OT: Electric cars; how green are they?

Bearing in mind that electric cars have to be recharged from mains electricity, and that in the UK this is produce substantially from rather inefficient coal-burning power stations, roughly what is the equivalent CO2 emission per mile of these cars, and how does it compare with a good modern small diesel or a hybrid car?

Presumably, over the next few decades as carbon capture technology is more widely adopted (if it ever is), and more nuclear and renewable power comes on-stream, things will get better, and they've got to start somewhere....

Reply to
Chris Hogg
Loading thread data ...

You seem to be assuming that "carbion capture" is a sensible and economic thing to do. It is neither of those. How many gigatons are you hoping will be captured?

Reply to
Matty F

The G-Wiz claims to emit 63g CO2/km at the power station for a typical generation mix

formatting link
you can switch your electricity supply to a green supplier and get "virtually" 0g CO2/km, get you a free halo, but presumably then you're not allowed to drive past any stationary windmill?

Reply to
Andy Burns

I did say 'if it ever is', which I hoped would introduce an appropriate level of scepticism. In your case, obviously it didn't.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Have you read the 'dust-to-dust' report:

formatting link

Reply to
Jeff Gaines

UK coal-fired generation releases 1007kg of CO2 per MWh

formatting link
Tesla car consumes 135 Wh/km.
formatting link
MWh is 1.007g/Wh

The Tesla is emitting 136g/km, provided we omit transmission losses and idling losses from the coal-fired plant.

The average CO2 emission figure for the new car fleet is 150g/km.

formatting link
the Tesla would be in band E (131-140g/km) for tax if it were properly labelled for its emissions. Tesla have been claiming that the cars emissions are "equivalent to 120 mpg" that seems to be untrue. The car is actually achieving the equivalent of 50mpg. The Audi TT 2.0 TDi Quattro manages the same emissions.

It's notable that the Tesla doesn't meet the EU target for reduction in CO2 emissions by 2015, so it's not a "car of the future" it's a very average car as far as emissions go. The G-Wizz isn't a car BTW so figures claimed for that are pointless. The G-Wizz is a quadricycle and is closer to an invalid carriage in design and execution than to a car.

Unsurprisingly manufacturers of electric cars are very coy about releasing the actual energy consumption figures for their vehicles.

Reply to
Steve Firth

formatting link
> So the Tesla would be in band E (131-140g/km) for tax if it were

My concerns are about the materials used in the batteries. How green are their origins?

Reply to
John

such figures a bit pointless.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

At some point, they'll all have been dug out of the ground?

On the other hand, somewhat earlier, they were all synthesised in giant exploding fusion reactors in space.

Take your pick.

#Paul

Reply to
news10paul

BROADLY similar. Perhaps a bit better

if powered from fossil generated electricity.

The cars themselves are built for efficiency, so teh at the wheel horsepower is probably around 80-90% effeiceint in tersm of what goes in to the battery.

Power station efficiency thermal wise is anything from a hgh CO2 coal plant at maybe 33% to a CCGT at around 65% thermal efficiency. Much better thna a car engine, an the grid will be around the 95%+ mark efficient.

However 20% of electricity is carbon free nuclear, and at night, even more so as the gas sets are wound down.

Renewable power doesn't do anything to reduce carbon emissions overall.

Nuclear power will make a huge difference if we can build it in time.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

In article , Chris Hogg scribeth thus

I'm sure you'll have the NP along here soon giving you chapter and verse on this matter..

The idea of an electric car seems to me to be a very good one in some ways i.e. motors directly on the wheels, no transmission gears and clutches and simpler electronic control regenerative braking etc etc..

However at the moment there is in a conventional car a power conversion from chemical energy to mechanical energy..

In an electric car a conversion from chemical, water or nuclear energy to electrical and then electrical transmission and loss then conversion to chemical then from chemical back to electrical energy is required not really that "neat" a power conversion..

Course the nasty pollutants are now removed from the streets to the power station and in the case of nuclear or water theses less CO2 of course, just a few other by products from Nuclear..

All in the electric cars time will come when it can carry an onboard power primary source with just the one conversion to electrical energy to drive the thing along and that doesn't look like happening anytime soon.

Course when the price of oil gets too much i.e. prolly Jan the First next year, then that might change;!...

Reply to
tony sayer

formatting link
>>> So the Tesla would be in band E (131-140g/km) for tax if it were

dont be stupid. What does green origins mean?

Like everything else, its dug out the ground in big dirty messy mines and processed chemically to produce pollutants.

Same as having a field of cows produces a ton of stinking bullcrap every day, so does the green industry.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Yebbut most of that cost is tax and this is one of the things that make electric cars win....for now.

In the unlikely event of vast numbers of people switching to electric cars then the government will almost certainly devise a cunning way of taxing their use to make up for the huge loss in tax revenue from reduced petrol and diesel sales.

Reply to
Mike Clarke

"Dave Plowman (News)" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Aixam, Ligier and similar French-style Voitures sans Permis? Trouble is, they don't have official CO2 figures, as they're not required for the B1 quadricycle vehicle class...

Reply to
Adrian

On 20/11/2010 10:34, tony sayer wrote: ...

You could build a nuclear powered vehicle about the size of a lorry today.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
Nightjar

and it would need a tender of cooling water he size of three to run the turbines ;-)

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Why would it use turbines rather than Peltier effect direct conversion?

Colin Bignell

Reply to
Nightjar

Those vehicles are actually larger and better made then the G-Wizz, and they are capable of providing some protection in a crash. Not much though since none of the manufacturers seems to want to have them NCAP tested.

Reply to
Steve Firth

There's the Peel P50.

Reply to
Steve Firth

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.