[News] 2030 and Electric cars.

[The Grockle]

I reckon it will be the other way. Ranges will stay about the same or even less but recharging will get quicker.

What they need is some form of battery than can be easily and quickly recharged but isn't made of rare earth materials, because obviously there is no point attempting to replace all the petrol cars in the world if the material to make the batteries does not exist. Time will tell whether that is physically possible.

I don't think the charging time is much of an issue at service stations as they charge relatively quickly. By the time you've grabbed a coffee and spent a penny you've charged to cover most journeys. The problem comes when you have to wait for one to become available, it's quite noticeable the increase number of EV's on the road over the last 6 months.

We looked at how many 300 mile round trips we'd do in year and decided it was so few it would never really be an issue.

 

[GOM]

I reckon it will be the other way. Ranges will stay about the same or even less but recharging will get quicker.

What they need is some form of battery than can be easily and quickly recharged but isn't made of rare earth materials, because obviously there is no point attempting to replace all the petrol cars in the world if the material to make the batteries does not exist. Time will tell whether that is physically possible.

Rare earth materials are not particularly rare, just hard to extract and are used for the motors, not the batteries in EVs. Tesla are now going back to motors that don't use them at all.

'there are a lot of misconceptions about what a rare earth element is and how many of them are used by electric cars. In fact, lithium-ion batteries typically contain zero rare earth elements'

Tesla is going (back) to EV motors with no rare earth elements

Tesla will create a permanent magnet electric vehicle motor with zero rare earth elements in it, the company announced at...

electrek.co

 

[GOM]

On a safety issue there will be a few blind or partially blind people who will have major problems crossing the roads as it is very difficult to hear an electric car approaching on some road surfaces.

Electric or hybrid vehicles can be virtually silent, especially at lower speeds, making it very difficult to hear their approach. From 1 July 2021, all new electric and hybrid vehicles registered in the UK need to have a sound generator installed to make a sound similar to a conventional engine.

New electric vehicles must generate sound

If you're affected by sight loss, we're here for you

www.rnib.org.uk

 

[Triggaaar]

Petrol cars keep getting more efficient and cleaner . . . Theres a lot of work going on Developing synthetic fuels

Presumably less work than there would be if there wasn't a law forcing them to go electric?

 

[warmleyseagull]

I'll still be driving my 3.2L Merc in 2030. Great idea but how are the people on lower income jobs going to affo

Just a thought around how are all the people in lower paid jobs going to get to work and do the jobs that most of us don't want to do? If you have 3 kids and a massive rent then a bike or bus is not an option. Your very privileged to own such a motor.

Of course, and that is true of many other things, not just EVs. But once your Merc blows up in 2030s you will have to travel by bus or bike on your logic as only EVs available. My point was the difficulty of charging a vehicle in a relatively rural part of the world, and the fact that the charging infrastructure is not keeping up, so perhaps 2030 will never happen.

 

[Triggaaar]

Of course, and that is true of many other things, not just EVs. But once your Merc blows up in 2030s you will have to travel by bus or bike on your logic as only EVs available.

He could always buy a used car.

 

[happypig]

Absolutely spot on. Ban production of new cars. That is the answer.

Making huge electric vehicles and forcing folk to ditch perfectly serviceable cars is an environmental disaster.

Down with that sort of thing

Not ban production of new cars, but limit the engine size so that from 2025 you cannot buy a car with an engine over 1.6l. Reduce that to 1.3l in 2027 and 1.0 in 2030.

Gauche, tasteless people (eg from Essex) would still be able to have gold plated Benzos but they would be a bit gutless.

 

[Horses Arse]

Not ban production of new cars, but limit the engine size so that from 2025 you cannot buy a car with an engine over 1.6l. Reduce that to 1.3l in 2027 and 1.0 in 2030.

Gauche, tasteless people (eg from Essex) would still be able to have gold plated Benzos but they would be a bit gutless.

I don't reckon there's any need to continue manufacture..Repair, extend life, maintain/grow specialist repair employment and save the earth's resources.

The manufacure of motor vehicles takes so much energy that this represents the best environmental strategy. The reason it doesn't fly is that it clashes with the all important commercial drive.

It's capitalism that is the biggest risk to the environment. Electric cars are just another way of extending that model. Concentrate all the harm elsewhere whilst celebrating zero pollution locally.

 

[Bodian]

Electric or hybrid vehicles can be virtually silent, especially at lower speeds, making it very difficult to hear their approach. From 1 July 2021, all new electric and hybrid vehicles registered in the UK need to have a sound generator installed to make a sound similar to a conventional engine.

New electric vehicles must generate sound

If you're affected by sight loss, we're here for you

www.rnib.org.uk

I can see the reasoning behind this - especially as my Dad was blind. But one of the biggest polluters in our towns and countryside is road noise pollution - which can ruin walks and sitting in gardens, so I was looking forward to this reducing / disappearing.

It's very difficult to balance this all.

 

[Stat Brother]

I can see the reasoning behind this - especially as my Dad was blind. But one of the biggest polluters in our towns and countryside is road noise pollution - which can ruin walks and sitting in gardens, so I was looking forward to this reducing / disappearing.

It's very difficult to balance this all.

It's so invasive we have absolutely no idea just how much of a problem it is.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Again Electric cars was/is/won't never about saving the planet and ALL about saving the car industry.
You don't even have to dig deep (no pun intended) to find the damage being done by mining for the components - but hey that's mainly in the third world so that's ok.



Instead of selling us massive wankpanzers to keep the occupants safe and f**k everyone else, the industry should have been going micro, sadly there's no profit in that.

Fiat almost revolutionised the way we look at cars with the 500.
But it couldn't help itself and inexplicably (not inexplicably at all - money) 10 years later we end up with the Fiat 500L, or whatever, a comparatively massive 5 door estate. The same goes for Mini.


Now Fiat have followed Citroen in making a city car that everybody in the city actually needs and it looks like a deathtrap because it's sharing space with Range Rovers and Volvo XC90 and BMW X3/4/5/6 et al.

That is just not correct though.

People like to own cars. Electric cars is the next step.

Electric cars are here to provide transport for people. It is not about saving the car industry.

Public transport has limited convenince and cycling is a s**t way to get around.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I don't reckon there's any need to continue manufacture..Repair, extend life, maintain/grow specialist repair employment and save the earth's resources.

The manufacure of motor vehicles takes so much energy that this represents the best environmental strategy. The reason it doesn't fly is that it clashes with the all important commercial drive.

It's capitalism that is the biggest risk to the environment. Electric cars are just another way of extending that model. Concentrate all the harm elsewhere whilst celebrating zero pollution locally.

It's not capitalism per se, it's wealth that is the threat. Which is why some of the wackiest eco-warriors genuinely do want to go to village communities with no real transport and no real trade, living off the land and burning nothing but trees. Poorer people generate less CO2.

Obviously capitalist enterprises like cars (petrol or electric) generate lots of CO2, but so do very much non-capitalist enterprises like the NHS. And it's hard to have one without the other.

 

[GOM]

It's so invasive we have absolutely no idea just how much of a problem it is.

Apparently walking around Oslo is a strangely quiet experience. The majority of vehicles are plug in electric including public transport, and the sound of the occasional ICE vehicle is very noticeable.
Fully electric new car sales in Norway are currently 82% of the entire market.

 

[Stat Brother]

Apparently walking around Oslo is a strangely quiet experience. The majority of vehicles are plug in electric including public transport, and the sound of the occasional ICE vehicle is very noticeable.
Fully electric new car sales in Norway are currently 82% of the entire market.

I'd imagine 'oh it's so lovely and quiet' must be the first thing residences say when their road is closed!

Stepping out of Brighton Station is an assault on every sense - it just shouldn't be like that.

 

[Audax]

If you have time, would you mind correcting any falsehoods?

I'll take it on. Working down the article in order:

1. In Paragraph 2, he cites Volvo claims on higher GHG costs to build EVs (70% higher) and draws a clear inference that this means EVs are no cleaner than ICE vehicles. He's wrong. There are multiple sources easily found via Google that show that EVs are significantly cleaner over the entire vehicle lifecycle. Indeed, one such source I found claims that the higher production impact can be overcome within just 6 months of ownership for those doing higher mileage.

