[alancalverd]

So it's not remotely close, not even diesels or most hybrids can approach electric car efficiency.

Not if you equate efficiency with CO2 emissions per mile. But that's a very distorted definition of efficiency, which for most people is (useful work out)/(energy in).

However you have sort of indicated an ideal temporary reduction in CO2 emission: convert existing cars to run on LPG. This eliminates the problem - of building 30,000,000 electric cars, scrapping the existing fleet, upgrading the grid, installing 50,000,000 charging points and building another 100 gas power stations - at very little cost, and retains the advantage of fast charging. You need a somewhat larger fuel tank  for the same range, but the energy density of the lighter LPGs  is higher than gasoline so there's very little change in actual performance. We use butane for small forklifts working indoors, and I've driven big pickups fuelled by propane - no problem at all.

Eventually the fossil LPGs will run out but  the money saved by not building electric cars and the rest of the paraphernalia can be  diverted to building offshore wind farms that power CO2 to CH4 conversion, or anticipate the next phase when we run internal combustion engines on hydrogen . It would be great to convert atmospheric CO2, but in the meantime there's plenty of chalk - an unexploited source of fossil carbon - to stabilise the hydrogen in liquid form.

[alancalverd]

Skoda Yetis average 150 g/km, 240 g/mile, according to official figures. Slightly more for petrol, slightly less for diesel. That's a very practical family/business 1.6/2 liter 5 seat SUV with aircon and all the trimmings.

[Bored chemist]

But that's a very distorted definition of efficiency, which for most people is (useful work out)/(energy in).

The thread isn't about energy efficiency, it's about environmental damage.
Grams of CO2 per "whatever it is that you are doing" is a very sensible unit.

[Bored chemist]

Skoda Yetis average 150 g/km, 240 g/mile, according to official figures. Slightly more for petrol, slightly less for diesel. That's a very practical family/business 1.6/2 liter 5 seat SUV with aircon and all the trimmings.

So for an inefficient electric car on a coal only grid: 800/(1-0.4)/3 = 440g/mile (electric)

whereas on today's grid:

181/(1-0.4)/3 = 100g/mile (same inefficient electric car)

So the fossil fuel version is only two and a half times worse than using electricity (even if you get all the electricity from coal- which we don't).

[hamdani yusuf]

“After 75,368 miles, I’ve spent a total of $1,404 on charging.”

75,000 Miles: Charging vs. Gas
For this comparison, Andy uses a popular Tesla competitor, the BMW 3 Series, from the year 2018, which averages 28 miles per gallon.

It also requires premium gasoline, costing an average of $3.47 per gallon in his county. “To drive that BMW the same amount of miles, the fuel costs would be about $9,353. That’s about $8,000 in savings,” Andy explained.

So there we have it. Andy debunked a popular myth that EV doubters often turn to as a reason for not buying an EV.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/04/20/tesla-vs-gas-cars-the-true-charging-cost-after-75000-miles/

[alancalverd]

So the fossil fuel version is only two and a half times worse than using electricity (even if you get all the electricity from coal- which we don't).

No, 2.5 times more CO2 than using electricity from the UK grid, which uses 40% renewables and 10% nuclear - i.e slightly more CO2 than burning methane to do the same job. And considerably less than doing the same job with coal. Which is hardly surprising, given the chemical constitution of road fuel.

The argument here is not that electric cars do not emit CO2 - that's obvious. But the question is whether it is feasible or desirable  to replace all internal combustion cars with electric cars, to which the answer is far from clear. 

Way in the future, when all the i.c. cars are dead and we have installed enough grid infrastructure to support electric cars without burning gas and the electric cars have evolved to the point at which we can refuel them as conveniently as liquid fuel, and we have found some way of safely disposing of nuclear waste or storing a week's worth of renewable electrical energy, the answer is obviously yes, but those are awfully big whens and ifs. Certainly not in the next ten years.

Which adds up, in my mind, to electric cars being, for the foreseeable future, "greenwash". It gives me no pleasure to agree with the original poster because I'd love to have one.   

