Is electric really the answer?

[C8RKH]

Lol the irony is that the same old posters all drive ICE vehicles for fun and not for fun... Go figure.

Oh, and you can click the button to unfollow or hide the thread so there really is no need to suffer for it.

[scotty435]

If members that think the thread as run it’s course they can simply stop participating in the debate. We can not all be a expert on every thread in the forum or can we🤔

[C8RKH]

Would be good to get some insightful contributions from new entrants, so I agree with you.

Really looking forward to reading and debating them.

 

[eUKenGB]

15 hours ago, machine7 said:

They say that about plastics at the moment. If https://www.myheru.com/ devices are installed in all homes and businesses, then plastics and all waste becomes an energy source. (And based in Worcester too👍).

I thought that was looking a terrific idea and something I definitely would be interested in when it comes to market, then…

I saw the price. £20K for a home unit. I won't live long enough to get anywhere close to re-couping such an outlay, let alone actually come out on top financially.

As is so often the case, the upfront costs they want to charge for the benefit of being 'greener' makes it simply not worth it.

Most stuff we buy simply doesn't need all the wrapping and packaging that creates so much of the garbage we have to deal with. Here's a radical idea. Instead of shops wrapping everything in nasty packaging, for which we are then expected to cough up £20K in order to be able to deal with it all, how about the shops, er, don't wrap and package everything?

I realise it's a tricky concept for retailers to grasp, but I suggest it would be better to start there than with expensive devices we are expected to buy just to deal with the resulting garbage. Just don't make it in the first place. Or is that too radical? 😀

[KAS-118]

59 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

It’s got to be THE most tedious thread on here. Same few posters only. No-one else is interested. It’s difficult to avoid, since they post so regularly, meaning that it’s always near the top of the thread list.

Anyway, just my opinion, so I’ll keep well out of it from now on, unless someone on here buys an Evija.

Poor Pete - he has a thread which is quickly approaching 20 pages and you want to kill it off before it gets there!? 😱

🙂

[KAS-118]

On a separate note - I see ABB (who sponsor Formula E) have just launched their own domestic chargers https://new.abb.com/ev-charging/terra-ac-wallbox

They're predicting 28m Global EV sales by 2030. 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by KAS-118

[eUKenGB]

7 hours ago, C8RKH said:

...

I for one am not convinced that BEV's in their current form are the answer. ...

So the car is becoming a pariah in my circles. It is expensive to make (raw materials, consumption of energy etc). It pollutes the environment (even BEV's give off the damaging brake and tyre particulates). It takes us too much space.  For these reasons you can argue that personal cars and urban living are not compatible. Remember, although we have had an explosion of car ownership, we have also over the same period had a population explosion. So, in the 50's, few people, especially in our major towns and cities had a car, probably up to the early 70's.  When a household did have a car. It had one.  So the streets could cope. Congestion and pollution was tolerable. Etc.  However, over the past 30 years we have had an explosion is car ownership, driven by increased wealth, more affordability (cheap finance anyone) and population growth. So slowly, our streets have filled with moving cars. That increasingly have become log jammed cars. Surrounded on all sides by parked cars. In short, many of our streets in towns and cities are choked, filled to capacity. Space is very much at a premium.

I have to say, I do have a slight problem with comments along the lines of "this thread is boring" or "is pointless". It is tantamount to stating that your interests are so much more important than what is being discussed, which is a somewhat arrogant point of view. Let those who wish to discuss the topic continue to do so and if it really does not interest you, don't read it. The fact it may be at the top of a 'new topics' list doesn't mean you have to view it. I would find discussion about the Elise and/or Exige, or quite frankly any Lotus other than the Evora, to be of no interest whatsoever, boring even if I actually spent the time reading them. But I would never presume to tell everyone involved in such discussion that it is uninteresting, pointless, boring, or whatever. As well as arrogant, it seems kinda rude to me. I just don't read those topics that don't interest me. Simple.

But back to this fascinating topic of EVs.

It is worth pointing out that although any road vehicle will continue to produce tyre pollution, that is not the case with brake waste/pollution from BEVs. With the use of regenerative braking, actual use of the brakes that causes the wear on the brake pads/shoes and hence the pollution is very much reduced. Almost eliminated, depending on the type of driving. Also, although not previously mentioned, almost all those 'service items' that an ICE vehicle requires to be replaced and thrown away at alarmingly regular intervals, are eliminated on a BEV. Manufacturers nowadays stipulate unnecessary replacement intervals just to provide work for the dealers. There is no way that an air filter needs changing after only a couple of years, when the car has maybe only done very few miles, or none at all. They do NOT magically disintegrate within the airbox of an unused vehicle any more than they would do sat on a shelf in a warehouse somewhere. Products like that have no 'sell by' date and owners are being hoodwinked by the manufacturers into changing stuff that doesn't need changing. Modern synthetic oil to be changed every year, even if not used? Ridiculous. This sort of scam should be illegal and is also unacceptable in the context of this topic since the switch to EVs is primarily related to reducing pollution, while the manufacturers continue to force the wastage of large quantities of car parts and huge volumes of lubricants such as engine oil. This form of pollution will be almost entirely eliminated by BEVs, yet it is barely mentioned when discussing their pros and cons.

