Citroen owner challenges UK Electric vehicle efficiency claims and gets apology.
  • Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 23 of 23
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By Kenfuego
  • 1 Post By Kenfuego
  • 2 Post By Only19
  • 1 Post By Only19
  • 1 Post By Pugnut403

Thread: Citroen owner challenges UK Electric vehicle efficiency claims and gets apology.

  1. #1
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    11,780

    Icon14 Citroen owner challenges UK Electric vehicle efficiency claims and gets apology.

    Interesting discussion going on sparked by and article by Christopher Monckton , in which he made some interesting calculations as to the true cost of subsidised electric vehicles. I note that at various times we have had similar discussions on the true cost of alternative fuels, engines, efficiency. Love or hate Christopher Moncton his claim of being an adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is well shown in his approach in sorting through evidence for and against issues, as all good public servants should when advising their Ministers shines through in the series of questions that he poses, that will have a great effect on our driving of both personal transport and public transport.

    However within that report, a Citroen diesel owner reveals he had taken an adviser to the UK Parliament to task for misleading comments in an article and getting those comments retracted with an apology. There appears to be a strong political push to phase out "Dirty polluting diesels" and we have discussed some of the political reasons for the so called Euro/UK push, and health and efficiency is being claimed to push a number of agenda.

    Here is the relevant paragraph .

    ralfellis April 9, 2015 at 5:56 am

    Dear Mr Monkton,

    Your analysis of electric cars closely agrees with my calculations. However, Professor David MacKay who was (still is?) a UK government advisor on energy, still says that electric vehicles are five times more efficient than fossil vehicles. See Page 127:

    Quote:
    “I have looked up the performance figures for lots of electric vehicles – they’re listed in this chapter’s end-notes – and they seem to be consistent with this summary: electric vehicles can deliver transport at an energy cost of roughly 15 kWh per 100 km. That’s five times better than our baseline fossil-car, and significantly better than any hybrid cars. Hurray! To achieve economical transport, we don’t have to huddle together in public transport – we can still hurtle around, enjoying all the pleasures and freedoms of solo travel, thanks to electric vehicles.”

    David MacKay FRS: : Contents
    http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/s...tex/sewtha.pdf

    This claim was also copied and therefore repeated in the Sunday Times in Feb 2011. Now despite his threatening court action for ‘defamation’, I made Professor MacKay clarify and amend the article in the Sunday Times, as per the email below.

    But Professor MacKay has still not amended his PDF briefing-note booklet to Parliament, which still says that electric cars are 5x more efficient than fossil cars. So Prof MacKay is continuing to mislead the public and mislead Parliament.

    Why? How long would it take, to amend one line in a PDF booklet? I think that parliament needs to be told of this deliberate falsehood by one of its key advisors on renewable energy. How can Parliament make sensible decisions on energy policy, if one of its key advisors is fabricating the evidence and thus lying to parliament?

    .Prof MacKay’s letter of apology to the Sunday Times.

    .Dear Parin, (Business Section)

    Mr Ralph Ellis has mentioned your article and his correspondence with you (pasted below).

    I’d like to confirm that Mr Ellis is right to assert that what I wrote
    appears to have been misinterpreted. I apologise for the lack of clarity on my part.

    To be clear: when I said electric vehicles use about 15 or 20 kWh per 100 km
    measured at the socket, and petrol vehicles use about 80 kWh per 100 km
    measured at the petrol pump, this should not be taken as implying
    that today’s electric vehicles use 4 or 5 times less fossil fuels
    than petrol cars.


    The electricity in the UK is largely generated from gas and coal, and the efficiency of that elec generation is about 42%, so electric vehicles are only about 1.7 times more efficient (assuming 20 kWh electric
    is compared with 80 kWh of fossil fuel, and neglecting the upstream energy costs of
    fossil fuel production in both cases).

    The above statement is consistent with the emissions associated with the two
    vehicle types which I estimated in my book on page 131 Ch 20 Page 131: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air | David MacKay
    – I explained there that with today’s UK grid mix, elec vehicles have a footprint
    of roughly 100g per km whereas the average UK car bought today rolls in at 168 g (p 122)
    Ch 20 Page 122: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air | David MacKay
    which is a ratio of about 1.7 to 1 in favour of the electric vehicle.

    The best fossil fuel vehicles are in the 100 g range so if we compare the
    best fossils with the typical electric car, they are level pegging today.


    An increase in nuclear power or other low-carbon electricity will in due
    course change these answers so that electric vehicles will look increasingly
    good by the carbon emissions metric.

