EV to save the planet? Maybe not ...

.......batteries just simply cannot be used for large Van's, HGVs etc.
I'd qualify that, I'd suggest, that it is a statement only as regards the present state of battery technology. Or to limit it to the imminent future. It's not all that long ago that NiCd was the "state of the art" in portable rechargeable battery chemistry, with its attendant (relatively) large mass/low capacity and memory effects etc. It seems highly probable (to me), such is the nature of things, that we will advance beyond where Li-Ion stands to a point where capacity/density does indeed allow such things.
 
So even with industrial levels of safety monitoring and small number of installations hydrogen fuel stations are going POP!!

Imagine how safe a hydrogen fuel station will be when rolled our enmass with running/safety been palmed off to the lowest bidder!!

Hydrogen station explodes, Toyota halts sales of fuel cell cars, is this the end? - Electrek
Honestly I would read the whole article and extract the facts before believing the headline. The author provides their view at the end so you can see where the slant comes from in the writing. Toyota temporarily halted sales since the vehicles can’t refuel. Owners of current cars have been offered loan non hydrogen vehicles. The station owners have no idea of the cause so they have closes all 10 while they find out what happened. It doesn’t seem like a hydrogen car was refuelling.

The only other seller of hydrogen cars in the country echoed the announcements of Toyota.

Toyota provided a clear statement that this didn’t change their views on hydrogen.

“Is this the end?” Hardly IMHO.
 
And of course "Gas" stations are perfectly safe
 
I still stand by my point, that we will have an alternative to battery power for vehicles in the future. It may or not be hydrogen, but batteries just simply cannot be used for large Van's, HGVs etc.

Sorry, that's incorrect. Electric Commercial Vehicles are very much in production right now.
From light vans right up to 26ton+ trucks. The new Mercedes Actros for example has an electric version.

An electric version of the Fuso 7.5t Canter has been available for about 4 years now.
 
Not stopped people using petrol stations either
Sorry, that's incorrect. Electric Commercial Vehicles are very much in production right now.
From light vans right up to 26ton+ trucks. The new Mercedes Actros for example has an electric version.

An electric version of the Fuso 7.5t Canter has been available for about 4 years now.
You are correct, but I am as well
None of these vehicles have the range of the current ICE equivalent. How many of these 26 ton+ trucks can match the range of an ICE equivalent? None. How fast do they take to charge? A long time. How many service stations have charging stations for these vehicles? Not many.
In the freight business, time is money, so having to charge a vehicle every 150 miles for 2 hours is not economically viable. Yes, they are being used for shorter ranges, but now, and in the future, batteries will not replace ICE in large 40 ton+ trucks until the battery weight significantly drops
 
Not stopped people using petrol stations either

You are correct, but I am as well
None of these vehicles have the range of the current ICE equivalent. How many of these 26 ton+ trucks can match the range of an ICE equivalent? None. How fast do they take to charge? A long time. How many service stations have charging stations for these vehicles? Not many.
In the freight business, time is money, so having to charge a vehicle every 150 miles for 2 hours is not economically viable. Yes, they are being used for shorter ranges, but now, and in the future, batteries will not replace ICE in large 40 ton+ trucks until the battery weight significantly drops

Of course, but then no electric car has the range of a ICE car.
The eActros is in production for 2021 release with a range of 200km. Obviously not practical for long haul, but short range distribution it should be ok.
 
Honestly I would read the whole article and extract the facts before believing the headline. The author provides their view at the end so you can see where the slant comes from in the writing. Toyota temporarily halted sales since the vehicles can’t refuel. Owners of current cars have been offered loan non hydrogen vehicles. The station owners have no idea of the cause so they have closes all 10 while they find out what happened. It doesn’t seem like a hydrogen car was refuelling.

The only other seller of hydrogen cars in the country echoed the announcements of Toyota.

Toyota provided a clear statement that this didn’t change their views on hydrogen.

“Is this the end?” Hardly IMHO.

News reports from Norway stated the fuel station was not in use at the time of the explosion and the only minor injuries were from passing motorists who had their airbags set off by the blast wave.

There have also been recent supply issues in California due to an explosion at a chemical plant producing H2 for vehicle fuel stations. Honda, Toyota and Hyundai were having to offer ICE loan cars here too for affected customers until fuelling stations could be brought back on line.

In this case it’s cause was reported as leakage during the transfer of H2 from storage into a road tanker. There are also quotes from the fire department about the challenge of fighting a fire that burns with a invisible flame (to the naked eye), and needing thermal imaging cameras to “see” the fire.
 
