[alancalverd]

Johnmo didn't quote sources, but it's worth noting that Polestar state the amount of carbon dioxide emitted  in the production of one of their electric cars: it's about the same as a diesel car would emit in 100,000 miles. UK government statistics show that domestic and transport energy consumption were about equal in 2020, though transport was about 20% higher in the previous year, and UK industry is effectively dead. Domestic field is about 50% gas, so a best guess is that simply replacing all the cars with electric ones will double the electricity requirement, and that can only be supplied reliably* by increasing gas consumption.

It's quite easy to convert a petrol engine to run on LPG, so it would make more economic and ecological sense to do so rather than burn the gas in new power stations to make electricity to power 20,000,000 new cars through a new charging system.   

*i.e. whilst Vladimir Putin is allowed to invade Europe and his friends own the Premier Division.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Johnmo didn't quote sources, but it's worth noting that Polestar state the amount of carbon dioxide emitted  in the production of one of their electric cars: it's about the same as a diesel car would emit in 100,000 miles.

as stated earlier, electric cars run on fossil fuel produced electric (which is all at present, as we cannot even keep the lights on at night on wind) are currently increacing co2 and fossil fuel usage. Presumably the government envisage a trebling of wind capacity between now and 2030 when petrol cars are banned for sale.

It's quite easy to convert a petrol engine to run on LPG, so it would make more economic and ecological sense to do so rather than burn the gas in new power stations to make electricity to power 20,000,000 new cars through a new charging system.   

Oil is not such a bad CO2 emission comparison to gas. It does emit more nasties, diesel being the worst. It however is easily transported from states who are not such agrivationists.

[hamdani yusuf]

Johnmo didn't quote sources, but it's worth noting that Polestar state the amount of carbon dioxide emitted  in the production of one of their electric cars: it's about the same as a diesel car would emit in 100,000 miles.

May be they should stop making cars. Or consider improving their process.

[alancalverd]

Polestar is a branch of Volvo, who know a lot about making cars and have something of a reputation for honesty.

 It is a fact that it requires as much energy to make the average petrol car as it will consume in its service life, and there's very little difference between ICE and electric vehicles apart from the drive train and fuel tank. What you save on the gearbox, you spend on the battery, which has a probable life of 80 - 100,000 miles - about half that of a petrol engine and a third that of a diesel.

[Bored chemist]

Oil is not such a bad CO2 emission comparison to gas.

Not really, no.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Petrol is about 30p a litre maximum even with exessive profits from sources of Brent crude from land based wells, if most cars achieve 10 miles per litre they are about 3p per mile.

This backs up the theory that all money is energy, either expended or potential.

Electric powered natural gas fueled cars achieving about 3 miles a kwh for the Nissan leaf, it comes from gas generation at about 0.45kg Co2 per kwh with a distribution/charge/discharge efficiency of 0.8x0.85x0.9 is about 0.73kg co2 per kwh or about 0.24kg co2 per mile. It cost about 4p per mile prior to the exorbitant gas prices.

Me myself in a VW polo get around 50mpg, 4.5 litres, plus it takes around half a litre in refinery energy, so i achieve 10 miles a litre, which has 2.31 co2 per litre, or 0.231 kg per mile. Broadly both comparable cars come out about the same.

As for the cost, electricity is going through the roof and has various charges on it for distribution and green levvies and petrol is taxed beyond credibility.

[alancalverd]

And there you have it: physics. Making and moving stuff in the real world consumes energy, and the only viable sources of energy in the quantities needed for modern transport, are fossil fuels.

Things might have been different if we had built electric windmills 100 years ago and restricted the growth of transport to whatever could be supported by an electrical grid, but the future starts from where we are, not where you would have liked to be.

[Bored chemist]

Making and moving stuff in the real world consumes energy, and the only viable sources of energy in the quantities needed for modern transport, are fossil fuels.

No. Fossil fuels can't supply that much energy.
Even if you refuse to accept the reality of harm from the CO2, the fuels run out.

[alancalverd]

No. Fossil fuels can't supply that much energy.

Does your car run on fairy dust? Do you heat your home with good intentions?  As I write, fossil fuels are providing about 90% of the transport power in the UK, as they have done for the last 100 years or so, and 50% of all electricity. Not to mention whatever is left of fishing, farming and manufacturing.

They will indeed run out eventually (or as soon as Putin turns off the tap and Biden turns his back on Europe) but there is no alternative. 

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Things might have been different if we had built electric windmills 100 years ago and restricted the growth of transport to whatever could be supported by an electrical grid, but the future starts from where we are, not where you would have liked to be.

The are also about to do a similar thing with heat pumps, which achieve about twice the energy output when you need it, (ie when temperatures are low) ,than the electrical input which will be produced from gas again at present. Take out the losses for distribution and reserve capacity and it is already beneath the 90 percent efficiency of a modern condenser boiler.