    I hope this helps, and again apologies if the exposition in my book
    was not sufficiently clear.

    Yours
    Prof David Mackay

    Note:
    Prof MacKay uses a 33 mpg 80kwh/100km fossil-fueled car for his comparisons. However, my large European Citroen 5-door turbo diesel does 50 mpg in mixed driving, or about 50 kwh/100km. If we multiply the electric vehicle’s power consumption by 3.7, to account for electric generating inefficiencies as per Monkton’s calculations, the Tesla has a consumption of 55 kwh/100km (3.7 x 15), which is more than my diesel. And much more, if it happens to be -10ºc outside and you have the heater on.
    The mentioned figures of Christopher Monckton's calculation come from this report and the things/evidence that must be considered before one jumps to conclusions that adaptation cannot satisfactorily deal with identified man made emissions particularly from automobiles - the basis of many political claims being pushed in the auto industry. worth a read by all motorists. including French Car owners.

    How to convince a climate skeptic he?s wrong | Watts Up With That?

    I would love to see these simple questions answered as so much emotion and belief evolves around these questions and pure application of science should be established rather than mere claims of some vague authority, vital to motorists and economies that this is properly and openly done. IMHO!

    Advertisement


    Regards.

    Ken
    Kim Luck likes this.

  2. #2
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,071

    Default

    Electric cars(batteries) are at the beginning stage of development. It takes incentives to get the ball rolling.
    Regardless of Co2 we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels.
    Will be interesting how battery development progresses. If it doesn't then hydrogen fuel cells will prevail?
    "The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge"
    Stephen Hawking

  3. #3
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    11,780

    Icon14 Time to join in and save the world in Win, Win integrated power technology

    Quote Originally Posted by JoBo View Post
    Electric cars(batteries) are at the beginning stage of development. It takes incentives to get the ball rolling.
    Regardless of Co2 we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels.
    Will be interesting how battery development progresses. If it doesn't then hydrogen fuel cells will prevail?
    Absolutely agree with you Jobo, it is interesting to see also that the Professor Mackay points towards Britain's move to build the Nuclear Power Stations and that change as providing an additional push for the electric vehicle to be cleaner based in aggregate terms,
    though the problem in cold countries (winter?) where heat is needed for comfort, the conventional engine will have the advantage in using waste heat from the engine rather than a further drain on the batteries and their then need for more frequent re-charging, one fact it seems to be missing from performance figures (distance between re-charges) of the Tesla or other EV's.

    The Nuclear issue also gives food for thought in the Victorian situation here in Australia where we have a huge capacity desalination plant located at Wonthaggi in Gippsland but moth balled and expensive to maintain, which is conveniently located to our existing Electricity Grid and could supply pure cooling water to a Nuclear plant that would generate enough electricity to run the extended grid to other states as well as Victoria and also as pointed out to me by an engineer friend yesterday to supply the needed electricity to run the desalination plant as well and if the chosen nuclear reactor was a thorium reactor, little problems with radioactive byproducts.

    As the Victorian Grid is inter connected with NSW, South Australia and Tasmania it can also be the saviour of Renewable energy wind and solar power, that are at present unreliable when cloudy or the wind doesn't blow in that the two largest Hydro schemes in Australia, Snowy Mountains and Tasmanian Hydro. Tasmanian Hydro already uses Electricity from the Victorian grid via the Bass strait undersea cable to re-pump water to upper levels of the Hydro system for re-use and supply of normal power supplies, but with Nuclear factored in both Hydro systems could be used as a giant battery to sustain the wind and solar, if that intermittent power was used solely for re-pumping for a virtual re-charge of the grid system.

    There are also some exciting developments in turbine design and some engineers claim that the present turbine systems waste an enormous amount of potential water energy and that with modern turbine design many more turbines can be added to the water flow while it descends through the Hydro system, and they say this would boost efficiency as turbines take up that waste energy from the hydro dams and the re-pumping would be icing on the cake - almost abundant energy.

    No need to build additional dams except for flood and flow mitigation and irrigation for existing food production areas where the rising C02 has already significantly boosted vegetation and food production capacity (see the 10 steps in the Monkton proposals to evaluate risk and comparison with known facts)

    So I also agree that the focus needs to shift from demonization for political agenda and get practical as we are lucky to have all elements in place here in Australia (including low emissions compared with other industrialized nations) and the convenient Energy potential locations to properly capitalize on our existing Hydro systems. Potential for cleaner environments, electric vehicles in cities, and as technology grows a market potential.

