Last June a group of scientists led by Professor Richard Herrington, the Natural History Museum’s head of earth science, warned the government that to replace all cars on British roads with EVs, UK demand for the batteries needed would require almost twice the world’s current yearly supply of cobalt, the total amount of neodymium produced globally every year, three-quarters of the world’s annual supply of lithium and at least half its copper supply. No prizes for guessing the effect of this (even if it were feasible) on the prices of these minerals, and therefore the ultimate cost to the consumer. And what about the CO2 emissions generated by this vast excavatory process (chiefly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt reserves)? According to Tim Worstall, a former trader in rare elements: “VW has released the comparative numbers for its new electric Golf against the diesel version. The all-clean, all-climate-friendly version must do 120,000km [75,000 miles]” to break even, “given the emissions required to make the thing.”
Is anyone surprised that to build more electric cars there will need to be more resources of items like cobalt?
How much co2 does the Democratic Republic of Congo produce? How much will it go up?
How many miles must a normal ICE car have to do to break even? Is this including or excluding fuel?
|
|
I’m reminded of the "Great Horse Manure Crisis" (not that I lived through it!) … at the turn of the last century there were over 11,000 horse-drawn hansom cabs on the streets of London plus several thousand horse-drawn buses, totalling over 50,000 horses transporting people around the city each day.
Each horse was estimated to deposit 15-35 lb (that’s 7-15 kg in “new money”) of manure on the streets each day (and I do remember running out into the street with a bucket to collect some of these fragrant offerings for my father’s chrysanthemums), so there was great concern at the implications.
As far back as 1894 that authoritative newspaper, the Times, had extrapolated the figures to calculate that by the middle of the 20th century “every street in London will be buried under 9 feet of manure”.
The world’s first international urban planning conference held in New York in 1898 could suggest no answers and it seemed that urban civilisation was doomed (does that sound familiar?).
Of course the internal combustion engine was the great saviour of the planet (or at least the streets of London) … so it is somewhat ironic that it has now become the demon destroyer!
As a scientist I do believe that climate change is happening, and is at least partially attributable to human activity, but I’m not entirely persuaded that present technologies have the answers we shall need - whilst being optimistic that new solutions will be found.
|
There is an interesting report in this weeks Sunday Times that concludes that the greenest machine is the one in your garage.
In short it concludes that as much as half of a cars lifetime footprint is from its manufacture , so buying a new one , even an EV is polluting.
I didn't realise that Hybrids will be included in the 2035 ban .
|
|
In short it concludes that as much as half of a cars lifetime footprint is from its manufacture , so buying a new one , even an EV is polluting.
Yes I keep reading this but to stop making cars or anything else for that matter the world economy collapses.
|
Yes I keep reading this but to stop making cars or anything else for that matter the world economy collapses.
Perhaps that is what we all need :-) I made a totally unscientific prediction a few years ago that by the end of this century all the world's useful resources will have been exploited, and there will be little left but a pile of old money - and piles of crushed cars, I forgot those. Complete conversion to useless 'wealth'. Based on an undiverted extrapolation of course.
|
|
Columbo set us all an example all those years ago by driving an eleven year old Peugeot 403 which was even more battered than him !
|
|
|
|
Climate change is real - there is sufficient documented research and data to demonstrate this unambiguously. People are right to point out that climate has always fluctuated but generally in line with known variations in solar output, and changes to earths orbit and axis of rotation.
What differentiates changes now is that they cannot be explained by "natural" variation. The speed of change is a now major threat simply due to the number of people on the planet. When homo sapien was a hunter gatherer 5000 years ago they moved to where the food was. 200 years ago there were only around 1bn on the planet - now there are 7-8bn.
However climate change is being used as the default explanation to support flawed research, skewed agendas and conclusions - eg:
- fish stocks in a particular area may decline due to a warming ocean but no regard for the possibility the may wriggle their tails and swim somwhere cooler
- low rainfall may cause drought in some areas but no regard is taken of more northern areas which may then become agriculturally or arboreally more productive
|
|
|
|
but to stop making cars or anything else for that matter the world economy collapses.
Who mentioned making no cars? They said the greenest car is the one you already have...if people kept cars until they wore out then we would not need as many built but still need a lot of them.
|
|
<< .if people kept cars until they wore out then we would not need as many built but still need a lot of them. >>
Car manufacturing is such an essential part of the economy that any government will keep the handouts coming as long as they possibly can. Perhaps the main problem is that owners get bored with their car after a few years - or the warranty runs out.
|
|
Every additional electric car with cobalt in its battery means one less petrol or diesel car which runs on fuel that has been desuphurised in a process that uses . . . wait for it . . . cobalt!
Imagine in 1900 people saying . . . "What I want to know is where will all the petroleum spirit come from if we're going to have thousands of these new-fangled motor cars on our roads?"
