BEVs

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.

I appreciate the BEV mostly because they...

cost less to run than an equivalent petrol or diesel car
9
12%
are reducing the harm done to our planet and its lifeforms
10
14%
are quiet and smooth
7
10%
can be refuelled with my own renewable energy production
10
14%
can supply energy to the home and Grid
4
5%
No! I am concerned they are just another way of making the car seem acceptable
33
45%
 
Total votes: 73

Jdsk
Posts: 24640
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: BEVs

Post by Jdsk »

Carlton green wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 4:13pm
Jdsk wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 3:59pm
Carlton green wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 3:48pm ...
Other than the green feel good factor - which I don’t belittle - I’m seeing much risk(s), significant expense and too little reward for shifting to a BEV.
Do you think that they have lower lifetime emissions of carbon dioxide than ICEVs? Or is that just "green feel good"?
I’m honestly doubtful that BEV’s are significantly greener overall than ICEV’s. I wouldn’t regard lifetime emissions of CO2 as being either the full picture or a well quantified measure. The “feel good” is more societal based than anything else. Of course those things have been said before and I’m not seeing merit in going over old ground. What I’m interested in is trying to see how things will likely pan out over the coming years, obviously putting ideals and personal views to one side.
It's a difficult choice for individuals at the moment. I recommend the usual basic option appraisal: list the options along the top and put all of the advantages and disadvantages under each.

Doing this isn't "going over old ground". There's some good information in this thread, but there's no point in ignoring and omitting the bits that we don't each like. Of course lifetime emissions of carbon dioxide isn't "the full picture". No single factor is "the full picture". But it is one of the factors.

Jonathan
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: BEVs

Post by Biospace »

pete75 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 8:12am Now may be a good time to buy a second hand BEV. According to Autocar over supply means second hand prices have fallen quite a bit.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/busi ... es-plummet
The second hand car market has unstable in recent times, it sounds like more recently supply has resumed for BEVs but not for others. There's also the fact that while the costs of fuelling a BEV had been typically a quarter that of a ICEv (very little tax on electricity, provider pays for the efficiency losses in power station as well as the more efficient EM), since the energy price rises, that has fallen to typically one half.

Used BEVs are still considerably more expensive now than they were six and more years ago, when the public was very unsure of the technology. Main dealers were letting Leafs go for as little as £3000, often in pristine condition.

Carlton green wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 4:13pm I’m honestly doubtful that BEV’s are significantly greener overall than ICEV’s. I wouldn’t regard lifetime emissions of CO2 as being either the full picture or a well quantified measure. The “feel good” is more societal based than anything else. Of course those things have been said before and I’m not seeing merit in going over old ground. What I’m interested in is trying to see how things will likely pan out over the coming years, obviously putting ideals and personal views to one side.
If a car is in constant use, they are increasingly greener in the UK because our electricity is increasingly from renewable sources. Although, as an academic in environmental science once pointed out to me, the marginal electricity supply source is at present almost always from gas. He was very clear that nearly all the electricity being made to charge a BEV was therefore coming from fossil fuel.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: BEVs

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Biospace wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 5:36pm
pete75 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 8:12am Now may be a good time to buy a second hand BEV. According to Autocar over supply means second hand prices have fallen quite a bit.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/busi ... es-plummet
The second hand car market has unstable in recent times, it sounds like more recently supply has resumed for BEVs but not for others. There's also the fact that while the costs of fuelling a BEV had been typically a quarter that of a ICEv (very little tax on electricity, provider pays for the efficiency losses in power station as well as the more efficient EM), since the energy price rises, that has fallen to typically one half.

Used BEVs are still considerably more expensive now than they were six and more years ago, when the public was very unsure of the technology. Main dealers were letting Leafs go for as little as £3000, often in pristine condition.
Well no - we all pay for the inefficiency in power stations, that's just part of the price we pay for electrons.
But even with the energy price rises, the cost has still be been a long way down on petrol - for 90% of miles probably on the order of 10% of the price. The final few (DC charged) miles are about comparable.
Carlton green wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 4:13pm I’m honestly doubtful that BEV’s are significantly greener overall than ICEV’s. I wouldn’t regard lifetime emissions of CO2 as being either the full picture or a well quantified measure. The “feel good” is more societal based than anything else. Of course those things have been said before and I’m not seeing merit in going over old ground. What I’m interested in is trying to see how things will likely pan out over the coming years, obviously putting ideals and personal views to one side.
If a car is in constant use, they are increasingly greener in the UK because our electricity is increasingly from renewable sources. Although, as an academic in environmental science once pointed out to me, the marginal electricity supply source is at present almost always from gas. He was very clear that nearly all the electricity being made to charge a BEV was therefore coming from fossil fuel.
Well that's simply not true, because most EVs will be charged when the grid is least utilised.
It's no more true than "all lighting" is marginal, or "all heating" is marginal... because they cannot all be marginal, else there is nothing that isn't - and that's clearly not true.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3932
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: BEVs

Post by Nearholmer »

Generators are connected to the grid in reverse order of pollution and cost, according to availability

So, available nuclear capacity first, then solar and wind, if available, then gas, then coal. There are also small amounts of hydro, pumped storage hydro is used as a peak-lopper, also biomass, and imported electricity.