    Time to move away from argument and build the integrated systems and interesting to see that the Opposition party to the present Government is endorsing the South Australian proposal to embrace nuclear energy production in that state. Time for Victoria to consider its position and build the best nuclear technology here as well.

    We may well lead the world in producing cleaner base energy and also ride the technological sprint to the future where life after fossil fuel is not a limiting factor of doom and gloom, but a well lit corridor to invent new technology and harvest new forms of energy on that prosperity.

    Quite exciting if the politicians get on with it. IMHO! We then may be able to concentrate on the great unknowns that limit our knowledge on climate and the role of other elements and gases, We may even be able to predict weather rather than use projections of proven to be wrong models that project those inbuilt errors - almost a waste of money when it could be put to better use and actually benefit mankind and environments if the prosperity and evolving technology is used to help improve lives of people in poorer nations.

    Probably wishful thinking, but the world needs some exciting and visionary scope.

    Ken
    Last edited by Kenfuego; 10th April 2015 at 12:06 PM.
    JoBo likes this.

  4. #4
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenfuego View Post
    AAs the Victorian Grid is inter connected with NSW, South Australia and Tasmania it can also be the saviour of Renewable energy wind and solar power, that are at present unreliable when cloudy or the wind doesn't blow in that the two largest Hydro schemes in Australia, Snowy Mountains and Tasmanian Hydro. Tasmanian Hydro already uses Electricity from the Victorian grid via the Bass strait undersea cable to re-pump water to upper levels of the Hydro system for re-use and supply of normal power supplies, but with Nuclear factored in both Hydro systems could be used as a giant battery to sustain the wind and solar, if that intermittent power was used solely for re-pumping for a virtual re-charge of the grid system.
    I'm not sure there is any large-scale pumping hydro in Tasmania, wikipedia lists no pumping stations in Tasmania. There are 3 in Australia I know of:
    Wivenhoe Power Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Shoalhaven Scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Tumut Hydroelectric Power Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If you know of any that are pumping it would be good to update wikipedia. But the hydro infrastructure without pumping is still good as a "storage" since it can be turned on when needed and keep back the water when its not.
    406 HDi

  5. #5
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    11,780

    Icon14 Read it with my own eyes...while in Tassie...

    Hypermiler

    I actually came across the re-pumping during a tour of the Tasmanian Hydro scheme and it intrigued me so much I took photographs of the signs they had erected explaining the overnight procedure. It does become problematic in drought situations when more water is wanted for agriculture and also to support local industry - not that much Industry in Tassie now.

    But also one of the reasons an integrated system will work as Continental Australia can have drought in one area and floods in another region due to our varied weather. All neatly shown in the historical weather maps within the covers of the B.O.M. 100 year Official History (pic posted some time back on Aussie Frogs)

    I will dig out the photos, if some kind well informed Tassie soul doesn't step in with full details beforehand.

    The Bass link was essential to the scheme I believe, and one of the reasons that Cheap Tasmanian Hydro Electricity went out of the window much to the Chagrin of several Aussie Froggers..

    and the reason why resident no longer turn on older under floor heating coils...

    Regards

    Ken

  6. #6
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Great if you could bring some more info on the Tasmanian hydro, despite the terrain there really isn't a lot of hydro power installed in Tasmania (good or bad thing depending on your view).

    Back to the original topic if you read the document that is supposedly causing all the issues it follows closely with this:
    You’ve shown that electric cars are more energy-efficient than fossil cars.But are they better if our objective is to reduce CO2 emissions, and theelectricity is still generated by fossil power-stations?
    This is quite an easy calculation to do. Assume the electric vehicle’senergy cost is 20 kWh(e) per 100 km. (I think 15 kWh(e) per 100 km is per-fectly possible, but let’s play sceptical in this calculation.) If grid electricityhas a carbon footprint of 500 g per kWh(e) then the effective emissions ofthis vehicle are 100 g CO2 per km, which is as good as the best fossil cars(figure 20.9). So I conclude that switching to electric cars is already a goodidea, even before we green our electricity supply.
    So the author is being very comprehensive in their presentation of the data. Its hard to avoid providing the complete picture in small self contained statements, which is why they wrote out the discussion as a book to allow the space for a more complete picture. Lots of parts of the book could be taken out of context and cut apart for being wrong, but when you read through the entire document it seems to be very well researched and accurate. That the newspaper reported it sloppily (who'd have thought!) is the real problem.

