UK switching to electric vehicles discussion

[jon0844]

Batteries from EVs have a good value for reuse in other products, like storage batteries, or to refurbish other batteries (or be refurbished). Or at the very least they can be recycled.

Batteries don't just die, and if a pack fails the chances are there are still modules within the battery that are usable. You wouldn't service a phone battery or AA rechargeable battery but there are companies that will service car batteries. And more companies will open as more batteries are in use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

EVs are not entirely environmentally friendly either. The environmental and social costs of producing a lithium battery are substantial

The Harmful Effects of our Lithium Batteries - Greenly

Are lithium batteries really eco-friendly? Uncover the hidden environmental costs behind this popular alternative to fossil fuels.

greenly.earth

Diesel particulates and NOx are unique in being extremely harmful at the point of use. You do get slightly elevated tyre particulates from EVs compared to lighter ICEs but the effect is fairly small. That's why ULEZs concentrate on older diesel vehicles, with pretty much all petrols that aren't rusted away to nothing being compliant.

All pollution is to be reduced where possible, but pollution at the point of use is the most pressing because it's literally killing people (asthmatics, mostly). This is why EVs are of significant value even if charged entirely from a coal fired power station or even if charged from a diesel generator on your farm.

It doesn't really help to just talk about pollution. The different types and different aspects of it are important. For instance if every non-Euro 6 diesel owner changed to a 10 year old petrol - an older car - things in cities would improve considerably. It isn't always intuitive. It can also conflict - in these terms you're better off driving a big American truck* with a 6L petrol V8 around London than a fifteen year old diesel Vauxhall Corsa.

* Obviously large trucks in cities have other issues, e.g. poor pedestrian visibility, and are far worse for carbon emissions - but it's a deliberately extreme example to illustrate the point.

 

[Bikeman78]

Diesel particulates and NOx are unique in being extremely harmful at the point of use. You do get slightly elevated tyre particulates from EVs compared to lighter ICEs but the effect is fairly small. That's why ULEZs concentrate on older diesel vehicles, with pretty much all petrols that aren't rusted away to nothing being compliant.

All pollution is to be reduced where possible, but pollution at the point of use is the most pressing because it's literally killing people (asthmatics, mostly). This is why EVs are of significant value even if charged entirely from a coal fired power station or even if charged from a diesel generator on your farm.

It doesn't really help to just talk about pollution. The different types and different aspects of it are important. For instance if every non-Euro 6 diesel owner changed to a 10 year old petrol - an older car - things in cities would improve considerably. It isn't always intuitive. It can also conflict - in these terms you're better off driving a big American truck* with a 6L petrol V8 around London than a fifteen year old diesel Vauxhall Corsa.

* Obviously large trucks in cities have other issues, e.g. poor pedestrian visibility, and are far worse for carbon emissions - but it's a deliberately extreme example to illustrate the point.

I seem to recall that 20-25 years ago, we were told that diesels are wonderful. The goalposts keep moving. A cynic might think that it's deliberate, as it give new reasons to tax people. That's not to say that I think diesel exhaust is a good thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I seem to recall that 20-25 years ago, we were told that diesels are wonderful. The goalposts keep moving. A cynic might think that it's deliberate, as it give new reasons to tax people. That's not to say that I think diesel exhaust is a good thing.

I think it's probably more that we discover new things all the time. Small turbodiesels have lower carbon emissions than petrols, that was and is a good thing. But we didn't know at the time the harm particulate emissions would cause until diesels became so much more common and asthma rates went through the roof. Correlation doesn't of course always mean causation, but I think there are major indications that in this case they are in fact related.

Even if you're not asthmatic, go to central London and have a wander round, and you'll realise how much nicer it is now than it was before the ULEZ. The air is genuinely clean, almost as clean as in the countryside. Other towns and cities, choked with older diesels, stink to the point you can taste it.

If you want a diesel, by the way, just get one with a particulate filter (and be sure to give it a decent long high speed blast every week or two so it can regenerate itself, or you'll forever have problems with it). The particulate/NOx emissions from these are about the same as a petrol. However personally, having owned one, I don't like the modern small diesels; the benefit of a diesel to the driver is torque, but a 1 or 1.5l diesel couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, and they tend to be slow to respond to the accelerator because of turbo lag. So if it's not an EV my next car will be petrol.