I would also point out that Hybrids don't solve that problem as with an ICE included, they continue to create that same type of wastage. Their much smaller electric capability will necessarily also restrict their ability to use regen. braking to reduce brake pollution to anything like the same extent as full BEVs.

I am also puzzled how Bibs, who drives a Lotus for the driving experience can contemplate a Hybrid. If a BEV doesn't provide the visceral thrill of driving such a brilliant ICE powered vehicle, I rather think a Hybrid (unless of the exotic sports type) will be sorely disappointing as neither the ICE, nor the electric component of its propulsion system will be in any way thrilling. While they offer some battery only capability, it is very restricted compared to a BEV, with very limited performance and range. I'm afraid I am very much of the opinion that PHEVs (Hybrids) are merely a stopgap for those who have not yet grasped, or accepted the advantages of a full EV. But that is JMO. 😀

With regard to BEVs or just public transportation and no private cars, I think we're just talking different time frames. ICE will not be replaced by public transport alone, although I think it a very real possibility that is the ultimate result. ICE will be replaced by electric and eventually, maybe, private vehicles will also become obsolete due to changing personal habits and through legislation. I will see the former, but not the latter.

Over the coming months we should be seeing the announcements from Tesla that raise the battery bar. Although still speculation at this stage, it looks very much like they will be announcing new battery tech gained from their acquisition of Maxwell, likely to be the 'solid state' design and with new constituents that will improve power density as well as discharge and re-charge capability, both in terms of the time taken and also the percentage usable for the thousands of cycles that will provide the multi-million mile capability that is expected.

One inescapable fact is that battery technology is progressing rapidly, whereas other forms of power storage and distribution, like hydrogen, not so much, if at all. This is not down to any personal bias of mine. It's just what is happening. No one should base their expectation of our vehicular future on what exists NOW. One has to look forward at how technologies will develop and there is clear evidence that batteries will play a big part. As I have pointed out previously, Hydrogen (fuel cell) powered vehicles also require batteries, so if your concern is battery production and recycling and pollution thereof, Hydrogen is not your solution as a source of fuel. The current limitations of BEVs, due to range and re-charging while not on your own property are being dealt with. Human endeavour will and is being used to overcome those problems. Overcoming the laws of Physics makes Hydrogen a much harder nut to crack and hence less likely to be seen as playing as large a part in our electric future compared to batteries.

Although I understand why this discussion might be compared with that of religion, there is a HUGE difference. Here, we are discussing mostly fact, whereas that doesn't enter into any religious debate. While I firmly believe that electric is the answer, I do see some possible variation on how the electricity might be produced. But whatever is discussed, facts are facts and should be based on reality. There have been some wild misconceptions aired in this thread but real facts are important. Opinions are something else. We can all have different opinions, but the facts are the same for all of us.

Edited May 20, 2020 by eUKenGB

[Bibs]

I have 3 cars, they all do different things for me. The Plug In will replace my VW daily driver and save me some money on fuel. That's it really. 

As I've said before, that suits my driving profile. 90% of journeys are local but occasionally I work far away with a lot of equipment, a car full. I wouldn't, in fact can't use my Lotus for that as it's my fun car and the kit wouldn't fit and to be fair it would get jiggled about a bit too much in the corners for my liking. I have to be on sites very early and there's no way I'd want to get up an hour earlier to have to stop and charge my car, time spent travelling to me to work is dead time and I don't want to increase it. If I'm on a job for 2/3 days that'll include driving and no assurance of local charging so well over 300 miles at times over that duration. How is a plug in EV not ideal for my circumstances? 

[KAS-118]

On the Battery Tech front I see GM are now talking up their Ultium batteries - saying that they anticipate twice the energy density as currently achieved and a 500 - 600 mile range is in sight. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1128221_gm-battery-chief-600-mile-evs-viable-million-mile-battery-in-sight

@Bibs - am I wrong in thinking that you work for Lotus? If so, don't you get a Geely Group discount? If so, and you want a Hybrid - wouldn't the Volvo XC-40 Recharge (Hybrid version not full EV) suffice?

Just a thought......