    For us froggies we can look back at the numbers I put to a 406 HDi: Fuel Consumption
    Which has the particularly efficient 406 HDi using a low of around 25kWh/100km, and beats the Prius example from the book at all speeds above 50km/h. Electric and hybrid cars will be much more efficient around cities, the depressing point is that a hybrid only needs an engine off range of a few km to reach maximum efficiency but there haven't been any manufacturers brave enough to build one yet.
    406 HDi

  7. #7
    Fellow Frogger! Only19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    755

    Default ICE vs EV CO2 emissions: all states

    Hi there - have done the figures (according to the government mandated methods for carbon accounting) - they are as follows:
    For various cars, doing 10,000km per annum. (NB this is the FULL CO2 accounting, not the sticker figure in the showroom. Covers refining, transport, etc, etc).
    Citroen owner challenges  UK Electric vehicle efficiency claims and  gets apology.-real-ice-vehicle-co2-emissions-10000-km.jpg
    Comparison - for an iMiEV driven 10,000 km per annum in each state of Australia. Based on Gov figures for each state's emissions - same deal re covering all CO2 emissions for digging up the coal, transporting, etc. Is based on the mix of renewables & fossil in each state - that's why it varies so much!
    Citroen owner challenges  UK Electric vehicle efficiency claims and  gets apology.-imiev-each-state-10000-km.jpg
    For full article - see ReNew magazine, issue 120, July-Sept 2012
    Cheers
    Bryce
    Who needs brakes? They only slow you down ....

  8. #8
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    379

    Default

    The Mitsubishi i-MiEV/Peugeot iON is a little noddy car, good for commuting around town but gets beaten on combined cycle CO2 emissions by a range of efficient cars including things such as the (not available in Australia) 308 BlueHDi 1.6. So despite being tiny and less comfortable, it would be less efficient than the top efficiency diesels.

    Of course there is the option to buy "green" energy to charge the car with, or have personal solar panels.

    Different vehicles are needed for different situations, going around town shopping in a 2500kg four wheel drive or even a 1200kg hatchback seems silly when a 350kg european heavy quadricycle would fit the purpose better. We're stuck with big distances to drive in Australia so having a lightweight electric car for around town and a highway rocket for the other times could be a good start. But there are no viable vehicles sold (or even registrable) in Australia to fill the need for an efficient town car.
    406 HDi

  9. #9
    Fellow Frogger! Only19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    755

    Default

    T'would be a bit hard to beat the CO2 in Tasmania for an iMiEV in any car, let alone if you use your own solar or subscribe to 'GreenPower'. The key point is that using an EV unties you from fossil fuel dependence.

    Re why I used the iMiEV in the article: it was the only commercial EV available at that time that was on the Green Car website, so I used it to be able to make an 'apples to apples' comparison. I should do one for the Leaf or an i3 now. (Or better still, the Tesla model S )

    P.S. The iMiEV inside actually feels more 'normal' than most commercial EV's. More like a Mazda 2 in fact. It is also a very nice car to drive - but definitely agree re those exterior looks! Not to my taste either. (Must resurrect the fugly car thread for some true uglies that only a designer could love - they make the iMiEV look relatively beautiful!)

    Cheers
    Bryce
    Who needs brakes? They only slow you down ....

  10. #10
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    11,780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Only19 View Post
    T'would be a bit hard to beat the CO2 in Tasmania for an iMiEV in any car, let alone if you use your own solar or subscribe to 'GreenPower'. The key point is that using an EV unties you from fossil fuel dependence.

    Re why I used the iMiEV in the article: it was the only commercial EV available at that time that was on the Green Car website, so I used it to be able to make an 'apples to apples' comparison. I should do one for the Leaf or an i3 now. (Or better still, the Tesla model S )

    P.S. The iMiEV inside actually feels more 'normal' than most commercial EV's. More like a Mazda 2 in fact. It is also a very nice car to drive - but definitely agree re those exterior looks! Not to my taste either. (Must resurrect the fugly car thread for some true uglies that only a designer could love - they make the iMiEV look relatively beautiful!)

    Cheers
    Bryce
    Yep that would be good, now how or by what medium does your electric car provide heating in winter, is that from the stored electricity in the battery and how much does it reduce performance and or kilometres travelled.

    I see in Monktons calculation, he is also factoring in subsidies as the cost, and all these things add up when you are looking at the total picture of efficiency, cost and of course the residual effect on environment with manufacture and disposal/replacement of batteries.

    His is..
    Steps 8-10. Will any realistic measures avert the danger?