And of course "Gas" stations are perfectly safe

What I don't get is why you wouldnt see EVs as an opportunity to move away from the reliance on an entire third party company to keep you mobile.

Any hydrogen fuel cell car owner is at the mercy of Shell/BP to continue and maintain supply of the fuel. And when it goes wrong, for what ever reason your stuffed.

Sure that's what your use to with petrol cars but EVs are a different ball game.

Hydrogen supply pinch affects San Francisco fuel-cell drivers

But with an EV your supply your own fuel 95% of the time, and as long as you have electricity your be able to fuel your car. Yes the grid can go down, but no petrol/hydrogen fuel station will operate in the event of gird failure.

Even EV Rapidcharging is so much easier to implement and maintain than liquid hydrogen compressed to crazy pressures.

Why governments/companies are still wasting their time and money on this tech is beyond my understanding.
 
The whole push of hydrogen is been led by the petrol companies, and their desire to ensure they remain indispensable.

The fact one burning oil tanker can still cause so much chaos shows how addicted to hydrocarbons we all are.

In a time when wind/solar can already produce so much electricity with the potential to disrupt/break the power the hydrocarbon lobby has both monetary and politically I really don't understand the wish to continue with the status quo with hydrogen as a fuel instead of petrol/diesel.

Even looking at our very small PV setup - 4KW, with less than ideal facing, the panel generated 6569kWh over 2 years, in the same time period INCLUDING home EV charging we used 11,398 kWh.

So if we double our solar PV setup to 8WK or even better 10KW we could end up with a situation where we generate more electricity than consume, even including EV transportation, and all simply from a domestic PV setup.

Surely is this the kind of thing we should be asking our governments to do, not continuing to cozy up to the likes of BP/Shell.
 
What I don't get is why you wouldnt see EVs as an opportunity to move away from the reliance on an entire third party company to keep you mobile.

Any hydrogen fuel cell car owner is at the mercy of Shell/BP to continue and maintain supply of the fuel. And when it goes wrong, for what ever reason your stuffed.

Sure that's what your use to with petrol cars but EVs are a different ball game.

Hydrogen supply pinch affects San Francisco fuel-cell drivers

But with an EV your supply your own fuel 95% of the time, and as long as you have electricity your be able to fuel your car. Yes the grid can go down, but no petrol/hydrogen fuel station will operate in the event of gird failure.

Even EV Rapidcharging is so much easier to implement and maintain than liquid hydrogen compressed to crazy pressures.

Why governments/companies are still wasting their time and money on this tech is beyond my understanding.
I did not realise you had your own solar/wind farm that provides the electricity needed to charge your Tesla :rotfl:

I agree with the rest, however, even with an EV you are still dependent on a third party company to provide the energy needed.

Companies are spending the money on research on Hydrogen as they believe it is the fuel of the future, and I imagine they would not spend billions on such unless they had some kind of evidence to support that, regardless of your own personal feelings on the matter.
 
The whole push of hydrogen is been led by the petrol companies, and their desire to ensure they remain indispensable.

The fact one burning oil tanker can still cause so much chaos shows how addicted to hydrocarbons we all are.

In a time when wind/solar can already produce so much electricity with the potential to disrupt/break the power the hydrocarbon lobby has both monetary and politically I really don't understand the wish to continue with the status quo with hydrogen as a fuel instead of petrol/diesel.

Even looking at our very small PV setup - 4KW, with less than ideal facing, the panel generated 6569kWh over 2 years, in the same time period INCLUDING home EV charging we used 11,398 kWh.

So if we double our solar PV setup to 8WK or even better 10KW we could end up with a situation where we generate more electricity than consume, even including EV transportation, and all simply from a domestic PV setup.

Surely is this the kind of thing we should be asking our governments to do, not continuing to cozy up to the likes of BP/Shell.
The biggest investor in Hydrogen at the moment is Toyota, so not a petrol company.

And whilst EVs are great in this country, not every country in the world has a reliable electricity source, or an abundant electricity supply (even the UK imports a lot of electricity, and therefore the capacity in this country reaches its maximum production).
Take China for example, which many car manufacturers are targeting for EVs. They still produce over 50% off their electricity with coal. The same in India (I chose these two countries as they have the largest populations).
Yes great, everyone who can afford a car is driving an EV in these two countries, but the electricity being provided for these EVs is coming from the most pollutant form of producing electricity.

It is all well and good that you can produce 4kW from your solar panels, but Toyota/Shell/BP et el are not thinking about you and your renewable energy, they are thinking of how the future of cars are going to be powered globally.

This is something you have failed to grasp in this thread. What works for you, with your Tesla, and your driveway and solar panels, is very unlikely to work for 99.99999999% of the population of this planet.
 
