Are EVs the way forward?

EV's are perfect for a lot of people.
They are the fortunate ones, although they sometimes overlook the fact that in 2022 (the last year that full data is available according to the BBC) 40% of our electricity came from fossil fuels.
Some of our electricity comes from "renewables", which includes wood pellets transported here from the USA by oil burning ships, then burned here. Charging a car overnight means that solar power won't be contributing and the wind usually drops at night too.

EV's will not be perfect for people with lower incomes who normally drive around in a sub £2,000 car which they scrap when it won't pass the next MOT.
This is a forum for owners of vans at the premium end of the market so it's no surprise that I've not seen any comments on here that acknowledge this problem, but many of these people are employed in roles such as the care sector and they rely on that cheap older car to do their job. It is unlikely that those people can move over to EV use without incurring significant extra costs which will not be viable.
EV's will not be perfect for those who, for a variety of reasons, can't charge it at home, again nobody seems interested in these people, perhaps they won't be able to own a car?
EV's will be a challenge for some users, such as emergency services, who will almost certainly need to buy and fit out far more cars than they currently have to allow for their 24 hours a day use requirement. (A Police Officer who handed his petrol patrol car over to the next shift with half a tank of petrol had better have a good reason for that.) The costs involved in that vehicle duplication are huge.
When I'm out and about I notice a significant proportion of traffic is commercial. I'm not aware of any EV that can realistically transport goods around the UK as commercial vehicles currently do, so even if all of our cars were replaced with EV's the transport sector as a whole will still be partially reliant on diesel.

A novel idea would be to celebrate the fact that so many are happy with their EV's while recognising that it doesn't mean that they would work for everybody else!

I agree that currently EVs are definitely not suitable for every use-case. In fact, that seems to be the one thing that everyone on this thread does agree on!

On the cost, I also agree that clearly currently EVs occupy the premium end of the market. However, by the time anyone is even close to making a mandated purchase of an (presumably second-hand at your £2000 price point example) EV, it's hard to imagine prices won't have come down hugely both because technology will have improved and also simply because the passage of time means that EVs of the same age as your current £2000 example will be readily available.

That's a stunning stat you quote on the UK power mix though, whilst 40% from fossil fuels is still arguably too high, the fact that it's dropped so hugely from even a few years ago is a great example of how progress can be made if we put our minds to it. Shipping wood chips from virgin forest for biomass is clearly indefensible but after five minutes googling I struggled to find out how recent or significant it was compared to harvesting wood from sustainable (i.e regrown) sources.
 
It doesn't seem that long ago that all the experts and Governments, were telling us how we had to all go diese,l because it would save the planet.
Surely they wouldn't be wrong again would they? Give it a few more years and we'll see.
They were right that the diesels did give more miles per gallon than the less fuel efficient petrol engines, at the time they were looking at the front end of the car. :geek:
 
I appreciate the current lithium and other material mining is not great - but neither is oil extraction. I’d put them on the same level at present. Of course, oil extraction has been going on for many moons as was never as ‘clean’ as it is now. Many areas still suffering due to it. And it’s burning will always be dirty and people will always seek to rip bits off their cars and vans, in the name of reliability, making it dirtier still, at a local level all over the planet - not just in mining towns.

Meanwhile battery technology continues apace. Solid state batteries are far, far more energy dense than people would have imagined just five years ago. They are being produced and used in consumer items already. They are getting better and better. Their use will mean less raw ingredients needed for the same power and they last. There is no technology to reliably make oil based fuels increase their energy density. And remember, power generation can easily be clean. There were periods we never needed a coal fired power station at all last year.

Thankfully the people making decisions are a bit more stable minded than your typical right wing journalists and their followers.
 
It doesn't seem that long ago that all the experts and Governments, were telling us how we had to all go diesel, because it would save the planet.
Surely they wouldn't be wrong again would they? Give it a few more years and we'll see.

I agree, the whole diesel thing was a mess - it seems pretty clear now that tinkering with the exact flavour of hydrocarbons to burn is a waste of time. Which is why we're making progress towards the end goal of an electrified economy driven by renewable energy.
 
I agree, the whole diesel thing was a mess - it seems pretty clear now that tinkering with the exact flavour of hydrocarbons to burn is a waste of time. Which is why we're making progress towards the end goal of an electrified economy driven by renewable energy.
Good luck with that...
 
