Interestingly enough Tesla have previously only quoted their Scope 1 and 2 figures for emissions, but new legislation has forced them to release their Scope 3 figures taking the C02 figure from a reported 2,500,000 tonnes to 30,500,000 tonnes (I have seen figures that differ slightly from those, but in general they are a reasonable average of ones doing the rounds). Which apparently puts them on a more equal footing to someone like Ford when overall size is taken into account. 

 

The graph you show is interesting, the article it comes from is very thorough, but it does mention much later on, that some of the figures it talks about assume the battery last to EoL. I know that If I had a 300 mile range EV which in the winter struggled to top 220 real world miles and then after several years it was down to 80% range which in turn led to me getting less than 180 miles/charge, I would want a new battery. A big battery will be around £6-9k depend on size and manufacturer, but in a green world, we will keep our cars much longer. Also, the greenness of the energy in manufacture and use of the cars also depends on the country you make and drive these EVs and that in turn can alter overall figures depending on how much fossil fuel that country of manufacturer and charging, uses.

 

That massive new battery factory they are once again saying they are going to build in Northumberland will be interesting to follow. I can see that to keep cost down (now the government has come to some sort of 'deal' with the Aussies), there will be some fudging of the green credentials in the build and a lot of concrete being used and not the more expensive green concrete either. But as I say, time will tell on that one. 

 

As I say, I'm not against EVs, but an inefficient Hydrogen production which produces very little absolute GHG vs a battery which may be clean in running, but produces a very large CO2 amount in mining, refining and construction, I prefer the inefficient plugging away Hydrogen manufacture. Storing electricity is still basically rubbish (big, heavy and expensive), but hopefully the next generation of battery will appear in my lifetime, possibly even before I reach state pension age...hopefully. My EV has a battery just shy of 13kW/h, of which around 10kW/h hours are available for drive (and heating). Putting a meter across the charge cycle shows I need over 12kW to charge the 10kW that the battery wants. I assume that much of this is inverter loss, but Peugeot doesn't say, at least nothing I found yet shows a break-down on battery charging inefficiency. If that figure is a scalable one, then you need 20% more juice than you get back from your battery. I suspect the smaller size and quite possibly the battery is less sophisticated than some, but I say what I see in my case. I've spent a lifetime working with rechargeable batteries and they are a pain in the arse in general, but I can see it is 'part' of an overall solution that is needed, I just think they are not a Holy Grail of any sort. 

 

Mind you, if I am allowed to have a big V8 as long as I also have an EV, then I'm in. Or maybe just get that big V8 and grown more vegetables?

I've found this form a Tesla figure on a 2022 model Y performance using a 240v source

 

 For the 202``1 Model Y - Performance version, adding 81.052 kWh to the battery required 92.213 kWh, or 14 percent more.

 

Although that didn't mention the temperature at charging other than it was conducted in a climate controlled chamber, not a baking hot day or a freezing cold one either. I would think that higher voltage, ie not from home charging, would reduce inefficiencies further. 

Edited 25 June, 20232 yr by Lady Elanore

8 hours ago, Lady Elanore said:

The graph you show is interesting, the article it comes from is very thorough, but it does mention much later on, that some of the figures it talks about assume the battery last to EoL. I know that If I had a 300 mile range EV which in the winter struggled to top 220 real world miles and then after several years it was down to 80% range which in turn led to me getting less than 180 miles/charge, I would want a new battery. A big battery will be around £6-9k depend on size and manufacturer, but in a green world, we will keep our cars much longer.

This comes back to Mr Atkinson's view that we aren't keeping cars for long time. Cars are assets, after the first owner, there will always be second hand market. If 80% degraded battery no longer suits your needs, buy a newer one (made from recycled battery materials with solar on factory roof) or a second hand one that had a longer range. Your reduced range EV are still perfectly fine for other people. Battery replacement isn't needed.

 

This is charging loss as reported by the car and pulled down into my own database (TeslaMate). I've measured what the charge point used using derived figures (difference between 2 CT clamps, rather than 1 CT clamp on the charge point cable), ever so slightly more than reported "used". I'd say it's definitely over 90% efficient. The figure you found is 88%.

 

Whichever way we slice this charging inefficiency, it's hugely better than only using 33% of the energy originally produced. (when green hydrogen is used as storage and subsequent losses in fuel cell)

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/01/chart-why-battery-electric-vehicles-beat-hydrogen-electric-vehicles-without-breaking-a-sweat/

 

 

Car and Driver reported those charge efficiency figures based on what they read from 49 pages of certification documents Tesla submitted to the EPA

 

But as I said, higher voltage and also DC will help charge efficiency. I'm pretty sure a large part of my inefficiency in charging is inverter loss which will probably in turn, be mostly heat loss. Also, not fully charging will probably increase efficiency, as that last push to fill a battery can cause residual heat loss etc. Mind you, that brings back the range issue again, at least for my needs if not most people's lesser requirements.