This is something you have failed to grasp in this thread. What works for you, with your Tesla, and your driveway and solar panels, is very unlikely to work for 99.99999999% of the population of this planet.

Its actually the opposites because EVs don't work for you currently you cannot see the potential.

If you have to India or China your know how vast swades of these countries have access much more sun we have in the UK.

I go to Patna on a regular basis, power cuts are so often most houses have their own battery supply to keep lights on during a power cut. It really doesn't take alot of imagination to see how solar PVs on each building could make the electric supply much more stable and life easier for people.

Most people in India/China also don't drive 100 miles, all they want to do is get to/from work, which is usually 10-20 miles at the most. This is why electric scooters are every where in China.

The same for people in Africa, big power stations or fuel cell cars require massive infrastructure costs. Where as solar PV + wind for local electricity generation will give billions of people more access to electricity and give them control.

Far from been restrictive, EVs + local electricity generation can give mobility to people who have never had it before.

Your right about Shell/BP not caring about local electricity generation, because that essentially destroys their bussiness model....I personally look fowards to the day when big oil cannot hold countries and politicians to ransom.
 
Last edited:
This is something you have failed to grasp in this thread. What works for you, with your Tesla, and your driveway and solar panels, is very unlikely to work for 99.99999999% of the population of this planet.

Don't exaggerate, there are currently (end of 2018) 5 million EV's on the planet, so it's only 99.93421052‬% ;)
 
Its actually the opposites because EVs don't work for you currently you cannot see the potential.
The only reason EVs will not work for me at present is the lack of anywhere to charge. This may change with my new job, as they have a Renault garage less than half a mile away, and I am just waiting on the new Zoe announcement due today. I agree with you, in that the government should be looking at looking at ways to rectify this.
If you have to India or China your know how vast swades of these countries have access much more sun we have in the UK.
Yet burn so much coal to produce electricity. Driving an EV that has been charged up by coal power kind of negates its green credentials
I go to Patna on a regular basis, power cuts are so often most houses have their own battery supply to keep lights on during a power cut. It really doesn't take alot of imagination to see how solar PVs on each building could make the electric supply much more stable and life easier for people.
Powering a light is different to powering a car. Interestingly however, the BBC had an article about an island in the Atlantic that was looking at using EVs to store electricity during the day (as most of their power comes from solar and wind) to be used at night
How an electric car can make money
 
Its actually the opposites because EVs don't work for you currently you cannot see the potential.
TBF it could be observed that EVs work for you so you can’t see the potential of other power sources like hydrogen :)

Honestly I can’t see how it can be argued that power sources other than EVs rely on a single source for something. EV batteries are made by one company mostly. Electricity comes from al sorts of things around the world and is till a lot of hydrocarbon. Saying wind and solar doesn’t need massive infrastructure is pushing it a bit.

The biggest investor in hydrogen at the moment is probably the Japanese government. They are aiming for fuel cell power stations as part of their hydrogen economy. They aren’t just concentrating on vehicles.

It isn’t about which is better now. It is about how we need a variety of ways to power machinery of all sizes and to produce electricity in the future.

I have worked with and around engines up to 70,000 shaft horsepower (ships) all my career and fuel has been and is hydrocarbon based. Actually engines are available up to 108,000 shaft horse power (80,000 kW) but they haven’t had many buyers.

We had steam from boilers burning coal, then burning fuel oil. Steam engines, turbines or reciprocating. Fuel oil injection (all diesel cycle), direct, common rail both been around a long time. Diesel engines dual fuel - fuel oil and methane gas (LNG) with diesel pilot ignition and without. Compressed natural gas (liquid methane). Methanol/ethanol. And now they are working on fuel cells - methane is the front runner as fuel but any hydrocarbon can be used (the reformer gets trickier to extract the hydrogen but it’s doable mostly). This is using hydrocarbons not dwindling as fast as ones like diesel. Hydrogen is very much on the cards to power these large fuel cells too.

A ship burns 5 to 70 tonnes of diesel a day. LNG uses about 30% more fuel for the same power. Batteries are a long, long way from fixing the many issues of the future in the parts of industry that use huge amounts of fuel oils. Fuel cells will be “next” for the powers involved.

Cars are heading EV at the moment more than fuel cell. No matter how much the supporters of each put the other technology down, they are both on their separate paths to be part of the future. Each technology will suit different applications and probably one more than the other in some applications - but I can’t see cars being EV or nothing.
 
The only reason EVs will not work for me at present is the lack of anywhere to charge.

This is probably the single biggest issue with EVs at the moment IMO.