2. In Paragraph 2 he also estimates battery life at 10 years. This is out of date, with current estimates being 15-20 years and enough miles that the average ICE vehicle will have expired its engine sooner than the EV battery becoming a problem. (Edit to add: he also fails to consider that the batteries that come out of EVs aren't junk even after they've reached end of life in a car. They're either refurbished for use as industrial / home batteries or fully recycled).

3. Paragraph 3 he goes into EV vs Hydrogen. But completely fails to mention the elephant in the room with hydrogen: how clean (or not clean) it is to produce the hydrogen to use in the vehicles. He also ignores that on the infrastructure side, Hydrogen has a big hill to climb just like EV does. Food for thought on hydrogen: it's being pushed by fossil fuel companies because the quickest and easiest way to mass-produce hydrogen is ... by burning fossil fuels. Also doesn't mention the prospect of new EVs entering the EU/UK markets that incorporate fast battery-swap technology.

4. Paragraph 3 he very briefly mentions alternative battery technologies, but immediately dismisses them as being "years away" in a way that makes it sound like "years" is a big number. It isn't. There's multiple different new battery technologies being worked on, some are "years away", others are much closer - there's a couple that are being road-tested already. Even ignoring new technologies, the existing tech is constantly being improved with range, charging times, and weight all improving constantly year-on-year. You just have to look at the progression of Formula E: the first season (2014-15) drivers used 2 cars each per race, over a distance of roughly 90km. Gen 2 cars were introduced in 2018-19, and saw the end of mid-race car swaps - race length remained roughly 90km. Gen 3 arrived this year; race distances remain a little over 90km, but the Gen 3 car is lighter, and more powerful. Some of this comes from improvements in motor technology, some of it from battery. But realistically, you can't talk about one without the other; existing battery tech can be made more effective by coupling it with improved motors that are more efficient.

5. Paragraph 4 ... that's all fine. I don't think anyone would argue against hydrogen (it clearly has its benefits). I fundamentally disagree that hydrogen is the right answer across all forms of transport, however, and I think that's what he's missing. He's comparing apples and oranges here.

6. Paragraph 5. I agree with him on the market forces here. But what he fails to consider is how the 3-4-5 year leasing cycle by those who can afford to lease new drives the supply of the second hand market. Not everyone can afford new. As long as the vehicle remains in use until it is no longer safe to use (having gone through a few owners along the way), then I'm willing to accept the high turnover at the new end of the market. Especially with EVs, as they won't be contributing worsening-over-time tailpipe emissions - unlike the typical ICE.

7. Paragraph 6 - can't disagree with any of this. But none of it argues against further developing EV. It's all complimentary.

8. The rest of it is just stating the bleeding obvious, but in a way that implies EV's aren't ready yet (it's right there in his final sentence). I disagree, absolutely, because his conclusion is based on flawed reasoning earlier in the article. EVs are *already* of real environmental benefit, although with one caveat: exactly how beneficial depends on how clean the electric generation is in the country you live in. Here in the UK, we're actually pretty fortunate (compared to, say, Australia where generation is still quite a bit dirtier than here).

 

[Fungus]

I'll take it on. Working down the article in order:

1. In Paragraph 2, he cites Volvo claims on higher GHG costs to build EVs (70% higher) and draws a clear inference that this means EVs are no cleaner than ICE vehicles. He's wrong. There are multiple sources easily found via Google that show that EVs are significantly cleaner over the entire vehicle lifecycle. Indeed, one such source I found claims that the higher production impact can be overcome within just 6 months of ownership for those doing higher mileage.

2. In Paragraph 2 he also estimates battery life at 10 years. This is out of date, with current estimates being 15-20 years and enough miles that the average ICE vehicle will have expired its engine sooner than the EV battery becoming a problem.

3. Paragraph 3 he goes into EV vs Hydrogen. But completely fails to mention the elephant in the room with hydrogen: how clean (or not clean) it is to produce the hydrogen to use in the vehicles. He also ignores that on the infrastructure side, Hydrogen has a big hill to climb just like EV does. Food for thought on hydrogen: it's being pushed by fossil fuel companies because the quickest and easiest way to mass-produce hydrogen is ... by burning fossil fuels. Also doesn't mention the prospect of new EVs entering the EU/UK markets that incorporate fast battery-swap technology.