Edited 26 June, 20232 yr by Lady Elanore

Oh yes, I've observed this with Leaf. Charging to 100% seems to use more energy from charge point than stopping at 80%. I've not got enough data on the MY to say either way.

 

There is also the design of the inverter. I've heard people say Renault Zoe are super inefficient at low charge rates because it has 3 large 32 amp inverters. Whereas Tesla (and probably other cars) that can only charge at 11 kW has 3 smaller 16 amp inverters. So its efficiency charging at 16 amp is better than Zoe.

 

But either way, it's single digit, at most 12%, efficiency loss for charging. Compared to 24% hydrogen electrolysis and then 46% fuel cell. Until we have unlimited power, it's critical we make full use of every Wh generated.

What a wonderful EV world if a 100 kW chargers charges a 100 kWh battery car from 0-80 % in 37 minutes, so that is 80 kWh into the battery.

 

Even better that a 7.4 kW AC charger can get 100 kWh in over just 10 hours and 16 minutes.

 

.......

A Tesla Model S 100D or a Model X 100D seemingly shows where i looked as requiring  13 hours and 31 minutes to charge from zero to full using a typical 7kW home charger.  (95 kW usable battery.)

& on a CCS capable of 145 kW can deliver 20-80% in around 41 minutes.

 

 

Edited 27 June, 20232 yr by toot

So vastly incorrect is the mis-information of electric cars,  in fact completely the wrong way around and presented as evidence of the failure of adoption of EVs, when in fact it shows that ICE cars are so unwanted in the world's largest car market that these new ICE cars are just moved in to a field to rot but dumb naysayers present the film as unwanted EVs when anybody with half a brain can see they are ICE cars.................

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, lol-lol said:

So vastly incorrect is the mis-information of electric cars,  in fact completely the wrong way around and presented as evidence of the failure of adoption of EVs, when in fact it shows that ICE cars are so unwanted in the world's largest car market that these new ICE cars are just moved in to a field to rot but dumb naysayers present the film as unwanted EVs when anybody with half a brain can see they are ICE cars.................

 

 

 

 

Is this a fuel filler cap? Goodness me! what a dishonest narrative they're trying to form.

Edit: Not to mention the K10C badge on the back referring to a 1.0L K-series engine.

Weird!

Edited 28 June, 20232 yr by EnterName

25 minutes ago, EnterName said:

Is this a fuel filler cap? Goodness me! what a dishonest narrative they're trying to form.

Edit: Not to mention the K10C badge on the back referring to a 1.0L K-series engine.

Weird!

 

Indeed, how stupid do they think Joe Public is ?

With an open mind we could think it might be a hybrid maybe but if it was it would have a tiny hybrid battery and I have not seen an EV port shaped like that.

Well spotted on the boot lettering though i was think Rover's K series engine in the Metro, Rover 200 etc not the Suzuki originating engine made under licence.

 

As the video says there was a significant fraud that went on in China on EVs ie make the car, claim the EV subsidy, sell it to a shell company, remove the traction battery and put that battery in a new VIN'd chasis, claim the EV subsidy again.  Chinese fraudsters did this on several thousands cars.  I imagine they are not having a good time in the Chinese prison system.

 

So a few thousand ex EV chassis but compared to hundreds of thousands of ICE cars in fields that cannot be sold as they are unwanted compared to EVs and increasingly cannot be  sold as they do not meet Chinese emission regs.  Surely they could sell to one of the poorer Asian nations.

 

Something a bit similar could happen here with the Euro5 diesels which will become unaffordable to run in the London area with the £12.50 per day penalty.  The ULEZ rightly extends beyond my office at Heathrow so hopefully I will see a cleaner set of emitting cars in the car park towards the end of the year.

 

39 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

Surely they could sell to one of the poorer Asian nations.

Yes. Apparently poor countries greenhouse gases are less damaging to the environment than affluent countries greenhouse gases.

This is why the solution to the Climate Crisis(TM) is to make affluent countries poor, and thereby make their greenhouse gasses less harmful.

Trust the science! 🤪

In what way does climate crisis induced actions, such as charging to EV's, ULEZ, net-zero goals, renewable installs, etc, making countries poor? 