    No. Whether mitigation measures should be attempted in any event is an economic question, answered by investment appraisal. The UK’s $8333-per-auto subsidy for electric cars will serve as an example. The two initial conditions for the appraisal are the fraction of global CO2 emissions a mitigation measure is intended to abate, and the cost of the measure.

    clip_image020

    Going nowhere slowly: The Chevrolet Volt

    Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric car is also 27%. However, the electric car requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.

    CO2 emissions from domestic transport account for 24% of UK CO2 emissions, and cars, vans, and taxis represent 90% of road transport (DfT, 2013). Assuming 80% of fuel use is by these autos, they account for 19.2% of UK CO2 emissions. Conversion to electric power, 61% of which is generated by fossil fuels in the UK, would abate 39% of 19.2% (i.e. 7.5%) of UK CO2 emissions.

    However, the battery-weight penalty would be 30% of 19.2% of 61%: i.e. 3.5% of UK CO2 emissions. The net saving from converting all UK cars, vans, and taxis to electricity, therefore, would be 4% of UK CO2 emissions, which are 1.72% of global CO2 emissions, abating 0.07% of global CO2 emissions of 2 μatm yr–1, or 0.00138 μatm. From eqn. (2), assuming 400 μatm concentration at year end on business as usual, forcing abated by the subsidy for converting all UK cars to electricity would be 5.35 ln[400/(400-0.00138)], or 0.00002 W m–2, which, multiplied by the Planck parameter λ0, gives 0.000006 K warming abated by the subsidy.

    The cost to the UK taxpayer of subsidizing the 30,000 electric cars, vans, and taxis bought in 2012 was a flat-rate subsidy of $8333 (£5000) for each vehicle and a further subsidy of about $350 (£210) per year in vehicle excise tax remitted, a total of $260.5 million. On that basis, the cost of subsidizing all 2,250,000 new autos sold each year (SMMT, 2013), would be $19.54 bn.

    Though the longevity of electric autos is 50% greater than that of internal-combustion autos, the advantage is more than canceled by the very large cost of total battery replacement every few years. No allowance for this extra cost is made. Likewise, the considerable cost of using renewable energy to bring down the UK’s fossil-fueled generation fraction from the global mean 67% to 61% is not taken into account, though, strictly speaking, an appropriate share of the cost of “renewable” electricity generation should be assigned to electric vehicles.

    Dividing the $19 bn annual cost by the warming abated gives a unit abatement cost of $3400 tn K–1. Abating the 0.013 K projected warming by global methods of equivalent unit cost would thus cost $45 tn, or approaching $6500 a year per head of global population, or almost two-thirds of $71 tn global GDP.

    Stern (2006) wrote that the cost of allowing the then-projected 3 K warming to occur over the 21st century would be 0-3% of global GDP. IPCC (2013, WGII) puts the cost at 0.2-2% of GDP. Assuming that 1 K 20th-century global warming would cost as much as 0.5% of GDP (in fact so small a warming would cost nothing), global mitigation by methods of equivalent unit cost to the UK’s subsidy program for electric vehicles would be 128 times costlier than adaptation.

    In general, the cost of mitigation is 1-2 orders of magnitude greater than that of adaptation (Monckton of Brenchley, 2012). Affordable measures are ineffective: effective measures are unaffordable. Too little mitigation is achieved at far too great a cost. Since the premium is 10-100 times the cost of the risk insured, the precaution of insurance is not recommended.
    Interesting appraisal, and one needs to factor all these things in as often you get expensive unintended consequences further down the track if downsides are ignored.

    Comparisons would be good, I haven't checked to see all the replies, as responders to the article contest or just test the claims made by either side(s) usually some very good points raised on a difficult subject. Be good to get a Tesla owner objectively looking at their vehicle.

    Regards

    Ken
    Last edited by Kenfuego; 10th April 2015 at 05:53 PM.

  11. #11
    1000+ Posts Kim Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Aus.
    Posts
    17,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoBo View Post
    Electric cars(batteries) are at the beginning stage of development. It takes incentives to get the ball rolling.
    Regardless of Co2 we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels.
    Will be interesting how battery development progresses. If it doesn't then hydrogen fuel cells will prevail?
    You've got a bloody cheek, JoBo! The first known electric car was built by chemist Robert Davidson of Aberdeen in 1837. So electric vehicles pre-date internal combustion units by a long way. Electrical batteries have been around since 1800. The development of batteries and vehicles has been enormous since that time, but the best they can do today is roughly equal the efficiency and emissions of an IC engine. Without more nuclear power they will probably get left behind by the IC engine developers.
    Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone............

