So, we have another Government initiative on the way

BoatMad

samih wrote: »

As CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the fuel consumption I find it hard to believe that the true fuel consumption of a car could be up to 20 times bigger than advertised. The only time this can happen is if the car is left to idle for hours at the time.

c02 production is not directly proportional to fuel consumption , theres are situations on road where significantly more C02 is produced

Im not going to debate a technical paper heres a summary http://www.theicct.org/laboratory-road-2015-update and the reports are online

again taking " contrived " test figures and applying them in comparison to EVS is nonsense , you have to try and compare real onroad emissions with the zero that BEVs produce to reach any sort of reasonable comparison , especially if comparing it to percentage power station emissions

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

c02 production is not directly proportional to fuel consumption , theres are situations on road where significantly more C02 is produced ... http://www.theicct.org/laboratory-road-2015-update

Please highlight the passage where it says so.

BoatMad

samih wrote: »

in IRELAND driving a small diesel slowly on motorway results in approx. same CO2 emissions than a Nissan Leaf.

utter rubbish sorry, you are taking laboratory derived test figures and applying them in real world situations, and by such analysis arriving at an entirely faculty conclusion


equally the power station emissions has to be factored in much more carefully , as at any time upwards of 40% of the power going in to a EV could be from renewables

The issue remains clear, diesels are very dirty machines on road, BEVS are clean on road . there is no equivalence as a result of apply faulty statistics

BoatMad

samih wrote: »

Please highlight the passage where it says so.

The reports are there , which outline that onroad C02 emissions are higher , sometimes significantly so in normal on road use.

equally you cant just separate one particular emission from a car, you have to take all pollutants ( which co2 os not ) emanating from the tailpipe of a typical diesel. Nox for example is a poison and very dangerous to humans health

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

utter rubbish sorry, you are taking laboratory derived test figures and applying them in real world situations, and by such analysis arriving at an entirely faculty conclusion


equally the power station emissions has to be factored in much more carefully , as at any time upwards of 40% of the power going in to a EV could be from renewables

The issue remains clear, diesels are very dirty machines on road, BEVS are clean on road . there is no equivalence as a result of apply faulty statistics

I think you don't understand what the C=carbon O=oxygen subscript 2 is. Where do you think the carbon in exhaust gases comes from?

BoatMad

samih wrote: »

I think you don't understand what the C=carbon O=oxygen subscript 2 is. Where do you think the carbon in exhaust gases comes from?

your point ?, now you're trashing about, the fact remains , a comparison of total environmental effects of the " running " of say a diesel and a BEV must use actual real world data , not a made up test result derived under lab conditions , which therefore leads us to your conclusions that driving a small diesel slowly is NOT generating the results you claim ( and leaving aside periodic NOX emissions from NOX trap vehicles and DPF burnoff waste )

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

your point ?, now you're trashing about, the fact remains , a comparison of total environmental effects of the " running " of say a diesel and a BEV must use actual real world data , not a made up test result derived under lab conditions , which therefore leads us to your conclusions that driving a small diesel slowly is NOT generating the results you claim ( and leaving aside periodic NOX emissions from NOX trap vehicles and DPF burnoff waste )

You keep bringing up NOx now which wasn't mentioned before you brought it up. It's quite easy to check the CO2 emissions of your car. Fill up. Drive at 100 km/h to Donegal and back. Note the kilometers driven. Fill up the car and note the liters.

Your CO2 emissions will be liters x 2600 g[CO2]/l over the distance. Unit is g[CO2]/km.

The Leaf value can be calculated by checking the units required to drive the distance x CO2/kWh from the eirgrid site.

Edit2: The value for diesel 2600g[CO2]/l instead of 26 or 260g[CO2]/l [now definitely right]. That makes sense.

Hang on here, Electric vehicles are not emitting harmful emissions in towns and cities and in Ireland we have a vast fleet of old filthy commercial and passenger cars, in particularly commercials due to the fact commercials are allowed emit more emissions which is ridiculous.

Granted some newer busses and some trucks have AdBlue which makes diesel exhaust a lot cleaner but the fact remains we have a very bad diesel emissions problem.