 

Is it not a wave of new opportunities? 

2 hours ago, EnterName said:

Is this a fuel filler cap? Goodness me! what a dishonest narrative they're trying to form.

Edit: Not to mention the K10C badge on the back referring to a 1.0L K-series engine.

Weird!

This is an EV called K10. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandi_K10

7 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

This is an EV called K10. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandi_K10

Thank you for putting me right.

Goodness me! It is confusing.

Edited 28 June, 20232 yr by EnterName

Chris Stark CEO of the 'Climate change committee is on the media /press with more home truths on the UK and the government.

Many might think the Climate change committee' is a government committee / organisation.  Well it is kind of. 

 

How much did the change of name from 'Committee of climate change' to 'Climate change committee' cost, just in IT, Printing, signage and maybe HR / Wages cost.

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

 

Lord Deben (John Selwyn Gummer)  is speaking out while anyone listens to him.    (He who feed his 4 year old daughter beef burgers. mad cow, well not her.) 

http://theengineer.co.uk/content/news/uk-has-lost-climate-leadership-ccc-report

 

He needs watching IMO.  Snouter first class.

http://davidturver.substack.com/p/lords-caught-with-snouts-in-netzero-trough

 

 

Anyway,

  They are not fooled by Hybrids and neither should the UK Governments be.

 

 

 

 

Edited 28 June, 20232 yr by toot

53 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

In what way does climate crisis induced actions, such as charging to EV's, ULEZ, net-zero goals, renewable installs, etc, making countries poor? 

 

Is it not a wave of new opportunities? 

Because it's expensive to make the transition, and as I showed in another thread, the gains from a reduction of greenhouse gases are marginal.

Nobody can show a clear correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases and the "climate".

But I'll agree it's certainly an opportunity for those exploiting the "crisis" for their own benefit, especially while there are subsidies to be had.

A lot of it is my instinctive reluctance to be told what to do by busybodies who always think they know better than everyone else, and are determined to force the world to agree with them.

Thomas Sowell published a book in the mid 90's called "The Vision of the Anointed", and he really hit the nail on the head with some of his observations in that book.

Here's a relevant excerpt.

PATTERNS OF FAILURE

A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favoured by the anointed turn out to fail. This pattern typically has four stages:

 

 STAGE 1. THE “CRISIS”: Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation is routinely characterized as a “crisis,” even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a “crisis” has in fact already been getting better for years.

STAGE 2. THE “SOLUTION”: Policies to end the “crisis” are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and “simplistic,” if not dishonest.

<<<WE ARE HERE >>>

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z.

 

  STAGE 4. THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as “simplistic” for ignoring the “complexities” involved, as “many factors” went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors.

 

 

Edited 28 June, 20232 yr by EnterName

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

Yes. Apparently poor countries greenhouse gases are less damaging to the environment than affluent countries greenhouse gases.

This is why the solution to the Climate Crisis(TM) is to make affluent countries poor, and thereby make their greenhouse gasses less harmful.  Trust the science! 🤪

 

It would be wasteful to just bin those made cars or EV chassis, better to get them to poor countries to be used for a decade or so and by then car buyers, even in poorer countries, should be able to switch to EVs as electricity becomes virtually free compared to paying despoting countries for there oil.

 

Even poor countries will be concerned with emissions from ICE cars but understandably they are more concerned with the air pollution in the cities which can mean limiting access to cities for certain cars, especially diesels but then increasingly, like here in the UK, carbon burning cars paying penalties in to cities, controls so that ICE cars with even numbered licence plates can enter one day and odds the next day and also limiting ICE cars to lower speed limits so they pollute less ie 100 kph, 90, 80 or so.  WHat I would like to see if that ANPR ICE cars are limited to lower speeds but EVs are allowed to do the full road speed, should help EV adoption with these sorts of policies.    

  

So yes CO2 emissions are important for every country and user over the long term but city pollution is a killer also and a small one litre car with a modern engine will not be polluting CO2 as much as a 2 litre engine which are doing less than 40 mpg and CO2 levels of over 145 gm/km ie over 50% higher than the EU 95 gm/km fine level for European car makers is what we need to get off the road by scrappage schemes IMO. We will need petrol cars for a little bit longer but they should be sub 100 gm/km CO2 and very low NOX, preferable with a good strong hybrid EV mode to keep our urban area air on the clean side. 

 

4 minutes ago, EnterName said:

STAGE 1. THE “CRISIS”: Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation is routinely characterized as a “crisis,” even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a “crisis” has in fact already been getting better for years.