  12. #12
    Fellow Frogger! Only19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Hi Ken - re article - we don't have subsidies for EV's here, so that bit not applicable.
    Re figures for range - the apples for apples comparison using figures from the gov 'Geeen Car' website for fuel economy is best I can do. The fossil car values are no more real either - but at least it is a comparision on a level playing field.
    NB: Modern EV's use reverse cycle A/C for heat & cool - quite efficient so not a big drain.
    Re whole-of-life carbon accounting for EV's and their batteries - Li batteries are as recyclable as lead acid ones, and the urban legend re the Pious having a vast manufacturing carbon footprint is just that. Their carbon footprint is not that much bigger than an ICE vehicle these days. (See Vic gov website for interim report on the Vic EV trial for an analysis - AND that was done under the Liberal Gov that was not all that supportive of the EV trial they inherrited).
    Cheers
    Bryce
    Who needs brakes? They only slow you down ....

  13. #13
    Fellow Frogger! Only19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Luck View Post
    You've got a bloody cheek, JoBo! The first known electric car was built by chemist Robert Davidson of Aberdeen in 1837. So electric vehicles pre-date internal combustion units by a long way. Electrical batteries have been around since 1800. The development of batteries and vehicles has been enormous since that time, but the best they can do today is roughly equal the efficiency and emissions of an IC engine. Without more nuclear power they will probably get left behind by the IC engine developers.
    Hi Kim - electric propulsion is around 80 - 90% (plus) efficient. Charging & batteries don't lose all that much either (above 90% for both from memory), so overall efficiency of an EV is significantly better that the ICE.

    However, if you want to charge your EV off brown coal ('compressed peat' may be a better term ) don't blame me if your emissions are only slightly lower than a fossil car The idea is to get off the fossil fuel treadmill, not swap fossil fuels!

    Cheers
    Bryce
    JoBo and DanielBendigo like this.
    Who needs brakes? They only slow you down ....

  14. #14
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Luck View Post
    You've got a bloody cheek, JoBo! The first known electric car was built by chemist Robert Davidson of Aberdeen in 1837. So electric vehicles pre-date internal combustion units by a long way. Electrical batteries have been around since 1800. The development of batteries and vehicles has been enormous since that time, but the best they can do today is roughly equal the efficiency and emissions of an IC engine. Without more nuclear power they will probably get left behind by the IC engine developers.
    Internal combustion engines in cars are around half of their theoretical maximum efficiency at peak, but as they are used off their peak the realised efficiency can be 25% or less. As above, the easy gains in efficiency for the internal combustion engine is to add a small hybrid setup to it that has a range of a few km. Just that will get more improvement in fuel economy than any other known improvements. Look at the numbers for a BMW i8, electric only range around 20km, any more would compromise both performance and efficiency.

    Total efficiency for electric cars is very high (above 80%) so the only limitation is how to get the electricity. The big improvements that are coming for electric cars will be batteries that can be recharged faster, and are cheaper. Significantly smaller and lighter batteries are a long way off if possible at all, so the physical issues will continue to limit the range of electric cars to less than 1000km on a charge.
    406 HDi

  15. #15
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Luck View Post
    You've got a bloody cheek, JoBo! The first known electric car was built by chemist Robert Davidson of Aberdeen in 1837. So electric vehicles pre-date internal combustion units by a long way. Electrical batteries have been around since 1800. The development of batteries and vehicles has been enormous since that time, but the best they can do today is roughly equal the efficiency and emissions of an IC engine. Without more nuclear power they will probably get left behind by the IC engine developers.
    Not at all. But i should have added for cars of today for the nit pickers. ICE engines have been in development for how long?
    As for batteries? Maybe they are bulltishing?
    News Detail
    Recharge your phone in 30 seconds? Israeli firm says it can | Reuters
    Kim, perhaps you care to show them up as bulltishers?
    Doubt they will be left behind the ICEs but perhaps by hydrogen fuel cells?
    "The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge"
    Stephen Hawking

  16. #16
    1000+ Posts Kim Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Aus.
    Posts
    17,958

    Default

    In Victoria we have 3-400 years of brown coal reserves left that we know of. That would make an awful lot of fuel for the future even if we stopped burning it in our power stations..... ‘Fischer-Tropsch’
    Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone............

  17. #17
    1000+ Posts Pugnut403's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Tasmania
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Only19 View Post
    T'would be a bit hard to beat the CO2 in Tasmania for an iMiEV in any car, let alone if you use your own solar or subscribe to 'GreenPower'. The key point is that using an EV unties you from fossil fuel dependence.