4. Paragraph 3 he very briefly mentions alternative battery technologies, but immediately dismisses them as being "years away" in a way that makes it sound like "years" is a big number. It isn't. There's multiple different new battery technologies being worked on, some are "years away", others are much closer - there's a couple that are being road-tested already. Even ignoring new technologies, the existing tech is constantly being improved with range, charging times, and weight all improving constantly year-on-year. You just have to look at the progression of Formula E: the first season (2014-15) drivers used 2 cars each per race, over a distance of roughly 90km. Gen 2 cars were introduced in 2018-19, and saw the end of mid-race car swaps - race length remained roughly 90km. Gen 3 arrived this year; race distances remain a little over 90km, but the Gen 3 car is lighter, and more powerful. Some of this comes from improvements in motor technology, some of it from battery. But realistically, you can't talk about one without the other; existing battery tech can be made more effectively be coupling it with improved motors that are more efficient.

5. Paragraph 4 ... that's all fine. I don't think anyone would argue against hydrogen (it clearly has its benefits). I fundamentally disagree that hydrogen is the right answer across all forms of transport, however, and I think that's what he's missing. He's comparing apples and oranges here.

6. Paragraph 5. I agree with him on the market forces here. But what he fails to consider is how the 3-4-5 year leasing cycle by those who can afford to lease new drives the supply of the second hand market. Not everyone can afford new. As long as the vehicle remains in use until it is no longer safe to use (having gone through a few owners along the way), then I'm willing to accept the high turnover at the new end of the market. Especially with EVs, as they won't be contributing worsening-over-time tailpipe emissions - unlike the typical ICE.

7. Paragraph 6 - can't disagree with any of this. But none of it argues against further developing EV. It's all complimentary.

8. The rest of it is just stating the bleeding obvious, but in a way that implies EV's aren't ready yet (it's right there in his final sentence). I disagree, absolutely, because his conclusion is based on flawed reasoning earlier in the article. EVs are *already* of real environmental benefit, although with one caveat: exactly how beneficial depends

Don’t leave us hanging with the last sentence! Depends on…

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Don’t leave us hanging with the last sentence! Depends on…

Always keep your reader wanting more!!

 

[Audax]

Don’t leave us hanging with the last sentence! Depends on…

Sorry!

"[...] depends on how clean the electric generation is in the country you live in. Here in the UK, we're actually pretty fortunate (compared to, say, Australia where generation is still quite a bit dirtier than here)."

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Sorry!

"[...] depends on how clean the electric generation is in the country you live in. Here in the UK, we're actually pretty fortunate (compared to, say, Australia where generation is still quite a bit dirtier than here)."

It was almost as if your battery had conked out, just before you'd reached your destination

 

[Audax]

It was almost as if your battery had conked out, just before you'd reached your destination

Was busy typing it all up in between work meetings. Completely forgot I hadn't finished that end bit.

Of course, I wrote all that and never mentioned (because Mr Bean didn't mention it) the other big myth: that EVs are more expensive. They're still more expensive up-front (although it's coming down as competition in the market builds), but for those who can afford to invest that up-front the "total cost of ownership" is already much lower. Although iirc the study I saw used a 7-year time period, and Mr Bean cites average ownership being 3 years (but that's via leasing, where the up-front investment is much reduced).

3 years back when I was researching my current EV (on a 4 year lease) I ran the sums. At the time I was commuting 4 days a week, 130 miles per day, using a 2016 Prius (via company car perk). My company had decided to stop facilitating company cars (due to govt changes in BIK tax) and instead give us a cash equivalent (PAYE taxed...). My Mrs was using a Ford Focus Ecoboom ... sorry, Ecoboost ... that with just 45k miles on the clock had already needed significant work done for free by Ford post warranty due to fundamental design flaws in the cooling system. So decision was made to buy out the Prius at end of contract (still have it today) as it was cleaner and more reliable than the Focus. And I ran the sums on private lease of an EV. Over 4 years, at the mileage I was doing at the time, the total cost of ownership of going EV was (just) lower than investing in ICE or hybrid.

That's something worth keeping in mind: the cost effectiveness (and environmental benefits) of choosing an EV over an ICE improves with the more miles you do. ICE continues to increase total GHG emissions with every mile driven at a far faster rate than an EV, especially in countries with a highly green electric grid. With EV's there's the sunk cost in production, but that means with every mile you do the GHG emissions "per mile" driven goes down rapidly.