Citizens assembly decision and recemmendation on tackling climate change

Jeditraining1

Citizens assembly decision and recommendation

A few very interesting things came up regarding EV's and who the assembly recommends will be paying for the infrastructure for the foreseeable. This will upset some who support the ESB, however it does not look lightly EV charging (€€) will take place for a while. Here come privatisation.

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/How-the-State-can-make-Ireland-a-leader-in-tackling-climate-change/Final-Report-on-how-the-State-can-make-Ireland-a-leader-in-tackling-climate-change/Climate-Change-Report-Final.pdf

Evd-Burner

"v. 99% of the Members recommended that the State should enable, through legislation,
the selling back into the grid of electricity from micro-generation by private citizens
(for example energy from solar panels or wind turbines on people’s homes or land) at
a price which is at least equivalent to the wholesale price."

I like the sound of that!

KCross

This dude has some blinkers on....

David Timoney (C1-KZMWB48MK1CR), Director of the Master of Engineering (Energy Systems) degree programme at UCD states: “Electric vehicles (EVs) are most certainly not “Zero Emissions” vehicles. Based on a CO2 intensity estimate of 450 gCO2 per kWh for Irish electricity used to charge them, the emissions from an EV equate to about 81 gCO2 per km as compared to about 140 g per km for a diesel vehicle. This calculation ignores the very substantial amount CO2 emitted (elsewhere) in the manufacture of the battery. For a 30kWhr battery (such as used in the 2016 Nissan Leaf), the manufacturing process will generate approximately 4,500 to 6,000 kg of CO2. This will offset the gains made during the first 75,000-100,000km of vehicle operation”.

- How did he calculate 81gCO2/km?
- Taking the middle ground of 14kWh/100km that would equate to 63gCO2/km. However, his figure of 450gCO/kWh is high as per my table which gives an average over the last 9 months of 344gCO2/kWh so the real figure is 48gCO2/km, not 81!

- I dont know where the 6000kg of CO2 figure comes from, but based on the CO2 figures I'm not inclined to believe them without references and whatever the real figure, it will reduce as production scales up.
- His 75000-100000km offset figure is also obviously wrong based on his first set of figures as they are correlated to them.


- In any case, what was his point. That we shouldnt switch to EV? What about the other emissions issues? CO2 isnt the only/main reason to switch to EV.
- And like most anti-EV folks making these arguments there is no mention of well-wheel analysis for the ICE (drilling, refining, transporting the fuel).

- And the pièce de résistance... quick google of him in UCD gave this...
http://www.ucd.ie/research/people/mechanicalmaterialseng/assoc%20professordavidtimoney/

Look at the last entry.... "Development Engineer, Diesel Combustion Research Ricardo Consulting Engineers plc., Sussex, U.K" :D

He has several recent papers and research projects on diesel particulates as well. That explains a few things!

ABC101

kcross,

One must remember that fuel is metered at a power station, and power is metered at the power station. Therefore the Co2 intensity figure is only relevant at the power station.

There is a further transmission loss of power from the station to the consumers home, approx 10% in some cases, perhaps 12 or 15% in others.

Then the power has to be converted from AC to DC to get it into the battery, battery will have a charge / discharge coefficient of about 85% (for Li Ion)

With DC coming out of the battery, it has to be boosted in a DC to DC converter then converted up to AC. The AC motor will not be 100% efficient as there will be various losses. In addition electric motors will only reach their maximum design efficiency at a certain design point. Given that the EV will have various speed range the speed of the EV may not be at the electric motors most efficient point, normally 75% of the motors rated max load.

Whilst EV’s are still very efficient due to regeneration, there is still losses at each step of energy conversion.

In addition, unfortunately current battery technology is heavy, which means heavier chassis, heavier suspension, heavier brakeing system, heavier + stronger electric motor to propel the weight, its called weight compounding of the vehicle. For example a Nissan Leaf is coming in around 1600kg but a Clio is coming in around 1200 kg. Weight starts to add against the concept unfortunately.

Of course, if electricity is 100% renewable the above concerns would diminish considerably (but still be present). As Ireland goes from 450gm to 300 and hopefully to 150 grm Co2 /Kwhr the whole thing gets better.