[KAS-118]

Also in the news is the announcement of a Tesla rivalling EV battery factory in the UK by AMTE Power and Britishvolt https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/20/uk-first-car-battery-gigafactory-amte-power-britishvolt

However, they're still some way off from getting both funding and approval -  but I guess at least its a start. 

[C8RKH]

I think that part of the problem with a topic like this is its size and scope.  It is not just about cars whether ICE, Hybrid BEV or whatever. I think even up until 12 months ago it was more about cars than it is now as I really believe the future for cars is looking bleak regardless of their propulsion systems.

The world has slipped up a gear and is now starting to move faster than ever and the debate is even switching from environmental concerns and change (because by and large the environmentalists believe they have the public support and have won that battle - not the war mind, but that battle) to social and societal change.  The current younger working generations are not prepared to work like we have. Spending long periods starting from the bottom, building experience and getting promoted etc.  The much talked about gig economy is changing their outlook. Housing. Social. CSR. Innovation. Entrepreneurship. These are the things that now excite them. Young people are drinking less. Going out less. I find it remarkable that no one picked up on my comments around the fact that they are driving less, taking their tests later, and just not buying cars.  These things are all well documented and accepted.

Through participating in this thread, my views on BEV and alternatives have shifted. I still do not see them as the answer but I do accept they have a part to play. I think Hydrogen Fuel Cell will probably not compete in cars (evidence of a change of view) but I do think they will have a bigger part to play in powering our HGVs, trains, buses etc. A good debate is one where views can be influenced and amended through "debate" - just blinding sticking to your point because you have to be right is not having  debate in my opinion. 

I find it incredible to have an idea of the future (i.e. forward looking when I have been accused of being stuck in the past/backward looking) that looks beyond BEV easily dismissed.  I truly believe we at the cusp of the next transport revolution and I do now believe that the days of the car are numbered.  Look at the legislation coming out from Europe. All cars in a couple of years will be speed limited and will have to have the ability to be monitored and limited to avoid speeding based on GPS and other data in real time. Combine that with the advances and pilots in autonomous vehicles and the desire to reclaim space in our urban areas from roads/cars and you have the perfect storm for change.  Yet I am told this is  years away, but then when you point out that the infrastructure required to truly convert to BEV is also years away you are just discounted.  The problem with this thread was it became something where people where just determined to plug a single agenda and prove that they were right, as opposed to listening and reflecting.  Indeed, I have re read my recent posts and it is clear to me (sorry if it is not clear to others) that my stance and my focus has shifted on the subject, I've even stopped winding some people up but that's because I've hidden their posts lol as the arguments were going nowhere. Partly it has been influenced by this thread, some additional points made that have then driven a desire for additional research as all this stuff is relevant to my work anyway. But it does feel like sometimes you are having to fight with the Peoples Republic of BEV and if you don't assimilate to their vision or belief of BEV then you are an outcast.

However, still @eUKenGB I find that people are quick to point out the environmental impact of ICE. We all know it is bad. But then the true environmental impact of BEV is largely glossed over. The facts seem to be always swayed in favour of BEV no matter what. Lithium Ion batteries are bloody dirty and environmentally disastrous things to create when you look at how they are made, where the raw materials come from, how much raw material is needed etc. But instead of a real true understanding of this it is ignored and the ICE is shortfalls are brought up. It is widely accepted and indeed published by the European Environment Agency that whilst BEV's will have a significant reduction in GHG's during use over ICE vehicles, the GHG footprint for the manufacturing of the BEV is significantly higher than for an ICE vehicle due to the energy requirements (and mix) required for the raw material extraction and processing as well as producing the batteries.  So some of the "run GHG savings need to be offset against the manufacturing ones and this is something many BEV proponents find hard to accept. Also, again according to the EEA the "run" benefits of GHG's are severely influenced by the energy sourced used to generate the electricity. For instance, if Coal is used (agreed, this is not likely in the UK but is very likely across the Globe and endemic in Europe) then the GHG emissions of a BEV may actually exceed, on a mile for mile basis those of an ICE!  Remarkable! So for start of live (build) BEV is behind, it catches and over takes (possibly) during "run" but what about end of life?  From 2015 manufacturers have had to be able to demonstrate and evidence that an ICE can be capable of being recycled to over 95% of it's weight.  The systems, the processes, the facilities to undertake large scale recycling of BEV's are coming. But, at scale, they are not there yet and so the final "bill" re full lifecycle GHG emissions is difficult to determine between BEV and ICE. Who'd have thought reading this thread that it was such a close call, even if the BEV wins?