We have certainly got enough evidence to show the situation at hand is uniquely bad and are getting worse. 

 

5 minutes ago, EnterName said:

STAGE 2. THE “SOLUTION”: Policies to end the “crisis” are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and “simplistic,” if not dishonest.

The problem is that the qualified anointed outnumber the qualified critics many hundreds to 1. As an unqualified person such as myself, I know which side to listen. 

 

8 minutes ago, EnterName said:

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z.

  STAGE 4. THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as “simplistic” for ignoring the “complexities” involved, as “many factors” went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors.

Whilst I agree it is highly unlikely we'll get Result A as promised. I don't believe it is a black and white world and get Result Z. It is more likely we'll get somewhere between D and Q, depending on amount of public support to the policies. Yet I don't see this important participation factor mentioned in this observation. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, EnterName said:

Because it's expensive to make the transition, and as I showed in another thread, the gains from a reduction of greenhouse gases are marginal.

All things considered, right now, the gains are marginal. 

But unlike the constant that is ICE emissions for the lifetime of the vehicle (15 years average), things are set to improve greatly as all things are electrified and the grid is decarbonized. 

 

Shell Recharge, Instavolt and others that have invested in installing public chargers really are pith taking with tariffs.

They are there for those desperate or with loads of money or employers that have.

£7.50 - £7.90 and even more for 10 kWh of a charge that might take you 40 miles or so is expensive motoring.

 

Maybe more to do with the UK Government than with the Corporations. 

 

The 41 pence a kWh charge at local chargers to me certainly has many that regularly used them and hogged them for hours when they were 23 pence a kWh no longer using them or not regularly.

 

Fair charging for electricity and for the facility to charge and fair VAT / Taxation is what will be needed for many more private individuals to go EV.

The Business / Commercial users are being helped a fair bit already, probably correctly for many business,s that need to move to EV light commercials or drivers of cars actually required to drive for the business and not just commute to the work place and park up and then back home with Tax breaks.

Article in Fleet News.

Electric Vehicle charging times quoted in adverts 'misleading'.

http://fleetnews.co.uk/news/manufacturer-news/2023/06/28/electric-vehicle-charging-times-quoted-in-adverts-misleading

 

 

That will be also with Journalists, publications, reviews etc where those writing or filming just read Media Packs or stuff other wrote and might well never actual charge a vehicle from 0-80%, 0-100%, 20-80%, 20-100% etc etc.  Maybe not even drive a car far enough to use a batteries worth. 

 

..................

Cars from manufacturers keep getting handed over to people that are not fully sorted out.  (Cars not the people...)

More Publications need to be running cars long term and using different chargers and systems and see or experience what the General Public might be putting up with.

Then calling out manufacturers or vehicles and systems.

 

 

 

Edited 28 June, 20232 yr by toot

7 hours ago, wyx087 said:

The problem is that the qualified anointed outnumber the qualified critics many hundreds to 1. As an unqualified person such as myself, I know which side to listen. 

I may be awkward, but when presented with convincing evidence I am happy to be corrected. (See my earlier response to your correction about the EV.)

 

7 hours ago, wyx087 said:

The problem is that the qualified anointed outnumber the qualified critics many hundreds to 1. As an unqualified person such as myself, I know which side to listen. 

Consensus is politics, not science.

7 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Whilst I agree it is highly unlikely we'll get Result A as promised. I don't believe it is a black and white world and get Result Z. It is more likely we'll get somewhere between D and Q, depending on amount of public support to the policies. Yet I don't see this important participation factor mentioned in this observation. 

This is pretty much a re-wording of Stage 4.

 

7 hours ago, wyx087 said:

All things considered, right now, the gains are marginal. 

But unlike the constant that is ICE emissions for the lifetime of the vehicle (15 years average), things are set to improve greatly as all things are electrified and the grid is decarbonized. 

Perhaps.

Can you point to an example of a "crisis" that was averted/solved, and didn't simply follow Sowell's 4 stages of "We want to do this so we'll call it a crisis so we can force it through"?

 

 

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

(See my earlier response to your correction about the EV.)

Which post? Link?

 

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

Consensus is politics, not science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Scientific consensus is not politics.

Climate change is scientific consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#Consensus_points

Quote

The current scientific consensus is that:

• Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.^[a]
• Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
• Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
• People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

 

 

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

This is pretty much a re-wording of Stage 4.

You need to read more carefully. Nowhere in stage 4 has mentioned the participation factor. I am saying when the critics cause poor participation rate could be be part of the reason why the result is closer to Z. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

Can you point to an example of a "crisis" that was averted/solved, and didn't simply follow Sowell's 4 stages of "We want to do this so we'll call it a crisis so we can force it through"?