It's no problem at all if you have a drive, but many people do not.
Many people park in the street, often in different places on the street depending how lucky they are. Many people live in apartments with parking but not specifically allocated.

So home charging is going to be very tricky to reach enough of the population.
 
Yet burn so much coal to produce electricity. Driving an EV that has been charged up by coal power kind of negates its green credentials

There's so much evidence against this claim. A quick google throws up a lot of results like this.

"EVs emit less lifetime CO2 than cars with internal combustion engines, even in countries reliant on coal for electricity generation"

EVs cleaner than petrol or diesel cars, even when the electricity comes from coal



The surprising truth behind the world's electric cars

nhc504WsXK5M36_zGeXBhSzMdAjilmY8LgBYFv8g4u8.png
 
There's so much evidence against this claim. A quick google throws up a lot of results like this.

"EVs emit less lifetime CO2 than cars with internal combustion engines, even in countries reliant on coal for electricity generation"

EVs cleaner than petrol or diesel cars, even when the electricity comes from coal



The surprising truth behind the world's electric cars

nhc504WsXK5M36_zGeXBhSzMdAjilmY8LgBYFv8g4u8.png
The second article is taking its source from the first, so provide more evidence (and read said article). What would be interesting is to see how the compile the data. An ICE vehicle has a CO2 output as standard, but how do they calculate it for a EV powered by electricity from coal? And what cars are you calculating? New cars being sold in the EU since 2015 have had to have a CO2 per mile less than 130, and this will be reduced to 95 in a few years.
Also, Germany produces more of its energy from renewable than the UK, therefore the above graph does not show the whole truth, as surely it should have a lower CO2 than the UK if more of its energy is from renewable sources.

I am not disputing that EVs powered by coal are not pumping out less CO2 than ICE, but if you look at newer cars (which most EVs are) and compare them to ICE counterparts:
Renault ZOE will be 76.2 from above in the UK, Toyota Yaris Hybrid is 75.
So in Germany (supposedly) the US, Japan and China the Yaris pumps out less CO2 than an EV. Lets have a look at a Ford Focus and Nissan Leaf, similar cars
Again the Leaf in the UK will pump out less CO2 based on your figures, but the CO2 of a 1 litre Focus is 125g/mile, so less in CO2 in the rest of the world

As always such graphs should be taken with a pinch of salt unless you have the full set of data to study. And this does not take into account the effects of mining the raw materials for the batteries (wait until the amazon starts being chopped down, if they find the raw materials required their). (I am also aware that drilling for oil affects the environment)
 
The second article is taking its source from the first, so provide more evidence (and read said article).

I didn't want to post a graph without linking to where I got it from. I thought AutoExpress was worth linking to as it's a mainstream motoring publication/website. You are, of course, welcome to do your own research. As I said, there were many results to my google search.

I am not disputing that EVs powered by coal are not pumping out less CO2 than ICE, but if you look at newer cars (which most EVs are) and compare them to ICE counterparts:
Renault ZOE will be 76.2 from above in the UK, Toyota Yaris Hybrid is 75.

If a zero emission vehicle like a ZOE is "pumping out" 76.2 CO2s and a Yaris petrol hybrid is only 75 CO2s. I don't think you're comparing apples to apples.

So in Germany (supposedly) the US, Japan and China the Yaris pumps out less CO2 than an EV. Lets have a look at a Ford Focus and Nissan Leaf, similar cars
Again the Leaf in the UK will pump out less CO2 based on your figures, but the CO2 of a 1 litre Focus is 125g/mile, so less in CO2 in the rest of the world

The only way the graph I linked to makes sense - for EVs producing CO2s - is if it includes at least the production of electricity to fuel them with, that's part of what the article claims - even if you run your EV on electricity that is in part produced by coal, it's still cleaner than an ICE. If you take the ZOE figure of 76.2 you need to also include the production of petrol in the Yaris hybrid figures, not just what's measured at the exhaust - if you measure the ZOE emissions at exhaust... oh wait, no exhaust. Also, we need to include the transportation of petrol/diesel from the refinery to the petrol station.

(I am also aware that drilling for oil affects the environment)

Yet you don't include that in your figures above? Interesting.
 