Therefore whilst a Co2 intensity of 450gm Co2 /Kwhr may be given (at the station) it’s really getting closer to 600gm Co2/ Kwhr at the wheel of the EV.

KCross

ABC101 wrote: »

One must remember that fuel is metered at a power station, and power is metered at the power station. Therefore the Co2 intensity figure is only relevant at the power station.

There is a further transmission loss of power from the station to the consumers home, approx 10% in some cases, perhaps 12 or 15% in others.

Correct.

ABC101 wrote: »

Then the power has to be converted from AC to DC to get it into the battery, battery will have a charge / discharge coefficient of about 85% (for Li Ion)

Close enough. Its 90-95% efficient based on the measurements I have taken on mine via a kWh meter on the charge point and an app that reads out the energy in the battery.

ABC101 wrote: »

With DC coming out of the battery, it has to be boosted in a DC to DC converter then converted up to AC. The AC motor will not be 100% efficient as there will be various losses. In addition electric motors will only reach their maximum design efficiency at a certain design point. Given that the EV will have various speed range the speed of the EV may not be at the electric motors most efficient point, normally 75% of the motors rated max load.

Whilst EV’s are still very efficient due to regeneration, there is still losses at each step of energy conversion.

True.

ABC101 wrote: »

In addition, unfortunately current battery technology is heavy, which means heavier chassis, heavier suspension, heavier brakeing system, heavier + stronger electric motor to propel the weight, its called weight compounding of the vehicle. For example a Nissan Leaf is coming in around 1600kg but a Clio is coming in around 1200 kg. Weight starts to add against the concept unfortunately.

Not sure that (or any of what you have above) matters a whole lot to my figures though. The efficiency figure I've used is a real world efficiency figure which includes the charger losses and all the other items you've listed above except the 10% transmission losses.

So, I'd still stand over the figures I've quoted.

ABC101 wrote: »

Of course, if electricity is 100% renewable the above concerns would diminish considerably (but still be present). As Ireland goes from 450gm to 300 and hopefully to 150 grm Co2 /Kwhr the whole thing gets better.

Therefore whilst a Co2 intensity of 450gm Co2 /Kwhr may be given (at the station) it’s really getting closer to 600gm Co2/ Kwhr at the wheel of the EV.

I linked a table in my last post showing the average is 344gCO2/kWh for Ireland at night rate. Add on your 10% transmission loss here if you want to make that more accurate.

So, I think you are out a good bit at 600.


And most importantly anyway, none of his figures (or yours) discuss the well-wheel figures of the ICE. Its a hell of alot more than 140g/km when you take drilling, pumping, refining, pumping, transporting, pumping and THEN into a ICE to be burned at <50% efficiency.

No mention of NOx or PM on our streets either from him!
His submission to the assembly had vested interest written all over it.

Dardania

KCross wrote: »

This dude has some blinkers on....

David Timoney (C1-KZMWB48MK1CR), Director of the Master of Engineering (Energy Systems) degree programme at UCD states: “Electric vehicles (EVs) are most certainly not “Zero Emissions” vehicles. Based on a CO2 intensity estimate of 450 gCO2 per kWh for Irish electricity used to charge them, the emissions from an EV equate to about 81 gCO2 per km as compared to about 140 g per km for a diesel vehicle. This calculation ignores the very substantial amount CO2 emitted (elsewhere) in the manufacture of the battery. For a 30kWhr battery (such as used in the 2016 Nissan Leaf), the manufacturing process will generate approximately 4,500 to 6,000 kg of CO2. This will offset the gains made during the first 75,000-100,000km of vehicle operation”.

- How did he calculate 81gCO2/km?
- Taking the middle ground of 14kWh/100km that would equate to 63gCO2/km. However, his figure of 450gCO/kWh is high as per my table which gives an average over the last 9 months of 344gCO2/kWh so the real figure is 48gCO2/km, not 81!

- I dont know where the 6000kg of CO2 figure comes from, but based on the CO2 figures I'm not inclined to believe them without references and whatever the real figure, it will reduce as production scales up.
- His 75000-100000km offset figure is also obviously wrong based on his first set of figures as they are correlated to them.