The UK is still carbon intensive compared with many countries, using a lot of gas, but at night when most cars are charged we should be on a mix of mainly nuclear and wind, unless the weather is very calm.

To see the real-time situation: https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live

So, the academic was right, but I think only up to a point. On some nights, windy ones in warm weather, little or no gas will go into the mix, even with cars charging; on other nights, especially calm ones in very cold weather, the mix will be nuclear and gas, and switching off all the car chargers would result in a reduction in gas use.

Here’s the mix over the past 48hrs:
5EEF887C-DDAB-4CB5-9986-D6F2EFEF527A.jpeg
You can see nuclear sitting at the base, and overnight lots of wind, some import (French nuclear), topped off with some gas (because the weather is still cold enough that people are charging storage heaters).
Nearholmer
Posts: 3932
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: BEVs

Post by Nearholmer »

And, just out of interest, here is one of the two bad weeks this winter, when we had very cold weather, and barely a breath of wind. Just look how much gas we were getting through. This is why some coal fired generation was got ready, although luckily I don’t think it was actually needed.
EE07535B-AB94-43A1-B4B6-5D82E93689A3.jpeg
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: BEVs

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Nearholmer wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 7:13pm So, the academic was right, but I think only up to a point. On some nights, windy ones in warm weather, little or no gas will go into the mix, even with cars charging; on other nights, especially calm ones in very cold weather, the mix will be nuclear and gas, and switching off all the car chargers would result in a reduction in gas use.
But you could say the same about heating, lighting, anything else that uses electrons.

You can't just allocate the all marginal generation to the one load you don't like, it has to be split amongst the whole grid - because turning off any type of load would reduce the marginal generation.

The only exception to that is when people have grid intensity aware systems which select when to charge... and those are few and far between in a domestic environment (though octopus agile is a rough approximation).
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3932
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: BEVs

Post by Nearholmer »

I get the academic’s point: by adding car charging, a new load, to our night-time load, we (for the most part) add gas to the generation mix, so we really ought to count cars as charged not by “average grid mix”, but by “nearly all gas”, which hugely increases their carbon footprint. The marginal impact of this particular marginal addition is clear.

We really need more nuclear in the mix, like France, to be able to claim that EVs are significantly less carbon intensive than ICV, or, as you say, to match charging times to windy/sunny times of overall low demand, which sounds only partially practical.

I read the comment as being more a criticism of our generation mix than of EVs.
Carlton green
Posts: 3645
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: BEVs

Post by Carlton green »

Nearholmer wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 8:06pm I get the academic’s point: by adding car charging, a new load, to our night-time load, we (for the most part) add gas to the generation mix, so we really ought to count cars as charged not by “average grid mix”, but by “nearly all gas”, which hugely increases their carbon footprint. The marginal impact of this particular marginal addition is clear.

We really need more nuclear in the mix, like France, to be able to claim that EVs are significantly less carbon intensive than ICV, or, as you say, to match charging times to windy/sunny times of overall low demand, which sounds only partially practical.

I read the comment as being more a criticism of our generation mix than of EVs.
^^ This is truth, perhaps unpalatable to some but truth all the same. Of course when only (considered) green generation is used the issue goes away but otherwise EV’s (as an additional load on the grid) are, when charged from the grid, ultimately fossil fuel powered.
One could argue, and I believe not unreasonably so too, that the present situation facilitates BEV purchase and systems such that when we no longer have fossil fuel powered generation we’ll also have fossil fuel free transport too.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: BEVs

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Nearholmer wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 8:06pm I get the academic’s point: by adding car charging, a new load, to our night-time load, we (for the most part) add gas to the generation mix, so we really ought to count cars as charged not by “average grid mix”, but by “nearly all gas”, which hugely increases their carbon footprint. The marginal impact of this particular marginal addition is clear.

We really need more nuclear in the mix, like France, to be able to claim that EVs are significantly less carbon intensive than ICV, or, as you say, to match charging times to windy/sunny times of overall low demand, which sounds only partially practical.

I read the comment as being more a criticism of our generation mix than of EVs.
I disagree with the assessment - although even if all the electricity came from burning gas they would still be significantly lower carbon than an ICE, and the very significant reduction in emissions in populated areas is unaffected.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3932
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: BEVs

Post by Nearholmer »

I disagree with the assessment
Why, or how?