[wolfekeeper]

No, 2.5 times more CO2 than using electricity from the UK grid, which uses 40% renewables and 10% nuclear - i.e slightly more CO2 than burning methane to do the same job.

This seems to be a deliberate untruth on your part; the UK grid is about half the CO2 of a natural gas powered grid.

[hamdani yusuf]

Let's hear from someone who has first hand experience on it.
1 Year with Tesla Solar Roof: top 11 questions answered + real production numbers & utility bills!

After one year of Tesla Solar Roof ownership, I review my experience and attempt answer all of your most popular questions about the product. I also present my real-world data on energy production and show you my utility bills.

00:00​ Intro
00:52​ What is the deal with "Permission to Operate"?
01:20​ Is the roof a fire hazard?
01:42​ Does it make noise?
01:48​ Is the roof actually waterproof?
02:04​ Are the tiles too shiny from street level?
02:09​ Can they survive a hail storm?
02:23​ What is the warranty like?
02:50​ Why didn't we get Powerwalls?
03:03​ How does shade affect energy production?
03:28​ Do you have to clean the roof?
03:53​ How much energy does it generate?
05:28​ Referral information for $100 off solar installation

[alancalverd]

No, 2.5 times more CO2 than using electricity from the UK grid, which uses 40% renewables and 10% nuclear - i.e slightly more CO2 than burning methane to do the same job.

This seems to be a deliberate untruth on your part; the UK grid is about half the CO2 of a natural gas powered grid.

Far from an untruth. Gridwatch lists the maximum installed capacities as

Gas                      30 GW
Nuclear                  8
Wind                    15
Solar                    10
Biofuel                   3
Hydro                     2

Roughly 44% gas when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Right now, 49% gas.

You stated that the national grid produces an average of 181 g/kWh  of CO2. So the conversion of gas to CO2 generates ~ 360 g/kWh because, as you say, half of the power comes from wind, solar and nuclear.

Assuming someone pays for it, you have to decide how to meet the doubled demand for electricity over the next 10 years if we replace all the cars with electrics. The cheapest and quickest way is to build gas-powered stations, which will meet the timescale with absolute security and yield a short-term profit, but will generate as much CO2 as the diesel cars they replace. How are you going to persuade people to do anything else? Put a premium on electric cars? Reduce the planning time for nuclear plant? Force Her Majesty's Taxpayer to subsidise my business travel? Double the cost of electricity and kill a few more pensioners?

[Bored chemist]

I presume your decision to ignore the option of "increase the renewables capacity" was deliberate.

Data from
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables

Renewables vs time.jpg (32.25 kB . 495x324 - viewed 2307 times)

[alancalverd]

Excellent data source. We had 48 GW notional installed renewable capacity, which generated an average of 16 GW in the last year of reckoning (2020).

So if you want to generate another 30 GW from renewables alone, you will need to install around 90 GW of capacity, if you can ignore the variability of supply. If you want to recharge your car when you want, you will need to install some storage, or back up your 90 GW of unreliables with 30 GW of gas power that gets used about 50% of the time. Plus the distribution infrastructure.

Investment in renewables is only viable  for as long as it is matched by gas backup. If it became mandatory to increase the power supply by 30 GW securely without building more gas stations, you would have to add yet more peak generating capacity and adequate storage.

So either the cost of electricity will increase or the taxpayer will subsidise my travel. Which do you prefer?

[Bored chemist]

So either the cost of electricity will increase or the taxpayer will subsidise my travel. Which do you prefer?

That's a false dichotomy, because there are other (obvious) options.
Raise fuel duty is one option
.

Investment in renewables is only viable 

No.
It's only "commercially" viable...

Governments are allowed to invest in things without expecting a cash return.
Admittedly, our government seems to have forgotten this.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

So the fossil fuel version is only two and a half times worse than using electricity (even if you get all the electricity from coal- which we don't).