- In any case, what was his point. That we shouldnt switch to EV? What about the other emissions issues? CO2 isnt the only/main reason to switch to EV.
- And like most anti-EV folks making these arguments there is no mention of well-wheel analysis for the ICE (drilling, refining, transporting the fuel).

- And the pièce de résistance... quick google of him in UCD gave this...
http://www.ucd.ie/research/people/mechanicalmaterialseng/assoc%20professordavidtimoney/

Look at the last entry.... "Development Engineer, Diesel Combustion Research Ricardo Consulting Engineers plc., Sussex, U.K"    :D:D

He has several recent papers and research projects on diesel particulates as well. That explains a few things!

In context of the scope of the Citizens Assembly, it's important to bear in mind the fundamental: that relying on individual cars for transport does have externalities like CO2 emission somewhere.
I have to say, I am a little mixed about EVs. I love the fact they are electrical, we can clean up the grid to power them etc. So at some point (following yourself & ABC101's thought process) the CO2 intensity will go down to somewhere I can be comfortable. However, they are still enabling a lifestyle where people can live separated from each other, outside of walking distance from shops, services etc. in houses that all still need to be heated - that isn't the most sustainable lifestyle compared to walk-able life, using public transport, apartments where the heat input is reduced due to sharing resources etc.

Jeditraining1

Evd-Burner wrote: »

"v. 99% of the Members recommended that the State should enable, through legislation,
the selling back into the grid of electricity from micro-generation by private citizens
(for example energy from solar panels or wind turbines on people’s homes or land) at
a price which is at least equivalent to the wholesale price."

I like the sound of that!

So do I, it will be interesting to see what the bodies in power make of the whole thing when they realise it will cost them money and realistically they cant charge us for their blunders...... oooohhh did I say that out loud :-)

ABC101

KCross wrote: »

Correct.




Close enough. Its 90-95% efficient based on the measurements I have taken on mine via a kWh meter on the charge point and an app that reads out the energy in the battery.




True.




Not sure that (or any of what you have above) matters a whole lot to my figures though. The efficiency figure I've used is a real world efficiency figure which includes the charger losses and all the other items you've listed above except the 10% transmission losses.

So, I'd still stand over the figures I've quoted.




I linked a table in my last post showing the average is 344gCO2/kWh for Ireland at night rate. Add on your 10% transmission loss here if you want to make that more accurate.

So, I think you are out a good bit at 600.


And most importantly anyway, none of his figures (or yours) discuss the well-wheel figures of the ICE. Its a hell of alot more than 140g/km when you take drilling, pumping, refining, pumping, transporting, pumping and THEN into a ICE to be burned at <50% efficiency.

No mention of NOx or PM on our streets either from him!
His submission to the assembly had vested interest written all over it.

For a figure of 450 grm which was quoted in the presentation above add 10% for transmission loss and and other 10% for charging losses and you arrive at around 550 grm CO2 / Kwhr which is not too far off 600. In addition that is just to get energy into the battery, further losses are encountered to get power out of the battery and into the motor.

So for a starting figure of 450 grm, I don’t think I’m too far off.

With respect to oil coming out of the ground, that is happening and will continue to happen long after all ICE vehicles are banned.

On another point I found a article on the www wrt energy required for production of a 24Kwhr Leaf battery. 89Gj was calculated which equates to around 24.2 Mwhr.

Www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pic/S0007850617301099


And that just for the battery, not to mention the motor or electronics (machine bridge / network bridge) or the rest of the car.

24.2 MWhr at 450 grm /Kwhr works out at over 10 tons of Co2 just to make the battery.

ozt9vdujny3srf

KCross wrote: »

This dude has some blinkers on....

Well he is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering - without seeing how he has come up with his figures, you can't be so quick to judge.

Jeditraining1

KCross wrote: »

This dude has some blinkers on....

David Timoney (C1-KZMWB48MK1CR), Director of the Master of Engineering (Energy Systems) degree programme at UCD states: “Electric vehicles (EVs) are most certainly not “Zero Emissions” vehicles. Based on a CO2 intensity estimate of 450 gCO2 per kWh for Irish electricity used to charge them, the emissions from an EV equate to about 81 gCO2 per km as compared to about 140 g per km for a diesel vehicle. This calculation ignores the very substantial amount CO2 emitted (elsewhere) in the manufacture of the battery. For a 30kWhr battery (such as used in the 2016 Nissan Leaf), the manufacturing process will generate approximately 4,500 to 6,000 kg of CO2. This will offset the gains made during the first 75,000-100,000km of vehicle operation”.

- How did he calculate 81gCO2/km?
- Taking the middle ground of 14kWh/100km that would equate to 63gCO2/km. However, his figure of 450gCO/kWh is high as per my table which gives an average over the last 9 months of 344gCO2/kWh so the real figure is 48gCO2/km, not 81!

- I dont know where the 6000kg of CO2 figure comes from, but based on the CO2 figures I'm not inclined to believe them without references and whatever the real figure, it will reduce as production scales up.
- His 75000-100000km offset figure is also obviously wrong based on his first set of figures as they are correlated to them.


- In any case, what was his point. That we shouldnt switch to EV? What about the other emissions issues? CO2 isnt the only/main reason to switch to EV.
- And like most anti-EV folks making these arguments there is no mention of well-wheel analysis for the ICE (drilling, refining, transporting the fuel).

- And the pièce de résistance... quick google of him in UCD gave this...
http://www.ucd.ie/research/people/mechanicalmaterialseng/assoc%20professordavidtimoney/

Look at the last entry.... "Development Engineer, Diesel Combustion Research Ricardo Consulting Engineers plc., Sussex, U.K" :D

He has several recent papers and research projects on diesel particulates as well. That explains a few things!

The same bias from the wrong people. When will reports ever be available from an unbiased approach. I had a rather heated conversation this morning with a former PM in generation from the EBS who argued that in terms of efficiency micro generation is a waste of time. While I in part agreed with him (more so to appease him) when I put it to him that it's not only about achieving greater efficiency but far larger reductions in the use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions all I got was silence. The mind set has to change.

KCross

ABC101 wrote: »

For a figure of 450 grm which was quoted in the presentation above add 10% for transmission loss and and other 10% for charging losses and you arrive at around 550 grm CO2 / Kwhr which is not too far off 600. In addition that is just to get energy into the battery, further losses are encountered to get power out of the battery and into the motor.

So for a starting figure of 450 grm, I don’t think I’m too far off.

As I already said, the 450 is wrong. Please see the link I gave which is real data for the Irish grid.

I also clarified that my efficiency figure of 14kWh/100km includes all the losses you mention except the 10% transmission loss. Again, real world verifiable figures.


So, the 600 is a good bit off.

ABC101 wrote: »

With respect to oil coming out of the ground, that is happening and will continue to happen long after all ICE vehicles are banned.

So, we can exclude that then from the debate?! Seriously!
If you are going to have a debate about emissions between ICE and EV you have to include Oil in that debate. Its just silly not to.

ABC101 wrote: »

On another point I found a article on the www wrt energy required for production of a 24Kwhr Leaf battery. 89Gj was calculated which equates to around 24.2 Mwhr.

Www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pic/S0007850617301099


And that just for the battery, not to mention the motor or electronics (machine bridge / network bridge) or the rest of the car.

24.2 MWhr at 450 grm /Kwhr works out at over 10 tons of Co2 just to make the battery.

I'll take a read of that.

Do also bear in mind that you shouldnt attribute all the CO2 of the battery manufacturing to the cars life. EV batteries can, and do, have a second life after the car is scrapped. Many examples out there already where hundreds of EV batteries are reused for grid storage type systems. The batteries can be used for 10+yrs after their car life so we should not attribute all the manufacturing CO2 to the car.

This is one of the more high profile examples but there are plenty others too:
http://www.amsterdamarena.nl/default-showon-page/amsterdam-arena-more-energy-efficient-with-battery-storage-.htm


The same cant be said of a used ICE.... once its done its done.

Adaline Gorgeous Yeast wrote: »

Well he is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering - without seeing how he has come up with his figures, you can't be so quick to judge.

Of course I can. If there are no references to where his figures came from you can judge all day long. How about if he is getting research money from the diesel industry? Do you think his analysis or opinion isnt biased or swayed by that?

You should always question things. Accepting his opinion as fact just because he has Prof in front of his name is not good.

ABC101

KCross wrote: »

As I already said, the 450 is wrong. Please see the link I gave which is real data for the Irish grid.

I also clarified that my efficiency figure of 14kWh/100km includes all the losses you mention except the 10% transmission loss. Again, real world verifiable figures.


So, the 600 is a good bit off.





So, we can exclude that then from the debate?! Seriously!
If you are going to have a debate about emissions between ICE and EV you have to include Oil in that debate. Its just silly not to.





I'll take a read of that.

Do also bear in mind that you shouldnt attribute all the CO2 of the battery manufacturing to the cars life. EV batteries can, and do, have a second life after the car is scrapped. Many examples out there already where hundreds of EV batteries are reused for grid storage type systems. The batteries can be used for 10+yrs after their car life so we should not attribute all the manufacturing CO2 to the car.

This is one of the more high profile examples but there are plenty others too:
http://www.amsterdamarena.nl/default-showon-page/amsterdam-arena-more-energy-efficient-with-battery-storage-.htm


The same cant be said of a used ICE.... once its done its done.




Of course I can. If there are no references to where his figures came from you can judge all day long. How about if he is getting research money from the diesel industry? Do you think his analysis or opinion isnt biased or swayed by that?

You should always question things. Accepting his opinion as fact just because he has Prof in front of his name is not good.

Kross well the 450 figure is what is used at the presentation is it not?

Regardless of the figure for Ireland’s Co2 intensity given the fact that Li Ion batteries are not made in Ireland it does not matter in this regard.

I have to admit Kross the tone of your comments are coming across as rather arrogant. You are convinced your figures are right and everybody else way out, not only myself but also this Professor with whom you disagree with. Whilst you seem to desire questioning what was presented at the assembly, your toleration for questioning your own logic appears rather low.

Li Ion batteries are most probably made in China, which has a much higher Co2 intensity figure than Ireland’s 450 or 330 (which ever you want to use). China Co2 intensity is probably well over 600, perhaps even more.

The fact still stands if you want to make a car, or a battery or a glass jar for instant coffee, energy intensity is important. If the manufacturer of a battery is a energy intensive process then that will impact the life cycle figures for the battery.

If the article I have linked is correct, a 24 Kwhr Leaf battery uses 89GJ of energy in production then it is important that the battery is made using energy from a renewable source. Otherwise the whole process starts to struggle to break even on a life cycle cost analysis.

On another thread here, concerns were raised about the Leaf 30 Kwhr battery rapid degradation. If this becomes prevalent then that battery may end up causing more environmental damage than it avoids.

KCross

ABC101 wrote: »

Kross well the 450 figure is what is used at the presentation is it not?

Regardless of the figure for Ireland’s Co2 intensity given the fact that Li Ion batteries are not made in Ireland it does not matter in this regard.

There were two distinct elements to his submission
- gCO2/km for an EV on the Irish grid
- gCO2 for battery manufacturing

The CO2 intensity figure is used to calculate the emissions from the car during use so its the Ireland figures matter for that element of what he submitted. The figures I've used are not "my" figures, as you put it, they are Eirgrids figures and are publically available.

If you dispute those figures please explain.


I did not rebut his battery manufacturing figures other than to say I didnt blindly believe them based on his first set of figures.

ABC101 wrote: »

I have to admit Kross the tone of your comments are coming across as rather arrogant. You are convinced your figures are right and everybody else way out, not only myself but also this Professor with whom you disagree with. Whilst you seem to desire questioning what was presented at the assembly, your toleration for questioning your own logic appears rather low.

Im not sure what tone you are getting from me. Im simply pointing out that his figures are wrong for gCO2/km. I've provided real Eirgrid figures, not "my" figures. Feel free to show me where Im wrong and I'll debate it with you. Its not a case of questioning my logic at all. Its facts and figures I'm working off of and I've provided them.

Whats arrogant about that?
Should I blindly accept everything the Prof says?

Are you saying his figures are accurate or do you just trust that he has done due diligence on it?

ABC101 wrote: »

Li Ion batteries are most probably made in China, which has a much higher Co2 intensity figure than Ireland’s 450 or 330 (which ever you want to use). China Co2 intensity is probably well over 600, perhaps even more.

I have no figures for the CO2 to manufacture a battery and havent claimed otherwise.

I could be wrong but I thought the European Leaf batteries were manufactured in an AESC plant in Sunderland.

Any batteries made in China are likely used for Chinese EV's (BYD etc) as China is the largest EV market in the world and keeping its manufacturing for itself.

ABC101 wrote: »

The fact still stands if you want to make a car, or a battery or a glass jar for instant coffee, energy intensity is important. If the manufacturer of a battery is a energy intensive process then that will impact the life cycle figures for the battery.

On another thread here, concerns were raised about the Leaf 30 Kwhr battery rapid degradation. If this becomes prevalent then that battery may end up causing more environmental damage than it avoids.

I agree with the sentiment in this paragraph. It has to stack up on a whole lifecycle basis.


You should add these to the argument though if you want a whole lifecycle debate...
- Second life of the battery. Example given. Can provide several more if you wish.

- Well-Wheel for ICE. You've made a good point above when you said "If the manufacturer of a battery is a energy intensive process then that will impact the life cycle figures for the battery." It is strange then that you would discount the same energy intensive process to create petrol/diesel but are intent on applying the full rigours to the EV emission lifecycle.

- Air quality.. NOx and PM specifically. It was notably absent from his submission. Reducing the argument to just CO2 is wrong. If it turned out that EV was no better than ICE for CO2 but it removed NOX and PM from our streets it would still be better to go EV for that alone. What do you think?

ABC101 wrote: »

On another thread here, concerns were raised about the Leaf 30 Kwhr battery rapid degradation. If this becomes prevalent then that battery may end up causing more environmental damage than it avoids.

I agree. It remains to be seen whether that study is prevalent. There are question marks over that study. If you get to the original published paper there were several question marks over how the data was captured in the comments section by other researchers who peer reviewed it.

It is known that hot climates dont play well with Li-ion so it might be a case that EV's are not yet ready for those climates.

ABC101 wrote: »

If the article I have linked is correct, a 24 Kwhr Leaf battery uses 89GJ of energy in production then it is important that the battery is made using energy from a renewable source. Otherwise the whole process starts to struggle to break even on a life cycle cost analysis.

Unfortunately the link you gave on CO2 battery manufacturing takes me to a "page does not exist". Can you check the link again please.

DM1983

Couldn't disagree more with the "arrogant" comment. As a long time lurker and at the risk of "fan girling", I have to say that I really enjoy all your posts KCross. Always sound, balanced, well constructed arguments. Genuinely, if you had a blog or podcast I would subscribe. Fair play.

ozt9vdujny3srf

KCross wrote: »

You should always question things. Accepting his opinion as fact just because he has Prof in front of his name is not good.

Yes, but you didn't just question his opinion. You called him blinkered.

KCross

Adaline Gorgeous Yeast wrote: »

Yes, but you didn't just question his opinion. You called him blinkered.

Maybe the blinkered comment is a bit harsh, I'll give you that, but that term was used because of his association with diesel so he has a "blinkered" view in that he would rather see diesel continue than to have EV take over, imo.

I think its a fair observation on my part but just my opinion. Others can judge for themselves. His submission certainly had an anti-EV tone to it using, what I believe, to be incorrect figures. And there wasnt a corresponding balance of his CO2 figures on the diesel side (i.e. well-wheel analysis) while at the same time adding battery manufacturing to the EV side.... its not a balanced argument... hence blinkered/biased.

samih

Why is is that when EVs as discussed the carbon intensity of the battery manufacturing is always mentioned even when the battery is just one part of the process. The way I see it: Once the battery elements have been excavated from the ground and made to current generation battery cells they can the infinitely recycled and better batteries manufactured from the same raw materials in the future when the technology gets better. The same as the old car bodies can be recycled and made into new car bodies.

Try to do that with a tankful of diesel.