It is diesel cars all over again. Cogeneration on electric is obviously a better path.The powers that be really need a good slap.

[alancalverd]

The most efficient conversion of fossil fuel to electricity is about 65% but generally 50% is achievable by the time you account for transmission losses etc, so a real heat pump just about competes with direct gas heating for domestic use.  So we rip out all the cheap gas boilers and replace them with expensive heat pumps, and we are back where we started - dependent on Russian gas for domestic heating, still with no way of making the car move, and £15,000 poorer. Assuming, of course, that the heat pump actually works. And now we need a new cooker because it's no longer economic to supply domestic gas so the company has closed the feeder station. But nobody has upgraded the electricity supply so the lights go out every time you try to cook or have a bath.

[Bored chemist]

No. Fossil fuels can't supply that much energy.

Does your car run on fairy dust? Do you heat your home with good intentions?  As I write, fossil fuels are providing about 90% of the transport power in the UK, as they have done for the last 100 years or so, and 50% of all electricity. Not to mention whatever is left of fishing, farming and manufacturing.

They will indeed run out eventually (or as soon as Putin turns off the tap and Biden turns his back on Europe) but there is no alternative. 

When the fossil fuel runs out will it still heat your home + run your car?
No?
Why not- you said it could.
You said it was the only thing that could.

[Bored chemist]

The powers that be really need a good slap.

Just for the record, this is one of the very few cases where PC has said something which is correct.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

No. Fossil fuels can't supply that much energy.

Does your car run on fairy dust?

I'm guessing it runs on condusive idealism, trolling and puppy dogs that fart rainbows?

[Bored chemist]

No. Fossil fuels can't supply that much energy.

Does your car run on fairy dust?

I'm guessing it runs on condusive idealism, trolling and puppy dogs that fart rainbows?

That's how good your guesses generally are.

[alancalverd]

When the fossil fuel runs out will it still heat your home + run your car?
No?
Why not- you said it could.
You said it was the only thing that could.

Precisely, and when it runs out, we will have to rethink our way of life. There were no fossil-fuelled road vehicles before 1820 (steam engines could be fuelled with wood in the absence of coal) nor any gas or electricity grids. If we rely on electric windmills and don't reduce the human population, our descendants will have to significantly reduce their power consumption and possibly abandon personal transport altogether.

Several friends are horse enthusiasts, but the problem with horses is that they generate as much carbon dioxide as a small car even when they are standing still, and defecate in the street when they are moving - 19th century London traffic jams sometimes lasted for days, and there was a major industry involved in clearing the  streets at night, even though the human population  was a sixth of its present number in 1800. Not sure how I could get 150 horses into a small plane, or how I could feed them.

[Bored chemist]

Precisely, and when it runs out, we will have to rethink our way of life.

Or we could be less stupid and start thinking about it now.

Not sure how I could get 150 horses into a small plane, or how I could feed them.

You seem to be the only one who is considering it.

[alancalverd]

{quote]Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 16:58:22
Precisely, and when it runs out, we will have to rethink our way of life.

Or we could be less stupid and start thinking about it now.
[/quote]
Agreed.
More windmills or fewer people? How  many of each? Or what will life be like with, say, 12 billion humans and no fossil fuel?

[Bored chemist]

More windmills or fewer people?

Both, though you seem to think we don't need the windmills because we have coal and your only suggestions about the latter only affect a couple of small islands with a lower birth rate than death rate.

[alancalverd]

You seem to read alternate words - or at least alternative interpretations!

As I see it, windmills cannot supply the prospective world population with the continuous 5 - 7 kW per capita always on tap, required to sustain a reasonably aspirational lifestyle. That's a longterm question, and your calculation would be appreciated.

The medium-term problem in the UK and Europe generally is dependence on fossil fuel imports from unreliable or undesirable sources such as the Friends of Putin and various Middle-Eastern theocracies and dictatorships. If democracy and freedom  to dissent are a part of our desirable lifestyle, said lifestyle should not hang by such a thread controlled by criminals and dictators. 

The sadness is that Margaret Thatcher destroyed the UK's major strategic fuel reserve (coal) and successive governments have encouraged excessive exploitation of another (oil), reliance on "cheap" gas, and putting profit before strategy by privatising everything.

Your UK population statistics are shallower than superficial. You have previously quoted the UK per capita birth rate but taken no account of longevity. When my mother-in-law died recently, she was survived by 10 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren, and this is by no means unusual. What has happened in the West is that most people survive more than one generation, so as long as the birthrate exceeds 1 child per female, the population increases.

Why are my concerns and solutions based on a couple of small islands? Because this is (a) where I live and (b) where the best innovations (steam engine, railways, industrial revolution, antibiotics, vaccination, civil nuclear power, programmable computers, the English language, soccer, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf....) come from.