    Re why I used the iMiEV in the article: it was the only commercial EV available at that time that was on the Green Car website, so I used it to be able to make an 'apples to apples' comparison. I should do one for the Leaf or an i3 now. (Or better still, the Tesla model S )

    P.S. The iMiEV inside actually feels more 'normal' than most commercial EV's. More like a Mazda 2 in fact. It is also a very nice car to drive - but definitely agree re those exterior looks! Not to my taste either. (Must resurrect the fugly car thread for some true uglies that only a designer could love - they make the iMiEV look relatively beautiful!)

    Cheers
    Bryce
    Agreed.
    My iMiEV charges off either hydro power or the 5kw solar array on my roof.
    Truly carbon free motoring.

    It looks like a tiny little thing, but the Japanese expertise in the "Kei class" cars means that a six footer is comfortable front or rear.
    Small on the outside, big inside. Very clever design.

    The styling took some time to get used to....for a long time I couldn't decide whether it was cute or hideous...but I've grown to sort of like it now.
    Pugs Rule!

    403, now sold
    404, project
    2010 Mitsubishi i MiEV electric car

  18. #18
    1000+ Posts Pugnut403's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Tasmania
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenfuego View Post
    Yep that would be good, now how or by what medium does your electric car provide heating in winter, is that from the stored electricity in the battery and how much does it reduce performance and or kilometres travelled.

    I see in Monktons calculation, he is also factoring in subsidies as the cost, and all these things add up when you are looking at the total picture of efficiency, cost and of course the residual effect on environment with manufacture and disposal/replacement of batteries.

    His is..
    Interesting appraisal, and one needs to factor all these things in as often you get expensive unintended consequences further down the track if downsides are ignored.

    Comparisons would be good, I haven't checked to see all the replies, as responders to the article contest or just test the claims made by either side(s) usually some very good points raised on a difficult subject. Be good to get a Tesla owner objectively looking at their vehicle.

    Regards

    Ken

    Heater on an Imiev is a water type with an electric element, not the most efficient but the imiev was a factory conversion from the pre existing I car.
    The first Leaf also uses the kettle approach, the second model which hasn't made it to Aus yet uses reverse cycle heat pump.
    Imiev heater uses 5kw on full. A reverse cycle uses about 1kw.
    On an imiev figure a 20% drop in range with heater on max.
    I use the heated seat which has negligible draw and the heater on low so it doesn't drop range much at all.

    The assertion that electric cars use 30% more energy than an ICE car due to battery weight is flat out wrong.
    The imiev battery pack is 200kg, and the electric motor and direct drive is far lower weight than a petrol motor and automatic transmission, so the actual difference is probably no more than 100kg, or the equivalent of one passenger and a few bags of shopping.......no way does that put fuel consumption up by 30%!!!!!
    A Tesla has a heavy pack...but they are going up against V8 petrol cars, and there is a price to pay for extreme range and luxury.

    The other big point to make here, is that the comparison which showed electric cars to be 1.7 times as efficient took the petrol energy at the pump.
    Totally disregarding the enormous amount of energy expended in pumping the crude, shipping it around the world, and biggest of all in refining it.
    A car driving a kilometre on petrol has counted for as much electricity in the refining of that petrol as an electric car would use to drive that same kilometre.
    When calculated "well to wheel" the total energy use is tipped even further in favour of the electric vehicle.
    Then consider that the 27% efficiency claimed for petrol cars is the maximum efficiency, attained only rarely in the real world and certainly NOT achieved in the most common use for petrol cars, driving in traffic.
    The efficiency of an electric drivetrain of 80-90% is achieved under most conditions, and the lower speed urban cycle is where the EV is at its most efficient.

    Will EV replace internal combustion?
    Not entirely, at least not for a looooong time.
    But.....they can, and probably will replace most internal combustion transport, urban and regional transport for commuting etc.
    Heavy freight, long distance etc will still need an alternative, but they can, and eventually will, become niche markets.
    Even long haul heavy transport can benefit from series hybrid technology, much as trains already do. The engine from a town delivery truck with a small battery pack and electric traction motors could power a B Double across the country.
    Pugs Rule!

    403, now sold
    404, project
    2010 Mitsubishi i MiEV electric car

  19. #19
    1000+ Posts Kim Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Aus.
    Posts
    17,958

    Default

    I have no doubt that for most commuters, an EV would suit their purposes right now as we speak. Using the same electricity to move millions of people daily by vastly upgraded public transport would, I suggest, be a much more beneficial solution.