A lot of the arguments that have been used to support BEV and how "easy it is" to just rollout everything is to based on using technology "pilots", announcements of breakthroughs or future developments and trials" to justify how easy it will be. That's an ignorant approach to me. It shows a lack of real understanding. The art of the possible is not the same as the possible. A pilot can fail as well as succeed. New promising technology can bomb as quickly as its star rises.  These things are irrelevant UNTIL they can be deployed and used at scale.

So I'm all up for debating. But it has to be based on real options that are available now. Otherwise, I will take the BEV supporters view and  solely point to the "art of the possible" and future studies and trials and pilots and new technologies to discount any practical argument to state that the Urban future (note this is about densely populated inner cities and towns) solution will be based on more socially focused environments. That will be cleaner and safer for the citizens with more space put aside for them. That future will have significantly less cars in it, whatever propulsion systems will be used as the space to drive them. To park them. To charge them. And to store them, will be given over to other more socially acceptable needs and uses. The future is inevitable, but just how big a role will the car play in it especially when you look at the funding/tax implications of fleecing a dying volume of ICE drivers to subsidise BEV. At some point the needle on the scales tips.

Coming soon to a town or city near you? The latter of three pictures below have been in use at Heathrow for years....

 

[eUKenGB]

2 hours ago, C8RKH said:

However, still @eUKenGB I find that people are quick to point out the environmental impact of ICE. We all know it is bad. But then the true environmental impact of BEV is largely glossed over. The facts seem to be always swayed in favour of BEV no matter what. Lithium Ion batteries are bloody dirty and environmentally disastrous things to create when you look at how they are made, where the raw materials come from, how much raw material is needed etc. But instead of a real true understanding of this it is ignored and the ICE is shortfalls are brought up.

Andy (if I can call you that, rather than C8RKH) I am very much aware of the softening of your attitude towards BEVs and I applaud you for that as it shows you are thinking about it rather than simply repeating the same thing over and over again. If nothing else, I hope this thread has served to educate others who might otherwise have remained more ignorant of the subject.

I agree with almost everything you said, but have to respond to your point that people use the facts and arguments that support their case as everyone does that, but there needs to be a better understanding of the composition and production of batteries. They are not the root of all evil as you claim. There are certainly some components that are somewhat undesirable, but part of the technological improvements that are being developed is to reduce those, while also increasing performance. An important point that is also often missed is that batteries are not 'used' like fossil fuel. With the imminent introduction of million mile and greater batteries, they will be lasting more than the lifetime of the rest of the car and when it's all over, they CAN be recycled and all those components that are so objectionable from the point of view of mining, extraction etc just get re-used in new batteries. In fact as explained in the video I recently linked to, not only are they able to re-claim over 90% of the constituents of a re-cycled battery, but they are looking to achieve 100%. Also, the energy left in the batteries as they arrive for re-cycling can currently provide 50% of the power requirements of the re-cycling process itself. Perhaps the biggest problem of re-cycling batteries is the danger due to that retained energy. But once that has been dealt with, the process is really quite straightforward. It has to be said though that standardised batteries would make it all a lot easier.

This is all completely different from fossil fuel which is used once and turned into pollution. There's no re-cycling of petrol after it's been used once.

What concerns me is the myth and propaganda dispensed by those who have an agenda and then regurgitated by those who know no better. It's easy to spread nasty rumours about batteries. They're made of chemicals and magic and everyone knows that chemicals are bad. In fact batteries are no big deal in that regard. Petrol is stuffed with benzene based carcinogens used to replace lead, but the governments already sold us down that path so long ago it's been forgotten now and never gets a mention - not by said governments of course as they don't want to be seen as having wasted so much time and money while forcing us to end up with even worse health concerns.

Lithium is a very abundant element and no worse than other similarly 'nasty' elements like Potassium and Sodium, which are used in fertiliser and to flavour our food respectively. Lithium is not used in batteries as bare metal, but just as a salt, like the aforementioned Sodium Chloride and in any case it only comprises about 2% of a battery. The use of Cobalt in batteries is also vilified, but its use is being reduced, with the aim to eliminate its requirement. But these are all elements that can be recovered by re-cycling the batteries and as they get ever closer to 100% recyclability, there will be less and less need for mining and extraction of additional quantities.

I'm not blindly committed to batteries. If someone came up with a superior mobile source of electrical power, I'd be all for it. We HAVE to aim for 100% recyclable and reusable EVERYTHING. This planet is a finite resource. We cannot keep using it up. Nowhere is this more apparent than with fossil fuel. No matter how much anyone may bemoan the loss of the ICE, it WILL happen. There will come a time when there is NO MORE OIL. Better that we find a replacement BEFORE it happens. The governments realise that the population will never do that of its own accord and so ours has mandated that only electric cars can be sold after 2035. Like it or not, that's what IS going to happen. All we should be doing really is figuring out the best way to replace it and electric power is the obvious choice. It is THE perfect form of energy.