Good luck with that...
Surely "Straya" is ahead of the curve when it comes to de-industrialising their dirty manufacturing processes though and no longer making ice cars... well any cars really but that and the largest collection of Tesla BESS batteries for reinforcing an overloaded electricity supply grid, factor in that you could be generating that power for free compared to our efforts at catching a sun which has to break through a blanket of perma smog and you've got it made. :thumbsup:
 
The first half of a project is the easy bit. To succeed you will need all the luck going.
There's no coal fired generating capacity reaminjng in the UK (it's just been switched off and decommissioned a few weeks ago) so we need a bit more than luck.

I've no doubt we'll get there. There's certainly no going back as you can't knock out a new coal powered station overnight, although the 2030 goal of the current government is probably optimistic.

But the nations nominal 44ish% renewable capacity is only a nominal figure. In favourable conditions that rises to approaching 90%. Indeed, in August this year the percentage of generation attributable to fossil fuels was the lowest in the nations history. Luck doesn't seem to be a factor.

That being the case we're probably somewhere in the middle with the 100% renewable target - further from it than the government hopes, but closer than the doomsayers would have us believe.

Certainly the nations foremost experts on electricity generation, the National Grid, claim that the grid will be capable of handling mass electric car adpotion. I've yet to hear to the contrary from someone better qualified or knowledgeable than the people who adtually own, built, and run the grid.
 
Plenty of companies sticking extra plastic on each end and slamming the vans, charging crazy prices… all desperate to prove you can polish a turd. ;)
Actually, thats factually incorrect. You can polish a turd.

 
The mining of Cobalt is a pretty good example of how the oil industry divert attention away from the fact that they use vast amounts of the stuff as a single use product to act as a catalyst in the process of refining crude oil.
Unlike the Cobalt used in EV battery production where the Cobalt can be recovered mechanically and reused the Cobalt used at the refinery is spent, just like the diesel and petrol it's been transformed through a single use into a toxic waste product to be conveniently forgotten about by people who conveniently don't see the mess from their ivory tower.
I dont follow this as a catalyst is a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change. So how can it be transformed into a toxic waste?
 
Is it time somebody mentioned the "N" word?
Yep, nuclear :geek: :whistle: you won't choke on the smoke from a controlled nuclear explosion so surely now we can all agree that a nuclear powered Transporter has to be better than a rebadged Transit and not an infringement of your right to pollute?
 
I dont follow this as a catalyst is a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change. So how can it be transformed into a toxic waste?
Using that logic then you would use the same original amount of Cobalt at the refinery to reduce the sulphur in diesel indefinitely, along the lines of one tankful of Adblu lasting the life of a Transporter engine which might be right with the 204 engine?
 
Using that logic then you would use the same original amount of Cobalt at the refinery to reduce the sulphur in diesel indefinitely, along the lines of one tankful of Adblu lasting the life of a Transporter engine which might be right with the 204 engine?
We dont collect the Adblue after it is used, its expelled in the exhaust with the other gases, so obviously not.

Cobalt is used as a catalyst in refining operations. It helps remove sulfur (and maybe other impurities) from the hydrocarbon stream. In theory no cobalt is consumed in the reaction, but in practice some will be lost to erosion and flaws in the recycling process. ie its not converted into a "single use into a toxic waste product".
 
We dont collect the Adblue after it is used, its expelled in the exhaust with the other gases, so obviously not.

Cobalt is used as a catalyst in refining operations. It helps remove sulfur (and maybe other impurities) from the hydrocarbon stream. In theory no cobalt is consumed in the reaction, but in practice some will be lost to erosion and flaws in the recycling process. ie its not converted into a "single use into a toxic waste product".
Well it is if you think about it...
The cobalt is used until it disappears, this will be over many thousands of litres of fuel produced but it will have been used up just as those many litres of fuel will have been used up by vehicles and turned into a toxic waste gas and soot.
The EV battery cobalt is still there in the anode material of a deteriorated battery pack and can be recovered just like any other metal that has a value above the cost of recovery.
 
Well it is if you think about it...
The cobalt is used until it disappears, this will be over many thousands of litres of fuel produced but it will have been used up just as those many litres of fuel will have been used up by vehicles and turned into a toxic waste gas and soot.
The EV battery cobalt is still there in the anode material of a deteriorated battery pack and can be recovered just like any other metal that has a value above the cost of recovery.
Cobalt is only toxic in high concentration. Its a catalyst, it isn't "turned" into anything.
 
Are you thick, I'm saying that the cobalt is used up as in depleted, you appear to be saying that cobalt doesn't get used up?
If it didn't get used up in the desulphuring process the refineries would use the same cobalt indefinitely and not need additional cobalt even if they ramped up fuel production.
 
Back
Top