 

[43066]

Even if you're not asthmatic, go to central London and have a wander round, and you'll realise how much nicer it is now than it was before the ULEZ. The air is genuinely clean, almost as clean as in the countryside. Other towns and cities, choked with older diesels, stink to the point you can taste it.

Fully agree with this. Night and day difference compared to how it was a decade or so ago. Of course this is more to do with banishing older diesels than with electrification.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fully agree with this. Night and day difference compared to how it was a decade or so ago. Of course this is more to do with banishing older diesels than with electrification.

It’s both. As I‘ve posted previously, in central London now getting on for half of all car sized vehicles are electric. A decent proportio of buses are too (and that excludes the hybrids).

 

[RuddA]

Even if you're not asthmatic, go to central London and have a wander round, and you'll realise how much nicer it is now than it was before the ULEZ. The air is genuinely clean, almost as clean as in the countryside. Other towns and cities, choked with older diesels, stink to the point you can taste it.

The bad old days when a day in London turned your nostrils black.

 

[stuu]

It’s both. As I‘ve posted previously, in central London now getting on for half of all car sized vehicles are electric. A decent proportio of buses are too (and that excludes the hybrids).

One thing I have noticed in central London is how much quieter it is now a decent proportion of cars are electric, as well as the cleaner air

 

[Sun Chariot]

The bad old days when a day in London turned your nostrils black.

The Jubilee Line was doing that to me, daily, as recently as 2012.

 

[GLC]

I seem to recall that 20-25 years ago, we were told that diesels are wonderful. The goalposts keep moving. A cynic might think that it's deliberate, as it give new reasons to tax people. That's not to say that I think diesel exhaust is a good thing.

Diesels emissions produce lower carbon, but it was in 2012 that the World Health Organisation ruled that diesel emissions were directly carcinogenic to humans. It is now understood (but yet to be formally proven IIRC), that diesel emissions are a significant factor in the rise of respiratory illnesses and food allergies in children.

The goalposts have moved, because we have a better understanding of the issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The bad old days when a day in London turned your nostrils black.

The Tube still does (too much brake dust in the air) but at least if you stay above ground it no longer does.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Tube still does (too much brake dust in the air) but at least if you stay above ground it no longer does.

Not that much these days on most lines!

 

[trebor79]

EVs are not entirely environmentally friendly either. The environmental and social costs of producing a lithium battery are substantial

The Harmful Effects of our Lithium Batteries - Greenly

Are lithium batteries really eco-friendly? Uncover the hidden environmental costs behind this popular alternative to fossil fuels.

greenly.earth

Yes but you do that once, and it will be recycled into new batteries at end of life.
With ICE you have to continually extract, transport, refine, transport again all of the use once fuel. That has a way bigger environmental footprint before you even burn it.

 

[DustyBin]

Diesels emissions produce lower carbon, but it was in 2012 that the World Health Organisation ruled that diesel emissions were directly carcinogenic to humans. It is now understood (but yet to be formally proven IIRC), that diesel emissions are a significant factor in the rise of respiratory illnesses and food allergies in children.

The goalposts have moved, because we have a better understanding of the issues.

I’d suggest the goalposts have moved because it’s convenient.

Nothing you’ve wrote above is incorrect, however these issues weren’t discovered in 2012 (or even in the preceding few years). They were know about long before then, but for what I can only presume were political reasons they were simply ignored.

A cynic could indeed be forgiven for thinking we’re being taken for fools…

 

[Bikeman78]

I’d suggest the goalposts have moved because it’s convenient.

Nothing you’ve wrote above is incorrect, however these issues weren’t discovered in 2012 (or even in the preceding few years). They were know about long before then, but for what I can only presume were political reasons they were simply ignored.

A cynic could indeed be forgiven for thinking we’re being taken for fools…

If we are still here in 20 years, it will be interesting to see what problem they have discovered for electric vehicles.