Don't be fooled into thinking we can simply make sufficient petrol from crops etc as while it can be done, it would take an area larger than this planet to grow sufficient suitable crops in order to produce anything like the required volume of petrol etc. It's just not a practical consideration. It is however a possibility in small quantities for specialist applications that require petrol, but not for mass consumption in everyone's ICE powered vehicle.

So the only possible replacement is electric power and electric motors.

I do agree Andy that this conversion to electric will not be as simple as some proclaim. Of course the governments are doing their best to play down the difficulties involved - for obvious reasons. But it sure ain't gonna be easy, particularly in the big cities where even parking a car can be fraught with problems. However the government has set the deadline and one way or another, they will have to meet it, even if the way they achieve it doesn't suit everyone.

I also did take note of your comment about the young being less interested in cars and I absolutely agree with you. As a long term motorcycle obsessive I am very aware of the similar situation in the reduction of new motorcycle riders, meaning the overall number of riders is reducing. Part of that is the same basic reason why there is less interest in cars. It's just heightened in bikes by the added risk factor of riding.

It amazes me that youngsters are so lacking in enthusiasm for their own personal transport. I couldn't wait to get mobile and got my license for bikes and then for cars as soon as I possibly could. It was inconceivable to me that I might get to my 30s without ever having a car, or worse, not being able to drive. But this is not unusual these days. So yes, the times they are a changin'.

I also agree, the introduction of on-street charging in cities should not be dismissed as trivial, but neither should anyone be thinking that the distribution and supply of hydrogen can simply use the existing infrastructure used for fossil fuels. Just to remind everyone,  Hydrogen CANNOT exist as a liquid at room temperature. No matter the pressure, that single proton will not exist in liquid form until at -240° C and even then it requires a lot of pressure. Reaching and maintaining that temperature and pressure is hugely energy intensive and even then its density is low. Its use is not impossible, but the difficulties cannot be ignored or dismissed as trivial.

Either way, it's batteries with or without some hydrogen as well and in each case, driving an electric motor.

I think the subject of this thread should be changed from "Is electric the answer" to "Why electric is the answer" as there is no other possible alternative.

[C8RKH]

Great post! And I mean that.

We don't fully align but that's the point of a healthy, informative debate. Cheers bud.

[KAS-118]

Detail of a 'Pop-Up' Urban Charger from a British Start-up company that has been successfully trailed in Oxford.

https://jalopnik.com/this-british-startup-may-have-solved-urban-ev-charging-1843572897

 

It also appears that Electric Vehicles area heralding a changing approach in how we buy cars.

I'm aware of Volvo beginning to adopt a more 'Rental' approach, where the customer never actual buys the car. It now appears, for their ID range, the Dealer will now only act as an Agent for VW - and be responsible for arranging test-drives, processing the transaction and finally handing over the vehicle.

However, the actual financial risk will now lie with VW themselves - and dealers won't have to 'pre-order' cars. 

It's considered that this better integrates 'on-line' ordering and physical showrooms.

https://electrek.co/2020/05/20/all-vw-retailers-agree-to-agency-approach-to-selling-electric-cars/

 

And in other News - Mercedes have announced that they will NOT be investing in research into synthetic fuels - but their focus will be electrification 

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/mercedes-rd-boss-synthetic-fuel-not-viable-option

[C8RKH]

@eUKenGB - Ken (if I may call you that), I have been digesting your post.

Stuff I agree with:

• there is not a solid argument against electric propulsion as being the future (unless of course Dyson perfects nuclear fission in a Kenco coffee jar sized reactor)
• there is no recycling of petrol as a fuel (though here again is where facts are used to support a point - as, as it will be in many countries, the electricity used to charge the BEV comes from coal/gas power stations then the "raw fuel" to power a battery is also not recycled or capable of being recycled - obviously energy produced through solar/wind/wave is different but this is country specific not use specific if that makes sense)
• the environmental impact of extracting fossil fuels is likely to be no worse or better, in general, than the environmental impact of extracting the lithium, cobalt and other chemicals used in batteries (however, here again, people focus on the former and tend to try to brush over the latter to suit their "green" agenda for battery promotion) - note this is about extraction of elements, not their subsequent use etc.
• I am not fooled re petrol from crops and do not think I have ever used it as a viable alternative fuel - so we agree
• Conversion to electric will not be simple and I appreciate your acceptance of the parking issues as a real and viable concern and not something to just be brushed away
• It is amazing that youngsters seem to have lost, generally, the enthusiasm for personal transport
• the introduction of on street charging should not be dismissed as trivial and that Hydrogen is not viable to use existing petro-carbon infrastructure easily
• that there is no future for new ICE cars beyond around 10-15 years from now
• it is batteries and with or without hydrogen (but I accept that the likelihood of HFCV for personal transport is likely now to be low, but still believe it will be viable for HGV, Bus, Tram and trains)

Stuff I disagree with:

• that we will any time get to "achieve" 100% battery recycling, but I do think we will get close enough, say around 95% (and this is still better than fossil which cannot of course be reused)
• the "inference" (so not a direct quote) that batteries do not have an impact on the environment or not destructive and polluting due to mining of raw materisl etc - I do feel this is very conveniently brushed over, much in the way the environmental impact of fossil fuel extraction can be - but given the context I find this brushing over very disingenuous by the BEV fan boys and exponents. It is bordering on deceitful to be honest
• the implied assumption that the energy source to charge a battery will be renewable and so clean. It will not but will be dictated by local country needs and energy mix

So if my review of your responses has been balanced (and I don't think I have cherry picked), then there is not actually that much of a gap in our beliefs. From my perspective the debate with you has been informative. Well thought through. Interesting, balanced and grown up. Thank you! Long may it continue

[Bibs]

1 hour ago, C8RKH said:

• It is amazing that youngsters seem to have lost, generally, the enthusiasm for personal transport

While not on topic I think this is down to cost nowadays. It's got to be impossible for a youngster to both buy and insure any sort of sports car, there aren't the 2nd hand hot hatches with reasonable insurance of our youths any more. 

[KAS-118]

I see that a new Joint Venture has been announced between Liberty Global Venture and Zouk Capital (who are the managers of the Charging Infrastructure Investment Fund established by the Government). 

Liberty Charge are to provide "the under pavement power" and communications infrastructure necessary for charging i residential areas. The aim is to provide charging points where residents do not have access to off-street parking. 

This JV follows on from Liberty's previous JV with Virgin, where the aim was to provide 1,200 on-street chargers by early 2021. 

https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/news/news/joint-venture-aims-to-boost-on-street-ev-charging-in-the-uk-5293

 

For those who are concerned about the increase in electrical demand I would refer you to the UK Governments paper published on 25 March 2020 titled 'Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure' which is available to download from here https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7480/?doing_wp_cron=1590060868.1174120903015136718750

There is an interesting comparison with how successful Norway has been - but the discussion on increase demand can be in Section 4 on page 23.

Various solutions, such as Smart Charging, are discussed - and on Page 25 it states:

"The House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s October 2018 report on Electric vehicles said that media concern about additional electricity demand were “overblown” and concluded that the electric vehicle transition is “unlikely to present a risk to the security of national electricity supply” and that any increased electricity demand would “necessitate investment in new generation.104 The Committee also made recommendations on managing higher demand including that charge points should have smart capacity, and that the Government should look further into the opportunity of vehicle to grid technology."

(my emphasis). 

[C8RKH]

39 minutes ago, Bibs said:

While not on topic I think this is down to cost nowadays. It's got to be impossible for a youngster to both buy and insure any sort of sports car, there aren't the 2nd hand hot hatches with reasonable insurance of our youths any more. 

I agree @Bibs that cost is a major factor, however, i do believe that this generation is more "urban" than any other if that makes sense. They want to be connected and live in cities.

Interesting times indeed.

 

[eUKenGB]

38 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

@eUKenGB - Ken (if I may call you that), I have been digesting your post.

...

Stuff I disagree with:

• that we will any time get to "achieve" 100% battery recycling, but I do think we will get close enough, say around 95% (and this is still better than fossil which cannot of course be reused)
• the "inference" (so not a direct quote) that batteries do not have an impact on the environment or not destructive and polluting due to mining of raw materisl etc - I do feel this is very conveniently brushed over, much in the way the environmental impact of fossil fuel extraction can be - but given the context I find this brushing over very disingenuous by the BEV fan boys and exponents. It is bordering on deceitful to be honest
• the implied assumption that the energy source to charge a battery will be renewable and so clean. It will not but will be dictated by local country needs and energy mix

So if my review of your responses has been balanced (and I don't think I have cherry picked), then there is not actually that much of a gap in our beliefs. From my perspective the debate with you has been informative. Well thought through. Interesting, balanced and grown up. Thank you! Long may it continue

Entirely well balanced Andy (see, we're on first name terms 😀)

Damage to the environment by the production of batteries is not insignificant, but not as detrimental as many claim. Yes it takes a lot of resources, but have you any idea what it takes to produce aluminium, yet no-one is moaning about that. The problem is that this ICE/EV thing is highly emotive and there are many who simply get hung up on misunderstood details.

Let's face facts. Oil WILL run out so we have to develop a replacement for motive power. Some may argue that it will last longer than others state, but that's an irrelevance. There's no getting away from the facts and also no point in simply pushing on with our oil consumption regardless, perhaps in the hope it will simply become a problem that future generations have to deal with. How selfish is that. We are morally bound to develop a replacement for fossil fuel. Now.

Secondly, electric is the only answer. Electric motors are well understood, basically cheap to manufacture, really efficient and very reliable with very, very few wearing parts (easily replaceable bearings). Ultimately, there is no alternative - until Dyson pulls his finger out as you suggest, but even a micro fusion reactor would undoubtedly then use electricity to drive an electric motor. So electric motors it is.

The remaining issue then is how we make and carry around that electric energy to drive the motor. Here we have 2 possibilities really. Hydrogen Fuel Cell (FCEV) or BEV and since the FCEV also uses batteries, and with no other even imagined alternative (Hydrogen fuelled ICE is dead) that means we ARE going to have to deal with the production, usage and re-cycling of batteries.

So we are going to have to deal with our battery concerns in any case. However it does mean a lot of resources will be plowed into battery development, improving the product in all those areas that need it.

Just briefly, regarding charging and the grid, once you have home battery storage facilities, charging from solar panels and then supplying the home and car at other times, the actual impact on the grid can be minimised. So by decentralising electricity generation, the grid would not require such a major upgrade in order for everyone to charge EVs.

I realise that inner cities are again the problem, but for those of us with the space to make use of solar/home storage, we would be taking less, or even nothing, from the grid, leaving more capacity to supply the required power increases in the cities. It may not be easy, but it is all doable.

[Neal H]

My problem with the mass adoption of electric vehicles within the next 15 years isn’t the vehicles themselves or the battery technology itself (which will evolve quickly in the next 10 years), It’s the infrastructure required to support it in such a tight timeframe.

The UK doesn’t have a great recent record on delivering infrastructure, just look at what happened to HS2. Signed off in 2013 with final delivery by 2033. We’re 7 years in and it’s currently estimated that the final delivery is running 7 years late and the budget has more than doubled from £42bn to £88bn. Surely HS2 is a simpler project than a complete redesign of all UK cities to accommodate millions of charging points?

As far as I can tell, there isn’t yet any plan even in place for this, let alone an estimate for delivering it. Who is supposed to take responsibility for this part? It has to be coherent, so has to be centralised.

I tried to add a link to the HS2 figures but couldn’t figure out how on the iPad, but you can Google it.

 

[KAS-118]

@Neal H - as I posted above, Zouk Capital are the managers of the Charging Infrastructure Investment Fund which was established by the Government.

They have has a Joint Venture with Virgin to provide 1,200 charging points by early 1,200 - and they have now formed another JV with Liberty Global Venture to provide the necessary charging infrastructure in residential area. 

On 15 May I posted up the announcement that the Government was going to require every service Station to have at least  6 EV Charging Points in every Service Station within the next 3 years; and providing 6,000 Rapid Chargers of 150-350KW by 2035.

Furthermore, I've also posted up various link where EV Chargers have been installed in residential areas, or are in the process of being installed now. 

There is actually an Electrical supply in most areas of this country - so the potential problem is not the actual infrastructure of that supply - but it could have been whether there is another supply to meet the demand.

In answer to this today I posted a link to the Government Report where all this was investigated - and this said that there was sufficient capacity and that the concern about supply capacity was "overblown".

So on the basis that:

1) Public EV Chargers have already been installed in the UK

2) Agreements are already in place to substantially increase the number of those EV Chargers

3) The UK Government has set out a policy to ban ICE's early and facilitate the switch to EV by putting in an EV Charging Infrastructure

4) Countries such ss Norway - who have considerably less population density then us, have some very remote places, are significantly colder than the UK (which reduces the range of E's) have successfully got sufficient provision for 60% of their car sales to be pure EV's and 15% Hybrids https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/19/norway-and-the-a-ha-moment-that-made-electric-cars-the-answer

Then I'm unclear why you have raised the queries?. Have you got any evidence/research supporting this hypothesis that the UK Government hasn't already rejected(?). if so please post a link.

Turning tom your analogy with HS2 - no the provision of EV Chargers in public areas is considerably more easier than HS2.

HS2 involved the compulsory purchase of peoples homes and business, it involved the disruption of some existing infrastructure and the destruction of some natural beauty spots. It would have gone through areas where first organisations such as English Heritage would have been required to do archaeological investigations. The engineering in some places would been mammoth and complex in nature - have you seen some of the engineering works involves in Cross Rail and he size of the machines involved?