Here's the real issue not Co2 http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/irish-cities-breach-air-pollution-safety-levels-1.2645919

There was an article in the Journal yesterday about Irish deaths linked to air pollution and about how fine particles even show up in the brain, can't find that link now.

BoatMad

samih wrote: »

You keep bringing up NOx now which wasn't mentioned before you brought it up. It's quite easy to check the CO2 emissions of your car. Fill up. Drive at 100 km/h to Donegal and back. Note the kilometers driven. Fill up the car and note the liters.

Your CO2 emissions will be liters x 26 g[CO2]/l over the distance. Unit is g[CO2]/km.

The Leaf value can be calculated by checking the units required to drive the distance x CO2/kWh from the eirgrid site.

Edit: The value for diesel 26g[CO2]/l instead of 260g[CO2]/l.

where are you getting these figures, threw co2 from diesel is in excess of 2000g/litre ( approx 2600g actually ) , to convert this to KM, requires you to take into account fuel efficiency , small diesels are not delivering 3.8l /100km taken over a range of uses ( again see the ICCT documentation ), these figures you are using for fuel efficiency are combined NEDC test results

An example. My old SAAB 9-5 Aero averaged 9.5 liters/100km according to the stats in fuelly.com. The petrol emits approx 2300g[CO2]/l so the CO2 emissions of my car were 2300g/l x 9.5 l / 100km = 218.5 g/km. The official advertised value was 228 g/km so SAAB were not cheats anyway :-)

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

where are you getting these figures, threw co2 from diesel is in excess of 2000g/litre ( approx 2600g actually ) , to convert this to KM, requires you to take into account fuel efficiency , small diesels are not delivering 3.8l /100km taken over a range of uses ( again see the ICCT documentation ), these figures you are using for fuel efficiency are combined NEDC test results

True. I corrected the paragraph above and had an example. But as I said it's easy to calculate your true CO2 emissions. I'd say a golf etc. driven at indicated 100 km/h on motorway might even beat the 3.8 l/100 (don't know, haven't driven any modern diesels).

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Hang on here, Electric vehicles are not emitting harmful emissions in towns and cities and in Ireland we have a vast fleet of old filthy commercial and passenger cars, in particularly commercials due to the fact commercials are allowed emit more emissions which is ridiculous.

Granted some newer busses and some trucks have AdBlue which makes diesel exhaust a lot cleaner but the fact remains we have a very bad diesel emissions problem.

Here's the real issue not Co2 http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/irish-cities-breach-air-pollution-safety-levels-1.2645919

There was an article in the Journal yesterday about Irish deaths linked to air pollution and about how fine particles even show up in the brain, can't find that link now.

Listen, I drive a Leaf and when not driving it I motor/bicycle in Dublin and if everybody drove electric instead the air quality would be so much better. However, I'm just trying to show you how dirty the Irish power grid is as far as carbon dioxide emissions are concerned. You should agree Mad_Lad as you like bashing esb/eirgrid ;-)

BoatMad

samih wrote: »

True. I corrected the paragraph above and had an example. But as I said it's easy to calculate your true CO2 emissions. I'd say a golf etc. driven at indicated 100 km/h on motorway might even beat the 3.8 l/100 (don't know, haven't driven any modern diesels).

Look have a look at the reports based on people that have tested this stuff in real life

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_LaboratoryToRoad_2015_Report_English.pdf

it shows upwards of 60% greater fuel combustion and hence c02 output then manufactures test results ( i.e. the stated fuel NEDC fuel figures that you see own the brochure )

Further more the ICCT states that average Co2 as stated by manufactures of diesels is around 120 g/Km , i.e. within the rules allowed by the EU , yet the studies show that for most m,manufacturers these figure are anywhere from 40% tp 60% off

which suggests that a reasonable average figure in the order of 200g/km, as compared to 87g/km for the BEV ( even though how that is derived is entirely questionable , as for example , my stated average efficiently is 15.6 Kw/100km and charger in efficiencies are less then 5% leasing aside quiescent current )

SO given the poor state of current RE, we have BEVs at at least , 3 times less then the average diesel and this is only considering CO2, conveniently leaving behind all the other stuff pouring out the tail pipe

PS when I was test driving cars, last year , I took the latest Peugeot, the 1.6HDI, which is supposedly one of the best mpgs around, I drove over 400km and measured the fuel consumption , the average worked out at 5,5 L /100km, even though it was claimed in the test to be capable of 3.8. ( and this was a test that was specifically designed to test fuel efficiency so I drove it lightly and in fact the test contained very little urban driving , which would have made it even worse )

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

Look have a look at the reports based on people that have tested this stuff in real life

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_LaboratoryToRoad_2015_Report_English.pdf

it shows upwards of 60% greater fuel combustion and hence c02 output then manufactures test results ( i.e. the stated fuel NEDC fuel figures that you see own the brochure )

Further more the ICCT states that average Co2 as stated by manufactures of diesels is around 120 g/Km , i.e. within the rules allowed by the EU , yet the studies show that for most m,manufacturers these figure are anywhere from 40% tp 60% off

which suggests that a reasonable average figure in the order of 200g/km, as compared to 87g/km for the BEV ( even though how that is derived is entirely questionable , as for example , my stated average efficiently is 15.6 Kw/100km and charger in efficiencies are less then 5% leasing aside quiescent current )

SO given the poor state of current RE, we have BEVs at at least , 3 times less then the average diesel and this is only considering CO2, conveniently leaving behind all the other stuff pouring out the tail pipe

What you say is true but at least you now say that the real life g[CO2] is only x 1.4-1.6 instead of "up to" 10-20 times higher than you stated. Labeling something that you didn't understand "rubbish" is not constructive you know.

17 kWh/100km was actually from my last weekend's Dublin->Newry return. I have no way to check this for grid to wheels so estimated that real figure is somewhere around 19 kWh/100km. I'm not even sure if Leaf reports truthfully.

All this is just a data point to show that ICE vs. BEV in Ireland [as far as CO2 emissions are concerned] is not as clear a cut as you'd think...

BoatMad

samih wrote: »

What you say is true but at least you now say that the real life g[CO2] is only x 1.4-1.6 instead of "up to" 10-20 times higher than you stated. Labeling something that you didn't understand "rubbish" is not constructive you know.

17 kWh/100km was actually from my last weekend's Dublin->Newry return. I have no way to check this for grid to wheels so estimated that real figure is somewhere around 19 kWh/100km. I'm not even sure if Leaf reports truthfully.

All this is just a data point to show that ICE vs. BEV in Ireland [as far as CO2 emissions are concerned] is not a clear cut as you'd think...

the efficiency stated in in 100km travelled, hence its a wheels figure, ( as in theory so is the stated litres/100km also reported in diesels ),

the fact remains

(a) BEVs are at least 3 times more efficient on C02 ( and the comparison computation is highly flawed IMHO)
(b) rather more importantly for our cities and any area of dense population, the pollutant emissions at the point of delivery are close to zero , in ICEs , pollutants rise in densely trafficked areas


no-one is saying the electric cars are the saviour of mankind, but they clearly offer the ONLY realistic methods of reducing on road emissions

Note: that a major flaw in your argument is the emissions costs of producing refined petrol and diesel and the transport and maintenance of the fueling infrastructure .

As a result you are cherry picking a min max situation to illustrate, in reality far more difficult calculation.

If the Cork oil refinery was closed we would have way more power available for BEV but it won't happen anytime soon. In the meantime let's hope the people in the power make intelligent decisions about power generation to reduce the reliance on imported energy.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

the fact remains

(a) BEVs are at least 3 times more efficient on C02 ( and the comparison computation is highly flawed IMHO)
(b) rather more importantly for our cities and any area of dense population, the pollutant emissions at the point of delivery are close to zero , in ICEs , pollutants rise in densely trafficked areas

BEVs are 3 x more efficient converting charged power to motion. But if the power generated is dirty with high losses during generation and transmission the results are not so great. The high CO2/kWh of generated energy in Ireland would point to that more work is needed there. As I said before the fuel to feed the power plants doesn't appear from the thin air neither with ESB nor with VW.

I totally agree with (b).

davidgdlt

So, if for BEVs the environmental cost of the production of the electricity must be accounted for, why should we only consider the environmental cost of what comes out of the exhaust pipe for ICEs?