 

[DustyBin]

If we are still here in 20 years, it will be interesting to see what problem they have discovered for electric vehicles.

They’ll probably be dumping batteries in the sea off the coast of India or somewhere…

On a serious note (not that the above would actually surprise me!), lithium mining isn’t exactly “green”. If the intention is to improve local air quality that’s fine (within reason), but let’s not pretend we’re saving the planet.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I am surprised to see VW has launched an updated version to its Passat model. Albeit only in estate guise.
Their ID7 seems VW's offering beyond the Passat. I'd thought the current Passat would be their last ICE in that segment.

 

[Harpers Tate]

On a serious note (not that the above would actually surprise me!), lithium mining isn’t exactly “green”. If the intention is to improve local air quality that’s fine (within reason), but let’s not pretend we’re saving the planet.

The important point is that, unlike the minerals used in oil production, this Lithium is not consumed. Therefore it can be recovered. At some point, I'd predict that the economics are such that Li recovery is more cost effective than fresh mining.

 

[DustyBin]

The important point is that, unlike the minerals used in oil production, this Lithium is not consumed. Therefore it can be recovered. At some point, I'd predict that the economics are such that Li recovery is more cost effective than fresh mining.

That is indeed the idea… We’ll wait and see I guess.

 

[GusB]

They’ll probably be dumping batteries in the sea off the coast of India or somewhere…

On a serious note (not that the above would actually surprise me!), lithium mining isn’t exactly “green”. If the intention is to improve local air quality that’s fine (within reason), but let’s not pretend we’re saving the planet.

Extracting fossil fuels isn't exactly green, either. Lithium batteries can at least be re-used or recycled and battery chemistry is still evolving.

Everything we do has an impact on the planet in some way, and I don't think that the proponents of EVs are pretending otherwise.

 

[jon0844]

Extracting fossil fuels isn't exactly green, either. Lithium batteries can at least be re-used or recycled and battery chemistry is still evolving.

Everything we do has an impact on the planet in some way, and I don't think that the proponents of EVs are pretending otherwise.

When debating with people supportive of oil and gas, the extraction cost/risk (and HUGE subsidies from Governments) as well as the use of things like cobalt is conveniently ignored.

 

[N1]

When debating with people supportive of oil and gas, the extraction cost/risk (and HUGE subsidies from Governments) as well as the use of things like cobalt is conveniently ignored.

It is not ignored at all. There is just more to it than EVs require loads of cobalt and nickel. This Inernational Energy Agency page on Trends in Batteries is interesting and shows the start of the move to LFP batteries, mostly due to the hire price of metals needed in NMC batteries.

 

[jon0844]

It is not ignored at all. There is just more to it than EVs require loads of cobalt and nickel. This Inernational Energy Agency page on Trends in Batteries is interesting and shows the start of the move to LFP batteries, mostly due to the hire price of metals needed in NMC batteries.

LFP batteries have been around quite a long time already. Used in many EVs and likely most battery storage systems.

 

[Energy]

LFP batteries have been around quite a long time already. Used in many EVs and likely most battery storage systems.

Indeed, interestingly the Model 3 Standard is LFP while the long range is NMC. LFP makes more sense for battery storage systems since its cheaper, can sustain more charge cycles, and the additional space isn't much concern; NMC gets used where the higher energy density really matters.

 

[jon0844]

Indeed, interestingly the Model 3 Standard is LFP while the long range is NMC. LFP makes more sense for battery storage systems since its cheaper, can sustain more charge cycles, and the additional space isn't much concern; NMC gets used where the higher energy density really matters.

Yes, generally the cars with bigger batteries for longer range. As I am not someone who needs that mythical 800 mile battery everyone apparently needs, my first EV will also certainly be LFP.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, generally the cars with bigger batteries for longer range. As I am not someone who needs that mythical 800 mile battery everyone apparently needs, my first EV will also certainly be LFP.

As someone who semi regularly drives 240 miles (about 12 trips a year, where a trip is in each direction), personally my thought is that a 400 mile range vehicle would probably do that without needing a charge.

Given that the average number of trips each person does which are over 50 miles is less than 12 I'm aware that I'm likely to be above average (especially as I'll also do other trips which are also over 50 miles a year), and so it's unlikely that there's much of a need for most people to have a range of 800 miles.

(Note I'm aware that you probably also think that this is longer than is needed, other than for that perfectly reasonable example where someone may need to be able to visit sick parent who happens to be on holiday in some distant point in the country to them).

 

[jon0844]

You would stop somewhere on a 240 mile trip surely? While a Dacia Spring only takes 30kWh DC charging, many cars can charge 20-80% in 10-20 minutes.

Surely you'd grab a coffee, stop to check for messages (maybe this forum?) and go to the toilet at least once?

You could get an EV that does 240 miles even in the cold, but a car that did only 200 would still be fine.

I am not convinced I need a car for a sick parent that might be on holiday. What if they went abroad? Do I need a plane on standby?!

I'd likely start my journey with 100% charge. Would everyone with an ICE car do that? My car is 3/4 full right now and won't be filled until the warning light comes on. So in that theoretical emergency you'd most likely need to fill up at least once and consider the time to get to the petrol station etc.

Frankly I am fine with an EV that can only do 150 miles. That's over two hours driving (assuming the entire trip averages 70mph) and by then I'm happy to stretch my legs even in a very comfortable car. In that time I can add 15 minutes charge.

 

[The Ham]

You would stop somewhere on a 240 mile trip surely? While a Dacia Spring only takes 30kWh DC charging, many cars can charge 20-80% in 10-20 minutes.

Surely you'd grab a coffee, stop to check for messages (maybe this forum?) and go to the toilet at least once?

You could get an EV that does 240 miles even in the cold, but a car that did only 200 would still be fine.

I am not convinced I need a car for a sick parent that might be on holiday. What if they went abroad? Do I need a plane on standby?!

I'd likely start my journey with 100% charge. Would everyone with an ICE car do that? My car is 3/4 full right now and won't be filled until the warning light comes on. So in that theoretical emergency you'd most likely need to fill up at least once and consider the time to get to the petrol station etc.

Frankly I am fine with an EV that can only do 150 miles. That's over two hours driving (assuming the entire trip averages 70mph) and by then I'm happy to stretch my legs even in a very comfortable car. In that time I can add 15 minutes charge.

The point wasn't that I'd drive all that way in one go (it's possible, but only if you get a clear run and even then not recommend, and you wouldn't want to do it unless you do so fairly frequently), but rather that even for someone who travels long distance fairly regularly 800 miles was more than was needed - probably by a factor of two.

 

[Bald Rick]

You would stop somewhere on a 240 mile trip surely? While a Dacia Spring only takes 30kWh DC charging, many cars can charge 20-80% in 10-20 minutes.

I will do a 240 mile trip without stopping (I’m braced for a strongly adminstered reprimand from our south Milton
Keynes correspondent), but that’s a) because I have a regular if infrequent trip that is that distance that can be done in around 3h30, and b) because in the petrol car, I can.

When the smaller EV arrives, where 240 will be on the edge of real range, I will stop for a 20min break and charge somewhere in Staffordshire. But I accept that is the ‘price’ of having a cheaper, lower range EV, and frankly it doesn’t bother me in the slightest, as although it is usually my intention to do the trip in one go, there are often reasons I end up stopping anyway.

Failing that I’ll take the big EV which will get me to Scotland comfortably in one go

 

[jon0844]

The point wasn't that I'd drive all that way in one go (it's possible, but only if you get a clear run and even then not recommend, and you wouldn't want to do it unless you do so fairly frequently), but rather that even for someone who travels long distance fairly regularly 800 miles was more than was needed - probably by a factor of two.

I don't think anyone needs to do 800 miles, but it's a common theme in the anti-EV posts with the scenario of someone suddenly needing to do it and there being no time to charge an EV on the way.

I can see people doing road trips in the USA, especially thanks to poor rail infrastructure, doing long journeys like that (with more than one driver so the other takes a break), where EVs will perhaps cause issues not just through charging times but charging infrastructure, but in many parts of the UK now we've probably got too many charging points as lots of companies are seeking to cover areas with lots of duplication as a result (a bit like cellular coverage).