So no, the provisions of EV Chargers is nothing like HS2. he Land is already 'public' or owned by companies (Petrol Service Stations) that are being required to provide EV's. The electrical networks is basically in place and comparatively simple to extend. Sure, they will be some work involved - but a better analogy would have been to the provisions of Cable TV and/or Fibre Optic Broadband.

In ant=y event its already in the process of b being done in the UK - and other countries who are, indeed, already ahead of us. 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by KAS-118

[MPx]

On 20/05/2020 at 21:48, eUKenGB said:

We HAVE to aim for 100% recyclable and reusable EVERYTHING. This planet is a finite resource. We cannot keep using it up. Nowhere is this more apparent than with fossil fuel. No matter how much anyone may bemoan the loss of the ICE, it WILL happen. There will come a time when there is NO MORE OIL. Better that we find a replacement BEFORE it happens. The governments realise that the population will never do that of its own accord and so ours has mandated that only electric cars can be sold after 2035. Like it or not, that's what IS going to happen. All we should be doing really is figuring out the best way to replace it and electric power is the obvious choice. It is THE perfect form of energy.

Lots to agree with here, but you keep stressing the "NO MORE OIL" point and I'm one of the doubters about that being relevant to the time scales being discussed.  Throughout my near 50 year driving life there have been periodic predictions about just a few more years left of oil. Pre-lockdown use of oil went inexorably up, but we didn't actually run out by any of the end of the world dates predicted.  What actually happens is when they're starting to run low the major producers look harder to find more reserves.  And also as the price has gone up, its become cost effective to extract oil from places where cost was once prohibitive.  So I totally agree that the actual amount of oil is finite and so it will eventually run out.  But I don't agree that it will run out in the next 15 years, or indeed in the next few generations...maybe not even in 150 years.

I also don't buy the 2035 mantra as a firm date of "what IS going to happen".  It might be done then.  If BEVs or similar reach a tipping point in adoption in the next 10 years it could even be brought forward, but no government commitment made today to any date in the far future will get served much more than lip service by any government of tomorrow.  If people haven't bought enough BEVs or, more likely, the Gov haven't actually gotten around to building the necessary charging infrastructure by then (and as Andy points out there's no strong track record of them doing such things to any published schedule - excepting of course all the Nightingale Hospitals that weren't needed) then it wont be practical and the date will be changed.    

Meantime I'll continue to enjoy our i3 and keep an open mind as to the "best" car to fulfill the roles that other cars have in our household.

[KAS-118]

@Neal H Just to clarify, you're shown as being located in Oxford.

There are frankly loads of Public EV Chargers that are located there - including Westgate Oxford Car Park - that has 45Nr 7kw Chargers and 5Nr 22kw ones. On the Zap-Map' these are free to use.

It's therefore hard to understand why you consider the provision of public chargers so difficult?

Edited May 22, 2020 by KAS-118

[KAS-118]

6 hours ago, MPx said:

And also as the price has gone up, its become cost effective to extract oil from places where cost was once prohibitive.  So I totally agree that the actual amount of oil is finite and so it will eventually run out.  But I don't agree that it will run out in the next 15 years, or indeed in the next few generations...maybe not even in 150 years.

No-ones saying 'oil is going to run out by the end of the decade - but there is a shift in most Governments and countries to move to 'zero emission' cars. Hence why Manufactures are investing so much into EV's. This isn't just in Europe - but Asian countries, such as China, who have some very serious air pollution issues.

That means the demand for oil is going to fall - so its price will fall - so places where it was economic to drill from will now become uneconomic.

Indeed - when you've got publications such as Gulf News, talking about Dubai going 'all electric' -and if you've ever worked there you'll know petrol is incredibly cheap - it does rather suggest that the writing is on the wall for ICE's - sooner rather than later https://gulfnews.com/business/analysis/an-electric-car-future-seems-closer-at-hand-1.71592019

6 hours ago, MPx said:

I also don't buy the 2035 mantra as a firm date of "what IS going to happen". 

You're right - currently the ban, i.e. the sale of new ICE Vehicles, is set to become effective in 2032 in the UK. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by KAS-118

[C8RKH]

We have not yet reached Peak Oil. EVs as they become more prevalent will temper demand so you could argue we are extending the life of oil reserves.

However, to be cost effective as a fuel you need to extract and sell at volume. More EVs equals less demand which equals lower volume which means oil as a fuel becomes less economically viable.

It is NOT the ability to supply oil that will be or is the issue. It's that the ability to use it for fuel is being legislated away.

Economically this will be a disaster for Saudi, Iran, Venezuela, USA, Russia etc.

It will also be an issue for Europe due to the loss of taxation revenues. EVs are expensive now, the future price will be interesting and subsidies will need to stop very soon. The Covid bill will accelerate that.

Some interesting times ahead.