The whole life emissions of EVs are hugely dependant upon the type of generation from which they are charged, and right now, despite massive improvement over the past decade, our grid mix is uncomfortably carbon intense.

I’m not, BTW, arguing against moving at good pace to replace ICV with EV, simply pointing out that we need a different grid mix to really get the best from them.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: BEVs

Post by pete75 »

Biospace wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 5:36pm
pete75 wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 8:12am Now may be a good time to buy a second hand BEV. According to Autocar over supply means second hand prices have fallen quite a bit.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/busi ... es-plummet
The second hand car market has unstable in recent times, it sounds like more recently supply has resumed for BEVs but not for others. There's also the fact that while the costs of fuelling a BEV had been typically a quarter that of a ICEv (very little tax on electricity, provider pays for the efficiency losses in power station as well as the more efficient EM), since the energy price rises, that has fallen to typically one half.
The provider's costs are covered in what they charge the customer, so it's the latter that pays for efficiency losses.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: BEVs

Post by Biospace »

pete75 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 12:20pm
Biospace wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 5:36pm (very little tax on electricity, provider pays for the efficiency losses in power station as well as the more efficient EM)
The provider's costs are covered in what they charge the customer, so it's the latter that pays for efficiency losses.
Poorly worded by me - yes of course all the economic costs of a 'provider' are borne by the consumer, unless a third party is subsidising these costs from a quite discrete economic system.

Rather, the difference is that electricity includes all the costs of producing an energy ready to use at the flick of a switch, whereas with petrol or diesel you bear these inefficiencies yourself, as well as the costs of maintaining your own 'power station'.

So with a battery electric car, if you use 90% as the efficiency for both the battery charger and motor and ignore all battery losses (which grow as it ages), 81% of the energy you pay for (of which about 5% is tax) goes to power the car. With petrol or diesel cars, only around 20-40% of what you pay for (which is typically 60-70% tax) powers the car.
Carlton green
Posts: 3645
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: BEVs

Post by Carlton green »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 11:16am
Nearholmer wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 8:06pm I get the academic’s point: by adding car charging, a new load, to our night-time load, we (for the most part) add gas to the generation mix, so we really ought to count cars as charged not by “average grid mix”, but by “nearly all gas”, which hugely increases their carbon footprint. The marginal impact of this particular marginal addition is clear.

We really need more nuclear in the mix, like France, to be able to claim that EVs are significantly less carbon intensive than ICV, or, as you say, to match charging times to windy/sunny times of overall low demand, which sounds only partially practical.

I read the comment as being more a criticism of our generation mix than of EVs.
I disagree with the assessment - although even if all the electricity came from burning gas they would still be significantly lower carbon than an ICE, and the very significant reduction in emissions in populated areas is unaffected.
Why do you disagree with the assessment? It seems a perfectly logical argument to me but if it really is flawed then put your own data and counter argument forward.

I thought the point about carbon from electricity generated for EV use and carbon produced by fossil fuels in ICV use interesting but I’d like to see data on that please - or a pointer to a post where it has already been supplied.

The significant reduction in harmful emissions in populated areas likely has some merit - particularly so in heavily built-up areas - and meaningful reductions are good.
Last edited by Carlton green on 26 Mar 2023, 2:20pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3932
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: BEVs

Post by Nearholmer »

This is quite useful:
C5A7FACE-C43D-4F88-93DF-873658B6BD38.jpeg
The key point is the huge spread on the middle stacked-bar, indicating how different mixes of generation impact the lifetime situation. At worst, not much better than ICV, at best, very much better.
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: BEVs

Post by Biospace »

So, the academic was right, but I think only up to a point.
I suggested the increasing amount of wind generation coming online (the conversation was probably about six years ago) would increase the nights when gas wasn't the marginal supply. He countered that the increase in wind capacity would need to significantly exceed the increase in BEV demand and disliked the idea of building more nuclear to feed our addiction to unnecessarily powerful personal transport.

I get the academic’s point: by adding car charging, a new load, to our night-time load, we (for the most part) add gas to the generation mix, so we really ought to count cars as charged not by “average grid mix”, but by “nearly all gas”, which hugely increases their carbon footprint. The marginal impact of this particular marginal addition is clear.

We really need more nuclear in the mix, like France, to be able to claim that EVs are significantly less carbon intensive than ICV, or, as you say, to match charging times to windy/sunny times of overall low demand, which sounds only partially practical.

I read the comment as being more a criticism of our generation mix than of EVs.
I don't remember him intending to criticise anything, just to point out some truths to which he was observing many were becoming wilfully blind. Yes, more nuclear than at present would make sense, but I don't think we should build to match any demand - that would be transferring through a poor legacy of the FF age into the next.

Moving from road to electrified rail transport for medium to long journeys should be an absolute priority, as well as reducing the gross inefficiencies of the motor car as we know it.
Post Reply