If a zero emission vehicle like a ZOE is "pumping out" 76.2 CO2s and a Yaris petrol hybrid is only 75 CO2s. I don't think you're comparing apples to apples.
This is based on your information above. I am comparing to similar sized cars, hence why I chose the Zoe and Yaris

The only way the graph I linked to makes sense - for EVs producing CO2s - is if it includes at least the production of electricity to fuel them with, that's part of what the article claims - even if you run your EV on electricity that is in part produced by coal, it's still cleaner than an ICE. If you take the ZOE figure of 76.2 you need to also include the production of petrol in the Yaris hybrid figures, not just what's measured at the exhaust - if you measure the ZOE emissions at exhaust... oh wait, no exhaust. Also, we need to include the transportation of petrol/diesel from the refinery to the petrol station.
Then you also need to include the mining of the raw materials for the batteries. Whilst we are at it, why not include the raw materials for tyres, the chassis, the suspension, any hydraulic fluid?



Yet you don't include that in your figures above? Interesting.
Again, these figures are probably available. But then why not include the CO2 from the coal/oil/gas mine/well to the power plant for EVs. And then what about the actual impact of mining these raw materials, since you are being so pedantic? Because coal mining and cobalt/lithium mining probably have a greater impact on the environment, from a producing perspective, than oil
Coal Mine:
9304143669_afac1783a2_k.jpg


Cobalt mine:
32d9e11c953727b8e1e715dadcd6894e.jpg


Lithium Mine:
tianqi-injects-382-million-greenbushes-lithium-mine-expand.jpg


Oil well:
florida-oil-well-AOGHS-1024x522.jpg
 
This is based on your information above. I am comparing to similar sized cars, hence why I chose the Zoe and Yaris


Then you also need to include the mining of the raw materials for the batteries. Whilst we are at it, why not include the raw materials for tyres, the chassis, the suspension, any hydraulic fluid?




Again, these figures are probably available. But then why not include the CO2 from the coal/oil/gas mine/well to the power plant for EVs. And then what about the actual impact of mining these raw materials, since you are being so pedantic? Because coal mining and cobalt/lithium mining probably have a greater impact on the environment, from a producing perspective, than oil
Coal Mine:
9304143669_afac1783a2_k.jpg


Cobalt mine:
32d9e11c953727b8e1e715dadcd6894e.jpg


Lithium Mine:
tianqi-injects-382-million-greenbushes-lithium-mine-expand.jpg


Oil well:
florida-oil-well-AOGHS-1024x522.jpg

Your bias against EVs appear to be reaching a new level, a single mine supplies huge amount of raw materials for a battery pack that will work for 200k+ and than can be use for solar energy storage.

You also seem to have forgotten a single oil wells provides basically no output without been in a field.

texas1_permain_basin_600.jpg


Lets not forget what happens when it all goes wrong...

Exval1-e1409080691449.jpeg


Its prettry clear you have your mind made up about EVs, which is fine. But hydrogen is no better as a fuel interms of sustainability than oil, which is why the likes of Shell/BP love it.

As for Toyota unless you understand the importance of not 'lossing face' in Asia culture you would not get their stubbornness to accept EVs. Nissan is one of the biggest supporters of EVs, Toyota have said time and time again they are not, it essentially comes down to two school kids both thinking they are right with no backing down for either.

But even Toyota now seems to admit EVs will have a bigger market than hydrogen fuel cell cars, though clearly they project their self charging hybrids will remain the backbone of their buissness.

Toyota Goes Electric Starting In 2020: Announces Massive EV Offensive
 
Your bias against EVs appear to be reaching a new level
Yes, I am that biased towards EVs that I have reserved the new electric 208. :rotfl:
Seriously, you are like a petulant little child being told his new toy is rubbish.
it essentially comes down to two school kids both thinking they are right with no backing down for either.
Sounds like someone on here:laugh::rotfl::rolleyes:

I am done conversing with you on this subject.
 
Well my 'new' toy isn't all that new and whilst your still waiting on an EV I've been driving one since 2015.

All the arguments you make against EVs have essentially no backing, and once you actually look at the numbers it pretty obvious which way personal transportation is heading.

If you want to keep pandering to big oil thats all well and good, but I personally hope days of Shell/BP been seen as household names is numbered.
 
MOD COMMENT: I think we have heard enough on this from both of you, thanks.
Please feel free to contribute anything new to the thread but do not engage with each other.
 
Well my 'new' toy isn't all that new and whilst your still waiting on an EV I've been driving one since 2015.

All the arguments you make against EVs have essentially no backing, and once you actually look at the numbers it pretty obvious which way personal transportation is heading.

If you want to keep pandering to big oil thats all well and good, but I personally hope days of Shell/BP been seen as household names is numbered.
I can buy an EV tomorrow. But at the moment the market is moving so fast with EVs I might even wait a year or two (for example, the new 52kW Zoe has just been released, and may be cheaper than the 208-e which has been put on Peugeot.de for actual orders).

My arguments against EV, much like your argument for EV, is based upon personal experience.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom