OT: Electric cars worse than petrol

[PeterC]

(Apologies for the second link).

I wonder who'll feel guilty over having one.

[harry]

A lot of "mays". Drivel. Electric vehicles use regenerative braking for 95% of the time so the brake pads last a very long time. (= no particles from them)

I haven't noticed my tyres wearing out particularly fast.

No dust from clutch (there isn't one).

[Chris Hogg]

I can't imagine, but I expect the response will contain such erudite phrases as brain dead, shit-fer-brains, bollix and drivel!

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Chris Hogg escribió:

Whoever he is, he'll love this one then.

Solar panels shown to take more energy to make then they generate in their lifetime, and cause massive amounts of pollution from the factories making them.

"A PV panel will produce more CO2 than if coal were simply used directly to make electricity. [...] The image shows the true green credentials of solar PV where industrial wastelands have been created in China so that Europeans can make believe they are reducing CO2 emissions"

[John Rumm]

I think we could write a harry simulator, it would save him the trouble...

[John Rumm]

Missing the point as usual I see...

The particulate matter is produced in the power station providing the recharge power for the car, and in the power stations providing the embedded energy in the manufacture of the car and its batteries etc.

For once, you are off the hook for the first one, if you can recharge it without ever needing grid electricity.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Mike Tomlinson escribió:

ps. TNP posted a link to the study (Ferroni and Hopkirk) cited in another thread, but that's degenerated into the usual tedious Windows vs Linux war with the fuckwitted D i m showing all and sundry how little he knows.

This is Euan Mearns' take on the same paper; he posted it on his website yesterday and his comments are well worth a read.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

If you're going to compare the total energy used for making solar panels etc, wouldn't you also need to include the energy used to mine and distribute coal - and the energy needed to build the power stations etc too? If using the coal comparison?

[Bill Taylor]

I this case I think you have missed the point. The claim is that the emmissions of particles from tyres, brakes and road surface due to wear are significantly more from electric vehicles than IC vehicles because of their extra weight.

The DM article is more informative than the Elsevier abstract.

I'm afraid that I don't believe that the findings are significant; yet another study done to generate publicity and hence income.

Of course with comments like

"We found that non-exhaust emissions, from brakes, tyres and the road, are far larger than exhaust emissions in all modern cars."

and

"After installing particulate air pollution monitors in the southbound Hatfield tunnel on the A1(M), which has 49,000 vehicles a day travelling through it, scientists found that each one produced 34-39 micrograms of particles per kilometre. But only a third came from the engine. Everything else was from small pieces of bitumen whipped up from the road, rubber from tyres and brake dust."

you could come to the conclusion that exhaust emmissions from modern IC cars are so low as to be not worth worrying about.

[Nightjar]

I thought that ELIZA had replaced the real Harry years ago.

[T i m]

What I do know is there is no 'War' between Windows and Linux (OS's care even less about it all than the vast majority of computer users) only the hypocrisy of the pathetic footers seen on every post from the said stalker troll:

" (\_/) (='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging. (")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg"

Maybe if the stalker / troll got a life outside knocking Windows and advocating Linux (in this 'd-i-y' group) ...

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Hogg]

But wouldn't the energy used to mine and distribute coal - and the energy needed to build the power stations etc. occur on both sides of the "equation", and so in effect cancel out? On the one side you have coal-generated* electricity made directly and on the other side you have the same coal-generated* electricity making solar panels, which don't go on to produce as much electricity as went into making them. IYSWIM

*with the understanding that much of the electricity isn't coal-fired any more (except perhaps in China where most of the panels are made), but you see what I mean.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News) escribió:

That point is addressed in the link I gave, or in the comments below. For my part, I would say yes. Maybe also factor in the human cost - mining, construction, etc.

[The Natural Philosopher]

That is what EROEI is all about.

How much energy you use to get your energy.

And if you understand that and read the article again, you will understand the point.

You use more energy to get the renewable energy than it ever pays you back. Unlike coal, which gives you many many many times more back.

I think people who don't understand basic accounting, physics or engineering shouldn't have a vote.

[Brian Gaff]

I understand from something a Volvo bloke said recently that the Hybrid engines now being designed are being not only more efficient but less polluting as they are no longer used to actually drive the vehicle, only charge the battery under computer control so their speed is governed to be in the sweet spot on the pollution and efficiency curve. I sort of can see this as its obviously easier to design an engine and control system that is cleaner and more efficient if it only needs to run at a narrow range of speeds and loads compared to an ordinary vehicle. I do wonder however if, in this mode whether the end to end efficiency of such a vehicle is still as good as one might expect. Until we can make lighter more efficient long lasting batteries to store energy, you surely cannot say that its more efficient as you are doing another energy conversion stage along the line. Brian

[harry]

The point was that because the car is allegedly heavier, there was more wear on the brakes and tyres. The particles were supposedly coming from these. Which is drivel for the reasons I gave.

And BTW in Summer I charge my car from the PV panels.

[harry]

It's almost impossible to do a like for like comparison. The point is once you have your solar panels, no further fossil fuel is nee ded. And no-one can take your fuel supply away from you. And there is ruced pollution.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

That's moving the goal posts. Either you compare the total energy needed to set up a method of producing electricity against that produced or you don't.

But gawd forbid any one side gave true figures.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

You conveniently missed out the bit that it depends on where such things are sited.

[dennis]

That is incorrect. There has been more pollution and its the total that matters not the bit you get by using the stuff.

Next you will claim electric cars produce no pollution when in reality all they do is produce the pollution somewhere else.

There is almost no chance that your electric car will produce less pollution over its life than a small petrol engined car. Even if it actually produced less pollution per mile then it has produced a lot more pollution to make it and you would have to do a lot of miles to recover that which electric cars aren't actually suited to doing as they have rather a small range. Also if you are using an energy source like solar then it will never produce less pollution as the solar panels have already produced more pollution than you will get back in savings in their ~30 year life. To actually be green you need to do a lot of miles and charge it with hydroelectric or nukes.