    In Oz we have a major hangup that we have to overcome before mass transport can truly do it's job and that is that we have the right to own and drive a car into our polluted and overcrowded cities.
    Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone............

  20. #20
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pugnut403 View Post
    The other big point to make here, is that the comparison which showed electric cars to be 1.7 times as efficient took the petrol energy at the pump.
    Totally disregarding the enormous amount of energy expended in pumping the crude, shipping it around the world, and biggest of all in refining it.
    A car driving a kilometre on petrol has counted for as much electricity in the refining of that petrol as an electric car would use to drive that same kilometre.
    When calculated "well to wheel" the total energy use is tipped even further in favour of the electric vehicle.
    Then consider that the 27% efficiency claimed for petrol cars is the maximum efficiency, attained only rarely in the real world and certainly NOT achieved in the most common use for petrol cars, driving in traffic.
    You cant count the fuel back to the ground only for the oil and not for the electricity, both have expenses in delivering and producing. Oil from well to delivery to consumer is around 1.4 units of oil required for 1 unit of delivery including all expenses as quoted in the book discussed above, but you could consider some other references such as: Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    which puts quite a different figure on it when not counting the infrastructure lifecycle costs. Just getting electricity from the generator to a home uses around 1.2 units of electricity before counting the lifecycle costs or the inputs to the generator.

    This is the problem with the US style "mpge" comparison for cars, as they use the energy as sold to the customer which greatly inflates the efficiency of plug in electric and hybrid cars. We have it even worse in Australia where the car makers can freely claim the fuel consumption of their plug in hybrids without mentioning the electricity usage also consumed by the car, mitsubishi are pushing their outlander in a large advertising campaign that claims "1.9l/100km when tested to ADR 81/02" where if you used a fuel to electricity equivalent and added in the 136Wh/km it would be a slightly more realistic 3.0l/100km, yet real world experience puts the efficiency at somewhere around 7l/100km: 2014 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV | Top Gear

    The energy used in powering the production of oil is not from electricity, they have huge quantities of otherwise waste fuel that is burnt to generate most of that energy. To convert it to electricity equivalent and claim fuel powered cars use more electricity is disingenuous and completely false.

    The PSA HDi engine in my car is running with a long term average just above 27% efficiency, and coupled with a hybrid drive (even a retrofit one built with current technology) could easily achieve 35-40%.
    406 HDi

  21. #21
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Luck View Post
    I have no doubt that for most commuters, an EV would suit their purposes right now as we speak. Using the same electricity to move millions of people daily by vastly upgraded public transport would, I suggest, be a much more beneficial solution.

    In Oz we have a major hangup that we have to overcome before mass transport can truly do it's job and that is that we have the right to own and drive a car into our polluted and overcrowded cities.
    Yep, we just need the cars to start rolling off in large enough quantities they they are affordable. Hopefully with the ending of the local car manufacturing especially Holdens antiquated view of motoring the market can shift to a more efficient mix of vehicles tailored to the needs of the trip. You do have to laugh when weekend congestion in the city is equally bad to the weekday rush hour!
    406 HDi

  22. #22
    Fellow Frogger! Only19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Hi Hypermiler - the figures used in my post/article are to the official National Greenhouse Energy Reporting tables and methodology. These tables and methodologies are written to enable 'apples for apples' comparisons between fuel sources and are the best estimates currently available for comparing electricity & petrol.
    Cheers
    Bryce
    Kim Luck likes this.
    Who needs brakes? They only slow you down ....

  23. #23
    1000+ Posts Pugnut403's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Tasmania
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Most of the time when a comparison is made, the electric energy figures used are from coal mine to wheel, while the petrol figures used are pump to wheel.
    The true comparison needs to be from original source on both.
    Also the comparison usually assumes that ALL of the electricity will be from the worst kind of fossil fuels, when in most places the energy is from a mixed source stream.
    Also...people will very often compare the u.timate in efficient modern tiny engined forced induction cars against the likes of Tesla, instead of vehicles like iMiEV or i3. Compare a Tesla with an XJR Jag for a real comparison....
    EV isn't a miracle cure all transport method running on pure unicorn farts, but it is a significantly more efficient and lower polluting form of transport than what we are using now, and it. Rings other benefits such as moving the pollution that is produced away from crowded urban environs, while delivering the best efficiency gains in the types of use that most transport is conducted in.
    As it stands, it is a better alternative for a very large proportion of our transport needs right now.
    Andy N likes this.
    Pugs Rule!

    403, now sold
    404, project
    2010 Mitsubishi i MiEV electric car

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •