Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Andres125sx]

We don't know what they took into account and what they ignored conveniently - projected changes to the energy mix?

Yes we know, it´s into their "database" tab

from electricity mix Germany, published in the Federal Gazette on 30.10.2018, valid for 2019.

[RZS10]

I have the feeling that 99% of the people reading this thread would agree with that. The discussion, unless you are a hardcore petrolhead (Coulombhead?) and want to have both, has always been about when it is time to buy a new car, hasn't it?

I thought it was about the all aspects related to EVs (charging stations, production, technology etc) ... not necessarily just "if you're in the market for a new car, should you buy an EV" purchase advice (?)

Not so sure about the 99% though given that some believe it's a good idea to ban certain vehicles from entering cities thus forcing millions of car owners to buy new cars even if it's not at all helping the environment - to some the logical conclusion of "driving your current car until you need to switch to a new one has the best carbon dioxide balance" isn't as obvious.

And yea ... i will (if the money will allow it ) try to drive proper cars with a stick for as long as possible because it's what makes driving fun ... the feedback through vibrations, sound, etc + going through the gears like a madman
___

You're probably right Andres, but i could not find the paper they source their data from even though i searched the Bundesanzeiger's publications so i couldn't be sure whether that included any projections past 2019, ergo i did not want to make that assumption.

I kinda doubt they will release the actual study and will just continue to quote from it over time, unfortunately.
"Joanneum Research" apparently does not publish their work and instead just does those studies for whoever is willing to pay for them leaving the publication of their findings to their customers.

I found some older work of theirs which was that longterm analysis for other countries and EVs have a better outlook in scandinavia or France for example ... Norway has basically completely green energy and is now selling more EVs than any other cars, but they also don't charge the 25% sales tax and thousands in registration tax etc so EVs are heavily subsidized in a very rich country ... people can easily afford them - i doubt they spent too much time pondering about the environmental impact building those cars has in other parts of the world but at least they'll have cleaner air at home ... lol

p.s.: i don't think coulombhead will catch on

[djos]

if you already own a new-ish car and have a low yearly mileage it probably won't make any sense for a few more years, essentially until that car stops working...

I have the feeling that 99% of the people reading this thread would agree with that. The discussion, unless you are a hardcore petrolhead (Coulombhead?) and want to have both, has always been about when it is time to buy a new car, hasn't it?

I'm a petrol-head but I'm also in IT so I love both ICE and EV powered cars for different reasons. I bought a new car this year for myself and one last year for my wife.

I'd love to have considered an EV for myself because one would suit my driving needs perfectly. My longest round trips are 100km's max. my daily commute is 40km's total. I didn't get one because there are no EV subsidies here in Australia which makes them cost-prohibitive for me. I would have happily bought a Hyundai Ioniq BEV if it was $10k cheaper ($45k in Aus) as at $35k it would have put me at the crossover point were the dramatically cheaper running and servicing costs would have off-set the higher purchase price.

For my wife, an EV wasn't even a consideration as we drive her SUV from Melbourne to Adelaide, and Melbourne to Sydney to visit family several times per year.

[Ferry]

I found some older work of theirs which was that longterm analysis for other countries and EVs have a better outlook in scandinavia or France for example ...

There are many studies, here is one done by VUB university in Brussels: https://www.transportenvironment.org/pr ... lectricity

Norway has basically completely green energy and is now selling more EVs than any other cars, but they also don't charge the 25% sales tax and thousands in registration tax etc

Green energy is correct. We are even exporting more green energy than we import, so in sum we are at 100% green. (and then some). The import is mainly hydro/nuclear from Sweden, and wind from Denmark. New power cables are being built to Germany and UK, in addition to the ones already going to Denmark and the Netherlands. Here is a nice map showing the details of the Norwegian power system, for those interested: https://www.statnett.no/en/for-stakehol ... er-system/

Sales tax (VAT) is 0% for now. It will probably be adjusted to the normal 25% in a few years time. Registration is also zero, but I guess that's the same for most countries, nothing special for Norway. What is special is the taxation of cars based on emissions, power, weight, displacement etc. That's why you can find a lot of well equipped cars here, but with the smallest engine. Big powerful engines used to cost A LOT extra. Nowadays emissions decide the tax, but to much the same affect as tax bases on power and displacement. Hybrids being the exception, with reduced tax for weight because of the heavy battery. And low tax based on the official emission numbers, NEDC/WLTP. Example: a 400 hp BMW X5 hybrid cost about 50.000 Euro less than a 400 hp X5 petrol/diesel!
BTW. We also have high taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Even sugar! And reduced tax on vegetables and fruit.

so EVs are heavily subsidized in a very rich country ... people can easily afford them - i doubt they spent too much time pondering about the environmental impact building those cars has in other parts of the world but at least they'll have cleaner air at home ... lol

The nice thing with EVs are that the pollute less regardless of the intentions of the buyer. Cleaner is cleaner. Should not be a surprise to anyone that people buy subsidized cars. It's kind of the point with the subsidy in the first place. Just show it works as planned.

[Greg Locock]

And dirtier is dirtier, not that I particularly worry about CO2

Electric vehicles in Australia’s eastern states are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than regular petrol vehicles, according to an expert report that warns Labor’s green cars policy would require up to $7 billion in upgrades and installation of recharging infrastructure across the nation.

A pre-election briefing obtained by The Australian, which was prepared by engineering firm ABMARC, concedes the immediate benefit of electric vehicles in Australia “is not guaranteed”. It also states Bill Shorten’s electric vehicle target of 50 per cent of new car sales by 2030 would need between $5bn and $7bn in recharging infrastructure and additional investment in “switchboards, transformers and poles and wires”.

“Installing this level of charging infrastructure would require a significant increase in the rate of investment in recharging infrastructure,” the report says.


The report, released to stakeholders in May, also provides a breakdown comparing average CO2 emissions of hybrid, petrol, diesel and electric vehicles in Australia.

ABMARC, which is used by government departments, motoring firms and major energy companies, reveals “CO2 emissions from electric vehicles in Victoria are particularly high, similar to the average diesel CO2 emissions”.

On average, in NSW, Victoria, ACT and Queensland, petrol vehicles “provide less CO2 than electric vehicles”, with ABMARC linking the emissions disparity with “Australia’s continued reliance on coal-fired power stations”. The consultancy firm also notes that the Australian Average Diesel emissions data was “heavily skewed by light commercial vehicles (utes) and larger SUVs”.

The report says hybrid vehicles “provide greater environmental benefits in nearly all states and territories” than electric vehicles with the exception of Tasmania, which primarily uses hydro-electricity.

[Jolle]

And dirtier is dirtier, not that I particularly worry about CO2

Electric vehicles in Australia’s eastern states are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than regular petrol vehicles, according to an expert report that warns Labor’s green cars policy would require up to $7 billion in upgrades and installation of recharging infrastructure across the nation.

A pre-election briefing obtained by The Australian, which was prepared by engineering firm ABMARC, concedes the immediate benefit of electric vehicles in Australia “is not guaranteed”. It also states Bill Shorten’s electric vehicle target of 50 per cent of new car sales by 2030 would need between $5bn and $7bn in recharging infrastructure and additional investment in “switchboards, transformers and poles and wires”.

“Installing this level of charging infrastructure would require a significant increase in the rate of investment in recharging infrastructure,” the report says.


The report, released to stakeholders in May, also provides a breakdown comparing average CO2 emissions of hybrid, petrol, diesel and electric vehicles in Australia.

ABMARC, which is used by government departments, motoring firms and major energy companies, reveals “CO2 emissions from electric vehicles in Victoria are particularly high, similar to the average diesel CO2 emissions”.

On average, in NSW, Victoria, ACT and Queensland, petrol vehicles “provide less CO2 than electric vehicles”, with ABMARC linking the emissions disparity with “Australia’s continued reliance on coal-fired power stations”. The consultancy firm also notes that the Australian Average Diesel emissions data was “heavily skewed by light commercial vehicles (utes) and larger SUVs”.

The report says hybrid vehicles “provide greater environmental benefits in nearly all states and territories” than electric vehicles with the exception of Tasmania, which primarily uses hydro-electricity.

From the other side of the globe that is a strange comment from a party that calls themselves Labour. I would see it as an opportunity to invest 7 billion into new infrastructure, create new high tech jobs, to start a whole new industry. Especially with the Australian climate the possibilities seem endless. Powerstations with solar power, harvested in batteries and a switch to local grids and be less dependent of fossil fuels. Australia could be the leading industry on solar power, systems, etc etc. And by the way, didn't they watch mad max?

As a gouvernement invests in something like infrastructure, the money isn't lost like with your own bank account, see a economy like a oil system of a car, it's pumped round. Most if not all is returned trough taxes with the benefit of having new infrastructure for that economy to grow. Your personal bank account is more like fuel... once you burn it, its gone...

[Big Tea]

I wonder sometimes how they consider the extraction of coal/oil, transport, storage refining, re-transport and storage etc including the resources building the equipment including tankers, rigs, terminals and a mirriad of other things that do not immediately come to mind.

I know it is worked out by people smarter than me, but I still wonder.

[Andres125sx]

As always, reports talking about CO2 as if that´s the only harmful substance ICEs emit, when that´s blatantly false/flawed/biased



Carbon monoxide
No discussion pertaining to car fumes and its dangers can be complete without mentioning this hazardous gas. Carbon monoxide is a colorless, tasteless and odorless gas in itself, and is one of the chief culprits that make exhaust fumes hazardous to human health, as it binds to the hemoglobin in our blood, which results in suffocation.

f exposed to even a minuscule amount (0.0035%) of carbon monoxide constantly for 6-8 hours, one will start experiencing the initial symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning, which include lightheadedness, confusion, dizziness, and headache. It increasingly becomes worse as the concentration of the gas in the air rises.

Sulfur dioxide
A colorless gas with a sharp, pungent smell, sulfur dioxide irritates the organs of the respiratory tract, including the nose and throat, causing wheezing, coughing and shortness of breath. In the long run, prolonged exposure to sulfur dioxide has been associated with asthma and other similar conditions.

Soot
Soot is that powdery stuff that makes exhaust fumes black.

That’s pretty much what soot is (on the outside, at least). More specifically, it is mass that is left behind as a result of the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons.

The detrimental effects of soot are too many to list, but they include influenza, asthma and even cancer. Soot deals a nasty blow to the respiratory organs of people who are constantly exposed to it. It’s also associated with acute vascular dysfunction and an increased risk of coronary artery disease.

Hydrocarbons (benzene)
Exhaust fumes contain certain hydrocarbons (compounds containing chains of hydrogen and carbon atoms), particularly benzene, which has dangerous consequences to our health both immediately and over the long term. As a well-known carcinogen (something that causes cancer), benzene is known to severely impact bone marrow, which could lead to a drop in the number of red blood cells, leading to anemia.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), benzene can cause cancer of the blood-forming organs (or leukemia) if one is exposed over a long period of time.




Even if a power plant would emit same substances, it´s very different emitting into the most populated areas at a height wich goes directly into people´s nose (cars exhausts), than emitting at 30m height at a very low population area (power plant chimney). So even in those parts of the world with very dirty electricity generation causing EVs to pollute similar, they still have several advantages, if not for the planet, at least for we humans

And as always, that similar pollution levels are valid only for today, in 5 years renewables will increase and will pollute less, but no report take this basic consideration into account

[Cold Fussion]

Snip

Electric vehicles being slightly better on the CO2 front compared to diesel is surely a good endorsement considering Australia's energy grid is one of the dirtiest per capita anywhere on earth. I am also incredibly skeptical of any environmental reporting coming out of The Australian.

[djos]

Snip

Electric vehicles being slightly better on the CO2 front compared to diesel is surely a good endorsement considering Australia's energy grid is one of the dirtiest per capita anywhere on earth. I am also incredibly skeptical of any environmental reporting coming out of The Australian.

Yeah, we don't call it the UnOz for nothing, used to be a quality paper decades ago, but now isn't fit to wipe a horses ass with!

[Greg Locock]

You know when someone has a weak argument when they start attacking the source of the data rather than the analysis itself.

[djos]

You know when someone has a weak argument when they start attacking the source of the data rather than the analysis itself.

The Australian peddles anti-climate change and pro-mining, pro-fossil fuel propaganda on a daily basis so there's good reason to be sceptical of anything printed in it.

[Tommy Cookers]

regarding the supposed extra toxicity of modern eg Euro 6 ICEV emissions over the EV's .....

CO is 1 gram/km (about 0.05%) for gasoline - and 0.5 gm/km for diesel
afaik starting with a cold catalyst
so maybe 0.1 gm'km (0.005%) when warm
afaik CO quickly disperses and breaks down to become CO2 (non-toxic)
(yes the aircraft ICE is a machine for generating CO)

Sulphur aka Sulfur content of modern gasoline is 10 parts per million

Benzene content of gasoline is 1% or 0.8%


other fluid fuels may/do contain as much as ....
4% CO - in modern town (ie made from coal) gas eg Asian - old town gas was 10-12% CO
3% Sulphur - 'bunker' fuel for large ECE and ICE marine engines and about to be banned
3% Sulphur in aviation kerosene - the source was 2017
1% Sulphur - stationary engines
(and UK domestic heating 'oil' - which is kerosene not gasoil ('diesel') as in USA domestic heat)

Sulphur is vital to human physiology
and the UN spent $500 million on eg global cooling research - machines to increase atmospheric SO2 (it makes clouds)
like CO it is part of nature
those worried about ICE CO should worry more about high CO ....
in eg charcoal grilling of food (and manufacture of charcoal) - and in open wood burning
in mines and swamps and in sewer gas - which enters houses when unused toilets dry out their water traps


people may care to consider the purported health effects of proximity to electromagnetic fields
EVs work by continuously switching at maybe 8 kHz

interestingly, 'cancer tests' ...
use lab mice that have genes that produce cancer
so the applicability to humans is not widely accepted

[Andres125sx]

regarding the supposed extra toxicity of modern eg Euro 6 ICEV emissions over the EV's .....

Supposed? No, it´s not supposed, it´s proved. We may discuss about concentrations wich is the key part with any substance, but then we should stablish some city as an reference, as concentration will depend on the number of vehicles wich is very dependant on the city we take as a reference. But those substances are extremelly toxic, that´s not debatable, some even at extremelly low concentrations, as CO at 0.0035%


About EV, I would care a lot more about mobiles wich we all carry all day long with us, 365 days a year, and extremelly close to our body/organs

[Tommy Cookers]

your position seems to be that the authorities are poisoning us and lying to us (in their mandating of 'safe' emission limits)
but you don't seem to have evidence of this

people have been breathing natural CO for millions of years
there is a safe dose - even for 24/7 breathing
(yes that would be very low - but we don't breathe manmade CO 24/7)
each molecule of ingested CO can only usurp one molecule of O2

there's more poison in a dosage of tequila than in a dosage from the public air supply