there's no real incentive to do it, let alone "for the good of the environment". Same will happen to any form of fuel for transport because the government are monumental idiots.

Also as far as I can see from SEAI statistics

The share of overall fossil fuel used in electricity generation was 92% in 2010. This was a 1.3% point increase on
the previous year.

When you have 92% of electricity being generated from fossil fuels, the environmental debate seems rather stupid

But if you're going to argue, here's some fuel to the fire (:pac:)

These shifts in generating technology and indeed fuel mix have also resulted in changes in the CO2 emissions per kWh of electricity supplied

.... the carbon intensity of electricity dropping from 896 g CO2
/kWh in 1990 to a low of 518 CO2 g /kWh in 2009. In 2010 the intensity increased marginally to 528 CO2 g /kWh.

Matt Simis

I dont care for the whole CO2 + Cars story. Its a non-runner as its statistically the minority of the whole GHG picture. Road Transport is 9.9% of GHG emissions and that includes commercial Heavy Road transport and light trucks, meaning the private individual is a bit player. Driving a Prius or whatever is pissing in the wind if your aim was to make the world a better place:



What we want EVs and other fuel sources for is to control our own Fuel needs and eliminate costly importation and reliance on a politically dangerous middle-east. Thats the "win" here for the western world.


On a related note, I visited the Tesla showroom in Santana Row, San Jose last week and saw the new "Tesla Model S" which is on tour at the Tesla showrooms right now. What a car, nothing at all like the little A-B micro EVs we have about at the moment!



Ill put it in its own thread tomorrow, but the showroom, car and specs were awesome.

challengemaster wrote: »

Problem there is, LPG is taxed like a mofo just like petrol/diesel, so the fuel doesn't work out that much cheaper, so there's no real incentive to do it, let alone "for the good of the environment". Same will happen to any form of fuel for transport because the government are monumental idiots.

Dude, LPG is 80c a litre, petrol is 170c a litre...!? Mind you I thought that too, till it was pointed out by the Polish guys (I think) that setup the new LPG stations here that tax on auto LPG is 8c a litre vs 40c+ for petrol, right now and in Ireland.

Sesshoumaru

MYOB wrote: »

...

Why is your car at home and charged during sufficient peak hours to "half" your bill? If you actually need a car its not going to be there during the day, for starters.

If you're using it for work, you're going to arrive home with a close to empty battery, which you'd likely damage by draining completely.

If you charge it overnight and then use the battery to power the house during the morning, you aren't going to be able to drive the car.

If you have an EV solely for weekend and occasional use, you're instantly back to the problem of why the taxpayers (of this country, and Japan) are subsidising your car for spurious CO2 reasons.

Did you read what I posted? I'm talking about second life uses of the battery. What Carlos Ghosn is talking about in the video I posted. That would be post number 1 in this thread. An EV already emits less CO2 than a regular ICE car in its life cycle. When you consider that half the initial CO2 cost of an EV is the battery, I think it is important to note that the battery pack will continue to be valuable and useful in its post EV life!

Sesshoumaru

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Most people wouldn't be against EV cars but what bugs me is people that use EV`s as status symbol or a way to look down on people. I can accept the failings of an ICE car but that idea seems to be something alien to most EV car owners.

Who is looking down on who here? Have you met any EV owners in real life? in person? I'm not going to comment on myself But any other EV owners I've met are very friendly, all you'll get from them is enthusiasm for the technology!

piston

Does anyone really give a sh!t about their car's CO2 output? No car can ever be environmentally friendly and if you really wanted to "save the planet" you wouldn't drive at all.

People buy cars on cost, on economy, on style, on performance or on practicality, not on what comes out of the exhaust pipe.

L1011

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Did you read what I posted? [/B]

Yes, and it was brutally unclear. You were implying that you could use your car as power storage.

Are you going to get the tax payer to fund the work required to allow you to do this to your domestic power system, or does that subsidy only go as far as paying for your charging point and (currently) some free electricity? Because a standard domestic power system and meter in no way is going to allow you to run it off a battery.

I would also suggest that suspecting you'll have 80% life out of lithium cells after long term usage in a car is laughable. Hilariously laughable in fact. Come back and quote me if you're within 20% of that.

EVs as they stand are wildly impractical and utterly uneconomic - and are just about held down to 'sort of' economic with massive subsidies from all angles. And the "the price will fall" moment has been discussed since, oh, 1991 at least. Its not happening. Neither is some magic bullet battery technology.

Leonard Hofstadter

An interesting point of note is that Merc are saying that fuel cells are back on the agenda.

The best thing about fuel cells over EVs is that they are a no compromise vehicle, none of this 160 km only range on a good day and driving like a nun kind of nonsense, but still give zero emissions, and there is no disputing this, whereas an EV can get its energy from a coal fired power station, fuel cells use 100% renewable Hydrogen. There are massive drawbacks with regards the storage of hydrogen, which I am well aware of, but it's interesting to note all the same.

L1011

Fuel cells or direct combustion of hydrogen are far more likely to be what we're using in the future than battery EVs, primarily because anything that can't be refuelled in a small fraction of the time it takes to discharge is never going to work beyond a few edge cases.

The OPs driving falls in to an edge case. Most people's driving doesn't.

Leonard Hofstadter

MYOB wrote: »

Fuel cells or direct combustion of hydrogen are far more likely to be what we're using in the future than battery EVs, primarily because anything that can't be refuelled in a small fraction of the time it takes to discharge is never going to work beyond a few edge cases.

The OPs driving falls in to an edge case. Most people's driving doesn't.

+1, if they can sort out the situation with hydrogen, fuel cells are the only show in town realistically. I think Governments all over the world would much rather we go to fuel cells in the long run too, because we'll still need filling stations, and they can just put a load of tax on hydrogen fuel instead - if EVs take off, then they'll have to do road pricing, which is costly and unlikely to be popular with motorists. The other advantage of hydrogen is that you can use it in an Otto cycle ICE as well, so we could have V12 noise, but zero emissions, and who doesn't want that:D?

Sesshoumaru

MYOB wrote: »

Yes, and it was brutally unclear. You were implying that you could use your car as power storage.

Are you going to get the tax payer to fund the work required to allow you to do this to your domestic power system, or does that subsidy only go as far as paying for your charging point and (currently) some free electricity? Because a standard domestic power system and meter in no way is going to allow you to run it off a battery.

I would also suggest that suspecting you'll have 80% life out of lithium cells after long term usage in a car is laughable. Hilariously laughable in fact. Come back and quote me if you're within 20% of that.

EVs as they stand are wildly impractical and utterly uneconomic - and are just about held down to 'sort of' economic with massive subsidies from all angles. And the "the price will fall" moment has been discussed since, oh, 1991 at least. Its not happening. Neither is some magic bullet battery technology.

Throw in a few straw man arguments, good ploy when you have no solid evidence to stand on I'll just quote our resident battery/EV expert who has built his own EV.

www.evbmw.com
www.evcbr.com

jackbauer wrote: »

Not to bore everyone to death but a point needs to be made regards EV batteries. The last time I checked the term "Lithium-ion Battery" actually encompassed some 27 different cathode chemisteries. The type fitted to mobile phones etc are COMPLETLY different from that fitted to a modern EV. Yes , certainly if I used cheap and nasty phone batteries in my car then I wouldn't get far or last long. On the other hand if I used an ev battery to power my phone I could talk until the end of time. The Lithium iron phosphate cell is gauranteed to reach at least 5000 cycles to 80% DOD and recent tests have shown this going out beyond 8000 cycles. Oh , and they have no measurable self discharge. The cell does not have a mechanism to allow it. So assuming no parasitic loads I can park my car at the airport , go on a 5 year holiday , come back and drive home.

Oh and on the cost issue. Two years ago my battery cost 4,500 euros delivered in a single quantity. Priced it last week. 3,250. I could buy a 24kwh battery off the shelf today (same capacity as the leaf) for 7,500 delivered in a single qty.

Sesshoumaru

captainspeed wrote: »

+1, if they can sort out the situation with hydrogen, fuel cells are the only show in town realistically. I think Governments all over the world would much rather we go to fuel cells in the long run too, because we'll still need filling stations, and they can just put a load of tax on hydrogen fuel instead - if EVs take off, then they'll have to do road pricing, which is costly and unlikely to be popular with motorists. The other advantage of hydrogen is that you can use it in an Otto cycle ICE as well, so we could have V12 noise, but zero emissions, and who doesn't want that:D?

The hydrogen situation, like they are horribly expensive and need special & expensive refilling stations? Not to mention the requirement of building a hydrogen production & distribution infrastructure from the ground up or the fact that you need to use a lot of electricity to create hydrogen, which then gets converted back into electricity in an hydrogen fuel cell EV.

If used in an ICE car, hydrogen is also horribly inefficient and that is after you have used lots of electricity to create the hydrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7



Compare this to our already existing electrical infrastructure, one that allows a person to refill at home or potentially anywhere we deliver electricity to. We also already have mainstream BEV on sale right now from Nissan, Renault & Ford. Next year we can also add VW and probably lots more that I can't be bothered to Google right now.

Hydrogen is the fuel of the future and IMO will remain the fuel of the future.

Sesshoumaru

Matt Simis wrote: »

*snip*
What we want EVs and other fuel sources for is to control our own Fuel needs and eliminate costly importation and reliance on a politically dangerous middle-east. Thats the "win" here for the western world.
*snip*

+1

I rarely discuss green issues, this is more important I feel. I started this thread as every thread that I start on EV's (no matter what aspect of an EV the thread is about) has some poster jumping in and shouting something they saw on Top Gear 10 years ago about the original Prius and EV's etc.

We already have the ability to produce our own energy, whether it is mature technology like nuclear or a developing one like Wind Turbines, which have some very promising ideas that are being tested in the field as I type

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/04/green-machine-undersea-air-bag.html

The bags themselves are made by Thin Red Line, a developer of high performance fabric structures primarily for aerospace applications. Placing the bags on the seafloor allows project leader Seamus Garvey to utilise intense water pressure found at depth to contain the compressed air rather than having to build a thick containment vessel. At a depth of 600m, a 20m-diameter bag could store around 70 megawatt hours of energy, the equivalent of roughly 14 hours of energy generation from one of the world's largest offshore wind turbines.

So if people want to discuss the environment and CO2, lets discuss it here! EV's are still more efficient over their life cycle than ICE. Personally though I prefer to discuss energy independence and sustainability of that energy supply.

L1011

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Throw in a few straw man arguments, good ploy when you have no solid evidence to stand on I'll just quote our resident battery/EV expert who has built his own EV.

Someone who relies on notional "improvements", "gains" and utterly laughable expectations that we're going to somehow move our electricity generation off fossil isn't one to even try and claim someone else has no "solid evidence".

If you feel that every thread you start on EV's is "jumped in on", you may wish to not start so many, identical, threads on EVs or, maybe, actually step back from the situation and do a little research that isn't coming from an EV-washed perspective.

Joe 90

savagecabbages wrote: »

Lots of people would buy luxury marques to do the exact same. To have a better car in the driveway than the neighbours...
Just wait till Audi release an EV:rolleyes:

The failings thing is a bit of a confrontation area. To one person the lack of range on current EVs would constitute a failure, whereas to someone who doesn't need 500km range between potential charging opportunities its not a problem at all.

I wish Audi would release a road going RWD R8 first. RWD and 200 kgs lighter!

Joe 90

Pkiernan wrote: »

Total red herring and unsound.

Here - try educating yourself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-grayson/eco-etiquette-is-a-new-pr_b_257154.html



What is it with people who can never embrace new technology??

Burning oil to move a car or heat a home is one of the most stupid things we can do.

There are a lot of idiots out there who do not understand how important oil is - not as a fuel, but as a source of all the plastic items we need.

Insulate the home better and build the car lighter.

Sesshoumaru

MYOB wrote: »

Someone who relies on notional "improvements", "gains" and utterly laughable expectations that we're going to somehow move our electricity generation off fossil isn't one to even try and claim someone else has no "solid evidence".

If you feel that every thread you start on EV's is "jumped in on", you may wish to not start so many, identical, threads on EVs or, maybe, actually step back from the situation and do a little research that isn't coming from an EV-washed perspective.

Funnily enough you didn't respond regarding battery life. More straw man arguments! Shall we move back to exploding batteries now?

monument

Electric cars are great for making middle and upper class people feel better or "greener" about making many trips that they could be walking, cycling or taking public transport, if they really cared about CO2.

If the big deal is C02, then remind me again why the state are subsidising this rather than putting money into walking, cycling, public transport, and different types of car sharing?

Sesshoumaru wrote:

An EV does cost more to manufacture than a regular ICE car. However it seems pointless to only measure the environmental impact at time of manufacture. Both EV and ICE continue to emit CO2 throughout their life cycle.

Like how an electric car will need a new battery at some point?

Sesshoumaru wrote:

As I posted in another thread, the user manual for the Nissan Leaf has now been updated to say fast charging multiple times per day is okay. I believe Nissan wouldn't make this change unless batteries were holding up better than expected.

Or maybe they are just trying to sell more Leafs?

Matt Simis wrote: »

I dont care for the whole CO2 + Cars story. Its a non-runner as its statistically the minority of the whole GHG picture. Road Transport is 9.9% of GHG emissions and that includes commercial Heavy Road transport and light trucks, meaning the private individual is a bit player. Driving a Prius or whatever is pissing in the wind if your aim was to make the world a better place:...

I'm not saying electric cars are the solution but...

In Ireland meanwhile transported accounted for 18.9% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010.

Source: http://epa.ie/downloads/pubs/air/airemissions/GHG_1990-2010_2012_v3.pdf

The private individual is not a "bit player" here given how car dependent so many people are in this country. As a CSO report said today: "Irish vehicles drove 43 billion kilometres in total in 2010. Three quarters of these kilometres were driven by private cars."

Source: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/transport/2010/transport0910.pdf

Sesshoumaru

monument wrote: »

Electric cars are great for making middle and upper class people feel better or "greener" about making many trips that they could be walking, cycling or taking public transport, if they really cared about CO2.
*snip*

Thankssss! I just like to be part of the solution and not part of the problem ^_^

L1011

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Funnily enough you didn't respond regarding battery life. More straw man arguments! Shall we move back to exploding batteries now?

Because I've answered 100 times before. We've been told for 20 years that some big bang was "about" to happen. It hasn't

Nikon have recalled some more cameras due to exploding batteries, as it happens.

monument

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

monument wrote: »

Electric cars are great for making middle and upper class people feel better or "greener" about making many trips that they could be walking, cycling or taking public transport, if they really cared about CO2.
*snip*

Thankssss! I just like to be part of the solution and not part of the problem ^_^

What are you talking about?