World wars?

This guy needs to actually visit Dundee and see where the low emission zone is and where you can currently drive to in it.

 

B0;llocks from him IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 29 June, 20232 yr by toot

17 hours ago, toot said:

Article in Fleet News.

Electric Vehicle charging times quoted in adverts 'misleading'.

http://fleetnews.co.uk/news/manufacturer-news/2023/06/28/electric-vehicle-charging-times-quoted-in-adverts-misleading

That will be also with Journalists, publications, reviews etc where those writing or filming just read Media Packs or stuff other wrote and might well never actual charge a vehicle from 0-80%, 0-100%, 20-80%, 20-100% etc etc.  Maybe not even drive a car far enough to use a batteries worth. 

..................

Cars from manufacturers keep getting handed over to people that are not fully sorted out.  (Cars not the people...)

More Publications need to be running cars long term and using different chargers and systems and see or experience what the General Public might be putting up with.

Then calling out manufacturers or vehicles and systems.

 

 

Yes the charge times quoted are generally the best possible ie done when the battery is in the perfect temperature zone of accepting the highest possible charge rate ie when its temperature is probably in the 20 to 25 C range, just like baby bear's porridge, but this said the differences between maximum and what is received in non perfect conditions is not a massive percentage unless one is unfortunate to suffer a charge gate issue like with some early LEAFs and with the first release Toyota BZ4X,usually more frustrating than ruining ones day if one travels with a bit of time margin as I generally do to deal with unexpected traffic issues that pop up.

 

My ruling premise is charge at home, preferable using the almost free nighttime tariff, hopefully one has picked a car with relatively good range and set of at a relaxed pace, maybe only 60 mph or so, see how the consumptions goes and up the pace if range allows and most importantly just chill when one is driving.  Bit of slipstreaming can help and it becomes a game to me to get that miles per kw up over 4 and closer to 5 if possible.

 

It is temperature that is the big enemy of the waning Lithium ion battery tech.  Every degree below about 15C takes another percent or two of range.  If only we had a place when we could charge our cars in a warm environment and then drive it out of that place, in to the colder environment where it could use the cooler air outside to keep in the optimum temp range for the car systems and even occupants of the car.   It could help give is gargantuan range and we could call it a gar-range or perhaps "garage" for sort.  Of course word comes from the French Garer, meaning to shelter.  One survey, probably US, said 71% of families use the garage as primary access to the house, wow.  Mine is full of motorbikes, tyres and other flotsam.  

 

My take on lecky cars is to absorb knowledge about EVs like the jellyfish does with air and food.  I have found I need a petrol powered hybrid as I do not alway know I can get a charge if I have to do 200 miles plus in a day but I keep trying to plan it that I could use the EV instead of the hybrid.  Hotel I stayed at last week, in Yeovil, just installed EV charge.  With nearly 2,000 charges a month being installed across UK we will soon see petrol station closures as more of them just do not have the business to stay open. It is inevitable and happening fast.

  

Night time tariff for 4 hours.

7 kW charger, maybe as much as 28 kWh charged at that low rate. 

6 hours 42 kWh maybe.   Fair enough.   Much cheapness.

 

Lovely stuff for those with home chargers and vehicles home during the low tariff 

 

The Future is bright, maybe even orange.

All these chargers being installed and that hopefully is actually being connected and available to use, and going to be maintained and reliable.

The article does say 'switched on'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 29 June, 20232 yr by toot

12 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Which post? Link?

This one.

 

12 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Scientific consensus is not politics.

If you think politics have no impact on scientific consensus, I don't think I can help you. 🤷‍♂️

Throughout COVID we had examples of "scientific consensus" that simply parroted political decisions.

We went from "Masks don't help." all the way to "Masks are mandatory". All backed by science.

The attached video is a UK government minister giving the "masks don't help" narrative.

 

13 hours ago, wyx087 said:

You need to read more carefully. Nowhere in stage 4 has mentioned the participation factor. I am saying when the critics cause poor participation rate could be be part of the reason why the result is closer to Z. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But participation isn't going to be optional, is it? So this doesn't apply.

If it was optional, then I wouldn't be grumbling. You can have all the solar panels and wind farms you like. On your property. At your expense.

 

13 hours ago, wyx087 said:

World wars?

Somewhat more detail is required for this to even start to be a valid example of a "crisis" that was averted/solved, and didn't simply follow Sowell's 4 stages of "We want to do this so we'll call it a crisis so we can force it through".