Surely extracting the oil, refining it, transporting it in in ships (watch out for the leaks!), transporting it to the stations, and finally pumping it into a car all have an environmental cost and produces CO2 emissions?

It seems like different scales are being used here and the comparison is quite unfair.

samih

samih wrote: »

However, I'm just trying to show you how dirty the Irish power grid is as far as carbon dioxide emissions are concerned. You should agree Mad_Lad as you like bashing esb/eirgrid ;-)

But Co2 isn't "dirty" and it's not what's contributing to air pollution and the death of millions all over the planet.

The Grid isn't that dirty at all, 50% of our energy today comes from wind, that's nothing to sneeze at. 10% coal, 36% Gas, other 8% and exporting 6%.

I frequently see a situation like this. And more renewable are coming on line every year. While Diesel never changes. granted there are days the wind doesn't blow. This is why we need Solar PV on the Grid. And we can use the Gas as backup which is a better situation than much of Germany which use Coal .

BoatMad

davidgdlt wrote: »

So, if for BEVs the environmental cost of the production of the electricity must be accounted for, why should we only consider the environmental cost of what comes out of the exhaust pipe for ICEs?

Surely extracting the oil, refining it, transporting it in in ships (watch out for the leaks!), transporting it to the stations, and finally pumping it into a car all have an environmental cost and produces CO2 emissions?

It seems like different scales are being used here and the comparison is quite unfair.

Correct, which is why I stated his comparisons are in effect rubbish, they are at best min/maxing and at worse totally fallacious

The real numbers are a combination of emissions relating to fuel extraction, energy production , generation , fuel distributions etc PLUS on road emissions of all types plus the emissions loading of the cars manufacture and the emmisisons loading of the raw material extractions and manufacture

This is an impossibly complex process

Hence what we can compare is directly equivalent measures. THat is the on road emissions of both types of vehicles . The BEV emits virtually nothing , the ice emits significant quantities of both greenhouse gasses and more importantly deadly pollutants

Everything else is apples and oranges , ( like comparing the best on road emissions of only co2 with the generation of electricity )

"He" has at least tried to bring some calculations in the subject in order to quantify the relative CO2 emmissions between a Nissan Leaf and a SAAB 9-5 and compare those to potential efficiency of a small diesel car at max point of their CO2 efficiency where BEV is not doing much if any better. Not sure what else "he" should do to show that BEVs are as clean as the power network supplying them.

Great thing about BEVs is that they are energy efficient and have potential for 0 g[CO2]/km on pure renewable energy. Let's hope Eirgrid and the generators on the network continue to heavily invest on cleantech.

I think ye're getting far too worked up over Co2 !!!

Sure. It costs real money to buy the carbon based products to generate the CO2 and you also need to buy carbon credits so it's a double whammy. NOx in comparison is free.

If there was another unit to quantify the energy efficiency per unit of work I'd be happy to use that instead.

Sabre Man

samih wrote: »

NOx in comparison is free.

NOx is damaging to our health, which puts an extra burden on our economy. Therefore it isn't free.

Sabre Man

Sabre Man wrote: »

NOx is damaging to our health, which puts an extra burden on our economy. Therefore it isn't free.

Of course. The reason I'm not bringing this on is that I don't know what Eirgrid's g[NOx]/kWh is. Please share it if you know.

Eirgrids g[CO2]/kWh is down to 377 at the moment. My leaf would only emit the equivalent 71.6 g[CO2]/km if I took it to the motorway at consumption of 19 kWh/100km. In city it would do even better. Another point that the more efficient the grid is the better BEVs are doing.

Edit: And the CO2 intensity continues it's way down at 345 g/kWh now. Over half of grid capacity is currently coming from renewable sources and we are generating just over 2 GW of wind power and exporting some power too. That's a very sizable nuclear power station worth of generation. It would be enough to simultaneously charge over 600,000 3.3 kW BEVs.

samih

samih wrote: »

That's a very sizable nuclear power station worth of generation. It would be enough to simultaneously charge over 600,000 3.3 kW BEVs.

Indeed, but look at the amount of wind turbines required !!!

You'd need twice as many for 4 Gw of wind etc, even solar PV farm will take up land. Where do we stop ?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed, but look at the amount of wind turbines required !!!