No, 2.5 times more CO2 than using electricity from the UK grid, which uses 40% renewables and 10% nuclear - i.e slightly more CO2 than burning methane to do the same job. And considerably less than doing the same job with coal. Which is hardly surprising, given the chemical constitution of road fuel.

The argument here is not that electric cars do not emit CO2 - that's obvious. But the question is whether it is feasible or desirable  to replace all internal combustion cars with electric cars, to which the answer is far from clear. 

Way in the future, when all the i.c. cars are dead and we have installed enough grid infrastructure to support electric cars without burning gas and the electric cars have evolved to the point at which we can refuel them as conveniently as liquid fuel, and we have found some way of safely disposing of nuclear waste or storing a week's worth of renewable electrical energy, the answer is obviously yes, but those are awfully big whens and ifs. Certainly not in the next ten years.

Which adds up, in my mind, to electric cars being, for the foreseeable future, "greenwash". It gives me no pleasure to agree with the original poster because I'd love to have one.

I would say actually the biggest issue is mining, because to get all the resources necessary to covert or exchange all current transportation to electricity, and to also build all the 5g grid needed to allow for self driving, combined with the electricity generation needed and the charging stations is going to be massively damaging to the environment.

Electric cars will reduce pollution where they are driving but they wont reduce overall pollution, simply because everything needed to manufacture and maintain them.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

So either the cost of electricity will increase or the taxpayer will subsidise my travel. Which do you prefer?

That's a false dichotomy, because there are other (obvious) options.
Raise fuel duty is one option

Which is by taxation.

I would say another option would be publically created energy companies, paid for by borrowing which the company pays back over time. No Taxation, publically own and sells at cost, a cost that would go down once the loans are repaid.

Investment in renewables is only viable 

No.
It's only "commercially" viable...

Governments are allowed to invest in things without expecting a cash return.
Admittedly, our government seems to have forgotten this.

Since Thatcher government is influenced more by the market then the concerns of it's society.

[alancalverd]

Governments are allowed to invest in things without expecting a cash return.

The first lesson at every Civil Service College course I ever attended, began with the phrase "the government has no money". There is no secret pot of gold. Every penny a democratic government spends ("invests" only applies if there is an expected return) is  redirected from tax income or borrowed against treasury bonds (which are repaid with interest from tax income).

So the question remains: are you happy to subsidise my business travel through your taxes? And not just the car: I'm seriously considering an electric airplane which will plug into the same supply.

[Bored chemist]

Every penny a democratic government spends ("invests" only applies if there is an expected return)

Governments are allowed to invest in things without expecting a cash return.

[alancalverd]

Fine, however you want to view it. But the taxpayer pays, so are you happy to subsidise my business mileage? 

[Bored chemist]

Fine, however you want to view it. But the taxpayer pays, so are you happy to subsidise my business mileage? 

No, I'm happy to tax it.

[charles1948]

Previous posters have pointed out the environmental problems with electric cars.

Don't  these  problems mainly stem from our present inability to squeeze enough electrons into a car-battery. to give the car a range as good as a petrol car.

This leads me to wonder whether there are any theoretical limits to electron storage.  Would it be possible to make a battery of compact size which contained a huge compressed mass of electrons.

In an analogous way to a huge mass of hydrogen atoms being compressed into a compact cylinder?

[wolfekeeper]

I would say actually the biggest issue is mining, because to get all the resources necessary to covert or exchange all current transportation to electricity, and to also build all the 5g grid needed to allow for self driving, combined with the electricity generation needed and the charging stations is going to be massively damaging to the environment.

Electric cars will reduce pollution where they are driving but they wont reduce overall pollution, simply because everything needed to manufacture and maintain them.

Actually, no. The thing is about mining, normal cars are almost completely recycled, and electric cars will be too. The study that was done recently said there will be just a football-sized lump that right now can't be recycled from an electric car; (which theoretically could still be recycled, but probably won't be) but for fossil cars, the mineral oil that is twenty times the weight of the car, can never be recycled.