Edited by Sofa Spud on 11/02/2020 at 10:01
|
Every additional electric car with cobalt in its battery means one less petrol or diesel car which runs on fuel that has been desuphurised in a process that uses . . . wait for it . . . cobalt!
So how much cobalt is consumed per annum by desulphurisation? Without that info we can't make any meaningful comparison.
|
|
I have to admit I do not know the data behind the effectiveness of these vehicles on the actual climate, and it gives me a migraine when I try unlike the 4th gen programming I have done in the past.
I draw you attention the longevity of batteries, and the cost of replacing them, the first s not good and the 2nd expensive. So is it really eco friendly if you have to replace all the batteries on average every 100'000 miles on average.
Is it financially affordable when the cost of this can range from 1'000 to 6'000 on average, plus labour costs as this is just the cost of the batteries, and you should bear in mind all the batteries that have been spent and have to be disposed of, if they cannot be re-used. Add the extra cost of an electric car of the same spec and you soon realise it is not cheap. Esp compared to the life expectancy of a diesel or petrol engine, and the cheaper cost of extending the life of that engine.
I think the cost of all of this will keep people away from electric cars for as long as possible, and if you are thinking hybrids are any better, and as was suggested in another post to use fuel only when the batteries cannot hold a charge any more, how much more fuel will you lose carrying those dead batteries.
PS Is the fuel tank smaller on hybrid cars of the same type then their fossil fuel alternative ? Serious question as I honestly do not know, and if it is a lot smaller wont carrying those dead batteries mean more fuel used, and more frequent trips to the petrol station ?
|
I draw you attention the longevity of batteries, and the cost of replacing them, the first s not good and the 2nd expensive. So is it really eco friendly if you have to replace all the batteries on average every 100'000 miles on average.
How much real world evidence is there of EV's suffering battery failure to extent that replacement is necessary? How long is warranty on battery?
In some, for example the Zoe, it is possible to lease the batteries as an alternative to buying outright. An awful lot of people take cars on 3yr PCP so provided warranty isat least three years it's not an issue.
It's also far from unknown for conventional ICE cars to eat their own engine if (eg) turbo fails or timing gear lets go. Plenty of examples from visitors to this site!!
|
|
<< ... it is possible to lease the batteries as an alternative to buying outright. An awful lot of people take cars on 3yr PCP so provided warranty is at least three years it's not an issue. >>
It may not be an 'issue' for the first owner, but it may still be an overall ecological issue. I can't think of any type of battery with an unlimited life - usually rather dependent on the number of charging cycles it can take.
|
|
One major thing not in the favour of EVs from Tesla is that apparently, in the US at least, they completely disregard owners of cars after tha car reaches 10yo, and will not licence anyone else to make parts or carry out authorised maintenance/repairs backed by a warranty.
I wonder if this happens elsewhere, as it could make them obsolete well before the rest of the car actually needs to be scrapped.
|
|
James Rupport who is well know for his stand on Bangernomics is releasing a new book on the subject.
Understand he concludes that politicians may have accepted that EV s are zero emission !
|
James Rupport who is well know for his stand on Bangernomics is releasing a new book on the subject.
Understand he concludes that politicians may have accepted that EV s are zero emission !
Maybe they think the cars can be equally recharged by converting the hot air eminating from their pie holes into electricity.
|
|
This thread is a perfect example of the problem with the climate change debate, regardless of which side of the fence you sit.
It is full of "facts" posted without any knowledge of their accuracy. Even worse, everyone selects or interprets their "facts" to support their particular prejudice.
|
This thread is a perfect example of the problem with the climate change debate, regardless of which side of the fence you sit.
It is full of "facts" posted without any knowledge of their accuracy. Even worse, everyone selects or interprets their "facts" to support their particular prejudice.
Exactly. My belief is that many scientists are 'herding' by fitting their science to their own beliefs (especially political ones) so that their 'research' always shows what they want it to.
Science has been like this in the past, though less about political agendas and more about 'fitting in' with scientific opinion to not be seen as an 'outsider' or a pariah.
|
|
We are getting very close to the tipping point for EVs - the point at which the desire (economic and environmental) for EV starts to materially exceed that of ICE.
Over the last decade the price of batteries has fallen from around £800 to £120-150 per KWh.
The range of "everyday" EVs has increased to 150-250+ miles depending on driving style, model and pack size. For most people, most of the time this will more than meet their needs.
The cost of EVs has fallen although they are still around £6-10k more than a roughly equivalent ICE. But with reducing battery costs and higher volume economies of scale they may be very close to conventionally powered vehicles in 2-3 years.
Recharging was and still is an issue. But fast chargers are capable of recharging to 80% in less than 30 minutes. With a range of (say) 200 miles a long journey could be undertaken with a normal break for a coffee and facilities every 3 hours.
EVs are technically far simpler than ICE - no gearbox or clutch, a handful of moving motor parts vs several hundred in ICE. Ultimately much cheaper to maintain.
The key outstanding issue is power generation and distribution. But if demand for power is there the energy companies will want to provide it - thats how they make a profit and keep shareholders happy.
The transition will not be seamless, there will be problems - but do not kid yourself that it will not happen. EVs are a disruptive technology - just as the car was when the main motive power was the horse, email mostly replaced snailmail, smartphones allowed Uber etc to challenge traditional taxis, online shopping is killing off the high street etc.
And the new infrastructure required for these happened inside a decade. Don't think it was easy - eg: cars replacing horses needed roads, oil industry, petrol stations, garages, tyres etc. Stables were no longer required, grooms often became motor mechanics, saddle and harness makers went to the wall, etc etc.
|
EVs are a disruptive technology - just as the car was when the main motive power was the horse, email mostly replaced snailmail, smartphones allowed Uber etc to challenge traditional taxis, online shopping is killing off the high street etc.
Yes, we realise there have been precedents, but the transitions you list took place because they offered immediate tangible improvements for the 'customer'. I don't think EVs do that, at least not yet. Their USP is to reduce pollution in urban areas by causing it elsewhere. EVs are not noticeably better for buyers except by providing access to places where ICE vehicles can't go, while having shortcomings in range and speed (and so far, convenience) of recharging.
|
Their USP is to reduce pollution in urban areas by causing it elsewhere.
Some is moved elsewhere but even tonight when the demand is enough that we're using coal fired plant 40% of power is from renewables and another 16% from nuclear.
Not sure where gas fits in. Clearly involves CO2 but how is it for NOx or particulates?
|
|
<< Not sure where gas fits in. Clearly involves CO2 but how is it for NOx or particulates? >>
Gas combustion is essentially the same as petrol. Most of the NOx comes from diesels which ignite by a higher compression ratio. That reaction is able to involve atmospheric nitrogen, which is mostly unaffected by spark-initiated combustion.
|
|
The Earth's climate has fluctuated for millions of years. The whole 'climate change' fraud is perpetuated by scientists who depend on a steady stream of grant income to fund their comfortable lifestyles and final salary pensions. Of course they find evidence of climate change! All this is of course backed and funded by a powerful global left-wing elite - these are the same people who opposed Brexit and (unsuccessfully) planted hundreds of Project Fear stories! Notice how nothing changed after Brexit and all the Project Fear stories have stopped?
|
The Earth's climate has fluctuated for millions of years. The whole 'climate change' fraud is perpetuated by scientists who depend on a steady stream of grant income to fund their comfortable lifestyles and final salary pensions. Of course they find evidence of climate change! All this is of course backed and funded by a powerful global left-wing elite - these are the same people who opposed Brexit and (unsuccessfully) planted hundreds of Project Fear stories! Notice how nothing changed after Brexit and all the Project Fear stories have stopped?
If this is true why are there not a whole load of equally well off scientists on the opposite side getting fat on funding from big oil and the motor industry?
And since we're presently in transition with no change Brexit has yet to happen.
|
The Earth's climate has fluctuated for millions of years. The whole 'climate change' fraud is perpetuated by scientists who depend on a steady stream of grant income to fund their comfortable lifestyles and final salary pensions.
Oh God, another lunatic conspiracy theorist. I assume he is not a scientist (or he might think differently) and distrusts those who are. Presumably the flooding here and record temps elsewhere are just acts of God, or fake news to satisfy the media.
Or maybe it's just a wind-up ....
Edited by Andrew-T on 12/02/2020 at 09:49
|
|
"And the new infrastructure required for these happened inside a decade. Don't think it was easy - eg: cars replacing horses needed roads, oil industry, petrol stations, garages, tyres etc. Stables were no longer required, grooms often became motor mechanics, saddle and harness makers went to the wall, etc etc."
That was easy..
Large scale adaptation of EVs requires largescale very expensive rewiring of substations , (all 40k + of them), distribution networks and cables. It will cost tens of £billions, take years and need to be planned.
The National Gird has produced a paper : https://www.nationalgrid.com/document/125116/download
which basically proposes a series of high speed chargers at Motorway Service Areas.. (MSAs) The leadtime to produce each one is 4 YEARS. (form start of planning).
They reckon then everyone whould be within 50 miles of one so charging will be practical..
This was all predicated on a all EVs not by 2035 as recently announced but later. And Government Agreement to funding by 2019!!!!!!!!!!
(not happened but this was announced https://www.ndors.org.uk/400-million-boost-announced-for-uk-ev-charging-network/)
It is worth reading. (and despairing)
Edited by madf on 12/02/2020 at 10:32
|
|
|
|