You'd need twice as many for 4 Gw of wind etc, even solar PV farm will take up land. Where do we stop ?

Thorium/molten salt reactor just outside Irish borders? French interconnector? But yeah problem with too much reliance on wind is that when it's not windy the power needs to come from somewhere that can be started very quickly. Massive battery banks would be great but scale needed is massive. Luckily Ireland is a small market that can rely on other grids as a "battery".

ABC101

From today's FT...

VW s ID concept vehicle will form the basis for a production car with a range of up to 600km (373 miles) on a single charge, and is due to go on sale in 2020, the company will say at the Paris motor show on Thursday. A self-driving version is due to be available from 2025.



Sexy or what??

samih

samih wrote: »

Thorium/molten salt reactor just outside Irish borders? French interconnector? But yeah problem with too much reliance on wind is that when it's not windy the power needs to come from somewhere that can be started very quickly. Massive battery banks would be great but scale needed is massive. Luckily Ireland is a small market that can rely on other grids as a "battery".

Sure, there'll be TWH's worth of battery storage in the years to come when there are many more electric vehicles on the market.

Range will be 300-350 kms soon and most people will have several Kwh to sell to the grid when they are at home or even when plugged in at work if they have the option.

MSR reactors will not be available commercially for some years yet, not helped by the lack of funding.

Solar PV is the next logical step for Irelands Green energy supply.

ABC101

samih wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed, but look at the amount of wind turbines required !!!

You'd need twice as many for 4 Gw of wind etc, even solar PV farm will take up land. Where do we stop ?

Thorium/molten salt reactor just outside Irish borders? French interconnector? But yeah problem with too much reliance on wind is that when it's not windy the power needs to come from somewhere that can be started very quickly. Massive battery banks would be great but scale needed is massive. Luckily Ireland is a small market that can rely on other grids as a "battery".

This Celtic Interconnector is approximately 700Mw apparently. I'm sure they have their reasons (engineering) but it does seem a bit small in my opinion. 700Mw would be considered less power than a medium sized power station (1Gw approx).

If they are going to spend 1 Billion + on laying 600Km of cables under the sea, I would have thought it would be better in putting in a 1 Gw or more link, perhaps even 2GW. Future proofing and all that.

If the future holds EV batteries doing 600Km more in range, then a lot of people will be tempted to switch from ICE to EV, which means more electricity required.

However I am sure they have their reasons for suggesting 700Mw before the feasibility study has even started, grid stability and all that. But it does seem rather small to me!

ABC101

ABC101 wrote: »

From today's FT...

VW s ID concept vehicle will form the basis for a production car with a range of up to 600km (373 miles) on a single charge, and is due to go on sale in 2020, the company will say at the Paris motor show on Thursday. A self-driving version is due to be available from 2025.



Sexy or what??

Unfortunately , no images of larger EV's only small hatches.....

Same BIK on EVs & hybrids as there is on commercial vans would see a large number of company car/van drivers switch from diesel.

ABC101

Deleted User wrote: »

ABC101 wrote: »

From today's FT...

VW s ID concept vehicle will form the basis for a production car with a range of up to 600km (373 miles) on a single charge, and is due to go on sale in 2020, the company will say at the Paris motor show on Thursday. A self-driving version is due to be available from 2025.



Sexy or what??

Unfortunately , no images of larger EV's only small hatches.....

Some people will never be satisfied !!!

It's probably on a par with a Golf size wise, and the Golf comes in estate form too. So perhaps there will be a estate EV later on etc?

For city commutes that VW ID would suit a lot of people, c'mon now give it some credit!

Yeah I'll give the first company to produce a proper family size EV (affordable) plenty of credit.

Yes the above is a really nice concept if you're in the market for a small hatch. And yes I drive a Leaf which isn't too much bigger and a bit too small for my liking. An estate option would be great.

josip

ABC101 wrote: »

Some people will never be satisfied !!!

It's probably on a par with a Golf size wise, and the Golf comes in estate form too. So perhaps there will be a estate EV later on etc?

For city commutes that VW ID would suit a lot of people, c'mon now give it some credit!

Looks like a 2 tone Golf, presumably all the innovation is on the inside.